The following are my notes on Acts 2: 38 and is the substance of my presentation on this passage. Even though I brought it up in the negative of the first night, John did not attempt to rebut it till his final (negative) speech of the second night. I did not have a chance to respond or show how his attempt to construct a sentence (in English, not in Greek!) that showed my assertions to be false.
Garrett's Position on Acts 2: 38
It has been said about Acts 2: 38, by those in my opponent's religious group, known historically as "Restorationists," and sometimes as "Campbellites," this little saying - "give me an ax and two 38's and I'll kill any Baptist," so strong is the conviction of this group that this passage teaches against the Baptist view that sinners are saved by faith alone and that it upholds the teaching that water baptism must be added to the salvation equation. In view of the historical controversy over the meaning of the Greek preposition "eis," sometimes pronounced as "ace," and other times as "ice," other Restorationist preachers have warned Baptist preachers "not to walk on the ice lest they fall through."
However, as confident as my opponent, and his brethren in the so-called Church of Christ, are that this passage teaches salvation in the act of water baptism, I am just as confident that it teaches, not the essentiality of water baptism for remission of sins but rather the essentiality of repentance and faith for it.
The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.
The structure of Acts 2: 38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively.
The issue in Acts 2:38 is that of agreement between the personal pronoun humon and its antecedent.
One must not impose English word order rules on the Greek text. In English the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" may be connected to either "repent," "be baptized," or both. However, in the Greek it cannot be so.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Acts 2: 38. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Acts 2: 38. Sort by date Show all posts
Aug 17, 2009
Mar 18, 2009
Baptism For Remission
The debate over Acts 2: 38, and the relation of water baptism to the "remission of sins," is a long standing one within the Christian community. Many honest souls believe that the Apostle Peter made water baptism as much a condition for pardon as he did for repentance and faith. They believe that the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" connects with both two previous clauses, the first that says "repent ye," and the second that says "each one of you be baptized," so that both repentance and baptism are made equal requirements. But, however honest, they are nevertheless mistaken in this interpretation.
Much of the historic debate on Acts 2: 38 has centered on the precise meaning of the Greek preposition that begins the phrase, the word "eis" ('for' in KJV). But, it should not have been, nor need be.
The greater debate should center on the relationship of this important prepositional phrase to the two previous clauses. Is the phrase "for (eis) the remission of your sins" the object of both clauses? Or, only one of them? If only one of the clauses, which? Is he saying "repent ye for the remission of your sins" or "each of you be baptized for the remission of your sins"?
In order to prove that water baptism is required for remission of sins, one must 1) show how the phrase "for the remission of your sins" is the object of "each of you be baptized" and 2) that the word "for" ('eis') means "in order to obtain."
Greek scholars have demonstrated that the preposition does not universally denote purpose, and that it does not always look forward. But, as I have shown in previous writings, "eis" may look backwards, and sideways, and forward, depending on context. To say it always looks forward, and never backwards or sideways, is an error. Thus, two burdens are on the shoulders of those who seek to prove that Acts 2: 38 teaches that water baptism is a requirement for remission of sins.
First, they must show that the phrase "for the remission of your sins" is the object of the clause "each of you be baptized" as well as with "repent ye," and then, secondly, they must show that "eis" means "in order to obtain."
Both of the leading clauses are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye," is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized," is third person singular. There is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
Now, when we look at the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. An important distinction is thus made and one that helps us understand this passage.
The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.” Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Penitent faith, not water baptism, is essential for pardon. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, where he exhorts —“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts 3: 19)
Notice how Peter says nothing about water baptism in his extending to the people the terms of pardon. If water baptism is necessary for pardon, then why did Peter not include it in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for pardon, then why did Peter say nothing about this also in Acts 10:43?
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
A simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out."
Much of the historic debate on Acts 2: 38 has centered on the precise meaning of the Greek preposition that begins the phrase, the word "eis" ('for' in KJV). But, it should not have been, nor need be.
The greater debate should center on the relationship of this important prepositional phrase to the two previous clauses. Is the phrase "for (eis) the remission of your sins" the object of both clauses? Or, only one of them? If only one of the clauses, which? Is he saying "repent ye for the remission of your sins" or "each of you be baptized for the remission of your sins"?
In order to prove that water baptism is required for remission of sins, one must 1) show how the phrase "for the remission of your sins" is the object of "each of you be baptized" and 2) that the word "for" ('eis') means "in order to obtain."
Greek scholars have demonstrated that the preposition does not universally denote purpose, and that it does not always look forward. But, as I have shown in previous writings, "eis" may look backwards, and sideways, and forward, depending on context. To say it always looks forward, and never backwards or sideways, is an error. Thus, two burdens are on the shoulders of those who seek to prove that Acts 2: 38 teaches that water baptism is a requirement for remission of sins.
First, they must show that the phrase "for the remission of your sins" is the object of the clause "each of you be baptized" as well as with "repent ye," and then, secondly, they must show that "eis" means "in order to obtain."
Both of the leading clauses are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye," is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized," is third person singular. There is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
Now, when we look at the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. An important distinction is thus made and one that helps us understand this passage.
The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.” Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Penitent faith, not water baptism, is essential for pardon. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, where he exhorts —“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts 3: 19)
Notice how Peter says nothing about water baptism in his extending to the people the terms of pardon. If water baptism is necessary for pardon, then why did Peter not include it in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for pardon, then why did Peter say nothing about this also in Acts 10:43?
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
A simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out."
Apr 6, 2009
Akin on the Ordo Salutis
Dr. Danny Akin, according to Tom Ascol of the Founders organization, see here, will be guest speaker at the annual Founders breakfast this June in Louisville. I have a suggestion for Dr. Akin and Dr. Ascol. Why not have Dr. Akin talk about how conversion and regeneration are virtually the same, how they are concurrent, and how, if logical priority is to be given to one, it must be to conversion, not to regeneration?
Here is what was written by Prof. Kenneth Keathley in chapter 12 of the book edited by Dr. Akin, which no doubt is the view of Dr. Akin. (emphasis mine).
"However, the Holy Spirit uses means, and the instruments he employs to achieve regeneration are the gospel (James 1: 18, 21; I Pet. 1: 23) and the messengers who share it (I Cor. 4: 15). If the gospel is not available, the saving, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is also absent. This disturbing truth gives urgency to the missionary mandate of the Great Commission."
And,
"Are those who believe in turn born again, or does a person believe because he has been regenerated? Which happens first? And if they occur simltaneously, which one is the logical cause of the other? Evangelicals agree that a saved person is both converted and regenerated, but there is wide disagreement as to which occurs first, either chronologically or logically. There are good arguments for either position, but the biblical texts seem to come down on the side of conversion resulting in regneration.
Regeneration is instantaneous; it is not a process drawn out over a period of time. An expectant mother may experience a protracted labor, but there will finally come a point when the child is delivered. Similarly, those who come to Christ often go through the great spiritual travail of the Holy Spirit's conviction (John 16: 8). The process of wrestling with God is not the new birth, but rather regeneration is the outcome of the effectual calling of God.
Certain Reformed and Presbyterian churches teach that regeneration precedes conversion chronologically and a number of covenant theologians connect regeneration with infant baptism. W. G. T. Shedd for example, is careful not to attribute regenerating power to the rite of baptism, but he does consider baptism to be a sign that the infant has been regenerated."
However, as we have seen, the Scriptures point to the Word of God, not baptism, as the means by which the Holy Spirit imparts the new birth. In addition, Shedd's association of baptism with circumcision is not supported by the New Testament. Rather, the teaching of Scripture is that regeneration is concurrent, or coincident, with conversion. This means that conversion and regeneration, as events, occur at the same time. For example, John states that those who "receive him" are also those have been "born of God" (John 1: 12-13).
Among those who agree that the two aspects of salvation are simultaneous, there is debate as to which is logically prior. Many Reformed and covenant theologians reject Shedd's argument for chronological priority but still contend for the logical priority of regeneration. Conversion is the willing response to the to the gospel call, but how does one who is totally depraved and dead in sins turn to God? The inability of a lost person to respond to the gospel seems to necessitate that something must happen to the person to make him receptive, and regeneration is seen to be that transforming event. Even those who do not hold to this position acknowledge its logical appeal. (741-42)
However, there are three strong biblical arguments for understanding conversion to precede the new birth. First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Peter 1: 23; James 1: 18, 21; I John 3: 9). That the Word of God is the Spirit's instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration. Second, the Bible presents conversion as the condition to salvation, not the result of being saved (John 1: 12; 3: 16, 18, 24, 36, 40; Acts 2: 38; Rom. 3: 22, 26; 4:3,5; 5:1). The apostles repeatedly promise their hearers that, if they will repent and believe, then they will be saved (Acts 2: 38; 16: 30-31). the Apostle John put special emphasis on the necessity of the new birth, but he presented faith as the condition to becoming a child of God (John 1: 12-13) and to receiving eternal life ("by believing you may have life in his name," John 20: 31)."
"In order for a person to answer the gospel call, there indeed must be a special work of the Holy Spirit, but we conclude that this enablement is not regeneration but the inward call of the Spirit. The convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the effectual call that accompanies the preaching of the gospel enable a sinner to believe. The order that seems to be the testimony of Scripture is that those who are converted are born again." (pg. 743)
A Theology for the Church By Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, Peter R. Schemm, Jr.
Published by B&H Publishing Group, 2007
See here
I hope Dr. Akin can help Dr. Ascol see the truth on this important issue!
Here is what was written by Prof. Kenneth Keathley in chapter 12 of the book edited by Dr. Akin, which no doubt is the view of Dr. Akin. (emphasis mine).
"However, the Holy Spirit uses means, and the instruments he employs to achieve regeneration are the gospel (James 1: 18, 21; I Pet. 1: 23) and the messengers who share it (I Cor. 4: 15). If the gospel is not available, the saving, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is also absent. This disturbing truth gives urgency to the missionary mandate of the Great Commission."
And,
"Are those who believe in turn born again, or does a person believe because he has been regenerated? Which happens first? And if they occur simltaneously, which one is the logical cause of the other? Evangelicals agree that a saved person is both converted and regenerated, but there is wide disagreement as to which occurs first, either chronologically or logically. There are good arguments for either position, but the biblical texts seem to come down on the side of conversion resulting in regneration.
Regeneration is instantaneous; it is not a process drawn out over a period of time. An expectant mother may experience a protracted labor, but there will finally come a point when the child is delivered. Similarly, those who come to Christ often go through the great spiritual travail of the Holy Spirit's conviction (John 16: 8). The process of wrestling with God is not the new birth, but rather regeneration is the outcome of the effectual calling of God.
