Wednesday, 20 February 2013
More Marriage Matters
Have a look at this short video and learn a little more about this massive moral issue that our UK government is seeking to bring through Parliament and become law.
The Sin of the World Taken Away
Jn
1:29.
The words of this
verse were spoken by the Baptist. The Lamb of God, namely, the daily sacrifice,
takes away the sin of the world, as the sacrifice did for all Israel. In the Old Testament, the remedy was
universally applicable to that particular people, Israel. But here we have the true Lamb of God that
takes away the sin of the world. Ryle
quotes Calvin approvingly when he remarks that the writer, John, “extends this
favour indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think
he had been sent for them alone.”[1] The entire race is under divine condemnation,
but the divine remedy is offered to all without exception on condition of
faith, or as Calvin puts it here “by the guidance of faith.”
For him, John uses
the singular number, referring to “the sin” and not “the sins” of the
world. Says Ryle,
“The
expression seems to me purposely intended to show that what Christ took away,
and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole
accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam.[2]
Neither Ryle nor
Calvin places any restriction on the meaning and implication of the text
because Scripture does not. Believing as
they do that Scripture is clear on these important matters, the natural meaning
of the words is good enough for them, and therefore followed. To limit the author’s intent is to do
injustice to his thought, and both Calvin and Ryle eschewed that vigorously.
Ryle delves into the
hidden purpose of God in the Cross when he mentions His intention for Christ in
His death. Clearly, it was to atone for
the sins of all men, not a limited few (relatively speaking). It was all-encompassing in its intent and
limited only to the “whosoever believes,” in effect.
Ryle’s limited
understanding of things divine is confessed quite honestly when he states that
he rests in the inscrutableness of the divine will and purpose when the world’s
sin was laid on, borne by and atoned for in Christ.[3] It is inclusive of “all the men and women in
the world.” Repudiating the idea of
“universal salvation” as a “dangerous heresy,” and “utterly contrary to
Scripture,” Ryle asserts that “the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ
has done nothing for them. He bore their
sins, He carried their transgressions, He provided payment.”[4] Since He has done all that for the world, no
one having been provided out of the love of God for His creatures, can be said
to die without an offered and available, willing and able Saviour.[5] Their own stubborn refusal to trust Christ is
the cause of their eternal lostness, not any pre-creation decree passed by
God. As Ryle preaches, “He set the
prison door open to all, but the majority would not come out and be free.”[6]
So, for Ryle, it is
the act and attitude of unbelief that damns sinners, not any insufficiency on
the atonement. “Christ’s atonement is a
benefit which is offered freely and honestly to all mankind. ... the true
meaning [is] that the Lamb of God has made atonement sufficient for all though
efficient unquestionably to none but believers.[7]”
The Geneva Study
Notes on Jn.1:29 stick closely to the text and emphasise the universality of
the atonement without adding any limitations to it. The Lamb of God is Christ and in His death He
has made “satisfaction for the sin
of the world.” This word, αιρων, is in
the present tense, and signifies a continuous act of “carrying away,” for the
Lamb has this power to take away the sin of the world, both now and forever.
The Puritan Matthew
Henry writes: “This is encouraging to our faith; if Christ takes away the sin
of the world, then why not my sin?” Why
not indeed? The People’s New Testament
views Jesus as the world’s Saviour. Here
“the world,” means “the world,” humanity, all mankind. David Brown writes, “THE LAMB here, beyond
all doubt, points to the death of
Christ, and the sacrificial character
of that death.” He adds that the sin
(singular) denotes “the collective burden laid upon the Lamb” as well as its
“all-embracing efficacy.” It was not for Jews only – as the morning and evening
sacrifices were, but in contrast it was for the whole world; it was “the sin of
the world” that the Lamb of God carried away, not just that of one particular
nation. This was not an exclusive
sacrifice, but one sufficient for the whole world. Pastorally and evangelistically he continues,
Wherever
there shall live a sinner throughout the wide world, sinking under that burden
too heavy for him to bear, he shall find in this ‘Lamb of God’ a shoulder equal
to the weight.[8]
A. T. Robertson
makes the point that “He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews.”[9] The juxtaposition of “the world” and “the
Jews” suggests that in distinction to “the Jews,” which is a particular nation,
“the world” is the κosmos in all its
rich universality.
