Month: ט״ז בכסלו ה׳תש״ע (December 2009)

The terms “election” or “the elect” often bring with them an understanding that carries more implications than terms actually represent. The Greek word “ἐκλογὴν”, which appears in verse 11, simply should be understood as a choice; therefore the “elect” are the ones who are chosen by G-d.  In order to have a fuller comprehension of this issue, the reader must understand that the phrase, “but according to the One Who calls” is included in the passage to provide the necessary information to arrive at a Scripturally based understanding of the terms “election” and “the elect”.

It has already been stated that G-d is the One Who calls and that His choice of Jacob was not based on works, i.e. something the Jacob did to earn or to merit the selection. The question that must be answered is if G-d’s selection of Jacob was in an absolute vacuum. No one is questioning HaShem’s sovereign right to choose Jacob. However verse 13 provides a Scriptural aid for assisting the reader in making a proper interpretation of the passage.

“Just as it has been written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated‘”

Romans 9:13

Is this passage stating that the Sovereign G-d is within His right to love and hate whomsoever He wills? G-d is Sovereign, but a Biblically based understanding of the Sovereignty of G-d does not mean that HaShem can do just anything. For example, the fact that the Scriptures state that HaShem is incapable of falsehood “ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς” (See Numbers 23:19 and Titus 1:2) does not in any way infringe upon His sovereignty. Because G-d has certain attributes, there are things He will simply not do. Some might be inclined to quote from Psalms 115:3 or 135:6 which states that “G-d does whatever He pleases”. The word which is the same in both of these passages is “”חפץ and it has a meaning of “to desire”. Hence, HaShem does what He desires without any limitations. But because He is good, holy, righteous, etc., He will never desire to do something which is against His perfect character. Now let us return to the verse,

“Just as it has been written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated‘” Romans 9:13

If one wishes to interpret the verse that G-d freely chose to hate Esau, based solely on a view that G-d is sovereign, and therefore He can hate whomever He chooses, there are some serious problems with reconciling this view with the nature of the Biblical G-d. Some Reformed theologians agree and offer a different explanation. These theologians state that HaShem did not choose to hate Esau, rather it was because Esau was a sinner, like all of humanity and because G-d hates sin, He therefore hated Esau. This view would mean that G-d hates all humanity, but for the sake of “the elect” He placed His love upon only them. This theological perspective is why Reformed theology stresses a Limited Atonement. That is, Yeshua did not die for all of humanity, but only for those whom He chose to be saved. It was these, “the elect”, who were the recipients of His love and grace. If this were theologically correct, it would empty many verses of their clear message. For example,

“For thus G-d loved the world, with the result that His only begotten Son, He gave; in order that everyone who is believing in Him, should not perish, but should have eternal life.” John 3:16

Although this verse is one of the most familiar to believers, it is written in a manner that should not allow one’s familiarity to cause one to ignore its strong theological implications. It is most significant that the verbs “loved” and “gave” share a grammatical similarity. This is emphasized all the more with the Greek word “ὥστε” meaning “with the result of”. The point the Greek makes is that it was because of HaShem’s love for the entire creation “κόσμον”, that He gave His Son, Messiah Yeshua. When Reformed theology presents the doctrine of a Limited Atonement, it reduces the Love that G-d has for each person, including G-d’s love for the reprobate, to a select group of chosen individuals.

 

Another example is found in John’s first Epistle,

“And He is a propitiation concerning our sins; but not concerning ours alone, but also concerning the entire world.” I John 2:2

These two verses (and there are many others as well) make it hard for one to embrace the Reformed theological doctrine of a Limited Atonement.

In regard once again to the verse,

“Just as it has been written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated‘” Romans 9:13

It is of chief importance to pay attention to the Greek word “καθὼς” meaning “just as”. This word informs the reader to pay attention to the fact Paul is quoting a verse from the Hebrew Bible. Hence the verse and its context must be understood if one is going to rightly understand the point that Paul is making to the Romans. The verse that Paul quoted is from Malachi 1:2. In this passage HaShem is recounting is choice of Jacob, i.e. the Jewish people, instead of Esau, i.e. Edom. This fits the context of Romans chapter 9 as one needs to remember that Paul’s discourse is not about the spiritual condition of Jacob and Esau, but Paul is grieved and concerned about the spiritual condition of the Jewish people in general.

The prophet Malachi, in the name of the L-rd, clearly gives a reason why HaShem states that He hates Esau. G-d judged Edom and laid his mountains to waste, yet in defiance to HaShem’s will, he states that he will return and build of the desolate places. Proper study of this passage reveals that it is Edom, like Esau their patriarch, who wants to thwart G-d’s plan to use the Jewish people to complete His covenantal purposes. For this reason HaShem says concerning Edom,

“…And He called them a border of wickedness and the people whom the L-rd is angry forever.” Malachi 1:4b

  

Reformed theologians will respond that such an interpretation is a violation of Romans 9:11-12, which states G-d’s selection of Jacob and not Esau was not based on works. I would agree that it was not based upon works, but rather a heart condition.

In Romans 9:14, after stating that G-d loves Jacob and hates Esau, Paul writes, in taking the position of those who might find fault with his train of thought,

“Therefore, what shall we say, (Is there) ‘unrighteousness concerning G-d, G-d forbid’.”

It is vital in order to reach a Biblically based understanding of Paul’s intent to pay close attention to how he responds to this objection stated in verse 14. In the next section, verses 15-18, two very important factors are introduced into the discussion: they are grace / mercy and Pharaoh. Paul actually quotes a portion of Exodus 33:19 when he states,

“For to Moses He says, ‘I will be merciful on whomever I will be merciful and I will be compassionate on whomever I will be compassionate.” Romans 9:15

Greek is a very precise language and in order to rightly understand the New Testament, knowledge of Koine Greek is essential. In this verse one must pay close attention to the mood of the verbs. It is most significant that two verbs are in the future indicative and two verbs are in the present subjunctive.

τῷ Μωϋσεῖ γὰρ λέγει, Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω.

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility or contingency. In examining the verse in question Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, placed the later verb in each of the two verbal clauses in the subjunctive mood. Below I have placed the two subjunctive verbs in bold face:

“For to Moses He says, ‘I will be merciful on whomever I will be merciful and I will be compassionate on whomever I will be compassionate.” Romans 9:15

What can be deduced from this fact? G-d is free to offer mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses, yet there is an element of contingency concerning this mercy and compassion. In order to help one to understand this point one must continue in the rest of the verses of this passage (Verses 16-18).

Paul writes,

“So therefore, not the one who wills, nor the one who runs, but the One Who is merciful—G-d.” Romans 9:16

When studying this chapter it is important to remember what Paul is teaching. As it has been previously stated, he is speaking about the spiritual condition of the Jewish people. The context is that there were in Paul’s day a great number of Jewish individuals who had not responded to the Gospel and therefore it would seem that G-d’s selection of the Jewish people had failed. It is verse 16 which informs the reader that G-d’s selection was not based upon wanting to be chosen (the one who wills) or on human effort (the one who runs); rather upon HaShem Who shows mercy. In order to understand the intent of this verse and its implications, Paul continues by providing Pharaoh as an example.

The next verse reveals what HaShem’s primary purpose was regarding Pharaoh. Paul quotes from Exodus 9:16. Notice that Paul introduces the quotation by writing, “ὅτι Εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο” “that in accordance with this same thing”. The intent of this phrase is to inform the reader that what HaShem did with Pharaoh is related to what is taking place among the Jewish people. The quotation states,

“…I have raised you up in order that I might manifest in you My power and in order that My Name might be proclaimed in all the Earth.” Romans 9:17

Once again Greek grammar is of the upmost importance. The subjunctive mood is used twice in this verse; the first time with the verb “ἐνδείξωμαι” “I might manifest” and the second time with the verb “διαγγελῇ” “might be proclaimed“. Remembering that the purpose of the subjunctive mood is to express possibility or contingency, it is vital one asks the question why these two verbs are in the subjunctive. The answer is that HaShem’s two objectives, manifesting His power and that His Name should be proclaimed throughout the earth, were contingent upon Pharaoh. That is, Pharaoh had a real and actual decision to make—how to respond to the mercy of G-d. Even though G-d knew from eternity past exactly how Pharaoh would respond, this in no way whatsoever removes Pharaoh’s free will from the situation. HaShem positioned Pharaoh as king of Egypt, the most powerful empire at that time, knowing, but not causing, that Pharaoh would respond in the manner he did. As it will be demonstrated, Pharaoh’s disobedience furthered HaShem’s will, but it was not G-d’s will for Pharaoh to disobey.

The next verse states,

“So therefore, on whom He wills He shows mercy, but on whom He wills He hardens.”   Romans 9:18

Understanding the second half of this verse is paramount in understanding the intent of Paul for this chapter. The question that has to be answered is, “What does it mean that HaShem hardened Pharaoh’s heart? Reformed theology takes the position that the sovereignty of G-d allows G-d to select whomsoever He wants and harden this person’s heart, not based on anything other than HaShem’s desire to do so. In other words G-d, so to speak, reached down from heaven and placed His hand upon Pharaoh’s heart and it was this act alone that hardened his heart and caused him to behave in the manner he did. Scripture, however, demands that such a perspective be ruled in conflict with the Biblical character of G-d. Furthermore, the account from the book of Exodus concerning Pharaoh reveals a very different scenario. It is this account that now will be studied.

Even before Moses returned to Egypt, HaShem informed him of the following,

“And HaShem said to Moses, ‘When you go to return to Egypt, see all the wonders which I placed in your hand and you shall do them before Pharaoh, and I will strengthen his heart and he will not send forth the people.” Exodus 4:21

It is most significant and key to making the proper interpretation of the passage to note the correlation between the facts that Moses was commanded to do the miracles before Pharaoh and immediately thereafter the text reads, “…and I will strengthen his heart“. What is the purpose for this?

