Romans 5:7-9

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #8

Here is an interesting, if not disturbing quote from one of the leading proponents of New Covenant Theology, Pastor at Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA, Fred Zaspel:

"In keeping with one of the emphases of the John Bunyan Conference, we are going to look at this subject as it relates to the law. Really, this is the specific area of concern handed to anyone studying the larger picture of the Divine schema -- it just works out that way in that it is such a pivotal matter from the point of view both of Scripture and of the competing systems of theology today. Your view of the law winds up shaping your entire hermeneutical grid."

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary prof, Greg Welty has this to say about Zaspel's statement:

"
Zaspel makes the disturbing statement about how New Covenant Theology "relates to the law...I say this statement is disturbing because one would hope that a distinctive view of law would be the last thing which shapes an entire hermeneutical grid! Shouldn’t it be precisely the reverse? Shouldn’t our view of law be a result of carefully worked out hermeneutical principles and conclusions gathered from the entirety of Scripture? I regard Zaspel’s statement as a blunt concession that, for NCT’s view of how one should interpret the rest of the Bible, Mt 5:17-48 is the tail that wags the dog"

I think Welty has made an accurate assessment of the comment.


Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #7

Below is an essay by New Covenant Theology proponent, John Reisinger titled, "Covenant of Works?". Again, I am assuming that NCT count his words as representative in some aspect so I feel safe in presenting them for a critique of NCT as a whole.


" 'Mr. Reisinger, if God did not make a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden of Eden, then exactly what was the arrangement?'

I view the situation in the Garden of Eden as follows: Suppose I put you on a large farm and tell you that everything on it was for your personal use and enjoyment. I promise to pay all of the bills for everything, the fertilizer, the animal's feed, the electric bill, etc. You need only work the farm and you may sell or use all the produce, animals, etc. for yourself. There is only one condition. There is a small building out back of the barn that belongs to me and you may not go into it. The day you go in that building, you are going to be thrown off the farm. That is exactly like the arrangement that God made with Adam. Those are the same promises, conditions and terms laid on Adam in Eden. Everything in the Garden was Adam's to do with as he chose. The only restriction was to not eat of one tree.

Question: Is there anything in my 'farm deal' with you that states, or in anyway remotely implies, that if you do not enter that little house for X number of weeks, months, years or some period of time, I will reward you by moving you to a bigger, better or different farm? There is not a thing to that effect! Total silence! Is there any inference of any kind that if you do not go into the little house for a specific period of time that I will tear down the little house. No! Not even a hint of such a thing."


For some reason, Reisinger thinks that by referring to the relationship between Adam and God as a "deal", he has avoided its covenental implications. That's just not the case. the fact remains that God promised that Adam could remain in paradise if He obeyed the stipulation of the "deal" and He promised to curse Adam if he did not render obedience. Unless one has a predisposition against a covenental architecture in the Bible, there is no way to avoid seeing this relationship between God and Adam as a covenant of obligation.


"Is that not the exact 'deal' God made with Adam? I ask again, where in Genesis 1-3 is there a promise of a better life (or bigger farm) as a reward for Adam's obedience to a so-called covenant of works? There is not a single word or inference to that effect. There is indeed a threat of death for disobeying the one commandment, but there is no promise to Adam that he could gain, by works, something he did not already possess. Remember we are not talking about a minor point of doctrine. A covenant of works with Adam whereby he could literally "earn life" by obedience is an essential building block in the system of covenant theology. No covenant of works with Adam, no covenant theology."


It seams to me that Reisinger has missed the point. He seems to think that because the promise of God to Adam was not a better future in a better place, then the idea of that relationship being covenental is untenable. but this is irrelevant on the whole. The concept of a covenant of works between God and Adam does not necessitate a promise of a future different paradise. The promise was to maintain his current existence in the Edenic paradise wherein his relationship with his creator was personal and immediate.


"By the way, what was missing in Eden that Adam needed and God promised him he could earn by personal obedience? I always thought Eden was a pretty good deal that did not need any improvements. I think Adam had everything that any heart could desire."


Here again there is a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. No covenant theologian I know of says that something was missing in Eden that Adam would gain by way of his obedience.


"I repeat, the whole system of covenant theology is build on the absolute necessity of Adam being under a covenant of works wherein he was promised 'life' as a reward for obeying that covenant. But He already had life! He already had fellowship with God. The great tragedy of Eden was not that "an opportunity to earn life was lost." The tragedy was the life Adam already had was lost when he disobeyed. Where in Gen 2:17 is there the slightest inference that if Adam obeys a covenant for X number of months, or years, he will get a bigger and better garden or God would remove the tree. Genesis is a simple and straightforward narrative and covenant theologians superimpose a whole unproven system of theology on it."


I think Reisinger here needs to see the distinction between saying, Adam was promised life in the future, and that Adam was promised continued life (as Covenant theology would proclaim). It would have been helpful in this essay if he had cited sources of Covenant Theology stating the former instead of the latter. The latter half of his paragraph above is a straw-man argument; Covenant Theology does not claim that God promised a bigger and better garden or removal of the tree upon Adam's obedience.


"That there are many arguments for different terms or labels used by different covenant theologians for the "covenant of whatever" is proof of my original statement. We do not have to argue about labeling a doctrine when it is established from texts of Scripture. However, when you are discussing inferences and deductions, you have many conclusions that have no clear biblical (meaning textual) proof. One man's idea is as good as another when we are discussing ideas. That is not true when we discussing the words inspired by the Holy Ghost."


1. In order for this argument to have teeth, the different nomenclature surrounding the name of the covenant God made with Adam would have to be a symptom of different understandings of the covenant.

2. Limited atonement, definite atonement, particular redemption...would Reisinger draw the same conclusion about this doctrine?

3. The existence of arguments about the labels that certain doctrines will assume, doctrines that arise from the Bible, has no power over the legitimacy of the doctrine over which the label is being argued; there is no logical connection between the existence of those arguments and the illegitimacy of the doctrine in question.

It's difficult to take seriously Reisinger's arguments against Covenant Theology when he makes them with the sloppy-logic that characterizes an anti-Calvinist's rantings against the straw men he sets up to misrepresent Calvinism.


Monday, June 23, 2008

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #6

As a part of my intentions to become more familiar with New Covenant Theology (NCT), I have been reading materials by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel, and John Reisinger. In addition to that I have also listened to a presentation by James Renihan given in a conferrence setting back in 2004. I hope, as did he back then, that the information being critiqued was current and representative of the majority of those in the movement. I thing that the case could be made that there isn't that distinction between popular and scholastic manifestations of the "system" as there exists in American Dispensationalism today because of the movement being still in its infancy.

Renihan makes his presentation in three parts: exegetical concerns, theological concerns, and historical concerns. The entire presentation is couched in a discussion of the Zaspel and Wells book, "New Covenant Theology". At the time it was the only formal published work. Renihan goes on to describe the movement as being largely an internet phenomenon.

The primary exegetical concerns Renihan has are that Wells and Zaspel use Christ's words in Matt. 5:17-20 as the pivotal means of understanding the Law in the entire Word of God. Secondly, Wells and Zaspel don't even address Jeremiah 31:31-34 in an exegetical manner, and if there was a pivotal passage in defining the terms of the New Covenant, this would certainly be it.

