v4n1 Mitch

CTSJ 4:1 (January 1998) p.
1
The Holy Spirits Intercessory Ministry

Curtis C. Mitchell, Th.M., Th.D. *
Chafer Theological Seminary
[*Editors note: Curtis Mitchell earned his B.A. at Biola
University, B.D. at Talbot School of Theology, Th.M. at Western
Seminary, and Th.D. at Grace Theological Seminary. He taught for
nearly 25 years at Biola University and is now Professor of
Biblical Studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. NB: Dallas
Theological Seminary granted permission to print Dr. Mitchells
article, which one may also find in Bibliotheca Sacra, The Holy
Spirits Intercessory Ministry (vol. 139, #555; July 1982; 230
240).]
Of all the chapters in the Book of Romans, none has been more cherished by
Gods people than chapter 8. Yet, of the many wonderful promises we find in the
chapter, perhaps none is less understood and appreciated than the promise of the
Spirits help in relation to believers praying.
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not
know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself
makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit
is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the
will of God (Romans 8:2627).
No serious textual problems exist in the passage, but exegetical difficulties
abound. The problems begin with the first word likewise (hosautos). It is a
rather common adverb of comparison used quite frequently by Paul when he
desires to show a close connection with the context.
Scholars hold three views on the relationship of these verses to the context.
Most feel that likewise refers to the broad context in verses 1925 (on
groaning).
1
Others tie likewise in with the broader context of the Spirits

1
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1977). 1:420; W. Hendriksen, Romans, 2 vols., New Testament
Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:273; Ernst Ksemann, Commentary
on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1980), 240.
ministry begun back in verse 14.
2
Some consider such attempts to tie the passage
into the broad context as rather fanciful.
3

CTSJ 4:1 (January 1998) p. 3
They prefer to view the connection with the immediate context: as hope supports
believers during suffering and enables them to wait patiently (8:25), so
() the Spirit helps them in their weakness.
4
Strange as it may seem, the
contextual considerations have little or no bearing on the actual interpretation of
the verses themselves.
The Need for the Spirits Intercession
The obvious fact of the passage is the blessed assurance that the Spirit helps
our weakness.
5
Indeed, a primary ministry of the Spirit in this present era is to be
a Helper (, John 16:7). Paul uses helps (),
a rich word, to convey the idea of help. It pictures a man struggling with a heavy
load beyond his ability to carry it alone.
6
Fortunately another person comes along
and agrees to take hold of one end of the load. So instead of the man having to
carry the burden himself, it is now shared and the two men carry the load that was
too much for the one man alone.
The Holy Spirit does not take over Christians responsibilities and give them
automatic deliverance without effort on their part. That would certainly not be
envisioned in the word helps. Paul does not teach a doctrine of passivity here.
Clearly the Holy Spirit did not come to do His work and the believers too; rather,
He came to help them with theirs.
7
The personal involvement of the Holy Spirit in
helping is seen not only by the use of the articulated noun the Spirit (
), but also by the middle voice of the verb helps. The Holy Spirit is
personally involved in helping the saints. The present tense of this same verb

2
Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 95; D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: The
Final Perseverance of the Saints (8:1739) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975),
121; John Knox, The Epistle to the Romans, in The Interpreters Bible, ed. George Arthur
Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953), 9:552.
3
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1961), 545.
4
Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1950), 436; Lenski, Romans, 545; Henry C. Thiessen, The Holy Spirit in the
Epistle to the Romans, (Th.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY,
1929). 100.
5
All Scripture quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.
6
Hendriksen, Romans, 275; Lenski, Romans, 545; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 132; A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman
Press. 1934), 573.
7
Thiessen, The Holy Spirit, 102; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 133.
indicates that this blessed Holy Spirit is always ready to come to their aid and
assistance.
8
The Holy Spirit helps our weakness ( ). The word
weakness occurs many times in the New Testament. The word is rarely used of
purely physical weakness, but is frequently used in a comprehensive sense of
human frailty in general.
9
The vast majority understand weakness in this
passage as mans fundamental ineptness as a result of the Fall.
10
Evidently the
weakness has no moral connotations. No rebuke is suggested toward saints who
have weakness. Even Christ in His incarnate state was said to be beset with
weakness. Most certainly the Lord God could well have been pleased to deliver
saints completely from all effects of the Fall at the moment of regeneration, but
obviously He has ordained otherwise.
11
Against such a backdrop He can evidently
best display His power and bring greater glory to Himself.
12
Paul next takes up a special manifestation of this weakness. The way it
shows itself in saints most acutely and perhaps most frequently is in the realm of
prayer. Paul states, for we do not know how to pray as we should. The word
for () introduces an explanation and proof of the believers great weakness,
and in addition it states the reason for the Spirits help. The nature of that
weakness with regard to prayer is in the realm of knowledge. Clearly the main
verb of the sentence is know, preceded by the negative not: we do not
know ( ). As part of their human weakness, Christians are ignorant
in the matter of prayer. Some try to have this ignorance refer only to special
prayer emergencies of one sort or another.
13
Such a contention, however, cannot
be sustained by the language. The expression is not, we often do not know, but
simply, we do not know. In view of the continuing imperfection of even the
best Christians, would it not be rather strange if it did not affect them in the matter
of their knowledge with regard to prayer? Unless they are praying in exact
concurrence with the clearly revealed will of God as set forth in Scripture, they
simply do not know. Even when praying in exact conformity to Scripture, it is
because God has revealed the matter, not because of Christians knowledge. All

8
Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 133.
9
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. by Gustav Stahlin; 1:49093.
10
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 115; Donald
Grey Barnhouse, Gods Heirs, Exposition of Bible Doctrines, vol. 7 (Romans 8:139) (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), 141; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 123; F. A. Philippi,
Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879), 2:25.
11
Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (1900: reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.); 638.
12
Barnhouse, Gods Heirs; 142.
13
F. Tholuck. Cited by J. Lange and F. R. Fay, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures, by John Peter Lange, 12 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1960). 10:276; Ksemann, Romans, 239; Thiessen, The Holy Spirit, 104.
praying by all Christians insofar as it is their praying remains under the not
knowing, set forth in verse 26.
14
Amazingly Paul includes himself in this not knowingness. The first person
plural we know includes the great apostle. An editorial we is not indicated,
because of the manner in which Paul consistently uses the first person plural in
the chapter. Was not Paul filled with the Spirit? Did not Paul have the mind of
Christ? Was not Paul a spiritual man? Was not Paul mightily used of God in
missionary endeavor? Was not Paul ardent in his love for souls? Yet Paul says
we really do not know what to pray. Hendriksen has rightly observed, with the
exception of the prayers of Jesus Christ, is there anything in the line of prayer
more thought-filled, fervent and sublime than the Apostles prayer recorded in
Eph. 3:1419?
15
Yet Paul says, We do not know how to pray as we ought.
But what precisely is the nature of this prayer ignorance? Paul addresses
himself to this in the words, what we should pray for as we ought (
). The article [which one does not see in the English
translations], makes the entire clause the object of we do not know.
16
Some
difference of opinion exists as to whether the aorist subjunctive followed by the
indirect question what we should pray should be taken as what to pray or
what to pray for. Is Paul referring to the content of prayer, or the object of
prayer? Since the object (what to pray for) determines the content (what to pray),
the meaning of both is much the same, and the whole question is quite moot.
Christians have a general sense of need at times, but they are often not clear on
what particular thing they need. So they do not know what to pray for, or what
to pray. Pauls ignorance regarding his thorn (2 Corinthians 12:7) is a case in
point. Yet the answer he received shows that God most certainly did know, and
the answer God gave Paul on that occasion shows for what he [Paul] should have
prayed.
17
But Paul continues by adding the words as we should ( ). Most
concur that as we should is to be taken with what to pray, rather than with
we do not know. The latter construction is possible but somewhat forced.
18
The
adverb as does not refer to ones manner of praying, but rather to the
correspondence between the prayer and what is really needed.
19
Paul himself
confessed that he did not know which to choose (Philippians 1:22). Broadly

14
Cranfield, Romans, 422.
15
Hendriksen, Romans, 274; Lenski, Romans, 546.
16
E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: John Murray, 1886: reprint ed.,
Minneapolis: James Family Publishers, 1977); Lenski, Romans, 545; William Sanday and Arthur
C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 213.
17
Lenski, Romans, 546.
18
19
Gifford, Romans, 158: Cranfield, Romans, 421.
speaking, Christians often do know (or so they think) for what they are to pray
(e.g., the perfecting of the saints, the glory of God), but they do not know what to
pray according to the need of the moment. They may know these ultimate ends,
which are common to all prayers, but they may be ignorant as to what is necessary
at each crisis in order to attain that desired end.
20
Augustine was a notoriously wicked man prior to his conversion. His mother
Monica, a Christian, was heavily burdened for her wayward son. Hearing that he
was leaving home and planning to live in Italy, she prayed earnestly that God
would not allow Augustine to go there, because she feared he would fall into
deeper sin. But though she prayed sincerely, she really did not know what to pray
as she ought because, as it turned out, Augustine did indeed move to Italy, but
was gloriously converted there.
21
Monica knew the ultimate end she desired (the
conversion of her son), but she was ignorant of what was necessary in the
immediate crisis (her sons move to Italy) to attain that ultimate desired end.
Christians are imperfect, immature, and insufficient. Paul obviously felt that
the removal of the thorn would make him a more powerful witness for Christ, but
he simply did not know what to pray (for) as he ought! One theologian spoke of
this not knowingness: But even the most sincere, most heroic, most
powerful prayers do not but serve to make clear how little the man of prayer is
able to escape from himself .
22
The Nature of the Spirits Intercession
The help the Spirit gives in coming to the believers aid
() is now clarified. Though Christians pray ignorantly, the
Spirit intercedes () for them. This Greek word, a double
compound of the verb (entugchano), occurs only here in the New
Testament. Robertson refers to it as a picturesque word of rescue.
23
The root
means to happen along. The preposition accents the idea of on; thus
means to happen on. The preposition, on (), emphasizes that
the one who happens on believers, also acts on behalf of them. As a true
advocate, the Spirit finds them in their weakness, takes their part, and speaks on
their behalf.
24
Thus believers have two intercessors: Christ, who intercedes in heaven at the
right hand of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who intercedes while resident within
believers. Christ prays that the merits of His redemptive work may be fully

20
James Denney, St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, in The Expositors Greek Testament, ed. W.
Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951), 2:651.
21
Alva McClain, Romans: The Gospel of Gods Grace (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), 168.
22
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 316.
23
Hendriksen, Romans, 275; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols.
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), 4:377.
24
applied to His own, while the Holy Spirit prays that their unrealized needs may be
met.
25
Some would argue that the Holy Spirits intercession is involved only in
extreme situations of perplexity such as is demonstrated by Jesus cry, What
shall I say (John 12:27)?
26
However, as already indicated, the sons of God are
ever in a state of weakness, and thus they are always, consciously or
unconsciously, ignorant of what to pray in a given situation. Perhaps at times they
stumble on the right things to say in their prayers in spite of their ignorance. It
may well
be true that at such times their prayers do not need to be counteracted by the
Holy Spirit.
27
However, in the vast majority of instances, they do not know how
to pray as they should, and at such times they have the assurance that the Holy
Spirit intercedes for them.
But precisely how does the Holy Spirit intercede? Does He do so directly or
indirectly? Does He cry out to the Father on behalf of believers, or does He
intercede indirectly by stirring up in our hearts those desires that we ought to
entertain?
28
In support of indirect intercession, some argue that He pleads in
believers prayers and thus raises them to higher and holier desires. The
groanings too deep for words are attributed to saints, which the Spirit then uses
in making His intercession for them.
29
Various reasons are given in support of indirect intercession. Most recognize
that a strictly literal rendering of the words indicates the Spirits direct
intercession, but it is argued on theological grounds that God cant groan.
30
But
in the words of Hendriksen, exegetical accuracy is as important as doctrinal
purity. Both are needed.
31
God is not devoid of emotion. If God loves, grieves,
and rejoices, why is it inconceivable that He groans. Appeal is made to Galatians
4:6, and because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our
hearts, crying Abba! Father! Some argue that God cannot be the Father of the
Holy Spirit, and hence the crying is that of the saints through the Holy Spirit, not

25
Hendriksen, Romans, 277; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 637.
26
F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1956), 321; The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press,
1967), 1221.
27
Hendriksen, Romans, 278.
28
Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 2:397; C. K.
Barrett, Reading through Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 44; John Calvin,
Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1948); 213; Harrison, Romans, 96; Knox, Romans, 523.
29
30
Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 137; Lenski, Romans, 547.
31
the Spirits crying. It is also argued that this same indirect intercession is true in
Romans 8:2627.
32
However, a distinct difference exists between Galatians 4:6
and Romans 8:2627.
33
In the Romans passage, Paul uses the emphatic form the
Spirit Himself ( ). Then in order to make the meaning even less
ambiguous, he continues in verse 27 by saying that he who searches the hearts
knows what the mind of the Spirit is. The mind of the Spirit, not the mind of
believers, is searched by God.
Also Paul has already discussed the groanings of the saints in verse 23. It
seems unlikely that he would return to this subject again in verse 26. Finally, the
same word, makes intercession () that refers to the Spirits
intercession in verse 27 is used in verse 34 of Christs intercession at the right
hand of the Father. Does not Christ intercede directly for believers? How then can
one contend that the word is used of indirect intercession in verse 27, but of direct
intercession in verse 34?
34
Therefore exegetically the natural sense of the
language indicates that the Spirit residing within Christians is said to intercede
directly for them. His praying is complementary to their sincere but ignorant
praying and is necessary to its efficacy.
35
But why not then permit the Holy Spirit to do all the praying? Why pray at
all? (The same type of objection is often voiced with reference to divine
sovereignty. If God is sovereign, why pray?) Several facts may be pointed out in
response: (a) A Christian needs to pray as part of Gods divinely ordained
sanctifying process. (b) The Holy Spirit prays only in the hearts of those who
pray. If the believer does not pray, the Spirit does not intercede. (c) God has
commanded His people to pray, and in His sovereignty He has conditioned many
of His actions on human asking.
36
Now the Spirits intercession is said to be with groanings too deep for
words ( ). The use of the instrumental case indicates that
it is by this means that the Holy Spirit intercedes. Are these groanings audible or
inaudible? Are they related to the tongues () spoken of in Acts and in 1
Corinthians?
Many commentators do not discuss these questions. Obviously those who
equate these groanings with tongues contend that they are audible.
37
But
others do not equate the two phenomena and yet feel that they are audible sighs or
groans. They contend that because of the pain and anguish of soul, expressions
not formulated into words arise from the hearts of believers as an audible
evidence of the believers inadequacy. The Spirit then takes these expressions of

32
Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 137.
33
Cranfield, Romans, 423; Gifford, Romans, 158: Hendriksen, Romans, 275.
34
Hendriksen, Romans, 276; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 63637.
35
Gifford, Romans, 158; Hendriksen, Romans, 276; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 63839.
36
37
Barrett, Romans, 44; Ksemann, Romans, 240; Knox, Romans, 523.
grief enabling them to take the form of prayer that will be understood by God the
Father.
38
However, as already noted, the language indicates that believers in their fallen
state are ever in the condition of weakness, and therefore every prayer needs the
Spirits intercessory groanings. Is it not self-evident that believers usually do not
audibly groan while praying? Yet Paul says that the intercessory groanings always
accompany genuine Christian praying. This would seem to suggest that the
groanings are inaudible. They are wrought by the Holy Spirit deep within the
Christians heart to be searched out by the one who knows the mind of the
Spirit.
39
The context is also suggestive in determining the nature of these groans. The
intercessory groanings of the Spirit (v. 26) are usually recognized as the
consummation of a triad of groanings beginning with the groanings ()
of creation (v. 22), and followed by the groanings () of Christians (v.
23). Schneider refers to this sequence of groanings as a crescendo and a triple
sighing.
40
Obviously in Pauls mind the three groanings are related. In each case
Paul selects a variation of the verb in describing the three groanings,
41
and
each time he describes the verbal action of these groanings with the present
tense.
42
The nature of the first two groanings (creations and Christians) may thus
shed light on the nature of the third groaning (the Spirits). Are the groanings of
fallen creation audible? Obviously not! At least such groaning is not audible to
human ears. Likewise the groans of the redeemed human spirit are inaudible to
human ears. Since the three groanings are related, as most contend, and since the
first two are inaudible to human ears, does it not argue rather convincingly that
the groanings of the Spirit are likewise inaudible to human ears? It seems that,
barring strong exegetical evidence to the contrary, these groanings of the Spirit
may be assumed to be inaudible.

38
Barth, Romans, 317; Denney, Romans, 651; Philippi, Romans, 27; Robertson, Word Pictures,
377; Shedd, Romans, 261.
39
R. Haldane, Epistle to the Romans (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 395; Kuyper, The Holy
Spirit, 623; Lenski, Romans, 551; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Epistle to the Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 331; F. Tholuck, Exposition of St.
Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Sorin & Ball, 1844), 268; B. Weiss, A Commentary
on the New Testament, 5 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906), 3:78.
40
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. by J. Schneider, 7:601.
41
Ibid., 600-601.
42
With creations groanings and the Christians groanings, the present tense of the verb is self-
evident. However. Paul uses a noun in describing the Spirits groanings; yet even in
this instance, the verbal action describing the groans is in the present tense: .
Also Paul speaks of the Spirits groanings as unutterable. And this has led to
a continuing dispute as to whether this noun should be translated unuttered or
unutterable. Most contend that the word should be translated unutterable. It is
usually argued that these groanings are so deep, so profound, so moving, that they
defy expression.
43
Cranfield is of the opinion that while the word itself could be
translated either way, verse 27 suggests that unuttered is more likely since the
Spirits groanings are not spoken, because they do not need to be since God
knows the Spirits intention without being expressed.
44
Actually, if these groans
are inaudible to human ears and are clearly understood by the Father (v. 27), it
would seem to make little difference whether they were unuttered or
unutterable. Humans would not hear them in either case!
Ksemann, however, insists that Paul is not dealing with the problem of
prayer in general, but is speaking with reference to certain practices in
congregational life which are open to misunderstanding . What is at issue is the
praying in tongues of 1 Cor 14:15.
45
Therefore Ksemann (and others from as
early as Chrysostom and Origen) are quite sure it refers to the praying in
tongues ( ) of 1 Corinthians 14:1415. However, as
Cranfield has pointed out, neither Ksemann nor others who have tried to equate
the unutterable groanings with ecstatic utterances of glossolalia have presented
exegetical evidence in support of their view.
46
Several factors make it clear that the unutterable (or unuttered) groanings of
verse 26 cannot be equated with praying in tongues. To begin with, as already
demonstrated, these groanings are inaudible to human ears; and yet that certainly
was not true of praying in tongues. Next, Paul makes it emphatically clear that it
is the Spirit Himself who intercedes with groanings, whereas he makes it just as
clear that when a person prayed in tongues it was the believers own human spirit
praying ( ). The difference between the two
phenomena seems obvious.
The Efficacy of the Spirits Intercession
The Spirits groanings may be inaudible and perhaps even unuttered; and yet
they are clearly known and understood by the Father. The Father is identified as
He who searches the hearts.
47
This title demonstrates the Fathers complete
competence to comprehend the Spirits groanings. Obviously, if He can search the
inscrutable human heart, He is perfectly capable of comprehending the
intercessory groanings of His own divine Spirit.
48
The important concept is that

43
Alford, The Greek Testament, 397; Lange, Romans, 277; Lenski, Romans, 547; Shedd, Romans,
261; Theissen, The Holy Spirit, 107.
44
Cranfield, Romans, 423; Hendriksen, Romans, 275; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 135.
45
M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1973), 123;
Godet, Romans, 321; Ksemann, Romans, 240; Knox, Romans, 523.
46
47
Ibid., 424; Ksemann, Romans, 242; Lenski, Romans, 548.
48
Cranfield, Romans, 424; Ksemann, Romans, 242.
the Father, who is fully qualified, perceives completely what the mind of the
Spirit is. Here mind, used only in Romans 8, carries the idea of aim,
aspiration or striving.
49
In short, God perceives the intent of the Spirits
intercession that is hidden in those unuttered groans.
What God fully understands about the mind of the Spirit is next specified:
that He intercedes according to God ( ). Most
English translations render that in the casual sense of because.
50
In fact,
Ksemann labels this the accepted view.
51
Taking that this way makes the
Spirits interceding in accord with divine will, the reason God the Father knows
the Spirits mind. But such is not necessarily the situation. The Father knows all
things, hence no reason for knowing the Spirits mind need be given.
52
The that in this context is better taken in the explicative sense, and
translated that.
53
Paul is explaining several wonderful facts concerning the
Spirits mind (aim or intention) in His intercessory groanings. First, God knows
that the Spirits groanings are in the nature of intercessions (). The
object of the Holy Spirits groanings is to lay bare all the deep hidden needs of the
saints before the Father. Second, the Father knows that they are intercessions for
people who are special to Him. He knows that the Spirit intercedes for the
benefit of saints ( ). Saints are those who have been set apart from
the rest of humanity by Gods sovereign choice (Ephesians 1:3). For this reason
the Holy Spirits intercession for them is of special interest to the Father. Third,
He, by knowing the mind of the Spirit, realizes fully that His intercessions are
ever according to God ( ). These words are emphatic by position and
indicate the most significant information in the entire explanatory phrase
introduced by that.
54
The words according to God are almost universally
recognized as meaning according to Gods will.
55
This means that the Spirits
intercessory groans always coincide completely with the Fathers will.
The fact that the Spirits intercessory groanings are in complete accord with
the Fathers will is especially significant to Christians. Since the Spirit in His
intercession is helping them in their inadequate praying, then their praying
(complemented by the Spirits praying) is inevitably in harmony with the will of
God. All prayer in harmony with the will of God will be answered (1 John 5:14
15). Barth accurately observes that God makes Himself our advocate with
Himself that He utters for us that ineffable groaning, so that He will surely hear

49
Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 866.
50
AV; NASB; NIV; RSV; TEV; Williams; and others.
51
Ksemann, Romans, 242.
52
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
53
Black, Romans, 124; Cranfield, Romans, 424; Gifford, Romans, 158; Hendriksen, Romans,
278; Lenski, Romans, 548; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
54
Gifford, Romans, 158.
55
Cranfield, Romans, 424; Hendriksen, Romans, 278; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
what we ourselves could not have told Him, so that He will accept what He
Himself has to offer.
56
Conclusion
Christians are inadequate when it comes to knowing what to pray. However,
they are assured that they never pray alone! The indwelling Spirit helps them in a
positive way with their problem of prayer-ignorance, by praying along with them.
By supplementing their pitiful prayers, He brings them into complete harmony
with the will of God. This takes place every time a Christian prays, even if He is
unaware of the Spirits intercession.
However, much of what is commonly labeled prayer is not prayer at all.
Simply getting out a prayer list and mechanically mouthing pious-sounding
generalities absolutely devoid of earnestness or urgency is not prayer, according
to the Bible. Simply reciting the Lords Prayer in a church service without mental
or emotional involvement comes closer to being labeled vain repetitions than true
prayer.
57
Such so-called prayer does not have the cooperative intercessory help of
the Holy Spirit for the simple reason that it is not really Christian praying.
Hendriksen cites an example of the prayer phenomenon depicted in these
verses. A pastor had become seriously ill, and his congregation held almost
nightly prayer vigils for his recovery. But he continued to worsen and finally died.
At the funeral his friend said, Perhaps some of you are in danger of arriving at
the conclusion that the heavenly Father does not hear prayer. He does indeed hear
prayer, however. But in this particular case, two prayers were probably opposing
each other. You were praying, Oh God, spare his life, for we need him so badly,
The Spirits unspoken prayer was, Take him away, for the congregation is
leaning altogether too heavily upon him and not upon thee, and the Father heard
that prayer.
58
Prayer need not always be correctly formulated to be effective. Indeed, the
most inarticulate desires which spring from the right motive have shape and value
beyond anything that is present and definable to the believers consciousness.
59

All too often the intercessory activity of the Holy Spirit is never taken into
account.
60
The significance of praying is not so much the fact of Christians praying, but
the assurance that it triggers the Holy Spirits intercessory praying. The value of

56
Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 102.
57 57. See the authors book, Praying Jesus Way (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1977),
11929.
58
59
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 213.
60
Murray, Romans, 314.
prayer ultimately lies in His intercessory groanings, not the believers ignorant
praying.

The Sufficiency of
Scripture and Modern Psychology

Robert E. Hempy Jr., Th.M.*
[*Editors note: Mr. Hempy received his B. A. degree from the
University of Minnesota, and Th.M. degree from Talbot
Theological Seminary. He is a public school teacher in Los
Angeles and has taught at the seminary level.]
What do we mean when we say that Scripture is sufficient? Do we believe that
the Word of God alone is sufficient to equip the believer to handle all the
problems and exigencies of life? The Bible internally testifies that it is (2 Timothy
3:1617; 2 Peter 1:311). What are the practical implications of this?
Historically, as a matter of orthodoxy, Protestant Christianity has held the
position that Scripture is verbal-plenarily inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and
sufficient.
The very words of Scripture are inspired of God and inerrant, referring to
verbal inspiration (Matthew 4:4; 5:18). Inerrancy extends to every portion of
Scripture, referring to plenary inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scriptures bear
the very stamp of God as the ultimate Authorthey are authoritative. While the
teaching of the Bible may be foolishness to the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit
convinces the believer that this is Gods Word, not just the product of the human
wisdom of man (cp. 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
Concerning the authority of Scripture, Peter compares his experience of
witnessing the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:18; Mark 9:28; Luke 9:2838;
John 1:14) to the written Word of God. He calls Gods Word the prophetic word
[made] more sure 2 Peter 1:1619).
In other words, although being an eyewitness to the precursory revelation of
the coming of Christs Kingdom, as revealed in the Transfiguration, the written
Word of God gives us a better seat in the stands so to speak. He goes on to teach
that we
do well to pay attention [to it] as a lamp shining in a dark place (a
figure for the recesses of our sinful self) until the day dawns and
the morning star arises in your hearts (a figure for the indwelling
of the character of Christ) (2 Peter 1:19).
In effect, Peter says that the Word of God is sufficient. Paul also tells us that
all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:1617).
What does the word every mean? A paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:34 explains:
His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life
and godliness through the true knowledge of Him who called us by
His own glory and excellence. For by His own glory and
excellence, He has granted to us His precious and magnificent
promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the
divine nature, having previously (by initial salvation faith in
Christ) escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
However, the Bible testifies that the Word of God alone is sufficient to equip
the believer for every good work, and that His divine power has granted to us
everything pertaining to life and godliness through His precious and
magnificent promises. What are the practical implications of this? Is the
evangelical church modeling this truth through its philosophy and practice of
ministry today?
Have you been to a Christian bookstore lately? Are you confused by the
seemingly endless number of new Christian books written to help the believer
handle his problems? Who are the best-selling Christian authors today? What is
the content of their books? Is their education and training in theology, or so-called
Christian psychology? Have the authors designed these books to lead the believer
into the Word of God as the adequate and sufficient solution to lifes problems?
When we tune-in local Christian radio stations, what is the content of the
programming during prime timethe drive time to and from work? What is the
content of the advertisements that support Christian radio? Do you notice an
increasing number of talk shows hosted by Christian psychologists supplanting
substantive expository preaching and Bible teaching?
Do you come from a dysfunctional home? Did someone abuse you as a child?
Are you divorced or widowed? Do you have painful repressed childhood
memories? Have you abused drugs? Are you addicted to sex? Are you a co-
dependent, or an adult child of an alcoholic? Do you suffer from chronic
depression? Do you have flashback experiences of painful memories? Do you
suffer from low self-esteem? If you listen to Christian talk radio or visit the local
Christian bookstore, you will find they offer solutions to all of these problems.
What is the solution? Do we need to engage in therapy with a Christian
psychotherapist? Do we need to work through our issues? If you have abused
alcohol or drugs, do you have an incurable disease that now can be controlled
through a life-long commitment to a 12 Step program? What does the Word of
God say?
The psychotherapist tells us that if we have experienced any of the serious
problems of life mentioned above, he has some good news and some bad news for
us. The bad news is that we have an incurable disease, but the good news is that
we may control our incurable disease by a lifetime commitment to psychotherapy,
or a 12 Step program.
How many kinds of problems are there in life? According to popular Christian
psychological theory, we can classify lifes problems into three categories:
biological, spiritual, and psychological. If you have a biological problem, you
need to see a medical doctor. If you have a spiritual problem, you should seek
counsel from your pastor, who should point you to the appropriate biblical
solution. But, if you have a psychological problem, you need to see a
professional, a Christian psychotherapist who can integrate principles of the
science of psychology with principles of Scripture to provide a solution for
psychological problems.
However, is this so? Does the Bible teach this dichotomythat psychological
and spiritual problems are two separate, but often related categories? On the other
hand, are all non-organic problems spiritual problems? Scripture suggests that all
non-organic problems are spiritual problems and that biological problems may be
caused by spiritual problems. Moreover, the Word of God is sufficient to handle
every problem of life, according to the content of 2 Peter 1:311 and 2 Timothy
3:1617.
The evangelical church sees many people come to Christ from backgrounds of
substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, and other painful experiences. We do not
want to minimize the pain and heartache of peoples past experiences. Yet, the
Word of God teaches that we are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and that we
possess all spiritual blessings at the point of faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).
Furthermore, all things work together for good, we are eternally secure in Him,
are as good as glorified the moment we place our trust in Christ (Romans 8:28
29), and we are complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10).
The world of Christian psychology far too often prescribes a lifetime of
psychotherapy, or submission to a 12-Step program to gain freedom from the
bondage of our past. Dr. Martin Bobgan calls this the psychological way. In
contrast, for the believer, the Word of God prescribes freedom from the bondage
of sin and the past through presenting our bodies as instruments of righteousness
(Romans 6:13). Bobgan calls this the spiritual way. The Bible teaches that we
experience freedom from bondage through a lifetime of renewing our minds
through the study and application of Gods Word.
In two primary passages of the New Testament (Ephesians 4:2224; Romans
58 and 12:12), Paul teaches the believer a three-part prescription for spiritual
health. If followed, this approach makes 99% of the so-called self-help,
Christian marriage enrichment, and pop psychology books found in the
bookstores unnecessary. Why? Because the Word of God is adequate for all
things that pertain to life and godliness and equips us for every good work (2
Timothy 3:1617; 2 Peter 1:311).
The three-part prescription is as follows:
Step One of Gods program is to recognize that the provision of salvation
through faith alone in Christ alone has fractured the power of the sin nature to rule
our lives. Prior to faith in Christ, we were slaves to sin. Now that we are no longer
slaves to sin, we can choose not to sin. We are to lay aside our old sinful patterns,
therefore, by conscious, daily moment-by-moment decisions. Paul calls this
laying aside the old self.
Step Two of Gods program is to acknowledge that the Word of God is
sufficient to equip us for every good work. Thus, we need to engage in a life-long
discipline of renewing our minds through the daily intake and application of
Gods Word. For the believer who has had past experiences that hinder his
Christian walk, this life-long process is the biblical response replacing a life-long
submission to psychotherapy and self-help books. Many of current books, and the
psychologists who write them, provide a solution which is 180 degrees contrary
to Scripture. The psychological way is seldom the spiritual way, but a new kind of
bondage.
Step Three of Gods program is to make a conscious, daily, even moment-by-
moment decision to live out the principles of Scripture. As the Word of God
begins to transform us from the inside out, renewing our minds, and as the pain of
the past subsides, we make conscious moment-by-moment decisions to live a
godly life.
Paul calls this three-fold process laying aside the old self, being renewed in
the spirit of the mind, and putting on the new self (Ephesians 4:2224).
The great truths of the New Testament epistles form the backbone of
information needed to equip the believer to live a victorious Christian life. The
principles of Ephesians 4:2224 are expanded upon in detail in Romans 58; cp.
Romans 12:12. Peter summarizes the same principles in 2 Peter 1:311, which
may be the greatest concise passage on the sufficiency of Scripture.
The view expressed in this article is contrary to the practice of far too many
evangelical Christian churches. Many evangelicals say they believe in the
sufficiency of Scripture, but their practice denies that claim. The contents of
Christian bookstores and the move toward pop psychology are a practical denial
of the utter sufficiency of Scripture. William Kirk Kilpatrick, Dave Hunt, Martin
Bobgan, and others describe this as a seduction. They maintain that the infiltration
of the psychological way is seducing the Churchthe Body of Christ. They see
the lives of Christians being neutralized by this seduction. We must never forget
that Satan operates as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
Kilpatrick, Hunt, Bobgan and others, such as William Playfair, have provided
extensive documentation and citation of empirical research to demonstrate that
not only is much of so-called Christian psychology unbiblical, it is also
unscientific. The portion of psychology that studies human behavior is highly
theoretical and subjective. It is not scientific and it is not science. It is a false
religion that competes with Christianity in the spirit of 2 Corinthians 11:3, where
Paul expresses his concern that Satan may lead believers astray from the purity of
simple devotion to Christ.
Does the plethora of self-help and pop psychology books found in Christian
bookstores bewilder you? Most of these merely put a Christian label on faulty and
unbiblical secular psychological theory and seek to integrate it with Scripture.
Do the Christian psychologists on the talk radio and TV shows confuse you? If so,
please observe the following bibliography of sources that provide the biblical
view of Christian counseling. I highly recommend these books for your reading.
Bibliography
Bobgan, Martin and Deidre. 12 Steps to Destruction. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate
Publishers, 1991.
________. Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible. Santa Barbara, CA:
Eastgate Publishers, 1994.
________. Competent to Minister: The Biblical Care of Souls. Santa Barbara:
Eastgate Publishers, 1996.
________. Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing. Santa Barbara,
CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1992.
________. Hypnosis and the Christian. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers,
1984.
________. Prophets of Psychoheresy I. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers,
1989.
________. Prophets of Psychoheresy 2. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers,
1990.
________. Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity. Santa
Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1985.
________. The Psychological Way/ The Spiritual Way. Minneapolis: Bethany
Book House, 1979.
Hunt, Dave & T. A. McMahon. The Seduction of Christianity. Eugene, OR:
Harvest House, 1985.
Hunt, Dave. Beyond Seduction. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1987.
Kilpatrick, William Kirk. Psychological Seduction. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1983.
MacArthur, John F. Our Sufficiency in Christ. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991.
Owen, Jim. Christian Psychologys War on Gods Word. Santa Barbara, CA:
Eastgate Publishing, 1993.
Playfair, William L., M.D. The Useful Lie. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Torrey, E. Fuller, M.D. Freudian Fraud. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
1992.
Wood, Garth. The Myth of Neurosis. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.

Book Review
Competent to Minister: The Biblical Care of Souls, by Martin & Deidre Bobgan
(Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1996). Reviewed by Robert E.
Hempy Jr., Th.M.*
[*Editors note: Mr. Hempy received his B.A. degree from the
University of Minnesota, and the Th.M. degree from Talbot School
of Theology. He is a public school teacher in Los Angeles and has
taught at the seminary level.]
This book is the logical sequel to the Bobgans last book, titled Against
Biblical Counseling: For the Bible (which Cliff Rapp reviewed in the winter 1997
edition of the CTS Journal). This is the Bobgans tenth book on the subject of
Christian psychologyevaluating the alleged theological bases for psychotherapy
in general (whether so-called Christian or secular), and the biblical counseling
movement.
This book is meant to express practical applications based upon the research
and conclusion found in the Bobgans previous nine books that constitutes a body
of literature representing some twenty years of research and writing by them on
the subject.
Of the ten books on the subject authored by the Bobgans over the past twenty
years, they have now requested that their second book, titled How to Counsel
from Scripture, be voluntarily put out of print by Moody Press. Their latest work
is meant to replace that book in light of their present modified position, as
represented by the title of their most recent previous workAgainst Biblical
Counseling: For the Bible, and as explained in their present work that not only
draws upon the research and conclusions of their previous nine works, but also
draws upon a core body of literature in the area of works that are critical of so-
called Christian psychology.
This reviewer has read all ten of the Bobgans books, as well as several other
related works, the research, theological framework, and methodology from which
the Bobgans draw conclusions. It is this reviewers sincere opinion that one will
best understand the gravity of the issues, if he reads the Bobgans works in
chronological order. However, if one reads some or all of the core body of related
literature cited in the bibliography (see page bottom page 12), he will be edified.
Perhaps the best way to begin to grasp an overview of the Bobgans broad
concerns about the impact of so-called
Christian psychology upon evangelical Christianity would be to read their third
book, titled Psychoheresy, in conjunction with reading Dave Hunts well known
work, titled The Seduction of Christianity. The Bobgans and Hunt are personal
friends and share a common concern about issues related to Christian psychology.
The Bobgans latest work tends to give practical application to a theme that
represents their most pressing concern. They have devoted some twenty years of
research to the alleged theological bases for the integration of principles of secular
psychology and psychotherapy into the Christian psychology and Christian
psychotherapy movement. Now they have shifted their concern toward what they
see as the weaknesses of the biblical counseling movement, a movement that is
supposed to be a biblical alternative to Christian psychology.
Their present focus and concern is expressed in the opening chapter, where
they declare that:
Our concern continues to be this: that the cure of minds (the
psychological way) has displaced the care of souls (the spiritual
way). However, additional concerns have arisen. Various attempts
to move the church back to a biblical means of caring for souls
created a biblical counseling movement that in numerous ways
reflects the psychological way. Many who call themselves
biblical counselors are outright integrationists, who attempt to
use both the Bible and psychological counseling theories and
techniques. Still others who claim to be Biblical counselors may
be using more Bible than psychology, but they have allowed
certain psychological theories and techniques to color their view of
Scripture (1112).
On this basis, and for reasons detailed in the present work and their most
recent previous work, they have now moved away from endorsing without
reservation the biblical counseling models of such men as Jay Adams and such
groups as John Brogers Biblical Counseling Foundation, and its primary
publication, The Self-Confrontation Manual.
The Bobgans are long time acquaintances of many of those in the biblical
counseling movement, and in an irenic spirit, they have chosen publicly to draw a
line of separation in their books and monthly newsletter.
The title of the third chapter of the book is titled Every Believer Called and
Competent to Minister, which echoes the title of Jay Adams well known book
Competent to Counsel. The Bobgans evaluation of their concerns with regard to a
comparison between Adams counseling model and their own present framework
for what they call the care of souls exemplifies their overall concern,
motivation, and conclusions summarized and detailed in this book and their last
book, Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible. The central focus of these two
books is meant to demonstrate that the biblical counseling movement has tended
to build systems and models that detract from the notion that every believer is
competent to minister.
The Christian psychology movement involves various highly detailed
frameworks and models of Christian counseling and psychotherapy that boldly
include the declaration that Christian counseling and psychotherapy is a
profession, and that it the province of trained professionals. Anyone acquainted
with the Christian psychological counseling and psychotherapy movement, or
familiar with the Bobgans earlier books, are aware that Christian
psychotherapists often compare their profession to the medical profession. This is
exemplified by the granting of the masters and doctoral degrees in Christian
counseling and psychotherapy.
With the notion that the province of Christian counseling should be left to
trained professionals comes the logical conclusion expressed by them, and
repeatedly cited by the Bobgans in their books, namely that the province of the
pastor of a local church is to minister to spiritual issues while the province of
ministering to psychological issues belongs to trained professional Christian
psychotherapists. This is the central contention that the Bobgans have endeavored
to refute as a result of their more than twenty years of research and writing.
The central point of all of the Bobgans books is that so-called psychological
problems are in fact spiritual problems, and that Scripture does not teach a
dichotomy between them. For that reason the foundational passage of
Scripture for all of the Bobgans books is 2 Peter 1:34. Thus, they believe that
the utter sufficiency of Scripture really does mean that the Word of God and the
ministry of the Holy Spirit are sufficient to equip the believer for every exigency
of life to the glory of God.
The Bobgans appropriately demonstrate that the biblical counseling
movement has attempted to reject the framework of professional Christian
psychotherapy as akin to the medical profession. However, they point out that the
biblical counseling movement has substituted its own models and frameworks of
biblical counseling. The Bobgans, in their last book, Against Biblical Counseling:
For the Bible, endeavored to demonstrate that such models and systems of
biblical counseling neutralize the concept that every believer is competent to
counsel, causing believers to feel that they should not counsel. This latest book
endeavors to explain the practical ways that every believer can find himself
competent to minister. The Bobgans cite the fact that the word counsel is
Biblically based. However, they have chosen to substitute the word minister
because the word counsel has become tainted by the failure of the biblical
counseling movement to communicate and apply in practical terms Jay Adams
contention that every believer is competent to counsel.
I highly recommend this present work, as I endorse for reading and meditation
all of their books.
Book Review
Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (2nd edition), by
Peter E. Gillquist (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1992 [19891).
Reviewed by Richard Zuelch, M.Div. (Talbot School of Theology). Richard is
associated with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Several families leave a thoroughly evangelical, conservative congregation
because they became attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy.
A woman who was raised in a conservative evangelical home, where she was
trained by her parents to have an intelligent, active Christian faith, abandons
Protestantism at the age of 23 for Greek Orthodoxy.
The Los Angeles Times recently estimated that there are 40, 000 adherents to
Eastern Orthodoxy in Southern California.
Since the Reformation era, the linchpin of Protestant theology has been the re-
assertion of belief in the inspiration, the inerrancy and infallibility, the all-
sufficiency and, especially, the unique authority of the Bible for faith and life.
Conservative Christians throughout the world freely and gladly admit that the
Bible is the ultimate and only authority for knowledge of God and of the salvation
that He provides by faith in Jesus Christ alone. The Biblical foundation for this
belief is passages such as 2 Timothy 3:1617 and 2 Peter 1:34, 1921. The
Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), summarizing the Biblical evidence, states
that the word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy [God]. It
also states that the Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning
God, and what duty God requires of man.
In the twentieth century, Christianity has endured the ravages of theological
liberalism, neo-orthodoxy (Karl Barth, Emil Brunner), process theism, attempts to
demythologize the Scriptures (Rudolf Bultmann) and many other attacks. It is
not a coincidence that most theological and biblical attacks center on the authority
and reliability of the Scriptures as the three instances noted at the top of this
paragraph attest. However, Eastern Orthodoxy is becoming a newly attractive and
increasingly visible religious option for growing numbers of Americans. (Since
they are nearly identical theologically, I will not make a distinction between
Russian and Greek Orthodoxy. For simplicitys sake, I will refer only to
Orthodoxy in this review.) Usually associated with Russia, Greece, and Eastern
Europe, this ancient faith has begun, especially since the end of World War II, to
put down spreading roots in North America (although it has always had some
presence in the United States).

