Transformed by Grace A blog about Jesus, theology, ministry and the transforming work of the grace of God.

The Incarnation

The Incarnation

The doctrine of the Incarnation is important to Christianity. The incarnation explains how Jesus is both God and man. It’s impossible to talk meaningfully about who Jesus is without talking about what He did and about the importance of that for us. James Denney, a professor at the United Free Church College in Glasgow, Scotland, around the turn of the centu1ry discussed this matter. He says:

Christ is the only person who can do this work for us. This is the deepest and most decisive thing we can know about him, and in answering the questions which it prompts we are starting from a basis in experience. There is a sense in which Christ confronts us as the reconciler. He is doing the will of God on our behalf, and we can only look on. We see him in judgment and the mercy of God in relation to our sins. His presence and work on earth are a divine gift, a divine visitation. He is the gift of God to men, not the offering of men to God, and God gives himself to us in and with him. We owe to him all that we call divine life. On the other hand, this divine visitation si made, and this divine life is imparted, through a life and work which are truly human. The presence and work of Jesus in the world, even the work of bearing sin, does not prompt us to define human and divine by contrast with each other: there is no suggestion of incongruity between them. Nevertheless, they are both there, and the fact that they are both there justifies us in raising the question as to Jesus’ relation to god on the one hand, and to men on the other.

The Reason for the Incarnation

What is the function of the Incarnation in Christianity? A classic statement on why Jesus became man and its answer is found in Anslem of Canterbury (Died 1109). Anslem’s theological masterpiece, Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?”) deals with the question of the Incarnation. Anslem answered this question that God became man in Christ because only one who was both God and man could achieve our salvation. The incarnation, coming in the midst of a history of human sin, indicates that God has not abandoned us but loves and values us even in our fallen state. The Incarnation does two things. It shows us that God is able to understand and sympathize with us. The Incarnation gives an example of how a person ought to live in this world.

The atonement is the reason for the Incarnation. Hebrews 10:4-7, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'. The writer tells in Hebrews 10:10, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. “ Matthew 1:21, “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.“ Jesus spoke of his coming suffering. Mark 8:31, “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.“ Mark 9:31, “for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.", linking the success of his mission to the crucifixion John 12:32, “³²And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." At several places in John’s Gospel the crucifixion is spoken of as that vital “hour” or which Christ came (John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1).

The death of Jesus is the theme of the Old Testament, first in regard to the meaning of the sacrifices (The meaning at the heart of the law) and then in regard to the prophecies, which focused increasingly on the promise of a Coming Redeemer. Isaiah 53 and other Old Testament texts speak of the suffering of the deliver to come. Isaiah 53 and other Old Testament passages speak of the suffering of the deliver to come. In Galatians the apostle Paul teaches that even Abraham, who live before both the law and prophets was saved by faith in Jesus (Gal. 3:8, 16). Jesus down the downcast Emmaus disciples that the Old Testament foretold his death and resurrection. Luke 24:25-27, “²⁵And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" ²⁷Andbeginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In light of these text and many others it is vital to say that the atonement of Christ is the reason for the Incarnation. It is the explanation of the twofold nature and the focal point of the world and biblical history.

Salvation through the God-Man

Is the doctrine of the atonement central to the Scriptures? Why must Jesus, the God-Man be the one to provide salvation? John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion argues that this is how God has chosen to do it and that is how it is therefore impertinent of us to ask if there could not be some other way.

Anslem gave the best answer regarding the Incarnation. His first answer is that salvation had to be achieved b God, for no one else could achieve it. Certainly men and women could not achieve it, for we are the ones who have gotten ourselves into trouble in the first place. We have done so by our rebellion against God’s just law and decrees. We have suffered the effects of sin to such a degree that our will is bound, and therefore we cannot even choose to please God, let alone actually please Him. If we are to be saved, only God, who has power to save, must save us. Anslem’s second answer is that, in apparent contradiction, salvation must also be achieved by man. Man is the one who has it wrong God and must therefore make the wrong right. Granted this state of affairs, salvation can only be achieved by one who is both God and ma, namely by Christ.

Anslem says: It would not have been right for the restoration of human nature to be left undone, and it could not have been done unless man paid what was owing to God for sin. But the debt was so great that, while man alone owed it, only God could pay it, so that the same person must be both man and God. Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his Person, so that he who in hi own nature ought to pay and could not should be in a person who could. The life of this man was so sublime, so precious, that it can suffice to pay what is owing for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more.

First it is God who initiates and carries out the action. If this is forgotten, it is easy to think of God as somehow remote from the atonement and therefore merely requiring it as some abstract price paid to satisfy his justice. In that view God appears disinterested, legalistic and cruel. Actually, God’s nature is characterized by love, and it is out of love that he planned and carried out the atonement. In Christ God himself was satisfying his own justice. Its easy to see why the Incarnation and the atonement must be considered together if each part is not to be distorted.

Secondly there is no suggestion that human beings somehow placate the wrath of an angry God. Propitiation does refer to placating of wrath. It is not man who placates God. Rather it is God placating his own wrath so that his love might go out to embrace and fully save the sinner.

Third, it is not a matter of substitution in the bald sense in which an innocent victim takes the place of another person who should be punished. Rather, it is a substitution in a deeper sense. The one who takes the place of man in order to satisfy God’s justice is actually one who had himself become man and is therefore our representative.

A proper recognition of the connection between the Incarnation and the atonement makes the Incarnation understandable. At the same time it eliminates the most common misunderstandings of, and objections to, Christ’s sacrifice of himself as the means of salvation.

The divine Son, one of the three persons of the one God, he through whom, from the beginning of the creation, the Father has revealed himself to man (John 1:18), took man’s nature upon him, and so became our representative. He offered himself as a sacrifice in our stead, bearing our sin in his own body on the tree. He suffered, not only awful physical anguish, but also the unthinkable spiritual horror of becoming identified with the sin to which he was infinitely opposed. He thereby came under the curse of sin, so that for a time even his perfect fellowship with his Father was broken.

Thus God proclaimed his infinite abhorrence of sin by being willing himself to suffer all that, in place of the guilty ones, in order that he might justly forgive. Thus the love of God found its perfect fulfillment because he did not hold back from even that uttermost sacrifice, in order that we might be saved from eternal death through what he endured. Thus it was possible for him to be just and to justify the believer, because as Lawgiver and as Substitute for the rebel race of man, he himself had suffered the penalty of the broken law.