Renehan's second category of critique is that of theology. He mentions that one NCT adherents actually states that one's view of the Law is the defining element for one's hermeneutic, when in fact, as Renihan points out, the exact opposite should be true...one's hermeneutic should actually be used to drive one's systematic view of the Law.

And finally, he refutes the NCT assertion that the earliest Baptists were not Covenant Theologians, but were actually the forerunners to NCT.

I hope Jim McDermott will visit this site again and partake in a renewed discussion.


Friday, June 20, 2008

What's In Store?

Over the next three to six weeks, I plan on presenting my interaction with the commentators I've highlighted on Romans 11 in the series titled, "The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized?", and I also intend (and it has been a long time coming) to revisit the issue of "New Covenant Theology" by continuing my series of articles titled, "Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions". The delay has been the result of my reading and listening to things concerning the latter topic, which I continue to investigate.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #17

Who Are Some of the Major Proponents of Pre-Millennialism?

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921)
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952)
John F. Walvoord (1910-2002)
J. Dwight Pentecost (1915-?)
Charles Ryrie (1925-)

Who Are Some of the Major Proponents of Post-Millennialism?

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995)
Kenneth Gentry (1950-)

Who Are Some of the Major Proponents of Realized-Millennialism?

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988)
John Frame (1939-)
O. Palmer Robertson (?-?)
Venema (?-)
Samuel E. Waldron (?-)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #16

After discussing Romans 9-11 and presenting the comments of several scholars, I feel it is time to briefly discuss the differences between the three primary eschatological systems highlighted in the title of this series.

What is Pre-Millennialism?

Millennial Timing:

The prefix "pre" in the name of this eschatological outworking of the dispensational system is really quite descriptive. This system teaches that Christ will return bodily prior to the beginning of the "Millennium" or the "Millennial Kingdom" which is represented by the reign of Christ on Earth.

Millennial Nature:

Christ will rule creation from the literal, earthly throne of David in Jerusalem. The Mosaic system of civil and ceremonial Law with all its rituals and customs will be reinstituted (feasts and sacrifices alike) and one's membership in the Kingdom of God will be granted based on ones "Jewishness" or one's adherence to the codes of Judaism in what will be considered the perfect application of this system under Christ as Head, contrasting it with the abuses and negligence with which it was practiced prior to Christ's incarnation.

What is Post-Millennialism?

Millennial Timing:

The prefix "post" in the name of this eschatological outworking of the system of Covenant Theology is also quite descriptive. This system teaches that Christ will return bodily at the end of the "Millennium" or the "Millennial Kingdom" and reign of Christ from His Heavenly throne.

Millennial Nature:

Though this system regards Christ as having ruled over His creation all along (from David's throne, the throne of God upon which Solomon sat, which is in Heaven, and whose temporal shadow or type sat in the Temple in Jerusalem) creation has not yet been made His footstool in the sense that, not yet has "every knee bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is LORD". So, near the end of the age (this present age which is the "Millennium" realized) the great commission will be fulfilled and the Kingdom of God represented by the invisible Church will have gradually been given political/economic/temporal reign over the Earth. So, in what some refer to as a "Golden Age", Christ will use His Church to reform culture through the redemption of individuals who influence their immediate environment. Membership in the Kingdom of God has been and will always be determined by God's election of, and application of Christ's righteousness to, an individual so that He can consider them just on account of Christ's obedience to the Covenant of Works. At His return comes the resurrection, and He will judge the godless and glorify the redeemed.

What is A-Millennialism?

Millennial Timing:

The prefix "A" in the name of this eschatological outworking of the system of Covenant Theology really is terribly misleading. It has been the perennial apology of dispensationalists against amillennialists that they do not believe that there is a millennium, but this just simply isn't the case. This system teaches that Christ will return bodily at the end of the "Millennium" or the "Millennial Kingdom" to consummate it; The Millennium is now.

Millennial Nature:

Though this system regards Christ as having ruled over His creation all along (from David's throne, the throne of God upon which Solomon sat, which is in Heaven, and whose temporal shadow or type sat in the Temple in Jerusalem) creation has not yet been made His footstool in the sense that not yet has "every knee bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is LORD". So, near the end of the age (this present age which is the "Millennium" realized) many believe that the the great commission will be fulfilled and the Kingdom of God represented by the invisible Church will endure the final, great tribulational period near the end of the age, immediately prior to Christs' return. "Realized" Millennialism understands that the Kingdom of God was inaugurated on Earth at Christ's resurrection and will be fully consummate at His return. Its chronological advancement during this age is represented in scripture as the coming of the Millennial Kingdom and is often divided into two parts: the "already and the not yet"; Christ has already brought His Kingdom into existence in time, at His first coming it began and it continues to unfold as the influence of the Kingdom spreads through His creation by way of the individuals God has redeemed. Membership in the Kingdom of God has been and will always be determined by God's election of, and application of Christ's righteousness to, an individual so that He can consider them just on account of Christ's obedience to the Covenant of Works. At His return comes the resurrection, and He will judge the godless and glorify the redeemed. Unlike Post-Millennialism, this age will not culminate in a "Golden Christian Age" prior to Christ's return, but the Kingdom's advancement is building up to Christ's return, and the golden age will be the eternal state. So the primary and essential difference in Realized and Post Millennialism is in the nature of the Millennium itself. It's timing in the two systems is the same.

Monday, June 16, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #15

Below are the comments of Matthew Henry on Romans 11:22-32.

v. 22. God laid righteousness to the line and judgment to the plummet, and dealt with them according to their sins. Severity is a word that sounds harshly; and I do not remember that it is any where else in scripture ascribed to God; and it is here applied to the unchurching of the Jews. God is most severe towards those that have been in profession nearest to him, if they rebel against him, Amos iii. 2. Patience and privileges abused turn to the greatest wrath. Of all judgments, spiritual judgments are the sorest; for of these he is here speaking, v. 8. (2.) "How thou standest, thou that art engrafted in." He speaks to the Gentile churches in general, though perhaps tacitly reflecting on some particular person, who might have expressed some such pride and triumph in the Jews' rejection. "Consider then," [1.] "By what means thou standest: By faith, which is a depending grace, and fetches in strength from heaven. Thou dost not stand in any strength of thy own, of which thou mightest be confident: thou art no more than the free grace of God makes thee, and his grace is his own, which he gives or withholds at pleasure. That which ruined them was unbelief, and by faith thou standest; therefore thou hast no faster hold than they had, thou standest on no firmer foundation than they did." [2.] "On what terms (v. 22): Towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, that is, continue in a dependence upon and compliance with the free grace of God, the want of which it was that ruined the Jews—if thou be careful to keep up thine interest in the divine favour, by being continually careful to please God and fearful of offending him." The sum of our duty, the condition of our happiness, is to keep ourselves in the love of God. Fear the Lord and his goodness. Hos. iii. 5.