The most common reason given by people as to why they chose Orthodoxy
lies in the realm of their searching for something deeper, or a worship style that
is more meaningful, or more mystical. Others have grown tired of the
theological battles or denominational differences that characterize evangelicalism.
Still others are tired of the wars between the various translations of the
Scriptures available today. In any event, many long for an authoritative voice to
give them peace and to decide all controversies of religion and faith for them. Not
a few of these people are turning to Orthodoxy.
The author of the book under review, Peter Gillquist, became a full-fledged
Orthodox priest in 1987 at the age of 49. He was raised in a mainline
denomination, from which he drifted away (probably during his teenage years),
while growing up in Minneapolis. After high school graduation in 1956, he
attended the University of Minnesota. By his senior year there, he had decided to
pursue full-time ministry.
Having been warned by a professor at a mainline denominational seminary
(unnamed in the book) that his particular school was infested with theological
liberalism, as were many others, Gillquist enrolled at Dallas Theological
Seminary in the fall of 1960. He credits DTS with giving him a firm grounding in
the Scriptures, though he attended just one year (196061).
My time at Dallas, he says, absolutely settled for me the issue of the
inspiration of the Bible. Though I had not experienced any real personal crisis
over the question, at Dallas we learned why the Bible was inspired, what the
Scriptures claim about themselves, and the importance of reading and believing
the Scriptures (1213).
He did not remain at Dallas, however. After one year, the 196061 school
year, he transferred to Wheaton College in Illinois to continue his studies and to
establish a Campus Crusade for Christ ministry at nearby Northwestern
University. To make a long story short, by the middle 1970s he had become
interested in Orthodoxy and, by the early 1980s, he and six other former staff
members of Campus Crusade had begun to form their own Orthodoxy-oriented
denomination. Then, as noted, he became a priest in 1987.
Gillquists intent, as can be gleaned from his anecdotal style of writing, is not
to provide a thorough, rigorous defense of Orthodox theology and practice. In this
review, I will concentrate on what will probably most concern the majority of
readers of the CTS Journal. That is, two theological positions held by Orthodoxy:
(1) icons, and (2) beliefs and attitudes toward Maryfollowed by an ubiquitous
example of the hermeneutical problem that underlies them: the Orthodox attitude
regarding the authority of the Bible .

Icons
The western church has had a long-standing disagreement with the Eastern
Church on the subject of icons (religious paintings, statues, etc. and other alleged
helps to worship). Orthodoxy contends that such things are necessary for
connecting with God, so to speak, while western Christianity sees the use of
icons and pictures as a violation of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:46;
Deuteronomy 5:810; cf. Romans 1:25). Gillquist, however, sees the use of icons
as being integral to Orthodox worship and practice. Orthodoxy sees them as being
windows, so to say, for accessing God. Orthodoxy, as is its usual practice,
appeals to tradition and church history to uphold its use of icons.
The danger, of course, besides the violation of Gods moral law, is that many
Christians who employ icons in their worship might not be able to maintain the
mental distinction between the icon, which supposedly helps one to worship God,
and God Himself, who alone is to be worshipped. This makes the use of icons
dangerous, because it is a small step from using an icon as a help in worship to
worshiping the icon itself, even unconsciously.
Mary
While Orthodoxy reveres and lifts up Christ before the faithful, it is Mary with
whom Orthodoxy is obsessed, much as in Roman Catholicism. Some Orthodox
churches dedicate one wall to a painting of Jesus and Mary together.
However, in these paintings, Mary is usually painted much larger than Jesus,
sometimes even dwarfing Him. As with Rome, Orthodoxy considers Mary to be
ever virgin (1 101 12), thus denying that Joseph and Mary had natural children
together after Jesus birth. So it is with Roman Catholic doctrine. This will be
discussed below. Oddly, however, the assumption of Mary (the teaching that,
after her death, her body was transported to heaven) is accepted by Orthodoxy,
despite the fact that there is no scriptural basis for accepting the doctrine (112).
On the other hand, her supposed immaculate conception (the teaching that Mary
was conceived without sin, and was, herself, sinless throughout her life),
orthodoxy denies because there is no scriptural warrant for it, although this
teaching is also accepted by Catholicism (112113; cf. 66).
Mary is called, and accepted as, the Queen of Heaven (106), a doctrine
based upon an eisegesis of Psalm 45:9 (Daughters of kings are among your
honored women; at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir [NIV]). In
addition, like Roman Catholics, Mary can contribute to the salvation of sinners:
Mary has a participatory role in our salvation because she provided
the body of Christ and, thereby, became the mother of all those
who would be saved (114).
This supposedly explains Jesus remark to the apostle John in John 19:2627,
in which our Lord commends Mary to Johns care at His death.
Again, in opposition to Orthodox practice, it must be said that to elevate Mary
is to eclipse Jesus Christ. The Bible does not speak of Marys sinlessnessrather,
she herself acknowledged her need of a Savior (Luke 1:47). Regarding her
supposed perpetual virginity, Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, states quite clearly that Joseph and Mary did not engage in sexual activity
until after Jesus birth (Matthew 1:25). Gillquists attempt to show that the Greek
term for until means that Mary never consummated her marriage with her
husband (1 101 1 1) is utterly unconvincing (see below).
The Bible
The relationship of Orthodoxy to the Bible marks the center of the theological
disagreements western Protestantism in general and western conservative
evangelicalism in particular have with Orthodoxy. Here is where the sparks fly.
As Baptist systematic theologian James Leo Garrett, Jr. observes:
Eastern Orthodoxy, while affirming the authority of the Old and
the New Testaments, holds to the special and unique authority of
seven early ecumenical councils: Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I
(381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553),
Constantinople III (68081), and Nicaea II (787). Both the
canonical Scriptures and unwritten traditions are held to be
authoritative.
To put it starkly, while lip-service is paid to the authority of Scripture in
Orthodoxy, the reality is that human traditions and the history of the Orthodox
church are valued more highly than the Bible, whose language and teachings are
continually bent to fit the Orthodox mold. Scripture is made subservient to human
teachings and traditions. It is this debasement of Scripture that underlies the
problems with icons and Mary, among others.
This happens repeatedly in Gillquists book. To give just one example, I will
quote, in its entirety, his discussion regarding Marys supposed perpetual
virginity:
From the very early years of the Church, Mary was called not only
Virgin, but ever-Virgin. She was seen as never having had a
sexual union with Joseph, before or after the birth of Christ.
Ezekiel 44:12 is a passage often referred to by the early Fathers in
this regard. It states: Then He brought me back to the outer gate
of the sanctuary which faces toward

the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, This is shut; it
shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord
God of Israel has entered by it; therefore, it shall be shut [NKJV]
In the traditional interpretation of this passage Mary is the temple
and Christ is the Prince of Peace. The gate mentioned is seen as a
picture of the door of Marys womb through which Christ entered
our world. You might not find that interpretation in some of
todays commentaries, but it was held by the great majority of
early Church Fathers, as well as many of the Reformation leaders
notably Martin Luther.
At this point, however, a very valid question can be raised. If she
remained a virgin, why does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that
Joseph knew not his wife until after Christ was born (see
Matthew 1:25)? From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the
phrase till she had brought forth her firstborn Son does not
automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with
her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew, the word until (or
till or to) can have several meanings. We find it in II Samuel
6:23: Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the
day of her death. It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the
risen Christ says, Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the
end of the age. And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read: [Moses was
buried] in a valley in the land of Moab but no one knows his
grave to (until) this day [all translations NKJV].
Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply
that Michal had a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be
with us at the end of the world, or that Moses burial place was
discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same
token, the word until in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph
and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a
teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the
consistent voice of the entire early Church( 1011 1, all
underlining mine).
Notice the underlined phrases: from the very early years of the church,
often referred to by the early Fathers, in the traditional interpretation of this
passage, by the great majority of early church Fathers, and is contrary to the
consistent voice of the entire early Church. Furthermore, Gillquist discusses an
option on the word until as if raising a possibility constitutes validation. It does
not. Matthew 12:46 and John 7:5 clearly refer to Jesus literal brothers. On this
basis the until of Matthew 1:25 does not deny normal marital relations after
Jesus birth. For Gillquist and Orthodoxy the plain meaning of Scripture is set
aside in favor of a preferred interpretation of the text. For Orthodoxy, it does not
matter what the actual interpretation of Psalm 45:9, Ezekiel 44:12, or Matthew
1:25 might be, following the legitimate canons of biblical hermeneutics. It is, for
them, the interpretation of the early church fathers that counts.
Lets be blunt: this instance from Gillquists book shows that, in violation of
basic hermeneutical principles, Orthodoxy wants to sit in judgment on the text of
Scripture rather than let the inspired Word of God sit in judgment over an
interpretation that Orthodoxy would prefer to impose on the Bibles text. It is
sheer eisegesis, not exegesis. At the most basic level of all, we are dealing with
God-centered faith versus man-centered religion. Whatever hermeneutical
training Gillquist received in seminary he seems to have set aside, despite
memories of his time there (quoted above).
Conclusion
At the beginning of this review, I noted that the authority of Scripture, and the
doctrines that flow from holding to that authority, have been the underpinnings of
a rigorous biblical Christianity. The growth of Eastern
Orthodoxy within the United States shows that, for whatever reason, the Bibles
hold on many of the faithful is weakening. I am not saying that there are not true
Christians within Orthodoxy, just as there are true Christians within Roman
Catholicism. I am saying, however, that, due to the way Orthodoxy builds its
theology, the Bible is obscured as the basis for Christian belief in favor of history
and tradition: This was demonstrated by the discussion of Gillquists justification
of Orthodoxys attitudes about Mary. While being part of a unified theological
and cultural tradition [regardless of its soundness], which has maintained its
uniformity for many centuries, is attractive to some people, it must be said that it
is an attraction that holds serious danger for those who adhere to it. The danger is
that the Bible, a book given to the human race by the Holy Spirit as mediated
through His chosen writers and that tells of the one and only salvation through
Jesus Christ alone from sin and hell, is overthrown by the accretions of human
culture and the traditions of men.
What conservative British pastor Donald Gillies wrote concerning liberalisms
ecumenical movement more than thirty years ago in his book Unity in the Dark
(London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964) applies, in large measure, to
Orthodoxy:
Its fundamental and fatal weakness is its attitude to doctrine and
theology. The authority of the Bible is set aside in practice. As a
result, doctrinal differences that were once thought to be a matter
of life and death are blurred. The distinction between truth and
error is no longer thought vital (49).
May the type of anti-biblical theology displayed by Peter Gillquist in his book
serve as a warning to those considering Eastern Orthodoxy. In 2 Corinthians Paul
urges separation from the religious practices of unbelievers. The unity that
Christians seek should be based on a sufficient Bible, not on a tradition that
undermines it.
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. What
fellowship has righteousness with law lawlessness? And what
communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ
with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever. And
what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the
temple of the living God come out from among them and be
separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will
receive you. (2 Corinthians 6:1417).
Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham, by Billy Graham (San
Francisco: Harper San Francisco/Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997). Reviewed
by Richard Zuelch, M.Div. (Talbot School of Theology). Richard is associated
with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
At the age of 78, Billy Graham has published his long-awaited autobiography.
As many others, I had anticipated reading it. So many books have been written
about his ministry over the years that I was looking forward to hearing Graham
tell his own story. I must say, however, that it left me disappointed.
Having read his autobiography, I cannot say that I know much more about
Graham as a person than I did before. Although he reveals a few personal
anecdotes in the first few chapters that deal with his upbringing (and there are a
few more scattered throughout the narrative), I did not learn anything about
Graham himself that I had not already read in other books or articles. Only in the
last four chapters of the book does he speak more personallyand then, mostly
about the family, friends, and associates who have helped him through the years,
not about himself.
Graham devotes most of his 760 pages to describing the history of the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association and its major crusades. He gives entire chapters
over to the important early crusadesLos Angeles (1949), London (1954), and
New York (1957). He devotes other large sections to his campaigns in Eastern
Europe, the [former] Soviet Union, Africa, South America, North Korea, and
China. This, of course, should not be surprising, since, at one level, Billy Graham
is his ministry.

As for his famous dealings with various American presidents, Graham seems
convinced that, with the possible exception of Harry Truman, they were all
Christians. Graham admits that the presidents had their failings. Yet, I got the
impression he believes that he dealt with genuine believers. Regarding Grahams
political associations, one must consult William Martinss excellent 1994
biography, A Prophet with Honor, to balance Grahams interpretation of events.
Martin, to cite one instance, quotes one of Grahams longtime friends to the effect
that to this day Graham does not seem to understand just how badly Richard
Nixon fooled him. Grahams chapter on Nixon seems to bear out that assessment.
(Incidentally, of all the presidents he has known, Graham seems to have the
highest regard for Eisenhower.)
The presidents aside, the most controversial aspect of Grahams ministry has
been his alleged influence on the political process in this country. He has long
denied that he has tried to influence party politics in America, that he is just an
evangelist. I am convinced of his personal sincerity on this point.
Several times, however, in the course of his narrative, he mentions advice that
he gave to this or that prominent person and how that advice may have helped
in a given situation. Yet, he usually ends the story by immediately denying that,
whatever the outcome was, he had any influence on ff decision that was made.
Perhaps he unconsciously does what he consciously does not want to do!
I should hasten to add that I truly believe that Billy Graham, as an evangelist,
has had a positive influence on this country (and the world) for Christianity. In the
areas of sexual purity and financial integrity, Graham has had few rivals in the
rank of major media evangelism. He earnestly and honestly preaches the gospel as
he understands it, and God has used him to bring hundreds of thousands to
Himself all over the world. Moreover, Graham has inspired many of those who
were already Christian to recommit their lives to their Lord.
I wish that the book had been more The Bill Graham Story and less The
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Story ? that he had balanced the
professional story with more of the personal story. However, if read in
conjunction with William Martins fine book, Billy Graham, a man whom God
has mightily used to advance His purposes, has told a story that is unique in the
history of the church in America.

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 1
Psalm 90: An Exposition

Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Ph.D. *
[*Editors note: Arnold Fruchtenbaum received a B.A. degree from
Cedarville College, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary,
and a Ph.D. from New York University. Arnold is the founder of
Ariel Ministries, Tustin, CA, a ministry to Jewish people around
the world, and also an adjunct professor at Chafer Theological
Seminary. Dr. Fruchtenbaum holds Bible conferences around the
globe and CTS accepts his bi-annual, five-week study tour of Israel
for two semesters of elective credit.]
Let me begin this Psalm by noting the superscription that introduces Psalm 90.
It reads (beneath the Psalm number), A Prayer of Moses the man of God.
Psalm 90 is a unique Psalm. For example, Moses takes no statement in this
Psalm from other Psalms. As a study of the Book of Psalms will show, the Psalms
repeat themselves; we find certain thoughts in one Psalm almost word for word in
other Psalms. However, in the case of Psalm 90, Moses takes no statement from
any other Psalm. Furthermore, it has no affinity with any of the other Psalms,
meaning that it does not cover any similar circumstances. It does have, however,
similarity and affinity with one chapter that Moses wrote elsewhere,
Deuteronomy 33. If you compare Deuteronomy 33 with Psalm 90, you will find
several elements of comparison, similarity, and affinity. For example,
Deuteronomy 33:1, which is another poetic song, starts out with the phrase,
Moses the man of God. This is the same as the beginning of the superscription in
Psalm 90. Moses is the author of this one Psalm, as well as the five Books of
Moses. Because he is the writer of this Psalm, we know that this is the oldest of
the 150 Psalms. Men who lived much later than Moses wrote the others.
Moses wrote this Psalm, as the context shows, at the end of the 40 years of
Wilderness Wanderings. By the time he writesafter 40 years in the
wildernessthe Exodus generation had passed away, the judgment of the sin at
Kadesh Barnea had run its course, and the Wilderness Generation is soon to enter
the Land. Therefore, he writes this Psalm from the background of the sin of
Kadesh Barnea.
What was the sin at Kadesh Barnea? The Book of Numbers gives the details.
In chapters 1314 of that book, the Jewish people had finally arrived at the oasis
of Kadesh Barnea, which was right on the border of the Promised Land. In other
words, once they walked past Kadesh, they would be in the Promised Land. From
that spot, Moses sent twelve spies to spy out the Land. They came back 40 days
later, and they all agreed on one issue: The Land was everything that God said it
wasa Land that flows with milk and honey. Then, there was a crucial point of
disagreement: Ten of the spies said the inhabitants of the Land were so
numerically and militarily strong that under no circumstances could they possibly
capture the Land. Only two spies, Joshua and Caleb, believed and said that God
was with His people and, so, would enable them to take the Land: We are well
able to overcome it. As so many often do today, the people assumed that the
majority had to be right. There was a massive rebellion against the authority of
Moses and Aaron, with the two men almost losing their lives in a mob scene until
God intervened and saved them. At that point, God pronounced a special
judgment on the Exodus Generation. The judgment was that all those who came
out of Egypt would have to continue wandering in the wilderness until a 40-year
period was completed40 years for the 40 days the spies were in the Land.
During those 40 years, everyone who came out of Egypt would die,
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 2
except for the two good spies and those under the age of 20. Therefore, the
Exodus Generation lost the privilege of entering the Land of Israel. It would be
the next generation, the Wilderness Generation, that the Lord allowed to enter the
Land under Joshua.
The Exodus Generation, then, was under a sentence of physical death in the
wilderness, meaning they would die outside the Land. Based upon the population
numbers given in the Book of Numbers, this means that Moses saw the death of
about 1,200,000 people in a 38-year period. This would be the entire adult
population that left Egypt, those from age 20 upward. The wilderness, which God
intended to be simply a place of passing through to a new Land, had become a
huge cemetery. What does it mean to have 1,200,000 people die in a 38-year
period? It means that 31,580 people died per year. More specifically, 87 people
died every single day87 funerals per dayall because of the sin at Kadesh
Barnea.
Having witnessed this tremendous death toll, Moses reflects and writes Psalm
90. To understand this Psalm, we must understand the background. That is, Moses
wrote it at the end of the 40 years of Wilderness Wanderings and at the end of
seeing a whole generation die away in the wildernessincluding members of his
own family, Aaron and Miriam among them.
Now Psalm 90 has three main divisions. The first division comprises verses
16, which deal with the transitory nature of man in contrast to the eternity of
God. The second part, comprising verses 712, attributes the reason for
mankinds transitoriness to human sin. In the third division, verses 1317, Moses
prays to God to visit His servants and to build upon His eternity through their
mortality.
The Eternity of God
and the Transitoriness of Man
(Psalm 90:1-6)
Verses 12 emphasize the eternal God:
Lord thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations. Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hast formed the
earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art
God.
As Moses begins to discuss the eternity of God and the transitoriness of man,
he starts with the divine side of the equation, the eternal God. Here, Moses says
two things about God. The first is that God is our dwelling place (90:1): God has
been Israels dwelling place, not just sporadically, but in all generations. The
word dwelling-place means a protective shelter. God has been Israels
protective shelter in all generations from the time of Abraham, the father of the
Jewish people. Here is one affinity with Deuteronomy 33. Deuteronomy 33:27
states: The eternal God is thy dwelling-place, and underneath are the everlasting
arms. This shows the Mosaic authorship of both passages. In these verses, Moses
is saying that although God is indeed lofty, He is not inaccessible. He is
reachable, always there for those willing to approach Him on His basis, the basis
of faith.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 3
The second thing about God that Moses deals with is God as the Eternal One
(90:2), and he uses three descriptive terms to emphasize this. First, before the
mountains were brought forth. The mountains have existed for a very long time,
and they are the long-existing witnesses of Gods covenant with Israel. In fact,
here again is an affinity with Deuteronomy 33, where verse 15 indicates that the
ancient mountains are the witnesses to Gods covenant relationship with the
Jewish people. However, God is even older than the mountains, as the second
phrase of verse two states, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world. In
other words, God not only pre-existed the mountains, He even pre-existed
Genesis 1:1. He had formed the earth and the world: The Hebrew word for
earth means the world in general; the Hebrew word for world means the
productive part of the world which is inhabited by man. Moses third descriptive
phrase of His eternity is, from everlasting to everlasting, i.e., from eternity past to
eternity future. From before time was, until time shall be no more, he concludes,
Thou art God. This is the eternity of God, which he will now proceed to contrast
with the transitoriness of man.
The transitoriness of man is the second part of the equation, and is discussed
in verses 36:
Thou turnest man to destruction and sayest, Return, ye children of
men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it
is past, And as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as
with a flood; they are as a sleep: In the morning they are like grass
which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up;
In the evening it is cut down, and withereth.
Moses begins, in verse three, by dealing with the frailty of man, saying, Thou
turnest man to destruction. The Hebrew word used here for man emphasizes his
human frailty, his weakness. The Hebrew word for destruction is a very strong
word, meaning to be pulverized like dust. It is also a unique word, used only
here in the Hebrew Old Testament. The point Moses makes is that mans fate is to
return to pulverized dust. This is in contrast to Gods deathlessness. Man is
destined to return to that from which he came: God made him from dust; he is
destined to return to pulverized dust. The future of man is the same as the origin
of man: dust. Moses, then, points out that God says, Return, ye children of men.
This is a call to repentance, because the purpose of divine judgment is always to
bring one to repentance. Therefore, while God is threatening judgment, showing
the frailty of man, He also calls for repentance, which will avert the divine decree.
In verse four, Moses again focuses on Gods timelessness. His point is that
time has no meaning with God. To illustrate that point rather graphically, he says,
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past. What is a
thousand years in Gods sight? Moses uses two phrases to describe what a
thousand years is in Gods sight. The first phrase is, but as yesterday when it is
past. In other words, a thousand years with God is like only a night in the life of
man. It is not even a full 24-hour day, only a 12-hour
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 4
night. The first comparison he makes, then, is that a thousand yearsa very long
period from mans perspectiveis to God merely about 12 hours. Moses then
points out that 12 hours is even a bit too long, and the second phrase he uses to
make his point is, as a watch in the night. In Moses time, the night was divided
into three watches; in comparison to Gods eternity, mans life is only one watch
out of three, only a part of the night. Thus, the Psalmist reduces the thousand
years of God to only four hours of human life. What is a thousand years with
God? Merely four hours of human life! However, Moses goes further,
emphasizing that this is not four hours of the day, but four hours of the night. It is
four hours of the night of which the sleeper takes no reckoning, four hours that
have vanished upon the sleepers awakening. This is the time that people sleep,
and people do not reckon time while they are sleeping. While we are fast asleep,
there is, in fact, no awareness of the passing of minutes and hours.
In verse 5a, Moses emphasizes the certainty of death. He says, Thou carriest
them away as with a flood, i.e., eventually death will take all. He says, they are as
a sleep, which is the sleep of death. After pointing out the shortness of human life
compared to Gods eternity (90:4), Moses emphasizes the certainty of death.
To make it a bit more pessimistic, he then writes that the beauty of life is
shorter than life itself (90:5b6). In the morning, they are like grass which
groweth up. In the morning, it flourisheth, and groweth up; In the evening it is cut
down, and withereth.
What is Moses point here? Three things: First, he bases his point on the fact
that the flowers of Israel have a very short life span. Flowers in the Land sprout
from the ground in mid-March, but they are dry and dead by mid-April. In other
words, the beauty of mans life is also very short-lived.
Second, the four hours of the life of man are still not the length of his
productivity. No matter how long a man lives, not all of those years can be fully
productive. The first few years must be spent in developing: One is born; one
must suckle the breast; one must slowly learn to walk; one must gradually learn to
think, make decisions, learn to read, learn to write, and learn to live in the real
world. In this way, each person spends his early years developing. In later years,
there is a sapping of physical strength and mental acuteness. Coming to a state of
maturity does not necessarily mean we can be thoroughly productive for the rest
of our lives. There are those who remain sharp in mind and physical abilities to
the end of life, but we often see people who begin to fail. Various problems
impair ones ability to produce, such as the development of physical weaknesses
and/or mental problems like forgetfulness, Alzheimers Disease, and other
ailments. People are generally not aware of the shortness of human life until they
get older. A teenager has no consciousness of how short life really is; he knows he
will die someday, but that day, in his mind, is very, very far away. An older, wiser
person comes to that consciousness, but probably not before much of his physical
and mental strength is spent. All that is left, then, are those middle years of
productivity, a middle period of our lives during which we can be
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 5
truly productive for the Lord. Notice, then, that the four hours of man Moses
reduces even further, down to merely two or three hours of productivity.
Third, human life is frail and brief compared to Gods eternity. Because
human life is brief, we must make it count for the Lord. Moses will move into that
issue in the next segment, although he does make the application here. It is
important that we carefully plan our lives to make them most productive for the
Lord.

The Source of the Problem: Human Sin
(Psalm 90:7-12)
Moses next deals with the reason behind human transitoriness. The source of
the problem is human sin. There are three subdivisions in this particular section:
(1) The death of man (90:79), (2) the life span of man and the wrath of God
(90:1011), and (3) the application: Number our days (90:12).
The Death of Man
(90:79)
For we are consumed in Thine anger, And in thy wrath are we
troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in
the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in
thy wrath: We bring our years to an end as a sigh.
In verses 79, Moses describes the essence of the death of man, with verse
seven dealing with death. He begins with the word, for, which introduces an
explanation as to why death comes. Why is death coming upon them? The
answer: we are consumed in Thine anger, And in thy wrath are we troubled.
Troubled is a term that means, to be hurried away in untimely death. This is
Moses recognition of the results of the sin at Kadesh Barnea: that many of these
people could have lived longer, but by Gods judgment, 1,200,000 died during a
38-year period. Many died simply of natural causes, but the wilderness accounts
of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers also tell us that people often died by direct
divine judgment because of sin. Therefore, Moses says, in thy wrath are we
troubled. This is Moses own conclusion of his observations of the sin of Kadesh
Barnea
In verse eight, Moses talks about the reason for the judgment; the reason was
sin: Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, and he pictures the sins of man being
set before God who judges them. Then, he says, our secret sins in the light of thy
countenance. In other words, our secret sins we may hide from man, but not from
God. He brings them to light for the purpose of punishment.
In verse nine, Moses points out that the whole life of man is under the wrath
of God, to the extent, he says, For all our days are passed away in thy wrath. The
point is that the hours of sunlight seem to get shorter because of the darkness
caused by the wrath of God. Then, comes the termination, We bring our years to
an end as a sigh. This describes the exhaling of the last breath, showing a feeling
of weariness, but, ultimately, the exhaling of the last breath of death. Such is the
death of man: untimely; a judgment caused
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 6
by sin; and a judgment that comes finally to bring an end to lives that have passed
under the wrath of God.

The Life Span of Man and the Wrath of God
(9:1011)
The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by
reason of strength fourscore years; Yet is their pride but labor and
sorrow; For it is soon gone, and we fly away. Who knoweth the
power of thine anger, and thy wrath according to the fear that is
due unto thee?
Moses discusses the life span of man and the wrath of God, with verse ten
focusing on the years of man. What are the years of man? What is mans life
span? Moses says, The days of our years are [seventy]. That is a basic minimum,
although many people live less than that. Then he says, or even because of
strength, 80 years. That is a basic maximum, although some live longer. In other
words, Moses gives us an average age span of life, between 70 and 80 years. Most
people can expect to live until 70, although some live less than that. Others can
expect to live up to 80, but some do live longer than that. Whether we go the basic
minimum or the basic maximum, whether we live less or more, the writer says,
regardless, it is all vanity. The Psalmist describes the vanity of it all as, Yet is their
pride but labor and sorrow. One spends all these years in travail and vanity, For
it is soon gone, and we fly away. In other words, what initially appears long to us,
at the end is actually short, and life flies away like a fleeting bird. As noted
earlier, initially things appear a long way ahead of us: Young people see their
eventual death as very far off, having no sense of their mortality; older people
look back and say, Where have the years gone? Young people view time as
moving slowly, with one year of high school or college seeming to take forever;
older people cannot understand how the years have passed so quickly. This is the
difference between looking at it from the beginning and viewing it from the end.
That is the point of this verse. What initially appears long to us, at the end appears
short, for life flies away like a fleeting bird.
Why does this happen? Verse eleven attributes it to the wrath of God. Here,
Moses asks two questions: First, Who knoweth the power of thine anger? Second,
And thy wrath according to the fear that is due unto thee? The lessons that Moses
wants to bring home to us include, first, that there are only a few who truly
appreciate the intensity of the divine wrath aroused by sinfulness. Few people
understand and appreciate that much of their sufferings are due to the wrath of
God. Second, in very few people does the wrath of God induce a sense of fear to
turn away from sin. Even when tragedy hits, although a minority will turn to God
in faith, a vast majority always fail to make the shift to faith in Him.

The Application: Number Our Days
(90:12)
So teach us to number our days, That we may get us a heart of
wisdom.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 7
In the third subdivision, Moses gives the application of the lesson of Kadesh
Barnea (90:12): So teach us to number our days, That we may get us a heart of
wisdom. The lesson he wants to teach us is to number our days. We need to
realize how few our days really are and that, again, not all of our days will be
productive for God. We need to count the days that we have with a full
understanding of the consequences of unworthy days.
Here is an interesting exercise I did for myself, one that I would encourage
you to do for yourself. Figure that you have the minimum total amount to live,
about 70 years, or 25,600 days. From the day you were born, that is how many
days you have to live, approximately. No matter what age you are at the present
time, count the number of days you have left until your 70th birthday. Now, I do
not suggest you do this on an ongoing daily basis. Just do it, say, for a couple of
weeks, and I think it will change your life as it did mine upon realizing the brief
length of ones life and the nature of ones responsibility. So, count the number of
days you have left until your 70th birthday, and then every morning subtract one
day.
Again, you might live less than 70 years; you might live more than 70 years.
However, in the days you have left, your productivity level may not always be the
same. What you do have, make it count for eternity and not only for time. Keep in
mind that the result of Kadesh Barnea was the killing of time for 38 years with
nothing positive accomplished. It was the same monotonous thing every day. Get
up in the morning, have some manna, wait it out, and wait for the cloud or the
pillar of fire to move or not move. In addition, if circumstances broke the
monotony, it generally happened only for instantaneous judgment when many
would die. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you try numbering your days for
only a couple of weeks. Do not keep going indefinitely, because it may leave you
thinking somewhat morbidly. (Oh, I only have a couple of thousand days to
live.) Simply, for merely a short season, count up how many days you have left
to live. Every morning, subtract one day, and realize how much time you have left
to be truly productive for God. Then make each day count for eternity because the
purpose of counting our days, Moses says, is to get us a heart of wisdom. The
Hebrew word for wisdom means to gain skill in living. We are to gain skill in
living our daily lives for God in righteousness and godly deeds. Godly deeds done
with godly wisdom will continue into eternity. Moses wanted to make sure the
new generation would not waste time like the old generation.
Prayer for the Return of Gods Favor
(90:13-17)
The third main division contains a prayer to God to visit His servants to build
upon His eternity through their mortality.
Return, O Jehovah; how long? And let it repent thee concerning
thy servants. Oh satisfy us in the morning with thy lovingkindness,
that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. Make us glad
according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years
wherein we have seen evil. Let thy work appear unto thy servants,
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 8
and thy glory upon their children. And let the favor of the Lord our
God be upon us; And establish thou the work of our hands upon
us; Yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.
Moses issues a prayer for the return of Gods favor. In verse thirteen, he prays
for a turning away of Gods wrath: Return, O Jehovah; how long? His request,
Return, means turn away Your wrath. The question, how long? means,
how long will You be angry? Then Moses says, Let it repent thee concerning
thy servants. The word repent means to change your mind. Not that God needs
repentance for sin, obviously, but Moses plea is that Gods program would be
different for the Wilderness Generation than it was for the Exodus Generation. In
other words, Do not let the wrath on the Exodus Generation extend to the
Wilderness Generation. Change Your mind and do not let Your wrath continue on
the present-day servants, the servants here referring to Israel. In other words,
Moses is asking God to turn sorrow into joy.
In verse fourteen, Moses asks God to remember His covenant love,
requesting, Oh satisfy us in the morning with thy lovingkindness. When he says, in
the morning, he wants the Lord to satisfy speedily. This is the morning after the
troubles of the night. He now looks forward to a new era of joy for Israel. He uses
a word for lovingkindness, chesed, which means covenant-faithfulness.
Accordingly, Moses asks God to restore favor because of Gods covenant with
Israel, specifically, the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant. The reason and the
result is that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
The Hebrew word for rejoice means to sing in ringing tones, emphasizing
external joy. The Hebrew word for be glad emphasizes internal joy. In other
words, he wants Israel to experience both internal and external joys in all their
days. The prayer is that they may enjoy life abundantly rather than continue
passing it in sorrow. The point is to beseech God that what He has done to the
Exodus Generation, He would avoid doing to the Wilderness Generation. Moses
asks for a new era of joy, salvation, and peace on behalf of this new generation.
In verse fifteen, he prays for proportionate restoration. The comparison is as
follows: Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and
the years wherein we have seen evil. The point is this: After the restoration of
Gods favor, may the enjoyment of abundant life be proportionate to the period
suffered while the wrath of God burned against them. His wrath burned against
them for 40 years; now may He restore His favor for 40 years. Moses asks for
proportionate restoration.
In verses 1617, as Moses concludes this Psalm, he makes another contrast
between the work of God and the work of man. Verse sixteen states two things in
emphasizing the work of God: First, Let thy work appear unto thy servants. In
other words, may Gods providence become evident in His work with the new
generation, the Wilderness Generation. Likewise, the
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 9
work of Gods providence is to remain evident in His dealings with our own lives.
Second, Moses says, and thy glory upon their children. The word glory is not the
usual Hebrew word for glory, but is another Hebrew word that means beauty. It
emphasizes the beauty of the Lord. Thus, let Israel have a demonstration of the
beauty of the Lord by seeing the divine splendor as revealed in Gods saving
power. Let them see the beauty of the Lord, in that, just as God is able to punish,
He is also able to bless. When He says, upon their children, he asks not only for
the present-day Wilderness Generation, but also for subsequent generations to be
able to experience the beauty of the Lord. For such is the work of God.
In verse 17, Moses discusses the work of man, beginning with a request: And
let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us. The Hebrew word for favor means
the pleasantness of God. He not only asks God to display His beauty, he also
asks Him to display His pleasantness to Israel. Let Israel now enjoy the beauty
and pleasantness of God in contrast to the wrath and judgment of God. More
specifically, let Israel experience Your beauty in place of Your wrath, Your
pleasantness in place of Your judgment. The request is, therefore, Let the favor of
the Lord our God be upon us.
Moses concludes by emphasizing the means by which the favor of the Lord
our God will be upon us. He makes two statements that are repetitious, thus
emphatic. The first point Moses makes is, And establish thou the work of our
hands upon us. The work of our hands refers to our daily tasks, done in obedience
and according to the will of God to glorify Him. In other words, the work of God
described in verse sixteen He did through the work of man. We need to learn to
work skillfully, having wisdom or skillfulness in living daily for the work of the
Lord. Then, Moses second statement is, Yea, the work of our hands establish
thou it. This repeats for emphasis. The Lords servants should accomplish the
work of God and they will thus enjoy success in their labors although life is short.
Psalm 90 has a four-fold application to us: First, we need to recognize that no
matter how long we live, from the divine perspective, life is very short. Second,
no matter how long we live, not all of our yearsand only, in fact, those middle
yearsare productive. Even in those middle years tragedy, illness, and sickness,
may sideline us, thus making us less productive. Third, we must be very
conscious of how much time we have left in this world. Fourth, we must plan our
lives in such a way to be most productive for the Lord, doing His work.
Conclusion
The following quotation is a beautiful summary of this Psalm:
When God rebukes one for his sin, he feels most frail and
transitory; but when he is blessed by Gods favor, he feels most
worthwhile. He shares in the work of the everlasting God.
Weakened by Gods discipline, one is acutely aware of his
mortality. Abiding in Gods love and
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 10
compassion, he is aware of being crowned with glory and honor.
1
We believers often use many sayings and cliches, including some that are not
even biblically valid, such as Let go, Let God. However, in keeping with Psalm
90, one cliche is biblical. We should make its message real in our lives:
Only one life twill soon be passed,
Only whats done for Christ will last.

1
Psalms, by Allen P. Ross, Bible Knowledge Commentary, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck,
editors (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985); 1:860.

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 11
Divine Emotion

Dr. George E. Meisinger *
[*Editors note: George E. Meisinger is dean of Chafer
Theological Seminary, as well as teaching in the Old and New
Testament departments. He received his B.A. from Biola
University, a Th.M. in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from
Dallas Theological Seminary, and a D.Min. in Biblical Studies
from Western Seminary, and presently pursues a Ph.D. in
Systematic Theology. He also pastors Grace Church in Orange,
California.]
What does Scripture teach about Gods feelings, or emotions? The question is:
Does God have feeling as we humans experience emotion? Some theologians
teach the impassibility of God, which if true means that God does not have
emotion, or passion.
1
A Figure of Speech: Anthropomorphism
Let us back up a moment. It will help us understand what goes on here to
recall the notion of anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphism holds that the
Bible ascribes to God human, physical characteristics, which God does not in fact
have.
2
Anthropomorphisms seek to humanize God so that we may better
understand what the Lord is like. For example, Scripture says God has:
A finger (Deuteronomy 9:10);
A hand (Exodus 3:20; Isaiah 66:2);
An arm (Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 4:34; 5:15);
An ear (Isaiah 37:17; Psalm 11:4).

1
The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, promotes this belief (see Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994], 165).
2
See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1968), 87197, where he discusses anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms under the title
Anthropopatheia; or, Condescension.
Scripture also says that God comes and goes, though He is omnipresent, being
everywhere at once. Coming and going are anthropomorphisms to
communicate something of Gods activity (Genesis 11:5; Isaiah 64:12).
Such anthropomorphisms as these are unnumbered in the Bible. We should
note that where Scripture ascribes physical members to God, it is not an assertion
that God possesses these members, or a corporal body with its parts. Instead, these
indications of physical members show that God is able to do precisely those
things that are the functions of mans physical parts. He that planted the ear, shall
he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see (Psalm 94:9)?
3
Theologians rightly conclude these are figures of speech (anthropomorphisms)
because the Bible states that Gods nature is Spirit. He is without material
substance. For example:
God is Spirit (John 4:24),
Moreover a spirit does not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).
Paul mentions His invisible attributes (Romans 1:20),
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 12
Or simply that God is invisible (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17).
Thus, no one has seen God at any time (John 1:18; cp. Exodus 33:1820).
Now hands, arms, fingers, and moving from place to place ascribe physical
qualities to God, though He does not literally have physical characteristics, being
Spirit. Thus, it is proper to call these things anthropomorphisms. By their use
God condescends to us, in order that we may rise to Him.
4
Anthropopathism: Another Figure of Speech?
So, what about those places that ascribe emotional qualities to God? When the
Bible talks about Gods emotions, some call it an anthropopathism, which is to
ascribe emotion to God. They say, though, that in fact He does not have feeling.
5

Anthropo + Morphism
Man + Physical form

3
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1962), 1:18182.
4
Chafer, 1:183.
5
Human affections and feelings are attributed to God: Not that He has such feelings; but, in
infinite condescension, He is thus spoken of in order to enable us to comprehend Him
(Bullinger, 882).
--and--
Anthropo + Pathism
Man + Passion (emotion)
There are often four reasons some theologians use to devise the notion of
anthropopathism:
Reason #1: Some people reason that since God is not physical, He cannot
have human feeling, or emotion. Yet, we must ask why say that Spirit cannot have
emotion? Apart from clear revelation that says so (and none does), such a
conclusion is a non sequitur, that is, it does not follow from the fact God is Spirit.
In fact, in Job 7:11 we read of the distress of my spirit, which suggests that if
spirit has emotion then it is reasonable to infer that Spirit has emotion. Yet, some
theologians conclude as follows:
When we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that
there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode
of speech accommodated
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 13
to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated
whenever he exercises judgement.
6
Reason #2: Others say that since so much of what we see emotionally in
humans is negative, God could not be like that by having emotion. They suppose,
therefore, that terminology speaking of divine emotion does not reflect real
feeling in God, but only non-emotional attitudes, or disposition. However,
although man distorts emotion into something less than perfect, this does not
mean that God would or does.
Reason #3: The Westminster Confession of Faith uses a proof text (Acts
14:15) to establish the impassibility of God.
7
The text proves nothing of the kind.
Paul compares himself with the men of Lystra saying that he is of the same
nature (same passion, ) as they. By so doing he implies that all
men are not of the same nature/passion as God. Contextually, Pauls point is that
God alone should be worshiped, not man. The passage says nothing either for or
against the notion of divine emotion.
Reason #4: Others seek to draw a parallel between anthropomorphisms and
anthropopathisms. That is, since anthropomorphisms talk about physical
characteristics in God that are not actually true of Him, so anthropopathisms talk
about emotional characteristics in God that are not actually true of Him.