The Centrality of the Cross

There are several explanations that follow from the foundation we have built on the doctrine of the Incarnation. First, according to Scriptures Calvary is the center of Christianity. Some people think that the Incarnation is the most important thing, that is, God identifying himself with man, and that the atonement was something like an afterthought. According to the Bible, the reason for the God-man is that it required a God-man to die for our salvation. Dr. Packer said, “The crucial significance of the cradle at Bethlehem lies in its place in the sequence of steps down that led the Son of God to the cross of Calvary,, and we do not understand it till we see it in this context.” To focus on the Incarnation apart from the cross leads to false sentimentality and neglect of the horror and magnitude of human sin.

Second, if the death of Christ on the cross is the true meaning of the Incarnation, then there is no gospel without the Cross. Christmas by itself is no gospel. The life of Christ is no gospel. Even the resurrection, important as it is in the total scheme of things, is no gospel by itself. Or the good news is not just that God became a man, nor that God has spoken to reveal a proper way of life to us, or even that death, the great enemy is conquered. Rather, the good news is that sin has been dealt with (the resurrection is proof of this); that Jesus has suffered its penalty for us as our representative, so that we might never have to suffer it; therefore, all who believe in him can look forward to heaven. The other biblical themes must be seen in this context, as we have already seen of the Incarnation. Emulation of Christ’s life and teaching is only possible to those who enter into a new relationship with God through faith in Jesus as their substitute. The resurrection is not merely a victory over death, but a proof that the atonement was a satisfactory atonement in the sight of the Father (Romans 4:25); and that death, the result of sin, is abolished on that basis.

Any gospel that talks merely of the Christ-event, meaning the Incarnation without the atonement is a false gospel. Any gospel that talks about the love of God without pointing out that his love led him to pay the ultimate price for sin in the person of his Son on the cross is a false gospel. The only true gospel is o the “one mediator” (1 Timothy 2:5-6), who gave himself for us.

Finally, just as there can be no gospel without the atonement as the reason for the Incarnation, so also there can be no Christian life without it. Without the atonement the Incarnation becomes a kind of deification of the human and leads to arrogance and self-advancement. With the atonement the true message of the life of Christ, and therefore of the life of the Christian man or woman, is humility and self-sacrifice for the obvious needs of others. The Christian life is not indifference to those who are hungry or sick or suffering from some other lack. It is not contentment with our own abundance, neither the abundance of middle-class living with homes and cares and clothes and vacations, nor with the abundance of education nor even the spiritual abundance of good churches, Bibles, Bible teaching or Christian friends and acquaintances. Rather, it is the awareness that others lack these things and that we must therefore sacrifice many of our own interests in order to identify with them and thus bring them increasingly into the abundance we enjoy.

Paul writing on the Incarnation said in 2^nd Corinthians 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” That is a statement of the atonement and of the Christian life. In that chapter Paul is speaking about the duty of the Christians at Corinth to give money for the relief of those less fortunate who lived in Judea. We will live for Christ fully only when we are willing to be impoverished, if necessary, in order that others might be helped with the gospel.

Biblical teaching of the Incarnation

Philippians 2:5-11 describes Christ’s example of humble service. This passage is often referred to as the “hymn of Christ.” Paul depicts Christ’s example of service in a stirring poem that traces his preexistence, incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. Paul wrote this magnificent theology to encourage the Philippians to consider other people’s interests first (v.4). Jesus is the paradigm of genuine spiritual progress: not a self-aggrandizing struggle for supremacy, but a deep love for God and neighbor shown in deeds of service. Verses 6-11 have some clear indications of poetic structure, leading some to believe that this is a pre-Pauline hymn adapted by Paul. It is just as likely, however, that Paul composed the hymn for this setting. In view of the myriad theological questions that arise in these verses, it is critical to keep two things in mind: 1) these verses were written not to spur Christians to theological debate but to encourage greater humility and love; and 2) the summary of Christ’s life and ministry found here is not unique: the same themes are evident throughout the New Testament.

The believer’s mind needs to reflect on the proper model, if life is to be lived for God. There is a debate regarding whether this mind-set is something Christians receive by virtue of being united to Christ (Which is yours in Christ Jesus), or whether it is to be based on the model of Christ). In light of the consistent them of behavior modeling in this letter, many interpretations have adopted the latter meaning. Both ideas are theologically true. In either case, the central theme of vv.1-5 is the same- that the Philippian church would be of one mind (v.2), united by love (v.2) and humility (V.3), and looking out for the interests of others (v.4).

Prior to the incarnation, Christ was in the form of God (Gk. Morphe theou). Despite the assertions of some scholars to the contrary, this most naturally refers to the “preexistence” of Christ- he, the eternal Son, was there with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5, 24) before he was born in Bethlehem. “Form” here means the true and exact nature of something, possessing the characteristics and qualities of something. Therefore having the “form of God” is roughly equivalent to having equality with God (isa theo), and it is directly contrasted with having the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7). The Son of God is and always has been God. “Form” could also be a reference to Christ being the ultimate image of God, “the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3). It might also refer to the fact that he is the visible expression of God’s invisible glory (Col. 1:15). Remarkably, Christ did not imagine that having “equality with God” (which he already possessed”) should lead him to hold onto his privileges at all costs. It was not something to be grasped, to be kept and exploited for his own benefit or advantage. Instead he, had a mind-set of service. ‘Christ did not please himself” (Rom. 15:3). In humility, he counted the interests of others as more significant than his own (Phil. 2:3-4).

Made himself nothing has occasioned much controversy. Greek keno can mean “empty, pour out” or also (metaphorically) “give up status and privilege.” Does this mean that Christ temporarily relinquished his divine attributes during his earthly ministry? The theory of Christ’s kenosis or “self-emptying” is not in accord with the context of Philippians or with early Christian theology. Paul is not saying that Christ became less than God or “gave up” some divine attributes; he is not even commenting directly o n the question o whether Jesus was fully omnipotent or omniscient during his time on earth. Nor is he saying that Christ ever gave up on being “in the form of God.” Rather, Paul is stressing that Christ, who had all the privileges that were rightly his as king of the universe, gave them up to become an ordinary Jewish baby bound for the cross. Christ “made himself nothing” by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. While he had every right to stay comfortably where he was, in a position of power, his love drove him to a position of weakness for the sake of sinful man (2 Cor 8:9, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich”). The “emptying” consisted of his becoming human, not of his giving up any part of his true deity.