Certain Reformed and Presbyterian churches teach that regeneration precedes conversion chronologically and a number of covenant theologians connect regeneration with infant baptism. W. G. T. Shedd for example, is careful not to attribute regenerating power to the rite of baptism, but he does consider baptism to be a sign that the infant has been regenerated."
However, as we have seen, the Scriptures point to the Word of God, not baptism, as the means by which the Holy Spirit imparts the new birth. In addition, Shedd's association of baptism with circumcision is not supported by the New Testament. Rather, the teaching of Scripture is that regeneration is concurrent, or coincident, with conversion. This means that conversion and regeneration, as events, occur at the same time. For example, John states that those who "receive him" are also those have been "born of God" (John 1: 12-13).
Among those who agree that the two aspects of salvation are simultaneous, there is debate as to which is logically prior. Many Reformed and covenant theologians reject Shedd's argument for chronological priority but still contend for the logical priority of regeneration. Conversion is the willing response to the to the gospel call, but how does one who is totally depraved and dead in sins turn to God? The inability of a lost person to respond to the gospel seems to necessitate that something must happen to the person to make him receptive, and regeneration is seen to be that transforming event. Even those who do not hold to this position acknowledge its logical appeal. (741-42)
However, there are three strong biblical arguments for understanding conversion to precede the new birth. First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Peter 1: 23; James 1: 18, 21; I John 3: 9). That the Word of God is the Spirit's instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration. Second, the Bible presents conversion as the condition to salvation, not the result of being saved (John 1: 12; 3: 16, 18, 24, 36, 40; Acts 2: 38; Rom. 3: 22, 26; 4:3,5; 5:1). The apostles repeatedly promise their hearers that, if they will repent and believe, then they will be saved (Acts 2: 38; 16: 30-31). the Apostle John put special emphasis on the necessity of the new birth, but he presented faith as the condition to becoming a child of God (John 1: 12-13) and to receiving eternal life ("by believing you may have life in his name," John 20: 31)."
"In order for a person to answer the gospel call, there indeed must be a special work of the Holy Spirit, but we conclude that this enablement is not regeneration but the inward call of the Spirit. The convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the effectual call that accompanies the preaching of the gospel enable a sinner to believe. The order that seems to be the testimony of Scripture is that those who are converted are born again." (pg. 743)
A Theology for the Church By Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, Peter R. Schemm, Jr.
Published by B&H Publishing Group, 2007
See here
I hope Dr. Akin can help Dr. Ascol see the truth on this important issue!
Mar 10, 2009
Baptism & Salvation Texts
The following is a listing of Bible texts that are discussed in the debate over the purpose and design of water baptism. What do these verses teach about water baptism and its connection with salvation? How do they relate to the rest of scripture teaching on salvation?
Major Passages
1. John 3: 5
2. Mark 16: 16
3. Acts 2: 38
4. Acts 22: 16
5. Romans 6: 3, 4
6. Titus 3:5
7. Galatians 3: 27
8. Colossians 2: 11, 12
9. I Peter 3: 21
Lessor Passages
1. I Corinthians 1: 12, 13
2. I Corinthians 6: 11
3. I Corinthians 12: 13
4. Ephesians 5: 26
5. Mark 1: 4
6. Luke 7: 30
Major Passages
1. John 3: 5
2. Mark 16: 16
3. Acts 2: 38
4. Acts 22: 16
5. Romans 6: 3, 4
6. Titus 3:5
7. Galatians 3: 27
8. Colossians 2: 11, 12
9. I Peter 3: 21
Lessor Passages
1. I Corinthians 1: 12, 13
2. I Corinthians 6: 11
3. I Corinthians 12: 13
4. Ephesians 5: 26
5. Mark 1: 4
6. Luke 7: 30
Sep 1, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia VII
Chapter Seven - Why "huiosethia" is not "adoption"
Numerous reasons have been given thus far for rejecting the teaching of "adoption" as the way people become the children of God and enter his family. In this chapter we will show other reasons why "adoption" is not only not the teaching of Scripture, but also why "adoption" is a mistranslation of "huiothesia."
First, the word in dispute has "huios" connected with "thesia." But, if "adoption" were meant, then why "huios" (sons) rather than "daughter" (Greek "thygatēr") or "child" (Greek "nekron") or "infant" (Greek "paidion") or "minor child" (Greek "nēpios")? People today do not generally adopt older boys, and never adopt grown men, as the Romans did. Further, people today rarely adopt their own kin, but the Romans did this often. The point is, if simple western adoption were in view by translating or interpreting "huiothesia" as "adoption," then it would be simply placing or adoption of "children" or "babies."
The translation of "huiosethia" in Ephesians 1:5 as "adoption of children" (KJV) is false and generally corrected by later English translations. The Greek compound word is not made up of "teknon" and "thesia" but "huios" and "thesia." But, as we will see, the KJV errs often in this regard, translating "teknon" as both "child" and "son," when it suited them, and often translating "huios" as both "child" and "son" when it suited them. But, more will be said on this important point later. But, for now, let me add this information about the KJV as regard their translation practice in regard to "teknon" and "huios."
teknon (child) is translated "son" in the following passages: — Matthew ix. 2, Matthew xxi. 28; Mark ii. 5, xiii. 12; Luke ii. 48, Luke xv. 31, Luke xvi. 25; John i. 12; 1 Corinthians iv. 14, 17; Philippians ii. 15, 22; 1 Timothy i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2, ii. 1; Titus i. 4; Philemon 10; 1 John iii. 12. It is also translated "daughters" in 1 Peter iii. 6.
huios (son) is translated "child" in the following passages: — Matthew 5:9, 45, Matthew viii. 13, Matthew ix. 15, Matthew xii. 27, Matthew xiii. 38, Matthew xvii. 25, 26, Matthew xx. 20, Matthew xxiii. 15, 31, Matthew xxvii. 9, 56; Mark ii. 19; Luke i. 16, 5:34, Luke vi. 35, Luke xvi. 8, Luke xx. 34, 36; John iv. 12, John xii. 36; Acts iii. 25, Acts 5:21, Acts vii. 23, 37, Acts iv. 15, Acts x. 30, Acts xiii. 10, 26; Romans ix. 26, 27; 2 Corinthians iii. 7, 13; Galatians iii. 7, 26; Ephesians ii. 2, 5:6; Colossians iii. 6; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Hebrews xi. 22, xii. 5; Revelation ii. 14, Revelation vii. 4, Revelation xii. 5, Revelation xxi. 12. It is also translated "foal" in Matthew xxi. 5.
This was not good translation practice. Far better it would be if English translators would translate more literally and keep their private interpretations out of the practice. The KJV translators, as all other English translators, should have always translated "teknon" as "child" and "huios" as "son."
Some bible scholars question whether a meaningful distinction exists in Paul’s use of the Greek words for “child” (Greek "nekron") and “son” (Greek "huios"). In this and the next chapter we will see that the biblical writers, in either testament, did not loosely use these terms, nor other terms denoting people at various stages of life. They did not use such words interchangeably and without significance, as some scholars and translators affirm.
If a NT writer used "huios" or "teknon," for instance, it was done on purpose, with meaningful distinction. I realize that sometimes your average person, in every day language, does not always speak so precisely and with care in the use of such terms. But, though this is generally true among the imprecise conversation of the common populace, whose grammar is often incorrect, it is not true among those who write more correctly and definitively. Neither the writers of the Hebrew OT, nor the writers of the Greek NT, used these terms loosely, as the KJV translators and some other scholars have done.
In this chapter we will begin a look at the various Hebrew and Greek terms used in Holy Scripture to denote persons at various stages of life and then make use of this information to help us decide whether the biblical writers used such terms interchangeably and without purpose, as some scholars affirm. We will see that Paul had a reason for speaking of "son" placement rather than "child" placement.
But, before doing that, let us observe other reasons why "huiothesia" cannot mean adoption. The first of the five passages with "huiothesia" that we looked at was Romans 9:4 where Paul says that "the huiothesia" belonged to those who were "Israelites." Several arguments were offered in regard to that passage which showed that it did not teach that "huiothesia" meant "adoption." Now is a good time to look at its use in Ephesians 1:4.
Predestined To Final Salvation
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,.." (Eph. 1:3-5 kjv)
In the Greek text "predestined us unto adoption (or son placement") is written this way:
"προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν."
The KJV translators gave us "the adoption of children" for the translation of "huiothesia." Let it be kept in mind that scholars on the meaning of this word are interpreters, and their interpretations are not always correct. To see how scholars disagree in interpretation and translation all one has to do is to consult the various English translations and notice the differences in judgment on various passages.
Some think that the way to decide which translations are correct, or most correct, is to view all the translations and see which is the majority or consensus interpretation (translation) and then accept such on that basis. This might be good in most cases, but it cannot be made a rule for the Bible interpreter, for sometimes the majority of scholars are in error and the truth is with the minority.
As stated previously, there is no justification in either the use of "children" or "adoption" in translating the word "huiothesia" into English. Literally, "nekron" means "child" and "huios" means "son." No Greek scholar on the NT disagrees with this. Whatever kind of "placing" or "placement" is in view, in the compound word, it is qualified by "huios" and not "nekron."
To translate "huios" as "children" in Eph. 1: 4 and other places (as does the KJV and some other English translations) and then claim justification for doing so on the basis that the interpreter thinks that these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and without a meaningful distinction in the NT, is not good translating. I would ask such translators - "Why not just translate literally and not impose your presupposition (about no meaningful distinction in the terms)?" If the text has "huios" and that means "son," and is distinct from "teknon" that means "child," then why lead people astray by doing as they have done? Thankfully, at least many modern English translations do at least omit "children" in favor of "sons," although many of them still keep the word "adoption." They will translate as "adoption of sons" or "adoption as sons," or in some similar manner.
Another fault with most English translations of "huiothesia" is how they will give a plural translation to the word in spite of the fact that it is singular. Thus, instead of "sons" or "children," it would be "son" or "child." One wonders why this is so. It seems to be a minor symptom of the translating and interpretation problem concerning this unique word. Yet it is a little revealing. Translating literally it would be "son placement," using the singular rather than the plural. Literally the text should be translated into English as "having predestined us to son placement."
Noticeable also is the absence of the definite article "the" in the passage, though the KJV and some other English translations add it to the text. Just as it was wrong to translate "teknon" as "son," and "huios" as "child," so it is wrong to add the definite article when it is absent in the Hebrew or Greek text, or to omit it when it is present. In Ephesians 1:5 it is not "predestined to the huiothesia," but "predestined to huiothesia." So, the KJV got these things wrong with their translation of this passage.