6
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17 (Logos Library System
2.1b, CD-ROM).
7
Grudem, 16566.
One popular preacher says this:
In planning the creation of mankind, God said, Let us make
mankind in our shadow-image according to our likeness, Gen
1:26. When God said that, He could not have possibly been talking
about emotion, since there is no evidence for emotion in the
essence of God.
8
Without validation regarding the absence of divine emotion, the statement
cannot stand. Moreover, there is no analogy, or parallel, with anthropomorphisms
except where one invents it. We have clear biblical justification for the notion of
an anthropomorphism because the Bible says, God is Spirit, or invisible
(references above). There is zero exegetical or theological justification for
assigning Gods emotions to the status of a figure of speech, that is,
anthropopathism. Thus, without such justification, we should take the statements
of divine emotion at face value.
The following statement does not line up with what the Bible in fact says, but
rather with what one speculates is the case, thus should not stand:
Why do theologians have such a predilection for assigning emotion
to God? Because of failure to
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 14
understand anthropopathic revelation of God in the word of God.
9
We may conclude the four reasons above by saying that none holds water;
none offers ground upon which to base a doctrine of impassibility: an emotionless
God.
We may add that, if there is not emotion in God, then Gods appeals based on
divine emotion are deceptive. For example, in Isaiah 1:24 God presents Himself
as being in pain like a father who has rebellious sons. In Jeremiah 2 and 3 (as well
as other passages like Ezekiel 16 and 23), He presents Himself as an emotionally
wounded husband of an unfaithful wife. If He has no emotion about this, His
appeal seems like a sham.
10

8
R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, Bible Doctrines on Computer Diskette.
9
Thieme, Computer Diskette.
10
Suggested by Cliff Rapp, professor at CTS.
Reasons for Seeing Genuine Emotion in God
Reason #1: The Lords experience with Israel in Old Testament times
His soul could no longer endure the misery of Israel (Judges
10:16; cp. Jeremiah 5:9, 29 [Myself = (napesu)]; 6:8; 15:1
[My mind = (napeshi)]; Isaiah 42:1).
We could render Judges 10:16 with the personal pronoun: I could no longer
endure the misery of Israel. However, the expression His soul is pregnant
adding that the Lord was emotionally involved with Israel, something that we
cannot explain away with the notion of an anthropopathism. The verse may stand
as is: God experienced the emotion of grief at the suffering of His people,
although they deserved it.
Nor, by the way, should one explain away this verse as an anthropomorphism.
Why?To understand the Lords soul as an anthropomorphism would be to
use this figure of speech in a peculiar way. Anthropomorphism speaks of
ascribing material characteristics to God, not immaterial. What is soul other
than those capacities we usually define as mentality, volition, emotion, and
perhaps conscience. There does not seem to be anything incongruous about saying
God has a soul, especially when we consider that the Lord created man (who has
an immaterial soul) in the image and likeness of God.
Isaiah says that God was afflicted, meaning emotionally distressed (in all their
affliction He was afflicted, Isaiah 63:9). We find the same term in Job 7:11, where
Job mentions the distress of my spirit. Emotional, not physical, distress is in view
because God is not subject to whatever is physical in nature. In other words, when
Israel hurt, the Lord hurt. When Israel suffered emotional distress, there was a
corresponding emotional distress in God.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 15
Here is another consideration. As regards Gods anger, it is not an eternal
emotion. God is a happy God, which is His eternal disposition (1 Timothy 1:11).
Before creation, He was only happy. After creation and before the fall (of Satan),
He was only happy. After the devils fall, He became angryangry at sin and
rebellion. We may support real divine anger with passages like Isaiah 28:21
where the prophet refers to massive destruction as Gods unusual act. Judgment is
unusual because it is not an eternal expression of His nature. Accordingly, He is
susceptible to impression from withoutsin makes Him angry (note also the
present tense of is revealed in Romans 1:18).
11

11
Ibid.
Reason #2: The Incarnation
Jesus Christ is the preeminent reference point for what God is like. John says:
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in
the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (John 1:18).
The preceding verse is an overview of the Incarnation, of Jesus Christs time
on earth. On an occasion during the Lords earthly ministry, during which He was
declaring the Father, Philip made a request:
Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us (John 14:8).
Jesus answer is revealing:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9).
Note, additionally, what the author of Hebrews says:
God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son who [is] the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His person
(Hebrews 1:13).
These passages say that as we observe Jesus Christ in the Gospels, we see
something of what God is like. Jesus humanity is a perfect (though not infinite)
reflector of God. What we observe in the humanity of Jesus reveals God
Himselfexcept, of course, where Jesus manifests the normal and sinless
limitations of humanity such as hunger and fatigue. However, Scripture does not
exclude emotion from God. To the contrary, many passages ascribe emotion to
God. Therefore, where we see emotion in Jesus Christ, it reflects divine emotion.
Some disagree.
Emotion related to the person of Jesus Christ is confined to His
human nature in hypostatic union. There is no emotion in His
divine nature, only in His human
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 16
nature. When Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus, that was good
emotion from His human nature. Because of the impeccability of
Jesus Christ, He experienced only good emotion. While there is no
emotion in the deity of Christ, there is perfect emotion in the
humanity of Christ.
12

12
Thieme, Computer Diskette.
One may contend that there is no emotion in the deity of Christ; to prove it
one needs sound biblical evidence. An appeal to the hypostatic union (which is a
true doctrine) and to the impeccability of Christ (which is also a true doctrine)
does not prove anything either for or against divine emotion. To conclude that
there is perfect emotion in the humanity of Christ is a true statement, but it says
nothing for or against perfect emotion in the deity of Christ.
Specific examples of emotion in Jesus Christ:
Anger when He drove the money changers out of the temple (Matthew
21:12),
Sorrow/tears at Lazarus tomb and over the city of Jerusalem (John 11:35;
Luke 19:41; cp. Matthew 23:37),
Comfort that is resident in the Lord and which He shares with His people
(2 Corinthians 1:34),
Joy, which the Spirit specifically locates within the deity of Christ, and that
sustained His humanity on the Cross (Hebrews 1:9; 12:2).
Remember that no man has seen God at any time, but Jesus Christ reveals
Him and Jesus exhibits emotion. A 20
th
Century theologian points out that the
notion God does not have emotion (impassibility) is not a biblical notion at all,
but derives from the rags of Greek philosophy.
13
Reason #3: God Suffered on the Cross
It was the righteousness of God that required Jesus Christs death for our sin.
Gods love provided Jesus sacrifice. Now while Christ endured crucifixion, He
gave us one of the clearest examples that God is capable of suffering, or emotion.
We see this particularly in the Lords cry, My God, My God, why have You
forsaken Me? Note also He who did not spare ( [pheidomai]) His own
Son (Romans 8:32), which suggests that it was an emotionally painful sacrifice
for the Father to deliver up His uniquely begotten Son for the sins of the world.
Also see Genesis 22:16 where Abraham did not withhold ( [pheidomai])
his son, Isaac. If we put ourselves in Abrahams sandals for a moment, we can
sense the emotional distress he endured at that moment.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 17
Reason #4: Gods sympathy toward believers in the present Church
Dispensation
We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15).

13
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 737.
Sympathize ( [sumpatheo]) means to share in someones feeling.
In addition, the noun form ( [sumpathes]) means to feel sympathy for
someone (1 Peter 3.8).
14

Other Manifestations of Divine Emotion
Anger (Isaiah 1:14; Nahum 1:2),
Compassion (Psalm 103:13),
Comfort (Isaiah 57:6; Ezekiel 5:13),
Delight (Deuteronomy 10:15),
Displeased (Zechariah 1:15),
Grief (Genesis 6:6; Psalm 78:40; cp. Ephesians 4:30),
Jealousy (Exodus 20:5; Zechariah 1:14; James 4:5),
Laugh of derision (Psalm 2:4; 37:13),
Love (Deuteronomy 10:15),
Rejoicing (Psalm 104:31; Isaiah 62:5).
Now let us note several penetrating insights from theologians of the last two
centuries.
Insights from Notable Theologians
Insight from Charles Hodge
We are the children of God, and, therefore, we are like Him. We
are, therefore, authorized to ascribe to Him all the attributes of our
own nature as rational creatures, without limitation, and to an
infinite degree. If we are like God, God is like us. This is the
fundamental principle of all religion. This is the principle which
Paul assumed in his address to the Athenians (Acts 17:29):
forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to
think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven

14
Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on
Semantic Domains, (Logos Library System 2:1b, CD-ROM) (New York: United Bible Societies)
1988, 1989.
by art and mans device. If we are His children, He is our
Father, whose image we bear, and of whose nature we partake.
15
Accordingly, because we are in the image of God (Genesis 1:26; 1
Corinthians 11:7), we cannot dismiss the statements that ascribe emotion to God
as anthropopathisms. The many statements about divine emotion
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 18
have real correspondence in God Himself.
16
For example, Gods love includes
genuine affection, but it is perfectas He is perfectand not subject to
vacillation, extremes, or other human defects. No need exists to dispose of divine
emotion because of human faults.
Gods love, along with all other manifestations of divine emotion, is
subordinate to His righteousness, unchangeableness, and truthfulness. Thus, the
Lord commands us to let our love abound still more and more in knowledge and
all discernment (Philippians 1:9).
Insight from Oliver Buswell
The schoolmen and often the philosophical theologians tell us that
there is not feeling in God. This, they say, would imply passivity
or susceptibility of impression from without, which, it is assumed,
is incompatible with the nature of God [But] such a view is in
real contradiction to the representations of God in the Old
Testament and the New Testament . here again we have to
choose between a mere philosophical speculation and the clear
testimony of the Bible, and of our own moral and religious nature.
Love, of necessity, involves feeling, and if there be no feeling in
God, there can be no love.
If the word for love, agape, has been reduced by some to
innocuous frigidity, frozen nothingness, what will they do with the
word compassionate feeling, oiktirmoi? Blessed be the God
and Father of all consolation, who hath consoled us upon every
occasion of trouble so that we should be able to console those in
every trouble through the consolation with which we consoled

15
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Reprint edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),
1:339.
16
J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 109, says that God has
no passionsthis does not mean that He is unfeeling (impassive), or that there is nothing in Him
that corresponds to emotions and affections in us, but that whereas human passionsspecially the
painful ones, fear, grief, regret, despairare in a sense passive and involuntary, being called forth
and constrained by circumstances not under our control, the corresponding attitudes in God have
the nature of deliberate, voluntary choices, and therefore are not of the same order as human
passions at all.
ourselves by God (2 Cor. 1:34). Here Gods compassionate
feelings are alleged as the grounds of His comforting us, as our
compassionate feelings are to be the grounds of our comforting
others in trouble. To this end we are exhorted, As elect of God,
holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with the affections of
compassionate feelings, splagchna oiktirmoi (Col. 3:12). As if
to make double sure that we understand Gods at-
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 19
titude toward us as one of literal and not merely symbolical
compassion and sympathy, the Scripture distinguishes between
Gods act of mercy, implied in the verb eleeo, and Gods
compassionate feelings, implied in the verb oikteiro. I will show
acts of mercy toward him whom I show acts of mercy, and I will
have compassionate feelings toward him whom I have
compassionate feelings (Romans 9:15) .
Unless we wish to reduce the love of God to the frozen wastes of
pure speculative abstraction, we should shake off the static
ideology which has come into Christian theology from non-
Biblical sources, and insist upon preaching the living God of
intimate actual relationship with His people. Gods immutability is
the absolutely perfect consistency of His character in His actual
relationships, throughout history, with His finite creation. Does
ever a sinner repent, there is always joy in the presence of the
angels (Luke 15:7, 10). Does ever a child of God, sealed by the
Spirit, fall into sin, the Holy Spirit is grieved (Ephesians 4:30).
17
Insight from Henry Thiessen
Philosophers frequently deny feeling to God, saying that feeling
implies passivity and susceptibility of impression from without,
and that such a possibility is incompatible with the idea of the
immutability of God. But immutability does not mean immobility.
True love necessarily involves feeling, and if there be no feeling in
God, then there is no love of God.
18
Insight from the Westminster Theological Journal
Man is made as Gods image, created to imitate his Creator and
Lord. The Bible clearly reveals a passionate God. I do not mean to
deny the impassibility of God in its classic sense, namely, that
God is never passive, never acted upon. Yet Scripture teaches that

17
Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1971), 5557.
18
Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 130131.
God is angry with the wicked every day, that he loves his people
with an eternal love, dancing over them as a warrior over his bride,
that he delights in the ways of the righteous. The incarnate Son
cursed hypocritical Pharisees, overturned money-changers in the
temple, shed tears at Bethany, sweat blood in Gethsemane, cried
out
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 20
in agony from the cross of Calvaryall for the joy that was set
before him. Our God is no Stoic sage . Christians should strive
not for moderate passions, but for strong God-directed passions.
19
Verses for Personal Application
Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love (Romans
12:10).
If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one
member is honored, all the members rejoice with it (1 Corinthians
12:26).
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, just
as God in Christ also forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).
Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one
another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous (1 Peter
3:8).
As the sons of God by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone,
let us not assign these challenges to innocuous frigidity, frozen nothingness, or
the frozen wastes of speculative abstraction, as Buswell puts it. As God is a
God of perfect emotion and passion, so we should walk with godly affection and
emotion in our relationships.

19
Peter J. Leithart, Stoic Elements in Calvins Doctrine of the Christian Life: Part III: Christian
Moderation (WTJ, vol. 56, #1, Spring 1994) (Logos Library System 2.1b, CD-ROM).

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 21
Forgiveness:
Believers Forgiving One Another

Paul Schmidtbleicher *
[*Editors note: Paul Schmidtbleicher earned a Th.B. from William
Tyndale College and Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary.
Paul pastors Evergreen Baptist Church in the state of Washington
and is on the National Board of Advisors of Chafer Theological
Seminary.]
Introduction
Forgiveness is a broad term. The Scriptures present two major subdivisions:
the forgiveness of God and the personal forgiveness between individuals.
Although Scripture grounds the forgiveness of one another in the forgiveness of
God, personal forgiveness is the emphasis of this study. There have been volumes
written on and about the forgiveness of God. Unfortunately, writers have given us
much less material about personal forgiveness between believers.
Peoples thinking about forgiveness seems to settle into two extremes. The
first extreme becomes a wide open forgiveness where forgiveness is an
overlooking of sin and sinful behavior based upon stand-alone interpretations of
passages like Matthew 1821-22 and Colossians 3:13.
Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my
brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to
seventy times seven (Matthew 18:2122)
Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has
a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you
also must do (Colossians 3:13).
The other extreme becomes a half-hearted forgiveness where believers do
speak to one another, but there is no restoration of trust, interchange, or commerce
like what existed before the offense. This, I believe, people base upon a defective
view of forgiveness in which the offending sin of the guilty person has not been
fully addressed.
This study seeks to present a balanced view on forgiveness between believers.
Gods Forgiveness: A Foundation
Gods forgiveness of the believers sins is a marvelous provision of eternal
salvation. A believer receives the forgiveness of God for all past sins at the point
of salvation. Yet, it is much different for God. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has
written:
Forgiveness on the part of one person toward another is the
simplest of duties, whereas forgiveness on the part of God toward
man proves the most complicated and costly of undertakings. As
seen in the Bible, there is an analogy between forgiveness and debt
and, in the forgiveness that God exercises, the debt must be
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 22
paidthough it is paid by Himselfbefore forgiveness can be
extended. Thus it is learned that while human forgiveness only
remits a penalty or charge, divine forgiving must require complete
satisfaction for the demands of Gods outraged holiness first of
all.
1
Although Dr. Chafer takes human forgiveness to be rather simple, he clearly
presents the high cost of divine forgiveness. Payment or restitution for sin in the
death of Christ was necessary. Furthermore, one receives divine forgiveness
because of faith in Christfaith alone in Christ alone. Some scriptures call
upon man to repent:
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the
Lord (Acts 3:19)
[Paul declared] . . . throughout all the region of Judea, and then to
the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works
befitting repentance (Acts 26:20).
There are two free grace views regarding repentance. The first is that
repentance is not a separate step in securing salvation and the forgiveness of sins,
but a change of mind from unbelief to belief. Repent is the translation of the
Greek word (metanoeo), which means a change of mind. Dr. Robert
Lightner sees this use of repent in salvation not as a separate step, but as included
in believing.

1
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Texas, 1948), 7:162163.
The word repentance means a change of mind. Because of the confusion,
many make repentance a separate and additional condition of salvation. This is
not true in the Word. There is no question about it: repentance is necessary for
salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as included in believing and not
as an additional and separate condition to faith. All who have trusted in Christ as
Savior have changed their minds regarding Him and their sin. (Of course, it would
be impossible to change ones mind without trusting the Savior.) According to
scriptural usage, repentance is almost synonymous for faith. Paul said he declared
to both the Jews and the Greeks Repentance towards God and faith toward our
Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).
2
A second free grace view expounded by Zane C. Hodges also does not see
repentance as a separate condition to salvation, or as the other side of the same
coin of faith as does Lightner. Hodges sees repentance as one of several ways
God uses to prepare the sinner to accept the free gift of salvation.
3
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 23
For the believer who sins after salvation, the Scripture makes it clear that the
forgiveness of God is based upon a change of mind (repentance) that confesses
agreement with God that the offense is sin.
[To Simon the magician the apostle says] Repent therefore of this
your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your
heart may be forgiven you (Acts 8:22)
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)
Therefore, what is basic to Gods forgiveness of the unbeliever is the
restitution made by Jesus Christ on the Cross (His Atonement) and for the
unbeliever to change his mind about Christ. Where the believer is concerned, he
must change his mind about personal acts of sin and confess them. In both cases,
a basic change of mind as a part of belief or confession plays a part in receiving
forgiveness of sins from God.
On the other hand, it is most important to realize that Gods forgiveness has
never been an overlooking of sins and trespasses. God, as the ultimate victim of
all sin, has received restitution in the death of Christ.
God bases His forgiveness or receipt of His pardon
4
upon the restitution for
sins that Christ voluntarily made for the world. From the earliest mention of

2
Robert P. Lightner, Sin, the Savior, and Salvation (Nashville, 1991), 167.
3
Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free (Grand Rapids, 1989), 167180.
4
The basic meaning of the primary Hebrew word for forgiveness is pardon. The Hebrew uses
salach only of God as the ultimate victim and the one whom sin always affects.
forgiveness, the Lord has never discounted nor overlooked our sins. He forgives
us because Christ made restitution. Though God made the restitution for us, it was
still required to obtain Gods forgiveness. To put it the opposite way: without the
restitution payment of Jesus Christ, there would be no forgiveness!
The Forgiveness of God and the Forgiveness of Man
The Word divides the biblical teaching on forgiveness into two categories: (1)
Religious forgiveness before God, and (2) Civil forgiveness before men. An
example of religious forgiveness is Colossians 1:14; an example of civil
forgiveness is Colossians 3:13.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14).
Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man
have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do
you (Colossians 3:13).
Religious forgiveness involves maintaining the vertical relationship between
the believer and the Lord. As seen in Colossians 1:14, it is gained
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 24
at salvation through the restitution payment made by Christs death. It is
maintained through the confession of sins by us and the cleansing of sins by God
(1 John 1:9).
Civil forgiveness involves the maintaining of horizontal relationships between
peoplethe real emphasis of this study. Some sins by their very nature involve
other persons and are against people. These offenses offend them! When this is
the case, religious forgiveness must include civil forgiveness. We must reestablish
the horizontal relationship by, in part, maintaining our vertical relationship with
the Lord. As shall be shown, an offender must seek civil forgiveness, once an
offense has occurred, through a change of mind (i.e., metanoia or repentance) and
restitution when required.
Forgiveness from the Viewpoint of the Offender
We will first consider the Offender because we hope that the reader who sins
against another will not allow an offense to lay and fester. Rather, may he seek to
take the correct biblical action to resolve the problem before both God and man.
The Victimless Offense
The victimless offense is actually a misnomer. God Himself is the victim of
all our sin. Examples would be mental attitude sins or sins that never actually
reach out to offend another person. However, all sin does offend God and He
becomes the ultimate victim (Rom 3:23; 8:7).
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the
law of God, nor indeed can be (Romans 8:7).
Because God is victimized by our private and personal sins, we are to confess
our sins to Him and gain His forgiveness (1 John 1:9). Our agreeing with God in
confession involves seeing our sin and acknowledging it as He sees it. This brings
Gods forgiveness. He does not overlook our sin nor simply excuse it, but applies
the restitution payment paid by His Son on the Cross to forgive our sin (1 John
1:7). The result is that the Lord restores the vertical relationship. By definition
(clarification will follow), sin offends no one but God. Therefore, confession
before the Lord ends the matter.
Offenses against Victims
This type of offense is a sin against other persons. Somehow our sin affects
them and we offend them, whether judicially or emotionally. We have
trespassed against both God in our vertical relationship and against others with
whom we share a horizontal relationship in this category of sin. Therefore,
forgiveness must restore the horizontal relationship with persons sinned against
and also the vertical relationship with God. Accordingly, we must seek both civil
and religious forgiveness.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 25
An Alternate View
At this point, some
5
propose that the believer needs only to confess an offense
to God who then freely forgives, without any need to seek civil forgiveness or to
resolve the offended horizontal relationship.
Some make the claim that the death of Christ brings forgiveness before God
(religious) and before men (civil) without any further resolution or restitution
between men. These proponents argue that for every sin and crime, one needs
only to confess to God for total forgiveness. The victim is then required to forgive
based solely upon the forgiveness that he has personally received in Christ. This
view is proposed from faulty interpretations of the following two passages:
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just
as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).

5
Some refer to individuals involved in conversations and debates with the author over the
issues of what God requires for forgiveness. The author is unaware of any written defense of this
position, yet it prevails in many areas of Grace Christianity.
If we carry this view to its logical end, the victim must forgive and seek
restoration with the perpetrator solely because of the forgiveness of Christ. Thus:
The thief steals, confesses to God, who supposedly totally forgives him.
Tough luck for the victim who has lost real property!
The slanderer libels, devastates his target, and confesses to God, who
supposedly totally forgives him. Tough luck again for the victim with a ruined
reputation! As should be quickly surmised, this is not biblical.
The basic arguments against this view involve the fact that the death of Christ
made payment or restitution for the sins of men before God, satisfying His
victimization in all sin. Satisfying mans victimization demands pursuing the
issues of civil forgiveness that we have yet to present. The death of Christ
satisfied (propitiated) Gods righteousness and justice so that men can receive
Gods (religious) forgiveness and eternal life.
In addition, the death of Christ covered Gods required restitution as an
included party in the sins of one man against another. However, sins against
society and against one another require civil restitution for forgiveness before
God and men. Thus:
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 26
The thief steals, realizes his sin, and confesses to God and his victim, then
makes restitution, and God forgives him. The divine requirement commands
men to forgive the repentant offender. The death of Christ compensated God.
The perpetrator compensates the victim by restitution.
The slanderer libels and devastates his target, realizes his sin, confesses to
God and the victim, makes restitution, and God forgives him. The Lord
requires men to forgive the repentant man. The death of Christ compensates
God. Restitution compensates the victim.
This is the overview of the basic principle that we must detail from Scripture.
Those who hold that confession to God alone is all that is necessary for
forgiveness remove the basis for criminal law. They also remove the basis of
restitution to victims. Some holding this view include in their logic a faulty
interpretation of Davids prayer of confession in Psalm 51 where he states,
Against You, You only, have I sinned.
6
They see God as the only one to whom one
must confess. In this way they avoid the command of James 5:16 to confess your
faults to one another. To the contrary, we should interpret James 5 following the
normative process of civil forgiveness where the confession of the offenders sin
to the offended party takes place.
7
What an Offender does to Seek Forgiveness
Having outlined what an offender should do when he has sinned against
another, the Scriptures are now set forth.
Since one of the proper uses of the Old Testament is for our example (1
Corinthians 10:11), the foundation for what an offender should do to seek
forgiveness includes the examples of Gods Law. Leviticus 6 presents clear
guidelines about the principles involved when one sins against God and another
person.
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: If a person sins and
commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbor about
what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or
about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, or if he
has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears
falselyin
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 27
any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: then it
shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore
what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was
delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found,
or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full
value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs,
on the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass
offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, with
your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. So the priest
shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be
forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in
which he trespasses (Leviticus 6:17).

6
By the time David finished with his sin of victimizing Uriah by adultery with his wife, and then
murdering the original victim (Uriah), God was the only party left as victim of this offense. See a
more complete discussion in the Appendix of this article.
7
I do not see any problem with James 5:16 when interpreted with a view to offenders seeking
civil forgiveness from victims by acknowledging their sin to the victims. This is not public
confession for the sake of some right to know. The confession is as public as need be
depending upon the number of victims involved, affected, or hurt by the sin of an offending
sinner.
The situation involves a sin against the Lord that is also a sin against another
person. There are victims involved. God is first set forth as the ultimate victim of
all sin. This scenario also includes persons who are victims. The pattern for
forgiveness set forth includes the offender seeking religious forgiveness with God
to restore the vertical relationship through the required trespass offering. It also
includes seeking civil forgiveness and restoring the horizontal relationship
through a change of mind (metanoia), that is, repentance, confession, and
restitution.
The offenses mentioned include lying, false swearing (6:23), lessor
categories (any of these things, 6:3), to robbery (6:2) and extortion (6:2).
The requirement is that the offender who is guilty of the sin (a) come before
the Lord (6:6), (b) acknowledge the sin by a mind changing repentance and
confess it
8
(6:67), (c) make restitution (6:5), and then (d) receive final
forgiveness from God (6:7).
The text does not view the offense as outright criminal activity. If it were, the
restitution would be at least double according to Exodus 22:14, rather than here
where restitution involved restoration plus an added payment of twenty percent
(Leviticus 6:5). Under this formula, God granted forgiveness and so must the
victim.
Forgiveness means to discharge, dismiss, acquit, let loose from; to remit a
debt or sin, to pardon.
9
Forgiveness does not mean that the victim will forget the
offense. Jay Adams explains further what is involved:
Forgiveness means no longer continuing to dwell on the sin that
was forgiven. Forgiveness is the promise not to
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 28
raise the issue again to the offender, to others or to himself.
Brooding is a violation of the promise made in granting
forgiveness.
10
Furthermore, as one follows the principles of forgiveness, there is
the establishment of a new relationship between the offender and
God and between the offender and the offended party (parties) . . .
enmity and alienation are replaced by peace and fellowship.
11

8
Confession is both to God by means of the trespass offering as well as to the victim who will
receive the restitution payment. We assume that receipt of the restitution payment is proof of the
confession to the individual.
9
W. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels (London, 1948), 564.
10
Jay E. Adams, The Christian Counselors Manual (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1973), 65.
The victim forgives the offender. They restore the estranged relationship and
peace prevails. The grace of God not only forgives the former offender, but the
guilty party takes the required action to seek to make restitution to the victim.
We should note that where tangible property is involved, the principle is
straightforward as in the above example. However, in intangible areas where one
has damaged anothers reputation, violated a confidence or trust, or the sin has
driven a wedge between believers, the restitution may be an apology. Possibly,
restitution could be requiring the offender to retrieve the maligning or gossip
before all involved. In the latter case, this should be sufficient. In the former case,
the offender can only make restitution by exhibiting fruits worthy of repentance
(Matthew 3:8) over a period of time. On the other hand, the victim must forgive
the offender before God and leave things in His hands while seeking
reconciliation.
12
A second Old Testament passage that addresses what an offender should do to
obtain forgiveness occurs in Leviticus 5.
If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to
the holy things of the Lord, then he shall bring to the Lord as his
trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your
valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for
the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing, and shall add
one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So the priest shall make
atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it
shall be forgiven him (Leviticus 5:1516).
At issue is unintentional sin against the holy things of the Lord. These
things we may see as the properties of the Lord. When this happened, the Lord
Himself required both the trespass offering to resolve the vertical estrangement
that the sin had caused between himself and God and a restitution
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 29
payment in restoring the holy thing plus twenty percent. The restoration and
additional compensation resolved the horizontal estrangement of the offender
from the priest who was the Lords personal representative in the matter.
Based upon (1) the confession of the sin, (2) the offering representing the
atonement of Messiah to come, and (3) the restitution payment, one was to grant
forgiveness with all the ramifications discussed above.

11
Ibid., 63.
12
Forgiveness from the victims point of view we will discuss later.
An Interesting Application
If a wrong that victimizes others included restitution, that is, a restoration of
the thing plus twenty percent, then it would cause many to think twice before
sinning against another believer. On the other end, for the victim, seeing
restitution plus twenty percent would go a long way toward motivating one to
forgive seventy times seven.
A believer who borrowed your car and returned it dented would do better to
return it restored and add some credit for a few tanks of gasoline. He would have
gone the extra mile (seen in the above examples) and you would have little
trouble forgivingreally forgivingand even letting him borrow the car again!
Jesus Teaching on Forgiveness for the Offender
One passage stands out in the Lords teaching on forgiveness according to the
offender:
Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember
that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there
before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your
brother, and then come and offer your gift (Matthew 5:2324).
Here, Christ pictures the offender as attempting to worship and serve the Lord.
However, there is a sin, an offense, that stands between himself and another.
Because of the order of procedure, the logical assumption is to assume that the
offense also stands between the offender and God. In other words, sin violated the
vertical relationship as well as the horizontal relationship. The guilty party needs
to seek both civil as well as religious forgiveness.
Bringing a gift to the altar assumes the desire by the offender to worship and
enjoy reconciliation with the Lord. In terms of Romans 6:13, the offender has
decided to yield his members as instruments of righteousness to God. He has
acknowledged his sin to the Lord wanting the Lords forgiveness.
Yet, the Lord instructs the offender to first be reconciled to your brother and
then come and offer your gift. The obvious conclusion is that as in the Old
Testament example of Leviticus 6:17, one must seek civil forgiveness as a part
of Gods religious forgiveness. Both the horizontal estrangement with
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 30
the person offended he must address as well as the vertical estrangement
(unresolved sin) with the Lord.
Biblical Examples of Offenders Seeking Forgiveness
Except for those seeking eternal forgiveness there are few examples of
offenders seeking forgiveness. We shall set forth two examples in the Old
Testament and two from the New Testament of an offender seeking forgiveness.
(1) Pharaoh: The first example is the Pharaoh of Egypt who when faced with
the plague of locusts asked forgiveness of both the Lord and of Moses in Exodus
10. Because of Pharaohs refusal to let Israel go, God sent the locust plague. In
the severity of the plague, Pharaoh quickly realized his trespass. He approached
Moses for forgiveness.
Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste, and said, I
have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. Now
therefore, please forgive my sin only this once, and entreat the
Lord your God, that He may take away from me this death only
(Exodus 10:1617).
Pharaoh, as an unbeliever, recognized that the trespass was against both God
and man. He confessed his sin to Moses asking for his forgiveness and for Moses
to entreat God for His forgiveness.
It is obvious that the restitution offered to the Lord and Moses was a
reconsideration of letting Israel leave Egypt. Moses and the Lord forgave,
removing the plague. However, Pharaoh later refused the restitution and would
become subject to more plagues.
So he went out from Pharaoh and entreated the Lord. And the Lord
turned a very strong west wind, which took the locusts away and
blew them into the Red Sea. There remained not one locust in all
the territory of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart, and
he did not let the children of Israel go (Exodus 10:1820).
(2) Abigail: The second example is a woman who sought to take the blame for
the evil of her husband, Nabal, who had railed upon David. As David would
angrily seek to take vengeance, Abigail came to David in the name of the
offender, Nabal, asking forgiveness with gifts of restitution.
Then Abigail made haste and took two hundred loaves of bread,
two skins of wine, five sheep already dressed, five seahs of roasted
grain, one hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of
figs, and loaded them on donkeys (1 Samuel 25:18).
And now this present which your maidservant has brought to my
lord, let it be given to the young men who follow my lord. Please
forgive the trespass of your maidservant. For the Lord will
certainly make for my
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 31
lord an enduring house, because my lord fights the battles of the
Lord, and evil is not found in you throughout your days (1 Samuel
25:2728).
Although the text says nothing of confession to the Lord, certainly the text
addresses the estranged horizontal relationship with (1) confession, (2) seeking
forgiveness, and (3) restitution.
(3) The Prodigal Son: The major New Testament example of forgiveness is
that of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1132). This familiar parable begins with the
younger son obtaining and wasting his inheritance on riotous living (15:13) and
on prostitutes (15:30). As he runs out of money and reaps the results of the
terrible decisions he has made, he realizes he has sinned. He has a metanoia, or
mind changing repentance, realizing that he has sinned against God and also
against his father.
I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have
sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy
to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants
(Luke 15:1819).
The son realizes his sin has vertical (man to God) and also horizontal (man to
man) consequences. We assume that at the moment of repentance he confessed
his sins to God and determined to return to his father with the offer of a minimal
restitution, returning to his father to become as a hired servant.
In this example, the fathera picture of our Heavenly Fatherwho was a
victim in this offense, accepts the repentance, but refuses the restitution. He fully
restores his son solely based upon the repentance and the offer of restitution he
made.
And the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and
in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son. But
the father said to his servants, Bring out the best robe and put it
on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet (Luke
15:2122).
(4) The Attitude of Zacchaeus: Another New Testament example is that of
the attitude portrayed by Zacchaeus in Luke 19:110. As Jesus comes to Jericho,
this short, rich tax collector climbed a tree to see the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus,
seeing the desire and faith of Zacchaeus, chose to stay in his house. Zacchaeus
was overjoyed though others criticized the Lord for being a guest in the house of a
sinner.
Evidently, Zacchaeus heard the simple message of the gospel that is faith
alone in Christ alone. His great joy in having fellowship with Jesus may very
well speak of his salvation. As the complainers label Zacchaeus a
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 32
sinner, Zacchaeus proposes what he would do to show forth the fruits of his
salvation.
13
Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, Look, Lord, I give
half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from
anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold. And Jesus said to
him, Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a
son of Abraham (Luke 19:89).
The attitude portrayed by Zacchaeus was that if he had been an offender in
any of his tax collecting activities, he desired to seek forgiveness. He sought
forgiveness based upon (1) seeing that he had made a false accusation
[repentance], (2) acknowledging it [confession], and (3) seeking forgiveness with
a fourfold restitution.
Conclusions for Offenders Seeking Forgiveness
In a victimless offense, God is still the victim of all sin and forgiveness. By
confession, one needs to seek His forgiveness (1 John 1:9).
In an offense where one victimizes another, the offender must realize that both
vertical estrangement with God and horizontal estrangement with the offended
person has occurred. He must seek both religious and civil forgiveness. Scripture
seems to precondition religious forgiveness upon seeking (even if not received)
civil forgiveness (cp. Leviticus 6:17; Matthew 5:2324).
The offender seeking forgiveness should confess the offense to all involved
starting with God, then seek to make restitution with an added additional amount
to the persons involved (cp. Leviticus 5:1516; 6:17; 1 Samuel 25:2728).
Forgiveness from the Viewpoint of the Victim
Most of the Scriptures that deal with the topic of forgiveness address it from
the standpoint of a believer whom one has wronged or victimized. If the offender
would follow the biblical guidelines and do what is right before the Lord, he
would quickly remove estrangement, restoring peace and fellowship. However,

13
We cannot consider the works that Zacchaeus proposes as the basis of eternal salvation. They
are the fruit of one just saved and overjoyed that he will not only see Jesus, but that Jesus will be
a guest in his home. The salvation of Zacchaeus, like ours, God secures by faith alone in Christ
alone. In answer to His critics, Jesus would comment on Zacchaeus being one for whom He
came to seek and to save (Luke 19:10).
because of continued sin, offenders often fail to do what is right until the Lord
brings various pressures to bear.
Just as the offenders sin has ramifications with God and the victim, the
granting of forgiveness involves both God and the offender. A survey of New
Testament passages that deal with person to person forgiveness reveals that
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 33
the Word commands believers to be forgiving and to forgive. The remainder of
this study will seek to glean some details.
Granting Religious Forgiveness: Forgiving an Offender Before God
Whenever we are the victims of an offense, whether small or large, our
immediate step before God is to forgive the offender. Though the Lord did not
cause our victimizationsin did!God chooses to use it somehow in our lives.
In keeping with the realization that in Gods all-encompassing plan, all things
work together for good (Romans 8:28) and in everything give thanks (1
Thessalonians 5:18), we begin by granting forgiveness. In fact, God demands that
we release the offender to Him by a prayer of forgiveness.
And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against
anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive
you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your
Father in heaven forgive your trespasses (Mark 11:2526; cp.
Romans 12:19).
As the victim of an offense, we can either react or turn it over to the Lord. The
Lord commands us to forgive, releasing the offense and the offender to Him. The
forgiveness spoken of here is before the Lord in prayer. In context, the Lord
teaches on prayer. One aspect of being the victim of an offense is the immediate
retaliatory sins
14
that pop into the mindmental attitude sinstoward the
offender. We must biblically handle these sins. The Lord commands us to forgive.
This forgiveness involves releasing the offender, the offense, and our
victimization into the hands of the Lord. We may further couple this idea with
Romans 12:19.
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath;
for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
The offender and the offense we must release to the Lord for Him to handle.
We must rely upon Him to repay out of His own plan for the offender and His

14
I mean sins like That dirty so and so! or, Ill show them! (revenge). Others may include
anger, bitterness, resentment, and moments of real hatred towards the offender. We cannot receive
what God has planned as the benefits of this incident if we harbor such sins of attitude. This is
true even if we take no retaliatory action.
vengeance. Our attitude before the Lord is to forgive and release the offense. In
the words of Jay Adams, previously cited:
Forgiveness means no longer continuing to dwell on the sin that
was forgiven. Forgiveness is the promise not to raise the issue
again [here complaining to God], to others or to himself. Brooding
is a violation of the promise made in granting forgiveness.
15
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 34
In releasing the offense and the offender to God by this act of vertical
forgiveness, or our granting religious forgiveness, the Lord can then forgive our
sins. I take this as Gods forgiveness of our immediate or lingering reactionary
sins toward the offense and the offender. We may say the same for similar
contexts in which God bases His forgiveness of us upon our forgiving others
(Matthew 6:12, 1415; 18:35; Mark 11:2526; Luke 6:37; 11:4)
Though the Lord links His temporal forgiveness of us to how we forgive
others, He does not condition our eternal forgiveness upon being forgiving. Louis
Barbieri has said:
Though Gods forgiveness of sin is not based on ones forgiving
others, a Christians forgiveness is based on realizing he has been
forgiven (cf. Eph 4:32). Personal fellowship with God is in view in
these verses (not salvation from sin). One cannot walk in
fellowship with God if he refuses to forgive others.
16
Therefore, to summarize, the first step in granting forgiveness is the granting
of religious forgiveness before God by forgiving the offense and the offender
through turning the whole matter over to the Lord for His action and vengeance.
One of the best examples of this happening was with David and Nabal in 1
Samuel 25. Nabal offended David. David reacted and sought to take revenge.
Abigail, wife of Nabal, interceded for her husband and convinced David to turn
the offense and the offender over to the Lord. Because Nabal continued
unrepentant, the Lord finally struck Nabal dead in divine judgment.
17
Religious forgiveness is often the only type of forgiveness that we can grant
toward unbelievers. The victim forgives them before the Lord and leaves them in
His hands as those whom God loves and for whom Christ died. We deal with

15
Adams, op. cit., 65. The author added the bracketed material.
16
Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B.
Zuck (Wheaton, 1983), Matthew, 32.
17
In the limited experience of the author, the Lords vengeance is real and the principles work. A
number of unrepentant offenders have seen their businesses, ministries, and lives disintegrate
before the vengeance of the Lord. The alternative for the victim is the self-destruction that takes
place when attitudes of religious unforgiveness, revenge, and bitterness control his life.
unbelievers who victimize us with the same desire to see their salvation as we
would deal with any other unbelievers at various levels of communication and
commerce.
18
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 35
Granting Civil Forgiveness: Personally Forgiving an Offender
The process of granting civil forgiveness comes next. The Lord commands us
as believers to forgive one another as we have received the forgiveness of our sins
in Christ.
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just
as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).
The granting of civil forgiveness is not simply an overlooking of the sin of the
offender, but is to follow a clearly laid out process that we find in both Matthew
18:1517 and Luke 17:34. The account of Luke seems to summarize
19
best the
process.
Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke
him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you
seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you,
saying, I repent, you shall forgive him (Luke 17:34).
Luke 17:3 sets forth the process of civil forgiveness in four steps: (1) the
offense, (2) the rebuke, (3) the opportunity to repent, and (4) forgiveness (civil).
Lets examine each of these four steps.
(1) The Offense: An offender commits a trespass against another and sins
against him. Because Luke deals with forgiveness from the perspective of the
victim, he assumes that the offender has not realized his sin, or opted not to deal
with his sin biblically toward the victim. Therefore, an estrangementa wall as it
werenow stands between believers. The Lord desires us to be at peace with one
another (Hebrews 12:14), or to be reconciled to one another (Matthew 5:24).
Accordingly, Christians cannot overlook or allow the offense to stand
unchallenged because the result is an ongoing non-biblical estrangement.

18
If a non-Christian car salesman sells you a lemon, you forgive him, gently seek to recover the
loss, pray for and desire his salvation, but be wise in doing future business with him.
19
J. Carl Laney, The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline, Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. No. 143
(October, 1986), 359. Laney sees Luke 17:34 as a summary of Matthew 18:1517 and the
process of seeking to resolve an offense and grant civil forgiveness.
(2) The Rebuke: If the offender does not seek to resolve the matter, it falls
upon the victim to take the next step. Scripture says, Rebuke Him. Rebuke in
the original is epitimao () and is a command. It is a summary statement
of the three-stage process of Matthew 18:1517 that says go and tell him and
includes the word elencho () meaning to reprove.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 36
Reprove (elencho) is a strong word that may mean to bring to light,
expose, convict, or convince someone of something.
20
In Matthews context, it
speaks of showing the offender his fault. The most biblical and loving thing one
can do for a sinning brother is to rebuke him by confronting him with the truth of
his sin and the solution for his sinful conduct.
21
Proverbs 27:56 says, Open
rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a
friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
Rebuke (epitimao), in Luke 17, is also a strong term meaning to rebuke,
reprove, censure, and also to speak seriously, warn to prevent an action or bring
one to an end.
22
Thus, it shows that the process of civil forgiveness demands a confrontation
[non-combative] in love with the offender. This is not optional, but required.
Matthew 18:1517 spells out the details and stages of such a confrontation.
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault
between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your
brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that
by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.
But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a
heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:1517).
Here the Lord establishes three stages for working toward the goal of
repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. The first stage is a rebuke in private,
which one may attempt a second time as Titus 3:10 suggests. If the offender does
not respond with hearing you (repentance), then a rebuke before witnesses is the
second stage. Stage one is totally private; stage two is semi-private.
23
If the

20
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans.
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 4th rev ed., 248.
21
Keith Megillian, The Ministry of Rebuking, Journal of Pastoral Practice 5 (1981), 2223,
Quoted by Laney, op. cit., 358.
22
A Greek-English Lexicon, 303.
23
I personally see the witnesses of stage two being objective and not tied to one side nor the other
so that, if the victim is wrong and over reacting about a supposed offense, they can help with
reconciliation, or if the offender is wrong and will not hear, they can give testimony at the third
stage of this process.
offender still refuses to hear them (repent), then it goes to the third stage that is,
tell it to the church.
24
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 37
At any of the stages of Matthew 18, repentance is the desired result. If the
offender repents, the final step of forgiveness must be forthcoming as presented in
Luke 17:3. On the other hand, if the offender refuses to hear even the church,
Jesus requires us to take biblical sanctions for the benefit of both the church body
and the unrepentant offender. Let us assume repentance first.
(3) The Repentance: Repentance is metanoeo that carries the fundamental
idea of a change of mind and attitude. Repentance involves a change of attitude
toward sin followed by a corresponding change of action.
25
Civil forgiveness
goes hand-in-hand with repentance including the offer of restitution. For the
offender genuinely to repent, he will couple verbal repentance with an offer of
restitution, which does not depend upon fruits, completing restitution, or anything
else.
26
Therefore, at the most basic level a true change of mind (metanoeo) is the
desired result of the rebuke. The offender truly hears his sin and sees it as both
God and the victim see the sin. When he confesses his change of mind to the
victim in the spirit of James 5:16, confess your faults one to another,
27
the victim
must forgive him.
(4) Civil Forgiveness: At this stage of the summary procedure found in Luke
17:34, religious forgiveness (the vertical) is already accomplished. It happened
as the victim released the offense and the offender to the Lord and turned any
vengeance over to Him. The forgiveness step is an effort to reestablish the
horizontal relationship of person-to-person to allow for restoration, peace, and
fellowship.