It is remarkable enough that God the Son would take on human form (Greek schema, “outward appearance, form shape,” a different term from morphe, used in vv.6-7 for “form of God” and “form of a servant”) and thus enter into all the mess of a fallen world. But Jesus went much farther, becoming obedient (Romans 5:19) to the point of death, even death on a cross. Crucifixion was not simply a convenient way of executing prisoners. It was the ultimate indignity, a public statement by Rome that the crucified one was beyond contempt. The excruciating physical pain was magnified by the degradation and humiliation. No other form o death, no matter how prolonged or physically agonizing, could match crucifixion as an absolute destruction of the person (Matthew 27:35). It was the ultimate counterpoint to the divine majesty of the preexistent Christ, and thus was the ultimate expression of Christ’s obedience to the Father.

It was precisely Jesus’ humiliation that became the grounds for his exaltation. By humbling himself on the cross out of love, he demonstrates that he truly shared the divine nature of God, who is love (1 John 4:8). For this reason (therefore) God raised him to life and highly exalted him, entrusting him with the rule of the cosmos and giving him the name that is above every name. The name is not specified here, but it may refer to Yahweh. God’s personal name which is the Septuagint is translated as Kyrios, “Lord,” the name specified in Phil. 2:11. In any case, Paul means that the eternal Son of God received a status and authority (Matthew. 28:18; Acts 2:33) that had not been his before he became incarnate as both God and man. Jesus’ being given this name is a sign that he exercises his messianic authority in the name of Yahweh.

While Christ now bears the divine name Yahweh (“Lord”), he is still worshiped with his human name Jesus, since it was in the flesh that he was most clearly displayed his divine glory to the world. This astounding union of Jesus’ divine and human natures is reinforced by the allusion to Isa.45:23 in the words every knee should bow and every tongue confess, which in Isaiah refers exclusively to Yahweh (Isa. 45:24). The fact that these words can now be applied to God’s messianic agent- Jesus Christ is Lord- shows that Jesus is fully divine. Bu the worship of Jesus as Lord is not the final word of the hymn. Jesus’ exaltation also results in the glory of God the Father. This identical pattern is found in 1^st Corinthians 15:23-28: God gives Jesus messianic dominion over all creation, and everyone will one day rightly give praise to him as their Lord. But when his kingdom reaches its fullness, Jesus does not keep the glory for himself. Instead, “The Son himself will also be subjected to him who puts all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Even in his exaltation, Jesus remains the model of loving service to God.

Conclusion

This chapter began with discussing the importance of the Incarnation and ended by looking at Philippians 2. Throughout this chapter, we have examined what the Bible says about the Incarnation and what influential theologians have said about it. The Incarnation is vital to a robust understanding of the Gospel as we have seen. In the Incarnation God became a man. Jesus was born of a virgin in a manager. The Incarnation is important because it teaches that God became a man. The Gospels demonstrate Christ’s need for time alone with His Father in prayer for direction and guidance. The Gospels teach that Christ submitted Himself to His Father’s will for example in the Garden of Gethsemane before He would be brutally scourged, whipped and crucified for man’s sin on the Cross.

Above, all the Incarnation proves to man that God is not disinterested in the affairs but came to deal with the problem of man’s sin. This flies right in the face of modern thought about God being “disinterested in man”. The doctrine of the Incarnation demonstrates that God doesn’t talk a big game but actually offers a solution to man’s problem of sin. God in His love sent Jesus into the world. Jesus lived a sinless life as a man through experiencing all the temptations man faces. Jesus lived a sinless life in the midst of people who constantly criticized Him, wanted His teaching, His miracles or the healing He could perform. The people during Christ’s ministry spit in His face, ridiculed Him, but all the while Jesus demonstrated He cared for people by teaching, healing, setting the captives free, raising the dead and so much more. All of this disproves the modern notion that God is not interested in man because by becoming a man He showed He was interested in mankind through His willingness to step into our time and space.

Jesus is interested in you today; in you knowing for sure that He did come, did live a sinless life, did die victoriously on the Cross, was buried and rose triumphantly on the third day. All of the work of Jesus is to demonstrate to man that God is interested in the affairs of man. Since this is so the modern notion of “God not being interested in the affairs of man” is speculation at best and heresy at worst. Jesus cares for man, and demonstrated it by being the God-Man who lived a sinless life, died victoriously, was buried and triumphed over sin and death in His resurrection to secure our final justification before God. Rather than speculation the doctrine of Incarnation should lead man to worship the God of the Bible- the Creator who alone is worthy of all praise, honor and glory.

Bibliography

Denney, James, The Death of Christ, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1964).

Fairweather, Eugene R,  ed. And trans., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anslem to Ockham, “The Library of Christian Classics, “ X (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 176.

Guillebaud , H.E., Why the Cross? (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1947), pp.130, 185.

[1] Packer, Knowing God, p.51

Packer, Knowing God, p.51

Here is where you can find me online:

In Christ Alone,

Dave

Here is where you can find me online:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103

Fan Page on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164

Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ

Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace

Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog

---

James Denney, The Death of Christ, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1964).

Eugene R. Fairweather, ed. And trans., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anslem to Ockham, “The Library of Christian Classics, “ X (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 176.

H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1947), pp.130, 185.