1. Used the word "adoption" to translate "thesia."
2. Used "child" to translate "huios."
3. Used the plural "children" for the singular "huios."
4. Added the definite article "the" when it is noticeably absent in the text
5. Used the unnecessary preposition "of" in "adoption of children"**
**some other translations use "as" for "of"
The purpose of the absence of the Greek article is to describe, define, characterize, and qualify, as any NT Greek grammar will confirm. There is a difference in saying "huiothesia" and "the huiothesia," just as there is in saying "the God" and "God" in John 1:1. The absence of the definite article does not automatically infer the indefinite. So, just as "God" in John 1:1 does not mean "a god," so "huiothesia" does not mean "a son placement." As stated previously, of the five passages where "huiothesia" is used only two omit the definite article. This is one and the other is Romans 8:15. On the other hand we saw its existence in Romans 9:4 and talked of its significance in that passage.
Another point that disproves the idea that "son placement" means "adoption of sons," in addition to the several already offered, in this and previous chapters, is the fact that what God has predestined is the end, first and foremost, and then the means to that end.
Many people erroneously connect "the huiothesia" with the beginning of the Christian life, with being adopted or born again in conversion, but this is not the case, for several reasons. Recall that Dr. Packer believed that Ephesians 1: 5 was one of three places where "adoption" or "huiothesia" was shown to be a present reality. However, it is clear that it is not a present reality as yet; And, if it is not a present reality, but a future event, then no one is yet adopted (if adoption be the correct translation).
In the text "huiothesia" is the object of God's eternal purpose, or predestination, in regard to the elect, and would therefore represent the "end" of his design in regard to them. Therefore, final salvation in the eternal state, as perfected sons of God, and sons of the resurrection, must be in view. It must be the end when the elect are all made fully like, in both soul and body, their heavenly Father. Being converted in time is not the end purpose of God in soteriological predestination, but a means to that end. Salvation and sonship, or being made fully like the Son of God, who is himself the express image of the Father, is the culmination or accomplishment of the divine decree.
Divine acts, like rational human acts, are for the attainment of some predetermined end. The purpose of the end is first in view before the determination of the means. What is first in intention is last in execution. It is therefore called the "final cause." The end purpose and design for the elect is that they be be made like the Son of God and enjoy family life with God the Father forever. Notice these words of the Apostle in regard to the decree of election and predestination.
"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2:13-14 KJV)
Notice the end and the means to the end. The end is "salvation" and "obtaining of the glory," which is yet mostly future. The means of this salvation are sanctification of the Spirit and faith via the gospel. But, as sanctification and faith are incomplete, being progressive and linear in the Christian life, so the salvation must be what follows it. In this verse we have two of Aristotle's "four causes." The "first cause" goes back to "the beginning," which beginning is in the mind of God, or "before the foundation of the world." The "final cause" looks forward to the end contemplated. It is purpose realized and brought to fruition. We also have "efficient" and "instrumental" causes in the verses. The Spirit is the efficient cause of sanctification and the gospel and the truth are means or instrumental causes.
In Romans chapter eight, where two of the occurrences of "huiothesia" are found, Paul mentions predestination as in Ephesians chapter one. In Romans 8:29 Paul wrote "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."
Both these statements, "predestined unto the huiothesia" and "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" look to the final state of saints in glory, in eternity to come, when they will be fully made into the image of Christ, who is the image of the Father.
Said Dr. MacArthur in a conference on Ephesians (SEE HERE - Emphasis mine):
"There's also more in it than that. The second half of the word — the first is "pre." The second half of the word is "destined," and that sort of takes you to the end. And the end of it is I think best summed up in Romans 8 that we are: "Predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." So that God's elective purpose was to the glorification, that is the full and final salvation, of those whom He chose."
This is correct. The end of God's decree of salvation is to have a family of sons and daughters, from among fallen humanity, who have been made divine, holy, and perfect. Therefore, since MacArthur agrees that the salvation unto which the elect are chosen is final salvation, then the "huiothesia," the thing predetermined, is also connected with final salvation and "glorification." As MacArthur says, it is the final "destiny." God has predestined the "end" or completion of his purpose in salvation.
In "The Doctrine of Election, Part 1" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine) Dr. MacArthur said:
"And in the discussions that I had with you regarding that, I said that the end is determined by the beginning. Our salvation is secure to the end because our salvation was predestined in the very beginning to be completed.
And we remember that Romans 8 makes a monumental and very clear statement to that regard. when in Romans 8 the apostle Paul writes, “For whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son.” That is, all whom God predestined will become conformed to the image of his Son in eternal glory. And thus “whom he predestined he called, and whom he called he justified, and whom he justified these he also glorified.” And so, we said that the great undergirding foundational truth that secures our future is God’s decree in eternity past. It is the fact that we are chosen for final salvation that makes our salvation secure."
Of course, again this is correct, and if so, then it is wrong to say that Ephesians 1: 5 shows that "adoption" or "huiothesia" is a present realization. Rather, it is in harmony with Paul in Romans 8:23 where he said "waiting for the huiothesia, i.e., the redemption of the body." Thus, these things are yet to be realized, and are not a present possession.
It is interesting that this is one of the verses that supposedly puts adoption or huiothesia in the present experience of Christians, rather than in the future. As we have noted already, Paul put "the huiothesia" in the future when he said that it is what Christians are yet waiting for, and is to take place with the resurrection of the body. Yet, this passage also puts son placement in the future, for God has predestined us to final and complete salvation. We might just as well translate Paul's words as "chosen to salvation in heaven in the eternal state," and "predestined us to final son placement" and "predestined to be made into the full likeness of the Father and the Son at the second coming."
Predestined To End Time Son Placement
Putting Ephesians 1:4-5 together with Romans 8: 23 we have "predestined us to son placement and to redemption of the body for which we are waiting."
Of course God predetermines the ways and means for effecting his end purposes and designs. But, he first sees the end desired and contemplated and then sets about determining the means to that end. The text has all kinds of references to what is mostly yet future for the believer in Christ. He has stated that God had chosen the believer in Christ before the making of the universe "unto salvation." But, salvation is only begun now and is not yet completed. Only at the second coming and resurrection do saints fully realize the totality of this salvation. But, which is the end and which is the means? Is initial salvation in conversion the end of being chosen or the means to the end? Is the end of salvation not yet future and the thing intended?
Paul does speak, in Ephesians one, of present blessings of salvation. But, the emphasis is rather on the eschatological end of God's purpose in salvation and redemption. When Paul says "God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ," he does not mean that the believer, at the time of his conversion and birth, received all these blessings. Even though Paul speaks in the past tense, saying "has blessed us," yet he does not infer that all these blessings are a present reality for the believer.
God the Father "chose us in Christ" and "blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ" in eternity past in his decrees and in the covenant between the Father and the Son. Some of these spiritual blessings are a present reality, but the chief of them are yet future, and this fact is often stated by the NT writers in their addresses to Christians. In the context of the three occurrences of "huiothesia" in Romans chapters eight and nine, Paul, though he speaks of present blessings of salvation, nevertheless lays the stress on the future, on what is not yet realized by the Christian, being a matter of hope and expectation. In that context he put "waiting for the huiothesia" along with waiting for "the revelation of the sons of God," and for "the redemption of the body," and with the "glory that shall be revealed in us." All these are future events and all connected with "huiothesia" or "son placement."
Another reason for seeing the "huiothesia" of Ephesians 1: 4 as not something realized in the present mortal life of the elect, but something still yet future, is due to what is meant by the words "before him" in "chosen us to be holy and without blame before him." When is it that believers are "before him" in the fullest sense? Is it not in the glorious eternal state? Is that not when God himself will dwell with them and they live in his presence? Is that not the end purpose?
Consider also the fact that the choice is to be "holy and blameless," to be "without defect," before the Lord. Though Christians have a degree of holiness now, and are fully justified now, yet they are not yet in themselves, or in their characters, "blameless" or morally flawless. The Greek word translated "blameless" is "amomos" and means "without spot or blemish morally," or "faultless, unblameable."
Numerous reasons have been given thus far for rejecting the teaching of "adoption" as the way people become the children of God and enter his family. In this chapter we will show other reasons why "adoption" is not only not the teaching of Scripture, but also why "adoption" is a mistranslation of "huiothesia."
First, the word in dispute has "huios" connected with "thesia." But, if "adoption" were meant, then why "huios" (sons) rather than "daughter" (Greek "thygatēr") or "child" (Greek "nekron") or "infant" (Greek "paidion") or "minor child" (Greek "nēpios")? People today do not generally adopt older boys, and never adopt grown men, as the Romans did. Further, people today rarely adopt their own kin, but the Romans did this often. The point is, if simple western adoption were in view by translating or interpreting "huiothesia" as "adoption," then it would be simply placing or adoption of "children" or "babies."
The translation of "huiosethia" in Ephesians 1:5 as "adoption of children" (KJV) is false and generally corrected by later English translations. The Greek compound word is not made up of "teknon" and "thesia" but "huios" and "thesia." But, as we will see, the KJV errs often in this regard, translating "teknon" as both "child" and "son," when it suited them, and often translating "huios" as both "child" and "son" when it suited them. But, more will be said on this important point later. But, for now, let me add this information about the KJV as regard their translation practice in regard to "teknon" and "huios."
teknon (child) is translated "son" in the following passages: — Matthew ix. 2, Matthew xxi. 28; Mark ii. 5, xiii. 12; Luke ii. 48, Luke xv. 31, Luke xvi. 25; John i. 12; 1 Corinthians iv. 14, 17; Philippians ii. 15, 22; 1 Timothy i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2, ii. 1; Titus i. 4; Philemon 10; 1 John iii. 12. It is also translated "daughters" in 1 Peter iii. 6.
huios (son) is translated "child" in the following passages: — Matthew 5:9, 45, Matthew viii. 13, Matthew ix. 15, Matthew xii. 27, Matthew xiii. 38, Matthew xvii. 25, 26, Matthew xx. 20, Matthew xxiii. 15, 31, Matthew xxvii. 9, 56; Mark ii. 19; Luke i. 16, 5:34, Luke vi. 35, Luke xvi. 8, Luke xx. 34, 36; John iv. 12, John xii. 36; Acts iii. 25, Acts 5:21, Acts vii. 23, 37, Acts iv. 15, Acts x. 30, Acts xiii. 10, 26; Romans ix. 26, 27; 2 Corinthians iii. 7, 13; Galatians iii. 7, 26; Ephesians ii. 2, 5:6; Colossians iii. 6; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Hebrews xi. 22, xii. 5; Revelation ii. 14, Revelation vii. 4, Revelation xii. 5, Revelation xxi. 12. It is also translated "foal" in Matthew xxi. 5.