Later on in the account, Moses and Aaron approach Pharaoh and do exactly as they were commanded. Aaron threw his staff upon the ground before Pharaoh and it became a snake. The sorcerers preformed the same miracle and even though Aaron’s snake ate all the sorcerers’ snakes, the reader is told,

“And the heart of Pharaoh was strengthened and he did not listen to them just as HaShem said.” Exodus 7:13

Once again it was immediately after Pharaoh had seen the miracle that the reader is informed that his heart was strengthened. A similar event occurred with the plague of blood. After Pharaoh witnessed both Moses and Aaron turning the Nile into blood, and the sorcerers having done the same thing, the text states,

“…and the heart of Pharaoh was strengthened and he did not listen to them just as HaShem said. And Pharaoh turned and went to his home and did not place his heart also to this.” Exodus 7:22-23

Special attention must be given to the word which is translated “placed“, שת. The Hebrew word means “to place” or “to put”. It is also used as an idiom “to set one’s face towards” (See Numbers 24:1). In this usage it carries the idea of making a decision. Hence Pharaoh, despite the miracles he saw, refused to take them to heart and submit to HaShem’s instruction.

In the eighth chapter of Exodus there is a significant change. During the account of the plague of frogs, Pharaoh appeared to submit to HaShem’s command to send forth Israel from Egypt. Pharaoh beseeched Moses and Aaron to entreat HaShem in order that He would remove the frogs. Pharaoh stated that if this were done that He would obey HaShem. Moses, wanting to show how powerful HaShem is, responded to Pharaoh’s request. However, Moses informed Pharaoh that the frogs in the Nile would remain. In other words, HaShem would return things to exactly how they were before the plague. The text informs the reader that once things returned back to normal,

“And Pharaoh saw that there was relief, and he hardened his heart and did not listen to them just as HaShem said.” Exodus 8:11

  

The significant change here is related to that which Pharaoh had said previously,

“And Pharaoh said, ‘Who is HaShem that I should listen to His voice and send forth Israel, I do not know the L-rd and also Israel I will not send forth.” Exodus 5:2 

But in this section from chapter eight, Pharaoh is moved to actually beseech Moses that he would petition HaShem on his behalf. In other words, Pharaoh has come to the conclusion that HaShem exists and is more power than his sorcerers and he should obey HaShem.  However, after HaShem fulfills Pharaoh’s request, Pharaoh refuses to fulfill his part of the agreement. It is only after the reader is told that Pharaoh is no longer unknowing of HaShem, but willfully rejecting the revelation of HaShem that the Scripture states, “and he hardened his heart”. The “he” in this verse is obviously Pharaoh. Verse 11 unites this hardening with Pharaoh not listening / obeying the revelation that Moses and Aaron provided to Pharaoh from HaShem.

During the next plague, the lice, the sorcerers inform Pharaoh that what Egypt has been experiencing is none other than “the finger of G-d”. Once again, the reader is taught that Pharaoh’s heart was strengthened because he did not listen to them just as HaShem said. In the next chapter the Scripture makes it most clear that Pharaoh has grown in his spiritual awareness, but nevertheless refuses to obey G-d. When Pharaoh sees the destruction that the hail is causing, Pharaoh falls under conviction and cries out before Moses and Aaron,

“…I have sinned this time, the L-rd is the Righteous One and I and my people are the wicked ones.” Exodus 9:27

Once again Pharaoh petitions Moses that he beseeches HaShem to stop the hail. However, despite Pharaoh being convicted by his sin and arriving at the truth that HaShem is the only Righteous One, once the plague is removed, the text states,

“…And he (Pharaoh) continued to sin and his heart was hardened…” Exodus 9:34

The verb in this verse, “was hardened” “וַיַּכְבֵּד”, is in the causative form, i.e. the Hebrew hiphil. This means something caused Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened. When one examines the verse, Hebrew grammatical rules demand that which hardened Pharaoh’s heart is the fact that after he was convicted by his sin, and came to the revelation that HaShem is the Righteous One, he continued to sin “וַיֹּסֶף לַחֲטֹא וַיַּכְבֵּד לִבּו”ֹ. If this is the proper interpretation, then why does the Bible state that HaShem hardened Pharaoh’s heart? In order to find the answer to this question, let us return to Roman’s chapter 9.

The section dealing with Pharaoh is introduced by Paul quoting Exodus 33:19,

“For to Moses He says, ‘I will be merciful on whomever I will be merciful and I will be compassionate on whomever I will be compassionate.” Romans 9:15

Notice that the text only speaks of mercy and compassion. I would strongly argue that Pharaoh witnessing the power of G-d by means of the plagues, and HaShem responding to his requests and even forgiving Pharaoh’s sin (See Exodus 10:16-17), are all acts of mercy and compassion. Yet in the end, because Pharaoh rejected all this revelation, his heart was hardened. Hence, G-d did in fact hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but not by making Pharaoh to disobey G-d, rather by extending to Pharaoh the revelation of a Righteous, forgiving, and Sovereign G-d. Each person should take away from this a very important Biblical principle—failing to respond properly to HaShem’s truth will harden a person’s heart. The question of can a person respond on his own, that is without G-d’s assistance, will be discussed in a later article dealing with the doctrine of Total Depravity.

It is only after properly understanding the example of Pharaoh that Paul is now ready to make the statement,

“So therefore, on whom He wills He shows mercy, but on whom He wills He hardens.”   Romans 9:18

Now Romans 9:19 comes into focus. Paul writes in this verse,

“Therefore you will say to me, ‘Why does He still blame, for His will, this one resisted‘”?

Romans 9:19

The error that Reformed theologians make is interpreting this verse to mean that indeed HaShem has made Pharaoh to disobey Him and therefore the verse is questioning why G-d would still punish him, if in fact Pharaoh only did what he was created to do. Reformed theologians believe that G-d is free to create people in any manner in which He wants, even in a manner to disobey Him. The proper interpretation presents HaShem in a much different vain. Verse 19 emphasizes the fact that Pharaoh did not “oppose” G-d’s will, but only in the sense that Pharaoh did what HaShem had told Moses that Pharaoh would do in Exodus 9:16.

“…I have raised you up in order that I might manifest in you My power and in order that My Name might be proclaimed in all the Earth.” Romans 9:17

Pharaoh disobeyed, not because G-d created him to do so, but rather because HaShem knows each human being perfectly, and His divine purposes took Pharaoh’s character into account and HaShem positioned him as the king of Egypt, knowing Pharaoh would disobey Him. On the other hand, Reformed theology demands that one accept the view that the purposes of G-d can only be achieved by sin whereas the proper Scriptural view is that the purposes of G-d cannot be thwarted by sin. Here are a few Biblical examples which illustrate this Biblical truth.

The prophet Habakkuk reveals that HaShem raised up the Babylonians in order to place His judgment upon the house of Judah. The question that must be answered is whether the Babylonians did this out of obedience to G-d or whether they did it simply to fulfill their sinful desire to conquer nations and plunder them. The answer is the latter. This means also that HaShem used the Babylonians to accomplish an aspect of His will, but they did not do so out of obedience and hence they, too, are guilty of sin.

Another example is Judas. G-d always knew that Judas would betray Yeshua, and this betrayal parallels man’s sinfulness and the human tendency to reject Messiah. Therefore, G-d utilized Judah’s sinful action, but did not cause him to behave in this manner. It is absolutely, theologically incorrect to state it was G-d’s will for Judas to betray Yeshua. Rather HaShem, Who knew Judas perfectly, incorporated his sinfulness into the accomplishment of the will of G-d. The aspect that many overlook is that since the first sin in the Garden of Eden, sin is a present reality in this world. Sin however will not champion over HaShem’s plans and purposes, for Yeshua will indeed establish His Kingdom and in doing so G-d is free to utilize sinners and their actions to accomplish His Holy and Righteous will. It is these facts that uphold Romans 8:28; that all things work together for good….  Yet at no time does HaShem cause sin or create an individual to sin. HaShem is not a partner in sin nor is He the author of sin. Yet, the Sovereign G-d may use even the disobedience of man, i.e. sin, to manifest His glory.

Reformed theology sees the next verse of Romans chapter 9 as supporting their position when in reality the opposite is true. In remembering the context, Paul is rejecting the view that because Pharaoh did what G-d said he would do, that it is wrong for HaShem to still find fault with him. Paul writes,

“O man, μενοῦνγε who are you replying to G-d; will the fashioned thing speak to the fashioner, ‘Why did you make me thus?” Romans 9:20

It is most important to recognize the Greek word “μενοῦνγε”. This word appears in the New Testament only three times. The meaning of this word is to emphasize the following statement in the clause. The Textus Receptus actually has this word prior to the phrase “O man“, that is at the very beginning of the verse. In this situation the Textus Receptus is emphasizing that it is a mere man who is trying to argue with G-d, while in our version, since the word appears prior to the statement “who are you replying to G-d“, it is emphasizing the inappropriateness of questioning whether G-d has acted improperly. The verse concludes with the phrase, “‘Why did you make me thus?”.

The word translated “make” is “ποιέω”.  It appears in the New Testament 572 times and can have a variety of meanings from “to make, do, prepare, use, appoint, observe, keep, fulfill, etc,”. Since Paul is talking about clay and forming something, it would be natural to follow what virtually all translations do and render this word as “make”. While I am not arguing with this rendering, one must follow Paul’s illustration throughout the passage (Verses 20-23) in order to arrive at the right understanding. Paul is obviously not talking about the creation of the clay, but rather the forming of the clay, (i.e. the proper understanding of “ποιέω”) for a specific purpose. It is this aspect that the reader should emphasize, namely how the clay is being utilized. Here again, the Sovereign G-d may utilize human beings as He sees fit. The reader shall learn later that because HaShem from the very beginning created man to manifest His glory, it is not surprising that G-d may utilize sinners for this same purpose.

In the next verse Paul states this very thing when he speaks of the authority that the potter has over the clay. In this verses Paul declares that the potter may utilize the clay in two distinct manners, but for the same common purpose, manifesting His glory. Paul writes,

“Or does not the potter have the authority of the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor.” Romans 9:21

It is vital to follow what Paul is saying. He did not say that the potter made one honorable vessel and one dishonorable vessel. Rather one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor— “…ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν;”. The key Greek word in this clause which appears twice is “εἰς”. Although this word may be translated a few different ways, it has the idea of expressing “for the use or service of“, “in accordance with“, or “with a view to“. When considering the Biblical account of Pharaoh, which is the basis for understanding verses 18-23, one must ask which scenario is in line both with what took place with Pharaoh and what Scripture reveals about the character of G-d. Does the Bible present G-d as creating Pharaoh to disobey Him without any possibility of submitting to Him, or is it because HaShem knew Pharaoh perfectly and how he would respond, that G-d positioned him in Egypt as king and presented him with the various situations where, by means of HaShem’s perfect knowledge, Pharaoh’s disobedience and sinfulness were utilized by G-d and manifest His glory? The answer is of course the latter. This view is also confirmed by the next verse.

