Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’

Mark 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’ [1]

There has been much confusion and debate as to the meaning of Christ’s so-called “cry of dereliction” from the cross. The two most popular interpretations are:

1. He was experiencing and therefore expressing rejection from His Father.
2. He was merely quoting an Old Testament messianic psalm.

This blog post will attempt to wrestle through the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various position and craft some helpful boundaries in attempting to answer the question, “Did the Father reject the Son?”

Rejection of the Son
This position is often stated as the Father “turning His face away” or “turning His back to the Son” which both convey the same image of rejection. Though this imagery is not explicitly used in the Scriptures, theological reflection upon the transaction that actually took place upon the cross has led many to this conclusion.

A foundational truth that has been held consistently throughout the church age is that of the Trinity. The God of the Old and New Testaments has always existed as triune, but has now in these last days fully revealed Himself to be such. This is a precious doctrine that has been a litmus test for distinctly Christian thought for nearly 2000 years. According to the orthodox understanding of the nature of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed in absolute harmony and joy, united in nature and yet distinct in person and role.

According to some thinking on Matthew and Mark’s texts, this eternal delight and harmony between Father and Son was temporarily yet truly broken in light of Christ’s offering as a propitiatory sacrifice.[2] This interpretation understands His words to be a reflection of the deep and previously unknown discord experienced by the Son as He hung upon the cross. Also used in support of this view are passages such as:

• Habakkuk 1:13 [God’s] eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor…
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
• Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written – ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’

Since Christ became a curse and sin on our behalf, this view holds that the Father could no longer look upon Him. It rightly feels the theological tension of a holy and perfect God encountering that that is, by definition, contrary to His very nature. However, isn’t Christ just as holy and perfect as the Father? To say that the Father could not look upon sin and thus had to turn His face away merely deflects the tension from the Father to the Son that is hardly helpful. In addition, how does this view interpret the obvious parallel which exists between the Lord’s cry from the cross and David’s recorded anguish in Psalm 22?

Allusion to a Psalm
Psalm 22 is one of the most descriptive passages found within the Old Testament depicting the shadow of the eventual crucifixion of the messiah.[3] Its specific messianic tone and rightful application to Jesus is clearly expounded in Hebrews 2:13 leaving no doubt that as to a relationship between the prophecy within this particular psalm and the events which transpired upon Calvary. The psalm clearly and biblically points to the Christ Who eventually suffered and died in fulfillment of the text.

The passage in Psalm 22 begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” Was Jesus doing nothing more than pointing to the psalm to once again manifest Himself as prophesied messiah to the crowds that were gathered around Him? [4] Was He, by quoting the first line of the psalm,[5] pointing to the triumphant expectation of the proceeding context?[6] Was He merely quoting the psalm, as He quoted Deuteronomy at His desert temptation, in order to steady Himself upon the Scripture?[7] Was He simply identifying with the struggle of David in feeling deserted from His Father?

While noticing the obvious parallel between Matthew and Mark’s accounts and the Psalm, this view does not attempt to clarify the actual experience of sin-bearing upon the cross. Was the Son merely quoting the Psalm or was He actually experiencing and thus fulfilling that to which the Psalm pointed?

Reflections upon the Text
Given the obvious and exact correspondence to the language of the psalmist, I find it hard to discount that Jesus had in mind an allusion to the Scripture. In addition, as He proved countless times, it is not to be forgotten that He would have known that the lament that begins in agony ends in triumphant glory. No doubt He knew even as He cried, “why have You forsaken Me?” that this same God “has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”[8]

I certainly do not wish to underestimate the intense physical and emotional agony of the cross or the depth of mystery in the death of the divine. Jesus Christ truly did become a curse and sin on our behalf and it would be sloppy interpretation in not pointing out the logical difficulty which exists when God, even the God-man Jesus, bears sin contrary to His very nature and absorbs the wrath of His loving Father. Then again, any language which speaks of the Father rejecting the Son risks going too far in describing a separation within the eternal godhead, and I’m not comfortable doing so without more explicit evidence.

In my estimation, Scripture is not sufficiently clear[9] for us to make absolutely precise statements as to the exact nature and intention of Christ’s cries from Calvary. We do know that His language was unique in that it represents the only record of personal address in which the Son calls His Father “God” and not “Father,” but this hardly prefers one position over the other.[10] In addition, we should assert that in some way Jesus was alluding back to the messianic overtones of the 22^nd psalm. We should also be careful to not distance ourselves from the peculiar and distinct suffering and anguish which was experienced by the Son as He bore in His body the weight of wrath poured out against sin. In so recognizing, we are left to confess the ultimate and profound mystery of how it is that any sin could be tolerated, looked upon or borne in even the slightest degree by any member of the godhead.  The ultimate depths are surely a secret restricted to the divine; a mystery which should not terminate in confusion so much as awe and wonder that God has worked such a glorious salvation for sinful man.

Conclusion
Regardless of the degree to which we incorporate aspects of the two extreme positions, we must confidently assert that Christ’s final words contained not the slightest hint of separation or alienation between the Son and His Father. As both Matthew and Mark attest, after crying out the words corresponding to Psalm 22, he again uttered at least one other loud cry before yielding up His spirit.[11] While neither of the first two gospels give us an indication of the content of this final cry, both Luke and John make mention. John’s report ends on the triumphant note of victory as Jesus proclaims that His work has been accomplished[12] while Luke shows once again the familiarity of the eternal harmony of the godhead as Christ cries out “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.”[13] While most precisely reflecting the language of Psalm 31:5, it is certainly interesting to note the similarity to Psalm 22:8 “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”

Surely the Father delights in the Son and rescued and delivered the One Who committed Himself fully to Him. Whether Jesus experienced a sense or the reality of alienation or not, we must boldly confess that Father and Son are now and forevermore experiencing the fullness of delight in each other and the infinite perfections of the godhead.

For Additional Explanation or Assistance:

Allen, Clifton J., General Articles: Matthew-Mark, The Broadman Bible Commentary, Nashville, 1969.

Cole, R. Alan, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997.

France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985.

Garland, David, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids, 1996.

Lane, William L., The Gospel of Mark, NICNT, Grand Rapids, 1974.

MacArthur, John, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989.

Mounce, Robert H., Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary, Peabody, MA 1991.

Oden, Thomas C. and Christopher A. Hall, Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture, Downers Grove, 1998.

---

[1] [1] The distinction between “Eli” and “Eloi” as recorded in the two gospels is owing to Matthew’s use of the Hebrew “Eli” and Mark’s use of the Aramaic “Eloi”.  Though the wording is different, the same concept of a personal address to God is indicated.

[2] [2] Propitiation is the theological term for the satisfaction of God’s wrath. The term is used in the New Testament in Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10.

[3] [3]Note that the servant was mocked (vss. 7-8), stretched (14), thirsty (15), pierced on hands and feet (16), without broken bones (17), looked upon (17), had his garments divided (18), etc. See also Isaiah 53 for a passage similarly loaded with such prophetic richness.