24
Some see this as limited to church leadership; I do not. The leadership view is an effort to try to
preserve privacy, but the word is ekklesia and normally has reference to the entire body of
believers. Gods Word Itself does not protect the sins of the sinning Old Testament saints, but
presents them as warnings to all believers regardless of maturity levels. Moreover, church
leadership could already have been involved as witnesses in stage two. If there is still a refusal
to hear (lack of repentance), the whole church will have to know anyway to carry out the biblical
sanctions.
25
Laney, op. cit., 359.
26
There is strong debate over whether the offender must produce fruits of repentance before the
victim forgives him. This does not negate in any way the fact that Scripture sets forth proper
fruits, including seeking restitution for the offender. The actual relationship of when repentance
secures forgiveness will by taken up under (4) Forgiveness.
27
We take this as the confession of sinning offenders to those who have been personally
victimized by the offenders sin. It is only as public as need be.
Thus, based upon repentance, the victim must grant civil forgiveness to the
offender.
28
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 38
Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke
him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you
seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you,
saying, I repent, you shall forgive him (Luke 17:34).
If he repents, forgive him. Jesus clarifies what the normal result of the
repentance of the offender should be, requiring the victim to forgive the offender,
leaving any fruits, suggested restitution, or whatever may follow in the Lords
hands. Jay Adams rightly observes that this may be the hardest step, even beyond
the confrontation, for the victim.
29
The Lords disciples also had a very hard time
with what Jesus taught.
Jesus continues with His teaching by saying that if the offender sins seven
times a day and returns to the victim with a mind changing repentance, the victim
must forgive (Luke 17:4). The Lord does not mention fruit, or that anything else
has to precede the victim granting civil forgiveness to the offender. The
responsibilities of fruit, restitution, and the like, the victim must leave between
the Lord and the offender to carry out. Christ does not call upon the victim to
police the actions of the offender after repentance.
That the disciples had a hard time with this we observe in the discourse that
follows:
The apostles said to the Lord, Increase our faith (Luke 17:5).
The Lord goes on to explain that it does not take much faith. It takes simple
obedience to do what He commands about forgiveness.
So the Lord said, If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say
to this mulberry tree, Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in
the sea, and it would obey you (Luke 17:6).

28
Legal Offenses and Personal Offenses: Scripture upholds at all times a strong sense of law. If
the offense is a crime having criminal consequences, one can still forgive in a civil way the
offender, yet see the offender face the legal consequences of their sin. This serves to uphold
Gods just standards governing humanity, as a deterrent to others, and as some of the required
restitution to the victim. The Lord treats us in the very same way. Upon confession, He forgives
our sin, but we still face its temporal consequences in time. On the other hand, personal offenses
may end with repentance. If the offender seeks to do what God demands, fruits of repentance
including restitution should normally follow the change of mind.
29
Adams, op. cit., 68.
In other words, it does not take great faith. If you had the grain of a mustard
seed, you could move trees and mountains. Jesus would then go on to illustrate
this point with a parable, the Parable of the Unprofitable Servant.
And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will
say to him when he has come in from the field, Come at once and
sit down to eat? But will he not rather say to him, Prepare
something for my sup-
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 39
per, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and
afterward you will eat and drink? Does he thank that servant
because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you
are commanded, say, We are unprofitable servants. We have done
what was our duty to do (Luke 17:710).
The point of Jesus parable is that though a servant has worked all day
obeying his master and comes in to dinner, he has not completed his duties until
he prepares dinner for his master. His master will not invite him to eat
immediately, but require him to fulfill his duty to prepare the masters dinner. The
servant will do his duty, prepare the masters dinner, and then sit to eat. The
servant does not receive special thanks for doing what his master commands. He
does what is his duty.
In the same way, Jesus says that it does not take faith; it does not take feeling,
or any other thing, but simply to obey and do what God commands. He commands
that if an offender verbally exhibits repentance, our duty is to forgive him. If we
only do what is our duty, we remain unprofitable servants. If we take steps
beyond our duty, perhaps like the father of the prodigal son, then we become
more profitable servants.
30
The fact that makes this view of how a victim should grant forgiveness so
hard is that we want justicejustice as we see it! We want the offender to pay!
Even to suffer! What we forget is that the offender also has responsibilities for
obtaining forgiveness as shown in the earlier examples. The victim must place the
offenders responsibilities in the hands of the Lord and to His timing for just
vengeance. In personal situations, except for criminal law, the Lord promises to
handle offenders who do not fulfill their side of the forgiveness principles.
Victims must leave these things in His good hands.
31
Joseph: A Biblical Example of a Victims Forgiveness

30
Jay Adams has an excellent presentation of this context and passage, op. cit., 6370.
31
Again, although personal experience is never the source of our faith, it has born out the truths
of God handling offenders who abuse His grace by verbal repentance alone and go no farther as
required.
If ever there was a man whose family wronged him, it was Joseph. His
brothers hated him, almost murdered him, and finally sold him into slavery. In all
this, Joseph did not hate his brothers. When he finally met them, in his position as
second to Pharaoh, he would test them to see if they had a change of mind about
what they had done to him. Joseph used his younger brother, Benjamin, Jacobs
new favorite, to test the brothers who sold him into slavery. Upon seeing their
concern for Benjamin, Joseph would treat them as family. After Jacob died,
messengers told Joseph the wish of his father that he forgive his brothers.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 40
So they sent messengers to Joseph, saying, Before your father
died he commanded, saying, Thus you shall say to Joseph: I beg
you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for
they did evil to you. Now, please, forgive the trespass of the
servants of the God of your father. And Joseph wept when they
spoke to him (Genesis 50:1617).
Joseph rebuked his brothers (Genesis 50:20), they repented and offered
themselves as the servants of Josephan act of restitution (Genesis 50:18). Based
upon their words (not their servitude), Joseph would forgive his brothers (Genesis
50:1921).
Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they
said, Behold, we are your servants. Joseph said to them, Do not
be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant
evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it
about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Now therefore,
do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones. And
he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:1821).
In approaching his brothers Joseph offered a strong rebuke when he told them,
you meant evil against me (Genesis 50:20). Yet, in the plan of God, the Lord used
this evil for the ultimate benefit of Joseph, Israel, and even Egypt.
Furthermore, the brothers gave solid indication of their change of mind
(repentance), even offering themselves as servants in restitution. Finally, Joseph
forgave them based upon their response to his rebuke and what they said. He left
the details of their future actions in the hands of the Lord.
When the Offender Does Not Repent
What does a victim do about forgiveness when the offender rejects the rebuke
and will not change his mind and repenteven all the way to the third stage of
Matthew 18:1517?
The victim has followed the principles on forgiveness before the Lord,
releasing the offender and the offense to the Lord. He thus achieves (or
perpetuates) forgiveness in his vertical relationship with God. Still the horizontal
relationship remains unresolved.
At this point Jesus states, But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be
to you like a heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:17). The victim now
considers the unrepentant offender as a nonbeliever. A separation needs to take
place in obedience to Scripture and for the benefit of the unrepentant offender.
The victim treats the offender as a nonbeliever because he is not walking as a
believer. The victim loves him in the same way Jesus loves sinners and publicans,
but he no longer relates to the unrepentant
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 41
offender as a member of the body of Christ. This is not mere shunning, but a
separation from Christian fellowship.
32
Now the status of forgiveness is that before the Lord the victim has forgiven
(vertically) the offender. The offender, however, has thrown up a wall of
separation by refusal to repent, thus blocking horizontal forgiveness. We must
stress that it is not the victim who is unforgiving, but the offender who is at fault.
This parallels the situation that God finds Himself in when we sin and do not
confess and we thus stand in a state of unforgiveness. Is this Gods fault?
Absolutely not! It is the fault of the offender. The victim must understand this and
continue to urge repentance to the offender.
Paul and the Corinthian Church
A congregational member in Corinth was living in gross immorality and did
not correct the situation (repent). At the urging of the Lord through Paul, the
church separated from, and put him out of the assembly. He stood as unforgiven
until he would repent (1 Corinthians 5:1, 5, 13):
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the
Gentilesthat a man has his fathers wife (1 Corinthians 5:1)!
Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians
5:5).
But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from
yourselves the evil person (1 Corinthians 5:13).

32
Laney, op. cit., 362.
The design of this principle is to pressure an offender into seeking
restoration by repentance. The incestuous church member, treated in this manner,
must have repented and acknowledged his sin to the Lord and those involved. The
evidence is that later Paul urged the congregation to forgive and accept him back
into the congregation:
This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient
for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive
and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too
much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him (2
Corinthians 2:68).
The foundation upon which the victim builds forgiveness to the offender is the
latters change of mind.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 42
Conclusion
In summarizing the conclusions on personal forgiveness, separate principles
apply to an Offender and to a Victim.
The Offender is (1) to acknowledge his sin to the Lord, (2) go to the victim
and acknowledge his sin, his change of mind, and propose restitution, and (3) an
offender who follows these guidelines the Lord forgives and the victim should
forgive also. If the victim refuses to forgive, he is now living in disobedience to
the Lord.
The Victim is (1) to forgive before the Lord and release the offender and the
offense to the Lord. (2) He is to go to the offender with the purpose of confronting
him with his sin (rebuke), assuming the offender does not first come to him. (3) If
the offender changes his mind and says so in repentance, the victim must forgive
him. (4) If the offender does not repent through all three stages of Matthew
18:1517 (in private, before witnesses, and before the church), the church should
exclude him from its fellowship. Moreover, the unrepentant offender remains
unforgiven because of his own actions (like we are before God when we do not
confess sin). Finally, (5) if and when the offender repents, the victim must forgive
him.
Final Note
Forgiveness is basic, restoring fellowship among believers. Forgiveness does
not necessarily restore positions. Under the Mosaic Law, one could forgive a
murderer or an adulterer and still see the offender executed as the temporal
consequence of capital crime. The same is true for positions of spiritual leadership
as seen with Moses (Numbers 20:1112), Aaron (Numbers 20:2328), and the
apostate Levites (Ezekiel 44:1016) who, as spiritual leaders, must have repented
of their sin, yet lost their positions. Forgiveness is a first step to restore
fellowship. We need to bring other biblical factors to bear on restoration to
various positions of leadership.
33
Appendix
Against You, You Only Have I Sinned (King David)
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband,
Uriah, murdered, his sin was obvious. Yet, he did not remain unrepentant. The
Holy Spirit reveals his confession in two Psalms (Psalm 32 and Psalm 51). In
Psalm 51, David prays against You (God), You only, have I sinned (51:4). A
shallow reading and superficial application of this verse has led to an unbiblical
attitude toward sin. Based upon a supposed loophole, some conclude that
believers need only to confess a victimizing sin to the Lord alone. Consequently,
they say, the Lord forgives and the victim, without any perceived change in the
offender, or restitution, is to forgive as the Lord has supposedly forgiven.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 43
If the Bible student carries this through to its logical conclusion, believers
could steal from one another, confess it to God, and that would be it. Believers
could malign and slander one another, confess it to God, and that would be it.
Believers could victimize one another in many ways, confess it to God, and that
would be it. Does this sound familiar? It is an absolutely wrong interpretation!
Explanation of Psalm 51:4 in its historical-legal context.
The Lord reveals Davids double sin (adultery and murder) in 2 Samuel 11:1
12:14. A proper interpretation of the passage demands at least an outline of the
specific historical details with their legal implications before God and men.
First: David stayed behind as the armies of Israel went to war. In the midst of
his idleness he saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, and committed adultery with
her. Uriah was off to war and none the wiser (2 Samuel 11:14).
Now what was Davids status before Gods word? Legally, at this point David
and Bathsheba were both guilty of adultery. The punishment for adultery was
death. The victim of the adultery was Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. According
to the Law, Uriah would have to press charges, if there were no eyewitnesses,
leading to a Trial of Jealousy before the priest (Numbers 5:1119). If the trial
established her adultery, the priest cursed her and she presumably died (Numbers
5:2031). The penalty for a capital crime, established by a minimum of two
witnesses, was death (Leviticus 20:10; cp. Deuteronomy 19:1521).
With Uriah gone, secrecy protected both David and Bathsheba from the
external consequences of their sin.

33
Examples are provided in a paper entitled: Disqualification from Spiritual Leadership before
the Lord, Paul R. Schmidtbleicher, Th.M., 1995.
Second: Bathsheba conceived a child of the illicit union that complicated the
issue for David. If Uriah finds out, as the victim, he can press charges and have
both David and Bathsheba put to death (2 Samuel 11:5). Now what was Davids
status before Gods word? Legally, because of adultery, both faced the death
penalty as the consequence of their sin.
Third: Davids first plan of action was to cover his sin. He tried to get Uriah
together with his wife Bathsheba so that people would think the child to be born
was Uriahs child. This did not work as David hoped (2 Samuel 11:613). Now
legally before God David and Bathsheba seek to cover-up their sin and thus
escape the restitution penalties.
Fourth: Because Davids plan for Uriah to spend a night with his wife did not
happen, David determined to eliminate Uriah. Thus, he planned a murder by
sending Uriah to the hottest battle where the troops would abandon him. There
Uriah was slain in battle. Uriah, as a good soldier, died in the glory of battle. For
David and others in the plot, it was murder. The Lord was displeased (2 Samuel
11:1425).
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 44
Now what was Davids status before the Lord? Legally the king is guilty of
both adultery and murder; the penalty for both is death. Uriah, as the victim of the
adultery, would have seen restitution. Murder, however, eliminated the victim of
adultery. Whom did David sin against in the adultery? Uriah! He was eliminated.
In the murder, David sins against God. Bathsheba was not the victim, for her
husband could have required her death also. God is the victim and it is He who
requires the restitution of life for life.
The penalty for premeditated murder is capital punishment (Exodus 21:12).
God is the receiver of restitution where there is murder. From the beginning,
murder defiled the earth and the Lord requires restitution. The life of the murderer
is restitution to the Lord.
Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand
of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the
hand of every mans brother I will require the life of man.
Whoever sheds mans blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For
in the image of God He made man (Genesis 9:56).
God requires the blood of the murdering beast and the murdering man. He
also delegates the authority of execution to mankind. Capital punishment is not
restitution to society, but to God. The Scriptures emphasize that murder pollutes
the land before God. Gods requirement for cleansing the land of its pollution is
the life of the murderercapital punishment.
Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the
testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony
against a person for the death penalty. Moreover you shall take no
ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he
shall surely be put to death. And you shall take no ransom for him
who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the
land before the death of the priest. So you shall not pollute the land
where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be
made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the
blood of him who shed it (Numbers 35:3033).
In murder, God is the victim and execution makes restitution to God. God
demands the capital punishment of the murderer, which cleanses the blood from
the land.
Let us summarize, putting together the essential factors.
Who was victim of the adultery between David and Bathsheba? Who was to
receive restitution? Uriah! With Uriahs murder, David removed the victim of
this sin.
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 45
Who was victim of the murder to receive restitution? God, and God alone.
Not Bathsheba for she was also guilty of the capital offense of adultery.
Thus, David, in finally confessing his sin, could only make restitution to God
for He was the only one left against whom David had specifically sinned:
Against You, You only, have I sinned (Psalm 51:4).
Fifth: Nathan the prophet confronted David with his sin. The king repented
and expected to make restitution with his very life. God, as the ultimate victim of
this crime, modified the normal restitution. David in his confession, recorded in
Psalm 51, only makes note of God as the ultimate victim of this murder. It is not a
model, therefore, we should apply to our sins that victimize others (2 Samuel
12:114).
When we victimize another by our sin, we must not view it as against God
and God only (cp. 1 Corinthians 8:12). Religious forgiveness requires civil
forgiveness. The application of sinning against God only from Psalm 51:4 is a
wrongheaded practice. There is no loophole in the Lords principles requiring
forgiveness that bypass repentance and restitution to the victims of sin.

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 46
Book Reviews
Connecting: Healing for Ourselves and Our Relationships: A Radical New
Vision, by Larry Crabb (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997). Reviewed by
Clifford Rapp Jr., professor of Biblical Studies, Chafer Theological Seminary,
and pastor of Orange Coast Free Methodist Church, Costa Mesa, California.
The well-known Christian psychotherapist, Dr. Crabb, claims to be taking a
bold step and presenting a radical new vision. However, what one finds in the
book is much more of an expansion or extension of ideas that he has expressed in
other works. Even his method of presenting the new ideas is typically
Crabbesque. He seeks an alternative to two unhappy approaches for dealing
with hurting people. On one hand, he presents the exhortation/accountability
model, which consist[s] largely of admonishment to do whats right, with
painful consequences for violation and, occasionally, rewards for cooperation.
With the results that, The power we depend on to influence someones life then
becomes pressure in all its ugly forms: guilt, shame, threat, fear, manipulation, to
name a few (p. 33). This view sees the basic cause of peoples problems as a
stubborn will and the means of cure is instruction, exhortation, and accountability.
Besides the implied criticisms in the above quote, Dr. Crabb dismisses this
method concluding Much of what we call Christian counseling, especially in
more biblical circles, is little more than the application of law to life (p. 34).
On the other hand, there is the treatment/repair model. In this model hurting
people are thought of as psychological beings, a viewpoint that recognizes their
ability to choose but highlights the deep, often unconscious, forces within them
that influences their choices In this view, the power to change depends on
insight, not pressure; self-awareness, not rules; psychological understanding, not
commands (p. 34). The treatment/repair model sees the cause of peoples
problems as psychological damage and the means of cure is increased self-
awareness.
Dr. Crabb makes many more criticisms of the psychological
(treatment/repair) model, especially the secular type, than he does of the
exhortation/accountability model, which he sees operating in more biblical
circles. He is, after all, writing to a Christian audience and he wants to convince
his readers that his is a biblical approach. However, his book is not at all a
polemic against psychological counseling. It is much more a vision for the church
to provide the sort of community that will make it unnecessary for Christians to
employ professional counselors. He writes, I am now working toward the day
when communities of Gods people, ordinary Christians whose lives regularly
intersect, will accomplish most of the good that we now depend on mental health
professionals to provide (p. xii).
Dr. Crabbs new vision acknowledges that although we are both stubborn
and damaged, fundamentally we are neither. At the exact center of the human
personality is a capacity to give and receive in relationship, a capacity
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 47
or possibility that defines what it means to be alive as a human being (p. 35).
When this capacity is not exercised a person is disconnected and problems result.
Disconnection can be regarded as a state of being, a condition of existence where
the deepest part of who we are is vibrantly attached to no one, where we are
profoundly unknown and therefore experience neither the thrill of being believed
in nor the joy of loving or being loved (p. 44). This view sees the basic cause of
peoples problems as a disconnected soul and the means of cure is to identify and
nourish the grace of God operating within the believer. He believes the Christian
community can most effectively perform this ministry.
The authors analysis of what is involved with Christians providing a healing
community identifies three key components. They are detailed in chapter two
which is titled Three Ingredients of a Healing Community. These ingredients
involve accepting others the way Christ accepts us, seeing what God is up to in
our fellow believers life (a diligent search for what is good), and destruction of
the bad in the others life through forgiving love. By doing these things Christians
can help one another to mortify the flesh and vivify the spirit.
Dr. Crabb puts great emphasis on having a vision for other Christians. He
writes, When a vision of what another person is and could become because of
Christ is the fundamental passion behind all our efforts to relate, powerful
connecting occurs (p. 52). To establish the importance of having vision for
another, chapter 7 relates how the vision of the Father shaped Jesus ministry on
earth. Chapter 16 also urges Christians to have vision and gives five implications
of what is involved.
Dr. Crabb offers four metaphors for the enemy within, the flesh or the old
man. He identifies city building, which is committed to personal adequacy, fire
lighting, which places confidence in strategies for handling life that have
guaranteed outcomes, wall whitewashing with its commitment to safety, and well
digging that insists on feeling good now on ones own terms. These metaphors
and their implications he develops over the course of three chapters (11 through
13) and presents some helpful insights on the way in which the flesh seeks to get
along without depending on God.
Chapter 14 presents an example of Christians providing meaningful
community. The description seems far more like a group therapy session than a
church cell group. Chapter 15 argues that Christian community needs to fight the
biggest battles in individual believers lives. He recommends that believers be less
concerned about personal privacy than about knowing the spiritual battles that are
going on within themselves and others in their caring community. He wants to
distance himself from an over.emphasis on vulnerability that merely shares about
personal difficulties. He suggests that Christians, redefine vulnerability as a
willingness to discuss whatever is getting in the way of our relationship to God
for the purpose of deepening that relationship (p. 151). The main aim should
be helping one another to know God. Chapter 17 encourages believers that to be
able to help hurting people, there
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 48
is less need for specialized training than for living in the presence of Christ and
releasing His power from within.
I enjoyed reading the book because of the authors transparency in sharing his
personal journey with the Lord. He has a heart for Christ that inspires others in
seeking Him. The metaphors describing the way of the flesh are insightful.
However, Dr. Crabbs method of portraying two exaggerated extremes and then
coming to the rescue with his own position may be effective for selling books, but
it presents a distorted view of both biblical counseling and psychology. [Editors
note: We do not recommend this book for those without a firm grounding in the
Word.]
Book Review
No Condemnation: A New Theology of Assurance. Michael Eaton. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995. 261 pp. Paper, $16.99. Reviewed by Dr.
Stephen R. Lewis, Professor of Church History, Chafer Theological Seminary,
and pastor of Family Heritage Church of the Valley, La Quinta, CA.
In a postscript to his commentary, Ecclesiastes (IVP), Eaton concluded by
citing the words of Luke in Acts 17:3234: Some sneered others said, We want
to hear you again, A few believed.
I believe the responses to his new book will draw the same diversity. Many
will sneer, others will want to know more and still others will consider the
evidence and believe, as a scholar from the Reformed tradition takes on one of the
sacred cows of Calvinism and Arminianism: the theology of assurance. In doing
so, he defends unlimited atonement. He demonstrates a resistible link between
justification and sanctification, and sharply distinguishes salvation from
inheritance. He sees disobedience as a loss of inheritance, but not loss of
justification, and believes neither the legalistic (as found in Arminianism) nor the
introspective (as found in Calvinism) is the approach to assurance. Justification,
for Eaton, is by faith alone. Eaton is doubly encouraged in that ones present
and future salvation is sure and motivating, and that upon this secure base one
may reach for inheritance. He sees this position as liberating because the
experience of the Spirit now occupies the place once occupied by the Law (see
chart p. 184).
Michael Eaton serves as the Senior Pastor of Lusaka Baptist Church, located
in Nairobi, Kenya. He received his B.D. from Tyndale Hall, Cambridge; and his
Ph.D. from the University of South Africa. This book is a revision of his doctoral
thesis presented to the University of South Africa in 1989 under the title, A
Theology of EncouragementA Step Towards a Non-Legalistic Soteriology. He is
the author of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Ecclesiastes, and of
Baptism with the Spirit: The Teaching of Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones.
Eaton states that Arminians must not assume the continuance of their faith,
and scholastic Calvinists must not assume the reality of theirs. In the
CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 49
one case awareness of sin threatens the Arminians confidence about continuance
in the faith; in the other case awareness of sin threatens confidence about the
reality of salvation (p. 20). Although some may believe he has gone too far, he
says Is it not a fact of history that the Calvinist has tended to have less assurance
of salvation than the Arminian? The Arminian is at least sure of his present
salvation. As the result of the high Calvinist doctrine the Calvinist often doubts
his present salvation and thus has a less contented frame of mind than his
evangelical Arminian friend (p. 20).
So where is the Calvinists assurance? Eaton believes it has died the death of
a thousand qualifications (p. 23). He believes the more one knows the complete
teaching of what he calls scholastic Calvinism, the more it raises questions that
one would ask himself concerning his own salvation, which he calls introspection.
This is the snag of scholastic Calvinism. It leads into an abyss of ever-increasing
introspection The introspective variety is decidedly not totally derived from the
New Testament, and its all-pervasive view of the law needs reconsidering (p.
25).
When he compares Arminianism and Calvinism, he sees little difference
between the two when dealing with assurance.
Arminian theology takes the warnings of Scripture as relating to salvation and
as warning against apostasy or forfeiture of salvation. Final salvation hinges upon
the Christians good works. Calvinism likewise has also taken the warnings of
Scripture as relating to salvation. If a high Augustinian doctrine of perseverance is
maintained, then the Calvinist sees the warnings of Scripture as addressed to the
danger of pseudo-salvation Both assume that salvation and good works are tied
together. In the one case salvation requires good works; in the other salvation
inexorably and irresistibly produces good works. In both theologies salvation and
good works stand and fall together (p. 38).
Eatons goal is to present a non-legalistic theology where a person finds
assurance in Christs completed work at the cross. What I am urging, on the
basis of this biblical material, is that there may be an approach to security and
admonition that does not imply justification by works and yet which does not
have the in-built legalism and introspection of developed Calvinism (p. 185).
As Eaton sees it, the Christian position is one of invincible assurance of
salvation combined with awesome warnings concerning forfeiture of blessing (but
not of salvation itself). There are both reassuring and admonitory aspects (p. 37).
The Christians security, as a biblical doctrine, relates to salvation, to
justification, to a secure position in grace, to freedom from condemnation, and to
eternal membership among Gods people. Eaton does not believe that Scripture
addresses its admonitions to Christians regarding how to gain or lose eternal life.
To him, salvation is so completely and solely of grace that to the one who has
already believed, admonitions concerning losing or gaining salvationin the
sense of regeneration or justificationare entirely

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 50
unnecessary and are not found in Scripture at all. Instead, the admonitions of the
New Testament relate to present experience of the blessings of Gods kingdom,
to reward in this life and beyond, to usefulness in Gods kingdom (p. 39).
Eatons position concerning the theology of grace comes through clearly as he
concludes his writing with the following statements:
Surely the New Testament balance is one of absolute freedom, an
assurance that one will never thirst again, a knowledge that
nothing in all creation is able to separate us from the love of God
in Christ. Yet from this basis of radical assurance spring profound
challenges, the challenge to accept responsibility, the challenge to
work out ones salvation, the challenge to lay up treasure in
heaven, the knowledge that there is something to be laid hold of,
rewards to be won. Yet, all along the way there is no need to fear
that I am working for my eternal salvation What paradoxes!
Amazing grace and profound challenge; incredible assurance yet
awe-inspiring responsibility; freedom to be myself yet the
knowledge that Jesus achieves all in me. Here is a theology that
motivates but does not discourage a theology of encouragement.
But is not this the gospel? I believe it is (p. 221).
I recommend this book as a companion to Joseph Dillows book, Reign of the
Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man
(Schoettle Publishing Company [706-8963333]). Both books address some of
the same issues in presenting a free-grace, non-legal approach to assurance.
On the next page is a chart for your reflection.

CTSJ 4:2 (April 1998) p. 51
Comparative Chart
Evangelical
Arminianism
Developed
Calvinism
Further Developed
Calvinism
(Michael Eaton)
Universal
atonement
Limited atonement Universal atonement
Irresistible
integration of
justification and
sanctification
Irresistible integration of
justification and
sanctification
A resistible link between justification
and sanctification
Integrates
salvation and
inheritance
Integrates salvation and
inheritance
Sharply distinguishes salvation
inheritance
Disobedience =
loss of salvation,
loss of
inheritance
Disobedience = proved
unreality of salvation, no
inheritance
Disobedience = loss of inheritance but
not loss of salvation
Legalistic, in
what salvation is
by works
Introspective, in that
provedsalvation is by
works
Neither legalistic nor introspective, in
that justification is by faith alone
Motivating yet
discouraging.
Present salvation
may be certain.
Yet it could be
lost since final
salvation is by
obedience
Doubly discouraging, in
that one conditions his
assurance of salvation on a
demand to maintain
adequate good works.
Motivating in that upon a
secure base one may reach
for inheritance
Doubly encouraging in that present and
future salvation is sure.
Legalistic in that
it maintains the
continuing
relevance of the
Mosaic law
Legalistic in that it
maintains the continuing
relevance of the Mosaic law
Liberating in that the experience of the
Spirit occupies the place once occupied
by the Torah (p. 184)

CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 1
The Imminent Return of the Lord

Dr. Earl D. Radmacher, Th.D. *
[*Editors note: Earl Radmacher earned his Th.D. degree at Dallas
Theological Seminary and presently serves as chancellor of
Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Besides being in demand
as a conference speaker, Dr. Radmacher is the general editor of the
Nelson Study Bible, and author of The Nature of the Church.]
Our great-great-great grandchildren will not starve; they will be squeezed to
death, said Professor Heinz von Foerster of the University of Illinois when he set
the date for the end of the worldDoomsdayfor Friday, November 13, 2026.
He based this conclusion on the exploding world population, which the professor
says is to reach infinity and overrun the earth by that time, plus or minus some
five years.
1
Von Foerster is only one of many, however, who have attempted to set dates
for the consummation of the earths history. In spite of the fact that Jesus said, But
of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but
only the Father (Mark 13:32), there have been those throughout history who
seemingly could not resist the temptation to set dates. Using the septa-millennial
theory as a basis, Augustine calculated that the end of human history would be
about A.D. 650.
2
When this did not materialize, others attempted to salvage the
idea by resetting the clock for A.D. 1000, again for the year 1044, and then again
for 1065.
3
Another well-known date was 1843, the year set by William Miller,
forerunner of the Millerites, or Adventists, in his work entitled Evidence from
Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, About the Year 1843.
Again, a well-respected and effective Bible teacher of the last generation
attempted to find the fulfillment of the trumpet judgments of Revelation in the
events of World War II. With reference to the second trumpet he said, The great

1
Window on the World, Eternity (January 1961).
2
Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 3.
3
John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), 1920.
mountain burning with fire seems a clear reference to Germany, suddenly cast
into the sea of nations.
4
One of the leading missionary statesmen of that same generation proclaimed
that according to his calculations the Great Tribulation, the revival of the Roman
Empire, the reign of the Antichrist and the Battle of Armageddon, must take place
before the year 1933.
5
How many others are there who have identified with
dogmatism that the Antichrist was Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, or Khrushchev, only
to be embarrassed by the lack of fulfillment?
Embarrassment, however, is the mildest of the results. Much more seriously,
Gods people are hurt and the integrity of Gods Word is questioned. Think of the
thousands of South Koreans from the Tami Mission Church who
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 2
waited eagerly for the Rapture on October 28, 1992, because of the date setting of
their leaders.
6
An estimated five thousand sold their homes and deserted their jobs
and families to await Jesus return. Reportedly, several expectant mothers had
abortions to be more easily raptured. Even more recently (1993), think of the
magnitude of harm to the Branch Davidians and hundreds of others because of the
doomsday prophecies from David Koreshs misuse of Scripture.
Equally as unjustified as date setting for Christs return are the numerous
sermons attempting to find fulfillment of prophecy in this age. Typical of them is
a popular author, conference speaker, and television personality who has stated
his belief that the paramount prophetic sign is that Israel had to be a nation
again in the land of its forefathers. This condition was fulfilled, he claims, on May
14, 1948. This pronouncement is simply representative of hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of others who, although eager in their anticipation of Christs coming,
distort the Scripture and cause terrible confusion for Gods people.
This situation is further confused by the fact that many of the very ones who
preach such messages today also proclaim with equal force (justifiably, I believe)
that there are no biblical prophecies that need to be fulfilled before the Lord Jesus
Christ returns for His church. This conflicting emphasis begets the rather
embarrassing plight of talking about signs of a signless event. One amillennial
writer was quick to notice this inconsistency: In no respect is the inconsistency
of Dispensationalists more glaringly apparent than in their persistent efforts to
discover signs of the nearness of an event which they emphatically declare to be
signless.
7
(One must hasten to add that, while this seeming inconsistency may be

4
Norman B. Harrison, The End: Re-Thinking the Revelation (Minneapolis: Harrison, 1941), 218.
5
Oswald J. Smith, Is the Antichrist At Hand? (Toronto: Tabernacle, 1926), 19.
6
Miscalculated Rapture: October 28, 1992, WEF-Theological News 23, no. 4 (Oct.-Dec. 1992),
1.
7
Allis, Prophesy, 174.
charged to the presentation of some Dispensationalists, it is by no means
necessary to or inherent in Dispensational theology.)
This whole situation becomes even more serious when one realizes that the
embarrassment and chagrin (to say nothing of the harm) that this date-setting has
occasioned could have been avoided by simply recognizing the doctrine of the
imminency of the Lords return as it is taught in Gods Holy Word, the Bible. Our
final court of appeal on any matter of faith is the Word of God; thus, we turn to it
to gain a clearer understanding of our Lords imminent return.
The Linguistic Argument
It seems that a logical question to ask right at the beginning is, What does the
word imminent mean? The need for clarification at this point becomes apparent
when one recognizes that theologians with contradictory
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 3
eschatological opinions both claim to believe in imminency. According to Oswald
Allis, Amillennialists, who believe in a spiritual millennium which is past or
nearly past, and Amillennialists who do not believe in any earthly millennium
at all, may approximate very closely to that of Premillennialists regarding the
imminence of the coming.
8
Further confusion reigns when one reads contradictory statements made by a
writer within the confines of the same book. For example, in opposition to George
Ladds statement that a real `any-moment expectation is neither Biblically nor
historically sound,
9
the amillennial writer, Ray Summers, insists that the
imminent, any-moment hope is emphatically stressed in the New Testament
10
and
seems to take the view that the Lord may come at any moment, and when he
does come, he will raise the dead, exercise final judgment, terminate the present
world order, and introduce the eternal order.
11
Several pages later, however,
when expounding passages from 2 Thessalonians, he explains that certain
predicted events must first take place. He states that the Lords return would be
preceded by other events - the falling away, the revealing of the man of sin, and
the removal of the restraining one.
12
This would appear to contradict his initial
emphasis of an any-moment return.
The question arises, then, Does the language of the Bible teach that the Lord
may return for His church at any moment, or does it teach that the Lords return
for His church will be preceded by the fulfillment of certain predicted events,
such as the revelation of the man of sin, the Great Tribulation, and so on?

8
Ibid., 167-68.
9
George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 154.
10
Ray Summers, The Life Beyond (Nashville: Broadman, 1959), 12429.
11
Ibid., 128.
12
Ibid., 130.
Theological Terminology
Webster defines the word imminent as follows: 1. Threatening to occur
immediately, impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril. 2. Projecting
over; overhanging. He lists the word impending as a synonym, and under that
word he gives the following definition: Syn. Impending, imminent, threatening
to occur very soon. But impending implies signs that keep one in suspense;
imminent more strongly suggests the shortness of time before happening. In light
of this, one must say that Ladd is more consistent with his eschatology when he
uses the word impending than Summers is when he uses imminent, because both
of these men believed that the Lords return for His church would be preceded by
the fulfillment of certain clearly predicted events. Neither of these words is
altogether satisfactory, however, because one could conclude that soonness
rather than next prophesied event is the
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 4
thrust. Rather than soon, the theological emphasis is the next prophesied
event on Gods prophetic timetable. Thus, we need to turn to the specific words
of Scripture.
Biblical Terminology
We do not find the words imminent and impending in Scripture. This is not
unusual, however, for neither are some other commonly used theological terms
[e.g., Trinity, depravity]. The Greek word on which the theological term is built is
engus, which simply means near but is most generally translated at hand in
the Authorized Version. Unfortunately, Scofield attempted to make the word a
statement of the doctrine. He defined it: At hand is never a positive affirmation
that the person or thing said to be at hand will immediately appear, but only that
no known or predicted event must intervene.
13
In this statement, Scofield has
used a possible lexical meaning of a word as its only meaning. In other words, he
has not properly differentiated between a word and a term.
In his Methodical Bible Study, Robert Traina presents this important
distinction:
A term is a given word as it is used in a given context. It therefore
has only one meaning, whereas the same word may have several.
For instance, the word trunk may mean the main stem of a tree,
the main body of anything, the proboscis of an elephant, or a box
or chest. Though in all of these cases the same word is used,
trunk is one term when it signifies the main stem of a tree and
another when it denotes the proboscis of an elephant.
14

13
C.I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford Univ., 1967), 998.
14
Robert Traina, Methodical Bible Study (New York: Ganis and Harris, 1952), 34.
This exegetical error, which is very common among those who seek to prove
their point from word studies alone, is explained by James Barr: The error that
arises when the meaning of a word (understood as the total series of relations in
which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as its sense and
implication there, may be called illegitimate totality transfer.
15
One must be careful, therefore, how much one reads into a word. With respect
to the word engus [near, or at hand], when it is used in Matthew 26:4546, for
example, the thing spoken of as being at hand took place while the speaker was
yet speaking: Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed
into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 5
See, he who betrays Me is at hand. And while He was still speaking, behold,
Judas, one of the twelve came. When the same word is used in 1 Peter 4:7,
however, we see quite a different situation in which the end of all things is
declared to be at hand. In this case, we know that almost two thousand years have
already intervened, and there will be many predicted events fulfilled before we
witness the end of all things in this world scene. The common usage, however,
seems to have the idea of nearness in some sense of the word.
James states: Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord
for the coming of the Lord is at hand [engiken] Behold, the Judge is standing
at the door (James 5:7, 9)! The perfect tense is brought out by the rendering of the
NASB (the judge is standing right at the door) and the Berkeley Version (See,
the judge has stationed Himself at the doors). The idea seems to be that He has
taken a position nearby and could enter at any moment (cf. Philippians 2:30; Mark
1:15; Luke 10:9, 11). It is only necessary for Him to open the door and make His
appearance. It may happen in a few minutes (Matthew 26:4547) or in a few
thousand years (1 Peter 4:7). The latter case definitely included predicted
intervening events; thus, the argument for no intervening events cannot be made
strictly by word study alone, apart from the specific contexts.
What conclusions can be drawn, then, based on the usage of the word engus in
the New Testament? First, it does not necessarily mean soon. Failure to
recognize that imminency does not demand that we understand it to mean soon
has caused much confusion. For example, Louis Berkhof attempted to show the
fallacy of the belief in imminency: To teach that Jesus regarded the Second
Coming as immediately at hand, would be to represent Him as in error, since
almost two thousand years have already elapsed since that time.
16
It should be
noted, however, that while engus does not necessarily mean soon, neither does
it necessarily mean a long way off, as Berkhof seems to imply. His conclusion is
faulty because he has made an illegitimate totality transfer.

15
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Glasgow: Oxford Univ., 1961), 218.
16
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 697.
Second, the word impending is not satisfactory because it may imply that
certain signs will precede the looked-for event, and this is not necessary to the
word.
Third, the word proximate seems to fit in most of the cases that refer to
eschatological subjects (i.e., the next following event). We must caution the
reader, however, against formulating a doctrine simply based on the meaning of a
word. Therefore, we would say that the linguistic argument is inconclusive, but it
certainly does not militate against the any-moment idea, which understands the
return of Christ to be the next predicted event.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 6
The Doctrinal Argument
When one begins to systematize the varied eschatological usages of the words
related to the doctrine of the Lords return, a problem appears, for there are those
places where signs specifically precede the Lords return and there are other
places where signs are just as definitely not involved. Thus, at times it appears to
be imminent and at other times it appears to be impending. The distinction may be
reconciled by differentiating between the Rapture and the Second Coming.
The Second Coming Is Not Imminent
This assertion simply means that the Second Coming will be preceded by
signs that are the specific fulfillment of events predicted in the Scriptures. In this
respect, therefore, premillennialists can agree with the statement made by
Berkhof, an amillennialist, that several important events must occur before the
return of the Lord, and therefore it cannot be called imminent.
17
Among the
things that must occur, he lists the calling of the Gentiles, the national conversion
of Israel, the Apostasy and Great Tribulation, the coming revelation of the
Antichrist, and various predicted signs and wonders.
At this point, however, a very important clarification must be made with
respect to the meaning of the phrase the return of the Lord, often referred to
simply as the Second Coming. This latter term is theological, rather than
scriptural, phraseology; but it certainly has its justification from such verses as
Acts 1:11 and Hebrews 9:28. However, in the Greek New Testament three nouns
are used of the Second Coming: parousia, apocalupsis, and epiphaneia. These
words have been worked overtime by some premillennialists (both
pretribulational and posttribulational) and amillennialists trying to prove their
respective viewpoints.
18
We must remind ourselves again, however, that words

17
Ibid., 696.
18
See J. F. Strombeck, First the Rapture (Moline, Ill.: Strombeck Foundation, 1950); Ladd, The
Blessed Hope; Allis, Prophecy; Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1973); Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville:
Nelson, 1990).
apart from their contexts must not be used to establish doctrine. A word out of a
context may have several meanings, but in a given context it only has one
meaning.
Let us, therefore, look at the meanings of these words. The word parousia
may mean coming, arrival, or presence. Apocalupsis means unveiling or
revelation. Epiphania means manifestation or appearance. It is important to
note that the New Testament uses each of these words in both a technical and a
nontechnical sense. The nontechnical sense does not have any eschatological
implications whatsoever (cf. Luke 2:32 for apocalupsis; 2 Timothy 1:10 for
epiphaneia; and 1 Corinthians 16:17 for parousia). Furthermore, within the
eschatological references, there is not a clear-cut distinction (based on the words
used) as to whether they refer to the Rapture
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 7
or to the Second Coming, because all three words are used for both events.
Whereas most of the usages of parousia refer to the Rapture (cf. 1 Thessalonians
2:19; 4:15; 5:23), it appears quite evident that such verses as 2 Thessalonians 2:8
refer to the Second Coming. The eschatological usages of apocalupsis appear to
be rather evenly divided. Romans 8:19; 1 Corinthians 1:7; and 1 Peter 1:17, 13
seem to refer to the Rapture, whereas 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 4:13; and
Revelation 1:1 appear to refer to the Second Coming to the earth. Finally, we note
that epiphaneia is used of the Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
The study of these usages suggests that a distinction between the Rapture (the
return of Christ for His saints) and the Second Coming (the return of Christ with
His saints) cannot be made on the basis of the Greek words themselves. As a
matter of fact, it is possible that one may conclude that this is sufficient evidence
to prove that there is no distinction between these two events; in fact, that they are
not two events at all but simply two aspects of the Second Coming. This is the
thinking of such men as Louis Berkhof,
19
an amillennialist, and George Ladd,
20
a
posttribulational premillennialist. However, before one hastens to the conclusion
that all of the references are to a single event, which seems so obvious on the
surface, one should probe deeper into Scripture.
First, there is no reason to conclude that the Rapture and the Second Coming
must be one single event because the word parousia is used of both of them. This
is a major flaw in the reasoning of Marvin Rosenthal, who asserts that the use of
parousia demonstrates the fact of the Raptures inclusion in the Second Coming.
Noting that parousia can mean arrival and presence (which is certainly clear
in Scripture), he concludes that because it is used of both the Rapture and the

19
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 69596.
20
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 69.
Second Advent the two are a single event.
21
With respect to Rosenthals
reasoning, Paul Karleen states,
The author has committed the linguistic error of illegitimate
totality transfer, in which meanings of a word in various
occurrences and contexts are all poured into one particular
occurrence. An example of this would be saying that horn means
a projection from an animals head, the end of a crescent, a
brass or other wind instrument, a noise-making device on a
vehicle, one of the alternatives in a dilemma and a telephone
all at the same time and in all occurrences.
22
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 8
It is interesting to note in Scripture that the Jews did confuse the First and
Second Comings by failing to see an interval between them. This simply was not
a matter of revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures. Christs accurate use of Isaiah
61:12 in Luke 4:1622 shows how one should understand two comings in the
Old Testament prophecies. This is precisely why Christ gave the revelation of
Matthew 13 to explain the character of the time between the First and Second
Comings. Even after these explanations, the disciples still did not completely
understand (see Luke 19:11 and Acts 1:6). This problem of the early disciples
may be similar to the contemporary problem of failing to distinguish events that
God has distinguished.
In the second place, when the contexts of the Greek words are studied, a
number of distinctions between the Rapture and the Second Coming become very
apparent. John F. Walvoord has listed several of these distinctions in his book,
The Rapture Question,
23
but one of the most obvious distinctions is that which is
the theme of this paper. Passages demanding imminency would refer to the
Rapture, whereas passages demanding signs would refer to Christs Second
Coming. Failure to recognize this distinction and trying to see the Rapture and the
Second Coming as a single event has forced certain writers into the dilemma of
having a Second Coming that is imminent in some passages and not imminent in
other passages.
24
Surely, the Spirit of God cannot be accused of contradicting
Himself.
Oswald Allis, an amillennialist, finds a way out of the predicament when he
says, Whether this coming to earth will follow the coming into the air
immediately or after an interval of time may be regarded as uncertain (italics

21
Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture, 21530.
22
Paul S. Karleen, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: Is it Biblical? (Langhorne, Pa.: B F
Press, 1991), 83.
23
John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1957), 19899.
.