“But if G-d, desiring to manifest the wrath and to make known His power endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath which have been κατηρτισμένα unto destruction.”  Romans 9:22

Please note that I have not translated one word in this verse. The reason for this is because the word bears great significance on the interpretation. The word is “καταρτίζω” and it appears as a passive perfect participle in this verse. There are two factors which weigh heavily in arriving at the proper understanding of the word. First is its general meaning and the second is the grammatical construction of the word. The word in its verbal forms appears 13 times. It is translated in several different manners. New Testament Greek lexicons render the word with the following meanings, “to adjust, prepare, qualify, repair, fit, etc.”  In this verse, since it appears as a participle, there is a descriptive quality to the word and because it is in the passive voice, there is external power acting on the subject. Finally, because it is in the perfect tense, the action has a linear aspect, which is that the action began in the past and continues into the present and extends into the future as well.

When examining the word throughout its use in the New Testament, the general meaning is something which becomes “fit” or “appropriate” for a specific objective or purpose. For example, in Matthew 4:21 the sons of Zebedee are in a boat mending their nets. The “mending” is the action which makes the nets “fit” or “appropriate” for a specific objective or purpose, i.e. fishing. In Romans 9:22 HaShem desired to manifest His glory through the expression of the power of His wrath. Therefore He endured with much longsuffering the vessels, i.e. those individuals, who were appropriate for destruction. The fact that the verb is in the passive voice means the verb must be translated “who were made appropriate” for His destruction. It is important to remember that the perfect tense is employed here so the most exact manner to translate the participle is “who have been made appropriate” for His destruction.

  

“But if G-d, desiring to manifest the wrath and to make known His power, endured with much longsuffering, vessels of wrath, which have been made appropriate unto destruction.”  Romans 9:22

The intent of this verse is to state that G-d is free to manifest His glory by exercising His wrath, so as to make known His power. One of the ways that HaShem accomplished this was not to immediately destroy the wicked, but to endure their disobedience and even utilize this in order to accomplish His purposes—in this case, to manifest His glory.  In this text, HaShem acted in a manner over time (the perfect tense) and He acted upon the wicked (the passive mood) in order to make evident that the wicked were appropriate for His wrath and destruction. The idea that G-d created the individuals in a manner that they had to be wicked and for solely the purpose of being objects of His wrath cannot be supported by this verse or any other verse of Scripture.

The last verse of this section states,

“And in order that He might make known the richness of His glory upon vessels of mercy; which He prepared beforehand unto glory.” Romans 9:23

 

In many discussions with our Reformed friends, I have asked for them to explain why the verb “to make known” “γνωρίσῃ” is in the subjunctive mood. Remembering that the subjunctive mood relates to possibility or contingency, one must answer the question of why Paul was inspired to place the verb in this mood. Could the answer be that there is a degree of contingency concerning whether the richness of His glory will be made known upon the vessels of mercy? Why in the next three verses does the verb “to call” appear? The answers to these questions assist in arriving at the proper understanding of this larger section, “What is the spiritual condition of the Jewish people and how does this relate to the Doctrine of Election.”  In Part II these issues will continue to be studied in our objective to better understand the Biblical perspective of election.  

 

By Dr Baruch Korman

What is the proper understanding of the term, “the elect”? There are some who would argue that “the elect” refers to a predetermined group of people that HaShem has chosen from before the creation of the world to be redeemed and thereby be in the Kingdom. Does this mean that those who are not elected by G-d are condemned and will experience eternal damnation? Is there any aspect of free will or has it all been predetermined by G-d and it is simply played out over time?

This doctrine of election has divided believers for centuries and I doubt that anyone today can add something to the debate that has not already been said many times before by many different individuals. So why write on this subject? Over the last decade there is a resurgence of Reformed theology within the evangelical movement. This has very significant implications in regard to one’s view concerning Israel and the Jewish people in general. These implications are not just theological, but carry over into shaping political stances as well.

This article will examine the Biblical word “to elect” and many of the Scriptural verses where this word appears, in order to gain a proper Biblical understanding of the word, apart from all theological biases. Then the article will move toward an exegetically based presentation of the doctrine of election. The article will conclude with a look at how an improper understanding of election distorts one’s views of Israel.

The term “to elect”

When examining the term “to elect” in the Bible, the word which forms the basis for this concept, is simply “to choose”. Hence, G-d chooses individuals to be part of His Kingdom. These individuals are known as “the elect”. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul reveals that the elect were chosen in the Messiah before the foundations of the world (See Eph. 1:4). Obviously, HaShem knew in eternity past who would be in the Kingdom and who would be eternally separated from Him. However, the verse in question here does not state this point; that is, it is exegetically incorrect to use this verse to prove that G-d has chosen certain individuals for His Kingdom and others for eternal condemnation. What Ephesians 1:4 states is that before the foundations of the earth were laid; G-d chose those who are in Messiah, to be holy and blameless before Him in love. Therefore, although HaShem forever knew who would be saved and those who would not, Ephesians 1:4 does not make this statement. Rather this verse points out what all believers will become in Messiah.

It is very important for the reader to pay close attention to the context of this section.  In the previous verse Paul is speaking about all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Messiah. After informing that G-d has chosen those who are in Messiah to be holy and blameless, it is most significant that in the next verse, Paul begins teaching about predestination. Once again it is vital to understand what is being said and what is not being said. In Ephesians 1:5 Paul writes that G-d has predestinated believers unto the adoption of sons. Many translations use a neuter designation, i.e. adoption of children. It is very important to note that the Greek word for adoption is actually formed from the word “son”. The masculine is used to connote the idea of an heir. That is to say that G-d has predetermined that believers will be considered as heirs with Messiah Yeshua. In no way should one derive from this verse or the term “predestination” that G-d has predetermined who would be heirs. Obviously HaShem from eternity past knew who would be heirs, but the idea of Him predetermining the “who”, is not the intent of this verse.

Still further in this same chapter Paul writes that those in Messiah have an inheritance and then reveals what this inheritance is— being predestinated to become the praise of His glory that first trusted in Messiah (See Ephesians 1:10-12). Once again the idea is not who has been predetermined, but what has been predetermined, namely that believers who have trusted in the Gospel will one day become a praise to G-d. Hence predestination is not who will be saved, but that G-d has predetermined what believers will become. This idea is also expressed in Romans 8:28-30.

In this famous passage Paul begins with a promise. He writes,

“But we know that for the ones who love G-d, all works together for good, for the ones according to purpose (predetermination) are called.” Romans 8:28

I translated the Greek in the most literal way possible so as to not place upon the verse any interpretation. Having translated it, now let us begin to understand what is actually said. The verse opens by stating that the verse is not speaking to all people in a general manner, but only to those who love HaShem. Only those who love HaShem can expect that all which takes place in their life will actually work together for good. It is the next section that at first glance appears somewhat confusing. In this section Paul speaks about those who are “called”. Special attention will be given to this term later on in this article. But let it suffice to say that the “called” are those who G-d has invited into His Kingdom by means of the Gospel. Loving G-d is further defined in this verse by those who respond according to which Paul simply calls “predetermination”. Most translations render the word “πρόθεσιν” as “His purpose”. The word “his” is not in the text, but the idea here is the plan or purpose that G-d has established from eternity past. In other words, the believer in Messiah who demonstrates a love for G-d and who is submitting to the will of G-d, can expect that whatever happens to him, G-d will eventually use that for good.

In the next verse there is a word that has great significance, but often is ignored by many theologians. The word is “foreknow” “προέγνω” and this Greek word, like in English, is derived from two words: “before” and “to know”. Why does Paul include this idea within this discussion? The word is used in regard to those whom G-d also predestinated. Romans 8:29 makes it absolutely clear what G-d predetermined or predestinated is that believers in Messiah will be conformed to the image of the Son, Messiah Yeshua. The Biblical word “predestinated” is “προοράω”, which literally means “to see before”. Hence, the intent of predestination is simply that G-d saw beforehand that believers would be conformed to the image of Yeshua. Some have correctly pointed out that a more exact Greek term for predestination is the word “προορίζω”. This word means simply “to set limits or boundaries beforehand”. Therefore a fuller meaning for the term predestination is not only did G-d see in the past what believers would be, i.e. like Messiah, He also predetermined the likeness as well. Once again there is nothing yet from the text that HaShem predetermined who will be the ones to be conformed to the likeness of Messiah, just that all believers have been predestinated to experience this.

Reformed theologians commonly state what the word “foreknow” does not mean, but seldom comment on its use in the verse. Reformed theologians strongly deny that the term “foreknowledge” has to do with knowing the future, but rather has to do with G-d choosing individuals from before the foundations of the world were laid to be in relationship with Him. Hence, Reformed theologians state that G-d’s foreknowledge has nothing to do with Him looking at the future and seeing who will accept the Gospel and who will not. If this were the case, then foreknowledge would be based on the decision of man to accept the Gospel.  This would mean that man has the ability to cooperate with G-d’s grace.  Reformed theologians understand the grace of G-d as being placed upon man in an irresistible manner.  Furthermore, although “foreknowledge” is not HaShem knowing the future, obviously G-d knows the future and Reformed theologians agree. The problem with Reformed theology is that it sees G-d knowing the future as the same as Him determining it. This point one must reject. There is no logical basis for stating that because G-d knows the future perfectly that He has caused everything in the future to happen. There is a significant difference between God’s knowing what will occur and God’s ordaining that same thing to occur. 