[4] [4]Note the frequency of Jesus’ use of Old Testament scripture to evidence His messianic ministry in such passages as Matthew 11:4-5, 13:14-15, 21:42, 22:42-45; Mark 14:49; Luke 4:17-21, 24:25-27; John 5:39, 7:38, 13:18, 17:12, et al.

[5] [5]The practice of quoting the first line to bring to mind the entire psalm was consistent with ancient Jewish custom.

[6] [6]While the psalm begins with a lament of anguish, the context becomes increasingly positive eventually resulting in praise from the psalmist (pointing to the messiah) in verses 22 and 25 and, ultimately in God’s praise throughout the world in verses 27-31.

[7] [7]R. Alan Cole, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997, pg. 320.

[8] [8]Psalm 22:24

[9] [9]This is neither a denial of the doctrines of sufficiency nor perspicuity, as neither affirms that Scripture is utterly and exhaustively clear in all areas, but rather that it is sufficiently clear in leading us to salvation and godly living.

[10] [10]R.T. France, Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985, pg. 398.  J. MacArthur, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989, pg. 270.  This fact in and of itself does not prove anything.  While the second interpretation would point out that this anomaly tends to favor that Jesus was merely quoting Scripture by not using His personal term of familiarity, the former position would state that such an exception indicates the very real alienation which forms their understanding.

[11] Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37.

[12] John 19:30

[13] Luke 23:46

Bible Texts, Christ, Miscellaneous

1. God’s word is called…

a. The law of the LORD (1)
b. Testimonies (2)
c. Statutes (3)
d. Commandments (6)
e. Your word (9)
f. Rules (20)
g. Precepts (27)
h. Promise (148)

2. God’s word is described as…

a. Riches (14)
b. Wondrous (18)
c. Counselors (24)
d. Worthy (37)
e. Good (39)
f. Comforting (50)
g. Righteous (62)
h. Valuable (72)
i. Sure (86)
j. Firm (89)
k. Infinite (96)
l. Sweet (103)
m. Enlightening (105)
n. Wonderful (129)
o. Faithful (138)
p. True (142)
q. Enduring (160)

3. The response to God’s word is…

a. Keeping (5)
b. Storing (11)
c. Declaring (13)
d. Delighting (14)
e. Meditating (15)
f. Remembering (16)
g. Longing (20)
h. Setting (30)
i. Clinging (31)
j. Observing (34)
k. Trusting (42)
l. Seeking (45)
m. Loving (47)
n. Turning (59)
o. Believing (66)
p. Hoping (74)
q. Considering (95)
r. Rejoicing (111)
s. Inclining (112)
t. Panting (131)

Bible Texts

Why don’t we kiss each other when we enter through the church doors? Doesn’t the Bible say, “greet one another with a holy kiss?” Not just once, but five times we are given the command. And it wasn’t just by one author, but rather by both Paul and Peter. Consider: Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; and 1 Peter 5:14.

Are we engaging in a selective reading of the text, applying those commands we like and dismissing those which we do not? Are we simply being disobedient to the Scriptures? Are we allowing cultural insecurities or fears to lead us to ignore clear Scriptural exhortation?

Or consider head coverings? Why aren’t the women who attend our weekly services asked to cover themselves before participating in the worship service? Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 clearly spell out the necessity of head coverings in the corporate setting?

There are two erroneous approaches we can take when considering these and similar texts which are saturated with cultural convention:

1. We can apply a really strict and literal hermeneutic that absolutely applies the text as is without much or any consideration of the context and principle embedded in the cultural convention. This is typical of some forms of historic fundamentalism.
2. We can interpret the cultural convention as to effectively negate the principle which it is intended to express. This mistake is typical of many forms of liberal theology.

How can we wisely avoid either extreme in pursuing informed obedience to what God has commanded?

1. Here is a helpful article by D.A. Carson dealing with this question.
2. In addition, you may be interested in watching a quick video with some of Piper’s thoughts on which Scriptural commands have universal mandate.

(Thanks to Justin Taylor for alerting me to the Carson article.)

Bible Texts, Culture

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended to hell, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty, thence He will come to judge the living and the dead; I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

-The Apostles’ Creed

What is the Apostles’ Creed and why should we care?

The Apostles’ Creed was originally developed as a fundamental statement of faith by the early church in regards to the basics of orthodox belief.[1] It initially functioned as a baptismal formula and is therefore somewhat parallel in purpose to the “Statement of Basic Beliefs” which we use here at The Village Church for baptism and membership. Similar to a universal commentary on the essence of the Christian faith, the creed gives modern believers an early glimpse into how our spiritual forefathers interpreted the Scriptures and what they viewed as being of utmost importance for an orthodox confession.

Many liturgical traditions faithfully recite the creed as part of their regular worship services and very few even less-liturgical local churches would have any concerns whatsoever in professing the vast majority of the clauses included in the creed. A clear biblical case can certainly be made for the Fatherhood of God, His creation of heaven and earth, the Sonship of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection from the dead, the coming judgment, and many of the other phrases.

Unlike these more clear expressions, the statement “He descended to hell” causes a great many today to pause as they reflect upon the creed. Did Jesus Christ actually descend to hell?[2] What does that even mean? Is it faithful to the biblical text?

Authenticity, originality and context

Many scholars believe that the phrase in question was actually not authentic to the original text and was only added later in a commentary on Christ’s burial. This suspicion as to originality and controversy over meaning has therefore led the editors of many versions to annotate or omit the clause altogether. If the clause actually functioned as a commentary on burial, then “the intention of the…alteration of the creed was not to add a new doctrine, but to explain an old one.”[3]

Modern readers of the creed unfortunately possess a rather monolithic interpretation of the word “hell.” We immediately think of the eternal place of torment. We picture Satan frolicking forth with a pitchfork as flames leap about suffering souls. While taking some extreme liberties in its depiction of Satan, this reality of eternal suffering is certainly faithful to relevant portions of the Biblical text (Matthew 25, Mark 9, Revelation 14 and 20). At the same time, we must understand that there were much broader ranges in the concept of afterlife in Hebrew and Greek thought.

Both Jewish and Greek worldviews expressed a vague concept of what is to be expected after experiencing death. In Hebrew, the dead go to Sheol. In Greek, the dead go to Hades. These places were unlike our modern use of the term “hell” in that they were not necessarily places of judgment, but rather functioned almost as personifications or synonyms for death itself. To go to Sheol was to die. To die was to go to Sheol.

Understanding the proper context of Hebrew and Greek thought on death would certainly illuminate for us what is possibly meant by the phrase. Therefore, if someone were to ask if Christ descended to hell, we must first clarify what is meant by hell. If it is merely meant that He truly died, then we should have no problem with the concept being expressed. Unfortunately, the context of the creed does not clarify for us what the original authors or editors meant by the clause so we must move beyond the creed and into the larger realm of the apostolic Scriptures which served as the basis for the Apostles’ Creed.