On κosmos, Zodhiates understands the noun
to denote inter alia “the mass of
people who are hostile or at least indifferent to the truth and the followers
of Christ.”[10] Naturally, this includes all mankind by
nature, there not being one individual who does not fit this description. It is this world of humanity that is
dominated by the evil one, and which is further the object of God’s wrath and
judgement, and also of His mercy. All
men are the objects of divine judgement individually and collectively. The κosmos,
here, equates to all men. So the Lamb of
God takes away the sin of all men.
Jesus was sacrificed
for the world, that is, for the entire human family in all ages. This is abundantly clear. All are bought, but all do not acknowledge
the purchase.[11] This is supportive of Baxter’s soteriology
and is that held by DML-J. The latter
preaches, “We
know why he died. There, on the cross,
God was laying on him the iniquity of us all.
He is the ‘Lamb of God’ – as John the Baptist had said – ‘which taketh away
the sin of the world’ Jn.1:29.’”[12] (94).
Wesley concurs with
the above, adding that the sins taken away are the sins of all mankind.[13] Sin and the world are of equal extent, argues
Wesley. Even the elect prior to
conversion are full of sin, so “sin and the world are (truly) of equal
extent.” However, for the sinner to
receive the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ, God requires of him
faith in Jesus Christ and repentance that leads to life.[14] “And without faith it is impossible to please
God.”[15]
Gill’s exegesis (or
is it eisegesis?), reminiscent of Owen’s, makes “the world” equal “the elect,”
but on what grounds he does this are not given.
It is a purely gratuitous exercise, and dishonest, as Machen would say. By the “sin of the world,” is not meant the
sin, or sins of every individual person in the world, says Gill.[16] So according to this exegesis “the sin of the
world” does not mean “the sin of the world” after all. Had John said this in 1:29, confusion in
understanding basic English would not have occurred. We would have been clear that John the
Baptiser did not mean “the world” as we understand it.
Leon Morris
understands the Cross in its comprehensiveness.[17] John is referring to the totality of the
world’s sin, rather than to a number of individual acts. Individual acts are
carried out by individuals; therefore, John is not referring to individuals either. His reference is to “the sin of the world” in
its totality. Christ’s death on the
Cross is “completely adequate for the needs of all men.”[18] Despite attempts to question the authenticity
of this verse,[19]
none of them have proved to be successful.
The verse stands, and teaches the sweet lesson of Who Christ is and what
He came into the world to do.
Listen to what
Morris writes in his commentary on John’s Gospel:
...God
loves the world (3:16). Christ speaks to the world the things He has heard from
God (8:26). The whole work of salvation
which God accomplishes in Christ is directed to the world. Thus He takes away the sin of the world
(1:29). He is the Saviour of the world
(4:42). He gives life to the world
(6:33). This is at cost for He gives His
flesh for the life of the world (6:51).
Christ came especially to save the world, not to judge it (3:17; 12:47).[20]
This commentator is
very clear about what the attitude of God in Christ is to the world – He loves
it and sent His Son to die for it. What
is mean here is not just the world in its ‘badness’ but also the world in its
‘bigness.’ This is universalism in its
truest sense. God has within His divine
being an attitude of gracious and saving complacency towards the rebellious and
lost world that He loves and has redeemed.
Morris brings this out when he writes, “The Jew was ready enough to
think of God as loving Israel, but no passage appears to be cited in which any
Jewish writer maintains that God loves the world.”[21] This distinctively Christian idea is that
“God’s love is wide enough to embrace all mankind.”[22] This love proceeds from God’s nature as love.[23] It is in the heart of God to show love to
the unlovely, unlovable and unloving.
So Morris
demonstrates that what God has done in Christ has had an incalculable effect on
the whole world – He took away its sin – or as the Arabic and Ethiopic versions
have it in the plural, “the sins of the world.”