24
Ray Summers, Worthy Is the Lamb; An Interpretation of the Revelation (Nashville: Broadman,
1951), 12330.
mine).
25
By injecting this interval of time, he seems to admit that the events are
not synonymous. Recognizing the problems, he continues: If these events are all
practically contemporaneous, or if the intervals between them, whether short or
long, are of relatively minor importance, the language used in the New Testament
to describe them, the confusing use of such words as coming and appearing, is
sufficiently accounted for. Now, if the interval between these events is of
relatively minor importance as to its length, why should it pose a problem to these
men to see at least a seven-year interval, namely, Daniels seventieth week,
beginning with the covenant between the world-ruler, the Antichrist, and the
nation of Israel guaranteeing them peace? Also, if Allis is right, then Ladd is
wrong when he states, The distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the
Revelation of Christ is an inference which is nowhere asserted by the Word of
God Any division of Christs coming into two parts is an unproved
inference.
26
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 9
Finally, it should be noted with respect to the Greek words used that it is not
necessary to understand them as categorizing words but rather as characterizing
words. It will only lead to confusion to try to make a distinction between the
Rapture and the Second Advent on the basis of the words alone; rather, they
should be seen in their respective contexts as words that characterize both of the
events. Thus, we would agree with Ladds statement that the vocabulary used of
the Lords return lends no support for the idea of two comings of Christ or of two
aspects of His coming, but we take exception to his subsequent statement that the
vocabulary substantiates the view that the return of Christ will be a single,
indivisible glorious event.
27
The vocabulary is not categorizing (cf. parousia
used of both comings), but it is characterizing. When one investigates all of the
contexts of these words in the New Testament, however, it appears that two
specific events are in view, namely, the coming of Christ in the air for His saints
and the coming of Christ with His saints to the earth. In the latter case there will
be specific signs such as are outlined in Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2.
The Rapture Is Imminent
It is essential that one understand the distinction between the Rapture and the
Second Advent before it is possible to understand imminence. All of the
arguments for a pretribulational Rapture of the Church could be injected at this
point to sustain this distinction; however, it is not the purpose of this paper to
defend the pretribulational viewpoint but simply to show that it is essential to a
proper understanding of imminency.
When one investigates the passages of Scripture dealing with the Rapture,
there are no signs given that must be fulfilled. At this point, a word should be said

25
Allis, Prophecy, 187.
26
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 69.
27
Ibid., 70.
concerning the inconsistency of those who believe in the imminency of the
Rapture and yet insist on preaching on the signs of the times. Certainly Spirit-
controlled believers ought to be able to discern the spiritual climate of the last
days as they come upon us, but let us beware of the dangerous, though sometimes
fascinating, art of finding specific fulfillments of prophecy in these days.
Spectacular attempts at date setting may bring vast crowds to the services, but
they can lead only to confusion. We should not be looking for prophetic signs of
the times when we are not in the time of prophetic signs.
The doctrine of imminency has not only been confused by the
misinterpretations of some who hold to it, but also by the misunderstandings of
those in opposition to it. As a case in point, Ladd reasons erroneously when he
analyzes the pretribulational viewpoint:
According to this system, the Rapture occurs at the beginning of
the seventieth week predicted in Daniel 9:27 If this is a correct
interpretation of the prophetic future, the Rapture of the Church is
not the next event
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 10
upon the prophetic calendar; it is rather the return of Israel to her
land. The Rapture of the Church is then preceded by a sign, the
`Sign of the fig tree, the sign of Israel.
28
Now, if Ladds premise is correct, we must accept the conclusion. However,
does the Rapture occur at the beginning of the seventieth week of Daniel? When
reading Daniel 9:27, one finds that the week begins when the Antichrist
establishes a covenant of peace with Israel. Even Ladd evidences this
understanding of the position: The last seven years begin when Antichristwho
is not yet recognized as suchmakes a covenant with Israel, now restored in
Palestine as a nation.
29
Thus, the Rapture of the Church has no part in the
seventieth week. The Rapture takes place before the revelation of the Antichrist.
The posttribulationists have suggested other hindrances, however, to the
coming of the Lord at any moment: (1) the predicted experience of the Church
(persecution [John 15:20; 16:13], greater works [14:12]); (2) the witness to all
nations (Acts 1:48); (3) the predictions concerning the persecution of Paul (9:16,
23) and the death of Peter (John 21:1819); (4) the prophecy of the destruction of
Jerusalem preceding the Second Coming (Luke 21:2024); and (5) the implication
of an extended period of time before the Kings return (19:1126).

28
Ibid., 153-54.
29
Ibid., 153.
We may note several avenues of refutation of these objections. These have
been handled in brief by Leon J. Wood in Is The Rapture Next?
30
By way of
general response, we see upon investigation that most of these objections would
apply only to imminency in the first century. If the hindrance no longer existed
after the first century, one could say that they are not hindrances to the acceptance
of the doctrine of imminency in this day. To be more specific, however, we must
ask the question, Were these present-day objections hindrances to belief in
imminency on the part of the early church? Under the historical argument (to be
discussed later) we will find that the answer is no. But why? Several factors may
serve as an answer to this.
In the first place, it seems apparent that there could be no doctrine on
imminent Rapture until the Church was brought into existence at Pentecost. Christ
could not come for His Church before He had founded it. Second, there would be
very little understanding of the doctrine of imminency until the waiting and
hoping passages of Scripture had been written. By the time of the writing of the
New Testament, the aforementioned hindrances no longer existed. Third, under
the pretribulational interpretation, time exists for events to be fulfilled after the
translation of the Church, such as the specific signs
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 11
given in the Olivet Discourse. Thus, we maintain that there are no intervening
events that militate against the imminent return of the Lord to rapture the Church.
The Historical Argument
One question that needs to be asked is, What did the early disciples expect?
Did they believe that the Lord may return for His Church at any moment? C. K.
Barrett comments on John 21:22: The possibility is contemplated, though (as
John hastens to point out) not definitely affirmed, that the beloved disciple might
live until the return of Christ Undoubtedly the earliest Christian belief was that
the parousia would take place before the first generation of Christians had
disappeared.
31
A study of the early church Fathers reveals a strong belief in the imminency of
the Lords return. According to Pentecost, Eschatology of the early church may
not be altogether clear on all points for that subject was not the subject of serious
consideration, yet the evidence is clear that they believed in the imminent return
of Christ.
32
Likewise, Payne says, The ante-Nicene fathers were committed
to the concept of the imminence of the Lords return.
33

30
Leon J. Wood, Is the Rapture Next? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 3540.
31
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), 488.
32
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 201.
33
J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 13.
Yet, we are not so interested in general evaluations as we are in the specific
beliefs and teachings of the apostles who wrote, under inspiration, the infallible
Word of God. For example, it is clear that Paul believed that the Lord might come
in his own lifetime: Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changedin a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed (1 Corinthians 15:5152). Here the apostle is distinguishing
between the two groups to be found at the Lords return, the dead and the living.
Significantly, he expects to be among the living who shall be changed. Paul, then,
had an any-moment hope. There may be delay, but there would be no necessary
prophesied event before the coming of Christ for His Church. Lenski comments:
The simple fact is that Paul did not know when Christ would
return. He was in the exact position in which we are. All that he
knew, and all that we know, is that Christ may come at any time.
So Paul spoke in his time ex-
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 12
actly as we speak in ours, namely in two ways: Christ may come
immediately; or he may delay a long while.
34
Commenting on the same passage, Robertson and Plummer confirm that the
first person plural does not necessarily imply that St. Paul felt confident of living
till the Second Advent; but it does imply expectation of doing so in company with
most of those whom he is addressing. Those who die before the advent are
regarded as exceptions.
35
This expectation is even more strongly expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4:15: For
this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until
the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. The Greek
construction makes very clear and emphatic here that Paul is not talking simply
about those who are alive at the parousia but about those who survive until the
parousia. He thus betrays the expectation that he and his contemporary Christians
will remain alive until Christ comes.
In fact, this expectancy of the Lords imminent return characterized the
apostle Paul to the very last days of his life. H. A. A. Kennedy has listed evidence
of this in his work, The Theology of the Epistles.
36
Another splendid summary of

34
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Pauls First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1937), 737.
35
Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1914), 376.
36
H. A. A. Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1919), 10811,
24548.
this theme is given by Hogg and Vine.
37
However, at the same time as he
expressed this expectancy, the apostle was able to keep a balanced perspective
and realization that he might meet the Lord any time by way of death. Longing
for the Parousia of Christ, which is certain to come, yet not afraid of death, which
may possibly come first, is, then, the characteristic attitude of each generation of
Christians.
38
This understanding of Pauls eager anticipation of the imminent return of the
Lord seems to throw light on two rather difficult passages. One of these is
Philippians 3:11: if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Literally translated, the last words read, the out-resurrection out of the dead.
There are a number of possible suggestions for the meaning of the resurrection
here: the general resurrection, the first resurrection, the spiritual resurrection, the
attainment of rewards at the judgment seat, a partial Rapture, and the Rapture of
the Church. Several factors strongly support a combination of Rapture and
consequent reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 13
First, the context is strongly in its favor. We have already seen that in their
broad context, the Pauline epistles place a recurring emphasis on the Rapture. An
even stronger Pauline emphasis is the consequent reward for believers who have
endured faithfully (Romans 8:17; 14:1012; 1 Corinthians 3:815; 9:2427; 2
Corinthians 5:10; Colossians 3:2325; 2 Timothy 2:1113; 4:78). In the
narrower context of Philippians, we see the same emphasis. Several verses (1:6,
10; 3:2021; 4:5) all lay stress on the eschatological day of Christ and the
imminent appearing of Christ, whom we are to be eagerly and momentarily
expecting. In the immediate context of Philippians 3:11, Paul has discussed
justification (v. 9) and sanctification (v. 10). We agree, therefore, with the
conclusion of S. Lewis Johnson: It is certainly fitting that his thought move into
the future, because glorification is the natural consummation of the life of
grace.
39
This is further confirmed by the future look in verses 20 and 21. Thus,
Paul is speaking of something to attain while still living, namely, his translation
and consequent reward at the Rapture.
A second factor in favor of the Rapture here is the doubt and uncertainty
expressed in the verse. The particles ei pos (if by any means) are used in only
three other places (Romans 1:10; 11:14; Acts 27:12), and in each occurrence
doubt is expressed. This uncertainty is further confirmed by the use of the
subjunctive mode of the verb katantao (I may attain). The indicative mode is
the mode of certainty, whereas the subjunctive expresses contingency and
uncertainty. A. T. Robertson says, It is the mood of doubt, of hesitation, of

37
C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (Fincastle, Va.: Bible Study
Classics, 1914), 13840.
38
Ibid., 138.
39
S. Lewis Johnson, The Out-Resurrection from the Dead, Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (April 1953),
140.
proposal, of prohibition, of anticipation, of expectation, of brooding hope, of
imperious will.
40
This evident uncertainty makes it inconceivable, then, that Paul is speaking of
the first resurrection, for his previous words in 1 Corinthians 15:134 evidence
anything but doubt. Nor can it refer to the spiritual resurrection, for Paul states in
many other passages that all believers do partake of the resurrection life of Christ
(Romans 6:311; Ephesians 2:5, 6; Colossians 3:1). Again, the partial Rapture
view is untenable because of its works foundation and the fact that the Body of
Christ will not be split up at the Rapture. Rather, we [not some] shall be
changed (1 Corinthians 15:52). The only solution that fits the doubt and
uncertainty of the passage is that of the Rapture. Simply stated, Paul is uncertain,
though full of expectancy, as to whether or not he will remain alive (cf. 1
Thessalonians 4:15) until the Rapture. Johnson cogently summarizes: Pauls
doubt is not concerning the fact of his resurrection but concerning the
circumstances of it.
41
A final argument in favor of the Rapture view is the unusual word exanastasis
(out-resurrection). This is its only occurrence in the New
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 14
Testament, although the similar word anastasis (resurrection) occurs forty-one
times. Forty of these times it refers to the physical resurrection. Now, the fact that
verse 10 uses anastasis and verse 11 uses exanastasis evidently singles out the
latter as having some special significance. Interestingly enough Hippocrates and
Polybius use the word in the sense of a rising up into the air.
42
This certainly fits
the idea of the Rapture, and it does account for the change of words.
It is our conclusion, then, that the eschatology of the context, the uncertainty
with expectancy of the text, and the hapax legomenon (i.e., the only occurrence in
the New Testament) exanastasis all together give strong support to the idea that it
was Pauls eager anticipation that the Rapture might take place at any moment
and that he might, therefore, remain alive until the Rapture and thus be translated.
A final Pauline passage that takes on new meaning when one understands the
apostles belief in the imminency of Christs return is 2 Corinthians 5:110:
For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we
have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed

40
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 928.
41
Johnson, 144.
42
Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge, Mass.:
1889), 221.
with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been
clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent
groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but
further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now
He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has
given us the Spirit as a guarantee. Therefore, we are always
confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are
absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are
confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and
to be present with the Lord. Therefore we make it our aim, whether
present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done,
whether good or bad.
A close examination here reveals that the chapter division is not well made.
The for of verse one gives the reason for Pauls hope in the chapter four. Paul
reminds the believers that they need not be unduly concerned about the
dissolution of this body of humiliation because there is a new body awaiting them
that is eternal in the heavens. He then goes on to express his
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 15
strong desire and anticipation that he shall receive this new body before death.
Notice the figure in his statement, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our
habitation which is from heaven. The eternal garment is to be drawn over the
temporal one, as one garment is drawn over another, and is to take its place. The
dead receive their spiritual bodies through resurrection, but the living through
transfiguration (1 Corinthians 15:38, 51), and it is the living who are described
here. This is further substantiated by verse three, which views death before the
Rapture as an unclothed or naked state.
Then in verse four, Paul expresses his strong desire that his earthly body may
be clothed upon with his heavenly body before the earthly one is taken away so
that there may be no interval of separation between soul and body. The following
context points up, however, that Paul is perfectly willing to rest his confidence in
the Lords timing, looking forward to his acceptance by the Lord and the
receiving of the Lords evaluation of his ministry and life at the Bema (Judgment
Seat) of Christ. Every indication is that he expects that this may occur at any time,
and there certainly is no indicator that he expects the revelation of the Man of Sin
or the Great Tribulation to occur before that time.
The uncertainty of the time of the Lords appearing is also taught by the
apostle John by the use of the subjunctive mode in 1 John 2:28. The when in
this verse is from ean (if) used with the subjunctive mode, which is the mode of
uncertainty or probability. Thus, it is better translated, And now, little born ones,
be abiding in him, in order that whenever he may be made manifest, we may have
instant freedom of speech and not be made to shrink away from him in shame at
his personal presence.
43
The uncertainty does not concern the fact of the Lords
coming (cf. 2:28), but the time of that coming. Robertson sees this as a clear
reference to the Second Coming of Christ which may be at any time.
44
Perhaps these words of imminency, Whenever he may be made manifest,
echo the If I will that he remain till I come of the Lords enigmatical saying
about the apostle (John 21:22). Referring to these words of Jesus, Findlay
concludes,
The possibility of His coming within the Apostolic era and while
St. John remained in the flesh, was bound to be entertained: and
the prolongation of the Apostles life to the verge of human age
might well encourage the hope of an early advent - delayed indeed
but to be ex-
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 16
pected before the veteran Apostles departure, and now therefore,
possibly quite imminent.
45
Again, the apostle James certainly entertained the eager expectancy of the
imminent return of the Lord as he sought to encourage those who were suffering
persecution:
Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See
how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting
patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be
patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at
hand. Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be
condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door (James 5:7
9)!
There are two words in this context that stress the imminency of the Lords
return. The first is engiken, which the Authorized Version translates draweth
nigh. This translation makes it seem to be a present tense. In actuality, however,
it is a perfect tense that emphasizes not continuing action but completed action.
Instead of draweth nigh or even at hand (NKJV), it is better translated has
drawn near. The process is completed. At any moment we may be caught up into
the presence of our Lord.

43
Kenneth Wuest, An Expanded Translation of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1956), 3:139.
44
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1933), 6:219.
45
George G. Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 232.
This teaching is further demonstrated by the figure of speech, the Judge is
standing at the door. Once again, this is a perfect tense of the verb histemi and is
better translated has taken a stand. The Lord is at the door. At any moment He
may open the door and receive us. One could hardly think of a more fitting
illustration of the imminent return of the Lord. There seems to be ample evidence,
then, that the earliest followers of our Lord eagerly anticipated the any-moment
return of the Lord, and the inspired exhortations they have left for us give us
every reason to have the same hope. It is of particular significance that the late J.
Barton Payne, a confirmed posttribulationist, could not avoid the conclusion that
belief in the imminency of the return of Jesus was the uniform hope of the early
church.
46
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 17
The Practical Argument
A final question, then, we need to answer: What are the exhortations given to
the Church, the Body of Christ? While this is one of the strongest arguments for
imminency, it is also an area of great confusion both in the defense and in the
opposition. The subject of imminency demands careful thinking here.
The Church Is Not to Watch for Signs
Some writers have attempted to make a case against imminency based on the
exhortations to watch. After examining the passages that include an exhortation to
watch, Ladd concludes that all of these exhortations have reference to the
glorious appearing of the Son of Man at the end of the Tribulation.
47
The
obvious conclusion, then, is that the exhortations would be pointless unless the
Church were present on the earth at the end of the Tribulation.
The conclusion comes, however, from a failure to observe that in every case,
except one, where watch is used in an eschatological passage, the addressee is
Israel. (The exception is 1 Thessalonians 5:6, and it will be dealt with presently.)
Those living in the Tribulation are first exhorted to watch for certain signs and
then, after the signs, to watch for the return of Christ to establish His kingdom.

46
J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ, 102. Payne further states, It must
therefore be concluded that the denial of the imminence of the Lords coming on the part of post-
tribulationists who have reacted against dispensationalism is not legitimate. There have been, it is
true, extremists throughout the course of church history who have interpreted imminence to mean
that the Lords advent must be soon, or even at some set date; but no such impropriety rests upon
imminence when it is understood in its basic definition of ready to befall or overtake one, that
is, that Christs coming could be at any time. There are, indeed, a number of verses that have
been, and are, used uncritically to substantiate this doctrine and that do not constitute valid proof.
But, at the same time, the preceding section has validated a considerable group of passages that
do demonstrate its legitimacy. In fact, no natural reading of Scripture would produce any other
conclusion.
47
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 112. See also Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 2943.
The pattern of exhortation seems to be, When ye shall see these things, then look
for the Son of Man (cf. Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:29; Luke 21:31).
Of the five words translated watch in the Authorized Version, only two
(gregoreo, agrupeno) have reference to the Second Coming and neither is ever
used in connection with the Rapture. At this point a word of explanation is needed
with reference to 1 Thessalonians 5:6. The previous context (4:1318) dealt with
the Rapture. The immediate context (5:111) deals with the things preceding the
Second Coming. The first relates to the Day of Christ and the second to the Day
of the Lord.
Whereas many have had a difficult time explaining the relationship between
these two passages, the pretribulationist has an adequate explanation. If the
terrible judgment of the Day of the Lord is to begin shortly, or immediately, after
the Rapture, then it is possible to explain 5:111 logically as pertaining to our
conduct in light of the future program. This is a very acceptable motivation. The
fact that Christians are to be delivered from the prophesied day of wrath ought to
be a compelling motive to live lives charac-
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 18
terized by vigilance and sobriety. Peter uses this same motivational principle in 1
Peter 4:7 and 2 Peter 3:1012.
The immediate occasion of the exhortation of 1 Thessalonians 5:111 was
undoubtedly a question from the Thessalonians regarding the time of the coming
of the Day of the Lord (cf. vv. 13). They were anxious that the Lord might come
soon, while they were yet living, because they thought that only the living would
enjoy the full blessedness of Christs parousia. Paul does not give them any
further instructions regarding the time, except to remind them of what they
already knew - the uncertainty of the time of its arrival. The day is to come
suddenly, as the birth pang to the woman with child, and unexpectedly, as the
thief in the night, so that none of the inhabitants of the earth in that day shall by
any means escape it. In contrast to the time of terrific warfare before the Second
Coming (cf. Matthew 24:1528), there will be an atmosphere of peace and
security just before the coming of the Day of the Lord.
The other teaching of this passage is the certainty that the believers will not be
here when it comes (1 Thessalonians 5:411). Paul establishes this with an array
of reasons, stating it both negatively and positively, so that there should be no
doubt left in their minds. In the first place, the Day of the Lord is a day of
judgment and darkness, and the believers do not belong to the realm of darkness
(v. 4a). In the second place, positively stated, the Day of the Lord shall not
overtake them (v. 4b). Third, not only are they in the realm of the light, but they
are characterized by the nature of the light, by the very nature of Christ Himself
(v. 5). Furthermore, in the sovereign purpose of God they have not been appointed
to wrath but to full and complete deliverance (v. 9). Finally, the ground of
assurance for all this rests in the instrument of their deliverance, the Lord Jesus
Christ, who died for them so that, regardless of their degree of spiritual attainment
when He comes, they shall live together with Him forever (v. 10).
Because of these marvelous manifestations of Gods grace, surely those who
have nothing to do with the darkness will exercise continual watchfulness
(gregoreo, to be mentally alert) and self-control (vv. 68). At the same time
they are to be comforting one another with these words, and each one is to be
building others up in this temple of the Body of Christ (v. 11). Thus, in 4:1318,
Paul assured them that both the living and the dead will be gone before the Day of
the Lord arrives.
The Church is to look for the Savior
Passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:7; Titus 2:13; and Philippians 3:20 are
applicable at this point; they picture the believer as eagerly waiting and earnestly
expecting the Savior. Watching for signs is foreign to these passages. It never
occurs. Not even once. Furthermore, not only is the believer to look for the any-
moment return of the Lord, but he is to direct his life in the light of it (cf. Romans
13:1114; James 5:78; 1 John 3:13). If, on the other hand, there are specific
prophesied signs, in reality we would not be looking
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 19
for the Savior at any moment but instead should be watching for the revelation of
the Man of Sin, the Great Tribulation, etc. There would be at least a seven-year
preparation period.
Oswald Allis takes issue with this so-called psychological argument that
assumes, he says, that men cannot expect and watch for the coming of Christ and
be stimulated and safeguarded by the thought of it unless they can believe that it
may take place at any moment. He claims that intensity of affection disregards
time and distance.
48
Whatever else may be said by way of answer, one thing is
certain: the Bible does use the imminent return of the Lord as a motivation for
holy living (cf. Romans 13:1114; 1 John 3:13; James 5:79). If this is improper,
then we would have to bring the writers of Scripture in question.
Furthermore, Allis argument is contrary to human experience, for hope is
realistic in proportion to its imminency; otherwise, why does Paul appeal to the
nearer argument (Romans 13:1112)?
Apparently, our Savior receives greater glory because of the any-moment
expectancy on the part of His children. Facing this problem realistically, if there
were not the tendency toward carelessness or unconcern when an event is far
removed, there would be little purpose for the exhortations. But whatever the
differences of opinion may be, is it not a very beautiful, practical fact that for

48
Allis, Prophecy, 169.
almost two thousand years believers from every generation have lived in the
constant expectation that the Lord Jesus Christ may come at any moment, and yet
His failure to come did not discourage succeeding generations from having the
same hope? Instead, the intensity of the hope seems to grow as the years pass for
they know that His assured coming is closer than before.
Conclusion
In conclusion, then, based on the linguistic, doctrinal, historical, and practical
arguments, the Scriptures give abundant support for the any-moment return of the
Lord to Rapture the Church. The Lord never gives the Church a prophesied sign
for which it is to watch, but it is to wait expectantly with eager anticipation for the
return of Christ at any moment.

CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 21
Praying In My Name

Dr. Curtis Mitchell, Th.D. *
[*Editors note: Curtis Mitchell earned his B.A. at Biola
University, B.D. at Talbot School of Theology, Th.M. at Western
Seminary, and Th.D. at Grace Theological Seminary. He taught for
nearly 25 years at Biola University and is now Professor of
Biblical Studies at Chafer Theological Seminary.]
Jesus revealed a significant condition for successful praying in His Upper
Room Discourse. No less than six times, He urged the disciples to ask in My
name. We find these six statements in four separate passages. In each Johannine
statement, the Lord gives this specific condition, upon which He bases a promise.
In each case the promise includes one condition, ask in My name.
1
Certainly, the
repetition of this condition indicates its importance.
Exegesis
The four passages wherein this prayer condition is explicitly stated we will
consider chronologically as we discover them in the Upper Room Discourse.
John 14:1314
The first reference to prayer by Jesus in His final discourse we find in this
passage. In verses ten and eleven of the fourteenth chapter, Jesus emphasizes His
relationship to the Father. He claims to be the Fathers perfect representative
through whom the Fathers own work is accomplished. He then proceeds to insist
that those who are true disciples will do the same Fathers work even in a greater
measure (John 14:12). Then, as if coming to the heart of His message, the Lord
indicates how these greater works should be accomplished.
2
Most commentators take the that () of verse twelve as governing the next
two clauses: I go to My Father (14:12) and whatever you ask in My name

1
This is not to infer that other conditions were not involved, or that Christs hearers would not
assume other conditions. In the immediate context, Jesus clearly teaches that abiding is another
condition (John 15:7).
2
John F. Walvoord, Prayer in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra, XCI
(January, 1934), 464.
(14:13).
3
Lenski opposes such a construction, insisting that verse thirteen begins a
new thought and is relatively independent of verse twelve grammatically.
4

Westcott acknowledges either possibility as grammatically
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 22
sound.
5
In view of the overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion, this paper will
take verse thirteen as a means by which the greater works spoken of in verse
twelve will become a reality.
Hence prayer is directly associated with the accomplishment of activity. As in
all of Christs prayer-promises a condition is given, and in this instance it is
clearly and explicitly stated by the phrase whatever you ask in My name (
). The whatever with the aorist subjunctive of
ask constitutes a more probable future condition. However, the assurance for
the one who prays in this manner is unquestionably guaranteed by the future
indicate I will do ( ).
The ultimate purpose in this entire transaction is clearly delineated: that the
Father may be glorified in the Son. Thus, we see the glory of God to be the
ultimate goal of prayer. Indeed, Gods glory is the goal of all creation (Psalm
19:1), of all the redeemed (1 Corinthians 10:31), and the Son Himself (John 17:4).
Verse fourteen restates the same condition in slightly different terminology;
Jesus uses a third class condition indicating a high degree of probability: If you
ask ( with subjunctive, ). The assurance of Gods response to
such a prayer is just as definite. The emphasis now is upon the fact that Christ
Himself ( ) will answer the request.
Textual criticism is divided over the inclusion of Me (me) in verse fourteen.
If it is part of the text, it means that this is the only authorization on the part of
Christ to address prayer to anyone other than the Father. This writer concurs with
R. V. G. Tasker and the translators of The New English Bible in omitting the
Me. In the words of Tasker:
[Me], found after [you ask] in most MSS., was left
out of the text on the evidence of A D, most late Greek MSS., and
the old Latin. Its later insertion was thought to be an inference

3
Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John with an Historical and Critical
Introduction (New York: Funk and Wagnalle, 1886), 140; cf. also Henry Alford, The Greek New
Testament (London: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1874), 1:852.
4
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Johns Gospel (Columbus, Ohio: The Wartburg Press,
1946), 990.
5
Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1954), 204.
from [I will do], made on the assumption that the one
who answers prayer must be the one to whom prayer is made.
6
Coupled with Taskers reasoning, this writer feels that the uniform practice
and teaching of Christ in the gospels argues strongly for the omission of ask Me
in this instance.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 23
By way of conclusion, this passages reveals that prayer conditions divine
action. Moreover, for the first time a new in My name relationship is unveiled,
from which the believer can petition effectively. In the words of Whiting:
Christ and the believer are seen together in a partnership of activity
and achievement for the realization of the divine purpose. It is not
just a Creator-creature, master-servant, or father-son relationship,
but a co-partnership.
7
John 15:16
Jesus emphatically announced to His disciples that He had chosen (ordained
or appointed) them. Following this announcement two purpose clauses are given:
that () you should go and bear fruit and that () whatever you ask. Most
grammarians feel that the two purpose clauses (each introduced by that) are
parallel, marking results of their appointment by Christ. Thus Christ appointed
them that they should be productive (i.e., fruitful) and that they should obtain
such answers to prayer as would make them fruitful.
8
Of importance to this study is the fact that Christ clearly associates prayer
with productivity (fruit bearing) even as He associated it with doing in John
14:13. It is increasingly evident that we must accomplish Christian ministry or
service not merely by our asking, but by Gods performance. The language
indicates to Lenski that Jesus has appointed that the Father give them whatever
they may ask him.
9
Jesus repeats the same conditions of prayer in John 15:16 as He stated in
14:1314. He directs the promise universally to whatever and conditions it by
in My name. The Lord instructs the disciples to direct their requests specifically

6
R. V. G. Tasker, The Greek New Testament: Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible
(Oxford: University Press, 1964); 428. [Editors note: Actually, it is not in most mss. See the
apparatus to the Majority Text, which indicates a division within the Majority text family here.
The Majority Text does not include .]
7
Arthur B. Whiting, The Biblical Doctrine of Prayer, doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1940; 73.
8
Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1965), 2:253; cf. also Alford, 1:861.
9
Lenski, John, 1053.
to the Father and in this instance the Father will grant the request. This differs
from John 14:13, where Christ expedites our prayer requests. Thus, we see both
Christ and the Father granting the believers requests.
The prayer-condition Jesus states again with a third class, more probable
future condition denoting a high degree of probability. The aorist subjunctives of
ask and give indicate that in each individual case in which we ask, the Father will
correspondingly give.
10
Thus, Jesus meant that His disciples are to have fruitful
ministries and such fruitful ministries must be connected to and dependent upon
prayer in My name.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 24
John 16:2324
In these verses, the Lord reveals explicitly what has been implicit thus far in
His statements about praying in His name. Prayer in His name is a privilege
specifically for the time after our Lord ascended and the Holy Spirit descended.
Most critical commentaries recognize that in that day ( ) refers
to the new age that began at Pentecost. Westcott says that day begins with
Pentecost and is consummated at the Return.
11

The expression you shall ask Me nothing ( ) can
either mean ask no questions, or make no petitions. Most commentators agree
with Swete who feels it indicates that in the new age (that day) there would be
no need to interrogate a visible Christ.
12
It should be noted that the Me () is
emphatic both as to form and position. Bernard sees this indicating a contrast with
another personal term, which to him is the Father. Hence, we see a clear
contrast between asking me and asking the Father.
13
Thus a new and, in some
sense, drastic distinction is made between the days of Christs earthly sojourn and
this present Age of Grace; and this distinction is involved to some degree with
prayer.
This apostle makes more evident this distinction by the insertion of the words
Most assuredly ( ), which usually emphasize the significance of what is
to be said. Thus, asking the Father in My name seems to be a bold advance in

10
Ibid.
11
Westcott, 231; cf. also H. W. Watkins, New Testament Commentary for English Readers
(London: John Murray Company, 1890), 519; Whitlaw, The Gospel of John in the Pulpit
Commentary (Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1891); 340; et al. Govetts attempt to
understand that day as the Millennium has not gained great acceptance (R. Govett, Exposition
of the Gospel of St. John [London: Bemrose and Sons], 2:264).
12
Swete, John, 141; cf. also Westcott, 233. Henry Barklay Swete, The Gospel According to St.
John, Reprint (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), 241; cf. also Westcott, 233.
13
J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John,
The International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, Alfred Plummer, and C. A. Briggs
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1928), 2:517.
Jesus teaching about prayer; a bold advance which will be realized in that day
(i.e., this present Church Age). Following the formula Most assuredly, the Lord
again repeats the new prayer formula introduced in this Upper Room discourse:
Whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you (cf. John 14:1216;
15:16).
Then to heighten the dramatic advance even further, Jesus adds: Until now
you have asked nothing in My name (John 16:24). It is difficult to see this
statement as anything less than an advance on their former knowledge
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 25
and experience.
14
Here we reach a new prayer plateau. H. A. W. Meyer calls it
higher illumination in the fine art of prayer.
15
There is an interesting
relationship between in that day (16:23) and until now (16:24); for in that day
they (the disciples) will ask in My name and until now they have not asked in My
name.
Until now, Christ had certainly taught His disciples to address God as
Father. He taught them to ask, or petition, the Father for things in prayer.
Hence, the new and unique feature implied by the until now must be a reference to
asking in My name. The Old Testament saints knew nothing of this high privilege.
Perhaps the nearest approach was asking for thy names sake (Psalm 25:11;
31:3). This introduces prayer grounded in a life relationship, a union where Christ
would be the sphere and atmosphere of their prayer life.
16
Jesus follows the announcement of this new prayer-privilege with a command:
ask (), which denotes a continuous prayer practice.
17
The command (ask),
Jesus then follows with a promise: you will receive (). The future
indicative of receive speaks of a positive assurance that God will answer prayer
offered in His name. Finally, a purpose clause designates one of the reasons for
prayer fulfillment in the new age: that () your joy may be full. Westcott says
that this phrase depicts not only a fact, but also an abiding state.
18
Whiting adds
that Joy is not only a concomitant but a consequence of prayer.
19

14
W. H. Griffith Thomas, Life Abiding and Abounding (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage
Association, n.d.), 65; cf. also J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of St. John (London:
William Hunt and Company, 1883), 3:170
15
H. A. W. Meyer, The Gospel of Matthew, The Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the
New Testament (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark), 2:273.
16
Whiting, 93.
17
Everett F. Harrison, The Gospel According to John, in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, edited
by E. F. Harrison and C. F. Pfeiffer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 1111. See also Westcott, 234.
18
Westcott, 234.
19
Whiting, 119.
John 16:26
This passage amplifies the truth we learned in verses twenty-three and twenty-
four. The Lord explains that hereafter there will be an increased clarity of
revelation (16:25), and this fullness of knowledge will lead to a fuller prayer
privilege. The time in which believers exercise this greater prayer privilege He
designates as in that day ( ), which, as seen previously, is a
reference to the new era initiated at Pentecost. Thus, the Lord clearly designates
prayer in My name as something characteristic of a new era about to dawn. In the
words of Alford, approaching the Father
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 26
through Him shall be a characteristic of their higher state under the Dispensation
of the Spirit.
20
Prayer in Jesus name, then, is indicative of prayer based upon a
new relationship that the Day of Pentecost will initiate.
The drastic nature of this new advance in prayer privilege is heightened by the
Lords next words: I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you.
Clearly, the reference is to the personal praying of Jesus as seen by the emphatic I
(). The nature of the praying is petitionary, I shall pray (). This
carries the idea of a request made on the basis of fellowship and is used in the
Gospel of St. John only of the petitions of the Lord.
21
Further, the praying of
Jesus herein mentioned must refer to intercession for He says, I shall pray for you
( ). The preposition for () carries the idea of concerning, or
about. Christ thus states that in view of the new prayer privilege inaugurated by
the new age (that day), His own personal prayer concerning the disciples will, in
some sense, not be necessary. Certainly, to say the least, this infers a radical
change in prayer relationships.
Scholars differ as to the precise sense in which Christs personal intercession
becomes unnecessary by the new advance inaugurated by prayer in His name.
Some see these words as indicating a total intercessory cessation by Christ.
22

However, certainly such passages as 1 John 2:1 and Hebrews 7:25 negate such a
concept. The thought seems rather to be that after Pentecost, the petitions
directed to the Father by the disciples in Jesus name will not need the support
of Jesus in order to be granted by the Father.
23
Christ will still intercede for His
own, but it will not be in order to secure favor from the Father. Lange says, It is
no longer a mediation whereby immediateness must be effected, but one by which

20
Alford, 1:872.
21
Westcott, 234.
22
Alford seems almost to approach this position, but his thesis is not completely clear (cf. Alford,
1:872).
23
Lenski, John, 1103.
it is carried to perfection (italics mine).
24
The implication seems to be that before
the new age of the Spirit (that day), some sort of intercessory prayer was
necessary on the part of Christ. However, the new privilege of prayer in His name
would eliminate this need.
Doctrinal Implications of Praying in Christs Name
Certainly, the exegetical study of these four passages makes one fact evident:
whatever it may involve, prayer in His name is of tremendous significance. In the
words of Walvoord, it is infinite in its possibilities, infinite in its privileges; it is
at the center of Gods gracious provisions for our lives on
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 27
earth.
25
The chief problem is to comprehend what is involved in the concept of
asking in My name. Perhaps no one can fully understand all that Jesus meant. Yet,
it is interesting to note that Christ evidently did not feel it necessary to define
elaborately the concept in My name, nor do His disciples display any indication of
bewilderment over the expression. Certainly, then, it behooves the student of
prayer in the twentieth century to seek insight into the concept in My name.
In view of the fact that our Lord bears well over a hundred titles, how is one to
determine which is in view in the concept in My name. Some men go to
considerable length to show that the name must refer to a specific title. Yet, it
seems to this writer that such an approach largely misses the significance of the
expression name as understood by the Jewish mind. A. B. Whiting concludes a
survey of the word name as the New Testament uses it concerning Christ:
Generally speaking, where no title is mentioned there is no
necessary implication of a specific title in the term. Thus, when our
Lord instructed believers to ask in His name, and dissociated it
from a title, it would seem to be beside the point to attempt to
identify the name by title, since the meaning evidently lies in
another direction (italics mine).
26
The lack of a specific title strongly suggests that Christ did not intend this
phrase, in My name, to be a fixed formula attached to a prayer. Had this been His
purpose, then surely He would have so indicated and would have plainly
identified the correct title to use. Furthermore, it is strikingly significant that of all
the prayers recorded of Paul, not one of them closes with a fixed terminology

24
John Peter Lange, John, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and
Homiletical, with Special Reference to Ministers and Students. Translated and edited by Philip
Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 499
25
Walvoord, 472.
26
Whiting, 85.
incorporating the name. Thus, those who hold a talismanic conception of the
phrase, in My name, seem to fail to realize its true intent.
27

Essentially, it would appear that Jesus referred to something deeper than
simply a convenient formula whereby believers conclude their prayers. What
precisely did He mean? To the Westerner, a name is usually a convenient
device for identifying one individual from another, but to the Easterner a name
is far more. Indeed, in the giving of the name, one of the aims was to express
some outstanding and particularly marked individuality.
28
Sometimes the name
described the nature of the person, i.e., Emmanuel, which means God with us
(Matthew 1:23). At times the name pointed to circumstances surrounding ones
birth, i.e., Samuel, which means Asked of God (1 Samuel 1:20). Other times it
might refer to ones appearance.
Among the Hebrews the naming of a person had great significance, for it was
indicative of personality. C. Von Orelli states that, Among the
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 28
Hebrews then was especially true the maxim nomina sunt omina, since to the
Israelite the name was the expression of personality.
29
George Foucart contends
that to the Hebrew mind, the name of a person is his very soullet us say his
name-soul, i.e., his reason for living, his life as far as it has any personality.
30

G. H. Gray concurs with Von Orelli and Foucart when he says, the Hebrews
frequently use the name as almost the equivalent of the personality or character or
nature of the person named.
31
This seems doubly to apply with reference to the
names of deity. Concerning this McLaughlin writes:
It represents the Hebrew conception of the divine nature or
character and of the relation of God to His people. It represents the
Deity as He is known to His worshippers, and stands for all those
attributes which He bears in relation to them and which are
revealed to them through His activity on their behalf.
32
As noted earlier, is it not a significant thing that when Jesus made this prayer-
announcement in the Upper Room Discourse to His disciples, He did not attempt
to explain His language? Was this not because these Jews were already familiar

27
Henry Frost, Effective Prayer (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1926), 51.
28
C. Von Orelli, Names, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.) (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1920), 8:77.
29
Ibid.
30
George Foucart, Names, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
n.d.), 9:135.
31
G. H. Gray, Name, A Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1902),
3:480.
32
J. F. McLaughlin, Names of God, The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls
Company, 1905), 9:160.
with the basic connotation of the term name? Thus in using the term name,
Christ undoubtedly signified the ideas of being, personality, and character. As A.
J. Gordon states, The name of Christ stands for Christ Himself.
33
To pray in the
name of Christ is to pray in the person of Christ. This is like how to believe in the
name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18) means to believe in the person
of Christ. The notion is to rest by faith in all that Christ is, has done, and will do.
With all this in mind, we should not forget that the preposition in carries the
basal function of sphere. Hence, we may freely translate in the sphere of His
name.
34
Thus, the concept in My name conveys the concept of praying in the
sphere of His ownership, protection, presence, power, glory, etc. E. J. Hawkins
has stated it as offering petition that is consonant with the manifested nature of
Jesus Christ.
35
Another thought most certainly prominent in the concept of praying in My
name is to pray by His authority. Swete well states this aspect when he
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 29
says: To ask in Christs name is to ask as on behalf of Christ, as belonging to
Him, as authorized by Him to approach the Father.
36
Without doubt, this aspect
is more widely acknowledged than any other.
37
Moreover, its biblical basis is
obvious even to the casual reader of the New Testament.
We may bring all of the thoughts involved in the concept in My name under
one heading, namely, identification with Christ. To pray in His name is
tantamount to praying in union with Christ. Westcott sensed this important truth.
In commenting on the words in My name, he says: The meaning of the phrase is
as being one with me even as I am revealed to you. Its two correlatives are
[in Me] and the Pauline [in Christ.]
38
Hence, to pray in My
name is essentially to pray from the vantage point of a new and exalted position.