Looking at the Scriptures

Unlike most of the other phrases in the statement, the “descent clause” does not use explicit language from the Scriptures. In other words, there is no Scripture that says, “Jesus descended to hell.” Rather, two of the most often cited texts used to support the phrase are:[4]

• 1 Peter 3:18-20 Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
• 1 Peter 4:4-6 They are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.[5]

Here is what the ESV Study Bible has to say about the 1 Peter 3 passage:

1 Pet. 3:19 spirits in prison. There is much debate about the identity of these spirits. The Greek term pneuma (“spirit”), in either singular or plural, can mean either human spirits or angels, depending on the context (cf. Num. 16:22; 27:16; Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23; etc.). Among the three most common interpretations, the first two fit best with the rest of Scripture and with historic orthodox Christian doctrine. These are:

1. 1. The first interpretation understands “spirits” (Gk. pneumasin, plural) as referring to the unsaved (human spirits) of Noah’s day. Christ, “in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18), proclaimed the gospel “in the days of Noah” (v. 20) through Noah. The unbelievers who heard Christ’s preaching “did not obey . . . in the days of Noah” (v. 20) and are now suffering judgment (they are “spirits in prison,” v. 19). Several reasons support this view: (a) Peter calls Noah a “herald of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5), where “herald” represents Greek kēryx, “preacher,” which corresponds to the noun kēryssō, “proclaim,” in 1 Pet. 3:19. (b) Peter says the “Spirit of Christ” was speaking through the OT prophets (1:11); thus Christ could have been speaking through Noah as an OT prophet. (c) The context indicates that Christ was preaching through Noah, who was in a persecuted minority, and God saved Noah, which is similar to the situation in Peter’s time: Christ is now preaching the gospel through Peter and his readers (v. 15) to a persecuted minority, and God will save them.
2. 2. In the second interpretation, the spirits are the fallen angels who were cast into hell to await the final judgment. Reasons supporting this view include: (a) Some interpreters say that the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2–4 are angels (see note on Gen. 6:1–2) who sinned by cohabiting with human women “when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:20). (b) Almost without exception in the NT, “spirits” (plural) refers to supernatural beings rather than people (e.g., Matt. 8:16; 10:1; Mark 1:27; 5:13; 6:7; Luke 4:36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2; 10:20; 11:26; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:12, 13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13–14; cf. Heb. 1:7). (c) The word “prison” is not used elsewhere in Scripture as a place of punishment after death for human beings, while it is used for Satan (Rev. 20:7) and other fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). In this case the message that Christ proclaimed is almost certainly one of triumph, after having been “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18).
3. 3. In a third view, some have advocated the idea that Christ offered a second chance of salvation to those in hell. This interpretation, however, is in direct contradiction with other Scripture (cf. Luke 16:26; Heb. 9:27) and with the rest of 1 Peter and therefore must be rejected on biblical and theological grounds, leaving either of the first two views as the most likely interpretation.

I believe it is essential to begin by affirming what the ESV Study Bible has noted about the third option: it simply is not an evangelical option. There is no evidence within the Scriptures that anyone is given a second chance after death. IF we affirm the language of Christ descending into hell, we must do so in a way that does not convey a second opportunity for repentance and faith. If Christ descended into hell, He most certainly did not do so in order to offer a second chance at salvation. If Christ descended into hell, He did not do so because His death itself was insufficient or His suffering incomplete.

Having rejected the third view on the basis of the testimony of the entirety of Scripture, the starting distinction between views one and two is the interpretation of the term “spirits.” If “spirits” refers to humans, then it would commend the first view, but if “spirits” refers to angelic beings, then the second view is to be preferred.

Looking first at view one, I would commend John Piper’s thoughts. His interpretation of 1 Peter is that recipients of the preaching were alive at the time of the proclamation, but had since died. If this view is correct, then this text would not support the idea of Christ’s descent into hell. I encourage interested readers to see Piper’s response as I will not further develop his position here.

The second view can be initially confusing and thus we would do well to consider it carefully. This is the one for which my seminary professor on the “General Epistles” argued. It interprets the “spirits in prison” of 1 Peter 3:19 as a reference to the fallen angels “kept in judgment” in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. The idea behind this interpretation is that Christ went to a particular sphere or area of hell[6] and preached victory over those angels who sinned in Genesis 6.

Why mention the events of Genesis 6 in particular?  First, because the context of 1 Peter 3 speaks of the days of Noah and the sixth chapter of Genesis is the one in which the narrative on Noah begins. Second, a common interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis 6 is that demons attempted to seduce humans in order to pollute the human race. If humanity was no longer fully human (because of the mingling of humanity with demonic seed), then a fully human savior could never be born. Perhaps the demons were shrewdly attempting to nullify the hope of redemption as promised in the proto-evangel (Genesis 3:15). Therefore, Jesus’ descent into hell was a proclamation of His victory over those demons who had attempted to thwart His coming.  That makes sense, but certainly is not explicit in the text.

While I do find the simplicity of the first view appealing, I am more compelled toward the second view. Regardless, this would certainly not be an interpretation concerning which I would choose to be terribly dogmatic. I am much more passionate about protecting against view three than I am in attempting to exegetically defend views one or two. I can easily identify with Luther’s words on the passage, “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle meant.”^[7]

Did Jesus descend to hell? He surely descended into the metaphorical “heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). He certainly triumphed over the powers of darkness and proclaimed victory over them (Colossians 2:14-15). I also trust that He was with the thief that very day in paradise (Luke 23:43), that there is no evidence for a second chance at salvation (Luke 16:26; Hebrews 9:27), and that His sacrifice was absolutely sufficient (John 19:30; Hebrews 10:12-14). In light of all of these elements, I cannot merely confess that “He descended into hell” without a great deal of clarification. The clause is simply too ambiguous and controversial for me to comfortably declare without a great deal of explanation.

Also of interest: John Calvin’s thoughts on the inclusion of the phrase.

---

[1] Precise dating of the creed is debated.

[2] It is important to note at the outset that we are talking about the non-corporeal (spiritual) aspect of Christ. His body did not move from the time of His burial until His resurrection. If one says that Christ descended into hell, they should mean that He did so spiritually.

[3] Cited by W. G. T Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889; repr. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1979) 2B.604 (his emphasis).

[4] Ephesians 4:9 is also sometimes used, though the text itself is speaking not about a descent from earth to hell after death, but rather His descent from heaven to earth in the incarnation. Matthew 12:40 could also be thrown into the mix in line with the aforementioned thoughts on the concepts of Sheol and Hades.

[5] See the referenced Piper article below for specific commentary on the passage from chapter 4. We will be limiting our discussion to chapter 3 in this particular post.