Packer, Knowing God, p.51

Submission to Government and leaders

Romans 13:1-7 addresses the responsibility of Christians to governing authorities. They are to “be subject to” (which means to obey 1 Pet 3:5-6).  The government has been ordained by God. Paul is speaking here of the general principle of submission to government. Several other passages show that God approves of Christians disobeying government, but only when obedience to government would mean disobeying God (Ex. 1:17, 21; 1 Kings 18:4-16; Est 4:16; Dan 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt 2:12; Acts 5:29; Heb. 11:23). There were even times when God raised up leaders to rebel against the government and deliver his people from evil rulers (Exodus 1-14; Judg. 2:16; Heb. 11:32-34). Dr. Seifrid (Seifrid, pp. 681) said, “Paul here emphatically underscores the eschatological nature of the gospel. Faith in this gospel brings with it rejection and persecution from the fallen world, which remains in rebellion against its Creator. Paul’s affirmation that God has ordained earthly government is to be understood in this context; otherwise, his readers mighty falsely understand the gospel to enjoin the rejection of all secular authority, potentially leading to rebellion or sedition.” Dr. Schreiner (Schreiner, pp. 677) said ,”Romans. 12:1-2 is the thematic introduction for the whole section. Giving oneself wholly to God and being transformed in one’s thinking are also expressed in how one relates to governing authorities. The total dedication called for in 12:1-2 does not relate to an ethereal sphere that floats about the exigencies of everyday life. Believers express their commitment to God in how they relate to rulers and the law of the state.” Dr. Moo (Moo, pp. 187) says, “Many interpretations of Romans 13:1-7 end up being explanations of what the text does not mean rather than what it does mean. Paul does not even mention exceptions. His concern is to get us to recognize the place that governing authorities rightly have under God as those placed over us. That should be the focus of our reading and application.”
Romans 13:1 teaches that it is true that those governing authorities that exist have been instituted by God, but God gives good authorities as a blessing, and sometimes he institutes’ evil rulers as a means of trial or judgment (2 Chron 25:20; 32:24-25). God rules over all earthly authorities (Ps. 75:7; Dan 2:21). These earthly authorities will ultimately be superseded by the rule of Christ (Dan. 2:44; Rev 22:1-5). Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad means that civil government in general is a great blessing from God for which we should be thankful. Without civil government there would be anarchy, a horrible alternative in which evil runs rampant. Governing authorities are God’s servants and carry out his wrath on evildoers, and they do so for your good. Even though Christians must not take personal revenge (12:17-20), it is right for them to turn punishment over to the civil authorities, who have the responsibility to punish evil. The reference to the sword most likely refers to the penalty of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6). Christians should obey the civil authorities not only to avoid God’s wrath (coming through those authorities, v.4) but also because their conscience tells them that submitting to the government is right. Christians must not refuse to pay taxes simply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes! So, too, believers are to honor their leaders, even if they are not admirable. Verses 8-10 focus on the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic law. Owe no one anything links back to v.7, and thus the command does not prohibit all borrowing but means that one should always “pay what is owed” (Romans 13:7), fulfilling whatever repayment agreements have been made. The debt one never ceases paying is the call to love one another. Indeed, love fulfills what the Mosaic law demands. Paul cites several Old Testament commandments regarding responsibility to others, all of which are summed up in the call from Lev. 19:18 to love your neighbor as yourself. In this section (12:3-13:14) the final verses call Christians to action, given the shortness of time before Jesus returns. Sleep here is a metaphor for a life of moral carelessness and laxity. Salvation is viewed as a future reality here, and it draws nearer everyday. The nearness of the end summons Christians to put off all evil works and live in the light. Things not fitting for those who belong to the light include 1) sins of addiction in drinking and partying; 2) sexual sins; and 3) social sins. Paul’s exhortation in this chapter is summed up in the call to put on Christ. The metaphor of putting on clothing implies not just imitating Christ’s character but also living in close personal fellowship with him. Even though believers have new life, they still must constantly renounce the flesh and refuse to gratify its desires.

Peter demonstrates the principle of godly resistance to government in Acts 4:17-19 when he tells the council that he will speak of the Gospel. The leaders had charged him to not speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Peter then realizes the impossibility of abiding by this prohibition, thus demonstrating that believers have the responsibility to not obey the authorities when such authorities prohibit preaching the gospel or otherwise require Christians to disobey God’s explicit commandments (5:29). Peter in Acts 5:29 says, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Jesus in Matthew 22:21 says render unto to Caesar and to God. Jesus is not establishing a political kingdom in opposition to Caesar, so his followers should pay taxes and obey civil laws. These are matters that belong to the realm of civil government, and there are other matters that belong to God’s realm. Jesus does not here specify which matters belong in what realm but many Christian ethicists today teach that, in general, civil government should allow freedom in matters of religious doctrine, worship, and beliefs about God and the Church should not attempt to use the power of government to enforce allegiance to any specific religious viewpoint. All forms of the Christian Church throughout the world today support some kind of separation between matters of church and matters of the state. By contrast, the totalitarian governments usually try to suppress the Church and subsume everything under the realm of the state. And some extreme Islamic movements have tried to abolish independent civil governments and subsume everything under the control of Islamic religious leaders. Historically, when the Church and state have become too closely aligned the result most often has been the compromise of the church. The principle Jesus is giving here is not that giving taxes are unimportant but that people should give to God that which bears his image and likeness, namely, themselves (Romans 12:1).

Many people today misunderstand what government is and how it should function. Dr. Carson (Carson, pp. 392-393 said, ”Serving God does not mean, Paul cautions that the Christian can ignore the legitimate claims that the government makes on us (13:1-7). Nor, though free from the law, can Christians ignore the continuing validity of the commandment that summarizes the law: loving our neighbor as ourselves (13:8-10) The Christian is to serve God in this way, recognizing that the day of salvation is already casting the rays of light on our path, and our lives must reflect that light (13:11-14).   This is particularly important to understand given the political climate of the day. The Biblical principles of government are established by the fact that God is the ultimate sovereign (Matthew 22:21). God ordains all authority (Romans 13:1-2). God prefers Republicanism-not monarchy (1 Sam 8:4-9). God limits civil power (Deut 17:15-17). God ordains a constitutional system (Deut 17:18). God in His Word also sets forth how people can resist yranny. God’s Word is foundational for governments (Deut 17:19, Romans 13:7-9). God prefers the consent of the governed (Deut 1:4-6). The Lord wants good rulers to rule the people but also uses evil rulers. God permits resistance to tyrants (Acts 5:29). God ordains resistance through lesser magistrates (Judges 2:18). God wants us to have liberty (1 Cor 7:23).

Sources

Beale, G.K., Carson, D.A. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 681).

Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas. An Introduction to the New Testament.(Michigan: Zondrvan, 2005), 392-393).

Moo, Douglas. Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Exposition (Michigan, Baker Academic, 2002), 187.

Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. (Michigan, Baker Academic, 1998), 677.