In returning to the term “foreknowledge”, let us accept the definition of our Reformed friends and state that the concept of “foreknowledge” is that G-d knew who would be in His Kingdom apart from any action that a man would take. Now Romans 8:29 would teach that those whom G-d knew would be part of His redeemed family, He also predetermined that they would be conformed to the image of the Son. In the next verse the reader learns that not only has G-d predetermined what believers will be (like Yeshua), but also HaShem called them.  The word “to call” and its related forms appear in the Greek New Testament 148 times. The basic meanings are “to name something or someone” or “to seek one’s attention” or “to invite one to respond to a command or request”.

Because Reformed theologians believe that election is not based upon anything man does or will do, they prefer to understand the term “called” within the context of being given a name. Since the idea of “name” is synonymous with character or identity, Reformed theologians understand the verse to reveal that G-d, after predetermining who are the “elect”, He calls them, i.e. He gives them a new identity as His people and therefore identifies them with Himself. Due to this He also does the rest of what this verse reveals, He justifies them and ultimately glorifies them, i.e. makes them into the likeness of His Son.

Although this view is advantageous, because it regards the whole issue of salvation as an act of G-d alone, and thereby He alone is worthy of Praise; there are a few flaws associated with it. The first is the understanding of the term predestination. Reformed theologians ascribe to it a meaning which cannot be derived from the Scripture. For them, predestination is to predetermine who will be saved by G-d, rather than the Scriptural definition, what G-d has predetermined believers will become, i.e. like Yeshua. Second under the framework which Reformed theologians set up, all the “called” must be saved. It is clear that Romans 8:30 is speaking about a situation that will indeed occur for those who are the subject of this verse, i.e. believers in Messiah. It is vital for the reader to remember that the subject of the verse is established by the phrase “οὓς δὲ προώρισεν” “And those He predestinated”. Whom did HaShem predestinate to be conformed to the likeness of Messiah? The answer is believers in the Gospel. Our reformed friends will agree and say it is only the elect who will believe. This is true, but is only the elect called?

At this time it is necessary to deal with the common meaning of “Predestination”. The understanding of this term by most individuals (not necessarily theologians) is that G-d has chosen who will be saved. The question that follows is does this mean that He has also predetermined who will likewise be condemned? Most Reformed theologians distance themselves from the idea that G-d predetermines who will be eternally condemned. They state that G-d is just and therefore although He moves to save the elect; one should not understand that He similarly moves to bring condemnation on those who are not the elect. In other words, G-d simply leaves the non-elect alone and in the end His justice is placed upon them, which rightly condemns them. Hence all people receive the justice of G-d, the elect as recipients of G-d’s grace and eternal life in His Kingdom and the others His justice which rightly punishes them for eternity.

The problem is that under this view, there are those who cannot refuse G-d’s grace and there are those who cannot receive G-d’s grace. The Doctrine of Irresistible Grace will be studied in greater detail in a later article, but let it suffice for now to point out that a view of election which states that the spiritual condition of all of mankind is predetermine by G-d apart from any human ability to respond to G-d is without foundation. This would mean that who G-d calls must eventually respond in an affirmative manner and that G-d never calls everyone but the elect. Hence those who are not the elect never had any possibility of responding to G-d’s call. Such a theological perspective is without foundation.

Before examining a few texts that address this issue, let us be sure of the issue itself. All of humanity is sinful and deserving of eternal punishment. Therefore if G-d were to do nothing and all mankind was condemned, His righteousness is intact. Likewise G-d is under no obligation to call all of humanity to salvation by means of the Gospel. That is, He can have John hear the Gospel and be saved by faith, while Mary does not hear and is eternally condemned; still the righteousness of G-d is maintained, since He is under no obligation to offer the Gospel to Mary.

A problem arises when HaShem becomes angry with those who were offered the Gospel and did not respond. If there is no human factor and faith is an absolute act of G-d compelled upon the elect, it would be unrighteous for G-d to be angry with faithlessness of an individual because that individual would have no ability to respond with faith. In other words, if G-d withholds faith from some, why does He find fault with the faithless, seeing that He did not provide them with this faith?

In regard to my final statement, many will want to quote to me Romans 9:19. This verse will be addressed later in this article. However, before looking at this verse a proper context must be established for understanding what Paul actually intended when he wrote Romans 9:19. In order to do this let us first consider another passage, the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14). Yeshua told this parable in order to teach about the Kingdom, for He said, “The Kingdom of heaven is like….” In this parable Yeshua told of a certain king who made a great wedding banquet for his son. He sent out his servants to inform those who had been invited / called to come. Yet those who were called would not come, in fact some acted in a most offensive manner even killing some of the servants. It is very significant that the reader is told in this passage,

“…The wedding is prepared, but the ones who were called were not worthy.”

Matthew 22:8

Finally, both the bad and good were brought to the wedding (See verse 10) showing that salvation is not based on works. The parable ends with the statement,

“For many are the called ones, but few are the elect.” Matthew 22:14

This verse makes it most evident that there are indeed those who are called / invited to be in the Kingdom, but who refuse and therefore are not the elect. This fact is at odds with most of Reformed theology which understands Romans 8:30 to imply that only the predestinated are called. Another passage that shows an element of human will in regard to responding to the purposes of Messiah is found in Matthew 23. In this section Yeshua is lamenting over Jerusalem and the fact that He wants to gather up the people like a mother hen gathers her chicks, but the text states emphatically, “…and you were not willing.” (See Matthew 23:37)

Once again it makes no sense for Yeshua to be lamenting over the residents of Jerusalem for failing to respond to Him, if in fact the only way they could do so was if He were to make them to do so. It is important to understand what is not being said here. If G-d does not provide the way for one to be saved, He is still righteous; as all are guilty of sin and worthy of eternal condemnation. However, for Yeshua to lament over Jerusalem’s failure to respond to what Reformed theology coins His “Irresistible Grace” when He has not caused them to receive it, it is illogical on Yeshua’s part. In other words, it is not problematic for a sinner to be condemned without any opportunity to find forgiveness except by means of general revelation (See Romans 1:19-21).  However, for there to be any disappointment or anger on the part of G-d, when people fail to respond to His Gospel, when according to Reformed theology only the predetermined “elect” have been given the ability, which they are compelled to exercise to respond to G-d’s “call” to salvation, is not logical.

In this next section there will be special attention given to the theological term “called”. The primary text is from Romans chapter 9 and this section will conclude with a proper understanding of Romans 9:19. The ninth chapter of Romans is paramount in laying the foundation for many of the issues we have been discussing in regard to Reformed theology. In this passage, Paul begins a three chapter discussion of Israel’s spiritual condition. It is most important for a proper understanding of this section and the issues which are discussed, that there is recognition of this as the primary subject. Paul begins by stating his grief over Israel’s, i.e. Jewish individuals’ spiritual condition. It is also important for the reader to recognize that Paul uses the term “Israel” in two distinct manners. This is most evident in verse 6,

“But not implying that the word of G-d was ineffective, for not all the ones out of Israel are of Israel.” Romans 9:6

This verse first uses the term “Israel” as what we would call today as Jewish individuals, and the second occurrence relates “Israel” as those who are part of G-d’s Kingdom. Next there is another important term used, this is “seed of Abraham”. The purpose of this term is to introduce the concept of promise into the passage. The point here is that simply being a physical descendant of Abraham is not sufficient for one being part of “Israel” according to the second usage. In other words, it is faith in the promise of G-d, which Isaac represents and ultimately Messiah fulfills, that is necessary for a Jewish individual to be part of “Israel” in both usages. Paul, after speaking about the true seed of Abraham, Isaac and not Ishmael, the child according to the flesh, moves unto the next generation.

It is the account of Jacob and Esau that offers much information to the reader in assisting one to arrive at the proper understanding of this section. In Romans 9:11-12 two important terms are introduced: “election” and “call”.  This account speaks of HaShem’s sovereign right to choose Jacob and not Esau to continue His covenantal promise. A common error that many Reformed theologians make, is to understand HaShem’s choice (election) of Jacob, as revealing who the beneficiaries of the promise will be. This is not the purpose represented here. The future beneficiaries are ultimately believers in the One Who fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e. the Messiah. Jacob was simply chosen by G-d to take over Isaac’s leadership position for the next generation.

         

Verse 11 states plainly that this choice of Jacob was not based upon something Jacob would do, i.e. works, but solely on G-d’s right to call. Most translations introduce the word “election” into the text. This is fine as long as one realizes the Greek word which is translated “election” is derived from two Greek words meaning literally “to speak out”. Who did this speaking out? The answer is obviously G-d, Who calls “καλοῦντος”(See verse12). It is highly significant that in this passage both the idea of “election” and “calling” are mentioned.

Reformed theology stresses that election is predetermining and is devoid of human free will. In other words, G-d mandates who are the elect and the elect have no option but to respond to the Gospel, as the expression of an “irresistible grace”, not offered to an individual, but forced upon him in a manner that it is impossible to reject. The purpose of the phase in verse 12 “Not from works, but according to the One Who calls” is to help define the conception of “election”.

By Dr Baruch Korman 

(To Be continued)

[Israel—past, present, and future—is close to the heart of the Seed of Abraham Ministries.  So we pause in our usual Bible-related teaching to highlight a recent high honor received by a citizen in that tiny country the size of New Jersey.  This moment of secular celebration, we feel, is another piece of evidence that God’s hand is upon the Middle East—as well as upon our whole planet.  Dr. Shechtman teaches a valuable lesson on how to face conflict in life.]

On April 8, 1982, God’s book of nature began a new chapter, one that specialists at first strongly resisted, and that most of the rest of us since then haven’t even tip-toed through.  The title?  “Quasicrystals,” a new form of matter that science textbooks say doesn’t exist.  The practical consequences?  They run past us, just under our noses, as we shave each morning. 

Quasicrystal science goes far past what we do here, but the curious can Google “Dan Shechtman” to locate reputable sources that let you run as far as you can follow. (And yes, there’s drawings and pictures.)

Shechtman the man, however, is a hero we can understand and admire.

After his discovery and confirming work, quasicrystals coasted under the radar for several years as Dr. Shechtman was laughed at, vilified, removed from his research group as an embarrassment, with his research ignored by scholarly journals because they “would not interest the community of physicists,” said one critic.  (Note: physics and chemistry are bedfellows in basic research on the atom.)

Until his dying day, double Nobel winner Linus Pauling declared that Dan Shechtman was talking nonsense.  “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists,” he said. 