[6] By the way, most people are uncomfortable or just uninformed regarding the idea of distinct areas in hell. They think it sounds like Dante’s purgatory. Without accepting Dante’s picture, it is important to note that the Bible does use the terms Hades and Gehenna in ways which might lead us to conclude that there is some validity to distinct areas or spheres of hell. For example, Hades is called hell, and yet it is specifically tossed into the lake of fire which is also thought of as hell (Revelation 20:14).  If Hades is hell and yet is tossed into hell then there could be some sort of distinct spheres referenced. Once again, this too can be confusing so I would not want to be terribly dogmatic, but it does bear mentioning. It is possible that demons are kept in one area and unbelieving humans in another, both awaiting judgment when both spheres are thrown into the lake of fire (hell) at the end.

^[7] Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (236). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:14-17

Why had the Samaritans who had received the word of God not yet received the Holy Spirit? Is this evidence of a “second baptism” or “baptism of the Holy Spirit” which is necessary for us today? Does this mean that a true Christian might not yet have the Holy Spirit?

Context:

In order to answer these questions, we must first understand the larger context of the book of Acts. This is the absolute earliest stages of the church. Paul is still Saul and has not yet been converted, much less appointed as an apostle to the Gentiles. Peter has yet to have his vision of the sheet and foods and the declaration of God’s acceptance of Gentiles (chapter 10). Though persecution has risen against the church and believers are scattering throughout the region, the apostles themselves are still gathered in Jerusalem.

Prior to this persecution, the ministry of the word has not spread much beyond Judea, but the suffering effectively marks the beginning of the movement of the gospel in fulfillment of the promise of Acts 1:8. As part of this movement, Phillip, one of the seven men appointed in chapter 6 as a servant (perhaps deacon), travels to Samaria and preaches the gospel there with boldness and power. Many believe the gospel through his preaching and are baptized (Acts 8:12). When the apostles hear of the signs, miracles, and belief in Samaria, they send Peter and John who go to testify, speak the word of the Lord, and pray that the Samaritans may receive the Spirit.

A critical theme in the book of Acts as a whole is the role of the apostles as witnesses. Note the following passages:

• Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
• Acts 1:21-22 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.
• Acts 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
• Acts 3:14-15 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
• Acts 10:39-43 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify[1] that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

From these verses, we can see that bearing witness to the resurrection of Christ was both the prerequisite and commission of the apostolic office. Apostles were chosen and appointed to authenticate the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.[2]

Within the context of the early church, we see a consistent struggle with understanding the relationship between Jew and Gentile within the faith. Throughout the book of Acts and referenced in other books as well (see Galatians 2:11-14), Jewish believers wrestled with how to view those Gentiles who professed belief in Christ. Must they come under the Torah, or at least the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision)? Are they to be considered fellow heirs or some sort of sub-Christians?

The role of the apostles as witnesses and the early criticism of Gentile inclusion into the church shed light on the sending of Peter and John. As apostles, they were commissioned to legitimate or disprove the validity and continuity of the work in Samaria. In effect, they were sent to find out whether or not the work being done among the Samaritans was consistent with that in Jerusalem. We see this same question arise when Paul and his companions travel to Jerusalem to report about their work among the Gentiles. This is also why it was so important that Peter preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10).  Even he had to report back to the other apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 11) in order to prove continuity between what the Spirit was doing in Judea and what He was doing elsewhere.

Why Did the Samaritans Not Immediately Receive the Spirit?

In light of this understanding of the context, I think that Peter and John went to Samaria as apostolic leaders in order to examine the ministry there and give approval. The sign that accompanied the consistency of the message was the giving of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit was not given to the Samarians at the time of their justification/regeneration as He is with believers today in order to allow the apostles to show up as witnesses and to prove that what was happening in Samaria was explicitly connected with that which was occurring in Jerusalem. Had the apostles not authenticated the work in Samaria, people would have thought that the works in Samaria were disconnected with those in Judea, that the work among the Samaritans was different from the work among the Jews. Such thoughts would have only fostered the centuries old wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles (see Ephesians 2:11-22). Instead, we find that they are explicitly connected and are both of the same Spirit working throughout the book of Acts.

Is this Evidence of a 2^nd Baptism Experience that is Applicable Today?

Many who share the belief in the continuation of the gifts would interpret this passage as demonstrating the necessity of a second baptism experience, a “baptism of the Spirit.” They would state that it is possible to be saved and yet lack the power of the Spirit and thus what is needed is a distinct “baptism of the Spirit.”

Though we would agree that it is possible to believe and yet not walk in the fullness of the power of the Spirit, we would not say that what is needed is some sort of distinct and unique baptism of the Spirit, but rather a continued reliance upon the already accomplished work of Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within. Paul, in writing Ephesians, speaks of only one baptism (4:5), but also about a filling of the Spirit that is to be pursued (5:18). We would not commend true believers to look to another one-time experience, but rather the continued experience of the filling of the Spirit.

It is extremely important to note that in Acts 8 the question is not whether certain gifts or power of the Holy Spirit were given to the Samaritans, but rather whether the Spirit Himself was given. According to the text, the believers of Samaria had not yet received[3] the Spirit that leads us to the question of whether or not it is possible today to believe and yet not have received the Spirit.

Before answering that question though, I want to give some resources to those who are curious about the distinction between a second “baptism of the Spirit” and the “filling of the Spirit.”

• Chapter 39 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology
• “Our Great Advantage,” a Village teaching on the Holy Spirit, briefly discusses this question and can be accessed in our studies and seminars section of the website.
• A John Piper sermon addressing this question

Could this Happen Today?

Is it possible today to experience a conversion similar to the Samaritans in Acts 8 in which you have trusted the gospel, and have been baptized into the name of Jesus, and yet have not received the Spirit? When I have asked this question in the past, I have often received back the answer that God can do whatever He wants and with this I certainly agree. The question is not whether God is capable, but rather whether He is willing. If He has revealed in His word that He will or does not do something, then it is accurate to say that it could not happen. For example, God “could” cut off all flesh from the earth by flood, but has specifically promised that He will not and thus we could say that it cannot happen today.

In reading through Acts, it is always good to remember that things were being hashed out within a perplexed periphery of believers around a core of apostles who themselves were at times unsure of how to proceed. The book is therefore much more descriptive than prescriptive in its approach. To take what the Bible describes and to prescribe it or to attempt to apply that particular narrative outside of that particular context is dangerous interpretation.

The problem with attempting to apply the particulars of the experience of the Samaritans in Acts 8 to believers today is that we have explicit testimony from the Scriptures that this kind of event will not occur. Paul writes in Romans 8:9 that “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.” According to this passage, the test of whether or not someone is a Christian is whether or not he or she has the indwelling Spirit. To claim that it is now possible to be a true believer and yet devoid of the Spirit is to contradict what Paul writes in Romans. Acts is a book about transition and should be read as such. Romans reveals a very explicit statement about the universality of the Spirit’s indwelling presence in every believer and this revelation must be affirmed today.