III. Another thing that qualified this doctrine of the Jews' rejection is that, though for the present they are cast off, yet the rejection is not final; but, when the fulness of time is come, they will be taken in again. They are not cast off for ever, but mercy is remembered in the midst of wrath. Let us observe,

1. How this conversion of the Jews is here described. (1.) It is said to be their fullness (v. 12), that is, the addition of them to the church, the filling up again of that place which became vacant by their rejection. This would be the enriching of the world (that is, the church in the world) with a great deal of light and strength and beauty. (2.) It is called the receiving of them. The conversion of a soul is the receiving of that soul, so the conversion of a nation. They shall be received into favour, into the church, into the love of Christ, whose arms are stretched out for the receiving of all those that will come to him. And this will be as life from the dead—so strange and surprising, and yet withal so welcome and acceptable. The conversion of the Jews will bring great joy to the church. See Luke xv. 32, He was dead, and is alive; and therefore it was meet we should make merry and be glad. (3.) It is called the grafting of them in again (v. 23), into the church, from which they had been broken off. That which is grafted in receives sap and virtue from the root; so does a soul that is truly grafted into the church receive life, and strength, and grace from Christ the quickening root. They shall be grafted into their own olive-tree (v. 24); that is, into the church of which they had formerly been the most eminent and conspicuous members, to retrieve those privileges of visible church-membership which they had so long enjoyed, but have now sinned away and forfeited by their unbelief. (4.) It is called the saving of all Israel, v. 26. True conversion may well be called salvation; it is salvation begun. See Acts ii. 47. The adding of them to the church is the saving of them: tous sozomenous, in the present tense, are saved. When conversion-work goes on, salvation-work goes on.

2. What it is grounded upon, and what reason we have to look for it.

(1.) Because of the holiness of the first-fruits and the root, v. 16. Some by the first-fruits understand those of the Jews that were already converted to the faith of Christ and received into the church, who were as the first-fruits dedicated to God, as earnests of a more plentiful and sanctified harvest. A good beginning promises a good ending. Why may we not suppose that others may be savingly wrought upon as well as those who are already brought in? Others by the first-fruits understand the same with the root, namely, the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from whom the Jews descended, and with whom, as the prime trustees, the covenant was deposited: and so they were the root of the Jews, not only as a people, but as a church. Now, if they were holy, which is not meant so much of inherent as of federal holiness—if they were in the church and in the covenant—then we have reason to conclude that God hath a kindness for the lump—the body of that people; and for the branches—the particular members of it. The Jews are in a sense a holy nation (Exod. xix. 6), being descended from holy parents. Now it cannot be imagined that such a holy nation should be totally and finally cast off. This proves that the seed of believers, as such, are within the pale of the visible church, and within the verge of the covenant, till they do, by their unbelief, throw themselves out; for, if the root be holy, so are the branches. Though real qualifications are not propagated, yet relative privileges are. Though a wise man does not beget a wise man, yet a free man begets a free man. Though grace does not run in the blood, yet external privileges do (till they are forfeited), even to a thousand generations. Look how they will answer it another day that cut off the entail, by turning the seed of the faithful out of the church, and so not allowing the blessing of Abraham to come upon the Gentiles. The Jewish branches are reckoned holy, because the root was so. This is expressed more plainly (v. 28): They are beloved for the fathers' sakes. In this love to the fathers the first foundation of their church-state was laid (Deut. iv. 37): Because he loved they fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. And the same love would revive their privileges, for still the ancient loving-kindness is remembered; they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. It is God's usual method of grace. Kindness to the children for the father's sake is therefore called the kindness of God, 2 Sam. ix. 3, 7. Though, as concerning the gospel (namely, in the present dispensation of it), they are enemies to it for your sakes, that is, for the sake of the Gentiles, against whom they have such an antipathy; yet, when God's time shall come, this will wear off, and God's love to their fathers will be remembered. See a promise that points at this, Lev. xxvi. 42. The iniquity of the fathers is visited but to the third and fourth generation; but there is mercy kept for thousands. Many fare the better for the sake of their godly ancestors. It is upon this account that the church is called their own olive-tree. Long it had been their own peculiar, which is some encouragement to us to hope that there may be room for them in it again, for old acquaintance-sake. That which hath been may be again. Though particular persons and generations wear off in unbelief, yet there having been a national church-membership, though for the present suspended, we may expect that it will be revived.

(2.) Because of the power of God (v. 23): God is able to graft them in again. The conversion of souls is a work of almighty power; and when they seem most hardened, and blinded, and obstinate, our comfort is that God is able to work a change, able to graft those in that have been long cast out and withered. When the house is kept by the strong man armed, with all his force, yet God is stronger than he, and is able to dispossess him. The condition of their restoration is faith: If they abide not still in unbelief. So that nothing is to be done but to remove that unbelief that is the great obstacle; and God is able to take that away, though nothing less than an almighty power will do it, the same power that raised up Christ from the dead, Eph. i. 19, 29. Otherwise, can these dry bones live?

(3.) Because of the grace of God manifested to the Gentiles. Those that have themselves experienced the grace of God, preventing, distinguishing grace, may thence take encouragement to hope well concerning others. This is his argument (v. 24): "If thou wast grafted into a good olive, that was wild by nature, much more shall these that were the natural branches, and may therefore be presumed somewhat nearer to the divine acceptance." This is a suggestion very proper to check the insolence of those Gentile Christians that looked with disdain and triumph upon the condition of the rejected Jews, and trampled upon them; as if he had said, "Their condition, bad as it is, is not so bad as yours was before your conversion; and therefore why may it not be made as good as yours is?" This is his argument (v. 30, 31): As you in times past have not, &c. It is good for those that have found mercy with God to be often thinking what they were in time past, and how they obtained that mercy. This would help to soften our censures of those that still continue in unbelief, and quicken our prayers for them. He argues further from the occasion of the Gentiles' call, that is, the unbelief of the Jews; thence it took rise: "You have obtained mercy through their unbelief; much more shall they obtain mercy through your mercy. If the putting out of their candle was the lighting of yours, by that power of God which brings good out of evil, much more shall the continued light of your candle, when God's time shall come, be a means of lighting theirs again." "That through your mercy they might obtain mercy, that is, that they may be beholden to you, as you have been to them." He takes it for granted that the believing Gentiles would do their utmost endeavor to work upon the Jews—that, when God had persuaded Japhet, Japhet would be laboring to persuade Shem. True grace hates monopolies. Those that have found mercy themselves should endeavor that through their mercy others also may obtain mercy.