What then of the
issue of wastage in regard to the Baptiser’s statement that “the Lamb of God
... takes away the sin of the world”? If
all men are not thereby saved by this “taking away” of sin, then Christ has
failed. It was a wasted effort, carried
out in vain and for nothing. Well, Ryle,
for one, sees no strength in this objection.
He argues that we might as well say that because sin came into the world
through Adam and marred God’s perfect creation, creation was in vain. He marshals the argument that because we are
dealing with the works of God and not the works of man, there will, of
necessity, be many things we do not fully understand. Man’s fallen mind will never be able to
fathom the depths of divine knowledge and wisdom, let alone comprehend it. How God can “take away the sin of the world”
via His Lamb and yet not all men are saved by it, is a mysterious proposition
that defies rational thought, and demands humility to accept. We must learn humility in face of divine
mysteries that have not been revealed to us.
Our tendency towards a scholastic approach to what are essentially
metaphysical matters must be curbed if we are not to be diverted into a logic
that is not biblically warranted. That
there is a sense in which God has accomplished what He says in His Word is
accepted; but just how this has been done is beyond our ability to
understand. Ryle strongly repudiates
universal salvation as “a dangerous heresy, and utterly contrary to Scripture,”[24]
and believes that the vast majority of mankind will perish in their sins. This is not because Christ had done nothing
for them, but because they have not trusted in this freely offered Christ alone
for salvation. The remedy was provided
and available to all, yet many refused to avail of it. Their perdition cannot then be laid at the
door of Christ, but at their own because of their refusal to trust in the
God-provided Lamb. All that had to be
done for their salvation had been completed by Christ – bearing their sins,
carrying their transgressions, and provided payment – the ransom price. “But in the work of Christ in atonement I see
no limitation,” says Ryle. “The atonement was made for all the world, though it
is applied to and enjoyed by none but believers.”[25] Hypothetically, all can be saved if only they
trust in Christ’s atonement. There is no
evidence that its benefits will be enjoyed by the entire world. “But Christ’s atonement is a benefit that is
offered freely and honestly to all mankind.”[26]
Ryle could not be
clearer; in Christ’s atonement there is a general reference to the entire world
and a particular reference to believers only.
There is no need for limitation in reference to “the sin of the world,”
he contends. In this phrase he sees “the
whole mass of mankind’s guilt” converging, something the Bible says Christ took
away. He uses the Lombardian
sufficiency/efficiency maxim to strengthen his stated position.
Calvin’s exposition
is confirmatory of this position. He
comments,
And
when [John] says ‘The sin of the world,’ he extends this favour
indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that He
had been sent to them alone. ... as all men, without exception, are guilty of
unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to Him.[27]
Calvin equates those
who are under divine wrath with those who need to be saved from wrath – all
mankind. What one man needs, all
need. He continues,
...our
duty is to embrace the benefit that is offered to all, that each of us may be
convinced that there
is nothing to hinder him from obtaining
reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to Him by the guidance of
faith.[28]
Calvin’s contested
position is clear – the whole human race has had its sin taken away by Christ,
all men without exception. This has been
done by Christ in His death, but the actual mechanics of this have been kept
within God’s eternal council. The way by
which the benefits of this ‘taking away’ is by faith in the Saviour, by
embracing what has been offered to all.
Faith in Christ in central, not election and predestination.
Milne understands
the term, “the sins of the world,” as describing the scope of the Lamb’s
ministry. “Without exception, every kind
of sin and evil is covered. There is no
sin too heinous, no wickedness too terrible, no habitual failure too often
repeated, that it cannot be ‘taken away’ by Christ, our heavenly Lamb.”[29] Milne here uses the plural “sins” rather than
the singular, “sin.” He draws attention
primarily to the nature and extensiveness of sin, and includes all kinds of sin
– all good pastoral teaching. It is
important to know and to experience these truths if Christians are to have
assurance of their interest in Christ and His interest in them. But to stop there is to stop too far short. Milne does not deal with those whose sins are being referred to, therefore sells us short in
his exposition of this important soteriological text. So not much help here.