Conclusion:

In attempting to interpret difficult passages within historical narrative (which is the genre of Acts), I find it important to consider the following:

1. Major themes developed in the book – such as the role of witnesses
2. Historical context – such as the transitional period of the early church
3. The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive language – nowhere does the text say that we are to seek an experience similar to the Samaritans
4. Other pertinent texts – especially from the epistles that function as a more doctrinally direct genre.

When I evaluate these elements, I am led to conclude that Acts 8 is not speaking of a distinct experience that believers should pursue today. We are surely to experience the Spirit. We are to seek Him and to earnestly desire His gifts. We are to be filled with Him. We are to love Him and to know His love. It is unfortunate and dangerous that the ministry of the Spirit is often neglected today, but I do not think the solution is some one-time experience, but rather a consistent and growing awareness of the reality of the indwelling presence and love that all who have believed have already received.

---

[1] The Greek word often translated “witness” in these passages origin of our English word “martyr.” The word translated “testify” is from this same Greek root.

[2] I realize that Paul did not witness the ministry of Christ, but he did observe the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus. Perhaps this distinction is why he refers to himself as “one untimely born” (1 Corinthians 15:8).

[3] Some would attempt to distinguish the incoming of the Spirit at conversion with the receiving of the Spirit as a second experience in which we invite Him further into our lives. They would therefore perhaps say that the Samaritans had the first experience, but not the second, given that the text says that they had not “received” the Spirit. However, it is important to note “the Spirit was given” through the apostles, not that the Samaritans merely received a further blessing.

Bible Texts, Holy Spirit

How often do you consider Christ?

How often do you truly contemplate Him, think on Him, reflect upon and mull over who He is and what He has done?

This weekend Beau Hughes, an elder and the Denton campus pastor here at The Village, commends us to do just this in accordance with commands of the book of Hebrews:

Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession…

3:1

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (2)looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (3)Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

12:1-3

Consider Jesus. Consider Him. Reflect, meditate, contemplate, ponder, deliberate, muse…consider. How easy it is to fail to do this: to grow distracted with work, family, ministry, chores, media, sports, serving, etc. Failing to consider Christ is simple…just let your mind drift. Drifting is easy…but it’s also dangerous.

The audience to whom the book of Hebrews was written faced the daily pressures of the reality of persecution and the ongoing struggle with sin. In light of such difficulties, there existed a persuasive temptation to apostatize, to turn from Christ back to the Judaism of their fathers.

As an encouragement to hold fast and persevere in the faith in the midst of these struggles, the author structures the letter as an apologetic (or defense) for the superiority of Christ and what He has accomplished. The command to consider Christ fits nicely within this context. If we know and believe who Christ is and what He has done, we will be more apt to turn toward rather than away from Him.

Why return to Judaism when Christ represents the fulfillment of Judaism and is thus superior to each of its distinct elements? Reading through the book, we find that:

1. Christ is superior to the angels who mediated the first covenant
2. the Sabbath rest offered in Christ is superior to the rest offered in the promised land
3. the priesthood of Christ is superior to the levitical priesthood
4. the revelation of Christ is superior to the revelation given to Moses
5. the new covenant in Christ is superior to the old covenant and the Law
6. the body of Christ is superior to the tabernacle and temple
7. the sacrifice of Christ is superior to the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Torah, land, priesthood, Moses, covenant, temple, sacrifices…all pictures pointing to a greater reality. To depart from Christ is to choose a silhouette instead of the true form, it is to choose the inherently inferior and incomplete. It is to substitute shadow for substance.

Thus the call to consider Christ. It is a reminder to remember – to remember that He is superior. To recall that He is the greater prophet who announces and fulfills the greater covenant. That He is the greater priest who has offered the greater sacrifice. Christ is simply better.

What does the author of Hebrews want us to know about Christ? What attributes does he find to be particularly helpful in the struggle against sin and persecution? Though certainly not exhaustive, the below passages represent some of the more richly dense texts on the person and work of our Lord. May we be diligent and dutiful to delight in these contemplations of Christ. May the Spirit use these truths to sharpen and sanctify us for this day and the days ahead.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

1:3

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

2:9-10

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

2:14-18

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

4:14-16

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

5:7-10

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

7:22-27

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

9:24-28

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified…

10:11-14

Bible Texts, Christ

Why would a demon care what we eat?

I would think that the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers over this present darkness (Ephesians 6:12) would have much larger tactics than tainting our tastes. Yet the Scriptures would lead us to conclude that the demonic realm indeed has intentions for our consumption as Paul writes to Timothy that the restriction of marriage and foods is related to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

We see this same relationship expressed elsewhere by Paul in the book of Colossians:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.  He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.  These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.  Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,  and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Colossians 2:8-23

Here again, Paul writes of the rulers and authorities who were disarmed, shamed, and triumphed over by Christ and then moves immediately into talk of food and drink and asceticism.

This prompts the question, what do food and drink and demons have in common? How are they related? Why would the worldly authorities care about our appetites?

I think the answer is two-fold: a denial of doctrine and a denial of delight.

Doctrine:

A primary implication of these texts is the sufficiency of the gospel and justification by faith. By insisting on asceticism, demons rob the cross of power and deny the declaration of righteousness by faith alone.

The sinful flesh naturally seeks to supplement or even substitute for the cross of Christ. It wants to work for salvation. It lusts for legalism and laws and earnings and wages. It desires to be indebted to no one.

The demonic realm aggravates and promotes this tendency in us. By turning our affections away from Christ’s suffering and to our own, the demonic realm tries to transfer our hope from what Christ has accomplished to what we can accomplish. It thus relocates our boast from Christ crucified to our self-denial and restraint. My acceptance becomes about my abstinence.

This is a first strategy.

Delight:

In addition to the goal of robbing the cross of the power of salvation, I think that there is a relationship between the ideas expressed in the above texts and that of 1 Corinthians 10:31 “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

As Paul wrote to Timothy, God created food to be received with thanksgiving. He created food to be enjoyed by us. While eating good food, our affections are intended to move through and from the food to the giver of the food, that is God. In this way, He is glorified.

By denying the role and responsibility of delight in the life of the believer, demons can thus attempt to rob God of glory. Think through the progression again with me. Food was created by God for those who love Him to turn our affections toward Him. It is intended to be eaten for His glory. As we enjoy the gift, we are called to enjoy the Giver. This is the heart of what is called Christian hedonism, the idea that “God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him” (John Piper, Desiring God).

By requiring abstinence from good foods, demons thus dilute the demand to glorify God in the delights of our appetites.  By robbing us of pleasure, demons rob God of glory.

Danger:

As I write this, my thoughts turn toward C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters which are a fictional account of correspondence between a seasoned demon and his novice nephew regarding how to tempt and mislead the peoples of the earth. Throughout the work Screwtape writes to Wormwood regarding the two-sided approach to temptation. If a man resists a certain demonic plan, demons will use his very resistance against him.

We must be discerning with the doctrine of Christian hedonism at exactly this point. As we consider the fact that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him, we are in great peril of leaning too far in our enjoyment and exalting the gift over the Giver. We can fool ourselves into thinking that we are doing our Christian duty when we are really just making gods of our bellies (Philippians 3:19).