33
A. J. Gordon, In Christ: or The Believers Union with His Lord (Boston: Gould and Lincoln,
1872), 136.
34
Walvoord, 467; cf. also Lenski, John, 991.
35
Edward J. Hawkins, The Scope and the Limitations of Prayer, The Power of Prayer: Being a
Selection of Walker Trust Essays with a Study of the Essays as a Religious and Theological
Document, W. P. Paterson and David Russell, eds. (London: Macmillan and Company, Limited,
1920), 145.
36
Henry Barclay Swete, The Last Discourse and Prayer of Our Lord (London: MacMillan and
Co., 1914), 34.
37
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner and Co., 1880), 3:705; cf.
also A. C. A. Hall, The Christian Doctrine of Prayer (New York: Longmans, Green and
Company, 1904), 165; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Gospels (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1848), 2:340; H. A. Ironside, Praying in the Holy Spirit (New York:
Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.), 40.
38
Westcott, John, 2:175.
The believer occupies this position because of Christs so great salvation. To pray
in His name is to pray from the position we occupy in Him.
This certainly is in harmony with the context wherein we find the admonitions
to ask in My name. As we observed in the exegesis, praying in My name was a
new and startling concept reserved for that day (i.e., the Church Age). It was
something that until now they had not done. Once the in My name praying began,
Christs personal intercession would not be necessary to give validity to their
prayers. This points to a new relationship established by Christs work on the
Cross, which the Pauline Epistles refer to as being in Christ. This phrase describes
a mystical union between Christ and the believer that is at once representative,
organic, vital, supernatural, and indissoluble in nature.
In the words of A. H. Strong,
Christ and the believer have the same life. They are not separate
persons linked together by some temporary bond of friendship
they are united by a tie as close and indissoluble as if the same
blood ran in their veins.
39
Because the believer is always positionally in Christ, the very fact that
Christ six times conditioned prayers on asking in My name indicates that the
condition is more than being positionally in Christ. Hence, it must mean that a
believer is to pray consciously aware of his exalted position in Christ, even as he
must be consciously aware of believing in the name of the only begotten Son of
God (John 3:18). Indeed, the very fact that Jesus felt it necessary to state in My
name as a condition, implies conscious awareness. I suppose
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 30
there is nothing wrong with ending a prayer with the typical phrase, This we ask
in Jesus name, amen. However, it makes more sense to repeat the phrase at the
beginning of a prayer, thus reminding oneself at the outset that he is in Christ.
The real issue, again, is to make sure that one prays consciously aware of being
in Christ.

39
A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), 3:802.

CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 31
Dispensational Theology

Phillip Heideman, Th.M. *
[*Editors note: Phillip Heideman earned his B.B.A. degree at the
University of Wisconsin, a Th.M. degree in New Testament
Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, and
has done work toward a Th.D. at DTS. He has been a pastor,
educator, and conducts the correspondence division of studies at
Chafer Theological Seminary. ]
The purpose of this article is to present a view similar to what Dr. Lewis
Sperry Chafer taught on the subject and to identify some weaknesses in traditional
Dispensational theology. This author holds firmly to Dispensational theology,
since that is the only system of theology that adequately accounts for the
differences from one time period to another and from one testament to another.
Therefore, this article will uphold the distinctives and essential features of
Dispensationalism but present a different focus, a different basis for naming them,
and suggest a few additional Dispensations. This article does not consider either
progressive or ultradispensationalism.
Definition of Dispensationalism
Dr. Charles Ryrie cites Clarence Mason for his definition.
Dispensation means a stewardship or administration. In the Bible
a dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular
revelation of Gods mind and will which brings added
responsibility to the whole race of mankind or a particular portion
of the human race.
1
Another definition cited by Ryrie goes like this, A dispensation is Gods
distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of
human history, marked by a crucial test, failure, and judgment.
2
The first definition emphasizes stewardship, and the second one emphasizes
Gods governing. Since both definitions have some merit, I included both.

1
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, revised and expanded (Chicago: Moody Press 1995), 30.
2
Ibid., 30.
The Distinctives of Dispensationalism
The main distinctives of Dispensationalism are, first, the consistent use of the
grammatical-historical hermeneutic; second, the distinction between Israel and the
Church; and, third, the reign of Jesus Christ and His saints in the Millennial
Kingdom. The latter is the goal toward which God providentially works in human
history. The fourth distinctive is that the unifying thread from the beginning to the
end of the biblical record is the manifestation of Gods attributes, namely, His
love, justice, faithfulness, and sovereignty. In particular, God demonstrates
throughout the ages that He is in control, although
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 32
there are periods of time when it may not appear that way. These elements are
essential for seeing the continuity and progression of Scripture and for
understanding the major areas of Truth revealed in the Word of God.
Features of Dispensationalism
There are many features of Dispensationalism, which Dr. Ryrie mentions in
his latest book, Dispensationalism. Some of them are summarized below, being
derived from the Parable of the Unfaithful Steward (Luke 16) and from some
Pauline uses of the words oikonomeo, oikonomos, and oikonomia. These concern
the administration of a household, i.e., a stewardship.
1. There are two parties, one who is in authority and delegates duties, and the
steward who must carry out these duties.
2. There are specific responsibilities and accountability.
3. Men are responsible to God for the faithful discharge of their duties.
4. The stewardship may end either when the steward is found unfaithful, or at
the time appointed by God.
3
This author concurs with the above features.
Traditional Dispensationalism
Traditional Dispensationalism sees various ways in which mankind is tested
by God throughout history, beginning with the Garden of Eden and culminating in
the Millennial Kingdom. Each Dispensation has an essential individual, who is
the recipient of new revelation (i.e. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc). In
each Dispensation, God gives mankind a certain responsibility, and after human
failure, the Lord terminates the Dispensation with some form of judgment.

3
See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 2527.
After the fall, God tested man through his conscience, the ability to know
right from wrong. Due to the failure of mankind, God judged the human race by
means of a flood. Following the flood came the Noahic Covenant, and God tested
man through civil government, and commanded man to disperse throughout the
earth. Mankind failed that test, which culminated at the Tower of Babel, where
God created numerous languages that confused the people. Following this failure
and judgment, God called out Abraham and gave him promises. Therefore, we
call the next Dispensation the Dispensation of Promise. Their responsibility
during this Dispensation was to remain in the Promised Land, and we see their
failure in their leaving the land on more than one occasion, finally ending up in
Egypt where the Lord judged them with Egyptian oppression. This Dispensation
continued until the time of Moses, to whom the Lord gave the Law. The giving of
the Law to Moses commenced the Age of the Law, which continued until the First
Advent of Christ. The judgment on Israel for disobeying the Law and rejecting
their
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 33
Messiah was the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the worldwide dispersion that
followed. Following the Age of the Law is the Age of Grace, in which mankind is
offered eternal life by faith in Christ. Mans rejection of this offer results in the
judgment of the Tribulation. I have not discussed the Dispensation of Innocence
or the Dispensation of the Kingdom, which are the first and last, but the above
discussion should be sufficient to see the pattern.
4
To sum up, in Traditional Dispensationalism God has a governing relationship
with the world, whereby He gives responsibilities to mankind. There is always
human failure and the Dispensations end with divine judgment.
5
Ryrie does
acknowledge that the human responsibility is two-fold, namely the governmental
economy and salvation.
6
Moreover, though there seems to be an overemphasis on
human failure and divine judgment, Clarence Mason, whom I cited above,
acknowledges that there are also promises of blessing and reward for obedience to
the faith.
7
A Different Focus
This article proposes three changes in the presentation of Dispensationalism
that differ from the traditional perspective. The first difference is the focus of
Dispensationalism. Despite agreeing with Ryrie and numerous other scholars that
the term Dispensation means a stewardship and involves a governing relationship
between God and the human administrator(s), I see different recipients of the
stewardships. It seems that the Dispensations are stewardships that God entrusts
exclusively to His own people during the various periods of human history. In

4
Ibid., 52-56.
5
Ibid., 33-35.
6
Ibid., 35.
7
Ibid., 30.
other words, Dispensationalism does not concern the unregenerate person, as Dr.
Chafer asserted in response to some of his critics: The references cited
concern the rule of life which God has given to govern His people in the world.
8

Chafer, in his eight volume Systematic Theology, taught this as well. He
emphasized three Dispensations: one for Israel under the Law, one for Christians
in the present Age of Grace, and the Millennial Kingdom.
9
The unregenerate person is tested two ways by God in every period of human
history. The first way is God consciousness and the second way is gospel hearing.
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows
His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night
reveals knowledge. There
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 34
is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard (Psalm
19:13).
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest
in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so
that they are without excuse (Romans 1:1820).
Genesis implies gospel hearing in Abels blood sacrifice (Genesis 4:18).
Moreover, Hebrews 11:4 states, by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous. Not
only is gospel hearing implied, but also Scripture portrays the gospel in this
sacrifice.
Both God consciousness and gospel hearing are involved in Enochs coming
to God by faith (Hebrews 11:56). Hebrews 11:6 says, without faith it is
impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and
that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (gospel hearing). Paul
emphasizes the importance of faith:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we
might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the
law: for by the works of the law shall no man be justified
(Galatians 2:16).

8
Ibid., 108.
9
Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:16.
Until a person is born into the family of God by faith in the saving message
from God, we cannot expect him to respond in obedience to the will of God for
his life!
Dispensations are stewardships, which God entrusts to His own people. The
stewardship includes responsibilities, divine enablement, and accountability. The
accountability can result in both rewards for faithfulness and chastisement for
unfaithfulness. This necessitates new revelation for each Dispensation.
The only exception to this is the unbeliever who has a stewardship by virtue of
his office, e.g., a king. Yet, because of his unregenerate condition, he is unfaithful
to his stewardship. A New Testament example is Judas Iscariot who held the
office of apostle, but was unregenerate.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 35
Number and Names of the Dispensations
Although the number and names of the Dispensations may vary, Traditional
Dispensationalism generally presents seven different Dispensations with these
respective names: the Dispensation of Innocence, followed by the Dispensations
of Conscience, Civil Government, Promise, Mosaic Law, Grace, and the
Millennial Kingdom.
10
The reason for these names is that Dispensational scholars
see each of these as the predominate way in which God dealt with mankind in
each respective period of time.
11
There are several inconsistencies in this scheme,
as we will see next.
First, there is the lack of consistency in the names themselves and also some
false implications. Innocence views mans standing before God before the Fall.
Conscience looks at a facet of the soul and implies that mankind had no other
revelation to go by. Human government is an institution established by God.
Promise and Law are particular revelations from God, which became part of the
written Word of God. Grace is a way that God deals with mankind. Moreover,
Law might imply the lack of grace, and Grace might imply the lack of law. Both
are false implications. The Millennium is an era of history. Furthermore, during
the Ages of Law and Grace there are far more promises given by God than during
the Age of Promise.
Moreover, according to Ryries chart on page 54 of Dispensationalism, one of
the tests in the Age of Grace is faith in Christ. That would lead one to think that
each Dispensation has its own test for entrance into Gods eternal kingdom.
Moreover, in most, if not all cases, the test includes some system of good
works/obedience. Certainly, Dr. Ryrie along with others who agree with his
position, if asked, would acknowledge that salvation always has been and always
will be by faith in God/Christ and that Dispensationalism is not teaching different

10
Ryrie, 5157.
11
Ibid., 52.
ways of salvation. Yet, sometimes the way scholars present Dispensationalism, at
least in the traditional way, leads to confusion on this point.
A Different Approach to Naming Dispensations
I believe a more consistent scheme is to identify/name Dispensations
according to the human administrator(s). One scholar identified Dispensations as
follows.
1. Dispensation of the GentilesAdam to Noah
2. Dispensation of Israel/JewsAbraham to Christ and the Tribulation
3. Dispensation of the ChurchPentecost to the Rapture
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 36
4. Dispensation of ChristMillennium
This article will expand and modify the above model, though it is not a new
idea and yet differs from the traditional pattern.
Continuity and Distinctions
New Testament Use of the Old
Currently some students attack Traditional Dispensationalism based on the
continuity found between the Old and New Testaments without adequate regard
for the distinctions. An example is the New Testaments use of the Old and the
New Covenant. There are numerous ways the New Testament authors use the Old
Testament, and every scholar who addresses this issue seems to group them
differently. This is a separate issue, but it does demonstrate the continuity and
interdependence of the entire Bible. Obviously all Scripture is profitable and we
must study it, interpreting it according to the times in which it was written,
applying it to the times in which we live. Yet, it is equally obvious that God did
not address all Scripture to the Church. The Scripture addressed to the Church is
very clear on our particular stewardship, though all other Scripture is helpful in
the faithful execution of our stewardship. Thus there is both continuity as well as
distinctions, and our system of theology must have regard for both.
Dispensationalism, properly presented, does.
New Covenant
Traditional Dispensationalism has three main views concerning the New
Covenant and its relationship to the Church. One view holds to two new
covenants, one for the Church and another for Israel. The second view holds to a
single new covenant, which the Lord promised to Israel. They see, however, the
Church as participating in some of its blessings. The third view sees one New
Covenant applying to the Church at the present time and to Israel as a nation in
the future.
12
This author prefers the third view, which was also the view of C. I.
Scofield: It secures perpetuity, future blessing, and eternal blessedness to Israel,
and eternal blessedness to all who believe.
13
A consistent use of the grammatical historical hermeneutic leads to the
conclusion that the New Covenant, which Christ introduced at the Last Supper
and established by His death, is now currently in effect.
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New
Testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:20).
The apostle Paul quotes this saying of Christ as well.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 37
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped,
saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do, as
often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me (1 Corinthians 11:25).
The same apostle was a servant of the New Covenant.
Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not
of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives
life (2 Corinthians 3:6).
The absence of definite articles with the words new, letter, and spirit
points to an emphasis on quality or the character of the New Covenant rather than
its identity, though the identity of all three nouns is clear.
That the New Covenant is currently in effect, the book of Hebrews makes
clear.
Now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much
also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established
upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6).
For this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by
means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were
under the first testament, they which are called might receive the
promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).
Note the past and present tenses in the above verses from Hebrews. See also
Hebrews 10:1118.

12
Pentecost, Things to Come, 121124.
13
C. I. Scofield, editor, Scofield Reference Bible, 1297.
Romans 11 teaches that Israel is currently cut off from their own tree of
covenant blessings, and that the Church, which includes a remnant of saved Jews,
has been grafted into that tree and is partaking of the covenant blessings. At the
Second Advent, Israel as a nation will believe in Christ and will be grafted in
again.
So all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of
Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their
sins (Romans 11:26).
Note the particular covenant blessing singled out is redemption, which sounds
like the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:3134.
I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more
(Jeremiah 31:34).
To sum up, Jeremiah promised Israel a new covenant relationship with God.
The death of Christ established this covenant. However, because the nation Israel
rejected Christ as their Messiah, they lost (temporarily) their
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 38
covenant relationship with God. Currently the Church, consisting of regenerate
Jews and Gentiles, enjoys a covenant relationship with God under the New
Covenant. At the Second Advent, Israel as a nation will repent and they will
individually trust in Christ. Consequently, the Lord will regraft them into their
former covenant relationship with God to partake of the New Covenant blessings
along with the redeemed of other Dispensations.
This parallels the Abrahamic Covenant that promises both national blessings
for Israel and salvation blessings for all who believe. This in no way denies that
the Church is the Body of Christ, consisting of all believers from the Day of
Pentecost to the Rapture, being entirely distinct from the nation Israel.
Moral Will of God
One other reason for watering down Dispensational distinctions, as some do,
is the apparent continuity of the Ten Commandments (with the exception of the
Sabbath). The Ten Commandments reveal the moral will of God, which is
absolute and transcends Dispensational boundaries. For example, the Ten
Commandments address both murder and adultery as violations of the moral will
of God. Later, in the Book of Proverbs, much is said about the mental attitude of
people, including anger and lust. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ went beyond
the overt acts of murder and adultery to talk about anger and lust. So even within
a given Dispensation, there is an expansion of the revealed moral will of God.
When we move into the epistles, there is yet more revealed to us about the
moral will of God. Our system of theology must recognize both the continuity and
progression of the revealed moral will of God from Dispensation to Dispensation,
and even within Dispensations. The revealed moral will of God always governs
the life of the believer. Although the Lord gave the Ten Commandments to Israel,
nine of them parallel New Testament commands.
Divine Enablement
Furthermore, along with the moral will of God there is an increase in divine
enablement. In the current Dispensation, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit as
well as the potential for the Word to be hidden in our hearts. Accordingly, God
has revealed more to the Church concerning His moral will, but He has also given
the Church the means of carrying out His moral will. That is a major part of our
stewardship. Again, this author recognizes both the continuity as well as the
progression of divine enablement.
Living By Faith
In addition to the moral will of God, believers have always been required to
live by faith in the promises of God. Although the promises may change from
Dispensation to Dispensation, the requirement of faith carries forward. Since faith
in the promises of God is essential, believers in every Dispensation must acquire a
thorough understanding of Gods Word as revealed. In the Old Testament
believers needed to hide the Word in their hearts.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 39
Your word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against You
(Psalm 119:11).
In the New Testament, believers are to ground themselves firmly in the word.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching
and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord (Colossians
3:16).
We in the Church Age have additional Scriptures that those in the
Dispensation of Israel did not have, but the requirement to know the Word of God
intellectually and experientially is the same in each Dispensation.
Prayer
Closely related to faith is the activity of prayer, which has been part of all
believers stewardship in every Dispensation. The content of our prayers may
differ, especially when there is sin in the believers life. We do not have to request
that God not take away the Spirit from us as David did. Moreover, the mechanics
of prayer have changed slightly, because we now pray to the Father in Jesus
name (see the article by Curtis Mitchell in this same volume). This was not the
case before the Dispensation of the Church.
Previously you have asked nothing in My name: ask, and you shall
receive, that your joy may be full (John 16:24).
Our system of theology must recognize the continuity of the requirements of
faith and prayer as well as the differences from Dispensation to Dispensation. We
may extend the matter of continuity and distinctions to other areas of Christian
living as well.
Evangelism
Another responsibility stays the same from Dispensation to Dispensation and
that is world evangelism. The exception to this is the first Dispensation, in which
man had no need of the gospel message. However, since the fall of man God has
perpetuated the promise of a coming redeemer from generation to generation and
from Dispensation to Dispensation. The duty of the Church is to proclaim that
Christ has come, died for our sins, and rose again for the salvation of all mankind.
The Common Thread
While God uses His people to administer His plan on the earth, He also
sovereignly superintends human history to achieve His goal. His aim is that His
Man will rule over this world, just as Adam did before the fall. Throughout
history, God keeps manifesting His attributes to the entire human race, whether
people see it that way or not. His love, His omnipotence, His omniscience, His
righteousness and justice, His faithfulness, and His sovereignty,
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 40
He manifests in numerous ways. There are constants such as creation and
preservation, and there are variables, such as His providential dealings with
individuals and nations. Moreover, there is always the proclamation of the Word
of God including the salvation message. Throughout history God delivers people
out of the devils kingdom into His own Kingdom, and they publicly testify
concerning what God has done in their own lives.
In other words, God reveals His attributes through saving people in every
Dispensation. God also reveals His attributes through transforming the lives of
His people. God reveals His attributes by superintending the course of history and
particularly in preserving the nation of Israel, so that sometime in the future He
may fulfill the covenants and promises that He made with this nation.
Furthermore, God reveals wisdom and power through the universe that He created
and continues to preserve.

Gods Goal in History
In the Dispensation of Adam and Eve, the Lord entrusted Adam with rulership
over this earth. Adam lost that rulership when he sinned. In the Dispensation of
Israel, Jesus Christ was the Head of State, but Israel eventually rejected this
theocracy, demanding a king over them to be like other nations. In the
Dispensation of the Church, Jesus Christ reigns over the Church from the Right
Hand of the Father. This is not a fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. Rather He
is the Great High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek. In the
Millennium, Jesus Christ will reign over the nation of Israel on the Davidic
Throne in fulfillment of that covenant.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and
peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his
kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with
justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of
hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:6).
Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto
him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end
(Luke 1:31).
He will also reign over the entire world and His Church will reign with Him.
He that overcomes, and keeps my works unto the end, to him will I
give power over the nations: And he shall
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 41
rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be
broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father (Revelation
2:26).
His reign will even extend to the angelic realm and He gives His Church
authority over angels, at least to judge them: Do you not know that we shall judge
angels (1 Corinthians 6:3)?
The Dispensations
There is a generic stewardship for believers in each Dispensation. These
stewardships progress as the Dispensation progresses. Moreover, there are distinct
individual stewardships in each Dispensation. It is the generic and the progressive
stewardship that makes one Dispensation distinct from another. Following are the
Dispensations in outline form.
A. Dispensation of Adam and Eve (Genesis 13)
B. Dispensation of Believing Gentiles (Genesis 411)
1. Adam
2. Abel
3. Enoch
4. Noah
5. Noahs sons
C. Dispensation of Israel (Genesis 12-Acts 1, excluding John 1317)
1. The Patriarchs
2. Moses and Aaron
3. Joshua and Priests
5. Judges
6. Kings, Prophets, Priests
7. Christ and Disciples
D. Dispensation of the Church (John 1317; Acts 2-Revelation 3)
1. Apostolic Period
2. Post Apostolic Period
E. Dispensation of Tribulation Saints (Revelation 419)
1. 144,000 Jews
2. The two witnesses
3. Believing Gentiles
F. Christ and His Kingdom (Revelation 20 and numerous Old Testament
references).
1. Christ
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 42
2. Old Testament saints
3. Church saints
4. Tribulation saints
In the final Dispensation, the stewardships granted are rewards for faithfulness
to a previous stewardship.
Why This Approach Is Preferable
Why identify the Dispensations this way? First, in each Dispensation God
gives a distinct stewardship to His people. Each Dispensation includes blessings,
responsibilities, accountability, rewards, and chastisement. Thus, Dispensations
involve the governing relationship that God has with His own people, rather than
with mankind in general, as Traditional Dispensationalism teaches.
Within a given Dispensation there are additional responsibilities and blessings
added, but there is always a retention of some of what went before. However,
when moving from one Dispensation to another, there is the abrogation of the
former stewardship and the establishment of a new one.
For example, there is progression in the Dispensation of Israel from the
Patriarchs, to Moses and Joshua, to the Judges, to the Kings and Prophets, and
finally to Christ. Yet, when the Dispensation of the Church begins, there is an
entirely new stewardship, and the former is abrogated. In the Dispensation of the
Church, we are all priests; we all have a spiritual gift; we all have the indwelling
Holy Spirit; etc. Moreover, we are no longer under the formal system known as
the Mosaic Law as our rule of life.
Since all Scripture is profitable per 2 Timothy 3:16, we not only can, but
should learn lessons from what is recorded concerning previous Dispensations.
These lessons will better equip us to execute our own stewardship more faithfully.
If I happen to move from Tulsa to Dallas, at some point I must leave Oklahoma
and enter Texas. Once I enter Texas, I am under the laws of Texas. However, that
does not mean I will ignore the lessons, both good and bad, learned while living
under the laws of Oklahoma.
Space does not permit going into more detail on this important subject. My
intent was to present Dispensationalism in a different light, placing the emphasis
on Gods dealings with His own people during different periods of history.

CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 44
Article Review
Viticultures Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:16, by Gary W.
Derickson, Bibliotheca Sacra 153, January-March 1996: 3452. Reviewed by
Dr. Stephen R. Lewis, professor of Church History at Chafer Theological
Seminary, and Senior Pastor of Family Heritage Church of the Valley, La
Quinta, California. His email address is: SLewisCTS@aol.com.
As Jesus shared his last day before His crucifixion with His disciples, he
assured them they would not be left home alone. These were men who had
walked with Jesus for only a little over three years. Moreover, as those who are
young (new in the faith) will do, they asked questions of the One who was about
to leave them. Questions like where are you going? How do we know how to
get there, if we dont know where youre going and Why cant we go? In the
midst of answering those and other questions, Jesus instructed them concerning
what they were to be doing until He returned. In John 13:3135 Jesus told His
disciples to get along with each other. In fact, He said that they were to love each
other, as He had loved them. In so doing, all will know they are His disciples. In
John 14:131 Jesus saw their anxiety about His impending departure and
reassured them that they would not be left alone; the Holy Spirit would come and
minister in His place.
Coming to John 15, Jesus introduces the disciples to yet another object lesson
concerning their relationship to the Godhead and their responsibilities until He
returns for them. He uses common everyday examples from agriculture
concerning viticulture (vine keeping). Although Jesus speaks to his disciples,
considerable debate rages as to the meanings of airei (sometimes translated
removed) and kathairei (sometimes translated pruned) in verse two. There
is further debate as to whether verse six describes a believers or an unbelievers
destiny (p. 34). The unfruitful branch cannot be both a believer and an unbeliever.
This is where Derickson (a B.S. and M.S. in Horticulture from Texas A&M as
well as a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary) helps us discover
what Jesus is communicating to His disciples. His article seeks to bridge the
understanding gap by describing the cultural practices of grape production in first
century Palestine. He then uses this understanding as a basis, though not the sole
basis, for answering questions concerning the fate of the unfruitful branches (p.
34).
He presents two views most often arising from Calvinism. The first view sees
the cast out* branches to be unbelievers. MacArthur is typical as he says, the
healthy, fruit-bearing branches represent genuine Christians. Works are the
only proof that faith is genuine, vibrant, and alive (James 2:17). Fruit is the only
possible validation that a branch is abiding in the True Vine (The Gospel
According to Jesus). Thus, the absence of fruit demonstrates the absence of life.
Since abiding is necessary for fruitfulness, failure to abide means failure to
believe, to be saved, and to possess life (p. 36).
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 45
The second view says that the Lord initially cares for the unfruitful branches
and then eventually disciplines them. These are Christians whom the Lord lifts up,
encourages, and then later chastises with death (p. 36). It is obvious that views
one and two cannot both be correct since their positions necessarily eliminate the
interpretations of the other.
The assumption that the Gospel of John has soteriological purpose, and a lack
of understanding of viticulture, seems to force most interpreters to look to verse
six for an interpretative guide to verse two. This lends itself to a position that
forces the interpreter to find professing Christians being distinguished from
actual (p. 36).
Derickson then proceeds accurately to define the various arguments (based
upon their textual and contextual data) beginning with the views that verse six
refers to professing Christians. (1) Nonbelievers are in view in verse six; (2)
fruitless branches refer to nonbelievers; and (3) not abiding in Me refers to
nonbelievers. He then discusses the views where verse six refers to Christians
who are encouraged and then disciplined. (1) Believers are in view in verse six;
(2) fruitless branches refer to believers not in fellowship; (3) airei means lift
up, not remove; and (4) not abiding in Me refers to believers out of
fellowship.
From the textual and contextual data, Derickson then examines the available
information concerning viticulture of first century Judahs culture. This
illuminates the meanings of the essential terms and practices with which the
disciples would have been familiar. He cautions that destruction of the Jews at
the time of the Arab conquest (A.D. 640) suggest that changes may have occurred
in agriculture as the Arab people took over Palestine (p. 40).
According to Derickson, the key to understanding the viticulture of first
century Judah is found in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, dated around A.D. 280. This
document contains a contract for labor in a vineyard that, along with Pliny,
represent the nearest viticultural documents of the first century. Derick-son states
that the farmer started the vineyard with cuttings from desired varieties. The
branches removed in the post-harvest pruning provided the cuttings, likely from a
nearby vineyard. When he trained the stems along the ground, he propped up the
grape clusters to keep them from contacting the soil and being ruined. The
Romans appear to have introduced trellising of vines as one of their advancements
in viticulture (as compared to the practices in the Middle East today that the Arabs
follow). Thus when Jesus related His analogy the disciples would likely have
been familiar with both trailing and trellising approaches (p. 44).
As important as the trailing and trellising is, the pruning of the vineyards is
where the interpreter needs to pay special attention. Pruning occurred at various
times during the year.
The vine-dresser does two things to ensure that there will be as much fruit as
possible in the winter, he cuts off the dry and withered branches and, in the
spring, he removes the useless growths from the branches.
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 46
Though these observations are true, they are not complete descriptions of what
occurred. Immediately following the harvest the grapes were pruned severely and
all leaves were stripped from the plants to induce dormancy. In the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri contract, the procedure for vineyard management began with pruning,
transport of leaves and throwing them outside the mud-walls. This, being the
second stage of labor contracted, argues for the pruning to be post-harvest and
in the early dormant season, the severe pruning.
The work described is of minor impact on the plant and designed to encourage
fruit development while discouraging extensive vegetative growth. For best
results, the farmer must maintain the rate of growth of a vine within a middle
zone. If it grows too fast it becomes vegetative and produces fewer flowers and so
smaller grape clusters. If after flowering the vine-keeper allows it to grow too
fast, the vine wastes its energy on growth and the clusters do not produce large
and juicy grapes. If it grows too slowly due to too many growing points, it also
produces fewer flowers and smaller fruits. The severe pruning in the early
dormant season reflects the reduction of the plants to their appropriate number of
growing points, the buds. The spring picking-off and removal of shoots reflects
the process of insuring that the plant does not grow too slowly. Pruning keeps the
plant from spreading its energy among the large number of suckers and water
sprouts that arise on the main trunk as well as the fruiting branches. Dunng the
growing season, the farmer ties even the non-fruiting branch to the trellis.
With this last bit of information, Derickson states that we may answer the
question concerning the meaning of essential terms and concepts in the passage.
Regarding the setting and context of the passage, it is important to note that, in
terms of the seasons, Jesus gives His instruction during early spring growth (since
the occasion is the night before Passover).
The central issue of Jesus analogy involves abiding and fruitfulness in light
of His impending departure and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus addresses a
small group of men, all who clearly believe in Him, and He comforts their
troubled hearts in light of His coming departure. The issue of salvation or
judgment is not central to this passage. If salvation and condemnation are issues
addressed by the analogy, they are only secondary to the central focus of bearing
fruit.
Concerning the farmers actions in the second verse, Derickson sees two kinds
of pruning occurring in the vineyard as mentioned previously: dormant pruning
and then that accomplished during the growing season. Dormant pruning removes
unwanted material from desired branches as well as unwanted branches and water
sprouts. The vine-keeper removes all remaining leaves as well. The growing
season pruning removes succulent sprigs from the fruiting branches, dead and
diseased wood, and unwanted branches, for example, adventitious buds on the
trunk of the vine. However, the farmer keeps some non-fruiting branches on the
vine. Therefore, when dealing with airei and kathairei, exegetes remove
much of the difficulty of
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 47
the passage when they do not attempt to make verse six an exposition of the
second verse.
The approach of many exegetes is to see in Jesus words a process by which
the farmer picks off the advantageous sprigs from the fruiting branches (cleansing
them) and cutting off non-fruiting branches (taking them away). Yet, with the
evidence from Pliny that non-fruiting branches were preserved and nurtured for
use the next season, this interpretation of airei contradicts the common practice.
It would be better to see Jesus indicating what actually occurred at the time of
spring growth. Namely, certain non-fruiting branches the vine-keeper tied to the
trellis along with the fruiting branches while the side shoots of the fruiting
branches were being cleaned up. He allowed the non-fruiting branches to grow
with full vigor and without the removal of any side growth or leaves. Why?
Because the more extensive their growth the greater the diameter of stem which
connects to the vine and, thus, the greater ability to produce fruit the following
season. By removing them from the ground and placing them on the trellis, the
rows of plants would benefit from unhindered aeration that was an essential
element to proper fruit development. Therefore, according to Dedckson, to see
airei as removal (judgment or discipline) is to contradict the actual practice of
the time.
Jesus told His disciples that they were fruiting branches that had been
cleansed. Thus, they could anticipate immediate fruitfulness, though that
depended on their maintaining a proper relationship with Him. It is important to
note also that the unfruitful branch will be the fruiting branch the following
season, if the present fruiting branch weakens.
The non-abiding branches of verse six are not the same as the unfruitful
branches of verse two. The two are contrasts at best with the sixth verse not
describing the fate of the unfruitful branches. This is because verse six does not
raise the issue of fruitfulness reflected in verse two and cannot be looking at the
same time of year. The sprigs cleaned from the vines in the spring would be too
small and succulent to do anything more than wither away. In order to build a fire
from cuttings as is described in verse six, the vine-keeper must remove mature
wood. This happens in the severe pruning that occurs at the beginning of the
dormant season after the vine-keeper has harvested the fruit, and when all
branches now look alike. The burning need not describe judgment, but simply be
a part of the description of the process; it is what happened to the pruned material.
Their uselessness (which verse six emphasizes) not their destruction is in view.
Finally, the interpreter must not read the judgment of verse sixhowever one
views itback into verse two.
The cultural practice of Jesus day was to clean up only the fruiting branches
and tidy up the rows during the early spring growth following blooming. Severe
pruning and removal of branches did not occur until the vine-keeper harvested the
grapes and dormancy was setting-in. Since Jesus was speaking in the spring, it is
natural to see His words in John 15:2 as referring to the spring practice. The
viticultural use of kathairei, which
CTSJ 4:3 (July 1998) p. 48
described the removal of sprouts from fruiting branches, should inform the
meaning of aireL Both actions occurring simultaneously, the verse would look
at the farmers care for all of the branches belonging to the vine, whether fruiting
or not. Consequently, judgment is not an issue and the passage is not a warning
against non-abiding, but an encouragement to keep abiding and to expect
fruitfulness. That verse six envisions the fall, post-harvest pruning, one sees in the
practice of burning all of the wood that is not attached to the vine. They are
separate practices from opposite ends of the season and would have been
understood as such by the apostles. Jesus message to His disciples was that,
though He was departing, the Father was still caring for them. He had prepared
them through Jesus instruction to bear fruit, which they would do very soon. To
bear the fruit God intended, they needed to continue to rely upon Him and
respond to His instruction. If they chose not to abide they were useless and God
would not use them (pp. 5152).
Besides this article by Derickson, I would encourage others to read his work,
An Evaluation of Expository Options of 1 John (Ph.D. Dissertation at Dallas
Theological Seminary). I look forward to his upcoming publication written jointly
with Dr. Earl Radmacher concerning Jesus instructions to His disciples in John
1317.
This article is a must read! Derickson contributes greatly to the
interpretation of Jesus words to His disciples as recorded in John 15:16.

CTSJ 4:4 (October 1998) p. 2
No More Sacrifice
Part 1 of 2

Professor John Niemel *
[*Editors note: John Niemel earned his B.A. at the University of
Minnesota, a Th.M. in New Testament Literature and Exegesis
(Dallas Theological Seminary), and is a Ph.D. candidate in New
Testament Literature and Exegesis (Dallas Theological Seminary).
John is professor of Greek and Hebrew at Chafer Theological
Seminary.]
Introduction
A troubling sermon in 1968 launched this author into a twenty-five year quest
to understand Hebrews 10:2627. The issue behind the inquiry was What is the
impact of his passage on the security (or insecurity) of believers?
If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain
fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will
devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:2627).
1
This article traces a pilgrimage leading to a simple solution for Hebrews
10:2627. It integrates the exegesis of the passage into the books overall context.
Personal Pilgrimage
The following chart traces the chronology of the authors perception of the
passage.It also serves as the basic outline of the article.
View Years Held Problem with Prior View:
A. No Security 196874
B. Never-Saved 197483 (A) Eternal security
C. Fellowship-
Sacrifice
198393 (B) The books audience
D. Change of
Covenants
1993 (C) Analysis of Hebrews 10:18

1
Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982). All Scripture citations are
from the NKJV, unless otherwise identified.
Figure 1. The Authors Developing Perspective on Hebrews 10:2627.
The authors autobiographical context is the setting of the authors four-stage
exegetical inquiry.
2
His loyalty has always been to the text, not to a theological
system. This article scrutinizes three presuppositions once held by this writer.
The No Security View
This view regards that forfeiture of eternal life as the penalty for a Christian
sinning willfully. This was the authors initial presupposition, because his
childhood church taught that faith in Christ canceled only ones pre-conversion
sins. Thus, serious post-conversion sin could still result in eternal damnation.
In 1968 the preacher warned about Christians apostatizing. He taught from
Hebrews 10:26 that apostates not only lose eternal salvation, but also become
unforgivable. The haunting possibility of apostatizing in the future made it seem
foolish to me (at age 15) to become a Christian while still a teenager. It made
sense to remain unredeemed, because that would leave a possibility of
redemption.
A close friends death in a hunting accident caused that sermon to fade from
memory. College friends explained the Gospel and I believed in Christ as savior.
The Never-Saved View
A year later, another friend showed that eternal security was a necessary
implication of eternal life being a gift (John 4:10; Ephesians 2:8). If cessation of
works results in the forfeiture of eternal life, then the gift of life would not truly
be a gift, but only a good deal. It was wonderful to gain the absolute certainty of
eternal life that eternal security offers.
Hebrews 10:26 soon became a problem, because it seemed to present
conditional security. The view that Hebrews 10 aims at a mixed audience seemed
to resolve the problem. Equating willful sin with unbelief allows acceptance of
eternal security, but it creates other unforeseen tensions.
The Fellowship-Sacrifice View
Nine years later, a fellow-language major at seminary argued that Hebrews
directs its five warning passages to believers. This approach, the Fellowship-
Sacrifice view, must prove that Hebrews uses the vocative brethren to address
believers. The next section, therefore, shows that Hebrews defines brethren as

2
Part 1 of the inquiry considers the No Security and Never-Saved views. Part 2 will appear
in the CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999).
believers. The following section considers outlining issues and the final one
explains the Fellowship-Sacrifice view.
Brethren Are Believers
At this time, this author regarded believing and unbelieving Jews as
brethren in Hebrews. This is a broad definition of brethren, which posits that the
author of Hebrews aimed the doctrine to believers, but the warnings to
unbelievers.
3
Can one defend such a view?
The term brethren groups people as brothers horizontally (ethnically),
4
or
vertically (in terms of relationship with God). The horizontal relationship would
refer to fellow Jews, whereas the vertical would address fellow Christians.
Groupings 13 occur in the NT, but category 4 extends even to unbelieving
Gentiles. This would be synonymous with people. It is a doubtful category of
NT usage.
Figure 2. Horizontal vs. Vertical Inclusion for the Term: Brethren.
However, some commentaries give the impression that brethren includes
unbelieving Jews and believing gentiles. That is not precisely correct. It often
includes one or the other, but it is doubtful that it ever simultaneously refers to
both. This is an important concept for defining its categories of usage in Acts.
Within the historical narrative of Acts a number of speakers deliver a host of
speeches to a variety of audiences over a twenty-six year span (A.D. 33-60). It
includes sermons by Peter, Stephen, Philip, Paul, James, and others. Yet, none of
these speakers address Theophilus, the one to whom Luke wrote Acts.
Furthermore, Luke delivers no speeches in Acts. Where then does Luke have a
voice? He, as the narrator, directly addresses Theophilus in Acts 1:1. In a broader
sense, Luke addresses the whole book through Theophilus to believers. Luke uses
the historical narrative to unify the book. Significantly, within the narrative (the
non-speech) sections of Acts, brother () never refers to unbelievers.
5

3
John F. MacArthur, Jr., Hebrews, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago:
Moody, 1983), xi. He argues for this on pp. xi-xv. Others reach this position more indirectly. Cf.
Homer Kent in the text associated with notes 1617 (below).
4
A few New Testament passages speak of physical siblings. Of course, full-brothers would share
the same ethnicity.
5
Two categories of non-speech uses occur: (1) Physical brothers (who in both cases were also
believers) Acts 1:14, 12:2; and (2) believers: Acts 1:15 (Critical Text); 9:30; 10:23; 11:1, 29; 14:2;
15:1, 3, 22, 32, 33, 40; 16:2, 40; 17:6, 10, 14; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15. Luke was the
original author of the non-speech sections. The rest of the occurrences are in (1) letters: Acts
15:23, 23; or speeches: Acts 1:16; 2:29, 37; 3:17, 22; 6:3; 7:2, 13, 23, 25, 26, 37; 9:17; 11:12;
12:17; 13:15, 26, 38; 15:7, 13, 36; 20:32 (Majority Text); 21:20; 22:1, 5, 13; 23:1, 5, 6; 28:17, 21.
Luke did not create the speeches or letters, but cites the original speakers in their own contexts.
Each speech in Acts addresses its own audience. In marked contrast to Lukes
narration, though, individual speakers sometimes addressed believing or
unbelieving Jews as brethren. Other speeches in Acts address Gentile believers as
brethren. Over the twenty-six year span of Acts, speakers applied the term to
varied audiences.
Since the meaning for brethren comes from the context of each speech
individually, Luke (in each speech) reports the antecedent for brethren for
Theophilus sake. However, in non-speech sections, the meaning always reverts
to Lukes basic definition: brethren are believers.
Acts 1314 illustrates. In Acts 13:15, synagogue officials called Paul a
brother. Pauls speech (Acts 13:1641) reciprocated, addressing them as brethren
(esp. 13:26, 38). One week later, Paul went to Iconium. Here, in Acts 14:2,
unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles against the brethren. Luke does not
need to define brethren in 14:2 (a narrative verse). It does not include the
unbelieving Jews, so it cannot be racial. Neither can it merely refer to Gentiles,
since the Jews stirred them up against the brethren. Clearly, in this narrative
context, brethren means believers. Luke always returns to this meaning in
narrative sections of Acts.
In marked contrast to his narrative, Luke allows speakers to define brethren
for each speech. Thus, the meaning for brethren in the speeches of Acts is either
(1) believing Jews and Gentiles, or (2) Jews (who may or may not believe).
Speakers addressed a variety of audiences and often used brethren for address.
Luke honored those writers by retaining their vocatives. However, when he wrote
narrative, Luke consistently used brethren to address believers. Against this
consistent use of brethren in the historical narrative, Luke takes care to present
each speakers definition for the same term. He does this by specifying each
audience within the context.
Since Luke exercised diligence in using the term brethren, commentators
ought to avoid over-generalizations. Luke does not include unbelievers in his
definition, although certain speeches (by other speakers) retain that usage.
Hebrews is not analogous to the book of Acts. It does not contain a multitude
of speeches over twenty-six years. Instead, it targets a single community
6
at one