But slowly—over years—attitudes towards his work began to change.  Because of Shechtman’s quiet persistence scientists privately began to consider the evidence (about ways crystals could form) and one-by-one changed their minds.

The tide turned. 

The textbook definition of “crystal” had to be, and was, rewritten.

According to colleague Patricia A. Thiel at Iowa State and Ames Laboratory, quasicrytals “revolutionized our understanding of how atoms arrange themselves in solids.  It was a scientific revolution.”  (And practically speaking, newly produced quasicrystals, recognized for their strength and durability, are, among other things, now used as alloys in razor blades and surgical needles.)

Shechtman, born, raised, and educated in Israel, now a professor at the Technion-Israel Institute (as well as Iowa State) was congratulated by Israeli President Shimon Peres, as bringing “an enormous gift to the State of Israel,” being the tenth recipient of a Nobel by a citizen in a country of only 8,000,000 people.

According to Shechtman, a shy and patient man: “A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he reads in the textbooks.”

After his initial discovery was shared, “I was thrown out of my research group.  They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying…I never took it personally.  I knew I was right and they were wrong.”  He just needed more confirming work to better explain what he’d found.

God has given us two books of Truth: the special God-inspired revelations of the Bible, and the God-created “book” of nature.

We believe they fit together and complement each other both displaying the holy and immutable character of the Living God.

Seed of Abraham Ministries struggles diligently to rightly interpret the Bible and present it as the harmonious unity from Genesis to Revelation that it is. We are not always well received or accepted in the Christian community as we often challenge cherished doctrines that don’t seem to fit the facts as presented in God’s Word.

Science does the same with facts and theories about the natural world. It does not easily accept new ideas or theories from “heretics” who challenge what is considered foundational and axiomatic, but in reality is regularly only a consensus of academic opinion.  But science, as every other discipline, can jump ahead of the “facts” it knows and get things wrong and create their own doctrines.

Thanks to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for acknowledging a necessary correction.  The citation from the Royal Academy for Shechtman’s Nobel award is simply, “For the Discovery of Quasicrystals.”

Seed of Abraham Ministries applauds the persistence of this wonderful Jewish scientist and the adventure of serious science and the courage to take a stand and go where the facts go. Pray for us to have the same boldness.

(Dr. Shechtman’s picture is one of the few that hangs on the third floor of my Tower Office.)     

Author: John Knapp II, PhD

There is no question that over the past several decades the believing community has placed less significance on proper doctrine for those who identify themselves as followers of Messiah Yeshua.  Within the evangelical world there has been a resurgence of Reformed Theology, which has been often times embraced without considering the implications that some of the tenets of Reformed Theology hold dear. Before dealing with a few of these, allow me to say that there are some aspects of Reformed Theology which are praise worthy. For example, a desire to place all the glory and honor on G-d for the work and the outcome of a salvation experience.  However in doing so, Reformed theologians have misinterpreted several Scriptural verses and formed doctrines which are not supported by the Biblical texts. In this article and the ones which will follow, we will begin to take a critical look at some of the major tenets of Reformed Theology. The first doctrine that will be studied is the Sovereignty of G-d.

Sovereignty of G-d

In one sense this doctrine sounds quite elementary; after all, who would not agree that G-d is sovereign. The issue is how to understand the implications and intent of the fact that G-d is sovereign. HaShem is L-rd and Master; He is the King over all and is absolutely omnipotent. Here again, there should not be any disagreement with this. The conflict arises when one interprets the sovereignty of G-d to mean that if something were to happen that is not the will of G-d, it would infringe upon G-d being sovereign. Hence for some, the sovereignty of G-d demands that all that takes place must be the will of G-d. Not all Reformed theologians agree with this extreme position, but those who do rely on either poorly interpreted passages or mistranslations which further their positions. One such verse is Proverbs 16:33.

בַּחֵיק יוּטַל אֶת-הַגּוֹרָל    וּמֵיְהוָה כָּל-מִשְׁפָּטוֹ׃

I have included the Hebrew to show how translators play with the text in order to support a preconceived position.

When examining some popular translations one finds translations such as,

“People cast lots to learn God’s will, but God himself determines the answer.”   Good News Bible

“The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD”   King James Version

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”    New International Version

“One can cast lots into one’s lap, but the decision comes from ADONAI.”  Complete Jewish Bible

“We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall.” New Living Translation

“Into the centre is the lot cast, and from Jehovah [is] all its judgment!” Young’s Literal Translation

More or less all agree with one another, except the Young’s Literal Translation. What is the verse saying? If one relies on the most popular Bible translations, then the text is saying, “One can ponder long and hard about what to do, but ultimately everyone decides in accordance with what G-d determines.” Is this truly the intent of the Hebrew words in this verse? The answer is absolutely not. It is the Young’s Literal Translation that comes nearest to the intent of the actual verse. Let us take the verse apart one word at a time.

בַּחֵיק יוּטַל אֶת-הַגּוֹרָל    וּמֵיְהוָה כָּל-מִשְׁפָּטוֹ׃

בַּחֵיק  This word is actually two Hebrew words put together. The first is attached like a prefix to the primary word. This first word means, “In the”. The second word which is translated in several translations as “lap” is referring to that which is “in the midst of”. The word is used in the Hebrew New Testament in Luke 16:22. There it is translated as the “bosom” of Abraham. In the Luke passage it is referring to the portion of Sheol where the faithful went. This is in contrast to Hades or Hell where the faithless went. Next the Proverbs passage has the word יוּטַל  . The word implies “casting” or “throwing”. It is a verb, and that which was thrown or casted in this verse was אֶת-הַגּוֹרָל  . The first word here is a non-translatable particle אֶת   whose only purpose is to point out the definite article. It is in the next phrase (actually two words) the reader learns that which was thrown or cast. Although most translations render this phrase as “the lot”, it is not the same phrase which appears in the book of Esther in 3:7 (to cast lots) הִפִּיל פּוּר   where both the noun and verb are different. Instead of using the word for “lot” פּוּר   the word which means “destiny” or “ones future” appears in the Proverbs passage.

The first half of this verse is a Hebrew idiom which relates to one thinking within himself or pondering what he should do. In other words, the subject of Proverbs 16:33 is simply trying to make a decision. How most translations render this first half is not so problematic if one understands that “a person casting lots”  was for the purpose of making a decision”. It is the second half of this where the true intent of the verse is manifested.

The problem occurs in rightly understanding one word. This is the last word in the verse. Before dealing with it, let us deal with the four words that precede it. The next phrase in Hebrew is וּמֵיְהוָה  . It is actually three Hebrew words, וּ   meaning “and” or “but”, מֵ   meaning “from” and finally the sacred name of the L-RD יְהוָה  . Therefore, it must be translated, “but from the L-rd (HaShem) is”. The next word is כָּל   which simply means “all of” or “every”.

Let us put it all together except for the final word of the verse. The verse would read: “In the inner part he will ponder the future, but from the L-rd is all of….” The final Hebrew word (actually one word with a possessive pronoun attached to it) is מִשְׁפָּטוֹ  . The final letter וֹ   is the possessive pronoun meaning “its”. The word מִשְׁפָּט   is not a difficult one to render, it means “judgment”. Hence the proper translation for Proverbs 16:33 is:

“In the inner part he will ponder the future, but from the L-rd is all of its judgment.”

The intent of the verse is to say this:  when one is pondering what he should do and is trying to reach a decision on a matter, he should be aware that the L-rd will be the One Who will judge this decision. What a sobering thought. I am free to make the decision, but I need to always remember that the decision I make will be brought ultimately under G-d’s judgment. This being the case, a wise individual would want to utilize the Scripture and much prayer in arriving at the decision which G-d will judge to be appropriate.

Those translations which render this verse to mean, you can cast lots to make a decision, but in actuality the outcome will be from the L-rd, are allowing an extreme and unbiblical form of predestination to influence their rendering of the verse. Why do they do so?

They do so because their view of the sovereignty of G-d demands that everything that happens has to be G-d’s will. If something that happens is outside His will, according to them, G-d is not sovereign.

In the next article we will see how a false understanding of the Sovereignty of G-d perverts the understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election.

Author: Dr. Baruch Korman

In the spring semester of 2003, Derrick McCarson enrolled in “Introduction to the New Testament” at the University of North Carolina. On the first day of this 500-student class the professor, Bart Ehrman walked in and started abruptly, “ ‘How many Bible-believing Christians do we have in the auditorium today?’…After about a half dozen students raised their hands, Ehrman said, ‘That’s good.  It looks like we have a few Christians here today.  Welcome to Intro to the New Testament.  My goal this semester will be to change everything you Christians think you know about the Bible and Jesus.’ ”¹

Dembski & Licona also report this note of contempt for Christianity on university campuses and some resulting political fallout: “A 2007 report by Tobin and Weinberg published by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research reveals that American faculty ‘overwhelmingly assert[ed] their desire to see Christian influence lessened’ while being ‘far less critical and even supportive of increasing Muslim religious influence in politics.’  They added that ‘it is interesting and even perplexing to see a shared inclination among faculty atheists, those faculty with no religion, and those faculty for whom no religion holds importance:  They defend the right of Muslims to express their religious beliefs in American politics, while holding openly hostile views of fundamentalist Christians.’ ” ²

Do Christians in the twenty-first century commit themselves to such preposterous superstition and act naively, and hurtfully, as children?

The purpose of the rest of this article is to introduce you to and describe the 272-page book (also available in electronic format) Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science edited by William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona.  This recent apologetic³ with 35 contributors can introduce you, and give you responses to, the “real issues” that today challenge reasonable Biblical faith.

Here are “answers,” or “responses,” to things some of you have probably wondered about—or should wonder about—in case you’re challenged by thinking people (as you should be).

I’ll give you just one-half of the chapter titles to bait the hook:

* The Cosmological Argument

* The Moral Argument for God’s Existence

* Naturalism: A Worldview

* Suffering for What?