In Christ Alone,

Pastor Dave

Here is where to find me online:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103

Fan Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Servantsofgrace

Twitter:http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ

Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace

Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog

The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2, and all 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9

The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2, and all 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9

BY

Dave Jenkins

March 11, 2010

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……           3

The Context of 1 John 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….          3

The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           4

The Context of 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………           6

The Meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            6

Historical Consideration on 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             8

The context of 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………        11

The Meaning of all in 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         13

Historical Considerations on 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          13

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          15

Introduction

This paper will attempt to prove that the  word all in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4 and the word whole world in 1 John 2:2 considered in their proper contexts are expressions used to indicate Christ died for all men without distinction and without exception.

Scripture uses two classes of texts to speak of Christ’s saving work in general terms. The first class contains the word world (John 1:9, 29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:14). The second class containing all (Romans 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9). The use of these expressions in the New Testament is to deal with the false notion that salvation was only for the Jews alone. Phrases such as all men, the world, all nations and every creature were used to correct the mistake that salvation was only for Jews, and teach that Christ died for all men without distinction and without exception.[1]

The context of 1 John 2:2

1 John 2:2 appears within the context in 1 John 1:1-2:26 a section that teaches God is light and Christ is the way to God. In the immediate context of 1 John 2:1-6 John is teaching the active role of Jesus in one’s everyday life. In 1 John 2:2, propitiation means appeasement or satisfaction. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s holiness for the punishment of sin. (Rom. 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:3).

Christ’s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is a holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. The actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe (John 10:11, 15; 17:9, 20; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32, 37; Eph.5:25). The pardon for sin is offered to the whole world, but received only by those who believe (4:9, 14; John 5:24). There is no other way to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

The meaning of world in 1 John 2:2

The Greek word for world (kosmos) has several meanings in Scripture. First, world in Scripture can refer to the entire elect both Jew and Gentiles. Secondly, world can refer to the public who surround Christ, especially the Jews. Thirdly, world can refer to all kinds of people, such as kings and subjects. Fourth, world refers to humankind under the righteousness judgment of God. Finally, world can refer to the creation, or in the classical sense, to an orderly universe, or to a great number of people.[2] Dr. Walvoord a conservative Christian theologian offering a different perspective on the atonment taught that the phrase world in 1 John 2:2 means that Christ in His death made a forensic provision for the entire world and has provided reconciliation for all, not just the elect.[3]

John teaches that the whole world does not mean that every person will be saved, because the forgiveness of sins only comes to those who repent and believe the Gospel (1^st John 2:4, 23; 3:10; 5:12; John 3:18; 5:24). 1 John 2:1-2 is a difficult passage as it makes a distinction between a limited atonement and a universal one.

There are several different ways in which this verse might be understood. John may be stressing the universal application of Christ’s work. When the scope of this verse is not restricted Dr. Boice a Reformed Pastor-Theologian believes that this passage teaches universal salvation and not universal atonement.[4] Dr. Towns a conservative Christian theologian believes that when one understands the meaning of the satisfaction Christ made for sinners on the Cross that the atonement cannot be limited.[5] Dr. Grudem a leading Reformed theologian believes that the preposition “for” in 1 John 2:2 is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. He continues by stating it would be consistent with the language of the verse to think that John is simply saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of the world.[6]

Dr. Long a Reformed theologian notes there are four primary references in the New Testament where the word “propitiation” is used (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Three of the four references clearly teach propitiation is strictly limited to a definite people, namely, the elect of God.[7] Dr. Lightner espouses the view of four point Calvinists when he explains that the meaning of propitiation in 1 John 2:2 means all mankind without exception.[8] Dr. John Owen a famous Puritan theologian responds to the objection raised by Dr. Lightner when he writes that the issues in 1 John 2:2 lies in the extent of propitiation and world in 1 John 2:2. Owen continues by stating that the four point Calvinist believes the meaning is obvious as the words themselves, they say, without any wresting, signify all men in the world, that is, world means world.  Owen then asks: On what ground do they perish, all their sins having been expiated? [9]

The context of 1 Timothy 2:4

1 Timothy 2:4 falls within the context of Paul’s letter to his student Timothy. Paul writes to Timothy to remind Timothy of all he has taught him, and also encourage him. 1 Timothy 2:4 falls within the context of 2:1-3:13 a section in 1 Timothy where Paul gives Timothy a description of Gospel-Shaped Living. Paul in the first chapter of 1 Timothy chapter one denounced the idle speculation of false teachers. Now Paul turns to expounding in specific terms what true gospel living (1:5) should look like. He calls Timothy to prayer and addresses hindrances to prayer (2:1-15), qualifications of overseers (3:1-7), and qualifications for deacons (3:8-13).

The meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4

The Greek word for desires in 1 Timothy 2:4 is not that which normally expresses God’s will of decree (His eternal purpose) in Scripture, but God’s will or desire. The distinction here lies between God’s desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. An example of this would be, the Lord hates sin with all His being (Pss. 5:4; 45:7); thus, He hates the consequences- eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath, chose to endure, “vessels prepare for destruction” for the fulfillment of His will (Rom. 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose only the elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (Rom. 1:18-32). Ultimately God’s choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires (2 Peter 3:9). Those who come to the knowledge of the Truth come to Christ because they learn that the Gospel is the ground for all Truth (1 Tim. 3:15; 4:3; 2ⁿ Tim 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; Titus 1:1, 14).

1 Timothy 2:4 figures prominently in theological disagreements over the extent of the atonement. This passage cannot be read to suggest that everyone will be saved (universalism), because the rest of the letter makes it clear that some will not be saved (4:1; 5:24; 6:10). The crux of this verses hinges on how one answers the following question, Does 1 Timothy 2:4 mean God desires something (all people being saved) that he cannot fulfill? Arminian and Calvinist theologians respond that God desires something more than universal salvation. Arminians believe that God’s greater desire is to preserve genuine human freedom, which is necessary for genuine human love. The Calvinist believes that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches God’s greater desire is to display the full range of His glory (Rom. 9:22-23), which results in election depending upon the freedom of his mercy and not upon human choice (Rom. 9:15-18). Regardless of how one understands 1 Timothy 2:4 what is clear is that it teaches the free and universal offer of the gospel to every single person. Desires then must mean that this offer of salvation bona fide expression of God’s good will towards sinners.