William Hendriksen
provides no help either, but rather takes us back into ultra-orthodoxy when he
avers, “According to the Baptist it is the sin of the world (men from every tribe, and people, by nature lost in
sin, cf.11:51, 52) which the Lamb is taking away, not merely the sin of a
particular nation (e.g, the Jewish).”[30] This completely misses the point the Baptist
is making. In any case, Hendriksen,
despite his otherwise detailed explanations of contested understandings, does
not provide even a hint of his grounds for making this statement on behalf of
the Baptist. Where “according to the
Baptist” are his grounds and warrant for such an interpretation to be
found? Exegetically, Hendriksen is
stretching his interpretation to breaking-point. Rather than ‘blaming’ the Baptist for this
spurious interpretation of Jn 1:29, he ought, with greater integrity, have
pointed to the Westminster Confession of Faith where Christ is said to have
died for the elect only.[31] For Hendriksen, it is more important to be
confessionally correct than to be biblically faithful. The universal aspect of the Gospel and of
Christ’s atoning work is ignored in order to satisfy confessional requirements.
[1] Ryle, 1869/1987:63.
[2] Ryle, 1869/1987:61.
[3] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Heb.7:25.
[6] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[7] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[8] Brown, 1864/1969:352.
[9] A T Robertson, Word Pictures of the New
Testament.
[10] Zodhiates, 1992:882.
[11] The Fourfold Gospel (n.d., n.p.).
[12] DML-J selection #194.
[13] Wesley’s Notes on the NT.
[14] The Westminster Shorter Catechism no. 85 adds
to these two requirements the following: “with the
diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us
the benefits of
redemption.
[15] Heb.11:6.
[16] Gill,
[17] Morris, 1972:148.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Morris, 1972:149.
[20] Morris, 1972:128.
[21] Morris, 1972:229.
[22] Ibid.
[23] 1 Jn. 4:8, 16.
[24] Ryle, 1869/1987:62.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Calvin as cited in Ryle, 1869/1987:63. See also his commentary on this passage.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Milne, 1993:54.
[30] Hendriksen, 1954:99.
[31] WCF, Ch.VIII, sections I, VI, VIII.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
A Ransom for Many
Mk.10:45
When
Jesus says He came to give His life a ransom for many, what does He mean here?[1] The 1550 Stephanus Greek Text says, και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι πολλων. Αντι, when used of persons, denotes something
that is done ‘for the sake of’ or ‘on behalf of.’[2] Hendriksen states that it
means ‘in the place of,’ and adds, without explanation, “Not in the place of
all but many.”[3] Λυτρον denotes “to loose,”
as in the payment that is made for “redeeming captives, loosing them from their
bonds and setting them at liberty.”[4] Zodhiates explains that in
this context, “it applies spiritually to the ransom paid by Christ for the
delivering of men from the bondage of sin and death.” This could be afforded a particularistic
interpretation which many attribute to it, following Owen, but this is not the
only viable interpretation that can be given for this passage. From the spiritual perspective, who are in
“captives” and who are in “bonds”? All
men. All are the slaves of sin and are
in bondage to iniquity. A
particularistic interpretation is not necessary, and is not followed by Calvin.
The word many (πολλῶν) is not
put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts
himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where
Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.[5]
Jesus
is talking here about a large number that no man can number. Some may argue that it is a number therefore
it is definite, and others that because it is a large number (many), it is as
good as meaning ‘all,’ as Calvin so rightly teaches.[6] For Calvin, there is no limit to the
atonement except that it carries no benefits to those who do not believe.
Lane reverts to a
high-view interpretation of this verse, and introduces the thought of
substitution.[7] When Jesus gave His life, Mark qualifies this
by saying that is was “a ransom for the many.”
Neither the Westcott and Hort Greek text (1881) nor the Stephanus Greek
text (1550) has the definite article so for Lane to add this is gratuitous and
is to take unwarranted liberties with the text of Scripture. The Greek text says simply “a ransom for
many,” not “the many.” What happens to Christ is “what would have
happened to them,” he argues.