If demons cannot tempt us with abstinence, then perhaps gluttony will work. If they cannot tempt us with the pride of restraint, then perhaps they can use the pride of indulgence. The powers and authorities over this present darkness are intentional and crafty in their plans to pervert man.

Demons are prowling around looking for creatures to consume (1 Peter 5:8). They seek to steal and kill and destroy (John 10:10). Whether through legalism or license they crave the corruption of our worship. They desire to deny us our delights or magnify them until they become lusts.

We must be discerning in all things. Only a fool refuses to consider his or her ways. Are my eating and enjoyments and drinking and delights for the glory of God or do the pleasures simply terminate upon myself? Are my disciplines and abstinence for the mortification of the flesh or for its exaltation and justification?

The question is not “can I glorify God by this behavior?” but rather, “am I actually glorifying God in this behavior?” Am I trusting in Christ in my doctrine and delights?

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. – Luke 9:27

This statement initially appears quite confusing. Appearing in all the synoptic Gospels,[1] an initial glance might seem to indicate that Jesus erred in His expectations. Indeed, a few liberal scholars and atheists indeed use this saying as evidence against the deity of Christ. If Christ was wrong in His prediction, they argue, He could not have been the incarnate Son of God of Christian tradition. These scholars are indeed correct in their thinking that an actual error by Christ would be strong evidence against His claims of deity. However, if the passage contains no such error, then the argument against His deity falls apart.

The key interpretive issue in the saying is the phrase “kingdom of God.” There have been a number of interpretations regarding Christ’s reference:

1. The fully consummated apocalyptic establishment of the kingdom. The aforementioned scholars take this view that the text indicates that Jesus expected to return in the fullness of His kingdom before the death of some of those who were with him.
2. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost
3. The spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the gospel in the early church
4. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
5. The resurrection of Jesus as the establishment of the kingdom (Acts 2:32-36). This interpretation would rely on the typical “already” and “not yet” aspect of theology. For example, believers are in some sense saved now (already) and yet full salvation awaits Christ’s return and our resurrection (not yet).
6. The transfiguration of Jesus

Which view is best? First, it is important to note that any of the views except for the first would offer no difficulty whatsoever in regards to the Church’s theological convictions. The coming of the Spirit, the spread of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, the resurrection, and the transfiguration all occurred within the lifetime of “some” if not most of those with Christ as the time that He uttered this saying and all would relate in some manner to an understanding of the kingdom of God. That said, most Christian scholars would probably interpret this saying as a reference to either view 5 or 6 above.

In my own opinion, the sixth is the strongest due to the contexts of the passages. In all three passages, the saying is immediately followed by a reference to the transfiguration when “some standing here” (Peter, James, and John to be precise) “saw” (relate to “until they see”) His majesty, honor and glory (relate to 1 Peter 1:16-18 for Peter’s reference to the event). That said, I certainly see elements of other views and would not be terribly dogmatic about my interpretation (except to protect against the first view).

For further study on this passage, you might consult the ESV Study Bible’s treatment of the topic and Dr. Darrell Bock’s Baker Exegetical Series commentary on the book of Luke.

---

[1] Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptics because of their shared similarity in arrangement, language, and structure. John’s gospel does not disagree with the synoptics, rather, he differs in the literary method used to present Christ.

Bible Texts

Helpful Resource: Still Sovereign, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce Ware – a collection of essays dealing with biblical, theological and practical (the relationship of sovereignty to prayer and evangelism, for example) aspects of God’s absolute sovereignty over all things.

Context

What is Paul concerned with?

Not suddenly offering a detached defense of individual election

Not presenting some abstract thought that suddenly departs from the context

Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

What does that mean?

What word of God has not failed?

Why could one think that the word had failed in the first place?

How does the fact that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” evidence that the word of God has not failed?

(That’s what the text has said, it is not as though the word has failed for/because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.)

What does all of this mean?

To understand that, we need to go back a bit. In particular, we want to go back about a quarter of a chapter to the often quoted and much beloved Romans 8:28.

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

God makes a promise to those who are called by Him according to His purpose that He will work all things for good for them.

What good? Vs. 29 “they they may be conformed to the image of Christ.”

This is the definition of whether or not something that has happened to you is “good.” Every gift that God gives His children is good, even those things which are called “bad” in some sense, such as cancer, or poverty, or persecution. God promises not to save us from suffering, but rather to use all things to make us more like Christ.

If we don’t like it, what does that say about us?

• we don’t believe that God will really cause this to make us look more like Christ (disbelief)
• we desire something (health, wealth, safety, etc.) as more important than being conformed to Christ (idolatry)

So, God will work all things for good and He grounds or basis this promise (notice the word “for” in verse 29) on His foreknowledge and predestination which leads to His effective call to justification and ultimately glorification.

Therefore, because God has promised this to us, we can confidently declare that no charge can stand against us and nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (vss 31-39). We read this declaration on coffee mugs and sing about it and it sounds really chipper, but Paul gets to chapter 9 and says, “now wait a second, if God’s promise to us is based on election and the effect is that we are secure in Christ and cannot be separated from God’s love, then it might seem like God’s promise has failed.”

Why does he write this?

Because there is another group of people who have been “called” by God. There is another group who were said to be “loved” by Him. Namely Israel. They were the chosen or “elect” people. And yet many of them were by and large disbelieving and thus perishing. And this poses a serious theological problem.

If God’s electing love is the basis for our assurance that we will never be separated from Christ and yet we know that God had electing love for Israel and they are cut off from Christ then how can we be confident? Doesn’t our confidence crumble if our assurance is related to election and God’s election of Israel failed?

Furthermore, if God has broken His promise to Israel, doesn’t that bring disgrace upon God’s character? Like Moses arguing for God to spare Israel in the wilderness lest the peoples of the nations should think He had failed, Paul is concerned to prove that God’s promises have not failed and will not fail.

Because Israel had rejected the Christ and thus were not inheriting the promises that are fulfilled in Him, it seemed like the word of God had failed. God said (His word) that He loved Israel and would save Israel and yet Israel was not being saved, but rather cut off. There were Israelites that believed (including Paul), but by and large the nation was perishing in their rejection of the Messiah. This was the theological problem that Paul is addressing.

Let’s see how he addressed it.

Textual Analysis

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Why does Paul say that the word has not failed?

Because the word was given to Israel and not all who are Israel are Israel.

That is confusing. Not all who are Israel are Israel.

Here is what he means, there are two ways to use the term “Israel.” One is according to the flesh and the other is according to faith. One is according to birth, the other belief. One is based on ethnicity and the other we will see is on the basis of election.