This was not good translation practice. Far better it would be if English translators would translate more literally and keep their private interpretations out of the practice. The KJV translators, as all other English translators, should have always translated "teknon" as "child" and "huios" as "son."
Some bible scholars question whether a meaningful distinction exists in Paul’s use of the Greek words for “child” (Greek "nekron") and “son” (Greek "huios"). In this and the next chapter we will see that the biblical writers, in either testament, did not loosely use these terms, nor other terms denoting people at various stages of life. They did not use such words interchangeably and without significance, as some scholars and translators affirm.
If a NT writer used "huios" or "teknon," for instance, it was done on purpose, with meaningful distinction. I realize that sometimes your average person, in every day language, does not always speak so precisely and with care in the use of such terms. But, though this is generally true among the imprecise conversation of the common populace, whose grammar is often incorrect, it is not true among those who write more correctly and definitively. Neither the writers of the Hebrew OT, nor the writers of the Greek NT, used these terms loosely, as the KJV translators and some other scholars have done.
In this chapter we will begin a look at the various Hebrew and Greek terms used in Holy Scripture to denote persons at various stages of life and then make use of this information to help us decide whether the biblical writers used such terms interchangeably and without purpose, as some scholars affirm. We will see that Paul had a reason for speaking of "son" placement rather than "child" placement.
But, before doing that, let us observe other reasons why "huiothesia" cannot mean adoption. The first of the five passages with "huiothesia" that we looked at was Romans 9:4 where Paul says that "the huiothesia" belonged to those who were "Israelites." Several arguments were offered in regard to that passage which showed that it did not teach that "huiothesia" meant "adoption." Now is a good time to look at its use in Ephesians 1:4.
Predestined To Final Salvation
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,.." (Eph. 1:3-5 kjv)
In the Greek text "predestined us unto adoption (or son placement") is written this way:
"προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν."
The KJV translators gave us "the adoption of children" for the translation of "huiothesia." Let it be kept in mind that scholars on the meaning of this word are interpreters, and their interpretations are not always correct. To see how scholars disagree in interpretation and translation all one has to do is to consult the various English translations and notice the differences in judgment on various passages.
Some think that the way to decide which translations are correct, or most correct, is to view all the translations and see which is the majority or consensus interpretation (translation) and then accept such on that basis. This might be good in most cases, but it cannot be made a rule for the Bible interpreter, for sometimes the majority of scholars are in error and the truth is with the minority.
As stated previously, there is no justification in either the use of "children" or "adoption" in translating the word "huiothesia" into English. Literally, "nekron" means "child" and "huios" means "son." No Greek scholar on the NT disagrees with this. Whatever kind of "placing" or "placement" is in view, in the compound word, it is qualified by "huios" and not "nekron."
To translate "huios" as "children" in Eph. 1: 4 and other places (as does the KJV and some other English translations) and then claim justification for doing so on the basis that the interpreter thinks that these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and without a meaningful distinction in the NT, is not good translating. I would ask such translators - "Why not just translate literally and not impose your presupposition (about no meaningful distinction in the terms)?" If the text has "huios" and that means "son," and is distinct from "teknon" that means "child," then why lead people astray by doing as they have done? Thankfully, at least many modern English translations do at least omit "children" in favor of "sons," although many of them still keep the word "adoption." They will translate as "adoption of sons" or "adoption as sons," or in some similar manner.
Another fault with most English translations of "huiothesia" is how they will give a plural translation to the word in spite of the fact that it is singular. Thus, instead of "sons" or "children," it would be "son" or "child." One wonders why this is so. It seems to be a minor symptom of the translating and interpretation problem concerning this unique word. Yet it is a little revealing. Translating literally it would be "son placement," using the singular rather than the plural. Literally the text should be translated into English as "having predestined us to son placement."
Noticeable also is the absence of the definite article "the" in the passage, though the KJV and some other English translations add it to the text. Just as it was wrong to translate "teknon" as "son," and "huios" as "child," so it is wrong to add the definite article when it is absent in the Hebrew or Greek text, or to omit it when it is present. In Ephesians 1:5 it is not "predestined to the huiothesia," but "predestined to huiothesia." So, the KJV got these things wrong with their translation of this passage.
1. Used the word "adoption" to translate "thesia."
2. Used "child" to translate "huios."
3. Used the plural "children" for the singular "huios."
4. Added the definite article "the" when it is noticeably absent in the text
5. Used the unnecessary preposition "of" in "adoption of children"**
**some other translations use "as" for "of"
The purpose of the absence of the Greek article is to describe, define, characterize, and qualify, as any NT Greek grammar will confirm. There is a difference in saying "huiothesia" and "the huiothesia," just as there is in saying "the God" and "God" in John 1:1. The absence of the definite article does not automatically infer the indefinite. So, just as "God" in John 1:1 does not mean "a god," so "huiothesia" does not mean "a son placement." As stated previously, of the five passages where "huiothesia" is used only two omit the definite article. This is one and the other is Romans 8:15. On the other hand we saw its existence in Romans 9:4 and talked of its significance in that passage.
Many people erroneously connect "the huiothesia" with the beginning of the Christian life, with being adopted or born again in conversion, but this is not the case, for several reasons. Recall that Dr. Packer believed that Ephesians 1: 5 was one of three places where "adoption" or "huiothesia" was shown to be a present reality. However, it is clear that it is not a present reality as yet; And, if it is not a present reality, but a future event, then no one is yet adopted (if adoption be the correct translation).
In the text "huiothesia" is the object of God's eternal purpose, or predestination, in regard to the elect, and would therefore represent the "end" of his design in regard to them. Therefore, final salvation in the eternal state, as perfected sons of God, and sons of the resurrection, must be in view. It must be the end when the elect are all made fully like, in both soul and body, their heavenly Father. Being converted in time is not the end purpose of God in soteriological predestination, but a means to that end. Salvation and sonship, or being made fully like the Son of God, who is himself the express image of the Father, is the culmination or accomplishment of the divine decree.
Divine acts, like rational human acts, are for the attainment of some predetermined end. The purpose of the end is first in view before the determination of the means. What is first in intention is last in execution. It is therefore called the "final cause." The end purpose and design for the elect is that they be be made like the Son of God and enjoy family life with God the Father forever. Notice these words of the Apostle in regard to the decree of election and predestination.
"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2:13-14 KJV)
Notice the end and the means to the end. The end is "salvation" and "obtaining of the glory," which is yet mostly future. The means of this salvation are sanctification of the Spirit and faith via the gospel. But, as sanctification and faith are incomplete, being progressive and linear in the Christian life, so the salvation must be what follows it. In this verse we have two of Aristotle's "four causes." The "first cause" goes back to "the beginning," which beginning is in the mind of God, or "before the foundation of the world." The "final cause" looks forward to the end contemplated. It is purpose realized and brought to fruition. We also have "efficient" and "instrumental" causes in the verses. The Spirit is the efficient cause of sanctification and the gospel and the truth are means or instrumental causes.
In Romans chapter eight, where two of the occurrences of "huiothesia" are found, Paul mentions predestination as in Ephesians chapter one. In Romans 8:29 Paul wrote "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."
Both these statements, "predestined unto the huiothesia" and "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" look to the final state of saints in glory, in eternity to come, when they will be fully made into the image of Christ, who is the image of the Father.
Said Dr. MacArthur in a conference on Ephesians (SEE HERE - Emphasis mine):
"There's also more in it than that. The second half of the word — the first is "pre." The second half of the word is "destined," and that sort of takes you to the end. And the end of it is I think best summed up in Romans 8 that we are: "Predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." So that God's elective purpose was to the glorification, that is the full and final salvation, of those whom He chose."
This is correct. The end of God's decree of salvation is to have a family of sons and daughters, from among fallen humanity, who have been made divine, holy, and perfect. Therefore, since MacArthur agrees that the salvation unto which the elect are chosen is final salvation, then the "huiothesia," the thing predetermined, is also connected with final salvation and "glorification." As MacArthur says, it is the final "destiny." God has predestined the "end" or completion of his purpose in salvation.
In "The Doctrine of Election, Part 1" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine) Dr. MacArthur said:
"And in the discussions that I had with you regarding that, I said that the end is determined by the beginning. Our salvation is secure to the end because our salvation was predestined in the very beginning to be completed.
And we remember that Romans 8 makes a monumental and very clear statement to that regard. when in Romans 8 the apostle Paul writes, “For whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son.” That is, all whom God predestined will become conformed to the image of his Son in eternal glory. And thus “whom he predestined he called, and whom he called he justified, and whom he justified these he also glorified.” And so, we said that the great undergirding foundational truth that secures our future is God’s decree in eternity past. It is the fact that we are chosen for final salvation that makes our salvation secure."
Of course, again this is correct, and if so, then it is wrong to say that Ephesians 1: 5 shows that "adoption" or "huiothesia" is a present realization. Rather, it is in harmony with Paul in Romans 8:23 where he said "waiting for the huiothesia, i.e., the redemption of the body." Thus, these things are yet to be realized, and are not a present possession.
It is interesting that this is one of the verses that supposedly puts adoption or huiothesia in the present experience of Christians, rather than in the future. As we have noted already, Paul put "the huiothesia" in the future when he said that it is what Christians are yet waiting for, and is to take place with the resurrection of the body. Yet, this passage also puts son placement in the future, for God has predestined us to final and complete salvation. We might just as well translate Paul's words as "chosen to salvation in heaven in the eternal state," and "predestined us to final son placement" and "predestined to be made into the full likeness of the Father and the Son at the second coming."
Predestined To End Time Son Placement
Putting Ephesians 1:4-5 together with Romans 8: 23 we have "predestined us to son placement and to redemption of the body for which we are waiting."
Of course God predetermines the ways and means for effecting his end purposes and designs. But, he first sees the end desired and contemplated and then sets about determining the means to that end. The text has all kinds of references to what is mostly yet future for the believer in Christ. He has stated that God had chosen the believer in Christ before the making of the universe "unto salvation." But, salvation is only begun now and is not yet completed. Only at the second coming and resurrection do saints fully realize the totality of this salvation. But, which is the end and which is the means? Is initial salvation in conversion the end of being chosen or the means to the end? Is the end of salvation not yet future and the thing intended?
Paul does speak, in Ephesians one, of present blessings of salvation. But, the emphasis is rather on the eschatological end of God's purpose in salvation and redemption. When Paul says "God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ," he does not mean that the believer, at the time of his conversion and birth, received all these blessings. Even though Paul speaks in the past tense, saying "has blessed us," yet he does not infer that all these blessings are a present reality for the believer.