Continuing, Lane avers, “The many had forfeited their lives, and what
Jesus gives in their place is his life.”[8] Lane posits a definiteness in the relation
between “the many” and the Christ. But
when Lane is questioned about who those are who have forfeited their lives, he
could answer in one of two ways; he could say that “the many” equates with “the
elect” (as Hendriksen, Owen, Gill, etc would argue); or he could same with
Calvin that “the many” refers to all those who have forfeited their lives
because of their sin, namely the whole of mankind. He contends that “Jesus pays the price that sets
men free” but he appears to understand ‘men’ as referring to definite
individuals, rather than as a generic term that includes all humanity. He posits an indissoluble link between Christ
and the community of people He came to ransom, and concludes that “this
corresponds perfectly with the main thought of Isa.53.” Clearly Lane has not studied Calvin’s
commentary and sermons on this pivotal OT passage and this explains why he
departs from Calvin in his exposition.
DML-J would have parted company with Lane at this point, preferring, as
he did, to expound Mk 10:45 in more Calvinist terms.
Sunday, 17 February 2013
The Iniquity of us all.
Isa.53:6.
This verse is quoted
very frequently by DML-J in his evangelistic preaching. What is the context of this verse and what
does it mean? The context is the
Suffering Servant of Isaiah and this individual is identified with Christ in
His death by Calvin in his sermons on this passage.[1] The Geneva Bible notes state that the
punishment of the iniquity of us all was laid on Him. Hyper-Calvinist, Dr. John Gill, in his
exposition of this phrase, states quite categorically, “he has laid on Christ,
his own Son, the sins of all his elect ones.”
Continuing, he adds, “[God the Father] ... laid on Christ, and were bore
by him, even all the sins of all God’s elect...” Further, Gill teaches,
The
words may be rendered, "he made to meet upon him the iniquity of us
all"; the elect of God, as they live in every part of the world, their sins
are represented as coming from all quarters, east, west, north, and south; and
as meeting in Christ, as they did, when he suffered as their representative on
the cross ...
Gill in his
interpretation is clearly limiting the teaching of this verse and restricting
it to the elect only and universally, but unlike Calvin does not see it as
applying to the whole world of men. Yet,
Gill quotes R. Cohana (favourably) when he says,
“...as
the ass bears burdens, and the garments of travellers, so the King Messiah will
bear upon him the sins of the whole world; as it is said, "the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all.”[2]
This appears just a
tad inconsistent with his stated position, yet he included it in his comment on
this verse.
Gill’s interpretation
contrasts with that of Calvin who preaches (in his sermon on Isa.53:4-6):
“...took Him as being there in the place of all sinners. So we see that Jesus Christ was laden with
all our sins and iniquities...”[3] Calvin’s oft-repeated phrase “the death and passion
of Christ” is used to point to what He has done for all men, all sinners. Indeed, Calvin preaches that Isaiah includes
the word “all” to “exclude all exceptions.”[4] “For our Lord Jesus has enough to satisfy us
all...”[5] Or again, “Let us then come boldly to our
Lord Jesus Christ, and He will suffice for all...”[6] Further, Calvin preaches, “for God was not
satisfied with sending his Son once for all ... He will be sufficient to give
us such a remedy that we can conclude that we are received and acknowledged by
God as His own children, and that He will look upon us as righteous and perfect
and instead of abominable before Him.”[7] Calvin’s inclusivity with respect to Christ’s
work of redemption is set out his exposition of Isa.53:6. In fact, he contends that this entire passage
(Isa.53) is exclusively about the death and passion of Christ.
Linking this verse
with 2 Cor.5:21, a (unnamed) commentator stated,
He was not merely a sin offering
(which would destroy the antithesis to “righteousness”), but “sin for us”; sin
itself vicariously; the representative of the aggregate sin of all
mankind; not sins in the plural, for the “sin” of the world is one
(Romans 5:16 Romans 5:17 );[8]
This is again in
agreement with Calvin; the iniquity that was laid on Christ was that of all
mankind, the normal meaning of the words used.
Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry,
wrote on this verse:
For
whom this atonement was to be made. It was the iniquity of us all that was laid on Christ; for in Christ
there is a sufficiency of merit for the salvation of all, and a serious offer
made of that salvation to all, which excludes none that do not exclude
themselves. It intimates that this is the one only way of salvation. All that
are justified are justified by having their sins laid on Jesus Christ, and,
though they were ever so many, he is able to bear the weight of them all.
His exegesis is
abundantly clear. He does not qualify
“of us all” but takes the words in their normal meaning. Introducing the “sufficiency of merit in
Christ for the salvation of all,” which includes “a serious offer made of that
salvation to all,” an offer that “excludes none that do not exclude
themselves,” Henry is true to the clear teaching of Scripture. Because God laid on Christ the penalty of sin
for us all, there is universal provision in the atonement made by the Saviour.
Wesley’s notes on
the Old Testament give a similarly clear interpretation:
That which was due for all the sins of all mankind,
which must needs be so heavy a load, that if he had not been God as well as
man, he must have sunk under the burden.[9]
The Methodist
preacher demonstrates his closeness to Calvin in his understanding of the
universal terms used by Isaiah, and highlights the distance he was from
Gill.
When expounding the phrase “of us
all,” Rawlinson explains the universality of the atonement in these terms: “The redemption is as universal as the sin,
at any rate, potentially.” Christ on the
cross made “a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice ... for the sins of the
whole world.”[10] The text of Scripture is taken in its
natural, common-sense, meaning. There is
provision in the atonement for all, therefore none need die without an
available and sufficient Saviour. Calvin
agrees: there is enough in Jesus Christ to satisfy us all. “Let us then come boldly to our Lord Jesus Christ,
and He will suffice for all.”[11] Calvin’s “alls” display the inclusiveness of
the atonement without limitation.
Albert Barnes,
commenting in this verse, states:
This
language is that which naturally expresses the idea that he suffered for all
people. It is universal in its nature, and naturally conveys the idea that there
was no limitation in respect to the number of those for whom he died.[12]
Clearly, the
universal aspect is to the fore in Barnes’ exegesis, and concurs with that of
other careful exegetes, such as Calvin.
Alec Motyer in his
commentary on the prophecy of Isaiah writes,
We
all and each expresses both common culpability
and individual responsibility ... Over against the common herd, and matching
the individual need, there stands him
on whom our iniquity has been laid. By
the divine act, the Servant was the meeting point for the iniquity of us all.[13]
Motyer accepts the
exposition that “each sin of every sinner would be like a separate wound in the
heat of this man of sorrows.” Inclusivity is innate to what Isaiah says, and
Motyer brings this out very clearly. He
continues,
The
Servant is not ... one moved by personal compassion and voluntariness; he is
the provision and plan of God, who himself superintends the priestly task
(Lev.16:21) of transferring the guilt of the guilty to the head of the Servant,
giving notice that this is indeed his considered and acceptable satisfaction
for sin.[14]
The guilty are all
those deemed to be so by the law of God, namely, every son of Adam. The whole world is accountable to, guilty
before, God,[15]
so it was the whole world’s guilt that was transferred to the head of the
Servant/Saviour.[16]
DML-J was with
Calvin, Wesley, Barnes and Motyer on this point when he preached
In
view of the fact that salvation is of God and therefore supernatural, although
we cannot understand it, it holds out a hope for all. … There is literally hope
for all. ...It is God’s work, and because it is God’s
work, it is possible for all and can be offered to all. ...There is literally hope for all.”[17]
Or again,
“It
is God who sent his Son into the world, it is God who sent him to the cross, it
is God who ‘laid on him the iniquities of us all,’ Isa.53:6. It is God who has taken your sins and put
them on him and punished them in him and is offering you a free pardon; it is
God who has done it.”[18]
“Here is
‘the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’ Jn.1:29. Here is
the one who has never sinned; here is one who is spotless; here is one who has
never broken a commandment, never defied his father. He has pleased his Father in all things and
in all ways. And, ‘God has laid on him
the iniquity of us all’ Isa.53:6.”[19]
“He
sent his only Son into this world ‘for the suffering of death … that he by the
grace of God should, taste death for every man’ Heb.2:9. God’s Son took our sins upon himself: ‘He
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all’ Isa.53:6.’”[20]
From these four
quotations from DML-J’s sermons, it is clear that his interpretation of
Isa.53:6 followed Calvin, Wesley, Henry, Barnes, and Motyer rather than Gill,
or even Owen for that matter. Owen
states, with reference to both Isa.53:6 and Jn 3:16, “God of his free grace,
has prepared a way to redeem and save his elect.”[21] Owen is interpretatively particularistic when
dealing with the Bible’s own universalistic statements.[22] But for the Doctor, hope is held out for all
because it is offered to all without exception.