* God, Suffering, and Santa Claus: An Examination of the Explanatory Power of Theism and Atheism

* Creator and Sustainer: God’s Essential Role in the Universe

* The Origin of Life

* What Every High School Student Should Know about Science

* Darwin’s Battleship: Status Report on the Leaks This Ship has Sprung

* How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down

* Limits to Evolvability

 *Intelligent Design: A Brief Introduction

* Molecular Biology’s New Paradigm: Nanoengineering Inside the Cell

* The Vice Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists

* Did Jesus Really Exist?

* The Credibility of Jesus’s Miracles

* The Son of God

* The Empty Tomb of Jesus

* Is Jesus the Only Way?

* Did Paul Invent Christianity?

* Is the Bible Today What Was Originally Written?

* Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament:  Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View

* Archaeology and the Bible: How Archaelological Findings Have Enhanced the Credibility of the Bible

* The New Testament Canon

* What Should We Think about the Gospel of Judas?

If any of these don’t intrigue or bewilder you, read no further. 

But if they do, then let me suggest you buy the book.  After getting it, go to the list of contributors and examine what they’ve done and where they come from.  Many, in addition to having a strong Biblical faith, have several graduate degrees (some with two earned doctorates); and they come from some of the best schools in the world.  This is no choir of fundamentalists who’ve exchanged honorary doctorates with each other.

But they do share many common beliefs often “automatically” rejected by many of their atheistic, or agnostic, colleagues who refuse to step beyond the framework of Naturalism (see the third chapter cited above).  These include the probabilities of the existence of a transcendent personal God who was creator and is sustainer of all that is; a historical Jesus who lived, died, and literally rose again from the dead; the divine inspiration, reliability, and uniqueness of the Bible; and accepting the importance of many recent findings of modern science—especially the Big Bang Theory of beginnings, the development of nanotechnology, and the increasing recognition of the failure of Darwinism (mutation and chance acting alone) to account for the observed record of significant changes in living organisms over the years.

Further, from the first sentences these articles are written with broad strokes and are very readable for many who visit this website.  And I’ve read them all very carefully.

Weaknesses of this book?

(1) For some the essays may be too short.  Several pages can hardly do justice to what others have written volumes about.   (Yet I dare say they’re long enough for most of us!)  What they do very well, however, is show how to think about and respond to typical accusations against Biblical faith that so often are presented as “obviously true.”  And they can point to sources and patterns that deserve more recognition.

(2) The essays often seem to present only one person’s view.  Can, for example, the single article on archaeology represent fairly represent the results of systematic digging over the decades?  But again, here many trends and assumptions in research are identified and responded to.

(3) The notes and sources (another thing I peek at first) are fascinating and invite looking at more sources that obviously aren’t provided.

Strengths? 

(1) Overall, these articles, as far as I can tell⁴, are written by gifted, qualified people (not pastors with just scientific interests) who are well read and trained in the areas they discuss.  Further, I am confident they have been considerably critiqued and then modified after reaction by peers (yes, probably by like-minded ones, however).

(2) The articles are friendly to those who take seriously reality that steps beyond strict naturalism. The authors take very seriously the need for systematic research, as well as honestly recognizing the a priori assumptions taken by those doing research and those holding to historic Biblical faith.

My recommendation for the 10,  100, or 1000 of you willing to consider this important book is to (1) buy a Kindle ebook version⁵, and (2) engage in a 100-day devotional (or otherwise systematic) adventure going through this book brief chapter by chapter, spending, say, two days on each one, making notes and praying as you go.  Call it “Evangelistic Apologetics 101, homeschool version.”

I did.

And, for many of you, starting each day with such a private encounter will open your mind and enrich your faith—as well as that of those you spend time with. 

If this happens, let me know [see Note 5 below].

Author: John Knapp II, PhD

___________________________________________________________

Notes

¹ William A. Dembski & Michael R. Licona, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science. Baker, 2010, p.11 [loc. 50, Kindle].  This is from the Introduction of the book that’s the subject of this article.

² Gary A. Tobin & Aryeh K. Weinberg, “Religious Beliefs and Behavior of College Faculty,” in Profiles of the American University (Roseville, CA: Institute for Jewish and Community Research, 2007), 73, 76-77.  Quoted in Note 1 (above).

³ An “apologetic” is an argument for something, or defending something, that people, believe.  It can also refer to books that do this.

⁴ Okay, now it’s my turn.  Where do I come from?  Though I was a long-time full professor of English at State University of New York-Oswego, I have a PhD in science education, have written science texts for kids (Silver Burdett) and have been a departmental editor for School Science and Mathematics long ago; and I’ve done graduate work at Denver Seminary.  Though I’m not a scientist, as a science educator I’ve been trained to critically evaluate research material, esp. in many areas of science.

⁵ If you use (or are tempted to try) an electronic reader, esp. a Kindle, a book of essays is a perfect (maybe, first!) book for this.  You can buy this ebook (as I did) cheaply, underline to your heart’s content and write electronic notes you can keep, switching back and forth between articles, notes, and authors’ bios.  And you can buy an entire ebook Bible for under $2 as well.   “Devotional use” of all this may add an exciting new arrow to add to your quiver.  If you experiment this way, tell me how it turns out.  Contact me at [email protected].

(johnknapp2.com)

Among the difficult sayings of Jesus, Mark 9:49 is one of the most enigmatic: “Everyone will be salted with fire” (pas gar pyri halisthesetai). What Jesus meant by this strange mixture of “salt” and “fire” has perplexed Greek scholars for a very long time.

Many Interpretations

At least fifteen different explanations for this verse have been offered. Most scholars connect salt and fire with purification because these were both used in the temple sacrifices.

According to the Mishnah, the temple priests put salt into the carcass of a bird that had been slaughtered for a whole burnt offering, to draw out the blood: “He [the priest] would wring off its head…slit open the body…soak up [the excess blood on the inside of the body] with salt and throw it on the altar fire” (Zevahim 6:5).

The interpretation that the salt and fire have something to do with purification or dedication is evident in many translations, for example Today’s English Version: “Everyone will be purified by fire as a sacrifice is purified by salt.”

Hebrew Idiom

Almost all previous explanations of this verse have dealt with the Greek text, but like many of the difficult sayings of Jesus, this one simply cannot be explained from the Greek alone. “Salted with fire” is one of the puzzling statements of Jesus that are unlocked when translated back into Hebrew.

A number of scholars today consider Hebrew to be the most likely language of the earliest written accounts of Jesus’ life. This theory seems to be confirmed in another, unexpected way. Mark 9:49 is one of the many passages in Mark that may be translated word for word into Hebrew without changing the word order: kolish ba-esh yumlah (Every man with fire will be salted; see Robert Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark [2nd ed., 1973], p. 125).

I suggest that a Hebrew idiom was translated literally, not dynamically, into Greek. As those who could recognize the Hebrew idiom behind the statement became fewer, its original meaning may have become lost. The range of meaning of the word “salt” in Hebrew^[1] can give us a clue to the meaning of “salted with fire.”

Uses of Salt

The root to salt (m-l-h) is used in the Hebrew Scriptures not only in contexts where it means “purification, reservation,” but also in contexts were it is a symbol of barrenness and destruction.

Alcalay’s The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary translates the expression zara makom melah (literally, “to sow a place with salt”) as “to destroy completely.” Such an action is described in Judges 9:45, where Abimelech destroys Shechem. Part of the destruction was sowing salt in the city.

The case of Lot’s wife, who was destroyed when she disobeyed God’s command and was turned into a “pillar of salt,” is well known. It is probably as an allusion to this familiar incident that Isaiah 51:6 uses the root m-l-h in the sense of “destroy.”

A New Translation

I propose a new translation of the verse, based on the retroversion to Hebrew. In the verses preceding verse 49 (Mark 9:42-48), Mark records that Jesus warned those offending “these little ones,” and declared that one would be better off to rid himself of offending parts of his body than to be cast into hell, where the fire never goes out and “their worm does not die.” It would fit this context to translate verse 49, “Everyone [who is sent to hell] will be completely destroyed” that is, destroyed by fire.

The Hebrew expression, literally translated in Mark’s Greek source, would have been understood figuratively by its first readers. But once the gospel left the world of Palestinian Judaism and its Hebrew-speaking constituency, the meaning of the phrase could have easily been forgotten.

It is interesting to note that several centuries ago two Dutch exegetes Hugo Grotius in 1641 and Johannes Clericus in 1714 proposed this very interpretation. These interpreters provide independent confirmation of the plausibility of the meaning of “salted with fire” suggested in this article.

[1] Since Aramaic also has the root m-l-h, if one prefers to posit an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original for the sources behind the Greek Synoptics, the interpretation suggested here would probably still be valid.

by Weston Fields, Member of the Jerusalem School.

A number of years ago, during his “Christian” phase, Bob Dylan wrote a song called “Gotta Serve Somebody.”  In this song, Dylan mentions all kinds of people, lifestyles, and professions.  Yet the bottom line for every person, no matter who they are or what they do, is that they must serve somebody – either the devil or the L-RD.  You can dress Satan up with all the religious finery you desire (1 Cor. 8:4-6), but in the end, it is still Satan and not the one True God (1 Cor. 10:18-22).  Whom you serve will be seen in your thoughts, words, and/or actions.  I believe this truth is found in the little used Tenach phrase “Covenant of Salt.”  Though it is used only three times in Scripture, it has great significance to the believer in Yeshua today.  

The first time this phrase is found is in Leviticus 2:13 where the order of the words is “salt of the covenant.”  The context of this passage is the grain offering, which was to have salt added to it.  But the Spirit didn’t stop with just the grain offerings.  He had Moses write in the same verse that the Israelites were to “add salt to all your offerings.”  Thus, all offerings made by the Israelites to the L-RD, not just grain offerings, were to have salt added to them. 

The second usage, found in Numbers 18:19, is also in the context of offerings.  This time, however, the word order has been changed to “covenant of salt”.  In Numbers 18, the L-RD tells Moses to instruct Aaron and the Levites that it is their responsibility to take care of the Tabernacle.  Moses was also to let them know that “all the holy offerings the Israelites give Me I give to you and your sons as your portion and regular share.”  This was their allotment, as they were not going to receive any inheritance in the Land because G-d was their inheritance.  All the offerings, except for the burnt offerings, belonged to them.  G-d was letting them know that He Himself was going to provide for them through the offerings given by the people.  “Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the L-RD I (G-d) give to you…It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the L-RD.”  The Kohenim were to serve G-d and trust Him for their livelihoods.