God the Father "chose us in Christ" and "blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ" in eternity past in his decrees and in the covenant between the Father and the Son. Some of these spiritual blessings are a present reality, but the chief of them are yet future, and this fact is often stated by the NT writers in their addresses to Christians. In the context of the three occurrences of "huiothesia" in Romans chapters eight and nine, Paul, though he speaks of present blessings of salvation, nevertheless lays the stress on the future, on what is not yet realized by the Christian, being a matter of hope and expectation. In that context he put "waiting for the huiothesia" along with waiting for "the revelation of the sons of God," and for "the redemption of the body," and with the "glory that shall be revealed in us." All these are future events and all connected with "huiothesia" or "son placement."
Another reason for seeing the "huiothesia" of Ephesians 1: 4 as not something realized in the present mortal life of the elect, but something still yet future, is due to what is meant by the words "before him" in "chosen us to be holy and without blame before him." When is it that believers are "before him" in the fullest sense? Is it not in the glorious eternal state? Is that not when God himself will dwell with them and they live in his presence? Is that not the end purpose?
Consider also the fact that the choice is to be "holy and blameless," to be "without defect," before the Lord. Though Christians have a degree of holiness now, and are fully justified now, yet they are not yet in themselves, or in their characters, "blameless" or morally flawless. The Greek word translated "blameless" is "amomos" and means "without spot or blemish morally," or "faultless, unblameable."
Sep 27, 2008
Boice on the Nephilim
From "Genesis," by James Montgomery Boice
Sons of God/Daughters of Men
"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:1-4)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The first verses of Genesis 6 are transition verses. On the one hand, they wrap up the pre-Flood history of the earlier chapters, showing the state of degeneracy to which the race had fallen. On the other hand, they prepare for the story of Noah and the Flood that follows; it was because of this degeneracy that the Flood came. Unfortunately, the meaning of these verses is not self-evident. They have raised questions that have been discussed for years.
The passage tells us that "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (vv. 1, 2). This apparently straightforward statement is actually confusing because the subject of the sentence might refer to either of two things. "The sons of God" might mean descendants of the godly line of Seth, who according to this interpretation would be said to have married unbelieving women. Or it might refer to angels, as do the only other exact uses of the phrase in the Old Testament (Job. 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
The thing that makes these verses so interesting is that three New Testament passages seem to refer to them: 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4, 5; and Jude 6, 7. These passages say in part: "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20); "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others" (2 Peter 2:4, 5); and "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day" (Jude 6).
If these passages are related, as they seem to be, the incident of Genesis 6 has bearing on the doctrines of judgment, the afterlife, and even the work of Christ following His crucifixion but before His resurrection or ascension. The New Testament verses explain what Christ was doing when, as we say in the Apostles' Creed, "he descended into hell."
THE GODLY AND THE UNGODLY
The interpretation of Genesis 6 which takes "the sons of God" as referring to the godly line of Seth is most natural since it avoids the obvious problem of how spirit beings could copulate with humans. Moreover, it has weighty support in that it is the view of many theological giants of church history. It is not an early view-we will come back to that later-but it appears in such thinkers as Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church, and is adopted by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and their followers.
Of the early views Augustine's is most important because he had a great influence on later interpreters. Moreover, he placed his interpretation within a broad theological context. Augustine's treatment occurs in The City of God, in which he is trying to trace the origin, nature and development of the two cities (the society of those who love God and the society of those who love self). This is significant, because it fits his objective to view Genesis 6 as continuing the story of the two cities which, according to Augustine, emerges in Genesis 4 and 5. He writes of the passage, "By these two names [sons of God and daughters of men] the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For although the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace.... When they [the godly race] were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society."
This view fits into the pattern of Genesis 4 and 5. Moreover, it fits into the whole of Scripture in which, as Francis Schaeffer notes, "there is a constant prohibition against the people of God marrying those who are not people of God." If this is the proper interpretation of Genesis 6, the point is well taken.
THE SPIRITS IN PRISON
However, there are reasons for rejecting this interpretation in favor of the angelic or supernatural view, and it these we now come. The first reason is linguistic. That is, so far as the biblical use of the phrase "the sons of God" is concerned, there is every reason to it as referring to angels.
This has been denied by the side, of course. Keil and Delitzsch maintain that the angel view is "not warranted by the usages of the language" and is "altogether unscriptural." But what is the evidence? The phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim) is used only three other times in the Testament, as indicated earlier-in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In each case it clearly means spirit beings, twice those fallen spirits who accompanied Satan in his periodic appearances before the Lord in heaven. This is so clear that the translators of the New International Version drop the longer phrase entirely and simply substitute the word angels: "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came with them." (Job 1:6; cf. also 2:1). A similar form of this phrase (bar elohim used in Daniel 3:25 of the fourth figure Nebuchadnezzar saw when he looked into the burning furnace into which Daniel's three friends had been thrown. In this case it probably refers to a fallen angel or even a theophany, but the actual identity of the being involved is not given. Nebuchadnezzar merely says, "The fourth looks like a son of the gods."
An objection to this view says that the phrase "sons of God" is used in the New Testament of all believers, hence men and women, as opposed to angels or demons, and that it appears in Luke 3:38 specifically of Adam. But this actually proves the point. For what is it that distinguishes Adam (but not Eve), believers in the New Testament period (but not necessarily believers in the Old Testament period) and angels from all other beings in the universe? The answer is that each is directly created by God. Adam clearly was. So were the angels. Believers are termed "sons of God" because they are born of God directly by His Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8).
The second reason why the angel view of Genesis 6 should be preferred is that this was the view of the translators of the Septuagint, who rendered "sons of God" as "angels," and of other Jewish writers prior to the time of Christ. The key book is 1 Enoch. It is available to us through an Ethiopic text of which only three manuscripts survive. Yet in spite of this paucity of manuscripts it was probably "the most important pseudepigraph [a work written in the name of someone other than the actual author] of the first two centuries B.C.--the judgment of R. H. Charles.
Enoch writes, "And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'They were in all two hundred[They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments.... And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.... And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways" (chs. 6-8). The book continues by showing the judgment of God against the fallen angels, in which they are bound up in prison in "the uttermost depths" of the earth.
First Enoch is not a biblical book, of course. Its interpretation of Genesis 6 is not inspired. It could be wrong in many places and undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, it is significant for our interpretation of the text because it was apparently known by Peter and Jude who, in their oblique references to the same subject, seem to put their stamp of approval on it, at least in this matter.
Several studies ago, when we looked at Enoch and his preaching to the ungodly of his age, we quoted Jude 14, 15: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."' We did not mention it at the time because it was not pertinent then, but these words are actually from 1 Enoch. The phrase "seventh from Adam" is found in 1 Enoch 60:8. The prophecy itself, containing the fourfold repetition of the word "ungodly," is found in 1:9. Since Jude clearly has Enoch in view in verses 14 and 15, how can he not also have Enoch in view in verse 6, just eight and nine verses earlier, when he says that "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home" have been judged and "kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day"?
When we carry our inquiry to 2 Peter we find the same situation. To begin with, 2 Peter and Jude are closely related in that most of 2 Peter 2 is paralleled in Jude, and there are parallels in the other two chapters. This causes us to think that Peter, like Jude, was probably also aware of the angel interpretation. Again, Peter uses language similar to Jude's in referring to the angels who sinned. He speaks of God's judging the angels by "putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for [final] judgment" and of God's judging the people by flood.
We are moving in the same realm in 1 Peter, where Peter writes, "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20). This text adds the idea of a special ministry of Christ to these fallen angels during His descent to hell between the times of His death and resurrection. It does not mean that He offered the gospel to them; that would suggest that after death there is a "second chance" for salvation-a doctrine repudiated elsewhere (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 6:2). It is rather that Christ proclaimed His victory over sin and the devil to the demons. Peter refers to this event to encourage believers in their witness before this world's magistrates.
STRANGE FLESH
The third reason for preferring supernatural interpretation of Genesis is the way in which both 2 Peter Jude connect the judgment of God on the angels with the judgment of God on Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly the way in which Jude refers to the second incident. Apart from the language of Jude the connection could simply be that of two obvious examples of great judgment. But Jude seems to say more, after having spoken of the judgment the angels for their sin, he goes on to say, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and version" (v. 7). In this verse the comparison is not in the matter of judgment itself. Jude does not say, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged." The comparison is rather in the area of the sin that occasioned the judgment, and this, as Jude shows, was sexual sin of a particular kind. In modern versions this is hidden by translations as "sexual immorality perversion" (NIV, PHILLIPS) or "unnatural lust/s" (RSV, NEB). But the Authorized Version is closer to the Greek text when it speaks of the Sodomites as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh" [sarkos heteras]. The men of Sodom did this in desiring sexual relations with the angels who come to visit Abram and Lot (Gen. 19). The implication would be that in doing so they recapitulated the sin angels of Genesis 6, who "in a similar way" had desired relationships with women.
The objection to this supposed union of angel flesh and human flesh is that the angels are supposed to be sexless, since Jesus said, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). But this is not the equivalent of saying that the angels are sexless or that they could not have had sexual relations with women if they had chosen to do so. In heaven human beings will not marry but will nevertheless retain their identity, which includes their being either male or female. In the same way, the angels could also have sexual identities. It is significant perhaps that when the angels are referred to in Scripture it is always with the masculine pronoun "he," and they are always described as men. So, as Henry M. Morris says, "When Jesus said that the angels in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so."
The final point of evidence for the angel view of Genesis 6 is the reference to the giants or Nephilim in verse 4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Since we have no information about the results of an angel/human union, except what is found here, it is impossible to argue how such a union might produce giants. It is enough to say that it is conceivable that this could happen and that this is the probable meaning of verse 4. The New International Version has hedged its translation by refusing to translate, simply transliterating the Hebrew word Nephilim. But in Numbers 13:33 the word clearly means giants (though not necessarily those produced by an intermarriage of angels and human beings). What would be more natural than that this union would produce the "mighty men" of antiquity? Since this verse specifically refers to the "heroes of old," what would be more probable than that this is the origin of those stories of half- human-half- divine figures present in virtually all ancient mythologies? The stories of Homer and other writers would be embellished, of course, but they probably reflect memories of these ancient outstanding figures of the pre-Flood period.
BACK AT THE RANCH
A study like this involves so many technical details that it is easy to find oneself wondering about the point of it all and asking whether the outcome really matters. In one sense, the natural interpretation is quite valid and its point well taken. But I am convinced that to view Genesis 6 in this way is actually to lose something important.