Because God has sent His Son to Calvary to have the sins of all punished
in Him, a free pardon can now be offered to all. If He, the pure and spotless One, had not
taken the sins of all upon His Body on the Cross, and died for them, how then
could a free and utterly sincere offer of salvation be made to them? In His death, God’s Son, “tasted death for
every man.” Hyper Calvinists such as
John Gill state, correctly, that ‘man’ is added by the translators to help to
give the sense of the verse, and suggest that what should be added is son, or one of the brethren, not man. The reason for this is not given which begs
the question, why son or brethren, and not man?
It was “the sin of
the world” that God laid on Him, “the iniquity of us all.” DML-J clearly did not subscribe to the
restricted view of the atonement as espoused by Gill and Owen. Such a view would have hampered his
evangelistic preaching, leaving him with nothing to offer the lost. The biblical view handed him something real
to offer to real sinners – a real salvation which would become theirs on
condition of faith in Christ.
Davenant reinforces
this important Gospel point in Isa.53:6 by reference to the Church Fathers,
quoting them as saying, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ransom of
the whole world...”[23] Quoting from David Paræus (in a judgement
which he transmitted to the Synod of Dordt) the following words, “The cause and
matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of
God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race.”[24]
One looks in vain
for any treatment of this verse in Smeaton when he refers to Isa 53. He references vvs. 3, 7, 12, but makes no
reference to 53:6.[25]
It is clear from
these quotations that there is a division between those who embrace the
scholastic doctrine of limited atonement and those who follow the Scriptures,
taking them in their natural meaning. It
is also clear which interpretation DML-J prefers, and it is not that of Gill
and Owen.
[1] Parker, 1976.
[2] Apud Galatin. de Cathol. Ver. I. 10. c. 6.
p. 663, and Siphre in ib. l. 8. c. 20. p. 599.
[3] Calvin, 1956:70.
[4] Calvin, 1956:78.
[5] Calvin, 1956:81.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Calvin, 1956:82.
[8] Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the
Whole Bible. (n.d., n.p.). I have also
retained the
Formatting of the original quotation to keep the author’s emphases.
[9] Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on Isa.53:6.
[10] Rawlinson, 1906:296.
[11] Calvin, 1956:81. In his commentary on Isa.53:6, he writes, “Our
sins overwhelm us: but they are laid
on
Christ, by whom we are unburdened. Therefore, when we were perishing, and,
alienated from God,
were
hastening to hell, Christ took upon Himself the filthy depths (colluviem) of our sins, to rescue us
from
eternal destruction ...” (p.67).
[12] Barnes commentary on Isaiah, p.???
[13] Motyer, 1993:431. Formatting preserved to bring out the
author’s original emphases.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Rom.3:19.
[16] Cf. 1 Jn 5:19 and Rom.3:19.
[17] DML-J, selection #49.
[18] DML-J, selection #183.
[19] DML-J, selection #188.
[20] DML-J, selection #208.
[21] http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/an-exegetical-look-at-john-316-by-dr-c-matthew- mcmahon/
Accessed
09/01/2013.
[22] I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty
Dumpty, who said scornfully, "When
I use a word ... it means
just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Alice (in Wonderland) then asks "whether
you
can
make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to
be
master— that's all." He believed
that he could impart meanings to words that suited his purpose.
[23] Davenant, 1832/2006/33.
[24] Davenant, 1832/2006:35.
[25] Smeaton, 1871/1991:81, cf. 497.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)