(4.) Because of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament, which point at this. He quotes a very remarkable one, v. 26, from Isa. lix. 20, 21. Where we may observe, [1.] The coming of Christ promised: There shall come out of Zion the deliverer. Jesus Christ is the great deliverer, which supposes mankind in a state of misery and danger. In Isaiah it is, the Redeemer shall come to Zion. There he is called the Redeemer; here the deliverer; he delivers in a way of redemption, by a price. There he is said to come to Zion, because when the prophet prophesied he was yet to come into the world, and Zion was his first head-quarters. Thither he came, there he took up his residence: but, when the apostle wrote this, he had come, he had been in Zion; and he is speaking of the fruits of his appearing, which shall come out of Zion; thence, as from the spring, issued forth those streams of living water which in the everlasting gospel watered the nations. Out of Zion went forth the law, Isa. ii. 3. Compare Luke xxiv. 47. [2.] The end and purpose of this coming: He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Christ's errand into the world was to turn away ungodliness, to turn away the guilt by the purchase of pardoning mercy, and to turn away the power by the pouring out of renewing grace, to save his people from their sins (Matt. i. 21), to separate between us and our sins, that iniquity might not be our ruin, and that it might not be our ruler. Especially to turn it away from Jacob, which is that for the sake of which he quotes the text, as a proof of the great kindness God intended for the seed of Jacob. What greater kindness could he do them than to turn away ungodliness from them, to take away that which comes between them and all happiness, take away sin, and then make way for all good? This is the blessing that Christ was sent to bestow upon the world, and to tender it to the Jews in the first place (Acts iii. 26), to turn people from their iniquities. In Isaiah it is, The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto those that turn from transgression in Jacob, which shown who in Zion were to have a share in and to reap benefit by the deliverance promised, those and those only that leave their sins and turn to God; to them Christ comes as a Redeemer, but as an avenger to those that persist in impenitence. See Deut. xxx. 2, 3. Those that turn from sin will be owned as the true citizens of Zion (Eph. ii. 19), the right Jacob, Ps. xxiv. 4, 6. Putting both these readings together, we learn that none have an interest in Christ but those that turn from their sins, nor can any turn from their sins but by the strength of the grace of Christ.—For this is my covenant with them—this, that the deliverer shall come to them—this, that my Spirit shall not depart from them, as it follows, Isa. lix. 21. God's gracious intentions concerning Israel were made the matter of a covenant, which the God that cannot lie could not but be true and faithful to. They were the children of the covenant, Acts iii. 25. The apostle adds, When I shall take away their sins, which some think refers to Isa. xxvii. 9, or only to the foregoing words, to turn away ungodliness. Pardon of sin is laid as the foundation of all the blessings of the new covenant (Heb. viii. 12): For I will be merciful. Now from all this he infers that certainly God had great mercy in store for that people, something answerable to the extent of these rich promises: and he proves his inference (v. 29) by this truth: For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Repentance is sometimes taken for a change of mind, and so God never repents, for he is in one mind and who can turn him? Sometimes for a change of way, and that is here understood, intimating the constancy and unchangeableness of that love of God which is founded in election. Those gifts and callings are immutable; whom he so loves, he loves to the end. We find God repenting that he had given man a being (Gen. vi. 6, It repented the Lord that he had made man), and repenting that he had given a man honor and power (1 Sam. xv. 11, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king); but we never find God repenting that he had given a man grace, or effectually called him; those gifts and callings are without repentance.


Thursday, June 12, 2008

Quotes on the Covenant: Election & Assurance

After listening to a conference held about thirty years ago, I have reflected this morning on several statements that were made during one of the panel discussions. I think the speaker who made these statements was Dr. Smith or Dr. Sanders. The conference took place at Covenant Seminary and Jimmy Carter was the President at the time (just to date it), but I don't know all the speakers, just that it is distributed by Mt. Olivet tape library.

"The covenant is the instrument by which election is realized in the world."

"Election is not a means to get anybody lost, but it is a means of getting people saved."

And a quote from the WCF, "Assurance is not of the essence of faith." "I take that to mean that you can be saved and not know it....we can not lose our salvation but we can lose our assurance."


Monday, June 9, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #14

Here is the final post for my preliminary study of Romans 9-11. In a later post I will provide Matthew Henry's comments on this passage, and also what some contemporary theologians have to say about it.


33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.


The section of scripture I have addressed in this brief overview of Romans 9-11 began with Paul’s despondent lament over the present brokenness of his brothers in the flesh, and it ends with his praise being offered to God for His riches (He has mercy on all) and His wisdom (He has the foresight to let Israel remain in unbelief for a time) and His knowledge (the future salvation of a people is no mystery to Him). This ending is reminiscent of his confidence in God presented in chapter 8:37-39. At the end of Romans 8 Paul’s adoration follows 8 chapters of building meditation on the utter incapacity of man’s ability due to our deadness in sin and the absolute greatness of God’s love and mercy manifested in his effort to save all those He had planned to give His Son as a bride. And the adoration Paul raises here at the end of chapter 11 follows Paul’s declaration that Israel is beloved because of the promises God has made to their forefathers and that Paul knows that He will never revoke the gifts and the calling.


Much of chapter 11 of Romans is used by pre-millennialists to support their claim that God is not finished with the nation of Israel and they remain the primary eschatological concern for what God is doing in time. Of course their strictly literal interpretation of the nature of the millennium (that it is a literal 1000 years wherein the ethnic Jews will be reestablished in the literal, earthly city of Jerusalem ministering in a physical temple by resuming the performance of Old Covenant rituals) is assumed behind their reading of this passage and it colors their interpretation in such a way as to have “all Israel will be saved” mean that correct Old Covenant Jewishness finally equals justification before God. I am ready to admit that all theological camps have presuppositions that we assume as we interpret any text. For me, as an amillennarian, a few of my presuppositions are that, Paul’s interpretation of an Old Testament text is the interpretation I should have of that text, and that the purpose of God’s revelation of the entire bible has to be in view as we interpret the meaning of texts that point to the larger pictures or underlying structures of God’s intent in time. As we consider eschatological explanations and the hermeneutical structures that back them, we must test our presuppositions to see if they are justifiable. As I come to the end of this particular study of Romans 9-11, I have discovered that, with this text alone, one cannot come to a legitimate position on the timing of the millennium. One conclusion I believe one can come to correctly is this, ultimately, it is the Jews’ belief that is promised, and future, evidence of their ethnic identity and temporal inheritance in the future does not appear in Romans 9-11.


Sunday, June 8, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #13

And now I continue with my naked comments on Romans 11:26-32. note again that I have yet to include the alterations I might make due to the reading and consideration of greater minds than my own. Romans 11:

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved,


The “way” in which “Israel” will be saved is no simple matter. In my humble opinion, when Paul eventually says, “in this way all Israel will be saved.” he is pointing back to the inclusion of the gentiles (which was a mystery to the Jews in the first century) and the jealousy that resulted from that inclusion as the means of salvation for Israel, so as a result of the inclusion of the gentiles, all Israel will be saved. After all, we must concede that He was a Jewish Messiah, contextually foretold in a Jewish religion and resting on promises made immediately to a Jewish people (though the promises were never intended exclusively for the exclusive benefit of the physically Jewish). The New Covenant is clear that all nations are actually included in the distribution of the covenant promise that, if the individual receives the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, then he is made near to those promises. We must all realize that we gentiles are being grafted into a Jewish tree that (at the time of Christ’s resurrection) had been 2000 years in the making, and now has been 4000 years in the making; by the circumcision of the heart we too are made the spiritual children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29), and it is to the spiritual children of Abraham that the “real” promises of land, rest, and priesthood (to which the temporal land, temporal rest and temporal priesthood point) are given. But it doesn’t seem to make sense for Paul to argue that, the Jews were pruned from the tree so the gentiles could be grafted in so as to make the Jews jealous and soon believe and be grafted back in, thus “in this way” all of the elect (Jews and gentiles) will be saved) because this age doesn’t have an exclusively gentile Church; both Jews and gentiles are included. So in that sense, not all of Paul’s brothers in the flesh had been pruned. There were other believing Jews besides Paul. So when he says, “that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” he is speaking only of the unbelieving Jews in his day. Perhaps this is a more feasible argument; the exclusively physical Jews were pruned so the elect/physically gentile people could be grafted into a tree previously inhabited only by spiritual/physical Jews and they too will be made spiritually Jewish, so as to make the exclusively physical Jews jealous and eventually making them spiritually/physically Jewish thus, all Israel will be saved.