Paul reveals that “God our Savior desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1^st Tim. 2:3-4). Since “God does whatever he pleases” (Ps. 115:3 NASB), and since he will accomplish all he has purposed (Isa. 46:10), and since “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan. 4:35), and since the Potter’s will cannot be thwarted by mere clay (Romans 9), it is certain that the all in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is undoubtedly “all” the elect. Bridges and Bevington both conservative theologians note that the all for whom the ransom was actually operative and effective resulted in the transaction in which those who believe are purchase out of slavery to sin.[10]

Speaking of this all, Jesus proclaimed, “This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39). Dr. Joel Beeke is considered one of the preeminent scholars on Reformed theologian notes regarding the context of 1 Timothy 2:4-6 that the words ransomed for all are set within the context of prayers being offered for all people (vv.1-2). He continues by explaining that the word all does not always mean all individuals in either Greek or English usage in Scripture, so there is no compelling reason to conclude that the all in verses 4 and 6 refers to every single person.[11]

Historical Consideration on 1 Timothy 2:4

The history of the debate on 1 Timothy 2:4 goes back to the time of Augustine. Augustine, one of the best theologians in the history of the Church rejects idea of the Pelagians’ that God desiring the salvation of every individual somehow frustrates God’s divine will by the free choice of the sinner.[12] Augustine taught that the all in 1 Timothy 2:4 are the elect of God are those whom God wills to come to the knowledge of the truth.[13] Augustine understood Paul to mean “that no man is saved unless God will his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he does not will, but that no man is saved apart from his will.”[14]

Prosper of Aquitaine, Augustine’s defender, and contemporary states that the extent of Christ’s redemption extends to all only as a result of Him taking on human nature common to man. Prosper distinguishes between Christ and humanity by explaining that only humanity shares the fallen condition, and concludes by saying that that Christ was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death who are none other than the elect.[15]

The Bible says that Christ died a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6). Dr. Horton a leading Reformed scholar explains that all does not always mean “each and every person.”[16] William Tyndale was one of the English Reformers taught regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 that  Christ’s blood only deals with the sins of the elect, as those who are elected are elected to everlasting life by Christ’s blood.[17] Martin Luther on the all of 1 Timothy 2:4 taught that Christ did not die for everyone, because Christ says “This is My blood which is poured out on you” and for many”- He does not say: for every person- ‘for the forgiveness of sins.” As the Apostle says, “Everything for the sake of the elect.”[18] Charles Spuregon the famed Reformed-Baptist evangelist raises the objection to those who hold to the doctrine of universal when he states that if it was Christ’s intention to save every person He has been sorely disappointed, for there is a lake of fire, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. We cannot preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought upon the cross.[19]

Dr. Horton brings this discussion full circle when he states that to affirm a universal atonement, then, one is left with only two options 1) either to limit the atonement in its effect- that is in what it accomplishes- or 2) to accept at face value the clear statements of Scripture regarding the nature of redemption. Horton continues explaining if Christ’s death secured redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction then one must affirm that each and every individual will be saved or that the work of Christ itself must be limited in its scope. Otherwise the atonement is limited in its nature.[20]

If one is going to Charles Spuregon on this point concludes the examination of 1 Timothy 2:4 by explaining the historic position of the Church on the atonement as literal payment for sin requires one to either accept universal salvation (Christ dying for everyone) or an atonement limited in scope.

It is clear from 1 Timothy and the history of the Church that the historic position of the Church on the atonement requires one to either accept universal salvation (Christ dying for everyone) or an atonement limited in scope. Finney a famous revivalist choose to embrace a view of the atonement based only on following Christ’s example. Finney argued that a belief that Christ died for the elect alone assumes that the atonement was only a payment of a debt which does not consist with the nature of atonement.[21] Finney’s weak understanding of Christ’ work on the atonement is demonstrated in the fact that he believed that everyone could be saved by making a decision or by living a holy life. An atonement that doesn’t atone, a redemption that doesn’t redeem, a propitiation that doesn’t propitiation, a satisfaction that doesn’t satisfy does not help anyone. Dr. Lightner states regarding those who believe in definite atonement that they believe the work of Christ on the cross was effective in and of itself.[22] Christ secured the salvation for all whom He died.

The context of 2 Peter 3:9

2 Peter like 1 Peter was written to elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). 2 Peter 3:9 falls within the context of 2 Peter 2:11-4:11 which teaches what it means for the believer to bring God in a hostile world to the Gospel. Peter explains in this section how believers should live as sojourners admit a world that rejects the Gospel as they bear witness to the gospel when they live in a way that pleases God.

The Meaning of all in 2 Peter 3:9

2^nd Peter 3:9. The “us” is the saved, the people of God. He waits for them to be saved. God has an immense capacity for patience before He breaks forth in judgment (Joel 2:13; Luke 15:20; Rom. 9:22; 1 Peter 3:16).God endures endless blasphemies against His name, along with rebellion, murders, and the ongoing breaking of His law, waiting patiently while He is calling and redeeming His own. It is not impotence or slackness delays final judgment; it is patience.

The “any” in not willing that any should perish must refer to those whom the Lord has chosen and will call to complete the redeemed the “us.” Since the whole passage is about God destroying the wicked, his patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all His own. He can’t be waiting for everyone to be saved, since the emphasis is that He will destroy the world and the ungodly. Those who do perish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ, not because they were created for hell or predestined to go there. The path to damnation is the path of a non-repentant heart; it is the path of one who rejects the person and provision of Jesus Christ and holds onto sin (Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 13:17; Ezek 18:32; Matt. 11:2; 13:37; Luke 13:3; John 3:16; 8:21 24; 1 Tim. 2:3,4; Rev 22:17).

All (“us,” “any”) in all should come to repentance must refer to all who are God’s people who will come to Christ to make up the full number of the people of God. The reason for the delay in Christ’s coming and the attendant judgments is not because He is slow to keep His promise, or because He wants to judge more of the wicked, or because He is impotent in the face of wickedness. He delays His coming because He is patient and desires the time for His people to repent.

Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9 asks, if God wishes none to perish why is it that so many do perish? His answer is that within 2 Peter 3:9 no mention is made of the purpose of God by which the reprobate are doomed to ruin but only of God’s will made known in the Gospel. In the Gospel God stretches forth his hand without difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.[23]

Historical Considerations on 2 Peter 3:9

Dr. Boice a Reformed Pastor-Theologian believed that 2 Peter 3:9 is not talking about the salvation of all men, but only of the elect. He continues explaining that the delay of Christ’s intention is not out of indifference to man but rather as a result of God wanting to bring to repentance those whom he has determined would be saved.[24]

John Owen one of the finest of the many Puritan theologians on 2 Peter 3:9 asks, “Who are these of whom the apostle speaks?” Owen then goes to explain that such as had received “great and precious promises,” chap. 1:4, whom he calls “beloved” (chap. 3:1); whom he opposeth to the “scoffers” of the “last days,” verse 3; to whom the Lord hath respect in the disposal of these days; who are said to be “elect” (Matthew 24:22). Owen bringing his argument into focus states that those who argue that because God would have none to perish but that all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and everyone in the world (Even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not only short of extreme madness and folly.[25] Dr. Towns a conservative Christian theologian and co-founder of Liberty University states that the Calvinist has misunderstood the separation between the historic accomplishments of salvation and how an individual obtains salvation. He continues by first explaining that to teach that Christ died for all does not mean all will be saved, nor does it mean God has failed if some are lost. This does not question the sovereignty of God, but it does show a misunderstanding of the purpose of God by those who hold to limited atonement. Towns contends that God’s desire is that none be lost since God created a plan for all, He offers it to all, and wants all to participate in it. Responding to objections to his teaching he first says that God did not provide a universal salvation to question His attribute of love. Continuing to answer objections to his view on limited atonement he says that God saved all apart from the appropriate discharge of human responsibility is to question God’s integrity. Responding specifically to the Calvinist Dr. Towns says that God to say God elected some to salvation, but not all is to question His justice since the human response necessitates one’s understanding of God’s relationship to His creatures.[26]

Charles Spuregon the Prince of Preachers on 2 Peter 3:9 taught that the Arminians say that Christ died for all men. He continues by asking what the Arminians mean, Christ died for all men. Spuregon asks them, “Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men?” The Arminians response to Spuregon is, “No, certainly not.” Spuregon continues asking them the next question, “Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular?” They answer, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Spuregon goes back to his original statement by saying- Christ did not did so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? Spuregon at this point says the Arminians must say “no”; you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.[27]

Conclusion

This paper began by seeking to prove the meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9, as well as the meaning of world in 1 John 2:2. The meaning of world and all must be restricted otherwise it leads to universal salvation which denies there was a design in the atonement. This paper through careful exegesis, historical exploration, and biblical argumentation has sought to clearly set forth that Christ died without distinction and without exception. The death of Christ has infinite value to man because the death He died- He died for man’s sin in man’s place to appease the wrath of a holy God. Only Christ’s death saves, so man cannot be saved through of his/her own free will but only by the sovereign grace of God by believing in the Gospel Christ died for on the Cross. The design of the atonement as set forth in Scripture teaches that Christ’s death is of infinite worth to man because by believing in it those who elected by God will be saved by His grace, for His glory forevermore.

Bibliography

Beeke, Joel, Living for God’s Glory An Introduction to Calvinism (Florida; Reformation Trust, 2008), 93.

Boice, James, Ryken, Philip, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 131.

Bridges, Jerry, Bevington, Bob, The Great Exchange My Sin for His righteousness (Illnois, Crossway, 2007), 200.

Calvin, John, Commentary on Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus & Philemon trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, reprint from 1610), 420.

Contra Julianum, 4.8.42; PL 44:759-60.

Finney, Charles G., Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1985), 217, 206.

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Michigan, Zondervan, 1994), 598.

Lightner, Robert P., The Death Christ Died- A case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illnois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 81.

Lightner, Robert, “For whom Did Christ Die?” in Walvoord, a Tribute, John F. Walvoord and Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 162.

Long, Gary D., Definite Atonement (MD; New Covenant Media, 2006),103.

De Pred. Sanct. 14; PL 44:971

Enchiridon, cap. 103; De Corrept. Et Gratia, 47.

Owen, John “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967),173-147,191.

Quoted in J.I. Packer, Introduction to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), note 12.

Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Grace into grace, (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 244, 247-248.

Steele, David N., Thomas, Curtis, C, Quinn, Lance S., The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Document. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004.

Towns, Elmer, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 430, 433.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 233-234.

Walvoord, John, Jesus Christ our Lord,(Chicago, Moody Press,1969)),182.

---

[1] David N. Steele, Curtis, C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (New Jersey: P&R, 2004) 50.

[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 233-234.

[3] John Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord,(Chicago, Moody Press,1969)),182.

[4] James Boice, Philip Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 131.

[5] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 430.

[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Michigan, Zondervan, 1994), 598.

[7] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (MD; New Covenant Media, 2006), 103.

[8] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died- A case for unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illnois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 81.

[9] John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967),191.

[10] Jerry Bridges, Bob Bevington, The Great Exchange My Sin for His righteousness (Illnois, Crossway, 2007), 200.

[11] Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory An Introduction to Calvinism (Florida; Reformation Trust, 2008), 93.

[12] Contra Julianum, 4.8.42; PL 44:759-60

[13] De Pred. Sanct. 14; PL 44:971

[14] Enchiridon, cap. 103; De Corrept. Et Gratia, 47.

[15] Cited in Godfrey, Tensions, 75; “Reformed Thought,” 135.

[16] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 244.

[17] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 247.

[18] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 247.

[19] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 248.

[20] Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 144.

[21] Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1985), 217, 206.

[22] Robert Lightner, “For whom Did Christ Die?” in Walvoord, a Tribute, John F. Walvoord and Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 162.

[23] John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus & Philemon trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, reprint from 1610), 420.

[24] James Boice, Philip Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 127.

[25] John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 173-174.).

[26] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 433.

[27] Quoted in J.I. Packer, introduction to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), note 12.