Earlier we pointed out that one thing in favor of the natural interpretation is that it seems to fit in well with the general theme of chapters 4 and 5, namely, the contrast between the godly and the ungodly lines. But this is not the only contrast we have seen in the opening section of Genesis. What of the serpent? What of Satan? What of his desire to subvert the race and draw men and women after himself against God? If Genesis 6 does not refer to demonic activity, Satan apparently fades out of the picture entirely after chapter 3. But if Genesis 6 refers to a further attempt by Satan to pervert the race, then we have a reminder of his continuing hostility not only to God but to ourselves as well.
Satan was in the garden when the promise of a deliverer was given. He heard God say, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Gen. 3:15). Like Eve, he too must have thought that Cain, the woman's offspring, was the deliverer and must therefore have plotted to turn him into a murderer. He succeeded! He corrupted Cain by getting him to murder Abel, thereby eliminating one of Eve's children and rendering the other unfit to be the Savior. Yet Satan failed! For, as he was soon to learn, God simply continued on His unruffled way to develop the godly line through which the deliverer would eventually be born. What was Satan to do now? At this point he conceived the plan of corrupting the entire race by the intermarriage of demons and human beings. The Savior could not be born of a demon-possessed mother. So if Satan could succeed in infecting the entire race, the deliverer could not come. In narrating this incident, Genesis 6 is saying, in effect, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch the villain is still hatching his plots."
Satan is still doing it today. Because he is a being who learns by experience, he is a much wiser and more dangerous devil today than he was in the time before the Flood. A person who knows this and who knows that we struggle "not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world a against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12), will fear Satan and draw near to Jesus, who has defeated him.
Again, there is this practical application. Without detracting in the slightest from the fact that the Flood was a real judgment of God on the ungodliness men and women and consequently warning of an even greater judgment come, we can also see that it was at the same time an act of the marvelous grace of God. For in preserving the race intact uncontaminated by Satan's attempts demonic perversion, God actually provided for our salvation through keeping open the way for the Redeemer to come. If Satan had succeeded, Jesus could n have been born and the race as whole--including Adam and Seth a Enoch and all the rest--would have been lost. But by destroying the contaminated race and saving uncontaminated Noah and his immediate uncontaminated family and by binding the demons who participated in this great sin in Hades until the final judgment God made the salvation to be achieved by Christ both sure and possible."
http://ldolphin.org/nephilim.html
Sons of God/Daughters of Men
"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:1-4)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The first verses of Genesis 6 are transition verses. On the one hand, they wrap up the pre-Flood history of the earlier chapters, showing the state of degeneracy to which the race had fallen. On the other hand, they prepare for the story of Noah and the Flood that follows; it was because of this degeneracy that the Flood came. Unfortunately, the meaning of these verses is not self-evident. They have raised questions that have been discussed for years.
The passage tells us that "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (vv. 1, 2). This apparently straightforward statement is actually confusing because the subject of the sentence might refer to either of two things. "The sons of God" might mean descendants of the godly line of Seth, who according to this interpretation would be said to have married unbelieving women. Or it might refer to angels, as do the only other exact uses of the phrase in the Old Testament (Job. 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
The thing that makes these verses so interesting is that three New Testament passages seem to refer to them: 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4, 5; and Jude 6, 7. These passages say in part: "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20); "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others" (2 Peter 2:4, 5); and "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day" (Jude 6).
If these passages are related, as they seem to be, the incident of Genesis 6 has bearing on the doctrines of judgment, the afterlife, and even the work of Christ following His crucifixion but before His resurrection or ascension. The New Testament verses explain what Christ was doing when, as we say in the Apostles' Creed, "he descended into hell."
THE GODLY AND THE UNGODLY
The interpretation of Genesis 6 which takes "the sons of God" as referring to the godly line of Seth is most natural since it avoids the obvious problem of how spirit beings could copulate with humans. Moreover, it has weighty support in that it is the view of many theological giants of church history. It is not an early view-we will come back to that later-but it appears in such thinkers as Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church, and is adopted by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and their followers.
Of the early views Augustine's is most important because he had a great influence on later interpreters. Moreover, he placed his interpretation within a broad theological context. Augustine's treatment occurs in The City of God, in which he is trying to trace the origin, nature and development of the two cities (the society of those who love God and the society of those who love self). This is significant, because it fits his objective to view Genesis 6 as continuing the story of the two cities which, according to Augustine, emerges in Genesis 4 and 5. He writes of the passage, "By these two names [sons of God and daughters of men] the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For although the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace.... When they [the godly race] were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society."
This view fits into the pattern of Genesis 4 and 5. Moreover, it fits into the whole of Scripture in which, as Francis Schaeffer notes, "there is a constant prohibition against the people of God marrying those who are not people of God." If this is the proper interpretation of Genesis 6, the point is well taken.
THE SPIRITS IN PRISON
However, there are reasons for rejecting this interpretation in favor of the angelic or supernatural view, and it these we now come. The first reason is linguistic. That is, so far as the biblical use of the phrase "the sons of God" is concerned, there is every reason to it as referring to angels.
This has been denied by the side, of course. Keil and Delitzsch maintain that the angel view is "not warranted by the usages of the language" and is "altogether unscriptural." But what is the evidence? The phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim) is used only three other times in the Testament, as indicated earlier-in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In each case it clearly means spirit beings, twice those fallen spirits who accompanied Satan in his periodic appearances before the Lord in heaven. This is so clear that the translators of the New International Version drop the longer phrase entirely and simply substitute the word angels: "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came with them." (Job 1:6; cf. also 2:1). A similar form of this phrase (bar elohim used in Daniel 3:25 of the fourth figure Nebuchadnezzar saw when he looked into the burning furnace into which Daniel's three friends had been thrown. In this case it probably refers to a fallen angel or even a theophany, but the actual identity of the being involved is not given. Nebuchadnezzar merely says, "The fourth looks like a son of the gods."
An objection to this view says that the phrase "sons of God" is used in the New Testament of all believers, hence men and women, as opposed to angels or demons, and that it appears in Luke 3:38 specifically of Adam. But this actually proves the point. For what is it that distinguishes Adam (but not Eve), believers in the New Testament period (but not necessarily believers in the Old Testament period) and angels from all other beings in the universe? The answer is that each is directly created by God. Adam clearly was. So were the angels. Believers are termed "sons of God" because they are born of God directly by His Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8).
The second reason why the angel view of Genesis 6 should be preferred is that this was the view of the translators of the Septuagint, who rendered "sons of God" as "angels," and of other Jewish writers prior to the time of Christ. The key book is 1 Enoch. It is available to us through an Ethiopic text of which only three manuscripts survive. Yet in spite of this paucity of manuscripts it was probably "the most important pseudepigraph [a work written in the name of someone other than the actual author] of the first two centuries B.C.--the judgment of R. H. Charles.
Enoch writes, "And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'They were in all two hundred[They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments.... And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.... And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways" (chs. 6-8). The book continues by showing the judgment of God against the fallen angels, in which they are bound up in prison in "the uttermost depths" of the earth.
First Enoch is not a biblical book, of course. Its interpretation of Genesis 6 is not inspired. It could be wrong in many places and undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, it is significant for our interpretation of the text because it was apparently known by Peter and Jude who, in their oblique references to the same subject, seem to put their stamp of approval on it, at least in this matter.
Several studies ago, when we looked at Enoch and his preaching to the ungodly of his age, we quoted Jude 14, 15: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."' We did not mention it at the time because it was not pertinent then, but these words are actually from 1 Enoch. The phrase "seventh from Adam" is found in 1 Enoch 60:8. The prophecy itself, containing the fourfold repetition of the word "ungodly," is found in 1:9. Since Jude clearly has Enoch in view in verses 14 and 15, how can he not also have Enoch in view in verse 6, just eight and nine verses earlier, when he says that "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home" have been judged and "kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day"?
When we carry our inquiry to 2 Peter we find the same situation. To begin with, 2 Peter and Jude are closely related in that most of 2 Peter 2 is paralleled in Jude, and there are parallels in the other two chapters. This causes us to think that Peter, like Jude, was probably also aware of the angel interpretation. Again, Peter uses language similar to Jude's in referring to the angels who sinned. He speaks of God's judging the angels by "putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for [final] judgment" and of God's judging the people by flood.
We are moving in the same realm in 1 Peter, where Peter writes, "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20). This text adds the idea of a special ministry of Christ to these fallen angels during His descent to hell between the times of His death and resurrection. It does not mean that He offered the gospel to them; that would suggest that after death there is a "second chance" for salvation-a doctrine repudiated elsewhere (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 6:2). It is rather that Christ proclaimed His victory over sin and the devil to the demons. Peter refers to this event to encourage believers in their witness before this world's magistrates.
STRANGE FLESH
The third reason for preferring supernatural interpretation of Genesis is the way in which both 2 Peter Jude connect the judgment of God on the angels with the judgment of God on Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly the way in which Jude refers to the second incident. Apart from the language of Jude the connection could simply be that of two obvious examples of great judgment. But Jude seems to say more, after having spoken of the judgment the angels for their sin, he goes on to say, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and version" (v. 7). In this verse the comparison is not in the matter of judgment itself. Jude does not say, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged." The comparison is rather in the area of the sin that occasioned the judgment, and this, as Jude shows, was sexual sin of a particular kind. In modern versions this is hidden by translations as "sexual immorality perversion" (NIV, PHILLIPS) or "unnatural lust/s" (RSV, NEB). But the Authorized Version is closer to the Greek text when it speaks of the Sodomites as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh" [sarkos heteras]. The men of Sodom did this in desiring sexual relations with the angels who come to visit Abram and Lot (Gen. 19). The implication would be that in doing so they recapitulated the sin angels of Genesis 6, who "in a similar way" had desired relationships with women.
The objection to this supposed union of angel flesh and human flesh is that the angels are supposed to be sexless, since Jesus said, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). But this is not the equivalent of saying that the angels are sexless or that they could not have had sexual relations with women if they had chosen to do so. In heaven human beings will not marry but will nevertheless retain their identity, which includes their being either male or female. In the same way, the angels could also have sexual identities. It is significant perhaps that when the angels are referred to in Scripture it is always with the masculine pronoun "he," and they are always described as men. So, as Henry M. Morris says, "When Jesus said that the angels in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so."
The final point of evidence for the angel view of Genesis 6 is the reference to the giants or Nephilim in verse 4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Since we have no information about the results of an angel/human union, except what is found here, it is impossible to argue how such a union might produce giants. It is enough to say that it is conceivable that this could happen and that this is the probable meaning of verse 4. The New International Version has hedged its translation by refusing to translate, simply transliterating the Hebrew word Nephilim. But in Numbers 13:33 the word clearly means giants (though not necessarily those produced by an intermarriage of angels and human beings). What would be more natural than that this union would produce the "mighty men" of antiquity? Since this verse specifically refers to the "heroes of old," what would be more probable than that this is the origin of those stories of half- human-half- divine figures present in virtually all ancient mythologies? The stories of Homer and other writers would be embellished, of course, but they probably reflect memories of these ancient outstanding figures of the pre-Flood period.