The last time the phrase is found is in 2 Chronicles 13:5.  In this particular passage the L-RD gave the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever through a “covenant of salt.”  Although the previous two usages are found in the context of offerings, this one is clearly devoid of them.  The 2 Chronicles passage appears to be totally unrelated to the previous two usages, yet is it?  Since the Bible itself never directly defines the phrase in any of these passages, how does one discover what G-d is trying to tell us through them?  Equally important, what does it mean to the believer in Yeshua today?

Some scholars point out that salt was used as a preserving element.  It was added to the meat to help it stay fresh longer, until the priests could eat it.  Others point to the prohibition of eating meat containing blood; salt was applied to the offering (after it was killed and the skin removed) to aid in the removal of the blood from the carcass.  Salt was therefore seen as a cleansing or purifying agent as well.

I have only one problem with these two lines of reasoning.  Salt was to be “added to all your offerings”, including the grain offering, which had no blood.  The burnt offerings, which were to have salt, were never to be eaten by the priests as the entire animal was consumed by fire (Lev. 1). Therefore in those cases no preservation or cleansing agent would be needed.  Furthermore, it couldn’t just be related to the Kohenim, as the phrase “covenant of salt’ was also used with David, who was from the tribe of Judah.  Thus the meaning of the “salt covenant” had to mean something other than preservation, prevention from eating blood, or cleansing.

One scholar noted that “salt had an enduring quality and therefore in the Middle East salt was used in ceremonies to seal an agreement.  Hence, the idea may simply be that G-d’s call upon the Kohenim and their service should endure, i.e., overcome all things.”  I believe this definition is heading in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough as it is used in connection with the House of David and the Israelites who presented the offerings.  Something more is going on with this “covenant of salt”.  Could it be that the “covenant of salt” was all about a relationship with G-d based upon trust?  

The people were to trust G-d by giving the salt that was put into their offering.  Their G-d would provide for them and they were to give back out of love and obedience.  The priests and Levites were to trust G-d by serving Him without a land inheritance like their brothers.  Their G-d would provide for their livelihood while they were away from their cities which were interspersed throughout Israel.  David and his sons were to trust G-d as the King and serve Him, believing He would keep the throne moving through David’s line long after David and his sons departed the scene.  

When we break down the phrase into its component words and put them back together again, this is the truth I believe the L-RD is trying to convey in the phrase “covenant of salt”:  He desires a relationship with His people based upon trust that is seen in their actions and, eventually, through a changed life. 

The first word in the phrase, “covenant”, is the Hebrew word “bĕriyth” (בּרית).  This word basically means an agreement or alliance between two parties where each party makes a pledge to keep their end of the bargain.  The first time this word is found is in Genesis 6:18.  Noah was to build the Ark and gather the animals.  If Noah would fulfill his end of the bargain, G-d would get them safely through the coming storm.  This took trust.  In order to go through the embarrassment of building a boat so far away from water, in order to start gathering supplies for animals which he had quite possibly never seen or even heard of before, Noah had to trust G-d to keep His end of the bargain. 

This agreement was based upon mutual trust.  If Noah did his part, would he trust G-d to do His part?  The answer is given right after G-d writes up the contract.  Noah “did everything just as G-d commanded him.”  Noah showed his trust in G-d through his actions of living out the words of the contract, or covenant.

Now, sometimes these agreements are applied to both parties, as previously mentioned; at other times it was totally conditional upon one party.  This is seen in Genesis 9:9 when G-d made a deal with Noah to never destroy the earth again by water.  The passage never says Noah had to do anything but trust his G-d to fulfill His word.  One can understand why G-d said this to Noah too.  Noah had just gotten off the wildest ride of his life!  I believe G-d was calming Noah’s nerves a little here.  When Noah stepped off the boat he could have been thinking, “I sure hope I never have to go through that again.”  And G-d comes to Noah’s rescue, “Relax Noah, it’s over.  Neither you nor your descendents will ever have to repeat this heart-racing experience.”  Still, what would it take?  Trusting in G-d’s word.  Every time the skies started clouding up, Noah would need to remember G-d’s word – no more floods.  As He trusted G-d’s word, peace would replace the anxiety.  But first Noah had to trust.

More examples could be given, but trust is the basis of any “bĕriyth”, or covenant.  It’s an agreement between two parties, based in trust, to fulfill their end of the deal.

Now let’s consider the idea behind the Hebrew word for salt, “melach” (מלח), a noun that comes from the root word “malach” (מלח) which means to rub to pieces or pulverize, to disappear as dust, or to season or rub with salt.

Melach is primarily used for the Salt/Dead Sea (Gen. 14:3; Num. 34:3,12; Deut. 3:17; Josh. 3:16), which will one day be made fresh again – Ezekiel 47:11.  There is an important clue here for our understanding of the phrase “covenant of salt.”  Keep something in mind:  this body of water was once salty or dead, but will one day be made fresh or alive again. 

What I find interesting about melach, however, is the first time it is used in the Bible.  In Genesis 19:26 Lot’s wife is turned into salt for looking back.  Though the word for covenant is not used in this story, the angel had an agreement with Lot.  The angel would only destroy Sodom and Gomorrah after Lot and his family was out of town and had safely reached the city of Zoar.  What did Lot’s wife do?  She did not keep her agreement to “not look back.”  It appears that she left her heart in Sodom with the accompanying lifestyle she left behind.  In her heart, she didn’t want to leave and thus was judged for it when she was turned into salt, or disappeared as dust.

This idea of pulverizing something in order to scatter it to the wind is also seen in Judges 9:45 when Abimelech destroyed the city of Shechem and poured salt over it.  In this story, the people of Shechem rebel against their leaders, Gideon’s sons.  The citizens of Shechem made Abimelech king, after which Abimelech wipes out every single son of Gideon, save one Jotham. 

In order to right this wrong, G-d moves the citizens to rebel or break their agreement with Abimelech, who in turn wipes them out.  Again, it is the same as Lot’s wife.  Just as she rebelled and paid the consequence for it, so did the city of Shechem. 

Melach is not only associated with death, destruction, and judgment.  It is also associated with the sacrificial system (Leviticus 2:13).  Now stop for a moment and ask yourself, “What was the purpose of the sacrificial system?”  According to Hebrews 9:11-10:18, sacrifices pointed to the One who would take the punishment or the negative consequences of all our sinful actions (death, destruction, and judgment) – Yeshua.  In Him we find forgiveness and restoration to a relationship that was broken because we refused to trust our G-d and His way of living. 

Continuing on, Exodus 30:34-38 uses melach in the process of making the Temple incense.  David wrote in Psalm 141:2, “May my prayer be set before You like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice”, both of which (incense and sacrifice) had salt added to them.  Is it possible that salt aids our worship to G-d?  Could every act of faith or trust/covenant (1 Corinthians 10:31) be an act of salting our worship?

Paul, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have known the above Tenach passages. In fact, Paul uses Temple and sacrifice images quite often in his writings.  So when he penned the words in Romans 12:1-2 that we are to offer our “bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God”, could he have been thinking of the salt added to all the sacrifices?  Paul goes on to say that once we offer ourselves to G-d, we are to let Him change our lives through changing our thinking, which in turn changes our behavior, glorifying and thus worshiping the G-d we say we love.

It’s interesting that Revelation 8:3 uses this same imagery – incense on the golden altar (meaning the incense altar in front of the veil between the Holies of Holies and the Most Holy Place, where the coals from the outside bronze sacrificial altar were laid and incense was poured on top of the burning coals causing smoke).  Do our lives smell (both the offerings and the incense) good to our G-d?

But there is more!  Ezekiel 16:6 states that Israel was not born with a right to be G-d’s child.  When they were born their cord was not cut, they were not washed with water, rubbed with salt, or wrapped in clothes.  No, G-d took them and made them His.  The context here is that Israel was still living like her parents, the Hittites and the Amorites, in full idolatry mode.  They were still tied by an umbilical cord to their mother.  In other words, their behavior hadn’t changed!  Israel was still acting like her parents.  And if her umbilical cord was not cut, she would die when the placenta started discharging from the womb after birth. 

Again we discover that salt carries the idea of worshiping the one true G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through Israel trusting their G-d by cutting her ties to her idolatrous parents/past.  Israel needed to make a covenant of salt with their G-d to follow Him and worship Him alone.

The next two places where salt is used are also very insightful.  In 2 Kings 2:20-21, salt was used to heal a body of water so it could be drinkable.  Now think about this for a second.  When salt is added to water, one gets salt water, not fresh.  You might use salt water to gargle, but certainly not to drink.  Now imagine what was going through the minds of those watching Elisha throw salt into their putrid water hole.

“Elisha, hold on!  You’re going to make the situation even worse!  Are you sure the L-RD said to do this?  It doesn’t make sense, Elisha.  Why would you waste valuable salt by throwing it into an already bad source of water?  You’re just throwing it away!” 

Why would Elisha do it?  Trust.  After Elisha threw the salt into the water, it “became wholesome”.  How would the people know it was good to drink?  They would have to trust their G-d enough to dip their hand into the water and draw it to their lips.  Pouring salt must have seemed like a crazy thing to do to them.  But when it comes to walking with our G-d, isn’t this what it takes – going against the way we think to do what He tells us to do? 

This is the same idea behind Job 6:6 when Job makes the point that salt is added to tasteless food to make it worth eating.  Again, isn’t this just like our G-d to make something tasty out of two things that don’t belong together?  The question is, “Will we trust Him?” 

Furthermore, didn’t it take trust to give up the salt in the first place?  Where did the salt for the sacrifices come from?  The incense?  The healing of the water?  It came from the Israelites.  Look at it from their point of view.  Salt contained the very elements necessary for their survival.

During the Tenach times, Israel was primarily an agricultural society.  They worked out in the sun for a living, which brought on a good sweat.  Because of this, they would need to replenish their bodies with sodium and chloride, of which salt is a good source.  These two elements, along with potassium, are involved in everything you do from nerve impulse conduction to muscle contraction.  If these three elements get out of balance in your system, you’re not going to have a good day. 