6
The proof that the destination is a single community comes from Hebrews 10 and 13. Hebrews
10:32 says, But recall the former days in which you endured a great struggle with sufferings.
Verse 34 amplifies, for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the
plundering of your goods . Furthermore, the writer plans to see them and extends personal
greetings to them in 13:2324, Know that our brother Timothy has been set free, with whom I
shall see you if he comes shortly. Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from
Italy greet you.
point in time (sometime between the release of Timothy from prison and the
destruction of Jerusalem).
7
Thus, the expositor should expect a fixed definition for
the term. Unlike Acts, with many speeches, this book is like a single (written)
speech to one audience. Now where does the author define brethren, the
audience?
1. Hebrews 2:113:1. This passage defines brethren as sanctified ones.
For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of
one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
saying: I will declare Your name to My brethren (Hebrews
2:11).
Christ is the sanctifier of believers. Both are of one [Father],
8
God the Father.
Sons of the same father are, by definition, brothers.
Figure 3. The Family Tree of Brethren in Hebrews.
Brethren are holy. Therefore, the writer addresses them as holy brethren
(3:1).
9
Hebrews 2:11 gives his only definition of brethren. No basis exists for the
suggestion that Hebrews 2:11 defines only a portion of the brethren that the writer
addresses. Where does the author define unholy brethren?
Does holy brethren imply a corollary: unholy brethren? No, people do speak
of dead corpses, round circles, long-necked giraffes, cold snow, red blood,
eternal God, and hot steam. These adjectival phrases do not imply the existence
of live corpses, square circles, short-necked giraffes, hot snow, gray blood, non-

7
Cf. note 5 (above), which mentions the release of Timothy. Since Acts does not mention this
imprisonment, it undoubtedly happened after the end of Acts (A.D. 60). The book treats sacrifices
as ongoing (Hebrews 10:1), so the temple was still standing (pre-A.D. 70).
8
Scholars debate the gender of the referent for of one ( ). The simplest view is as a
masculine, referring to God the Father, since a common fatherhood underlies brotherhood. This
does not deny Christs deity or eternality. Cf. Ephesians 1:3.
9
Hebrews 3:1 has another vocative, partakers (). Some may think that Hebrews 3:14s
statement, For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence
steadfast to the end, proves that all Christians persevere to the end. Such a view deduces that
holy brethren invariably are partakers from 3:1s juxtaposition of holy brethren and partakers.
This is not necessarily the interpretation. For example, a teacher might address first grade
students with a pair of vocatives, Children, first graders. After promotion to the second grade,
she could still address them as children, but not as first graders. Similarly, believers cannot cease
to be Christs brethren. Sadly, not all brethren are partakers and some who were partakers cease
partaking. The author addressed brethren who (at that time) were all partakers, but were under
temptation to cease being partakers. He warned them against succumbing.
eternal God, or cold steam. Hebrews 3:1 addresses holy brethren, because that is
the books basic definition of brethren (cf. Hebrews 2:11ff).
2. Hebrews 3:1213. These verses are part of a single Greek sentence.
10

Brethren must guard against having an evil heart of unbelief.
Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of
unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another
daily, while it is called Today, lest any of you be hardened
through the deceitfulness of sin (3:1213).
Some commentaries seek to escape from regarding this as a warning to
Christians by breaking one sentence into two. Treating each verse separately
11

hides the issue without resolving it.
Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil unbelieving
heart, in falling from the living God (3:12).
12

But exhort one another day after day, as long as it is called
Today, lest any one of you be hardened through the deceitfulness
of sin (3:13).
13
Regarding verses 12 and 13, the same commentary says,
[12] Brethren is not a reference to Christians as is holy brethren
in 3:1. It refers to racial brothers, unbelieving Jews, as the term
does throughout the book of Acts.
14

.
[13] The writer is saying to the believers among those to whom he
is writing, Get along side each other and help each other.
15

10
The Majority Text and Nestle-Aland
27
differ regarding the continuation of the sentence into
verse 14. However, both Greek texts perceive that 3:1213 belong together, due to the vocative
itself.
11
Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1954; reprint,
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968), 16475 deal with 3:712, and 17687 deal with 3:13
19. MacArthur, Hebrews, 9193, also splits this Greek sentence. He treats verse 12 as unbelievers
and verse 13 as believers, despite the grammar.
12
MacArthur, Hebrews, 91. His comment on the verse is on 92.
13
MacArthur, Hebrews, 92. He discusses the verse on 9293.
14
MacArthur, Hebrews, 92.
15
A simplified grammatical diagram argues against splitting the sentence. The
brethren are both to beware and to exhort. The vocative links the whole sentence.
What Hebrews joins together, man should not part asunder.
See the grammatical diagram.
16
In the presence of a vocative controlling two second person plural imperatives
in one sentence, is it reasonable to address verse 12 to unbelievers and verse 13 to
believers? The word but () distinguishes between the self-focus of the first
verb and the others-focus of the second, not between subjects.
Another imaginative approach to Hebrews 3:1213 subtly defines a single
occurrence of brethren in two ways. Initially, one commentary treats brethren as
Christians, [F]or a Jewish Christian to abandon Christ and return to Judaism
is here [3:12] called apostasy from the living God.
17
It sounds like a reference to
Jesus sanctified brethren of Hebrews 2:11.
However, regarding Hebrews 3:14, the same commentary says,
This is not a warning that a true sharer of Christ will ever have
that status withdrawn, but a solemn reminder that a true sharer
will continue in the first faith, and will not apostatize to Judaism
. A real believer by definition is one who is believing. He never
ceases to believe.
18
The commentator calls those whom Hebrews warns Jewish Christians, but
then asserts that they had never believed. What is this category: Jewish
Christians who never believed?
It is an effort to avoid the point of Hebrews 3:1213. It is a subtle evasion of
the authors warning that Christs sanctified brethren must guard against
developing unbelief. Clearly, each one must guard against developing unbelief
within himself (3:12) and exhorting other believers, lest it develop in them (3:13).
If Hebrews calls unbelievers Christs brethren, it would be a bait and switch
tactic. When conservative commentators employ such imaginative solutions as
splitting sentences wrongly or attributing a double-speak definition to a word,
something is wrong. The only definition that Hebrews gives for brethren is that
they are the ones that Christ positionally sanctified. It is time for scholars to let
Hebrews speak for itself: the author warns believers!

16
Neither Greek nor English states the pronoun you, but the 2nd plural verbs imply you.
17
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1972), 73.
18
Kent, Hebrews, 75. Note 2 (above) critiques a false presupposition that Kent makes.
3. Hebrews 6:9. Commentators correctly regard the vocative of beloved
19
as a
reference to believers.
But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you,
yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this
manner.
Some expositors find it odd that Hebrews injects an exhortation to believers
into a section that they categorize as non-exhortational. Perhaps, instead, their
outlines misconstrue the argument of Hebrews.
4. Hebrews 7:5. This is Hebrews only purely ethnic use of brethren.
And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people
according
to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from
the loins of Abraham. (Hebrews 7:5)
The passage depends on the family tree of Israel. Levi and his brothers were
the progenitors of each of Israels tribes. Their father was Jacob, their grandfather
was Isaac, and their great-grandfather was Abraham. Thus, the descendants of
Levi collected tithes from the other tribes.
The meaning of brethren, here, is not controversial in the literature. However,
Levis brethren does not equal Israel. Why not? The Levites did not collect
tithes from themselves. Numbers 18:2532 told them to collect a tithe from the
other tribes. One tenth of the collection became a heave offering for the Lord
(without ever becoming the property of the Levites). Rather than collecting a tithe
from the Levites, they received ninety percent of the tithes of the other tribes.
Hebrews 7:5 says that they collected it from their brethren (
).
By contrast, the ethnic brethren of the writer of Hebrews would include the
Levites. Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews calls Timothy a brother (Hebrews
13:23), but his father was Greek (Acts 16:1). Thus, (as a believer) Timothy was a
brother of the writer, but (as a non-Jew) he was not a brother of the Levites.
In other words, those who argue that brethren means Jews in Hebrews
cannot appeal to this verse. It does not make Israelites brethren, but non-
Levitical Israelites into Levis brethren. The verse has no bearing upon the
addressees of Hebrews; it contains no vocatives.

19
5. Hebrews 8:11. Brethren refers to believers under the New Covenant,
quoting Jeremiah 31:34. This verse does not clarify the addressee issue, since it
has no vocative.
6. Hebrews 10:19. It says, Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the
Holiest by the blood of Jesus. Even here, a few regard brethren as a reference to
Jewish unbelievers.
I believe that brethren refers here, as elsewhere in Hebrews and
also in Romans (9:3) to fellow Jews, not to fellow Christians.
These physical brothers are being urged to take hold of the
perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ
20
The extent of that commentarys validation is the hollow assertion: I believe
that This is a conclusion, not proof.
The grammar weighs heavily against such an assertion. One should consider
verse 22, which contains the main verb for the sentence: let us draw near. Three
participles modify this verb. Two of them are crucial to the chronological flow of
the passage. These are having been sprinkled (10:22) and having been washed
(10:22). Regardless of the text one follows,
21
both participles in verse 22 occur
before the main verb. The grammar establishes the sequence as:
a. Our hearts having [already] been sprinkled (10:22b)
Our bodies having [already] been washed (10:22c)
b. Brethren, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance (10:22a)
This addresses people whose hearts have been already sprinkled from an evil
conscience and whose bodies have already been washed with pure water. It
should be evident that these are sanctified brethren of the Lord. Although he urges
them to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, these people have
already believed in Christ. They already had eternal life. When the author
addresses brethren, he means believers.
7. Hebrews 13:22. This verse has three uses of you that determine the
interpretation of brethren. The word bear () is a second person plural
imperative. English imperatives imply the subject, you, just as the Greek implies

20
21
In the Majority Text, the form is , an aorist circumstantial participle. In Nestle-
Aland, it is , a circumstantial perfect participle. It is widely recognized
grammatical truth that aorist and perfect participles precede the action of their main verb. Since
the main verb is a present tense, the grammar is clear-cut: sprinkling and washing precede
drawing near.
the pronoun here. The following translation of Hebrews 13:22 adds the implicit
word in parentheses.
And I urge you
1
, brethren
2
, (you
3
) bear with the word of
exhortation, for I even have written to you
4
briefly.
The verse makes this equation: you
1
= brethren
2
= (you
3
) = you
4
. Thus, if
these brethren are believers, each occurrence of you in this verse signifies
believers. Vocatives of brethren also occur in Hebrews 3:1, 12; 10:19. Since each
of these passages address believers, there is no basis for suggesting that the author
is addressing anyone other than believers in 13:22.
22

8. Hebrews 13:23. Its definition of brethren must harmonize with verse 22. It
cannot be an ethnic term in v 23. Why force that meaning onto 13:22?
I appeal to you, brethren, (you) bear with the word of exhortation,
for I have written to you in few words. Know that our
23
brother
Timothy has been set free, with whom I shall see you if he comes
shortly.
Timothy reached adulthood as an uncircumcised man of mixed parentage
(Acts 16:13).
24
Under first century definitions, he was not a Jew, despite having
Jewish blood. Did Jews regard the racially mixed Samaritans as their brethren?
They did not. The racial definition of brethren would have offended any Jews
who might imagine that the author called Timothy their Jewish brother in 13:23.
However, despite his parentage, Timothy was a brother to the addressees of
the book of Hebrews. They and Christ both have God the Father as their Father
(Hebrews 2:11). The writer addressed his book to brethren, that is, to those
sanctified positionally by Christ.
The Outline of Hebrews
The preceding analysis of brethren in the book shows that Hebrews 13:22
addresses believers.
And I appeal to you, brethren, (you) bear with the word of
exhortation, for I have written to you in few words.(Hebrews
13:22).

22
For an extended analysis of Hebrews 13:22, see the section The Outline of Hebrews, on
pages 14ff of this article.
23
The Nestle-Aland
27
and UBS4 texts read our, but the Majority Text
2
does not. The presence
or absence of this word does not change the meaning, since it is implicit.
24
Contrast this with Pauls statement in Philippians 3:5: circumcised on the eighth day, of the
stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews [born to Hebrew parents].
What is this word of exhortation to believers? In Acts 13:15, the phrase refers
to an entire sermon (covering Acts 13:1741). Significantly, Pauls word of
exhortation included warning (Acts 13:4041).
And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers sent
to them, saying Men and brethren, if you have any word of
exhortation for the people, say on.(Acts 13:15)
The natural reading of word of exhortation would perceive it as a reference to
the book as a whole,
25
not as merely pointing to chapter 13. The use of for even
( ) indicates a corresponding reason for enduring the word of exhortation.
Though the epistle is long, it is as brief as possible.
26
The author recognized that
the book is long, since he urged them to endure it. One could paraphrase Hebrews
13:22 as,
And I urge you, brethren, endure the (lengthy) exhortation, for I
have written (it) to you (as) briefly (as possible).
The author called his book a word of exhortation, because exhortational
sections occur throughout. Practice follows each doctrinal section.
See Figure 4, which follows.

Doctrine # vss Practice # vss Doctrine +
Practice
# vss
1 1:114 14 2:14 4 1:12:4 18
2 2:53:6 20 3:74:13 26 2:54:13 46
3 4:145:10 13 5:116:20 24 4:146:20 37
4 7:110:18 87 10:1939 21 7:110:39 108
5a 11:140 40 12:129 29 11:112:29 69
5b 13:125 25 13:125 25
Verse totals: 174 + 129 = 303
Figure 4. The Five Doctrine-and-Practice Sections of Hebrews.
In light of Figure 4, why do many commentaries categorize 1:110:18 as
doctrine, but 10:1913:25 as exhortation? Such commentaries perceive the

25
Cf. William L. Lane, Hebrews 913, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47B, ed. David A.
Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 568. MacArthur, Hebrews, 45354.
26
The Epistle of Barnabas (1.5) refers to its brevity, but is much longer than Hebrews.
exhortational sections before 10:18 as parenthetic-warnings to unbelievers. If,
indeed, they address unbelievers (a secondary audience) they would interrupt an
otherwise smoothly presented doctrinal argument (designed for the primary
audience). Although Davies does not raise the audience issue, his observation
surfaces an underlying assumption of the parenthetic-warning approach,
Throughout the letter the writer alternates between two types of
discoursedoctrinal exposition and practical exhortation . [T]he
alternation is for the most part so clearly marked that if the
doctrinal passages are read continuously, and the exhortations
omitted, the main argument displays its underlying continuity and
coherence.
27
However, the warnings are not parenthetic asides, because both the doctrine
and the warnings address brethren (believers). Since, as pages 713 of this article
argue, Hebrews does not shift audiences, the warnings are integral to the book.
Rather, the warnings guide believers in the practical application of doctrine.
The writer did not intend believers to ignore the warnings. Yet, some
commentaries do not think that the warnings apply to believers,
The first eleven chapters of Hebrews do not emphasize specific
commands to Christians. There is an obvious lack of practical
explanations or exhortations. The section is pure doctrine and is
almost entirely directed to Jews who have received the gospel but
need to be affirmed in the superiority of the New Covenant.
28
Other commentaries make this break in their outlines. The following outlines
view 10:18 as the division between the two main parts of Hebrews:
I. Doctrinal discussion (1:110:18)
II. Practical exhortations (10:1913:25)
29

First HalfDoctrinal. Chap. i.-x. 18,
Second HalfPractical. Chap. x. 19-xiii. 25.
30

27
J. H. Davies, A Letter to Hebrews. The Cambridge Bible Commentary, gen. eds. P. R. Ackroyd,
A. R. C. Leaney, J. W. Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 15.
28
MacArthur, Hebrews, 419. The last sentence would be true, if edited to say, The section warns
and exhorts believers from doctrine and is entirely directed to regenerate Jews who have received
the gospel but need to be affirmed in the superiority of the New Covenant, so that these believers
would please the Lord.
29
Cf. Kent, Hebrews, 28 and 30.
30
Andrew Murray, The Holiest of All: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London,
England: Oliphants, 1960), ix and xiii.
Although well intentioned, these commentaries misconstrue the argument of
Hebrews. Almost half of the book (129 of 303 verses) exhorts believers.
31

Hebrews is a word of exhortation for believers.
I urge you, brethren, (you) bear with the word of exhortation, for I
even have written to you briefly (Hebrews 13:22).
The idea of the book as a word of exhortation extends beyond the notion
that almost half of the verses are exhortational. The writer only uses vocative
plurals for addressing believers (see pages 713 of this article). Further, he
connects each of these vocative plurals with exhortations or warnings.
Note the following:
Vocative Plurals
32

Addressing Saints
Warnings Positive Exhortations
1 2:14
2a Holy brethren and
partakers (3:1)
3:16
2b Brethren (3:12) 3:74:13
3 Beloved (6:9) 5:116:8 6:920
4 Brethren (10:19) 10:1931 10:3239
5a 12:2529 12:124
5b Brethren (13:22) 13:125
Figure 5. Vocatives only occur in Warnings/Exhortations.
Although the Never-Saved view can be compatible with eternal security, it
does not understand Hebrews 13:22 correctly. Hebrews speaks with a singular
voice to a singular audience. Brethren are believers. In fact, all of its vocative
plurals address believers. The whole book exhorts Christians.
The strength of this evidence compelled this writer to abandon the Never-
Saved view in 1983.
Now it is one thing to know that these verses address believers, but
interpreting them is an entirely distinct issue. The second part of this article will
trace the rest of the authors pilgrimage to an interpretive solution.
--To be continued--

31
See Figure 4, page 15.
32
Vocative singulars occur in Hebrews 1:810; 10:7; and 12:5. Each occurs in an Old Testament
quotation; none of them address the readers of Hebrews.

Balaam:
A Light to the Gentiles?

Dr. Glenn Carnagey*
[*Editors note: Glenn Carnagey earned his B.A. at the University
of Texas, Th.M. at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. at the
University of Tulsa. Glenn has done extensive archaeological work
in the Near East and editorial work for a major archaeological
journal, as well as presented scholarly papers at meetings of the
Evangelical Theological Society. Dr. Carnagey has also pastored
churches in Texas, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. Glenn is a member
of Chafer Seminarys National Board of Advisors, is a contributing
editor to the CTS Journal, and was instrumental in the formation of
CTS.]
Archaeological Background
In February and March of 1967, H. J. Franken was conducting excavations at
Deir Alla in the Jordan River Valley when his vigilant foreman, Abu Abdul
Rasul, noticed writing on pieces of plaster being removed from the remains of an
ancient building. He brought the information to the excavator.
That building probably was a sanctuary for a goddess whose name begins with
the Hebrew letter shin. Shamash and Shgr have both been suggested as
possibilities, especially Shgr, since it occurs later in the second combination in
connection with the Council of the Gods.
This inscription is an eighth century narrative concerning the seer/prophet
Balaam, well known to Bible students as the prophet who dominates Numbers
2224. This inscription offers some useful insights into the biblical text.
Identifications
Then he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor,
which is near the River in the land of the sons of his people, to call
him, saying: Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they
cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me (Numbers
22:5)!
1
Deir Alla is located on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River Valley, near the
spot where the Zerqa River flows into the Jordan. It is north of Jericho, but still
within the wide swath of the Jordan River, which at this point has the Hassid
plains on both sides. Moses quite accurately called this expanded area The Plains
of Moab. However, the biblical text also sees the campsite as this side of Jordan
by Jericho, hence it was a fair distance south of Deir Alla.
No one has suggested in the literature that Deir Alla could have been
identified with Pethor during the lifetime of Balaam, but the excavations clearly
demonstrate very limited Middle Bronze occupation followed by extensive Late
Bronze and Iron Age cities. If not for Deuteronomy 23:4, it would be a tempting
site for the phrase by the river of his people
(Numbers 22:5), since the Jordan River is only a few hundred yards away.
2
Moses
is again quite explicit, however, and reveals an Ammonite-Moabite conspiracy
against Israel, during the description of which he identifies the city of Pethor as a
Mesopotamian city (Deuteronomy 23:4). Later,
3
of course, we learn that the
Midianites (or the Amorite-Midianite amalgamation) were also involved. This has
a certain significance for the entrance of Israel into Cis-Jordan (=the land west of
the Jordan River). Even though God had carefully proscribed any battles with the
Ammonites, the Moabites or the Edomitesinstructions which Moses was careful
to obeyit seems they panicked anyway and formed an alliance to destroy the
Israelites before they could cross the Jordan River and attack Jericho.
The Amorite Corridor
Moses and the people traveled up the old Desert Highway to avoid
confrontation with their relatives. They instead cleared out what might be called
the Amorite Corridor, land over which Sihon king of Heshbon and Og the king
of Bashan controlled and ruled. If one takes the full extent of this geographical
indicator seriously, the Israelites controlled the land from the Arnon River north
across the Bashan of Syria to the shoulders of Mount Hermon. Indeed, Barry
Beitzel, in the Moody Bible Atlas, extends the Trans-Jordanian inheritance for the
two and a half tribes (Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh) into just those

1
Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashvile, TN: Nelson, 1982). All Scripture citations are
from the NKJV.
2
Because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt,
and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse
you (Deuteronomy 23:4).
3
See Numbers 31:8, They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of those who were killedEvi,
Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed
with the sword.
same boundaries. This massive land grab by the Israelites helps to explain the
panic of the Moabites and Ammonites, in particular, when confronted with the
Israelite army, now under Joshua, in a more southerly and hence more menacing
campsite.
From the Scripture involved then, we can conclude that Moab and Ammon,
together with elders of Midian, who at an earlier time had been associated with
Edom to the south, took steps to destroy Israel, even though they had been totally
spared by God and the nation of Israel. It is this traitorous behavior early in the
post-exodus generation that led to the heavy penalty of a 10-generation exclusion
from the Tabernacle and worship of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:36).
An Open Question
The problem of who the people of Balaam were is, at this point, quite an open
question in scholarly dialogue.
4
Joshua 13:21 establishes the relevant facts:
(A)ll the cities of the plain and all the kingdom of Sihon king of
the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses had struck
with the princes of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, who
were princes of Sihon dwelling in the country. (Joshua 13:21)
This passage informs the reader that the Midianite princes (or kings, cf.
Numbers 31:8) were in reality the remnant of Sihons Amorite kingdom. They
acted as feudal kings, dukes, over the Midianites, who had somehow settled
either within the Moabite territory or perhaps at its northern edge. Whether the
five were indeed Amorites or not, they served Sihon who ruled in Heshbon. This
rather enigmatic reference to the alliance between certain Midianites with the
Amorite kingdom of Heshbon would strengthen the case regarding the
archaeological excavations in Jordan at the site of Heshbon as the correct site for
Pethor, since there was no occupation before the Iron Age.
Others suggest that Balaam was an Aramaean from further north, while those
who hold to the validity of Scripture tend to accept a Mesopotamian origin for
Balaam and would look to the region of the Two Rivers (the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers) for Pethor. Hence, the river of the land of the children of his
people (Numbers 22:5) would have to be either the Tigris or the Euphrates. He

4
The higher critics, who view this passage as a late 8th early 7th century document compare the
phraseology in the Deir Alla Inscription with Numbers 2224 and see strong evidence for
contemporary composition (as per Kyle McCarter). Some hold with Thompson that Balaam was
an Ammonite, though again Deuteronomy 23:4 seems to prohibit this conclusion by calling him a
Mesopotamian. Subsequent examination of the Deir Alla Inscription, written upon the pieces of
plaster at Deir Alla some six centuries later, has yielded for this narrative various dates between
800 and 600 B.C. Based on orthography, a date between 750 and 700 BC seems to be the most
commonly accepted one today.
could, then, have been from the early generations of the Assyrians or from the
Amorite or Kassite tribes who were prominent during the second millennium BC.
It is even possible that some of the Sumero-Akkadian population groups had
managed to continue into the
15th century BC (the date of Numbers), or that very early Aramaean tribal units in
the southern region were his original home.
What was the nature of this prophet/seer Balaam? Why was his message
deemed to be so important that a special sanctuary was constructed in honor of the
goddess whose wrath his wisdom had averted and a stele erected with his message
inscribed thereupon with red and black ink?
5
For a complete answer, one must
move back in time to the interval during which Israel camped in the Plains of
Moab, just before the death of Moses and the campaigns of the conquest in Cis-
Jordan. It was a peculiar time, to say the least.
The Strange King
A strange king by the unlikely name of Agag was the greatest king known to
Balaam (Numbers 24:7). Why not Thutmose, Rameses, Amenhotep, or some
other Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt? Perhaps because this king was not an
Egyptian Pharaoh at allhe was instead the king of the Amalekites. Balaam
refers to this group of people in his great prophetic oracles of Numbers 2224. In
fact, he sees a world in which the Amalekites are the greatest nation in the world
with the mightiest army, and Agag, probably Apop I or II, is their world-
renowned king. Alternatively, more germane to the critical viewpoint, why were
none of the neighbors of 7th century Israel mentioned, particularly the later
Egyptian Dynasties?
The Amalekites seem to have disappeared shortly after the time of David and
were certainly no threat by the time of Josiah. Strange, you ask? Indeed it is, yet
that is exactly what the Scripture records over the three chapters that contain the
history of Balaam at his greatest and best. Generations of scholars have glossed
over the worldview painted by Balaam and have simply dismissed his description
of the world powers of his day as a Seers frenetic rambling or the imagination of
J, E, P, or D
6
(as P. Kyle McCarter). Most notice that the Amalekites were indeed
on their way into Egypt when they met and fought the Jews at the point of their
Exodus from Egypt. Yet, no mention is made of the connections to this mighty
enemy of Israel found in Balaams Prophecies. There is no

5
See the opening paragraph of this article.
6
These four letters represent four editors that supposedly compiled the Old Testament, according
to the Documentary Hypothesis. Both liberal (e.g., Dr. Cyrus Gordon) and conservative scholars
have largely discredited this hypothesis.
space in this article to ferret out the answers to these questions, but we surely
must eventually find such answers in order to portray accurately the wider setting
for the events being described.
Balaam and the New Testament
New Testament commentary, beginning with our Lord Jesus Christs
evaluation in Revelation 2:14, credits Balaam with a rapid apostasy after the four
powerful prophetic messages he delivered before the Moabites and their allies, the
Midianites. The New Testament uniformly condemns the actions and advice of
Balaam after the biblical passage in Numbers 2224 ends.
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them
that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication (Revelation 2:14).
Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following
the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of
unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:15).
Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran
greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the
gainsaying of Core (Jude 11).
The way of Balaam, the error of Balaam, and the doctrine of Balaam are all
excellent descriptions of a Prophet of God gone astray.
The Doctrine of Balaam
The doctrine of Balaam centers around the daughter of king Zur of Midian,
one Cozbi, who upon the advice of Balaam set up a house of ill repute (more
properly known as a cult shrine of the Phallic Cult) near the Israelite camp in the
plains of Moab near Shittim. From this vantagepoint, it was but a simple matter to
attract Israelite males into illicit relationships with the cosmopolitan and lovely
Midianite/Moabite young women. Through sexual enticement, the Israelites were
seduced into worshiping under the evil phallic cult of Canaan.
The consequences were dire indeed; one tribal leader, the Simeonite leader
Zimri, son of Salu, and an additional 24,000 others died before the
shame and divine judgment stemming from the success of Cozbis feminine
warfare abated. The seriousness of the attack Numbers 25 records. Here God
made an eternal covenant of peace with Phinehas, the Phinehasic Covenant, to
honor his execution of Zimri and Cozbi while in flagrant immorality. Phinehas
executed the rebels by throwing a javelin through both of their bodies, pinning
them to the ground.
The Error of Balaam
The error of Balaam, on the other hand, deals with the problem of the love of
money, or covetousness, which Paul defines as idolatry in Colossians 3:5. A
number of references mention the interest Balaam took in cold hard cash.
Greed first appears in the willingness of Balaam to see if God had changed
his mind about going with the emissaries of Balak to Moab. Balaam knew
perfectly well that God, as Moses put it, was not a man that He should change His
mind (Numbers 23:19). Balaams greed continues to build as he acquiesces to the
repeated attempts by Balak to have him curse Israel from differing geographical
positions. Each time Balaam gives the genuine message from the Lord to the
Moabite king, but the fact that he is willing to try again suggests a certain
willingness to accept the favors of Balak.
The climax of Balaams greed, however, is not described in Scripture in any
detail. It is instead chronicled obliquely in the account of Balaams death. There
we discover that after the events of the account in Numbers 2224 occur and the
Biblical account ends, Balaam has again returned to Moab and taken up residence
in the midst of the Midianites, where we discover he has become the personal
advisor of one of the five Amorite/Midianite dukes still holding power there, one
King Zur, the infamous father of an even more infamous daughter.
We are specifically informed that it was Balaams advice to King Zur and his
daughter Cozbi that led to the near disaster of Israel
7
that was only at the last
moment averted by Phinehas loyalty to Yahweh in his execution of Cozbi and
her Israelite lover. It is instructive to note that God gave enormous weight to the
act of Phinehas. It was so important to the plan of God that He made an eternal
and unconditional covenant with Phinehas for his actions, guaranteeing that one
of his descendants
would always be the High Priest of the nation of Israel. I have titled this almost
totally unrecognized covenant as the Phinehasic Covenant., It serves as a final
divine proof of the seriousness of the threat that Balaams advice posed to the
survival of Israel.
The Way of Balaam
Finally, the way of Balaam has to do with forsaking the right way and
loving the wages of unrighteousness. Note, it does not say that he loved
unrighteousness, only that he loved the wages that unrighteousness could produce

7
See Numbers 31:8, 16, as well as Numbers 25.
for the person who follows it. Additionally, it says that they have gone astray,
implying that they no longer functioned under the Laws of Divine Establishment.
One should note that in order to go astray, Balaam must have originally been
on the correct path! While it is true that God declares Balaams way perverse
before him (Numbers 22:33), it is still true that the four great oracles given by
Balaam are legitimate. It fell to Moses, then, in his final order of battle, to send
troops in to wipe out this enclave of Amorites mixed with Midianites in
Transjordan.
Because of his sojourn among the Midianites further south, were Moses
acquired his first wife, Zipporah, this must have been a particularly painful task to
accomplish. At any rate, it was not necessarily the case that this enclave, which
was in a position to hinder Israels crossing of the Jordan, was identical in
makeup to that group further south. The biblical description in fact suggests that
perhaps only five clans had intermixed with the Amorites and moved north.
Old Testament Insights
Two combinations of Aramaic literary text found at Deir Alla offer a number
of valuable insights for biblical Old Testament scholars. According to the broken
translation, Balaam was connected with a cult of Moabites who worshiped the
gods known as Shaddayim, or mountain gods. El Shadday is the name by which
Yahweh was known to the Patriarchs some 400 years before the Exodus (Genesis
17:1). Hence, it is not unusual that Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia,
should have the same name for God as Balaam and his followers among the
Moabites. For Balaam also came from Mesopotamia, and hence the appellation
Shaddayyim for the gods Balaam and his Moabite followers worshiped.
What Scripture does not report often may be as significant as what it does
discuss. The role of Balaam in this case is most instructive in this regard. All of
the things he did while in fellowship with Yahweh are given in considerable
detail, while his return from his home country to become a military-political
advisor to King Balak of Moab is mentioned obliquely in the account of his death
in the Old Testament (Numbers 31:8). Only the off-hand report of the demise of
Balaam late in Numbers provides the clues to what really happened (Joshua
13:21; Deuteronomy 23:4).
The literary nature of the Deir Alla inscription is such that Cross wants to
designate it as an exemplar of the Ammonite National script of the 7th century
BC. McCarter disagrees strongly with this in view of the many un-Ammonite
features of the inscription and opts for something more akin to Transjordanian
or even Gileadite. This Aramaic, similar to the cursive Aramaic dialect, is akin
to early Hebrew. Changes, which took place late in the course of linguistic
development, have not yet occurred in this script and in this sense, it is more like
Old Aramaic.
8
The consensus seems to be that the language is, if not poetic, at
least literary. The gist of the revised translations seems to be that the world has
been reversed in its behavior pattern, so that behavior opposite to that normally
exhibited is the norm. This leads the Shaddayin, the High Gods, to decree an
eternal darkness over the earth, to be administered by the goddess whose name we
do not know, other than that it begins with Shin.
An Inference
It seems that Levine has done the best job of explaining what happened next.
His suggestion, agreed to by Kaufman in his review article and by McCarter, was
that Balaam was encouraged to try to remove the onus of carrying out this task
from the goddess and by his magic was able successfully to relieve her of this
repulsive mission. However, there was a penalty to pay and Balaam was directly
in line to pay the price for his success. For interfering in the affairs of the gods,
Balaam was banished to the underworld.
9
Still, there is scarcely a complete line in
the entire inscription, and that factors heavily into the continuing scholarly debate
about
the significance of the find. Perhaps, with Kaufman, we will be forced to conclude
as he did that the Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla constitute one of those
inscriptions that are destined to remain enticingly obscure.
10
If the meaning of the text is obscure, the significance of its existence and the
location in which it was found are unmistakable. The non-biblical description of a
biblical prophet has now been pushed back to the time of King Hezekiah, and the
setting is one which suggests that the veneration of Balaam and his prophecies
extend even further back into the history of Transjordan. It makes it easier for the
reader to grasp the magnitude of the accomplishments to which this prophet to the
Gentiles attained. The parallelism between Balaam and Moses is unmistakable
and yet shocking. We are left to ponder the alternate pathways of two of Gods
most spiritually significant prophets, and to observe that in their deaths, as in the
last segment of their lives, the ministries of the two men were closely intertwined.
They were in fact buried in the same Valley of Peor, and in death their graves
were hidden from the sight of later generations, lest the temptation to worship
them as gods become too great to resist.

8
A number of features are unusual to find in Aramaic at all. For example, the occurrence of the
Waw Consecutive for narrative sequences, the vocabulary and even the niphal verbal conjugation
as opposed to the peil stem of Aramaic seem out of place.
9
Van de Kooij and Ibrihim adopt this viewpoint in their recent publication Picking up the
Threads, concerning the exhibit in the Netherlands in 1989.
10
S.A. Kaufman, Review Article, The Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research. 239 (1980) 74.
Bibliography
Baskin, J. R. Origen on Balaam: The Dilemma of the Unworthy Prophet.
Vigiliae Christianae, 1. Vol. 37 (1983), 2235.
Caquot, A., and Lemaire, A. Les Textes Arameens de Deir Alla. Syria, Vol. 54
(1977), 189208.
Coats, G. W. Balaam: Sinner or Saint, Biblical Research. Vol. 18 1973), 2129.
Cross, F. M. Epigraphic Notes on the Amman Citadel Inscription, Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research. Vol. 193 (1969), 1319.
Fitzmyer, J. A. A Review Article of Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts
from Deir Alla. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. 40 (1978), 9395.
Franken, H.J. Texts from the Persian Period from Tell Deir Alla. Vetus
Testamentum. Vol. 17 (1967), 480481.
Greenfield, J. C. Review of Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from
Deir Alla. Journal of Semitic Studies. Vol. 25 (1980), 24852.
Hackett, J. A. The Balaam Text from Deir Alla. Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press,
1984.
Herdner, A. Corpus des Tablettes en Cuneiformes Alphabetiques. Paris:
Imprimerie, 1963.
Hoftijzer, J., and van der Kooij, G. Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. Documenta et
Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Kaufman, S. A. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
__________ Review Article: The Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research. Vol. 239 (1980), 7174.
Levine, B.A. The Deir Alla Plaster Inscriptions. Journal of the American
Oriental Society. Vol. 101 (1981), 195205.
Lichtheim, M. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume 1: The Old and Middle
Kingdoms. Berkley: University of California Press, 1975.
Lust, J. Balaam, An Ammonite. Ephemerides Theological Lovanienses. Vol. 54
(1978), 6061.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. The Balaam Texts from Deir Allah: The First
Combination. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Vol.
239 (1980), 4960.
Naveh, J. The Date of the Deir Alla Inscriptions in Aramaic Script. Israel
Exploration Journal. Vol. 17 (1967), 256258.
__________ Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from
Deir Alla. Israel Exploration Journal. Vol. 29 (1979), 133136.

The Theology Of Evangelism:
Introduction And Biblical Principles Of Evangelism

Dr. John C. Beck, Jr.*
[*Editors note: John Beck earned his B.A. at the University of
California in Los Angeles (UCLA), Th.M. at Dallas Theological
Seminary, and his D.Min. at Western Seminary. Dr. Beck is the
director of Discovery Ministries, which offers seminars that help to
equip churches to do the work of evangelism. His office number
is 310829-4355. John teaches Systematic Theology at CTS, has
been an interim pastor, and frequently does pulpit supply.]
Introduction
He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as
evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of
the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
Christ (Ephesians 4:1112).
When it comes to telling others about Jesus Christ, many Christians have had
an experience similar to that of the following businessman.
I would cross the street to avoid meeting someone who might ask
me a question about my faith in Jesus Christ. If people started to
talk about religion, I did everything I could to change the subject,
because I was afraid they were going to ask me a question that I
could not answer. Over the years I learned to sidestep witnessing
situations because I knew that I was not prepared.
The ministry of evangelism takes on special interest when each Christian
considers what would have happened to him if someone had not told him about
Christ. This realization should increase one s awareness of the plight of those
around him who still do not know the Savior. Even when motivated, Christians
are not always successful in their efforts to reach the lost. This lack of success can
be traced to fear and lack of information. Lack of success can convince even the
most optimistic Christian that evangelism should be left to the professionals.
The businessman, mentioned above, achieved success in the business world
by applying diligence and preparation to his job. Time was invested in learning
the answers to the possible questions, that a potential client might ask. This man s
problem m the area of witnessing was quite simple. Knowing he was unprepared,
he avoided the embarrassment that lack of preparation would bring. To emphasize
the importance of preparation, six months after this businessman began
evangelism training, he saw two business associates and one relative place their
trust in Jesus Christ.
The Theology of Evangelism
When Lewis Sperry Chafer defined systematic theology he said,
Systematic Theology is: the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing,
exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God
and His works.
2
In this paper, the method of Systematic Theology will be
applied to the subject of evangelism, thus The Theology of Evangelism.
Sources of Information
When one commences a study of the theology of evangelism there are many
sources of information. Today the responsibility to equip the saints for the work
of the ministry primarily falls upon pastors, teachers and lay leaders or ministers
of evangelism. Many who begin down the path of evangelism have learned from
personal experience that there are potholes, roadblocks, and detours along the
way. Preparing for this journey takes time, patience, and hard work. This article
will start with the writings of well-known theologians. Finally, it will examine the
real foundation: the Scriptures themselves.
After a review of ten of the more popular evangelical texts on systematic
theology,
3
it became apparent that they only introduced the student to the concept
of evangelism. Most often the subject of evangelism was found in the context of
Ecclesiology, being referred to as the gift of evangelism.
Chafer defines evangelism as the act of presenting to the unsaved the
evang,,el or good news of the gospel of God s saving grace through Christ
Jesus.
4
He also comments on 2 Corinthians 5:1820.
God gave us the ministry of reconciliation and.., has
committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are

2
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. (Dallas TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947. Reprint
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993) vol. 1, p. x.
3
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Walter Elwell, Paul Enns, Millard J. Erickson, Wayne Grudem, Charles
Hodge, Robert Lightner, Charles Ryrie, Augustus Strong, and Henry Theissen are noted in the
Annotated Bibliography on p. 45.
4
Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology: Volume Seven (Dallas TX: Dallas Seminary Press,
1947 Reprint Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 143.
ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal
through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God.
Regarding this important passage, Chafer states, Probably the most arresting
fact related to this ministry is that it has been committed to every individual who
may be saved This commission rests on all believers alike.
5
Now Pauls words to the Ephesians tell us that the gifts of apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers are for the equipping of the saints for the work of
service, to the building up of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Whereas many
Christians see the pastor as the professional evangelist of the gospel, Paul says
that His leadership gifts are for preparing the membership of the church to do the
work of the ministry, including evangelism. Chafer again emphasizes
Each believer is, upon being saved, constituted a witness to the
unsaved; but all believers are in need of such instruction, counsel,
and direction as a God-appointed and well-trained pastor and
teacher may impart.
6
Chafer lists four areas in which the Christian should be trained, [1] discipline
in the plan of salvation, [2] the terms of the gospel, [3] the use of the Scriptures,
and [4] the manner and method of effective work.
7
Again, the importance of
every believer is repeated, It can thus be demonstrated that personal evangelism
on the part of all who are saved is the New Testament plan of evangelism.
8
With the exception of Louis Sperry Chafer, theologians have been brief in
their discussion of the subject of evangelism. However, there is much that has
been written in popular form that continues to be available in Christian
bookstores. Over the years, many books have been published by evangelists
elaborating the four themes that Chafer mentions.
The Place of the Local Church in the Theology of Evangelism
If the New Testament plan for evangelism involves every Christian, then a
study of the theology of evangelism should be integrated into the curriculum of
every church education program. An understanding and mastery of this subject
would go a long way to the involvement of the local church membership in the
work of evangelism. Either a lay person or a staff person committed to the
ministry of evangelism may incorporate the theology of evangelism into the local
church ministry. The understanding of the theology of evangelism will encourage

5
Ibid. 143
6
Ibid. 143.
7
Ibid. 143.
8
Ibid. 143.
the participation of a greater proportion of the membership of the local church,
using their God given gifts, in the work of evangelism.
Implications of a Study of Evangelism
We may note four implications of this study: First, evangelism takes work.
When man was cast out of the Garden of Eden, he inherited an earth that would
not produce fruit without hard work. The one who undertakes the work of
evangelism is not exempt from this rule. Second, evangelism is not a program per
se, but is a Christian. willing to enter the. lives of unbelievers with the truth of the
gospel. Third, some people will not respond to the Gospel regardless of the
attractiveness of the presentation. Fourth, some Christians will not respond in
obedience to participate in the outreach of the church regardless of the
opportunity and need for evangelism.
Path for the Church in Evangelism
The church needs a model. When discussing this subject one pastor
commented, Our local church does want to be faithful but they have no history,
therefore no model, of doing evangelism. There needs to be a balance between
programmed and non-programmed evangelism. The church needs to follow
the example of Christ. Jesus treated each person individually. The church needs a
strong pulpit ministry, which reflects the zeal of the pastor for evangelism: The
membership needs to. be encouraged to take advantage of the training and
opportunity for involvement available to the church. Christians need to try on the
job training and be willing to learn from their mistakes.
Dividing the Theology of Evangelism into its Parts
Chafer lists four areas in which the Christian should be trained, [1] discipline
in the plan of salvation, [2] the terms of the gospel, [3] the use of the Scriptures,
and [4] the manner and method of effective work.
9
For the purpose of this study
the manner and method of effective work will be considered first under the title,
The Biblical Principles of Evangelism. The other three areas that Chafer lists
will be covered in two separate articles titled The Presentation of the Gospel
and Apologetics. The three parts of the theology of evangelism will appear
thusly:
1. The Biblical Principles of Evangelism: the scriptural instruction to
Christians on evangelism.
2. The Presentation of the Gospel: the plan of salvation, the content and terms
of the gospel, and the use of the Scriptures.