An Introduction to Islam

Introduction

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world with a growing membership of about one-billion-one-hundred worldwide and about five million in the United States. The growth of Islam within the United States is challenging the way many evangelicals witness to people. The growing complexity of relationships between the United States and the Arab world after the events of 9/11 and the growing tide of terrorism warrant an exploration into what true Islam is. Even within the United States leadership there is confusion regarding what true Islam really is, and isn’t. The best example of this is in President George W. Bush’s speech when he said, “Islam is a religion of peace.”[1] Another example of this would be President Obama’s desire to reach out to Muslims in order to build relationships with them.[2] Islam does not mean “peace in Arabic in the classic sense of the term. Islam means “surrender”. To the Muslim, it evidences his position in the religion- he is willingly surrendered to the rites, rituals and practices of the religion.”[3]

Summary of Islam

Islam is irrevocably linked to Muhammad the founder of Islam. On his fortieth birthday, in A.D. 610, his life took a marked turn. On that day, Muhammad received what he believed was a vision where the angel Gabriel visited him and brought him a message that the world has abandoned true worship, and that he was chosen by God, as a prophet to bring the final message to the world.[4] The Five Pillars of Islam summarize the worldview of Islam: 1) The creed (called kalmia) must be recited by the convert, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his final prophet.” 2) Prayers (salat) must be offered five times a day in a strictly prescribed fashion while facing Mecca. 3) Alms (zakat) equivalent to one-fortieth of one’s income must be given to the cause. 4) Regular fasting (sawn) must take place, especially during the month of Ramadan. And 5) a pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) must be made once during the life of a Muslim. This surrender compromises the first meaning of the term jihad, intimating an “inner struggle.”[5]

Critique of Islam

One of the major objections Muslims have to Christianity is that they view Jesus as only a prophet. They do so by citing Deuteronomy 18:15-18 which they believe means the one greater than Moses is Muhammad. Deuteronomy 18 makes it clear however in its context when it speaking about the one greater than Moses that it is speaking of Jesus. The evidence of the New Testament regarding Jesus is that He came from his Jewish brethren (Galatians 4:4), 2) Deuteronomy 18:18 says, “He shall speak to them all that God commanded him.” Jesus Himself says, “I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things (John 8:28).” Finally Jesus called himself a “prophet” (Luke 13:33) and people considered him to be a prophet. (Matthew 21:11; Luke 6:16; 24:19; John 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). It is impossible then that Muhammad fulfilled the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18, and only possible that Jesus fulfilled it.

The final objection Islam has to Christianity states that Jesus is only a prophet and that He could never be God in the flesh. The Bible teaches the incarnation of Jesus and teaches that those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are false teachers (1 John 4:1-3). At the heart of this objection is the belief that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted by the subsequent teachings of the apostle Paul, therefore to mention using the Pauline epistles to Muslims is futile. Muslims believe the apostle John was infected by Greek philosophy.[6]

Muslims affirm that the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospels are all given from God. The Koran teaches, “We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers,” (Sura 2:87)[7] Regarding the Psalms, Muslims teach, “We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).[8] Regarding the Gospels Muslims teach, “It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).[9] Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).[10]

The Muslims while saying the books of Moses, Psalms and the Gospels are given by God then claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered.[11] The Koran teaches that, “Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).[12] It also teaches, "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).[13] "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).[14] Muhammad claimed to have received the revelation of Qur’an from Allah. The argument that the Muslims have regarding who Jesus is and what Jesus did, as well as the nature of the Bible holds no water. If the Bible was around before the Qur’an as it was and Muhammad was received revelation from Allah during that time, God’s Word could not have been corrupted.

Plan for Sharing Christ with people within Islam

The theological and political conflicts discussed in the previous parts of this essay between Islam and Christianity highlight the reasons for difficulty in witnessing to Muslims. The Muslim does not understand the concept of grace (undeserved forgiveness through the blood of Christ).[15] Islam is opposed to grace; that is, the faith believes in self-attainment, in being good, in merit, to reach heaven.[16] The Christians intent in witnessing to a Muslim must be to show the Muslim 1) What the realities of the cross and salvation are and 2) that the realities are graciously provided by God to give us salvation.[17]

Witnessing to a Muslim can be a frustrating experience. Muslims often shift arguments when challenged and rarely want to stay on the topic for any length of time. The best way to witness to a Muslim is to explain the Scriptural prophecies. By highlighting the context and explaining how the prophecy relates to Jesus, the Muslim can come to learn about who Jesus is and what He has done.

The Gospel of Luke was written for the purpose of people knowing for certain who Jesus is and what He has done. The first nine chapters of the Gospel of Luke are written so the readers of Luke will understand who Jesus is. Chapters ten through twenty four are answers to the question, “What has Jesus done?” The answer the book of Luke gives is that “Jesus has come to die, be buried and rise again” (Luke 24:19-27). The Muslim while having difficulties with the Bible needs to understand why Jesus came to die for sin, was buried and rose again.

Witnessing to Muslims can present difficulties that the Christian may not have experienced before. Christians should study the arguments from Scripture that Muslims use to oppose Christianity. By studying the Scripture, Christians will be ready to engage the worldview of Muslims, and alleviate some of the difficulty by being prepared to give an answer to for the hope in Christ one has (1 Peter 3:15). In conclusion, in witnessing to Muslims it is vital to highlight the unity of the Bible because this emphasizes what Jesus has done throughout redemptive history. By doing this, one will deal with the main objections Muslims have about the Bible and Jesus.

Bibliography

Bush, George, “Islam is Peace” says President: Remarks by the President as Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.,” September 17, 2002, accessed February 24th, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Corduan, Winfried, A Christian Introduction to World Religions Neighboring Faiths, (Illinois: Intervarsity press, 1998), 108-109.

Hindson, Ed, Caner, Ergun, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 279.

Obama, Barack,“Remarks by the President at Cairo University”, June 4, 2009, accessed February 24^th, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

Slick, Matt, “Qur’an says the Bible not corrupt,” http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt.

The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

Wright, John, The Difference the Facts of Christianity with comments added on Cults, Islam and Eastern Thought (Self Published), 29.

In Christ Alone,

Pastor Dave

Here is where to find me online:

Twitter: http://twitter.com/pastorricky99

Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=741025660&ref=ts

Fan Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Servantsofgrace

---

[1] George Bush, “Islam is Peace” says President: Remarks by the President as Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.,” September 17, 2002, accessed February 24th, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/

[2] Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at Cairo University”, June 4, 2009, accessed February 24th, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

[3] Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 279.

[4] Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 279.

[5] Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 279.

[6] Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 281.

[7] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[8] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[9] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[10] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[11] Matt Slick, “Qur’an says the Bible not corrupt,” http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt.

[12] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[13] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[14] The Koran, translated by M.H. Shakir, Online Searchable Koran found at Humanities Text Initiative, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983.

[15] Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Oregon: Harvest House, 2008), 281.

[16] John Wright, The Difference the Facts of Christianity with comments added on Cults, Islam and Eastern Thought (Self Published), 29.

[17] Winfried Corduan, A Christian Introduction to World Religions Neighboring Faiths, (Illinois: Intervarsity press, 1998), 108-109.