There is a distinction within Israel itself. The ethnic people contained those who were elect and also those who were not. Not all Israel (by birth) are Israel (by belief). God’s promise was given to Israel in the second sense (the sense of faith). So, God’s word to save Israel has not failed because He is saving Israel, that is the children of faith, the children of promise, the elect, the remnant. That includes some who are also Israel in the first sense, Paul was an ethnic Jew, but by and large, ethnic Israel had abandoned the faith and thus rejected the promises directed to those who would believe.

Paul is going to develop this point with two particular examples of what he calls God’s purpose of election. The first involves Abraham and the second involves Isaac. Both of these are used to support the idea of a distinction within Israel between progeny and promise.

The first example is Abraham. From Genesis we learn that God appeared to Abraham and told him that He would grant him offspring through whom the world would be blessed. Abraham waited for some time and eventually his wife, Sarah, suggested that he sleep with her servant Hagar, which Abraham agreed to. Hagar conceives and gives birth to Ishmael. Abraham thought, “now I have a son and the Lord will bless the nations through my son,” but God said, “no, I will bless you through the son you will bear by Sarah.” In other words, mere physical descent from Abraham did not mean that you inherited the promises made to him and his offspring. God simply sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael. He could have chosen Ishmael, but He did not do so.

Fine, you may say, but Ishmael was born by another woman and was born before Isaac. Maybe God’s choice of Isaac was related to the circumstances of the birth or the timing.

That brings us to the next example. Abraham’s son, Isaac, and his wife, Rebekah, had two children and God chose one over the other. Those children were twins and therefore the circumstances of birth and/or timing were the same. We cannot explain why God chose one over the other by appealing to the fact that one had a different mother or was older, indeed the one who was slightly younger was actually chosen against all cultural values of that time.

So, God did not choose them on the basis of their birth order or lineage, but perhaps He chose them then on the basis of their character. The text specifically speaks against this too by saying that His choice was “before they were done or had done anything good or bad.” Some might here say, “Well, God chose them before they had done anything good or bad, but His choice was based upon what they were going to do.” In other words, God’s choice was based upon His foreknowledge that Jacob would choose Him and Esau would reject Him.

But that is not at all the explanation of the text. It would have been really easy to have said that God saw what they would do and become and chose on that basis, but that is not what it says. Why does it say that God chose Jacob over Esau? Vs. 11 “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose according to election might continue…”

The reason that God chose Jacob over Esau is not because of their character, but rather because of God’s purpose of election. So, what is election as it is used in Romans 9?

Calvinists say that election in Romans 9 includes God’s sovereign choice of individuals for salvation and that Paul is here explaining why Israel is split between those who believe and those who do not believe as being because of God’s purpose of election.

Arminians on the other hand declare that this passage is not dealing with individual salvation, but rather election to certain temporal, earthly privileges. One scholar has written, “The absolute election of Jacob has reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges, as head of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation.”[1]

Though I wish we had more time to work through this, I would simply point out a few places which would really argue for the position that this context is referring to individual salvation. Here are 3 evidences for the Calvinist interpretation of unconditional election in Romans 9 as including the salvation of individuals:

1. Context:

Romans 9 must not be jerked out of its context and especially the link to the  latter half of chapter 8. Remember that Paul has just spoken about the issue of being “separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus.” That is a salvific  reference.

The end of chapter 9 and into chapter 10 contrasts righteousness of works of the law with the righteousness of faith, a contrast that is always used by Paul in reference to salvation.

Here is what Thomas Schreiner says about the context: “what concerns Paul in   Romans 9-11 is not merely that Israel has lost temporal blessings, or that its historical destiny has not evolved the way he anticipated. Paul agonizes over the place of Israel in Romans 9-11 because too many in his nation were not saved.”[2]

1. Implicit Arguments:

Romans 9 Paul could almost wish himself accursed for the sake of his kinsmen. I   can barely begin to understand how someone might be willing to wish himself cut off from Christ so that someone may be saved, but I cannot even begin to fathom why someone would use such strong language unless salvation is at stake. I might be willing to give up my salvation so that my family would come to faith. I would never be willing to give up my salvation so that my family could have a bigger house or better car or some other merely temporal privilege.

1. Explicit Language:

The latter half of the chapter, verses 20-23 will contrast vessels of mercy prepared for glory with vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. This is a very  difficult and weighty contrast that I wish we had more time to delve into, but  suffice for now to say that such language is not used in the Scriptures to refer to temporal blessing.

10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be  saved. The problem is that Israelites by and large are not being saved. Paul is not concerned that they are not getting to share in temporal blessing, he is  concerned that they are not getting to partake in Christ and the life that He offers.

We could go on, but that should give you some flavor of the text. The entire context of Romans 9-11 is in reference to salvation, the language implies salvation, and Paul explicitly refers to salvation in a number of places within the text.

What I am arguing for is that Romans 9 teaches that God sovereignly chooses or elects certain people for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that this election is not on the basis of who or what they are, will become, or will do. God’s election of individuals is not a response to faith, but is rather the ground or explanation for why some people do believe. As 9:16 says, “It (that is God’s purpose of election or the distribution of His mercy) does not depend on human will or exertion.”

Did you just get that? God’s mercy does not depend on man’s will. Those who claim that salvation is on the basis of “free will” have a really difficult time with a verse that specifically says that it is not on the basis of man’s will.

The Objections of Romans 9

When one is talking about this idea of God’s unconditional election of certain individuals to eternal life, there are two frequent objections that are often raised. First, that God is unjust. Second, that God should not hold men responsible for their sins if they do not have the ability to resist His will in the first place.

It is extremely important to notice that those two questions are in the text. Paul says in effect, “if you have understood me correctly then you will probably initially have these two objections.”[3]

Here in Romans 9 Paul’s teaching could make God seem unjust on the surface and thus he says, “Is there injustice on God’s part?”

Before we see how he answers that question, I want to point out the importance of these two objections in vss 14 and 19. Paul’s teaching on the surface calls into question God’s justice (14) and man’s accountability (19).

Arminianism does neither of those two. Arminian theology defines soteriological election (election in regards to salvation) as being in regards to foreseen faith. God chooses those whom He knows will one day choose Him. This does not introduce any problems with either God’s justice or man’s responsibility. If God chooses those who choose Him, no one stands up and says, “then God is unfair.” Even more critical is the objection in vs. 19. The objection makes no sense within an Arminian understanding. The Arminian position is that God’s grace is ultimately resistible which would not in any way produce the question, “for who resists His will?” Paul would have simply answered that question, “lots of people.” There must be a sense in which no one resists God’s ultimate, sovereign, decisive will of decree. Arminianism does not produce the objections that Paul’s teaching produces which would seem to imply that Paul is not teaching Arminianism.

Calvinism, on the other hand, produces exactly these objections which strongly evidences that the Calvinistic way of reading the text is the Pauline meaning of the text. If Calvinism raises the same objections as Paul’s preaching, then it would seem to demonstrate that Calvinists are reading Paul correctly. The most common push backs on unconditional election is that God seems unjust and that man should not be held responsible if God exercises His sovereignty through unconditional election, the exact two objections that Paul’s teaching introduces.