I believe, given this section of scripture alone, it is impossible to say for sure that the “all” refers to all the physical Jews that exist in a particular time in the future, who by the gracious electing power of God will be grafted back into the tree. I also believe, given this section of scripture alone, it is impossible to say for sure that the “all” refers to the entire group of physical/spiritual Jews throughout time (the remnant) though this is the view I am leaning toward as of now. The other possibility is that the “in this way” of verse 26a refers to the contents of verses 26b-27. The text here seems to separate the remnant from the future group of exclusively physical Jews that will eventually believe and be grafted back in; they are separated (as all unbelieving Jews who eventually believe) from the remnant for a time, until they believe by God’s grace.


…as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."


In verses 26b-27, Paul appeals to an Old Testament prophesy that Christ will come from the Jewish nation and eventually rid the people of Jacob of all sin. Paul refers here to Isaiah 59:20-21a, and also to 27:6-9, but the citation is an echo of the original passage in his own words. It appears that “banishing ungodliness from Jacob” and “taking away their sins” are parallel. And this is the promise of the covenant spoken of here, that God will take away their sins. Here is the passage from Isaiah 59:


20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD. 21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."


Isaiah 27:6 In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit. 7 Has he struck them as he struck those who struck them? Or have they been slain as their slayers were slain? 8 Measure by measure, by exile you contended with them; he removed them with his fierce breath in the day of the east wind. 9 Therefore by this the guilt of Jacob will be atoned for, and this will be the full fruit of the removal of his sin: when he makes all the stones of the altars like chalkstones crushed to pieces, no Asherim or incense altars will remain standing.


What is striking is that Paul cites the Isaiah passages to say that the Deliverer comes from Zion and will banish ungodliness from Jacob. In the context of Isaiah 59, the Redeemer comes to Zion and to those in Jacob who turn from transgression. The Lord declared to Isaiah, at that time He will place His word in their mouths and in the mouths of the children and their children’s children…and His word will never go out of their mouths, indicating that this will be the final salvation of the people; in fact it is their glorification, having been rid of sin. Paul cited this passage right after he warned the saved gentiles that they should not boost because, though God has hardened Israel for a time, He will again be their God and they will be His people, for He will banish ungodliness from Jacob and take away their sins. This is the first time in three chapters that Paul has referred to his brethren in the flesh as “Jacob”; the first time Jacob was mentioned he represented a believer and Esau represented an unbeliever. Both were the physical children of Abraham but clearly only Jacob was one of his spiritual offspring. Paul quotes the Isaiah passage which has Jacob as the representative patriarch of Israel, and in the passage we are told that the Redeemer comes “to those in Jacob who turn from their transgression”, indicating that some of those “in Jacob” will not. So if Paul understands Isaiah to mean that, the Deliverer comes from Zion and will banish sins from Jacob, then so must we. We can assume that his interpretation does not replace the historical/grammatical interpretation of Isaiah’s own prophecy, but that it builds upon it. The Zionic Deliverer/Redeemer comes to Zion; He will banish their transgressions and ungodliness, and they will necessarily “turn from transgression”. As in 27:6-9, a purging has occurred in Israel/Jacob across the boundaries of time, so too was it pictured in the Assyrian exile; a purging took place there where only a remnant was left alive after the judgment, so too after the judgment God has rendered by way of hardening, the remnant will remain and therefore ungodliness will have been banished from Jacob and “in that way all Israel will be saved.”


28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.


I think the first thing the reader should notice in this passage is that Paul makes what seems like an odd distinction between the gospel and election. This is not what we think of as a proper distinction between finely nuanced theological terms, but rather, it is one between the eternal institution of the recipients of the work of the atonement and its application to them in time. The Jews in mind had been elected to receive God’s redemptive grace, but had not yet received its temporal application. This passage brings back into mind the statements previously made that seemed to indicate a distinction between the remnant of Jews that believed when Paul was writing his letter (a group in which all the Jewish Apostles would have been included) who weren’t pruned so the gentiles could be grafted in, with those Jews (the exclusively physical variety) who were pruned in their unbelief. This passage appears to be applicable to anyone in general, who would in due course believe, and specifically the Jews who were pruned but who would eventually be grafted in. They, once being children of wrath, the enemies of God as regards the gospel, would eventually be counted as His friends because of election. So we develop the term “remnant” to mean all those believing Israelites in a particular generation, and the sum of that group over time. So in our minds, the unbelieving Israelites in our present day are not among the remnant that God is preserving in every generation (as regards the gospel), but some of them in our day must certainly be saved at a future time (according to election). So, from the perspective of eternity they are a part of the remnant eternally, based on His electing grace and incomprehensible knowledge and ordination of future events (including the future faith of men).


Just like Jacob, regarding the wickedness of his actions (as far as what was recorded for all in history) Israel in some sense is elect. As a whole, the nation was in Paul’s day was the enemy of God, and it yet still is, for the sake of the gentile nations being brought into the Kingdom. Though they are His enemies for the time being (and they will remain so until the times of the gentiles comes to an end) for the sake of their forefathers (likely meaning the promises God had made to them) they will not ultimately remain God’s enemies because God has promised that they wouldn’t. God has both Jew and gentile born in sin, under the curse of God until He has regenerated them and made them His friends, thus the pertinence of the illustration that we (believing gentiles) were once God’s enemies (even though God knew in the future that He would most certainly count us righteous on account of the blood of Christ) in that meantime He looked upon us with wrath because we had yet to have the blood of Christ applied; so too it is with Jacob.


I refuse to say that my next post will be the last on Romans 11, but we will have to wait and see.



Friday, June 6, 2008

One Year Anniversary

Believe it or not, I have posted this article one year to the minute since I posted my first blog article. This comes 25 posts after my 1ooth post, and after almost 1000 visitors.

I would like to draw upon the interests of my readers to help me to decide the topics on which I should post for much of the next year. So, if you have a particular topic or issue you would like addressed, please feel free to comment on this article listing your suggestion.

Note that the categories I divide the topics into are:

Creation - Anything related to that which has been created by God.
Art - Anything related to that which has been created by man.
Theology - Anything related to the study of God.
Anthropology - Anything related to the study of man.

I believe any conceivable topic or issue will fit into at least one of these categories.

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #12

Below is the continuation of Calvin's commentary on Romans 11. Today I have posted verse 22-36

22. See then, etc. By laying the case before their eyes he more clearly and fully confirms the fact, — that the Gentiles had no reason to be proud. They saw in the Jews an example of God’s severity, which ought to have terrified them; while in themselves they had an evidence of his grace and goodness, by which they ought to have been stimulated to thankfulness only, and to exalt the Lord and not themselves. The words import the same, as though he had said, — “If thou exultest over their calamity, think first what thou hast been; for the same severity of God would have impended over thee, hadst thou not been delivered by his gratuitous favor: then consider what thou art even now; for salvation shall not continue to thee, except thou humbly recognisest the mercy of God; for if thou forgettest thyself and arrogantly exultest, the ruin, into which they have fallen, awaits thee: it is not indeed enough for thee to have once embraced the favor of God, except thou followest his call through the whole course of thy life.” They indeed who have been illuminated by the Lord ought always to think of perseverance; for they continue not in the goodness of God, who having for a time responded to the call of God, do at length begin to loathe the kingdom of heaven, and thus by their ingratitude justly deserve to be blinded again.

But he addresses not each of the godly apart, as we have already said, but he makes a comparison between the Gentiles and the Jews. It is indeed true that each individual among the Jews received the reward due to his own unbelief, when they were banished from the kingdom of God, and that all who front among the Gentiles were called, were vessels of God’s mercy; but yet the particular design of Paul must be borne in mind. For he would have the Gentiles to depend on the eternal covenant of God, so as to connect their own with the salvation of the elect people, and then, lest the rejection of the Jews should produce offense, as though their ancient adoption were void, he would have them to be terrified by this example of punishment, so as reverently to regard the judgment of God. For whence comes so great licentiousness on curious questions, except that we almost neglect to consider those things which ought to have duly taught us humility?

But as he speaks not of the elect individually, but of the whole body, a condition is added, If they continued in his kindness I indeed allow, that as soon as any one abuses God’s goodness, he deserves to be deprived of the offered favor; but it would be improper to say of any one of the godly particularly, that God had mercy on him, when he chose him, provided he would continue in his mercy; for the perseverance of faith, which completes in us the effect of God’s grace, flows from election itself. Paul then teaches us, that the Gentiles were admitted into the hope of eternal life on the condition, that they by their gratitude retained possession of it. And dreadful indeed was the defection of the whole world, which afterwards happened; and this dearly proves, that this exhortation was not superfluous; for when God had almost in a moment watered it with his grace, so that religion flourished everywhere, soon after the truth of the gospel vanished, and the treasure of salvation was taken away. And whence came so sudden a change, except that the Gentiles had fallen away from their calling?

Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, etc. We now understand in what sense Paul threatens them with excision, whom he has already allowed to have been grafted into the hope of life through God’s election. For, first, though this cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warning, in order to subdue the pride of the flesh; which being really opposed to their salvation, ought justly to be terrified with the dread of perdition. As far then as Christians are illuminated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they carry about them the flesh, which wantonly resists the grace of God, they are taught humility by this warning, “Take heed lest thou be cut off.” Secondly, we must bear in mind the solution which I have before mentioned, — that Paul speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles and Jews in opposition the one to the other; and that therefore the elect are not so much addressed in these words, as those who falsely gloried that they had obtained the place of the Jews: nay, he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and addresses the whole body in common, among whom there were many who were faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only.

But if it be asked respecting individuals, “How any one could be cut off from the grafting, and how, after excision, he could be grafted again,” — bear in mind, that there are three modes of insition, and two modes of excision. For instance, the children of the faithful are ingrafted, to whom the promise belongs according to the covenant made with the fathers; ingrafted are also they who indeed receive the seed of the gospel, but it strikes no root, or it is choked before it brings any fruit; and thirdly, the elect are ingrafted, who are illuminated unto eternal life according to the immutable purpose of God. The first are cut off, when they refuse the promise given to their fathers, or do not receive it on account of their ingratitude; the second are cut off, when the seed is withered and destroyed; and as the danger of this impends over all, with regard to their own nature, it must be allowed that this warning which Paul gives belongs in a certain way to the faithful, lest they indulge themselves in the sloth of the flesh. But with regard to the present passage, it is enough for us to know, that the vengeance which God had executed on the Jews, is pronounced on the Gentiles, in case they become like them.

23. For God is able, etc. Frigid would this argument be to the profane; for however they may concede power to God, yet as they view it at a distance, shut up as it were in heaven, they do for the most part rob it of its effect. But as the faithful, whenever they hear God’s power named, look on it as in present operation, he thought that this reason was sufficient to strike their minds. We may add, that he assumes this as an acknowledged axiom, — that God had so punished the unbelief of his people as not to forget his mercy; according to what he had done before, having often restored the Jews, after he had apparently banished them from his kingdom. And he shows at the same time by the comparison, how much more easy it would be to reverse the present state of things than to have introduced it; that is, how much easier it would be for the natural branches, if they were again put in the place from which they had been cut off, to draw substance from their own root, than for the wild and the unfruitful, from a foreign stock: for such is the comparison made between the Jews and the Gentiles.

25. I would not, etc. Here he rouses his hearers to a greater attention, while he avows that he is going to declare something that was secret. Nor did he do this without reason; for he wished to conclude, by a brief or plain sentence, a very perplexed question; and yet he declares what no one could have expected. But the words, Lest ye should be proud in yourselves, 361 show what was his designed object; and that was, to check the arrogance of the Gentiles, lest they should exult over the Jews. This admonition was also necessary, lest the defection of that people should immoderately disturb the minds of the weak, as though the salvation of them all was to be forever despaired of. The same is still not less useful to us at this day, so that we may know, that the salvation of the remnant, whom the Lord will at length gather to himself, is hid, sealed as it were by his signet. And whenever a long delay tempts us to despair, let us remember this word mystery; by which Paul clearly reminds us, that the mode of their conversion will neither be common nor usual; and hence they act absurdly who attempt to measure it by their own judgment; for what can be more unreasonable than to regard that as incredible which is far removed from our view? It is called a mystery, because it will be incomprehensible until the time of its revelation. 362 It is, however, made known to us, as it was to the Romans, that our faith may be content with the word, and support us with hope, until the event itself come to light. That blindness in part, etc. “In part,” I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner, or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to qualify a declaration which in itself was severe. Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church. 363


26. And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.

As it is written, etc. He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isaiah 59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.

Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;

“come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 59:20.)

But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.

But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. 364 By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.

27. And, this is my covenant with them, etc. Though Paul, by the last prophecy of Isaiah, briefly touched on the office of the Messiah, in order to remind the Jews what was to be expected especially from him, he further adds these few words from Jeremiah, expressly for the same purpose; for what is added is not found in the former passage. 365 This also tends to confirm the subject in hand; for what he said of the conversion of a people who were so stubborn and obstinate, might have appeared incredible: he therefore removes this stumblingblock, by declaring that the covenant included a gratuitous remission of sins. For we may gather from the words of the Prophet, — that God would have no more to do with his apostate people, until he should remit the crime of perfidy, as well as their other sins.

28. With regard indeed to the gospel, etc. He shows that the worst thing in the Jews ought not to subject them to the contempt of the Gentiles. Their chief crime was unbelief: but Paul teaches us, that they were thus blinded for a time by God’s providence, that a way to the gospel might be made for the Gentiles; 368 and that still they were not for ever excluded from the favor of God. He then admits, that they were for the present alienated from God on account of the gospel, that thus the salvation, which at first was deposited with them, might come to the Gentiles; and yet that God was not unmindful of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and by which he testified that according to his eternal purpose he loved that nation: and this he confirms by this remarkable declaration, — that the grace of the divine calling cannot be made void; for this is the import of the words, —

29. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. He has mentioned gifts and calling; which are to be understood, according to a figure in grammar, 369 as meaning the gift of calling: and this is not to be taken for any sort of calling but of that, by which God had adopted the posterity of Abraham into covenant; since this is especially the subject here, as he has previously, by the word, election, designated the secret purpose of God, by which he had formerly made a distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles. 370 For we must bear this in mind, — that he speaks not now of the election of individuals, but of the common adoption of the whole nation, which might seem for a time, according to the outward appearance, to have failed, but had not been cut up by the roots. As the Jews had fallen from their privilege and the salvation promised them, that some hope might remain to the remnant, Paul maintains that the purpose of God stands firm and immovable, by which he had once deigned to choose them for himself as a peculiar nation. Since then it cannot possibly be, that the Lord will depart from that covenant which he made with Abraham,

“I will be the God of thy seed,” (Genesis 17:7,)

it is evident that he has not wholly turned away his kindness from the Jewish nation.

He does not oppose the gospel to election, as though they were contrary the one to the other, for whom God has chosen he calls; but inasmuch as the gospel had been proclaimed to the Gentiles beyond the expectation of the world, he justly compares this favor with the ancient election of the Jews, which had been manifested so many ages before: and so election derives its name from antiquity; for God had in past ages of the world chosen one people for himself.

On account of the Fathers, he says not, because they gave any cause for love, but because God’s favor had descended from them to their posterity, according to the tenor of the covenant, “Thy God and the God of thy seed.” How the Gentiles had obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews, has been before stated, namely, that God, being angry with the Jews for their unbelief, turned his kindness to them. What immediately follows, that they became unbelievers through the mercy manifested to the Gentiles, seems rather strange; and yet there is in it nothing unreasonable; for Paul assigns not the cause of blindness, but only declares, that what God transferred to the Gentiles had been taken away from the Jews. But lest what they had lost through unbelief, should be thought by the Gentiles to have been gained by them through the merit of faith, mention is made only of mercy. What is substantially said then is, — that as God purposed to show mercy to the Gentiles, the Jews were on this account deprived of the light of faith.

32. For God has shut up, etc. A remarkable conclusion, by which he shows that there is no reason why they who have a hope of salvation should despair of others; for whatever they may now be, they have been like all the rest. If they have emerged from unbelief through God’s mercy alone, they ought to leave place for it as to others also. For he makes the Jews equal in guilt with the Gentiles, that both might understand that the avenue to salvation is no less open to others than to them. For it is the mercy of God alone which saves; and this offers itself to both. This sentence then corresponds with the testimony of Hosea, which he had before quoted, “I will call those my people who were not my people.” But he does not mean, that God so blinds all men that their unbelief is to be imputed to him; but that he hath so arranged by his providence, that all should be guilty of unbelief, in order that he might have them subject to his judgment, and for this end, — that all merits being buried, salvation might proceed from his goodness alone. 371


Paul then intends here to teach two things — that there is nothing in any man why he should be preferred to others, apart from the mere favor of God; and that God in the dispensation of his grace, is under no restraint that he should not grant it to whom he pleases. There is an emphasis in the word mercy; for it intimates that God is bound to none, and that he therefore saves all freely, for they are all equally lost. But extremely gross is their folly who hence conclude that all shall be saved; for Paul simply means that both Jews and Gentiles do not otherwise obtain salvation than through the mercy of God, and thus he leaves to none any reason for complaint. It is indeed true that this mercy is without any difference offered to all, but every one must seek it by faith.

33. Oh! the depth, etc. Here first the Apostle bursts into an exclamation, which arose spontaneously from a devout consideration of God’s dealings with the faithful; then in passing he checks the boldness of impiety, which is wont to clamor against the judgments of God. When therefore we hear, Oh! the depth, this expression of wonder ought greatly to avail to the beating down of the presumption of our flesh; for after having spoken from the word and by the Spirit of the Lord, being at length overcome by the sublimity of so great a mystery, he could not do otherwise than wonder and exclaim, that, the riches of God’s wisdom are deeper than our reason can penetrate to. Whenever then we enter on a discourse respecting the eternal counsels of God, let a bridle be always set on our thoughts and tongue, so that after having spoken soberly and within the limits of God’s word, our reasoning may at last end in admiration. Nor ought we to be ashamed, that if we are not wiser than he, who, having been taken into the third heaven, saw mysteries to man ineffable, and who yet could find in this instance no other end designed but that he should thus humble himself.

Some render the words of Paul thus, “Oh! the deep riches, and wisdom, and knowledge of God!” as though the word βάθος was an adjective; and they take riches for abundance, but this seems to me strained, and I have therefore no doubt but that he extols God’s deep riches of wisdom and knowledge. 374


How incomprehensible, etc. By different words, according to a practice common in Hebrew, he expresses the same thing. For he speaks of judgments, then he subjoins ways, which mean appointments or the mode of acting, or the manner of ruling. But he still continues his exclamation, and thus the more he elevates the height of the divine mystery, the more he deters us from the curiosity of investigating it. Let us then learn to make no searchings respecting the Lord, except as far as he has revealed himself in the Scriptures; for otherwise we shall enter a labyrinth, from which the retreat is not easy. It must however be noticed, that he speaks not here of all God’s mysteries, but of those which are hid with God himself, and ought to be only admired and adored by us.

34. Who has known the mind of the Lord? He begins here to extend as it were his hand to restrain the audacity of men, lest they should clamor against God’s judgments, and this he does by stating two reasons: the first is, that all mortals are too blind to take a view of God’s predestination by their own understanding, and to reason on a thing unknown is presumptuous and absurd; the other is, that we can have no cause of complaint against God, since no mortal can boast that God is a debtor to him; but that, on the contrary, all are under obligations to him for his bounty. 375

Within this limit then let every one remember to keep his own mind, lest he be carried beyond God’s oracles in investigating predestination, since we hear that man can distinguish nothing in this case, any more than a blind man in darkness. This caution, however, is not to be so applied as to weaken the certainty of faith, which proceeds not from the acumen of the human mind, but solely from the illumination of the Spirit; for Paul himself in another place, after having testified that all the mysteries of God far exceed the comprehension of our minds, immediately subjoins that the faithful understand the mind of the Lord, because they have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which has been given them by God, by whom they are instructed as to his goodness, which otherwise would be incomprehensible to them.

As then we cannot by our own faculties examine the secrets of God, so we are admitted into a certain and clear knowledge of them by the grace of the Holy Spirit: and if we ought to follow the guidance of the Spirit, where he leaves us, there we ought to stop and as it were to fix our standing. If any one will seek to know more than what God has revealed, he shall be overwhelmed with the immeasurable brightness of inaccessible light. But we must bear in mind the distinction, which I have before mentioned, between the secret counsel of God, and his will made known in Scripture; for though the whole doctrine of Scripture surpasses in its height the mind of man, yet an access to it is not closed against the faithful, who reverently and soberly follow the Spirit as their guide; but the case is different with regard to his hidden counsel, the depth and height of which cannot by any investigation be reached.

35. Who has first given to him, etc. Another reason, by which God’s righteousness is most effectually defended against all the accusations of the ungodly: for if no one retains him bound to himself by his own merits, no one can justly expostulate with him for not having received his reward; as he, who would constrain another to do him good, must necessarily adduce those deeds by which he has deserved a reward. The import then of Paul’s words is this — “God cannot be charged with unrighteousness, except it can be proved, that he renders not to every one his due: but it is evident, that no one is deprived by him of his right, since he is under obligation to none; for who can boast of any thing of his own, by which he has deserved his favor?” 376


Now this is a remarkable passage; for we are here taught, that it is not in our power to constrain God by our good works to bestow salvation on us, but that he anticipates the undeserving by his gratuitous goodness. But if we desire to make an honest examination, we shall not only find, that God is in no way a debtor to us, but that we are all subject to his judgment, — that we not only deserve no layout, but that we are worthy of eternal death. And Paul not only concludes, that God owes us nothing, on account of our corrupt and sinful nature; but he denies, that if man were perfect, he could bring anything before God, by which he could gain his favor; for as soon as he begins to exist, he is already by the right of creation so much indebted to his Maker, that he has nothing of his own. In vain then shall we try to take from him his own right, that he should not, as he pleases, freely determine respecting his own creatures, as though there was mutual debt and credit.