BACK AT THE RANCH
A study like this involves so many technical details that it is easy to find oneself wondering about the point of it all and asking whether the outcome really matters. In one sense, the natural interpretation is quite valid and its point well taken. But I am convinced that to view Genesis 6 in this way is actually to lose something important.
Earlier we pointed out that one thing in favor of the natural interpretation is that it seems to fit in well with the general theme of chapters 4 and 5, namely, the contrast between the godly and the ungodly lines. But this is not the only contrast we have seen in the opening section of Genesis. What of the serpent? What of Satan? What of his desire to subvert the race and draw men and women after himself against God? If Genesis 6 does not refer to demonic activity, Satan apparently fades out of the picture entirely after chapter 3. But if Genesis 6 refers to a further attempt by Satan to pervert the race, then we have a reminder of his continuing hostility not only to God but to ourselves as well.
Satan was in the garden when the promise of a deliverer was given. He heard God say, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Gen. 3:15). Like Eve, he too must have thought that Cain, the woman's offspring, was the deliverer and must therefore have plotted to turn him into a murderer. He succeeded! He corrupted Cain by getting him to murder Abel, thereby eliminating one of Eve's children and rendering the other unfit to be the Savior. Yet Satan failed! For, as he was soon to learn, God simply continued on His unruffled way to develop the godly line through which the deliverer would eventually be born. What was Satan to do now? At this point he conceived the plan of corrupting the entire race by the intermarriage of demons and human beings. The Savior could not be born of a demon-possessed mother. So if Satan could succeed in infecting the entire race, the deliverer could not come. In narrating this incident, Genesis 6 is saying, in effect, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch the villain is still hatching his plots."
Satan is still doing it today. Because he is a being who learns by experience, he is a much wiser and more dangerous devil today than he was in the time before the Flood. A person who knows this and who knows that we struggle "not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world a against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12), will fear Satan and draw near to Jesus, who has defeated him.
Again, there is this practical application. Without detracting in the slightest from the fact that the Flood was a real judgment of God on the ungodliness men and women and consequently warning of an even greater judgment come, we can also see that it was at the same time an act of the marvelous grace of God. For in preserving the race intact uncontaminated by Satan's attempts demonic perversion, God actually provided for our salvation through keeping open the way for the Redeemer to come. If Satan had succeeded, Jesus could n have been born and the race as whole--including Adam and Seth a Enoch and all the rest--would have been lost. But by destroying the contaminated race and saving uncontaminated Noah and his immediate uncontaminated family and by binding the demons who participated in this great sin in Hades until the final judgment God made the salvation to be achieved by Christ both sure and possible."
http://ldolphin.org/nephilim.html
Apr 22, 2008
Anti Invitationalism Gone To Seed?
I am willing to debate the following proposition and occupy the affirmative:
"The Scriptures teach that it is proper for sinners to ask Christ to come into their hearts and lives for salvation or to give their hearts to Christ."
I have been affirming that those who decry these two gospel invitations are either Hyper Calvinists or mighty close to it. Their declamations are at least the kinds made by Hyper Calvinists such as the Hardshell Baptists.
One of the things that is characteristic of the Hyperists is their denunciations against invitations that invite sinners to "Give your heart to the Lord" or to "Ask Jesus into your heart or life" to become a Christian. Notice how one writer, calling himself a Christian and a bible believer, ridicules this type of gospel invitation.
"Do we not realize that such a practice is found NOWHERE in the entire Bible? Is there ANY example of someone "asking Jesus into their heart" (or similar) to become a Christian in the book of Acts? NO - NOT EVEN ONE. The book of Acts is full of literally thousands of people becoming born-again Christians. And we are often told exactly what these people did. But there is no record of any of them doing anything like "asking Jesus into their heart" to be saved." (Andrew Strom)
http://www.revivalschool.com/ask.html
I will shortly demonstrate just how scriptural are the two types of invitations which are often decried by today's "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" Baptists. But, why does this brother limit us to the Book of Acts for authority for these two invitations? But, I will show how the invitations and commands in the Book of Acts regarding conversion do not contradict this idea or kind of invitation. But, before I do that, I wish to notice a couple other sources from the internet to give the reader a sampling of the kind of hullabaloo that these Hyperists are raising relative to these two kinds of invitations.
One writer even had a web site where she titled her writing - "Why NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (Carol Brooks)
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dont_ask_jesus_into_your_heart.html
Another writer has an article titled - "Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (By Todd Friel) All I can say to start with is- unbelievable!
He writes:
"Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved...is not. If you asked Jesus into your heart because you were told that is what you have to do to become a Christian, you were mis-informed.
If you have ever told someone to ask Jesus into their heart (like I have), you produced a false convert. Here is why.
1. It is not in the Bible. There is not a single verse that even hints we should say a prayer inviting Jesus into our hearts. Some use Rev. 3:20. To tell us that Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts begging to come in. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." There are two reasons that interpretation is wrong. The context tells us that the door Jesus is knocking on is the door of the church, not the human heart. Jesus is not knocking to enter someone's heart but to have fellowship with His church. Even if the context didn't tell us this, we would be forcing a meaning into the text (eisegesis). How do we know it is our heart he is knocking at? Why not our car door? How do we know he isn't knocking on our foot? To suggest that he is knocking on the door of our heart is superimposing a meaning on the text that simply does not exist. The Bible does not instruct us to ask Jesus into our heart. This alone should resolve the issue, nevertheless, here are nine more reasons."
Is all that not unbelievable coming from a professing Christian? No, Revelation 3: 20 DOES justify the gospel invitation to let Christ inside the heart and life! I wrote on this recently and here is what I said.
Another saying that many Hyper Calvinists make against what they perceive as improper gospel invitations is to say - "it is not scriptural to call upon sinners to open their heart's door to Christ." How they can say this in view of Revelation 3: 20 is amazing.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
When these people are confronted with these words of invitation, they rarely give up on their stubborn opposition to such kinds of gospel invitations. So, they attempt to explain the verse as either 1) not applying at all to unregenerate souls, but only to regenerate ones, or 2) else say that the invitation is not to open the door of the heart but rather that of the church.
But, such "argumentation" only belies a stubborness against the belief that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation." Every Hardshell Hyperist "interprets" this invitation as applying only to born again people.
Two rebuttal points are to be made in regard to this "interpretation." First, how anyone can legitimately say that such adjectives as "wretched, miserable, poor, and blind, and naked" can be said to be appropriate for only the born again children of God, is truly amazing. It is no "argument" at all either for the Hyperists to say that this letter, and these words, are addressed to church members. This proves nothing unless it can be proven that churches are always composed only of those who are truly regenerate. Clearly the invitation is to those in the visible assembly who did not have Christ within them supping and dwelling with them!
Secondly, how the Hyperist can eliminate the heart from this invitation is also bewildering. The church is the people, and Christ's knocking to get within the church is no different from his desire to get inside their hearts. Why is the Hyperist so intent in not making this door the door to the heart and soul?
Our writer continues:
"2. Asking Jesus into your heart is a saying that makes no sense. What does it mean to ask Jesus into your heart? If I say the right incantation will He somehow enter my heart? Is it literal? Does He reside in the upper or lower ventricle? Is this a metaphysical experience? Is it figurative? If it is, what exactly does it mean? While I am certain that most adults cannot articulate its meaning, I am certain that no child can explain it. Pastor Dennis Rokser reminds us that little children think literally and can easily be confused (or frightened) at the prospect of asking Jesus into their heart."
"3. In order to be saved, a man must repent (Acts 2:38). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of repentance.
"4. In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith."
Same response as above!
He continues:
"5. The person who wrongly believes they are saved will have a false sense of security. Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure. They live in doubt and fear because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them assurance of salvation."
How has he shown that giving invitation to sinners to receive Christ into their hearts by faith PRODUCES such false professors? At least any more than Christ taught would make false professions, even by proper invitations, in the parable of the sower?
He continues:
"6. The person who asks Jesus into his heart will likely end up inoculated, bitter and backslidden. Because he did not get saved by reciting a formulaic prayer, he will grow disillusioned with Jesus, the Bible, church and fellow believers. His latter end will be worse than the first."
How does he know this? Why is he so opposed to the idea of sinners receiving Christ into their hearts? And, what is the difference between telling sinners to "receive Christ into your heart" versus telling them to "ask (or invite) Christ into your heart"?
"The Scriptures teach that it is proper for sinners to ask Christ to come into their hearts and lives for salvation or to give their hearts to Christ."
I have been affirming that those who decry these two gospel invitations are either Hyper Calvinists or mighty close to it. Their declamations are at least the kinds made by Hyper Calvinists such as the Hardshell Baptists.
One of the things that is characteristic of the Hyperists is their denunciations against invitations that invite sinners to "Give your heart to the Lord" or to "Ask Jesus into your heart or life" to become a Christian. Notice how one writer, calling himself a Christian and a bible believer, ridicules this type of gospel invitation.
"Do we not realize that such a practice is found NOWHERE in the entire Bible? Is there ANY example of someone "asking Jesus into their heart" (or similar) to become a Christian in the book of Acts? NO - NOT EVEN ONE. The book of Acts is full of literally thousands of people becoming born-again Christians. And we are often told exactly what these people did. But there is no record of any of them doing anything like "asking Jesus into their heart" to be saved." (Andrew Strom)
http://www.revivalschool.com/ask.html
I will shortly demonstrate just how scriptural are the two types of invitations which are often decried by today's "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" Baptists. But, why does this brother limit us to the Book of Acts for authority for these two invitations? But, I will show how the invitations and commands in the Book of Acts regarding conversion do not contradict this idea or kind of invitation. But, before I do that, I wish to notice a couple other sources from the internet to give the reader a sampling of the kind of hullabaloo that these Hyperists are raising relative to these two kinds of invitations.
One writer even had a web site where she titled her writing - "Why NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (Carol Brooks)
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dont_ask_jesus_into_your_heart.html
Another writer has an article titled - "Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (By Todd Friel) All I can say to start with is- unbelievable!
He writes:
"Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved...is not. If you asked Jesus into your heart because you were told that is what you have to do to become a Christian, you were mis-informed.
If you have ever told someone to ask Jesus into their heart (like I have), you produced a false convert. Here is why.