Having said that, let’s look at how Paul answers the question of God’s justice.

Objection 1: The Justification of God

Romans 9;14-18 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

How does that answer help? How does it help if someone questions the justice of God in His decision to show mercy to some and to harden others and we answer that God is just because He says that He will show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses? It is like Paul is saying, God is just because He said so, but let’s look a little deeper.

Paul quotes two Old Testament passages which relate God’s righteousness to His glory. This question of God’s justice prompted John Piper to write, The Justification of God, which is a comprehensive exegetical look at Romans 9. In it he says that God’s righteousness consists in His “unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory.”

In other words, justice is not something that stands outside of God as a value or virtue that He must live up to. Anything that God does is by definition good and righteous and just because He is God. That is critical for us to consider. As fallen and proud creatures, we want to sit God down in a courtroom and question His justice as if we are the judge, but we are most assuredly not.

God’s justice or righteousness is not His living up to our standards, rather His fierce dedication to the standard of the proper and good exaltation of His name and renown. God is righteous in election because election explicitly displays His glory. That is what Romans 9 is all about. That is why Paul quoted Exodus 33 in verse 15 when he writes, “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’”

What was the context of God saying this to Moses?

Exodus 33:18 Moses said, ‘Please show me your glory.’ And he said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”

God’s glory consists of His commitment to His name and an aspect of the demonstration of that glory is God’s freedom and sovereignty in election. This connection between election and God’s purpose in glory is made explicitly clear in Ephesians 1:

• Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
• Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Objection 2: The Responsibility of Man

If God merely chooses to show mercy to some and chooses to harden others, then why does He still find fault? Why does He judge man if man cannot ultimately resist God’s decision? This is the next question that Paul brings up.

He answers it first by noting a certain air of criticism in the question. Paul writes, “who are you to answer back to God.” The word translated “answer back” has the nuance of judging and thus some commentators have translated it, “cross examine.” Paul is not concerned with a humble question, but he is concerned with any hint of arrogance or disapproval in man. We can ask God questions, but we cannot question God. There is a difference.

He then gives the analogy of a potter and his rights over a pot. If I ask someone whether or not a potter has absolute rights over a pot they will undoubtedly say yes, but when I ask if God has absolute rights over His creation, then people hesitate. Why is that?

Because we are not pots. We are better than pots we think. But we forget that God is better than a potter as well. If potters are so much greater than pots, then how much greater is God than us? Once again, our hesitation to accept the analogy can betray in us not so subtle arrogance.

After dealing with the arrogance and orienting us toward our proper humility, Paul writes this in vss. 22-3: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”

This is an unbelievably weighty text and it grates against every fiber of our natural desire for inherent worth and value and freedom.

The basic idea is that God’s grace shines greatest against the backdrop of His wrath. It is only by pondering what we deserve and what others no worse than us get that we can begin to fully understand the depths of His grace to us and this grace is the very aspect of His glory which He most wants us to understand and embrace and enjoy as Ephesians 1 has said.

Review:

• Romans 9-11 is answering the question of why and how it is that Israel has been cut off from the promises of God and how they will one day inherit those promises in the future when it appears that a large number of them will one day trust in Christ.
• Paul says that God’s word has not failed because the promise was always to the children of promise (those who believe) and not the children of the flesh.
• Paul furthers clarifies that those who are the children of promise are so because God has chosen them for such a purpose.
• This choosing or electing ultimately displays the glory of God’s grace, which is the standard by which God works all things.

Conclusion:

God has created the world and called out of the world His elect for the praise of the glory of His grace. That is why we exist, that we might see and savor and ponder and praise and taste and talk about the glory of God.

Sometimes when we read Romans 9 we get lost in the logic and weight of these truths and forget the very context that we started from and so I want to go back to Romans 8:28-39.

God’s election is the means by which He makes these promises to you. If you want to count on your own free will to keep you in salvation then you sever yourself from the promise that nothing can separate you from Christ because you have lost the root or ground upon which that promise was made. You sever yourself from the promise that no charge will stand against you because you have lost the root. You sever yourself from the promise that God will cause all things, every single thing, to work toward the ultimate good of making you look like His Son because you have lost the root.

Election is not some dirty theological word that preachers and theologians made up to confuse people or make God look bad, it is the reality of God’s working with His people to bring them from a domain of darkness and death to a kingdom of light and life. Election is a good thing.

Prayer:

Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

---

[1] Sanday and Headlam as quoted in John Piper’s The Justification of God, 2^nd edition, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993, 57.

[2] Schreiner and Ware, Still Sovereign, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, 91.

[3] This is the same type of thing that he has done previously such as in Romans 6 where he has just wrapped up chapter 5 by talking about how man’s increased sin displayed greater depths of God’s glory and so he asks, “should we sin all the more so that grace will abound?”

Bible Texts, Sovereignty

I love irony and the Scriptures are full of it:

God chooses the foolish of the world to shame the weak.
He who would save His life must lose it.
The first shall be last.

There is a scene in 90’s cult classic “Reality Bites” when Winona Ryder is asked to define irony and she stammers and stumbles through an attempted answer until she finally blurts out, “I know it when I see it.”  Later she is relating the story to her friend, played by Ethan Hawke and asks him to define it and he immediately gives an exact definition, “it is when the actual meaning is the complete opposite from the literal meaning.”  Such a definition works in the use of irony in literature, but what about experiences which are ironic?  A working definition of this type of irony is “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.”

Nowhere is this irony more evident than in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Think about it:

An utterly innocent man is condemned by utterly guilty men.
The Author and Sustainer of life experiences death.
Man kills God so that God may save man.
The gospel is ironic.

I have been reading through Colossians lately and was struck by the irony of the imagery that Paul uses to speak about the humiliation, crucifixion, and exaltation of Christ.

Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Here we see that Paul uses such explicit imagery of the seeming defeat of Christ to portray His victory.  Christ was nailed to the cross, but it was the record of debt that is now nailed there.  Christ was disrobed and humiliated before the onlookers, but it was ultimately the rulers and authorities who were disrobed and subsequently put to shame (the Greek word translated “disarmed” in the ESV pictures a ruler who has been unclothed and is only elsewhere used in the New Testament in Colossians 3:9).  In Christ’s death, it seemed that sin and Satan had triumphed over Him, and yet in His resurrection He has evidenced that He has triumphed over them.  In the greatest of ironies, those who were already dead killed the One Who is Life so that in His death He might grant them life.

My hope for myself and for all who may happen upon this post is that the reality of theological irony would inspire faith in us as we consider that even darkness is used by the Lord to shine His light, even evil is used by the Lord to accomplish His good, even sorrow is used by the Lord to bring about joy.

When you really think about it, all faith is an embrace of irony.  It is living life in such a way that the world’s expected outcome is death and futility and yet fully trusting that the actual outcome will be life and joy.  May we embrace the irony of the cross and wait for the day when the actual outcome is actualized, when faith and irony will be no more.

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous