Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Notes on Herman Witsius’s Economy of the Covenants

by

Eight years ago, on my honeymoon, I began slowly reading the Economy of the Covenants. Last month I finished the Economy. Below are the notes that I took. Hopefully some will find them helpful.

38ff -discussion of the meaning of Hebrew & Greek words for covenant

40 – Jer 34:18-20 gives the significance of walking between cut animals

41 – definition of a covenant between God and man

1.1.15- covenant of works and covenant of grace

1.2.1- interestingly, Witsius speaks of the Covenant of Works as something made with God and Adam as the federal head of our race, but the proof texts concerning the nature of this covenant are drawn from the Mosaic Covenant

1.2.5-8- A defense of Adam’s knowledge of the Trinity (speculative)

1.2.9-12- the nature of the image of God in man, esp. the nature of his righteousness before the fall 1 2

1.2.13- the fact that Adam was entrusted with the image of God and given sufficient faculties to maintain that image taken as evidence that he was in covenant with God

1.2.14-18- the federal headship of Adam found in Scripture and defended against objections

1.3.2-3- on natural law

1.3.4-6- on the existence of law before the Fall

1.3.7 – argued that the 10 commandments are in substance the same as the natural law that has been since Adam.

1.3.8-19- the law is based on the nature of God and not merely on his positive will

See comments on 1 Timothy 1:9 at 1.3.9

1.3.20-21- on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

1.3.22-24- on the relation between natural law and the symbolic (but real) law prohibiting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

1.4.9- on eternity in heaven

1.4.4-8- on the promise of eternal life in the law

1.4.10-23 is an example of a Protestant Scholastic dealing with speculative matters. Notice the caution.

1.5.1-21- on the penalty of death pronounced in the garden

1.5.22-38 – on the penalty for sin being rooted in the nature of God – an excellent discussion of how the majesty, holiness of God are related to the punishment for sin.

1.5.39-42 – on the eternal duration of the penalty being rooted in the nature of God

1.6.4-10 – the significance of the garden of Eden to the covenant of works

1.6.11-15 – the significance of the tree of life

1.6.16-24 – the significance of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

1.8 – the Fall

1.8.10-29 – God’s foreknowledge and providence in connection with the Fall

1.8.29 – why God is not the author of evil though he foreordains all things–the mystery of it

1.8.30 – the headship of Adam

1.9.2 elements of the covenant of works still in effect

1.9.3-15 – all sinners still under the law (of the covenant of works?) and are therefore bound to obey God & responses to Arminius’ arguments that sinners are not bound to obey God’s law.

1.9.18 – the covenant of works not abrogated in regards to the three items noted in 1.9.2, but this section notes the ways in which it was abrogated

1.9.18 – Witsius says that Heb. 8:13 refers not directly to the passing away of the covenant of works but to the passing away of the old economy of the covenant of grace, but that what he says can be extended to the covenant of works.

1.9.21 – The law is now a rule of duty, but it is no longer a federal rule that promises eternal life for obedience

1.9.23 – but the covenant of works is not abrogated by the covenant of grace; rather, the covenant of works was fulfilled by the mediator and this enabled the covenant of grace to come in it’s place.

2.1.5 – definition of the covenant of grace

2.2.2 – covenant between The Father and the Son as part of the Covenant of Grace.

2.2.3-7 – Scripture proofs for the covenant between Father and Son (often called covenant of redemption).

2.2.10 – content of the covenant of Redemption

2.2.11 – Christ’s baptism a sign and seal of the covenant of Redemption

2.2.16 – on the antiquity of the concept of a covenant of redemption

2.3.2 – the covenant between Father and Son extends back into eternity: 1 Pet. 1:20; Prov. 8:23; Eph 1:4; John 17:6; Rev. 13:8. 2.3.3 – the covenant between Father and Son further evidenced by the mediatorial role adopted by the sudden immediately after the fall.

2.3.4 – the third period of the covenant is the incarnation and beyond

2.3.5 – The law is (1) A directory of the Mediator’s nature and office and (2) a condition of the covenant. The Mediator himself may be considered as God, as man, as Mediator God-Man.

2.3.6 – The Son as God is not under the law, for he is co-equal with the Father and Spirit.

2.3.7 – Witsius argues that the Son as God did not subject himself to the Father, for as God he is equal to the Father.

2.3.8 – He was called an Angel before the incarnation not because he was a being inferior to God bit because he appeared to man as such, prefiguring the incarnation.

2.3.9-13 – The relation of Christ to the Law as man, Israelite, and Mediator.

2.3.14 – On the active obedience of Christ

2.3.15 – On the passive obedience of Christ

2.3.16-19 – The relation of the divine nature (or the divine and human natures hypostatically united) to the law.

2.3.20-26 – On the economic subordination of the Son to the Father

2.3.27 – On the errors if the Remonstrants (Arminians), including their conception of the freedom of the will.

2.3.28 – On the reward for Christ’s obedience, namely his glorification and what it is.

2.3.29-34 – On the obedience of Christ as the ground of His reward and ours

2.4.3-7 – The surety of the covenant must be a true man

2.4.8-9 – he must be sinless from conception

2.4.10-11 – on the virgin birth, the true humanity of Christ, and original holiness; whether only a symbol or necessary to escape original sin.

2.4.12-18 – on the necessity of the Messiah’s deity.

2.5.3 – On the covenant of redemption; on what is required for Christ to be our surety

2.5.4 – Why Christ is qualified to be our surety.

2.5.8 – “But we certainly take too much upon us, when we presume to examine the equity of the divine government, by the standard of our reason: when the fact is plain, we are always to vindicate God against the sophistry of our foolish reasonings.”

2.5.13 – On why we must still obey though Christ obeyed perfectly in our stead.

2.6.4-11 – Christ makes satisfaction for sin as our substitute in all his sufferings throughout his life and in his death

2.6.14 – In defense of the substitutionary atonement

2.7.1-2 – The efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction in securing salvation for the elect.

2.7.3 – “The effect of Christ’s satisfaction was not a bare possibility of the remission of our sins, and of our reconciliation with God but an actual remission and reconciliation.” cf. 2.7.4-5

2.7.8 – “true saving benefits are bestowed on none of the elect, before effectual calling, and actual union to Christ by a lively faith.” none the;ess Witsius says the elect before conversion “are in a state of reconciliation and justification actively considered.” 1 Cor 5:19

2.7.9-16 – against Arminius who says there is no actual remission, justification, or redemption of particular persons without that person’s faith

2.8.1 – The issue of the necessity of the atonement is not one of the absolute power of God–it is an issue of God’s “holiness, justice, and the like.” This is the issue: “whether God’s requiring Christ to give him satisfaction before h restore sinners to his favour, was owing to the mere good pleasure of the divine will; or whether the essential holiness, the justice, and the like perfections of God, which he cannot possibly part with, required a satisfaction to be made? We judge the last of these to be more true and safe.”

2.8.3 – The hypostatic union was ordained so the Son of God could suffer as a ransom for sinners. “Would not all this, to speak with reverence, seem a kind of solemn farce, if God by a single breath, could dispel all our sins as a cloud?”

2.8.7 – “If any affirm, that no satisfaction was necessary on account of the justice of God, but that he exacted it on account of some other perfections, namely to declare his power and will to punish sin, which he might suffer to go un[unished. I answer, such power and will are scarcely to be called perfections in God; seeing Christ, Mat. v. 45.48. reckons God’s mercy, long-suffering, and bounty towards men, even the unjust, amonghis perfections. Which would certianly be most laudable, if God could, as pleasure, let sin go unpunished.”

2.8.9 – God gave up his Son for his love to mankind (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:10). But if God could have redeemed us without the suffering of his Son, what does that say of his love for his Son. “Love is truly great, and inexpressible to the last degree, when implacable justice having demanded the punishment of mankind God’s love to man and free purpose of salvation, have nevertheless prevailed by finding out that end in the treasures of divine wisdom, an amazing method of reconciling justice with mercy.”

2.8.10 – “Christ’s satisfaction was ‘a declaration of the righteousness of God,’ Rom. iii. 25.”

2.8.12 – Sacrifices of the Mosaic law cannot take away sin. “But why might not a thing so easily to be removed without atonement be expiated by the death of legal sacrifices?” The atonement necessary for our salvation.

2.8.14 – Justification through the blood of Christ alone and not by works of the law (Rom 3:19-21ff.) argues that God had to be satisfied before he could justify

2.8.15-16 – Heb. 10:26 implies a sacrifice is necessary for pardon. Also Heb. 6:6.

2.8.17 – Asserting the necessity of satisfaction displays the glory of God’s holiness, justice, wisdom, and grace.

2.8.19 – On why it doesn’t testify against God’s absolute power or the freedom of his will. Excellent discussion.

2.9 – Defense of limited atonement

2.10.1 – “thus far we have at large treated of those things that relate to the covenant between Christ and the Father; and might seem to have completely finished that subject; was it not proper to add something concerning the Sacraments, by which that covenant was confirmed.” See Heb. 7:20-21

2.10.2 – Jesus was circumcised and kept the Passover

2.10.3-7 – Lord’s Supper based off Passover

2.10.8 – Christ partook of the Sacraments to fulfill all righteousness, as is noted at his baptism.

2.10.10 – Some of the Father’s promises to Christ relate to the covenant of works and others to his office and work as Mediator.

2.10.11 – “We may now enquire, whether both of these kinds of promises were sealed to Christ, by the ordinary Sacraments of the Old and New Testament, which he partook of. But we must not determine anything rashly with respect to this: and therefore I shall modestly propose what I think most probable. There is indeed no reason why Christ, as a holy man, and who as such, was to be made happy, might not be confirmed in the faith of this promise by some certain Sacraments, as appears from the Sacraments of the Covenant of Works given to Adam before the fall. But that such Sacraments were for that purpose granted Christ, does not appear from Scripture. Moreover, I dare not affirm that the ordinary Sacraments, which Christ made use of, were subservient to the confirming the legal promises belonging to the Covenant of Works, because they are Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. And it does not seem consistent, that the promises of the Covenant of Works should be sealed by the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace.”

2.10.14 – “I therefore conclude, that the promises made to Christ as Mediator, were principally sealed to him by the Sacraments; Christ indeed, obtained these in virtue of his merits, or to speak with Paul, because he fulfilled the righteousness of the law; yet in themselves, and as they relate to believers, they are promises of the covenant of grace.”

2.10.22-23 – Significance of Christ’s circumcision

2.10.24 – Significance of Christ’s baptism

2.10.25-26 – Significance of Christ’s participation in Passover

2.10.-27 – The significance of Christ’s participation in the Lord’ Supper

3..1.4 – Roles of each member of the Trinity in the covenant with the elect / covenant of grace

3.1.5 – some externally in this covenant who are not internally in it

3.1.6 – Jeremiah 31 key passage in this covenant of grace / promises are grace in this life and glory to come

3.1.7 – promises of covenants of works and grace are same; conditions are different

3.1.8-13 – Covenant of Grace has no conditions (though given qualifications he is willing to use that term). We do not merit the promises of the covenant, the covenant is testament, the new covenant is frames promises

3.1.14 – Faith and holiness necessary for salvation, but not a condition as they are gifts from God

3.1.18 – faith and repentance given by God, salvation and obedience to the law follow

3.1.19 – faith is the instrument for laying hold on the covenant of grace, not the condition

3.1.20 – faith plays a different role in the New Covenant than works played in the Old Covenant

3.1.21-22 – No threatening in the covenant of grace; threatening all from the law

3.2.2 – “We therefore maintain, agreeable to the sacred writings, that to all the Elect, living in any period of time, 1st, One and the same eternal life was promised. 2ndly, That Jesus Christ was held forth as the one and the same author and bestower of salvation. 3rdly, That they could not become partakers of it in any other way, but by a true and lively faith in him. If we demonstrate these three things, none can any longer doubt, but that the covenant of grace must be, as to its substance, only one from the beginning. For, if the salvation be the same, and the author of it the same, the manner of communion with him the same, it is certain the covenant itself cannot be more than one.”

3.2.3-10, 15-32 – On the resurrection of the dead

3.2.35-40 – salvation through Christ even in the OT

3.2.41-43 – salvation by faith in the OT

3.3.2 – The one covenant of grace under two primary economies: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament not the legal covenant.

3.3.4 – OT: promises in shadows and Gentiles excluded

3.3.11 – First period of the Old Testament: Adam to Noah; Abel’s death a type of the Messiah’s and Enoch’s translation a type of Christ’s ascension

3.3.12 – Second period of the Old Testament: Noah to Abraham; Noah a type of the Messiah

3.3.13 – Third period of the Old Testament: Abraham to Moses; promises of the covenant of grace given to Abraham, the sacrament of circumcision, Melchizedek a type of Christ

3.3.14-15 – Fourth period of the Old Testament: Moses to John the Baptist/Jesus; deliverance from Egypt, giving of the law

3.3.16 – Diversity on when the economy of the New Testament begins: birth of Christ, beginning of his public ministry, the death of Christ, or Pentecost

3.3.17-18 – Witsius argues for a gradual transition from Old Testament economy to New

3.3.20 – Some instead of dividing the covenant of grace into two economies (Old and New Testament), divide it into three (promise, law, gospel).

3.3.21, 23 – Witsius notes that the ceremonies were lighter before Moses, but that there were still sacrifices, clean & unclean animals, and circumcision thus a period of promise is not without the yoke of law

3.4.1 – The benefits of the covenant of grace: “1. Election. 2. Effectual calling to the communion of Christ. 3. Regeneration. 4. Faith. 5. Justification. 6. Spiritual peace. 7. Adoption. 8. The Spirit of Adoption. 9. Sanctification. 10. Conservation, or preservation. 11. Glorification.”

3.4.2-3 – Election defined

3.4.4 – Election based on God’s purpose, counsel, or decree, not on our works: 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 1:11; Rom. 8:28; 9:11

3.4.5 – Election is to salvation (2 Thess 2:13); not to an external condition (as in 1 Sam. 10:24; John 9:70; Deut 4:36)

3.4.6-7 – of the book of life

3.4.8, 10-12 – Election is personal and particular, not general and indeterminate (as the election of who will believe). See Acts 2:23 where God’s counsel is said to be determinate and Rom 8:29-30 in which persons, not conditions are said to be elect; also Lk 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Christ know whom he has chosen: 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:

3.4.13-23 – Election made from eternity: Acts 11:18; Eph 1:4, 11; Matt 25:34; Rev. 13:8; 2 Tim 1:9; 2 Thess 1:13.

3.4.24 – God’s freedom in electing whom he will. Matt. 11:26; Lk. 12:32; Rom 9:21; election not based on anything in man: Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 1:9; election not based on faith or holiness, because these are gifts from God and are the purposes for which we were chosen: Phil. 1:29; Eph 2:8; Eph. 1:4; John 15:16; 2 Thess 2:13

3.4.25 – The immutability of God’s counsel in general: Isa 14:27; 46:10; Rom 9:19; “If any decree of God could be changed, it would be because God either would not, or could not effect the thing decreed, or because his latter thoughts were wise and better than his first: all of which are injurious to God. You will answer; God, indeed, wills what he has decreed to be done, but on condition the creature also wills it, whose liberty he would no-wise infringe. I answer, Is God so destitute either of power, or of wisdom, that he cannot so concur with the liberty of second causes, which he himself gave and formed, as to do what he wills, without prejudice to, and consistently with their liberty?” Immutability of election: Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 2:19; Isa 49:15-16; Rev 3:5; Isa 4:3

3.4.27-29 – On assurance of election.

3.4.30 – praise to God for election

3.5.1 – “And this calling is that act by which those who are chosen by God are sweetly invited, and effectually brought from a state of sin to a state of communion with God in Christ, both externally and internally.”

3.5.2-3 – Called from sin to Christ

3.5.4-6 – Benefits of calling

3.5.7 – External call in nature and Scripture; internal call by the Spirit

3.5.8-14 – natural revelation; its content; leaves man without excuse, but not sufficient to save

3.5.15-20 – External call through preaching the Gospel

3.5.21-26 – internal call

3.6.4 – “Regeneration is that supernatural act of God, whereby a new and divine life is infused into the elect person spiritually dead, and that from the incorruptible seed of the word of God made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”

3.6.5-6 – spiritual deadness

3.6.8 – Regeneration happens in a moment

3.6.10 – Semi-Pelagian and Remonstrant views regarding preparation for regeneration

3.6.11 – Reformed views of preparation for regeneration as power of the word in the heart, sense of sin, dread of punishment. These are neither natural nor meritorious but are acts of God. Nevertheless, Witsius sees them as effects of regeneration rather than preparation for regeneration.

3.6.12 – Different meanings of regeneration

3.6.25-27 – Word the seed of regeneration

3.7.1 – Faith is “the principal act of that spiritual life implanted in the elect by regeneration, and the source of all subsequent vital operations.”

3.7.4-5 – Against faculty psychology – understanding and will acting of the one soul in different aspects; they are one thing considered from different aspects.

3.7.8-10 – Faith includes knowledge of the thing believed―not complete understanding of all things―what things must be understood.

3.7.11 – Faith includes assent

3.7.16 – the person who wavers in his belief may still have assent

3.7.17 – true faith includes love of the truth known and assented to

3.7.18 – Faith includes a hunger for Christ

3.7.19-23 – Faith includes receiving Christ as Lord

3.7.26 – Summary of teaching on faith

3.7.28-35 – true and false faith; discerning the difference

3.7.36 – reasons for lack of assurance; assurance expedient but not necessary for salvation

3.8.2-5 – definition of justification

3.8.5-15 – Controversy with Rome not that justification has a forensic sense, which they grant. Some eminent Protestants grant it is sometimes used in a non-forensic sense that entails sanctification, but Witsius does not think this justified by the passages cited.

3.8.16-26 – Witsius grants that there is a justification or declaration that people are righteous because they act righteously. Phineas and James 2 cited as examples

3.8.27 – “We thus define the Gospel justification of a sinner: ‘it is a judicial, but gracious act of God, whereby the elect and believing sinner, is absolved from the guilt of his sins, and hath a right to eternal life ajudged to him, on account of the obedience of Christ, received by faith.'”

3.8.29 – Christ’s original righteousness and active obedience

3.8.30-32 – imputation and union with Christ

3.8.33-36 – God as judge

3.8.37-42 – Christ’s righteousness and justification and imputation; justification by imputation of Christ’s righteousness necessary if justification is to be by grace and not by works

3.8.43-46 – justification addresses the sin problem

3.8.47-56 – the means of justification is faith alone; faith is not what is counted as our righteousness; faith not a work; faith not a condition of justification (the condition being perfect obedience, which condition Christ met)

3.8.57-63 – Different aspects of justification, such as its plan, its provision, its application, its assurance, future final verdict, etc.

3.8.64-67 – Future judgment/justification has its foundation both in inherent and imputed righteousness; inherent righteousness does not merit eternal life; good works are proof of faith, signs of hungering after righteousness, and works of God’s grace

3.8.68-77 – Justice and mercy at final judgment; works neither considered perfect nor meritorious.

3.9.1 – Reconciliation, the consummation of which is peace with God, follows on from Justification.

3.9.2 – What the peace of reconciliation is.

3.9.6 – God the initiator or reconciliation

3.9.13 – peace of conscience (= assurance?)

3.9.19 – gaining peace with God

3.9.20 – maintaining peace with God

3.9.21 – preservation and assurance

3.9.27 – difference between peace and carnal security

3.9.28 – how the peace of the New Covenant differs from that of previous covenants

3.10 – adoption

3.10.17-25 – difference between OT & NT believers

3.10.21, 25, 30 – the land for OT & NT believers

3.11.5-12 – difference between OT & NT believers regarding the Holy Spirit

3.12.3-6 – on holiness as distinctness from the world or the nations

3.12.7-9 – on holiness as being set apart to God

3.12.10 – on holiness as purity

3.12.11 – definition of sanctification

3.12.12-14 – different senses of sanctification as it relates to regeneration, effectual calling, and justification

3.12.20-26 – total depravity

3.12.27 – the significance of the term “old man.”

3.12.28-30 – mortification / putting off the old man

3.12.29-44 – putting on the new man; roles of understanding, will, affections, and body in this

3.12.45 – the parts of sanctification

3.12.46 – sanctification not merely the amendment of actions but the conferring of new habits.

3.12.48-51 – roles of the members of the Trinity in sanctification

3.12.62 – a holy ambition to be sanctified

3.12.67-79 – virtues in the natural man, virtues in the spiritual man, who pleases God.

3.12.80-95 – the rule of sanctification, the insufficiency of natural law, the great benefit of God’s law

3.12.96-103 – the end, or goal, of Christian virtues, the first of these being the glory of God, with considerations of self and neighbor following

3.12.104-117 – the means of sanctification, eight given

3.12.120-24 – why God permits the struggle between flesh and Spirit

3.12.25 – what the Scripture means when it calls some people perfect

3.13.2 – definition of conservation, or preservation

3.13.3 – distinctions between those in the church who are conserved and those who are not

3.13.5-8 – failings and declensions of those who do persevere

3.13.10-11 – apostates not preserved/restored ?

3.13.12-14 – Preservation based on the Father’s predestination

3.13.15 – Preservation based on the Father’s gift of believers to the Son; the Father will not let the Son lose his gift.

3.13.16-17 – Preservation based on the promises of the covenant of grace [he cites new convent passages]

3.13.18 – the Father preserves us by his power.

3.13.19 – Christ will not lose those he purchased with his blood.

3.13.20 – We are preserved because the Son intercedes for us.

3.13.21-24 – believers are living stones in the church Christ is building, and the gates of Hell will not withstand it.

3.13.25-26 – We are preserved because we are united to Christ and are part of his body.

3.13.27-29 – indwelling of the Spirit testifies to preservation

3.13.30-33 – We are preserved because the indwelling Spirit is the fountain of eternal life

3.13.34-37 – The Spirit’s role as seal guarantees preservation

3.13.38 – preservation accomplished by God’s supernatural power

3.13.39-40- the means by which the elect persevere

3.13.41-46 – how the doctrine of preservation promotes piety

3.14.4 – definition of glorification

3.14.5-10 – The first fruits of glorification in this life: holiness, vision of God, possession and enjoyment of God, full assurance of understanding, joy in God.

3.14.12-27 – On the intermediate state

3.14.28-32 – On the righteous in the intermediate state

3.14.33-41 – The righteous in the eternal state

4.1.2-26 – Gen 3:15

4.2 – Noah

4.3.3 – On OT appearances of God in human form as appearances of Christ

4.3.11-20 – Abrahamic covenant

4.3.21-23 – Abraham justified by faith

4.3.24-28 – Abrahamic covenant given to Abraham’s seed

4.3.30-38 – Job

4.3.32 – Angel of the Lord

4.3.40-41 – Identity and character of Balaam

4.4.2 – types of law in Mosaic Covenant ― moral, ceremonial, political – tid to three ways of considering Israel: Rational creatures (moral), church of the OT (ceremonial), a peculiar people (political)

4.4.4 – The angel who gave the law (Acts 7:39) was the Son of God. See Acts 7:35; Ps 68:18; Eph 4:8; Ps 68:7-8; Heb. 12:26

4.4.6 – The Son, economically considered, is the captain of the angels presnt at the giving of the law. Acts 7:58 with Dt. 33:2; Acts 7:35, 38; Ps. 68:17; Dan 4:17, 24

4.4.7 – The ministry of angels at the giving of he law – Dt. 33:2; Heb. 2:2; Gal. 3:19

4.4.9 – Law given on fiftieth day from Passover? (Pentecost connection?)

4.4.10 – Symbolic significance of Mt. Sinai’s location in the law/gospel contest

4.4.11-12 – The people’s internal impurity despite ritual holiness and the Law’s function of condemnation

4.4.14 – relation of the covenant of works and covenant of grace in the

4.4.17-19 – significance of God himself engraving the law on the tablets of stone

4.4.20 – significance of the two tablets

4.4.26 – Significance of placing the law in the ark of the covenant – Ex. 25:16; Dt. 10:5

4.4.27-37 – Is the Decalogue still binding on the church. Witsius affirms.

4.4.39-42 – the law’s role considered absolutely and relatively, in relation to man’s first, fallen, and restored state.

4.4.43-46 – The Decalogue is part of a covenant with Israel.

4.4.47-57 – Is the Mosaic law a covenant of works or of grace; Witsius argues that it is neither. It is a national covenant with Israel with elements of both

4.6.1-11 – Defense of typology / basic rules for interpreting types

4.6.12 – Three kinds of types: natural, historical, legal

4.6.13-14 – The visible creation a type of the regenerate as a new creation

4.6.16 – Resting on the 7th day a type

4.6.17 – Abel a type of Christ in humiliation

4.6.18 – Enoch a type of Christ in exaltation

4.6.20 – Noah a type of Christ

4.6.21-22 – The ark a type of both Christ and the church

4.6.23 – The waters of the Flood typify Christ

4.6.24 – The dove Noah sent out a type of the Spirit

4.6.31 – Moses as a type in relation to the law

4.6.32-35 – Moses as a type of Christ

4.6.36-39 – Aaron as a type of Christ

4.6.40-47 – typology of the ark of the covenant

4.6.48-73 – Typology of the Day of Atonement / Leviticus 16

4.7.4-5 – God’s clothing Adam and Eve with skins

4.7.6-16 – Symbolism of sacrifices

4.7.18-20 – Noahic covenant’s relation to the covenant of grace

4.7.21-26 – Significance of the rainbow

4.8.4 – John 7:22 – Jesus distinguished circumcision as given to the patriarchs since ‘to them it was a family institution’ and not required of followers of God who were not of Abraham’s family and circumcision as given by Moses, which was to be practiced by Gentiles who would come to worship the true God by joining with Israel.

4.8.11 – Ex. 12:19; Dt. 23:2 – Meaning of being cut off from the people

4.8.12 – Ex. 12:19 – this is a condemnation of adults, not children.

4.8.14-15 – Significance of the 8th day for circumcision

4.8.16-20 – Significance of circumcision

4.8.21-28 – Abrogation of circumcision

4.8.24 – Restoration of the Jewish nation

4.8.25-26 – The name Passover

4.9.6 – The sacrificial nature of Passover

4.9.17 – Description of Passover

4.9.33-58 – Significance/symbolism of Passover

4.10.3-5 – Red Sea/weedy sea – nature

4.10.6 – miraculous nature of Red Sea crossing

4.10.8-9 – Location of passage through the Sea

4.10.10-13 – Signification of ‘baptized unto Moses’ – 1 Cor. 10:

4.10.14 – Symbolism of Red Sea crossing

4.10.20-56 – Symbolism of manna

4.10.57-61 – Symbolism of water from rock

4.10.62-70 – Symbolism of brazen serpent.

4.11.1-2 – Blessing of the OT as a covenant of grace

4.11.3-4 – Benefit of Israel’s election

4.11.5-12 – Land promise a type; significance of the type

4.11.13 – Blessing of the display of divine majesty

4.11.14-17 – Blessing of ceremonies

4.11.18 – Blessing of an almost uninterrupted succession of inspired men.

4.11.18 – Cessation of prophecy

4.12.4-15 – Only temporal benefits, not true salvation, given before Christ – Witsius rejects

4.12.16-22 – Circumcision of the heart not a NT blessing alone -Dt. 30:1-6

4.12.23-26 – Writing of the law on the heart not peculiar to the NT

4.12.26 – relation of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace

4.12.27-43 – justification, remission, forgiveness all available in the OT

4.12.44-49 – Relation of adoption to OT & NT

4.12.50-55 – Witsius affirms that OT saints had peace of conscience (Heb. 10:1).

4.12.56-59 – OT church not specially under the domain of angels – Heb. 2:5

4.12.60-69 – OT saints not subject of fear of temporal death all their life. Heb. 2:15

4.12.70-78 – Denies that OT believers remained under God’s wrath and curse – Gal. 3:10

4.13 – Real defects in the OT

4.13.2-4 – cause of salvation not present and complete

4.13.5-8 – obscurity

4.13.9 – great rigor and severity

4.13.10-16 – Bondage to the elements of the world – 1. Multitude of rites. 2. Reproach of childhood. 3. Middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. 4. Law = enmity between Jews and Gentiles 5. Handwriting in ordinances contrary to those who observed them.

4.13.17-21 – Spirits of bondage

4.13.22-27 – more scanty measure of the gifts of grace

4.13.28-32 – Hunger and thirst for a better condition

4.14.2-6 – 1. Moral law founded on God’s holiness and cannot be abolished; ceremonial law founded on God’s will and may be abolished. 2. God often in the OT expresses preference for the moral law over the ceremonial. 3. The church existed before the ceremonial law and can exist after its abrogation

4.14.7-10 – 1. God always intended the ceremonial law to cease because he gave them to one nation in a particular place. But the prophets prophesied of a future day when the nations would be saved and these ceremonies were not given to them. Nor, given the unity of Jew and Gentile was it fitting for the Jews to continue with them. 2. God promised a prophet like Moses and he would institute a new form of worship.

4.14.11-17 – Jewish understanding of prophet like Moses & reasoning

4.14.17 – Jesus says he will not abolish the law or prophets – Matt. 5 – Interpretation and response to objections.

4.14.18-25 – Jeremiah 31 and the abrogation of the Old Covenant.

4.14.21 – Superior promises of the NC

4.14.23-25 – NC a new covenant; not merely a renewal

4.14.26-32 – Abrogation of the old covenant seen in the “removal of the ark of the covenant, not only out of the world, but also out of the memory and heart of believers,” – Jer. 3:16-17

4.14.33-40 – Abrogation of Levitical priesthood / replaced by priest after the order of Melchizedek. – Interpretation of Psalm 110.

4.14.36 – Davidic authorship of Psalms; Psalm titles

4.14.41-46 – Abrogation of the sacrifices.

4.14.47-53 – The ceremonies ought to be abrogated because of the bringing in of the Gentiles. See 4.14.48-49 for passages about bringing the Gentiles

4.14.54 – Stages of abrogation: 1. Christ’s humanity. 2. Christ’s death. 3. Pentecost. 4. Peter’s sheet vision. 5. Jerusalem Council. 6. Paul’s letter – 1 Cor. 8; 10. 7. Acts 21:22. 8. Paul’s rebuke of Peter – Gal. 2. 0. Destruction of the temple.

4.15.7 – Ways the NT gospel more excellent than the OT

4.15.8-13 – bringing in of the Gentiles

4.15.14-15 – Ways in which the measure of the Spirit is more abundant in the NT enumerated

4.15.16-19 – Christian liberty

4.15.20-37 – Latter day salvation of the Jewish nation – Rom. 11:25-29; See esp. the list of OT prophecies in 4.15.31

4.16.2-8 – Jewish antecedents to baptism

4.16.9-11 – John’s baptism

4.16.13-15 – immersion the ancient practice, pouring and sprinkling permitted; trine or single baptism immaterial

4.16.17-24 – significance of baptism

4.16.25-30 – symbolism of immersion

4.16.31-32 – symbolism of washing

4.16.33-39 – How baptism teaches us our duty

4.16.40-50 – defense of infant baptism

4.17 Lord’s Supper.

Notes

  • 1
  • 2

Mark Garcia on Union with Christ in Calvin’s Theology

by

Mark A. Garcia, “Of Doorposts and Hinges: Calvin on Union with Christ.” (2009).

In this unpublished paper, Garcia argues Calvin saw both justification and sanctification flow from a single union with Christ: “The blessings of union with Christ, then, are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneously bestowed” (5). It is not the case that Justification is the basis for union with Christ, but the reverse. The question then arises: how does one make sense of Calvin’s statement that justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns,” “the sum of all piety,” and even “the foundation for all godliness?” Garcia argues that the meaning of “religion,” piety,” and “godliness” are important here. When Calvin speaks of religion here he is not speaking in terms of a theological system but in terms of the Christian life Theologically, justification is not the ground of sanctification, but experientially it is. “To see this, one needs only to turn to Calvin’s brilliant treatment of justification in his Institutes, Book 3, and note that whenever he uses language that suggests, at first sight, that justification is central to salvation or the Christian faith, or that justification causes sanctification, one finds that he has this experiential, not theological (as distinguished above), connection in view. In fact, in places where he does turn to the theological relationship, and one perhaps expects him to ground sanctification in justification, one discovers instead that he turns not to justification but to union with Christ, even in the midst of his treatment of justification” (12).

But what does it mean to say that justification is the experiential foundation for Christian piety? Garcia explains: “justification by faith alone affords the believer the necessary and essential confidence before God, the secure and stable foundation of a pure conscience, that spurs him on in the pursuit of piety and walking in holiness.” And why is Calvin concerned to maintain this? Because he desired to combat the Roman Catholic claim that the Protestant view of justification resulted in a legal fiction with no real impact on holy living.

Garcia, Mark A. “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 219-51.

In this article Garcia challenges those who think they can replace the concept of imputation with that of union with Christ (N. T. Wright, Don Garlington, Richard Hays, etc.). Garcia objects that these interpreters too often fail to probe what the nature of union with Christ is, which is a necessary step prior to determining whether imputation is necessary. As a way of answering the question of the nature of the union, Garcia examines Calvin’s controversy with Osiander, an extreme Lutheran. In the course of this study, Garcia observes that Calvin brought together his view of union with Christ with his debate with the Lutherans regarding their insistence on the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature and its presence in the Lord’s Supper. In contrast to the Lutherans, the Reformed held that what is true of the natures of Christ are attributed to the Person. Analogously (but only analogously since our union with Christ is not hypostatic), the righteousness of Christ is attributed to those in union with him on the grounds that they are in union with him. But to say this is simply to say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. In other words, imputation works along with union with Christ rather than apart from it. It is an important theological concept because it reminds us that even though there is union “two distinct beings are always in view.”

DeYoung, The Hole in Our Holiness

by

DeYoung, Kevin. The Hole In Our Holiness. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

This is a readable and yet profound book on holiness. It is theologically precise and devotionally stirring. It magnifies the grace of God and spurs the Christian to pursue holiness with great effort. This is a must read.

“Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?”

by

Herzer, Mark A. “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” In Drawn Into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Mark Herzer observes that while Reformed theologians agreed that Adam would have received eternal life if he had kept the covenant of works, disagreement existed as to where that life would have been lived. On one side were Francis Turretin, Thomas Boston, Thomas Ridgley, and John Brown who held this was to be a heavenly life. On the other side were Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, and Jonathan Edwards who held to an earthly life in paradise. Others, John Ball, Peter Bulkeley, and Anthony Burgess did not think there was enough biblical data on which to take a position.

Herzer focuses his attention on Thomas Goodwin and Francis Turretin. Goodwin argued for an earthly life on the basis that only Christ, who is both God and man could secure a heavenly reward. Turretin argued that if the threat is eternal death in hell, the reward could not be less than heaven.

The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry

by

Henry, Matthew and J. B. Williams, The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974.

This book combines in one volume Matthew Henry’s biography of his father Philip as expanded by J. B. Williams and William’s own biography of Matthew Henry. Both are worth reading, but Matthew Henry’s biography of Philip Henry is golden. It will repay repeated reading. It is the kind of biography that warms religious affections, convicts, and encourages the Christian in his walk with Christ. It is surely one of the best biographies that I’ve read.

Framing the Debate over the Continuation or Cessation of Tongues

by

Wayne Grudem has asserted that the continuationist has the stronger biblical evidence and that the cessationist position has developed primarily from experience—or, rather, the non-experience of miraculous gifts.

I encounter students and pastors all the time who say “I’m not persuaded by the cessationist arguments from Scripture but I’ve never seen any of these miraculous things in my life.” That is the most common comment that I hear about these things from people who are in mainstream Evangelical positions. And over the years as I’ve taught not only here at Phoenix Seminary but at other seminaries – adjunct at other seminaries – by far the most common view expressed among seminary graduates is open but cautious. They say “I’m not convinced by the cessationist arguments but I really don’t know how to put these things into practice in my own church and I’ve never seen them happen.” Tim, the cessationist argument is not winning the day in terms of exegetical arguments or persuasiveness in the books published. I think it’s appealing to a smaller and smaller group of people. . . . [Jack Deere’s] argument is that the primary reason why cessationists hold their view is experience. That is, he says, they haven’t experienced any of these miraculous gifts and so they construct a theology to justify it. [Wayne Grudem, interview by Tim Challies, 14 December 2005]

In constructing his argument in this way, Grudem fails to recognize an important distinction. There is a difference between saying “I believe the miraculous gifts are/are not operative because I have/have not experienced them” and saying “I believe the miraculous gifts are/are not operative because the claimed gifts that are present today do/do not match the Scripture definitions of the gifts.

In countering the continuationist, the cessationist need only demonstrate the continuationist practices do not match the norm laid down in Scripture. If the cessationist is able to provide some scriptural rationale for the evident cessation, he will strengthen his case. But this is not strictly necessary. All that is necessary is to show that the Scriptural data and the contemporary practices are at odds.

This approach is an application of John Frame’s ethical methodology. Frame says, “Every ethical decision involves the application of a law (norm, principle) to a situation by a person (self).” (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 74). Frame’s ethical method also applies to practical theology. It is appropriate to apply the norm of Scripture to a situation (practice) to determine whether or not the practice is biblical.

While considerable argumentation is needed to establish the norm and the situation in this case, several observations from D. A. Carson, a continuationist, point to the strength of the cessationist position operating according to this methodology.

Carson concludes that “the evidence favors the view that Paul thought the gift of tongues was a gift of real languages, that is, languages that were cognitive, whether of men or of angels” (Carson, Showing the Spirit, 83). He continues:

Moreover, if [Paul] knew of the details of Pentecost (a currently unpopular opinion in the scholarly world, but in my view eminently defensible), his understanding of tongues must have been shaped to some extent by that event. Certainly tongues in Acts exercise some different functions from those in 1 Corinthians; but there is no substantial evidence that suggests Paul thought the two were essentially different. [83]

Carson’s way of affirming the biblical evidence and allowing for the nonlinguistic tongues practiced today is to suggest that perhaps modern tongues is a code. The example he gives is the removal of vowels from the sentence, “Praise the Lord, for his mercy endures for ever,” the removal of the spaces between the words, the addition of an “a” after the consonants, and a division back into “words”: “PATRA RAMA NA SAVARAHA DAHARA DAFARASALA FASA CARARA” (86-87).

In this way Carson can correlate the biblical evidence “that Paul believed the tongues about which he wrote in 1 Corinthians were cognitive” (83) with the modern linguistic studies which demonstrate that modern tongues are not languages. This is imaginative, but that a scholar of Carson’s stature is forced to reach this far in an attempt to reconcile the biblical record with the modern practice, tends to lead one to the conclusion is that the modern practice is something other than what is described in the biblical record.

Carson also notes J. I. Packer’s view that modern tongues are not the gift of tongues found in Scripture, but that they may be considered a gift from God despite their lack of “explicit biblical warrant.” Carson rightly remarks, “I cannot think of a better way of displeasing both sides of the current debate” (84). But more than that, if Packer’s view is true—and the evidence suggests that it is since continuationists don’t claim the gift of xenoglossia—it would confirm the cessation of the gift of tongues.

Naselli: “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8-10)”

by

Naselli, Andrew David. “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8-10),” Southeastern Theological Review 9, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 23-45.

The title question of the article is first addressed by surveying three arguments that answer the question in the affirmative. The headings summarize the arguments. 1. “Argument from the Historical-Cultural Context: Eating ἐδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple was an Inherently Religious Event.” 2. “Argument from a Word Study: εἰδωλόθυτος Means Meat Sacrificed to Idols That One Eats in an Idol’s Temple.” 3. “Argument from the Literary Context: 1 Cor 8 Parallels 10:14-22.” That is, in both cases, Paul is arguing that believers should not eat meat sacrificed to idols in the idol temple. The “right” to do so mentioned in chapter 8 is not truly a right.

Andy answers the question in the negative, and his headings again summarize the arguments. 1. “Argument from Historical-Cultural Context: Eating εἰδωλόθυτα in an Ido’s Temple Could Be a Non-Idolatrous Social Event—Like Eating in a Restaurant.” 2. “Argument from a Word Study: εἰδωλόθυτος Means Meat Sacrificed to Idols—Whether One Eats It in an Idol’s Temple or at Home.” 3. “Argument from the Literary Context: 1 Cor 8 Differs Significantly from 10:14-22.” This third argument is unpacked in four points: 1. If eating idol meat in the temple was always wrong, it is odd that Paul does not address it until chapter 10. Andy quotes Fisk: “Was Paul really more concerned with the selfishness of chap. 8 than with the idolatry of chap. 10?” 2. Andy demonstrates that the grammar does not demand that the “right” of 8:9 be read as a “so-called right.” 3. He draws a contrast between 6:12-20 in which the Corinthians thought they had a right to commit πορνεία and 8:9. In the former passage, he immediately indicates that they do not have that right. In this passage, Paul does not do so. 4. In chapter 8 Paul is dealing with disputable matters among Christians; in chapter 10 he is dealing with idolatry.

Evaluation

I agree with Andy’ argument 2. The usage of εἰδωλόθυτος does not restrict the meaning of this word to food eaten in the idol temple. “It simply means meat sacrificed to idols.”

Argument 1 contains a wealth of interesting background information. However, I’m not yet convinced that eating in an idol’s temple was simply the equivalent to eating in a restaurant. Footnote 33 includes a notable clarification from Wendell Willis: “I seem to have left the impression that I did not think these meals were ‘religious’ but ‘merely’ social. I could not a tall support such a view; clearly the meals were ‘religious.’ There is strong evidence that these cults (and their worshippers) would not have accepted—even understood—a contrast between ‘religious’ and ‘social.’ But the question really should be, what does ‘religious’ mean in the first-century pagan world? Their gods gave, as one of their great gifts, occasions for conviviality and enjoyment as an essential aspect of sacrifice. This social enjoyment was a positive part of religious sacrifice.” This seems to cast doubt on the idea that eating in an idol temple could ever be simply like eating at a restaurant.

In the end, however, I wonder if the location—in an idol temple or out of an idol temple—is really the main issue. The second argument indicated that ἐδωλόθυτα referred to “meat sacrificed to idols” without regard to the location where it was eaten. This means that the question is whether Christians were allowed to eat εἰδωλόθυτα under any circumstances.

This question seems to be answered by the Jerusalem Council (AD 49). Circumcision and the Mosaic law are not required of Christians, but the following are required: abstain from εἰδωλόθυτος, from blood (and thus from things killed by strangulation as a means of keeping the blood in the meat), and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). Though some wish to place a statute of limitations on this apostolic decree, there is nothing in the text that indicates this decree expired after a certain amount of time. Further, sexual immorality has always and will forever be forbidden to Christians. The prohibition against eating blood is part of the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:4), which is a covenant that is still in effect (Gen. 8:22). Thus the other items listed seem to be permanently forbidden to Christians. If εἰδωλόθυτα was only temporarily forbidden, it would be the outlier in this list.

Even if the decree of the Jerusalem Council was only temporary, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in AD 54 or 55. Would the decree of the Jerusalem Council have expired within five or six years? Confirmation that it had not expired is found in the repetition of the decree in Acts 21:25—after 1 Corinthians had been written. Further confirmation that eating εἰδωλόθυτα was not permissible is found when the ascended Christ rebukes the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira for permitting teachers who taught the acceptability of eating εἰδωλόθυτα (Rev. 2:14, 20). Confirmation that εἰδωλόθυτα was always forbidden is found in the fact that the post-New Testament early church universally held that εἰδωλόθυτα was forbidden (see the quotation from Garland below; cf. Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Cor. 8-10).

Andy concluded the article by revealing his motivation for writing: “I cannot harmonize 1 Cor 8:9-10 with 10:14-22 unless what Paul describes in 8:9-10 is actually a disputable matter and not idolatry.” The article was effective in helping me see the force of this concern. And yet, I cannot see how understanding 1 Corinthians 8:9-10 harmonizes with the wider canonical context if eating εἰδωλόθυτα is a disputable matter and not idolatry.

Later Christians uniformly opposed idol food, and no church father felt any need to defend Paul against rumors that he advocated eating idol food or to challenge any alternative interpretation of his writings. (Cheung 1999:97). His argument that to eat idol food is to have fellowship with demons became the basic argument against eating idol food. Yet some argue that these later Christians misunderstood Paul. Witherington (1995: 191) contends that soon after the NT era, Paul’s ‘ability to make nice distinctions about eating food from the temple at home and eating in the temple was misunderstood’ (see also Büchsel, TDNT 2:379, who labels it a reemergence of Jewish legalism). Dunn’s evaluation of the matter is more judicious: ‘If those closer to the thought world of Paul and closer to the issue of idol food show no inkling of the current interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong’ (Dunn 1998: 704). [Garland, BECNT, 395.]

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10:4: Does Paul Interpret the Old Testament Allegorically

by

Origen appealed to Paul’s Christological identification of the rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness to justify his method of  interpretation (On First Principles, 4.2.6). Some modern interpreters have also argued that Paul departs from a method rooted in authorial intent in favor of a method based on Jewish interpretive traditions. For instance, Peter Enns appeals to this passage to demonstrate that Paul both incorporated Jewish interpretative traditions into 1 Corinthians and that Paul, wrongly, believed these fables to be fact (Peter Enns, “The ‘Movable Well’ in 1 Cor. 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996): 23-38).

Modern interpreters who think Paul is drawing on Jewish interpretive traditions connect Paul’s statement, “For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them” (10:4), with Jewish traditions of a moving well. Earle Ellis provides a synthesis of the rabbinic traditions that these interpreters appeal to:

A movable well, rock shaped and resembling a sieve, was given to the Israelites in the desert. As to origin, it was one of the things created on the evening of the Sixth Day. About the size of an oven or beehive, it rolled along after the wanderers through hills and valleys, and when they camped it settled at the tent of meeting. When the princes called, ‘Rise up, O well’ (Num. 21.17), water flowed from its many openings as from a flask. . . At the death of Miriam the well dried up and disappeared, for it was given for her merit. But for the sake of the Patriarchs it was restored, and continued with the Israelites until they reached the Sea of Tiberias. . . .

E. Earle Ellis, “Note on 1 Corinthians 10:4,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76.1 (March 1957): 53-54

However, later rabbinic sources are not a sure guide to Jewish thought at the time of the New Testament, and it is not clear in what form this legend may have existed in Paul’s day. Ellis observes, “It is quite difficult to determine the precise character of the fable in the first century; apart from the sources mentioned above there is little evidence” (Ibid., 54). Only one source that may be from the first century mentions a form of the legend, and it mentions a following well but not a following rock (Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 10:7; 11:15). Even the date of the source is disputed. Enns notes that some think this work dates before AD 70 (Enns, “Well,” 24). Ellis labels the work “ca. 100 C.E.” with a question mark (Ellis, “Note,” 54). G. K. Beale notes that a first-century dating is the majority position but that it is not an uncontested date (Erosion of  Inerrancy, 98, n. 28). Some think that the absence of the mention of the rock means that that form of the legend did not exist in Paul’s day (See Ellis, “Note” and Andrew J. Bandstra, “Interpretation in I Corinthians 10:1-11.” Calvin Theological Journal 6, no. 1 [April 1, 1971]: 11). Enns, however, thinks that 1 Corinthians 10:4 is itself evidence that such a tradition existed at this time. Enns is too confident. (Beale, Inerrancy, 97), and while Ellis and Bandstra may be correct it is hard to know for sure since the claim is based on lack of evidence. Noentheless, all of the above does mean that there is less explicit connection between the known form of the tradition and Paul’s statement in Corinthians than might at first be apparent.

Furthermore, the existence of such a tradition does not mean that Paul drew on the tradition (See Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 11). Godet and Hodge both reject the idea out of hand as being contrary to Paul’s person and position. They are correct to do so, for Paul explicitly rejects Jewish myths (1 Tim. 1:4).

Paul likely relied on the Jewish Scriptures rather than Jewish myths in writing 10:4. In the Pentateuch itself, God is addressed with the appellation “Rock” (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31). Paul may reasonably make a word play with the physical rock that supplied water to the people and Rock as a title for the God who was present with his people and who provided the spiritual food and drink for them. This move on Paul’s part was not entirely unprecedented; Psalm 78 also brings together this title for God, the provision of water, and the presence of God in a context similar to that of 1 Corinthians 10 (Beale, Inerrency, 99). The Psalm recounts the blessings of God upon Israel and Israel’s subsequent rebellion. Verse 14 indicates the presence of God theme by reference to the pillar of cloud and fire. Verses 15-16 speak of God splitting rocks in the desert to provide water for the people (incidentally, the plural “rocks” undermines the theory that the rock in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 were the same rock simply because it shows up at the beginning and end of the journey; contra Enns, “Well,” 30). Verses 17-31 describe Israel’s rebellion (verse 20 again mentions the provision of water through the striking of a rock). Verse 32 notes that their sin was despite God’s miraculous working on their behalf. Verse 35 reveals that the Israelites needed to remember “that God was their Rock.”

Thus to identify this Rock as Christ poses no difficulty for anyone who believes that Christ is God. Paul was not allegorizing when he called Christ the Rock who provided water to the Israelites in the wilderness; he was simply making a word-play with an existing title of God to highlight the presence of Christ among the Israelites in the wilderness. Christ really was in the wilderness with Israel, he really did stand behind the provision of water from the physical rock, and he was given the title Rock by Moses. Nor was Paul adopting a Jewish fable in this passage; he was building off connections already made in the Old Testament and applying them to his present situation.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 9:9-10: Does Paul Interpret Deuteronomy 25:4 Allegorically?

by

In this passage, Paul cites Deuteronomy 25:4, which deals with the treatment of oxen, and asks, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” Paul then asks, “ἤ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει,” which he then affirms. If the first question is read rhetorically as expecting a negative, and if the second question is translated, “Does he not speak entirely for our sake?” then it seems that Paul is denying the original intent of the Law. This is the way Origen understood this text (On First Principles, 4.2.6).

But the second question could be translated as, “Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he?” (NIV). BDAG lists five senses (with glosses) for πάντως: (1) “pert[aining] to strong assumption, by all means, certainly, probably, doubtless,” (2) “pert[aining] to thoroughness in extent, totally, altogether,” (3) “expression of inevitable conclusion in view of data provided, of course,” (4) “expression of lowest possible estimate on a scale of extent, at least,” (5) “with a negating marker . . . not at all . . . by no means.” BDAG lists 1 Corinthians 9:9 under sense one, and this coheres with the translation of the NIV (see also Fee, NICNT [1st ed.], 408; Thiselton, NIGTC, 686; Garland, BECNT, 410).

This non-exclusive translation of πάντως means that the first question need not be understood to absolutely exclude God’s concern for oxen. When the second question is understood as the NIV translates it, Paul is not denying relevance to oxen; he is simply saying there is an extended application to humans as well.

The Old Testament context points toward this extended application. In its context, the command regarding oxen stands alone among commands to provide for the needy. The command regarding the oxen was, in context, an illustration of the kind of care that people should have for one another. This means that Paul interpreted Deuteronomy 25:4 with more care to its original context than those who claim he succumbed to allegory.

Godet makes this point well.

Does not this whole context [in Deuteronomy] show clearly enough what was the object of the prohibition quoted here? It was not from solicitude for oxen that God made this prohibition; there were other ways of providing for the nourishment of these animals. By calling on the Israelites to exercise gentleness and gratitude, even toward a poor animal, it is clear that God desired to inculcate on them, with stronger reason, the same way of acting toward the human workmen whose help they engaged in their labour.

F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. A. Cusin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893), 2:11. (See also Ciampa and Rosner, CNTUOT, 719; Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC, 325).

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:36-40: A Father and His Daughter or a Man and His Betrothed?

by

The interpretation of 7:36-38 is a matter of debate as a comparison of the NASB and ESV reveals.

NASB:

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

ESV:

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

The first obvious translation difference is the NASB’s “virgin daughter” in contrast to the ESV’s “betrothed.” In favor of “betrothed,” Garland cites several passages where the betrothed are said to be virgins (Matt. 1:18, 23; Luke 1:27; 2 Cor. 11:2). But in none of these cases does “virgin” mean betrothed. All who are betrothed would be expected to be virgins, but not all virgins are betrothed. Some appeal to the English idiom “his girl” to support the translation “betrothed” (Barrett, 184), but appealing to English idioms seems like an exegetical stretch. In favor of “virgin daughter,” παρθένος never means betrothed anywhere in Scripture (LXX or GNT), Plato, Philo, or the Apostolic Fathers. However, it must be acknowledged that when Scripture refers to a virgin daughter, in other passages “daughter” is explicit in the text (Judges 19:24; 2 Sam. 13:18, etc). In extra-biblical Greek Sophocles does use “my virgins” for “my daughters” (Morris citing LSJ, 117). On the balance, the usage leans towards interpreting “his virgin” as “his virgin daughter.” It may be that Paul avoided the term daughter to keep the relationship indefinite so that the teaching applies to both fathers and guardians.

The second translation difficulty is between the NASB’s “if she is past her youth” and the ESV’s “if his passions are strong.” After surveying extra-biblical usage (the word occurs only here in the Scripture), Winter concludes, “From these examples of ὑπέρακμος and its cognates a number of points emerge. Clearly the verbal form neither suggested that a person had reached menopause if a woman, nor impotence through age if a man. It was used to refer either to a woman who has reached puberty and therefore could engage in intercourse and safely conceive, or to the sexual drives or passions of either sex. Usually it referred to the man, and then to indicate the danger of being entrapped by immorality through his natural sex drives” (TynBul, 77). This means the ESV’s rendering is possible, but “if she has reached puberty” is also possible. The NASB’s rendering is probably not the best unless “youth” is taken to mean childhood.

Thus ὑπέρκαμος could refer either to a woman who has reached puberty or to the passions of a man or woman. Winter favors the latter on the basis that ἀσκημονέω often has overtones of sexual impropriety (TynBul, 78). This is true, but the word has a “variety of connotations” (Garland, 340) and can refer to any kind of impropriety (see Fee, 638 and Thiselton, 1049, 1051 on 1 Corinthians 13:5; see also Deut. 25:3 and Ezekiel 16 for other biblical uses). Another argument in favor of the ESV’s rendering is that the “unexpressed subject in a dependent clause usually picks up the subject of the preceding clause” (Fee, 351). But Fee also says, “one cannot be sure” and leaves open the possibility that the word here refers to the virgin (ibid.).

“And it must be so”/“and it has to be” is a reference forward to the marriage under either interpretation. If taking the NASB’s line of interpretation, this refers to the father or guardian’s conviction that he should permit his daughter to marry since it would be shameful otherwise. If taking the ESV’s line of interpretation, this refers to the betrothed man’s conviction that since he is acting in a sexually dishonorable way toward his betrothed, he must marry her.

The NASB renders the closing line of 7:36 “let her marry.” The ESV translates “let them marry.” In this case, the ESV is clearly correct. Γαμείτωσαν is clearly a third person plural. Garland says that under the father-daughter view the third person plural subject “abruptly brings in a third party” whereas the betrothed view naturally takes the “them” as the man and his virgin spoken of throughout the verse (Garland, 337). A. T. Robertson, however, suggests “the subject [is] drawn from the context” (Robertson, 1204).

Verse 37 provides a contrast to the “let them marry” of verse 36. Under the father-daughter view, the one standing firm refers to the father who is firmly convinced that he is doing the right thing in keeping his daughter a virgin. Under the betrothed view, the one firmly established is the man who is convinced that he is doing the right thing in not marrying his betrothed.