36. For from him and through him, etc. A confirmation of the last verse. He shows, that it is very far from being the case, that we can glory in any good thing of our own against God, since we have been created by him from nothing, and now exist through him. He hence infers, that our being should be employed for his glory: for how unreasonable would it be for creatures, whom he has formed and whom he sustains, to live for any other purpose than for making his glory known? It has not escaped my notice, that the phrase, εἰς αὐτὸν, to him, is sometimes taken for ἐν αὐτῷ, in or by him, but improperly: and as its proper meaning is more suitable to the present subject, it is better to retain it, than to adopt that which is improper. The import of what is said is, — That the whole order of nature would be strangely subverted, were not God, who is the beginning of all things, the end also.

To him be glory, etc. The proposition being as it were proved, he now confidently assumes it as indubitable, — That the Lord’s own glory ought everywhere to continue to him unchangeably: for the sentence would be frigid were it taken generally; but its emphasis depends on the context, that. God justly claims for himself absolute supremacy, and that in the condition of mankind and of the whole world nothing is to be sought beyond his own glory. It hence follows, that absurd and contrary to reason, and even insane, are all those sentiments which tend to diminish his glory.


My comments regarding Calvin's and the Geneva Study Bible's interpretations will follow.




Thursday, June 5, 2008

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #11

Below are the comments of John Calvin on the text of Romans 11:16-21. His comments on the rest of the chapter will follow in subsequent posts.

16. "For if the first-fruits, etc. By comparing the worthiness of the Jews and of the Gentiles, he now takes away pride from the one and pacifies the other, as far as he could; for he shows that the Gentiles, if they pretended any prerogative of honor of their own, did in no respect excel the Jews, nay, that if they came to a contest, they should be left far behind. Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation with nation. If then a comparison be made between them, they shall be found equal in this respect, that they are both equally the children of Adam; the only difference is that the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, that they might be a peculiar people to the Lord. 354 They were then sanctified by the holy covenant, and adorned with peculiar honor, with which God had not at that time favored the Gentiles; but as the efficacy of the covenant appeared then but small, he bids us to look back to Abraham and the patriarchs, in whom the blessing of God was not indeed either empty or void. He hence concludes, that from them an heredity holiness had passed to all their posterity. But this conclusion would not have been right had he spoken of persons, or rather had he not regarded the promise; for when the father is just, he cannot yet transmit his own uprightness to his son: but as the Lord had sanctified Abraham for himself for this end, that his seed might also be holy, and as he thus conferred holiness not only on his person but also on his whole race, the Apostle does not unsuitably draw this conclusion, that all the Jews were sanctified in their father Abraham. 355 Then to confirm this view, he adduces two similitudes: the one taken from the ceremonies of the law, and the other borrowed from nature. The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant. It may be truly said, I allow, that the Jews were naturally holy, for their adoption was hereditary; but I now speak of our first nature, according to which we are all, as we know, accursed in Adam. Therefore the dignity of an elect people, to speak correctly, is a supernatural privilege.

17.
And if some of the branches, etc. He now refers to the present dignity of the Gentiles, which is no other than to be of the branches; which, being taken from another, are set in some noble tree: for the origin of the Gentiles was as it were from some wild and unfruitful olive, as nothing but a curse was to be found in their whole race. Whatever glory then they had was from their new insition, not from their old stock. There was then no reason for the Gentiles to glory in their own dignity in comparison with the Jews. We may also add, that Paul wisely mitigates the severity of the case, by not saying that the whole top of the tree was cut off, but that some of the branches were broken, and also that God took some here and there from among the Gentiles, whom he set in the holy and blessed trunk. 356

18.
But if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, etc. The Gentiles could not contend with the Jews respecting the excellency of their race without contending with Abraham himself; which would have been extremely unbecoming, since he was like a root by which they were borne and nourished. As unreasonable as it would be for the branches to boast against the root, so unreasonable would it have been for the Gentiles to glory against the Jews, that is, with respect to the excellency of their race; for Paul would have them ever to consider whence was the origin of their salvation. And we know that after Christ by his coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world partook of the favor which God had previously conferred on the chosen people. It hence follows, that the calling of the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not otherwise grow up as God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham.

19. Thou wilt then say, etc. In the person of the Gentiles he brings forward what they might have pleaded for themselves; but that was of such a nature as ought not to have filled them with pride, but, on the contrary, to have made them humble. For if the cutting off of the Jews was through unbelief, and if the ingrafting of the Gentiles was by faith, what was their duty but to acknowledge the favor of God, and also to cherish modesty and humbleness of mind? For it is the nature of faith, and what properly belongs to it, to generate humility and fear. 357 But by fear understand that which is in no way inconsistent with the assurance of faith; for Paul would not have our faith to vacillate or to alternate with doubt, much less would he have us to be frightened or to quake with fear. 358 Of what kind then is this fear? As the Lord bids us to take into our consideration two things, so two kinds of feeling must thereby be produced. For he would have us ever to bear in mind the miserable condition of our nature; and this can produce nothing but dread, weariness, anxiety, and despair; and it is indeed expedient that we should thus be thoroughly laid prostrate and broken down, that we may at length groan to him; but this dread, derived from the knowledge of ourselves, keeps not our minds while relying on his goodness, from continuing calm; this weariness hinders us not from enjoying full consolation in him; this anxiety, this despair, does not prevent us from obtaining in him real joy and hope. Hence the fear, of which he speaks, is set up as an antidote to proud contempt; for as every one claims for himself more than what is right, and becomes too secure and at length insolent towards others, we ought then so far to fear, that our heart may not swell with pride and elate itself. But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared. To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing from the certainty of faith. And we must especially notice and remember what I have before said, — that Paul’s address is not so much to individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. On account of these Paul threatens the Gentiles, not without reason, with excision, as we shall hereafter find again.

21. For if God has not spared the natural branches, etc. This is a most powerful reason to beat down all self-confidence: for the rejection of the Jews should never come across our minds without striking and shaking us with dread. For what ruined them, but that through supine dependence on the dignity which they had obtained, they despised what God had appointed? They were not spared, though they were natural branches; what then shall be done to us, who are the wild olive and aliens, if we become beyond measure arrogant? But this thought, as it leads us to distrust ourselves, so it tends to make us to cleave more firmly and steadfastly to the goodness of God. And here again it appears more evident, that the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles, for the excision, of which he speaks, could not apply to individuals, whose election is unchangeable, based on the eternal purpose of God. Paul therefore declares to the Gentiles, that if they exulted over the Jews, a reward for their pride would be prepared for them; for God will again reconcile to himself the first people whom he has divorced."


If you would like the footnotes for Calvin's commentary on this passage, please visit this site.