9
Ibid, 143. Italics added
3. Apologetics: the questions that are often asked by non-Christians.
10
Biblical Principles of Evangelism
When all else fails, read the instructions! This familiar quote is appropriate
when Christians plan to tell others about Jesus Christ. Many Christians blunder
into evangelism making all the classic mistakes that have become the stereotype
of Christians portrayed in the twentieth century media. This has led to ineffective
communication of the Gospel and a general frustration on the part of the Christian
who tried, but failed. The appropriateness of the above quotation becomes all the
more important when one considers that God has not left the Christian without
instruction in the important field of evangelistic endeavor. When all else fails,
read the instructions applies to the Christian who wants to win his friends,
neighbors, and work associates to Christ.
There are biblical principles that are helpful for the Christian who wants to be
effective in his or her outreach effort. When individually applied, these principles
enable the believer to tell others about Jesus Christ with a positive attitude that
tells the world that God sent his Son to die in the place of a lost race because He
so loved mankind.
The. following information one may divide into three chronological portions:
1) principles from the Gospels; 2) principles from Acts; and finally 3) principles
from the letters. There are other ways to divide this material and there are more
principles that one may derive from an exhaustive study of the scriptures.
Principles from the Gospels
The Christian Serves a Seeking God (Matthew 28:1820)
Matthew introduces Jesus Christ as the King of Israel. We find the most
important principle of evangelism at the end of the Gospel of Matthew where the
King exercises His divine authority by directing His subjects) . Jesus commands
His followers to, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew
28:19). Before one can be made a disciple, he must be evangelized so that he
believes on Jesus Christ. Those who would obey the King have the assurance of
His power (a)ll authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth
(Matthew 28:18), and His personal presence I am with you always (Matthew
28:20). From this passage, one discovers the principle that the Christian serves a
seeking God.

10
This third section begins with an approach to apologetics which (following the outline of 1
Peter 3:15) emphasizes the sanctification of the believer; then, his study, preparation and his
attitude; and finally, his actions.
This principle brings, up an. interesting question, What about those who have
never heard? David Watson tells of a time when a student once asked Charles
Spur eon if the heathen, who had never heard the gospel, would be saved.
Spurgeon s reply reminds us again that we serve a seeking God and that those
possessing eternal life ought to share the gospel with those who are lost. Spurgeon
answered, It is more a question with me whether we who hear the gospel, and
fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.
11
TM To further illustrate Gods attitude of searching for the lost, please note
the first recorded encounter of a Holy God with a sinful man. Genesis chapter
threeportrays God as seeking Adam and Eve in the garden. They were hiding
from His presence and He moved about looking for them. The picture is not to
imply that God did not know where they were hiding, but rather that His heart
was one of a loving, seeking God. Most people, when offended by another, might
more naturally try to avoid that person. God, on the other hand, when offended by
sin did not abandon His creature (cp. Luke 19:10; Mark 10:45).
The purpose of these Scriptures is to keep Christians from joining the holy
huddle and never being heard from again. The Christian should never quit seeking
the lost. If he does, he no longer follows the will of God. God s heart seeks the
lost.
Heavens Point of View (Luke 15:110)
Christ gave His parables to teach spiritual truth. In a parable, the Lord teaches
such truth by transference. A lesson that one could observe from everyday life
(the physical realm) He uses to teach a lesson in the spiritual realm. The context
of the parables in the New Testament often includes a question followed by an
answer in the form of a parable. In Luke 15, for example, the question comes
from the Pharisees and the Scribes when they grumble, saying, This man receives
sinners and eats with them (Luke 15:2). They wanted to know why He was doing
this. From the point of view of the religious leaders, Jesus acted improperly. From
the point of view of heaven, Jesus was doing the work of evangelism.
Asking Appropriate Questions (Matthew 21:24; 22:41)
Witnessing for Christ is not just talking without listening. Sometimes it is
appropriate to ask a question that will help the unbeliever think through his
position to its logical conclusion. This principle can be discovered from the
questions that Jesus asks when the chief priests and elders are examining Him (cp.
Matthew 21:25; 22:41).
During the course of some religious discussions an unbeliever might say, I
believe all you have to do to go the heaven is keep the Golden Rule and the Ten

11
David Watson, I Believe in Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 34.
Commandments. The Christian does not have to disagree, at this point, but may
help the non-Christian think his way to the truth by saying, That is an interesting
point-of-view. After an appropriate pause, the Christian might then ask the non-
Christian, By the way, how are you doing? Are you keeping the Golden Rule and
the Ten Commandments? The honest non-Christian will admit that he is not doing
very well. Then the Christian might add, Well, that is why Christ died. He died
to pay the penalty for the times that we do not keep the Golden Rule or the Ten
Commandments.
Christ Taught a Harvest Theology (Matthew 9:3638)
It is true that planting, tilling, and watering are important parts of bearing
fruit. However, Christ taught that there was a harvest to reap and
that there were few workers. It is important to plant, till, and water, but let the
church not forget that it is also important to harvest. There are people outside the
church who are ready to receive Christ and the members of the church need not
only to be prepared and willing to harvest, but they need to go with a great
expectation of seeing people trust Christ.
Often a non-Christian is waiting for someone to invite them to become a
Christian. Dr. C. I. Scofield was a lawyer sitting in his office when a Christian
about to leave after transacting, his business asked Scofield, Are you a
Christian? Scofield answered, No, I am not. The man asked Scofield, Why are
you not a Christian? The lawyer answered that no one had ever invited him to be
one. The man told Scofield, Well, I am inviting you right now! Scofield
accepted the invitation to put his faith alone in Christ alone. Later, he supplied the
church with one of its classic study Bibles, The Scofield Reference Bible.
Definition of a Witness (Matthew 11:4)
When John the Baptist was in prison he sent some of his disciples to ask
Jesus, Are you the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else (Matthew
11:3)? Christ stated the principle of witnessing when He answered, Go and report
to John the things which you hear and see (Matthew 11:4). It is true that John was
already a believer. However, this incident helps to illustrate the principle of telling
others about what the Lord has done.
Christians often avoid telling others about Christ, because they are afraid that
they will not be able to answer the questions or objections of the person with
whom they wish to share the gospel. Christians do not need to know all the
answers to all the possible questions. A Christian is someone who has placed his
faith in Jesus Christ. One of the most powerful arguments a Christian can use is to
simply tell the non-Christian how he came to the place where he placed his faith
in Christ.
There is a simple three-point outline for a successful testimony. First, tell what
your life was like before meeting Christ. Second, tell how you met Christ. Third,
tell what changes have occurred in your life since meeting Christ.
Economy of Revelation (Matthew 13:1012)
There comes a time when more information will not help bring a person to
faith in Christ. When Jesus began to teach in parables His
disciples asked for the reason for the change in His teaching method. The answer
that Jesus gave demonstrates that He practiced an economy of revelation. The
disciples were to learn more about the kingdom of heaven while at the same time
unbelievers were not to have access to this revelation.
This principle one has to apply carefully because Christians do not want to
keep the gospel from anyone. It is helpful to determine if the person that is
hearing the gospel is interested in more information. This is where listening is
important. Christians tend to talk when they should listen and discover what the
non-Christian is thinking.
Sometimes it is helpful to throw out a hook question or statement. If the
bait is not taken this might not be the best time to pursue the subject of a
personal relationship with Christ. One such statement might be, Theres one
thing we all know, one day we are going to die and have to stand before a
righteous God. The person hearing such a statement might not want to talk about
this subject. At this point, it might be best to let the subject drop. Though one
might avoid the subject of anothers eternal destiny at that moment, it is probable
that the non-Christian will ponder that idea and reintroduce it to the person
witnessing for Christ later by saying, What did you mean by that? Now, when
the discussion turns to spiritual things it is because of the interest of the non-
Christian friend.
Become Fishers of Men (Mark 1:17)
Jesus was going by the Sea of Galilee and saw two brothers, Simon and
Andrew, casting a net into the sea. Jesus said to them, Follow Me, and I will make
you become fishers of men (Mark 1:17). These two men joined with the other
disciples, following Jesus for three and one half years. Because of the time spent
with Jesus, they became fishers of men. Using a modern imagery of fishing it is
easy to construct a principle applicable to evangelism. To catch fish three things
are needed: First, to catch fish one needs a fisherman. Next, to attract the fish one
needs good bait. Last, one needs to go where the fish are located.
Every believer is to be a witness, i.e. a fisherman. Christians have the best
bait, i.e. the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians need to go where the non-
Christians can be found. The great commission was not directed to non-Christians
telling them to go to church. The great commission was directed to Christians
telling them to go into the world and make
disciples. One hindrance to effective evangelism is the failure of Christians, while
proving to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach, to place
themselves in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you
appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life (Philippians 2:1516).
The disciples followed Jesus and He made them become fishers of men. They
discovered that He spent most of his time with people. Someone added up the
encounters of Jesus with people and found that he met with folks over a hundred
different times where they lived and worked. He met and spoke with people in the
synagogue or temple less than a dozen times. The principle is simple: fishermen
go where the fish are located.
Principles from Acts
The Church is to be His Witnesses (Acts 1:213)
In Acts 1:8 Jesus gives believers the basic job description of the church. The
Lord exhorts believers to be His witnesses. This is a major responsibility of the
believer. The churchs propensity throughout the centuries is to be sidetracked.
This problem is almost humorously seen in the following, verses where the
angels,, standing in white clothing, prompt the disciples to do what Jesus just told
them to do. We see the humor in the question that the angels address to the
disciples, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky (Acts 1:11)?
Without this prodding from the angels the disciples would probably, human
nature being what it is, have stayed at that spot, and built a memorial to the
significant event that had just transpired. ,They might have looked around and
made a list of those special people present on that momentous day and made up a
charter membership of the newly formed Church of the Ascension. Others
could join but only the charter members would hold the special place of honor.
The Lord prevented this diversion from the job description to be witnesses. He
sent angels to remind the disciples of the instructions that they had so recently
received.
The Importance of a Testimony (Acts 26)
Paul was on trial for his life before King Agrippa. In this circumstance, Paul
gives a careful presentation of his testimony, with the gospel includ-
ed. It appears that Paul placed more importance upon the eternal destiny of his
civil judge than upon his own temporal comfort and prospects. Following the
instructions of Jesus to the disciples of John the Baptist, Paul tells King Agrippa
what has taken place in his own life. The outline of the testimony of Paul is:
former life, conversion, and life after conversion.
The Importance of an Invitation (Acts 26:29)
The gospel not only includes the fact that men are sinners and Jesus died for
their sins, but it includes an invitation to receive Christ. Without an invitation to
receive Christ, the gospel has not been completely presented.
Leighton Ford tells of one example where a Christian sitting next to the
governor of an eastern state discovered that the governor was sympathetic, but
had never become a Christian. The Christian asked, Why not? The governor
replied, No one ever asked me. The Christian answered back, Well, Im asking
you. And to his surprise, the governor was open to the gospel.
12
Ability in Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 2:1440)
The church did not begin with the New Testament at its disposal for
evangelistic presentations. They did not have the Four Laws, or the Roman
Road. They did have the Old Testament and could use it effectively. The church
of the twentieth century needs to able to use both the Old Testament and the New
Testament. This can be especially helpful when talking with someone of Jewish
background.
In a home discussion meeting with non-Christians, a participant with a Jewish
background said she was happily surprised when the discussion leader suggested
that she read her Old Testament and look for the references to the Messiah. She
expected to be told to read the New Testament alone and to set aside her heritage.
A Witness is not Always Appreciated (Acts 12:2)
Even when Christians tell others of Christ with the best intentions, the
Christian will not always be well received. James and many other Christians to
follow were put to death for their testimony. Lewis Sperry Chafer aptly describes
the situation when he writes,
Every soul-winner becomes aware, sooner or later, of the fact that
the vast company of unsaved people do not realize the seriousness
of their lost estate; nor do they become alarmed even when the
most direct warning and appeal is given to them.
13

12
Leighton Ford, How to Give an Honest Invitation, Leadership 5 (Spring 1984): 105-108.
13
Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangelism: Winning Souls by Prayer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1919), 53.
Prayer (Matthew 9:38, Acts 1:14)
The example that Christ set was one of prayer. He gave the disciples the
model prayer in the Sermon on the Mount. He specifically told the disciples to
pray that the Lord would send more workers into the harvest. The night He was
betrayed He asked the disciples to pray with Him. Christ prayed to the Father both
in private and in public. The disciples followed that example throughout the book
of Acts.
Lewis Sperry Chafer emphasizes the importance of prayer when he subtitles
his book, True Evangelism, Winning Souls by Prayer. In the chapter he titles,
The Prayer of Intercession, Chafer gives the proper perspective to prayer in
evangelism when he writes, the personal element in true soul-winning work is
more a service of pleading for souls than a service of pleading with souls.
14
Principles from the Letters
Common Ground (1 Corinthians 9:1922)
While in Athens Paul familiarized himself with the interests of the people
(Acts 17:1634). Paul used this information as common ground from which he
presented the gospel to the Athenians. Paul further develops this thought when he
writes to the Corinthians, I have become all thing to all men, that I may by all
means save some (1 Corinthians 9:22). In this passage, Paul divides the human
family into four groups when he writes,
And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those
who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself
under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to
those who are without law, as without law, though not being
without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might
win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I
might win the weak (1 Corinthians 9:2022).
Each of these groups (Jews, those under the Law, those without law, and the
weak), with its own distinctives, is appropriately considered by Paul in his
actions, attitudes, and words while he is in their presence. Paul wants these people
to hear about Christ. He realizes that they will not listen to him if he thoughtlessly
offends these individuals on a non-essential point of argument, or lifestyle. Pauls
purpose for conforming his conversation and lifestyle in the least offensive way
he could manage is stated both before and following this passage. Paul writes, For
though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win
the more I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some
(1 Corinthians 9:19, 22). Pauls purpose is to win the more and to save some.

14
Chafer, True Evangelism, 93.
The Love of Christ Controls the Christian (2 Corinthians 5:1015;
Matthew 18:2135)
Peter asked Jesus, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I
forgive him (Matthew 18:21)? Jesus gave Peter an answer that demonstrated the
love and forbearance of God. Christians are the recipients of Gods love and grace
through Jesus Christ. Christians are, in turn, to love. those around, them. . This
principle is essential to all forms of evangelism, especially friendship evangelism.
Paul further explains that the love of Christ controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14).
The non-Christian often can discern the motivation of the Christian in his
outreach efforts to the community. The prolific author unknown has given two
epigrams that describe some of the human family and unfortunately some of the
Christian family. There are two kinds of people: Those who ,,use things and love
people, and those who love things and use people. Again, he writes, You will
meet two kinds of people in life: those who try to impress you with their
importance and those who try to make you, feel important. David Watson brings
to our attention a Christian application of these epigrams when he writes, Do
you love people because you want to see them converted; or do you want to see
them converted because you love people?
15
The Christian needs to ask the question, What controls me? Is it desire for
self promotion, or do I love that person for whom Christ died? If the love of
Christ controls, then the Christian will go out of his way to take the message of
Jesus Christ to the non-Christian.
The Christian Ambassador (2 Corinthians 5:1621)
The Christian represents Jesus Christ to the non-Christian world as His
ambassador. Every Christian is a witness for Christ. Paul writes, Therefore, we
are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg
you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20). So, the choice
for the Christian is not whether he will be an ambassador, for all are ambassadors.
The choice is whether he will be a good or poor ambassador. Every Christian
needs to consider his responsibility and act accordingly.
The ambassador of Christ has been given the ministry of reconciliation. He is
to encourage men and women to reconcile to God through Jesus Christ. Everyone
has heard of the invitation song at the end of the evangelistic service that extends
for twenty verses or more. This excessive use of emotional pressure has given the
invitation a bad reputation. Nevertheless, according to Paul there is a time and
place to encourage a decision for Christ. The Christian needs to be sensitive to the

15
David Watson, I Believe in Evangelism, 92.
leading of the Holy Spirit as he follows Pauls example, We beg you on behalf of
Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20). This is an invitation!
This passage contains the next most important verse for explaining the Gospel
after the popular John 3:16 passage. Each Christian should be required to make 2
Corinthians 5:21 the second verse he memorizes. The path to God does not come
through human reason, but by revelation. Human reason concludes that you
work your way to heaven. Revelation states: He [God the Father] made Him
[God the Son] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him [God the Son] (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ takes
man s sin and gives him His righteousness. In theological terms, this is the
doctrine of double imputation. Upon faith in Christ, all the sin of the non-believer
is imputed to Christ (whose death on the cross paid the penalty for that sin). At
the same time, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a believer making him a
child of God. Apart from that transaction a man, woman, or child cannot stand in
the presence of God forever.
Gods Method (2 Corinthians 4:4)
Satan blinds men, thus they live in spiritual darkness. The religious leaders
were, trying to keep the people from., coming to Christ. (Matthew. 12:14). God s
method for penetrating the spiritual darkness is to send His Son who can bind
Satan and set the captives free. The blind men outside of Jericho (Matthew 20:29
34) illustrated in their person satanic blindness that only the Son of God could
heal.
This principle is introduced in Matthew and further developed in Pauls
explanation to the Corinthians. Paul writes, the god of this world has blinded the
minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel (2
Corinthians 4:4). Paul further writes that the darkness is penetrated in the church
age by Christ living in the life of the believer, for God has shone in our hearts..,
we have this treasure in earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:6).
If Christ lives in the life of a Christian, then his life should make a difference.
Paul tells us, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness
of the power may be of God and not from ourselves (2 Corinthians 4:7).
When a Christian engages in a witnessing effort and sees others come to
saving faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot say when it is over, What a great job I
did! It is not the great presentation of the Gospel by a silver-tongued evangelist
that brings people to Christ. It is Christ living in the life of the faithful witness
that brings people to Himself.

Walk in Wisdom (Colossians 4:5)
There is a line of division between those who know Christ and unbelievers.
Christ instructs the Christian to walk in wisdom when He says, Behold, I send you
out as sheep in the midst of wolves, therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent
as doves (Matthew 10:16). Later in his letters Paul reiterates this truth when he
writes, Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the
opportunity (Colossians 4:5). This portion of Scripture should keep the Christian
from becoming offensive in the sight of the unbeliever.
Christians need to realize that they have a vocabulary and activity schedule
that is unfamiliar to the non-Christian. When Christians are socializing together
and there are non-Christians present this is an opportunity to apply the truth of
Colossians 4:5. This is not the time to use Christian words or phrases that
exclude the non-Christian. This is not the time to talk about the details of the last
church business or committee meeting. These topics are of little interest to the
non-Christian. When Christians focus their attention on inappropriate topics while
non-Christians are present, they are telling their guests that they are in the wrong
place. Non-Christians are not much different than Christians in some respects.
Both avoid places where they do not feel wanted or comfortable.
Tender Loving Care (1 Thessalonians 2:79)
In his letter, Paul reminds the Thessalonians of his care for them while he
lived in their community. He writes, (b)ut we proved to be gentle among you, as a
nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children (1 Thessalonians 2:7). This
type of care takes into consideration the maturity level of the person receiving the
Gospel. Paul did not give the Thessalonians more than they could absorb, nor did
he expect more from them than they could provide.
Next Paul writes, (h)aving thus a fond affection for you, we were well pleased
to impart to you not only the gospel but also our own lives, because you had
become very dear to us (1 Thessalonians 2:8). This is the key to the passage. Paul
did not come with a polished presentation, collect the decision cards, and then
leave town. Paul did more. He invested his life into the Thessalonian people. A
simple formula might be expressed such as this: Time equals Life. Paul spent time
with the Thessalonian people. It does not take very much to show someone that
you care for them. A small investment of time produces great dividends.
Pauls Final Witnessing Instruction (2 Timothy 2)
This is Pauls last letter before his death. This letter reflects the life experience
of one who followed the heart of God. These are Pauls final words about
witnessing.
First, Paul gives the source of strength for the witness. Be strong in the grace
that is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 2:1). This refers back to the first principle, we
serve a seeking God (see Matthew 28:1820 where Jesus taught that the power
and presence of Christ goes with the witness).
Second, Paul compares the witness with a soldier, an athlete, and a farmer.
The soldier does not entangle himself in the affairs of everyday life. The Christian
needs to maintain proper priorities in his life that will not distract from following
the revealed will of God. The athlete does not win the prize unless he competes
according to the rules. God has left careful instructions for the witness. The
farmer is characterized as hard working. (2 Timothy 2:46)
There. is no easy way to bring people to Christ, it takes work. Believers are m
a spiritual battle in which the stakes are the souls of mankind.
Third, Paul stresses the importance of the resurrection. Remember Jesus
Christ, risen from the dead. (2 Timothy 2:8). Jesus promised His disciples and
the nation of Israel that He would rise from the dead (Matthew 12:38). The
resurrection of Jesus Christ can answer many witnessing questions. Jesus placed
the validity of His ministry, upon this one event. The evidence of the resurrection
presented m the gospels, demonstrated by the changed lives of the apostles
including the apostle Paul, we should study carefully. If Jesus were truly raised
from the dead, then, that makes a difference!
Fourth, Paul warns the Christian on the use of the tongue. Remind them of
these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle
about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers (2 Timothy
2:14). If there were a formula in which one could phrase the eleventh
commandment this surely would be it. If a person has been solemnly changed in
the presence of God not to do something, he definitely should not do it. In this
case, Paul is saying, Dont argue!. He again repeats this admonition, and the
Lords bondservant must not be quarrelsome (2 Timothy 2:24).
Fifth, Paul tells the witness what he should do with the tongue. Be kind to all,
able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in
opposition (2 Timothy 2:2425). It is interesting that Paul does not say, be patient
if wronged, but when wronged.
No matter how sincere and loving a Christian may be when sharing Christ
with a non-Christian there are going to be those who are offended and become
antagonistic toward the Christian. If one were not involved in a spiritual battle this
would not occur. Unknown to them, the non-Christian is under conviction by the
Holy Spirit and sub-consciously or consciously is resisting the truth of the
message that the Christian brings. If one were trying to convince him to vote
Democratic or Republican the intensity of his opposition, though he might
disagree, would not be the same. The Christian who decides to tell others about
Christ is truly in a spiritual battle and the opposition the Christian faces is
evidence of that fact This is not to excuse the opposition that some Christians
encounter because they are thoughtless, or lack good manners and sensitivity
There is never any excuse for a Christian to conduct himself in any manner but
with the utmost dignity, honor, and respect.
Finally, Paul gives one of the most unusual promises found in the Scriptures.
Its an if perhaps promise. In this chapter, Paul tells us how to be a successful
witness and then he says, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to
the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:25). Even after one follows all the
instructions on how to be a good witness, the results are still in the hands of God.
This is where the burden should rest. Each
Christian should follow the instructions trusting God to work through him and
leave the results up to God.
At the end of the chapter, Paul gives one more word of advice. Many
Christians look at the non-Christian as the enemy. Paul writes that the non-
Christian is not the enemy, but the victim of the enemy. When a person
accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior, Paul says that they are escaping from the
snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy
2:26). Every Christian has been in this spot and needs to exhibit a patient and,,
compassionate heart, toward those, who are still victims of the enemy and have
not yet decided for Christ.
Conclusion
The theology of evangelism has room for development after the popular
presentation we finding most theological works. The evangelists have given much
to the church in their writings The task of including these writings into a fully
developed presentation of the theology of evangelism still lies ahead. The
principles outlined in this paper are part of the study of the theology of
evangelism. These principles are an introduction to the instructions that God has
left the church for effective evangelism. There are many more portions of
Scripture that the believer will discover and should study. God has not left the
believer without proper instructions for the important task of telling others about
His Son.
End
Annotated Bibliography
Chafer, L. S. Systematic Theology: 8 Volumes. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary
Press, 194748. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993. In volume
seven of his systematic theology (Vol. 7, p. 142-146 Kregel edition) Chafer
gives more than three pages to a discussion of evangelism.
Chafer, L. S. True Evangelism: Winning Souls by Prayer. Philadelphia: Sunday
School Times Co., 1919. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993.
This is an outstanding book emphasizing the importance of prayer in
evangelism.
Elwell, W. A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1984. An article on pages 38284 titled Evangelism gives a definition along
with the message, method and goals of evangelism.
Enns, Paul Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. On page
274, he gives half a page to a discussion of the gift of evangelism.
Erickson, M. J. Christian Theology second edition Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1983, 1998. While discussing the role of the Church on pages 1061-1063,
Erickson describes evangelism as one of the four functions of the Church (the
others being edification, worship and social concern). Erickson adds that both
accounts (Matt. 28:19 and Acts 1:8) of Jesus last words to the Church are
instructive, This was the final point Jesus made to His disciples. It appears
that He regarded evangelism as the very
Enns, Paul Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. On page
274, he gives half a page to a discussion of the gift of evangelism.
Erickson, M. J. Christian Theology second edition Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1983, 1998. While discussing the role of the Church on pages 1061-1063,
Erickson describes evangelism as one of the four functions of the Church (the
others being edification, worship and social concern). Erickson adds that both
accounts (Matt. 28:19 and Acts 1:8) of Jesus last words to the Church are
instructive, This was the final point Jesus made to His disciples. It appears
that He regarded evangelism as the very reason for their being (Erickson,
Christian Theology, 1061).
Grudem, Wayne Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. In the chapter The Nature
and Purposes of the Church, pages 867869, Grudem lists three purposes for
the church: 1) Ministry to God: Worship; 2) Ministry to Believers: Nurture;
and 3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy.
Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology: 3 Vols. 187173. Reprint Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970. Hodge did not write on Ecclesiology or evangelism.
Lightner, R. P. Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications. On pages 234-236, in the context of a discussion of the Church,
he includes a section on the mission in the world: 1) The exaltation of the
Savior and the Scriptures; 2) The edification of the people of God; and 3) The
evangelization of the lost. This is indeed a primary responsibility of the
Church (Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology, 235).
Ryrie, C. C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding
Biblical Truth. Wheaten, IL: Victor Books, 1986. In the context of a
description
of spiritual gifts, three sentences are given to the gift of evangelism.
Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907.
Although Strong has nearly one hundred pages devoted to Ecclesiology, pages
887980, there is no delineation of the mission of the church touching on
evangelism.
Thiessen, H. C. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon
D. Doerksen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1949. Reprint 1977. On pages 432
437 Thiessen discusses the mission of the Church. He lists evangelism as one
of the seven purposes of the Church in the Scriptures: 1) To
glorify God; 2) To edify itself; 3) To purify itself, 4) To educate its
constituency, 5) To evangelize the world; 6)To act as a restraining and
enlightening force in the world; and 7) To promote all that is good. The
mission of the Church is not to convert the world, but to evangelize it
(Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, 434) Thiessen
explains evangelism by saying, the Church is debtor to the whole world, that
is, that the Church is under obligation to give the whole world an opportunity
to hear the gospel and to accept Christ (Thiessen, Introductory lectures in
Systematic Theology, 435).

Article Review
Does Assurance Belong to the Essence of Faith? Calvin and the Calvinists, by
Joel R. Beeke, The Masters Seminary Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 4371.
Reviewed by Dr. Stephen Lewis, Professor of Church History at Chafer
Theological Seminary and Pastor of Family Heritage Church in La Quinta,
California.
Paul Helm writes in his book titled Calvin and the Calvinists that If we take
Calvins definition of faith.., then the only conclusion that is possible to come to
is that he is inconsistent. For he is sometimes happy to allow that there may be
faith without assurance and indeed that all faith is incompletely assured. And yet,
if he defines faith in terms of assurance, then no one can have faith who lacks
assurance. Helms goal was to defend Puritan theology as the same as Calvins
own teachings. Is this a trend, or what?! Poor Calvin! Many want to claim that
they are the true lineage or the interpreters of Calvin.
Add another one to the list. Joel R. Beeke (Pastor of the First Netherlands
Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan) sets out to demonstrate that
Calvinists such as Alexander Comrie (a representative of the Dutch Second
Reformation) held essentially the same position as Calvin in mediating between
the view that assurance is the fruit of faith and the view that assurance is
inseparable from faith (p. 43). He believes he answers the question that centers
on a relevant issue of church history: whether or not the Calvinists differed from
Calvin himself regarding the relationship between faith and assurance (p. 43).
Beeke defines assurance as the certainty of ones salvation (p. 43). He holds
that assurance is recognizable by its fruit and is a Spirit-applied certainty. The
essential question is, Does assurance belong to the essence of faith? There are
two schools of interpretative thought, which have evolved. One is the view that
the Reformers left the issue of assurance and faith incomplete, leaving it to the
post-reformation pastors to develop it. The other view holds that the Reformers
and Calvin left no room for change (or evolution) and that assurance is found in
Christ alone.
Beeke sides with the latter view and sees the discrepancy between Calvin and
Calvinism on faith and assurance as largely quantitative and methodological. In
addition, he states that the post-reformation pastors when confronted with the
lifestyles of Christians began to evaluate the

validity of Scripture according to lifestyles. Yet as pastors who witnessed the
struggle (with biblical data, exegesis, and hermeneutics) declared that the
scriptures present a tension between a vital faith and some kind of normal
assurance, and the possibility of lacking assurance (p. 48). He states that second
and third generation Protestant pastors often felt compelled to augment and clarify
the magisterial Reformers doctrine of assurance because of their conviction that
numerous parishioners were taking Gods saving grace for granted (p. 48).
Beeke states that the aim of his article is to show a comparison of John Calvin
(15091564) and Alexander Comrie (17061774) a typical Dutch Second
Reformation divine. He argues that, notwithstanding different emphases on the
question of personal assurance of faith, both Calvin and the Calvinists were
fundamentally of one mind on assurance. He claims that for Calvin, faith is the
gift and work of the Holy Spirit granted to the elect. Therefore, if one believes,
but there is no conviction of salvation, then one is not a true believer.
Calvin does allow for varying degrees of faith and assurance. He often speaks
of such concepts as infancy of faith, beginnings of faith, and weak faith.
Assurance is free from doubt, yet not always so. It does not hesitate, yet can
hesitate. It contains security, but may be beset with anxiety. The faithful have firm
assurance, yet waver and tremble (pp. 5152).
Therefore, for Calvin, much resembles faith that lacks a saving character. For
example, he speaks of unformed faith, implicit faith, the preparation of
faith, temporary faith; an illusion of faith, a false show of faith, shadow-
types of faith, transitory faith, faith under a cloak of hypocrisy, and a
momentary awareness of grace. Self-deceit is a real possibility (p. 56).
Beeke, being squarely in the Reformed camp, claims that self-examination is
essential. Even in self-examination, however, Calvin maintains a Christological
emphasis. People must descend into their conscience to examine whether they are
placing their trust in Christ alone, because this is the fruit of experience grounded
in the Scriptures. If you contemplate yourself [apart from Christ, the Word, and
the Spirit], that is sure damnation (p. 57).
Beeke adds that Comrie was well aware of the fact that Calvinism was often
prone to relapse into neonomianism, jeopardizing the concept of justification by
faith alone (p. 66). Thus, the habit of faith is the new qual-
ity infused into the soul by God, whereas the acts of faith are its positive
exercises, making faith a practical reality. For whenever faith as an act justifies
us, Comrie argues, justification is of works and of man, rather than of grace and
of God (p. 63).
For Calvin the practical syllogism must be in the context of the great
hallmarks of the Reformation: Scripture alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and the
glory of God alone. Break one of these principles in teaching the practical
syllogism, and the whole concept becomes a curse instead of a blessing. At best,
works serve as an adjunct to faith in Christ. The practical syllogism may never
replace the promises of God as the primary ground of assurance; it must always
retain a secondary-confirming role. Otherwise, uncertainty will replace certainty.
Most major roots of later Calvinistic teaching on faith and assurance thus
evidence their presence in Calvin (p. 59).
Comries distinctions, relative to assurance, have the primary goal of leading
true believers to make their calling and election sure by directing their minds
outside of self to the unconditional grace of God in Jesus Christ. His secondary
goals include mediating contemporary Reformed debate, teaching the believer
how the Holy Spirit works savingly in his life, and encouraging the struggling
believer to press forward to greater degrees of assurance.
Beeke states Comries position as this: the seed of assurance is already present
in refuge-taking faith, albeit largely dormant. However, the goal of the believer
must be to grow in the consciousness of what he already possesses in principle, in
order to attain full assurance in Christ. At every point, whether as seed or in the
growth of assurance, or as full assurance all assurance is the sovereign gift of
the Spirit (p. 68).
Beeke thinks that one may possess assurance without it being known. That is,
the notion that assurance belongs in essence to every believer though he may not
always feel the sense of it is a bridge that unites the two varying emphases
qualitatively. Consequently, when Calvin defines faith in terms that embrace
assurance, this does not contradict the Westminister Confession s distinction
between faith and assurance, for Calvin and the Confession do not have the same
concern in view! Calvin is specifically defining what faith is in
its assuring character; the Confessions chapter 18 s describing what assurance is
as a self-conscious, experimental phenomenon (p. 69).
1
In Beekes summary of the comparison of Calvin and Comrie, he states these
conclusions:
There is no radical discontinuity between Calvin and the West-
minister Confession (which represents Calvinism). If it appears

1
Editors Note: All distraction aside, has one believed, if he has no assurance of his eternal
destiny in Christ at the point of being .persuaded of the gospel? Absolutely Not! The gift of
eternal cannot be lost, but the believers remembrance of his purification and assurance of his
eternal destiny in Christ can be forgotten. (2 Peter 1:9).
there is, it is because each has different concerns in view (p. 69).
Calvin and Calvinists (including Comrie) both present the concept
of faith as embracing both assurance in the essence of faith and full
assurance of faith, without demanding that the believer be able to
feel assurance consciously at all times (p. 69).
Finally Beeke concludes the obvious when he states that Calvin had not
worked out all the details of the faith/assurance relationship as he primarily
addressed those who were recently delivered from the bondage of Rome that had
taught it was heretical for the layman to claim assurance (p. 70). To this, I would
add that Calvinists have done somewhat the same thing because they conclude
that a person can never find full assurance except by continual self-examination.
In other words, they contend that one must look for fruit or evidences in order
to have assurance that one has been given the gift of faith (which, if possessed,
will produce fruit or one must doubt their salvation).
I would agree with some aspects of Beekes conclusion as he states:
Today the church is undergoing a crisis of confidence and
authority, and therefore of assurance, a renewal of assurance,
individual and collective assurance, is a great desideratum. If such
assurance were more widely experienced, the churchs vitality
would be renewed and she would live in all spheres of life in the
strength of the Lord God for the cause of Christ and the gospel
(p. 71).
An interesting secondary aspect of the article is that it appeared in The
Masters Seminary Journal, edited by Lordship champion John F. MacArthur, Jr..
Does Dr. MacArthur agree with the Reformed Theology of the Calvinists when
addressing the issues of faith and assurance?
End

Book Review
Prophecy Watch, by Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest
House Publishers, 1998). 379 pages. Paperback. $9.99. Reviewed by Dr.
Curtis Mitchell, Professor of Biblical Studies at Chafer Theological Seminary.
In a skillful manner, the authors use the Socratic method of teaching.
Throughout the book, they ask key questions and deliver more than adequate
answers.
The book contains twenty-five chapters divided into five parts: Signs of the
Times (pp. 776); The Rapture (pp. 77118); The Tribulation and the Antichrist
(pp. 119180); Armageddon and The Middle East (181220); and The
Millennium (pp. 221265).
The book is full of excellent illustrations that make the volume easy to
understand. They liberally sprinkle the pages with helpful charts and graphs and
write in readable language.
Among other issues, the volume discusses at some length an idea referred to
as The Septa-Millennial Theory. Before reviewing this book, I had not
encountered this theory. After reading the eight pages twice, I cannot determine
the authors position. Be that as it may, if the theory requires that one accept 4000
BC as the beginning of Gods creative efforts, I have problems with the theory.
The rest of this review considers positive and negative features. The division
labeled Sign of the Times sets forth a sane discussion of the issue. They list
such things as the return of Jewish people to Palestine since World War II and
Israel becoming a sovereign nation in 1948. The book contains an excellent listing
of New Testament words setting forth the Rapture (pp. 7879). In addition, this
volume contains a great series of charts that clarify the various theories with
reference to the time of the rapture (pp. 8081). The book contains a tremendous
discussion of the Preterist, Historicist, and Futurist views of the book of
Revelation (pp. 92ff). The book also contains a nice graph contrasting the Rapture
and Christs Second Coming to set up His kingdom (pp. 101102).
Demy and Ice set forth a brief but adequate history of Dispensationalism, but
for some reason they fail to mention the significant sermon of

Pseudo-Ephraem. By including this sermon, the history of Dispensationalism is
pushed back over 1000 years. I know that Dr. Thomas Ice is aware of the
contribution of Pseudo-Ephraem. I am at a loss to explain the omission. The book
also contains an excellent repudiation of the attempt some make to connect
Israels feast cycle to the rapture and Christs Second Coming.
The writers strongly advocate imminence as illustrated by their statement on
page 42, All attempts at date-setting destroy imminence. Yet, these same
men approvingly cite Dr. Fruchtenbaums attempt to fit the seven churches
mentioned in Revelation chapters two and three into a series of steps the churches
must pass through. Even if Dr. Fruchtenbaums dates are only approximations, he
clearly sets forth stages through which the church must pass (p. 47). It appears
that the authors attempt to claim imminence and yet embrace a sequence of events
for the church age. They cannot have it both ways.
I appreciated Dr. Fruchtenbaums discussion of the two gatherings of the Jews
into the promised land; it is quite helpful. First, the Jewish people will be gathered
in unbelief and following that ingathering, they will subsequently be gathered in
belief.
This book also contains a brief discussion of the Greek words used to describe
the Rapture phenomenon (p. 79). There is a marvelous discussion of literal
interpretation wherein they show conclusively that the pretribulational rapture is
based on the principle of literal interpretation (pp. 8488). The authors
convincingly set forth reasons why the Church and Israel are distinct. They show
effectively that while the New Testament Church is a mystery, the Old
Testament clearly predicts the second coming of Christ to set up His Kingdom.
They set rth a thirteen-point chart wherein the Rapture and Second Coming are
vividly contrasted (pp. 101102). They show the folly of attempting to lump the
Rapture and the Second Coming into a single event an interval between the
two is necessary (pp. 103105). Among many items that must take place, the
authors point out that such events as the judgment seat of Christ require some
time to elapse (see 2 Corinthians 5:10). Hence, a certain period must elapse
between the Rapture and the Second Coming.
Despite some inconsistency on the matter of imminency, the authors cite
approvingly a classic statement by Dr. Renald Showers: Other things may
happen, but nothing must happen (p. 105). The authors are
non-committal concerning any lapse of time between the Rapture and the
Tribulation, yet they adamantly oppose setting dates for the Rapture.
The segment titled, Are there other arguments for pretribulationism (pp.
112113) does not strengthen the book. Most of these arguments require an
exegetical stretch. The authors are to be commended for their insight into both
Old Testament and New Testament passages dealing with the Tribulation (pp.
121130). The writers are also to be commended for distinguishing between the
Tribulation and the Great Tribulation. They conclude the segment with the
following summary, Regardless of the view taken, both have a seven-year
Tribulation with two parts, and both recognize an increase in intensity during the
last three-and-a-half years (pp. 128129).
The authors give an excellent discussion of the Holy Spirits role in relation to
the Tribulation (pp. 135138). They present an exhaustive listing of the eleven
names and titles by which the Bible reveals the Antichrist (pp. 140142). Citing
Dr. Pentecost, they present a valuable summation of the person and activities of
the false prophet (pp. 145146).
I must take exception to the concept of a Gentile Antichrist. Clearly in Daniel
11:40 we are in the End Time. While Daniel 11:135 may denote Antiochus
Epiphanes, this clearly is not true of Daniel 11:3645. In fact the authors list
Daniel 11:36 as one of the titles of the Antichrist (p. 142). They give him the title
of the strong-willed King. So even the authors recognize that Daniel 11:3645
does not refer to Antiochus Epiphanes but rather to the Antichrist. Therefore, I
cannot agree with their statement on page 148, Most commentators agree that
Daniel 11 speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is true of Daniel 11:135, but is
not true of Daniel 11:3645. The authors continue their insistence on a Gentile
Antichrist by pointing out the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes was a Gentile (p.
148). This is like saying the present Pope is Polish hence all future popes will be
Polish. Their strongest argument seems to rest on a mistranslation of the NASB
rendering Daniel 11:36 the gods of his fathers instead of the KJV rendering
The GOD of his fathers. This is a rather common phrase used along with God
of our fathers, or God of their fathers, hundreds of times in the Old Testament.
It always refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I still hear the words of
the professor who taught me Hebrew, Dr. Charles Feinberg: Gentlemen, the
Jewish people will never accept a Gentile messiah.
The authors bring to light three purposes for the Tribulation: (1) To make an
end of wickedness and wicked ones; (2) To bring about a worldwide revival; and
(3) To break the power and will of the stubborn Jewish Nation and thus bring
about a national regeneration (pp. 158159). They also present an effective chart
concerning the battle of Armageddon wherein they set fourth the eight stages of
the battle. It was refreshing to find that they recognize that no fighting takes place
on the site of Megiddo. Their contention is that the battle of Armageddon is
actually at Jerusalem (p. 184). A thorough discussion of the battle and/or
campaign of Armageddon follows the chart (pp. 184219). This is the finest, most
detailed, description of Armageddon that I have encountered.
Though not agreeing with the authors on some points, I highly recommend
this book. It contains many things that were new to me and it will make a valuable
contribution to any student of prophecy.
End

v4n1 Mitch

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

v4n1 Mitch

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CTSJ 4:1 (January 1998) p.

Potrebbero piacerti anche