1. It is not in the Bible. There is not a single verse that even hints we should say a prayer inviting Jesus into our hearts. Some use Rev. 3:20. To tell us that Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts begging to come in. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." There are two reasons that interpretation is wrong. The context tells us that the door Jesus is knocking on is the door of the church, not the human heart. Jesus is not knocking to enter someone's heart but to have fellowship with His church. Even if the context didn't tell us this, we would be forcing a meaning into the text (eisegesis). How do we know it is our heart he is knocking at? Why not our car door? How do we know he isn't knocking on our foot? To suggest that he is knocking on the door of our heart is superimposing a meaning on the text that simply does not exist. The Bible does not instruct us to ask Jesus into our heart. This alone should resolve the issue, nevertheless, here are nine more reasons."
Is all that not unbelievable coming from a professing Christian? No, Revelation 3: 20 DOES justify the gospel invitation to let Christ inside the heart and life! I wrote on this recently and here is what I said.
Another saying that many Hyper Calvinists make against what they perceive as improper gospel invitations is to say - "it is not scriptural to call upon sinners to open their heart's door to Christ." How they can say this in view of Revelation 3: 20 is amazing.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
When these people are confronted with these words of invitation, they rarely give up on their stubborn opposition to such kinds of gospel invitations. So, they attempt to explain the verse as either 1) not applying at all to unregenerate souls, but only to regenerate ones, or 2) else say that the invitation is not to open the door of the heart but rather that of the church.
But, such "argumentation" only belies a stubborness against the belief that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation." Every Hardshell Hyperist "interprets" this invitation as applying only to born again people.
Two rebuttal points are to be made in regard to this "interpretation." First, how anyone can legitimately say that such adjectives as "wretched, miserable, poor, and blind, and naked" can be said to be appropriate for only the born again children of God, is truly amazing. It is no "argument" at all either for the Hyperists to say that this letter, and these words, are addressed to church members. This proves nothing unless it can be proven that churches are always composed only of those who are truly regenerate. Clearly the invitation is to those in the visible assembly who did not have Christ within them supping and dwelling with them!
Secondly, how the Hyperist can eliminate the heart from this invitation is also bewildering. The church is the people, and Christ's knocking to get within the church is no different from his desire to get inside their hearts. Why is the Hyperist so intent in not making this door the door to the heart and soul?
Our writer continues:
"2. Asking Jesus into your heart is a saying that makes no sense. What does it mean to ask Jesus into your heart? If I say the right incantation will He somehow enter my heart? Is it literal? Does He reside in the upper or lower ventricle? Is this a metaphysical experience? Is it figurative? If it is, what exactly does it mean? While I am certain that most adults cannot articulate its meaning, I am certain that no child can explain it. Pastor Dennis Rokser reminds us that little children think literally and can easily be confused (or frightened) at the prospect of asking Jesus into their heart."
What rantings! And such as are unworthy of a professing Christian! This brother thinks that because some sinners do not know exactly what they are doing when they are asked to receive Christ into their hearts, therefore it should not be done! Yet, he believes that sinners must be called upon to repent, believe, and to trust Christ. But, have there not been many sinners who have likewise thought they have done this when they knew not the meaning of what they are doing? Does this brother not know that "the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself wrong"? Does he not know what is meant by the old saying - "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater"?
Is this brother not being stubbornly silly? If someone is giving an invitation, in Christ's stead, ought he not to explain to the sinner what it means? Yes! But the same is true with believing, repenting, and trusting Christ! Does this brother not know that the Greek word "cardia" means the inner thoughts or mind?
Anyway, he continues with his ranting diatribe, saying:"3. In order to be saved, a man must repent (Acts 2:38). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of repentance.
That my friends is truly a non sequiter! Asking Jesus into one's heart absolutely does involve repentance! If some preacher is giving such an invitation and has not made that point clear, then yes, such an invitation will not be as beneficial. Surely! Brother, Jesus entering a man's heart will produce repentance!
The brother says further:"4. In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith."
Same response as above!
He continues:
"5. The person who wrongly believes they are saved will have a false sense of security. Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure. They live in doubt and fear because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them assurance of salvation."
How has he shown that giving invitation to sinners to receive Christ into their hearts by faith PRODUCES such false professors? At least any more than Christ taught would make false professions, even by proper invitations, in the parable of the sower?
He continues:
"6. The person who asks Jesus into his heart will likely end up inoculated, bitter and backslidden. Because he did not get saved by reciting a formulaic prayer, he will grow disillusioned with Jesus, the Bible, church and fellow believers. His latter end will be worse than the first."
How does he know this? Why is he so opposed to the idea of sinners receiving Christ into their hearts? And, what is the difference between telling sinners to "receive Christ into your heart" versus telling them to "ask (or invite) Christ into your heart"?
He continues:
"7. It presents God as a beggar just hoping you will let Him into your busy life. This presentation of God robs Him of His sovereignty."
Brother, God is presented as begging, pleading, and urging sinners! Have we been reading the same bible? In any case, some of the scriptures to follow, at the end of this rebuttal, demonstrate the fact that Christ and the Spirit pleads with sinners in the gospel and by his servants speaking on behalf of God.
He says further:
"8. The cause of Christ is ridiculed. Visit an atheist web-site and read the pagans who scoff, "How dare those Christians tell us how to live when they get divorced more than we do? Who are they to say homosexuals shouldn't adopt kids when tens of thousands of orphans don't get adopted by Christians?" Born again believers adopt kids and don't get divorced. People who ask Jesus into their hearts do. Jesus gets mocked when false converts give Him a bad name."
Yes, hypocrites do harm the gospel witness. So, what does this prove? Has he proven that such gospel invitations as he condemns produces more hypocrites than the seed sown in the parable?
He says further:
"9. The cause of evangelism is hindered. While it is certainly easier to get church members by telling them to ask Jesus into their hearts, try pleading with someone to make today the day of their salvation. Get ready for a painful response. "Why should I become a Christian when I have seen so called Christians act worse than a pagan?" People who ask Jesus into their hearts give pagans an excuse for not repenting."
That latter statement is exactly the kind that we would expect godless atheists to say! Ironic is it not? But notice how our brother goes even further in his final "reason" for not asking or commanding sinners to receive Christ into their hearts.
He says:
"10. Here is the scary one. People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. How tragic that millions of people think they are right with God when they are not. How many people who will cry out, "Lord, Lord" on judgment day will be "Christians" who asked Jesus into their hearts? So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. ( Heb.6:1) The Bible makes it clear that all men must repent and place their trust in Jesus Christ. Every man does have a "God shaped hole in their hearts," but that hole is not contentment, fulfillment and peace. Every man's heart problem is righteousness. Instead of preaching that Jesus fulfills, we must preach that God judges and Jesus satisfies God's judgment...if a man will repent and place his trust in Him."
"If you are reading this and you asked Jesus into your heart, chances are good you had a spiritual buzz for a while, but now you struggle to read your Bible, tithe, attend church and pray. Perhaps you were told you would have contentment, purpose and a better life if you just ask Jesus into your heart. I am sorry, that was a lie. If you have been preaching that people should ask Jesus into their hearts, I beg you to stop immediately. You will give an account for all the souls you have led astray. Learn how to share the gospel simply, effectively, biblically, the way Jesus did."
http://forum.cmcentral.com/index.php?act=ST&f=0&t=46909
Cannot my Hyperist brethren see where their ridiculing of gospel invitations has created the kind of spirit that this brother manifests? He says that all are lost who ask Christ into their hearts! Unbelievable!
"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Luke 11: 9, 10 NIV)
"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1: 11, 12 NIV)
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10: 43 NIV)
"As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain." (II Corinthians 6: 1 NIV)
"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Galatians 3: 2 NIV)
"He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." (Galatians 3: 14 NIV)
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him." (Colossians 2: 6 NIV)
"But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life." (I Timothy 1: 16 NIV)
"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." (James 1: 5-8 NIV)
"When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4: 3 NIV)
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." (I Peter 3: 15 NIV)
"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul..." (Deuteronomy 11: 18 NIV)
"Thou hast given him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips. Selah." (Psalm 21: 2 NIV)
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." (Psalm 27: 8 NIV)
"Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." (Psalm 37: 4 NIV)
"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." (Psalm 51: 10 NIV)
"Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah." (Psalm 62: 8 NIV)
"...your heart shall live that seek God." (Psalm 69: 32 NIV)
"My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways." (Proverbs 23: 26 NIV)
"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." (Mark 7: 18-20 NIV)
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12: 34 NIV)
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 18: 37 NIV)
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14 NIV)
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (I Corinthians 2: 9 NIV)
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Corinthians 1: 22 NIV)
"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4: 6 NIV)
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith..." (Ephesians 3: 17 NIV)
"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts..." (Colossians 3: 15 NIV)
I say all these verses basically say "receive Christ into your heart" or "let Christ rule in your heart." Do they not?
Jun 6, 2020
White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVII
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.
Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.
Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.
In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:
"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the covenantal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apostle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Christianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as exceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."
This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)
Gentry continued:
"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seventieth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confirmation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestablished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."
Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."
If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued:
"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?
In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the major figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).
The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for punishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her transgression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judgment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expiration of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefinite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not occur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Matthew 24:15.
My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" as a parenthesis.
When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.
When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":
"Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rapture.[36] The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading arguments for a gap.
First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cutting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."
But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.
Gentry responded:
"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRondelle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an explanation is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventieth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the preceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period covered by the seventieth week."
Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."
Gentry continued:
"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]
I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Temple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."
Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."
Gentry continued:
"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not describe the period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Testament prophecy can merge the First and Second Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Consequently, we have Biblical warrant for understanding the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."
The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.
Gentry continued:
"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events mentioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."
Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.
Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:
"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]
Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:
The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."
"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.
Gentry continued:
"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the covenant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]
The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the covenant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “confirms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cutting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is related to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Temple are providentially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."
The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.
This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.
Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.
Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.
In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:
"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the covenantal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apostle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Christianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as exceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."
This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)
Gentry continued:
"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seventieth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confirmation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestablished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."
Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."
If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued:
"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?
In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the major figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).
The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for punishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her transgression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judgment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expiration of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefinite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not occur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Matthew 24:15.
My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" as a parenthesis.
When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.
When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":
"Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rapture.[36] The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading arguments for a gap.
First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cutting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."
But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.
Gentry responded:
"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRondelle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an explanation is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventieth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the preceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period covered by the seventieth week."
Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."
Gentry continued:
"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]
I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Temple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."
Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."
Gentry continued:
"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not describe the period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Testament prophecy can merge the First and Second Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Consequently, we have Biblical warrant for understanding the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."
The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.
Gentry continued:
"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events mentioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."
Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.
Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:
"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]
Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:
The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."
"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.
Gentry continued:
"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the covenant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]
The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the covenant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “confirms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cutting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is related to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Temple are providentially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."
The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)