“Being under no constraint/necessity.” In the father-daughter view, “under no constraint” means the father is not under any compulsion (like the knowledge that it would be improper) to hold his virgin back from being married. In the betrothed view, “under no necessity” means the betrothed man is not under the compulsion of his own desires for sexual satisfaction. Thus he can refrain from marriage (Garland, 343).

In contrast to being under compulsion, the one who lets them marry/the one who marries must have “authority over his own will” (NASB) or have “his desire under control” (ESV). The difference here is simply a more literal translation on the part of the NASB and a more interpretive translation on the part of the ESV at this point. In the father-daughter view, having “authority over his own will” simply means that this action is not coerced. Paul doesn’t want men to keep their virgins just because of the pressure in the Corinthian church for an ascetic lifestyle (cf. 7:1). In the betrothed view, having “authority over his own will” means the man has control over his sexual desires.

Nothing to this point in 7:37 firmly points one way or the other. Either view can make sense of 7:37 up to this point. But “to keep his own virgin daughter” (NASB)/“to keep her as his betrothed” (ESV) presents a major problem for the betrothed view. As noted above, it is unlikely that παρθένος should be translated betrothed. Thiselton argues the verse should be translated, “to respect her virginity.” He says, this “cannot be intelligibly translated as to keep his own virgin without distorting Paul’s meaning. The noun refers to the-woman-as-virgin for which in English we should speak of the woman’s virginity.” Thus “it is difficult to improve on the REB’s to respect her virginity” (601). Against Thiselton, the noun refers not to virginity but to the-woman-as-virgin. The “his own” makes no sense if the noun refers to virginity. In support of “keep her a virgin” Fee cites Achilles Tatius 8.17.3 τηρησω δε σε παρθενον (but I will keep you a virgin) and 8.18.2 παρθενον γαρ την κορην μερχι τουτου τετρηκα (I have kept the maiden a virgin to this hour) (353n. 26). But note that Fee’s quotations don’t include the important “his own.” Fee says “this tends to be a difficult clause for any view,” but in reality this clause fits the father-daughter view quite well. It is a major difficulty for the betrothed view. It results in the odd conclusion that Paul is saying that a man may betroth a woman, and keep her as his betrothed, and yet never marry her.

In 7:38 Paul gives his conclusion. The key difference between the NASB and ESV is the phrase translated either “he who gives . . . in marriage” (NASB) or “he who marries” (ESV). The key word is γαμίζω. The dispute is whether the word γαμίζω can mean “marry” or whether it only means “to give in marriage.” Everywhere else in the New Testament (it does not occur in the LXX), γαμίζω means “give in marriage” (Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 17:27; 20:35). The word γαμέω uniformly means “to marry” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9f; 22:25, 30; 24:38; Mk. 6:17; 10:11f; 12:25; Lk. 14:20; 16:18; 17:27; 20:34f; 1 Co. 7:9f, 28, 33f, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11, 14), including nine occurrences within 1 Corinthians 7 itself.

Fee counters by noting “that the classical distinctions between -eo and -izo verbs had broken down in the koine period” (355). Thus he argues for the possibility that γαμίζω simply means “to marry” in 7:38. While Fee is correct that –ιζω was losing its distinctive force in the period of the New Testament, the question remains whether this was the case with γαμίζω. Apollonius Dyscolus, a second-century Greek grammarian, wrote that γαμῶ meant “I receive in marriage” and γαμίζω meant “I give in marriage” (BDAG, 188; Bekker, 280). This seems to indicate that the distinction between γαμίζω and γαμέω held longer than with other words. Furthermore, those who argue that γαμίζω and γαμέω mean the same thing need to explain why Paul changes the verb here since he used γαμέω nine times in this chapter. Why change the verb? Why change it here? Fee says that the best answer may simply be stylistic variation. He also floats the idea that γαμέω is used intransitively and γαμίζω is used transitively by Paul. This is a difficult statement to prove or disprove since this is the only occurrence of γαμίζω in Paul. On the whole, it is more likely that γαμίζω here means “give in marriage.”

The editors of BDAG minimize the Apollonius quotation by saying, “It is hard to say how far the rule of Apollon., quoted above, applies, since there are so few exx. of γ. In any case, his observation indicates that mistakes could be made in the use of either term.” They also note that γαμίζω is used for “marry” by the third-century bishop Methodius. Yet it is interesting that Theodoret of Cyrus, a fifth-century bishop text using the word εγγαμιζειν, which means to “marry off” (246, n. 23). Theodoret takes the father-daughter view without even noting another possibility.

On the whole, the father-daughter view seems preferable to the betrothed view. It adopts the attested rather than an unattested meaning for παρθένος. It provides the best explanation of “keep his own virgin.” It best accounts for the use of γαμίζω. It’s handing of ὑπέρκαμος is well within attested usage. It also seems to fit the cultural context better. The biggest challenge to the father-daughter view seems to be the subjects of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος and γαμείτωσαν. The unexpressed subject of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος would more naturally refer to the man, and on the father-daughter view the implied subject of γαμείτωσαν introduces a groom without previous mention. But neither of these are insurmountable challenges.

According to the father-daughter view, Paul concludes the chapter by looking at what a father’s attitude toward his virgin daughter should be (and the issue of remarriage after widowhood). Paul had been recommending (but not commanding) singleness for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (7:36–38). At the same time some Corinthians seem to have wrongly thought that abstinence from marital relations was a more spiritual state than marriage (7:1). In this context Paul warns fathers and guardians about improperly restricting the marriage of their virgin daughters. It seems from the opening question of the Corinthians that some fathers might have been under pressure not to marry off their daughters. Paul here tells them that to do so is no sin. If the father thinks he is not acting rightly toward his virgin daughter by not giving her in marriage, he should give her in marriage. A father may conclude that he is not wronging his daughter by her remaining single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. But if this is the choice, it can’t be due to pressure from others. He has to be convinced in his own heart that he is acting rightly toward and not wronging his daughter. Paul observes that both courses of action are good. In keeping with his emphasis in this passage, however, Paul does express his preference for singleness.

In sum, Paul does not fully assent to the statement that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (7:1). He denies that this is the case for people already married (7:2-6). He further does not believe that marriages should be dissolved, even if they are mixed between unbelievers and believers (7:10-24). But Paul does commend singleness. He wishes that everyone were single like himself (7:7). Because of the last days that have arrived (7:26, 29, 31), it is good not to marry so that undivided attention may be given to the Lord’s work. However, Paul concedes that this is simply his trustworthy opinion and not a binding restraint (7:25, 35). Paul wants it to be as easy as possible for undivided attention to be given to God’s work (7:32). Nonetheless, Paul notes that it is possible to render great service to the Lord and be married (7:29). In fact, to be single is a special gift from God not granted to everyone (this does not mean that those so gifted are superior to those who have differing gifts, see Paul’s discussion in 12:14-26) (7:7), and some who cannot control themselves (including both thoughts and actions) ought to marry (7:9).

Paul is clearly commending singleness in this passage. Many resist Paul’s clear teaching by attempting to limit the application of Paul’s teaching to a first century situation (e.g., a local famine or a time of persecution) while others may simply ignore Paul’s commendations. Neither should be done. On the other hand, Paul’s words must be placed within their broader canonical context. When the disciples respond to Jesus’ teaching on divorce by exclaiming that it would be better not to marry, Jesus replied, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:11).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. ed. Henry Chadwick. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968.

Bekker, Imanuelis, ed. Apollonii Alexanrini De Constructione. Berlin: Reimeri, 1817.

Birkett, Kirsten and Lois Hagger, “Gift of Singleness? You’re not Serious? A Look at Paul’s Call to Singleness in 1 Corinthians 7,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5 (Fall 2000): [Electronic].

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. ed. Matthew Black. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Calvin, John. “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.” In Calvin’s Commentaries. vol. 20 trans. John Pringle Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (December 1980): 307-14.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. ed. Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York. United Bible Society, 2002.

Piper, John. “Foreword: For Single Men and Women (And the Rest of Us).” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Third ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Reprint, Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2005.

Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Volume 1. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Winter, Bruce W. “Puberty or Passion? The Referent of ΥΠΕΡΑΚΜΟΣ in 1 Corinthians 7:36.” In Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1988): 71-89.