Now, here comes your G-d telling you that you must give Him some of your salt.  Would you trust Him?  Would you give your precious salt to Elisha to throw in your bad spring?  Would you trust your G-d and add salt to all your sacrifices?  This is why I believe G-d put the last usage of “covenant of salt” with the House of David.  It ties the two ideas of salt and covenant together.

The Talmud says, “The world can get along without pepper, but it cannot get along without salt.”  (Yerushalmi Hora’yot 3:5)  This tractate is referring to the 2 Chronicles 13:5 passage where G-d gave “the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt.”  Treaties were sealed in salt.   Covenants were based upon trust.  Giving someone your salt was a sign of that trust.  And G-d was making a treaty with David to have his children sit on his throne forever, no matter how good or bad they were!

So when we put the words “covenant” and “salt” back together, it stands for the idea of two parties making and keeping an agreement with each other based upon trust.  The word “salt” gives us the truth that we should trust our G-d enough to live with and for Him in our everyday lives.  In the everyday decisions we encounter, we are to sacrifice our way of living and thinking and trust His Word. 

The covenant gives us the thought that when we trust our G-d and live His way – our part of the agreement – He will change our lives for the better, one where no judgment is needed – His part of the agreement.  He can make life come out of the dead areas of your life.  He can turn an unsatisfying life into a tasty one.  Where we were once alone, we can now communicate with the G-d of the universe.  Instead of fear and anxiety, we can have peace.

This covenant of salt is all about who you are going to serve: God or Satan?  Serve Satan and be judged, eventually die, and spend your eternity with him.  Serve God and be saved, and taste goodness both now and forever. 

I believe we find this same meaning carried over into the New Testament.  The Bible is consistent throughout because it is one Book written by one Author with one Message.  In order to help us see this, we must use the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tenach, to follow our words forward.

According to the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for salt (“melach”) in Leviticus 2:23 becomes the Greek word “halas” (ἅλας).  “Halas”, or salt, is used in Matthew 5:13 where Jesus states that we are “the salt of the earth.”  Most Christian commentaries talk about salt as a preserving agent.  As believers live for Yeshua, they slow down the decay of this planet.   When believers are finally taken off the planet, the decay happens rapidly.   As Jesus said in Matthew 24:21-22, if G-d didn’t shorten the days of Jacob’s trouble no one would survive the tremendous evil being unleashed. 

I used to believe and teach this same thought, but not anymore.  As I came to understand the Tenach concept of the Covenant of Salt, it made me re-examine this passage again.  I discovered that the immediate context of Jesus’ “salt of the earth” statement is being persecuted for righteousness.  He just got done telling those listening to Him on the mountainside they would be blessed over and over again if they followed Him.  One of those blessing was persecution!  If one lives for Yeshua as “the salt of the earth”, one should expect to be insulted, persecuted and falsely accused.  Jesus is telling His followers the reality of following Him – the good, the bad and the ugly truth of it all.

He continues this line of thinking in Luke 14:34-35.   In this passage, Yeshua also uses salt in the context of counting the cost of being His disciple.  He tells those listening to Him that they must love Him more than their family and their very life itself.  Then after talking about calculating the cost of building a tower and going to war, He states that once salt loses its saltiness, it’s not good for anything, even for fertilizer.  It has no value whatsoever, so He tells His listeners to listen up.  Living for Him will not be a walk in the park.  It will cost them something; so think about it before they begin the journey.

In Mark 9:42-50, Yeshua moves past counting the cost to actually living for Him.  Salt is now used in the context of living in such a way as to not stumble other believers (“little ones who believe in Me to sin”).  He goes on to emphasize His point by saying, “If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off.”  Notice Jesus changed the subject of the sentence from just anyone to you.  Believers in Yeshua are to live in such a way that their lives will affect others in a positive manner.

After saying this, Yeshua then makes the statement “everyone will be salted with fire.”  Wow!  Will you trust your G-d enough to live His way even during the trials of life?  Jesus finishes his discourse in Mark 9 with this, “Have salt (ἅλας/melach) in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” 

What’s the big deal about being at peace with each other?  It’s a sign a believer trusts and is living for Yeshua in their everyday lives.  Jesus said there would be three distinguishing marks of those who call themselves His disciples.  One, they would love each other (cf. Jn. 13:34-35).  Two, they would bear the fruit of a changed life (cf. Jn. 15:1-8).  And three, they would live in unity (cf. Jn. 17:20-23).  We are to be salted so others will know He is G-d!  We are to trust our G-d enough to live His way seven days a week.  When we do, the world will know we are His.

And guess what happens then?  It’s the point of Jesus’ next statement in Matthew 5:14, “you are the light of the world.”  A light doesn’t necessarily draw attention to itself.  Its real purpose is to shine on something else so it can be seen.  This is the context of His next statement, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”  As we live a salty life, one based upon trust, people will see Yeshua in us and hopefully want a relationship with Him.

This is what the Spirit had written in Colossians 4:6, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so you know how to give an answer to everyone.”  The context is sharing the gospel of Yeshua.  Paul told the Colossians to be wise in how they acted (trust in action) towards those who don’t know Jesus so they could make the most of every opportunity to share their Yeshua story of how He had changed their lives.

How does this happen?  It comes back to the point I made earlier in Romans 12:1-2, which I believe is the Covenant of Salt in action.  As we offer our bodies as living sacrifices (salt was added) you are dying to self and living for G-d.  How is this seen?  Trusting G-d’s Word (basis of a covenant) and allowing Him to change your life on a daily basis (“transformed by the renewing of your mind”).

As you agree to worship Him through your every day actions, even when it costs you something or goes against your way of thinking, you’ll become salty, which will make people thirsty enough to ask, “Where do you find your peace in the midst of tough times?  How can you live the way you do when everyone else is doing the opposite?”  Those who are the salt of the earth will automatically be the light of the world and will be ready to shine their light on Jesus.

It is your choice. You gotta serve somebody.  Your actions will tell whether you are serving the L-RD or Satan.  What do your actions say about you?  As a believer in Yeshua, if you don’t serve Jesus, your life will not only be unsatisfying, but it will also lose its meaning and purpose.  You’ll become what Jesus said happens to salt that is no longer salty, “Trampled by men.”  Why would anyone want to listen to you? 

We are to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice – choosing to trust G-d, rather than ourselves in our every day thoughts, attitudes, decisions, words and actions.  We are to be salty, which in turn leads to being a light.  Yet, you choose whom you will serve.  And it’s like the song says, “You gotta serve somebody.”  Who’s it going to be?

Author: Chris Suitt

If our goal is to understand the Bible on its own terms, there is an evident danger in creating new typological associations between the Gospel narrative and Old Testament events. At the same time, however, we cannot turn our back on typology altogether, as it is vividly clear that the New Testament writers often embraced such a way of reading classic Old Testament narratives. Most notably, there have been a number of fine studies on the use of “new exodus” imagery in both Paul and the Synoptic Gospels.

One of the more obvious typological connections is that between the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist. Although it feels like a game of Ping-Pong to figure out when Jesus and John press these connections and when they deny them in the face of common opinion, most readers of the Gospels probably come away thinking that, apart from Elijah’s mysterious appearance at the Transfiguration, there seems to be an efficient identification between Elijah, as the promised herald of the end time deliverance, and John, as the forerunner of the Messiah. It is mainly for this reason, no doubt, that readers often miss the fact that Elijah fulfills a dual typological function, in that he is also associated with Jesus himself. As we will see, the connection between Elijah and Jesus is actually more prominent in Luke-Acts than the connection between Elijah and John.

 There are other reasons that the Elijah-Jesus connections in Luke- Acts are often missed. For one thing, they seem to be more “narrativally active” at a pre-synoptic stage of the tradition. That is, they appear to be more the concern of Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s sources than of Matthew, Mark, and Luke themselves. If Otto Bauernfeind’s analysis is on target (see his commentary, ad loc.), Peter’s speech in Acts 3 provides an example of Elijianic imagery being applied to Jesus in a way that doesn’t seem to concern Luke in his reuse of this material. (To appreciate Bauernfeind’s point, it is not necessary to follow him in his more radical suggestion that this block of material was originally about Elijah himself, and only secondarily applied to Jesus.) On the other hand, depending on how sophisticated a web of allusions we think the evangelists are wanting to create, one could also imagine that this sort of submerged allusions operates at the level of their own concerns. (Recent scholarship has shown the sophistication of the narratival art in the Gospels, but one must beware of the current scholarly trend of turning any and all redactional in concinnities into intentional literary devices, without first explaining why they could not simply be the redactional seams that they appear to be.)

Another reason that readers miss the Elijah-Jesus connections is that it takes an eye trained in ancient Jewish reading strategies to recognize many of them. The images and ideas that spring to mind when we read a verse of Scripture are based as much upon the history of how that verse has been read in our traditions as upon the true intratextual dimensions of that verse. The same goes for the way in which first-century Jews and Christians read Scripture: without doing the requisite homework, latecomers like ourselves will fail to grasp how scriptural quotations and allusions operated in Jesus’ arguments. We will see the relevance of this point below when we attempt to read Isaiah 61 through the lens of early Jewish messianic expectations.

Jesus’ association with Elijah is actually a prominent theme in Luke- Acts. I will not try to determine whether this theme is a concern of Luke’s or simply a pre-Lukan theme that Luke (who in many places is more of a wholesaler than a retailer of tradition) has allowed to shine through. These echoes of Elijah traditions begin with two associated events: Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan, and his cool reception in his home town. Although these events are separated by sixteen verses of genealogy and the account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, scholars have pointed out that they appear to comprise a single interpretive complex, as it is Jesus’ quotation and commentary on Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth synagogue that provide the theological rationale for his baptism by John. As Max Turner writes, Luke “has laid a clearly marked track from the banks of the Jordan right up to the door of the synagogue in Nazareth through his redactional references to the Spirit in 4.1 and 4.14.”^[1] That Luke (or his source) intentionally brought the Nazareth incident near to the baptism is suggested by the fact that Mark’s parallel (essentially a stripped-down version) doesn’t appear until 6:1-6, as well as by the apparent anachronism of Jesus’ mention of Capernaum in Luke 4:23: “what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country.” Luke includes a flashback to an episode that he doesn’t record. (Jesus will later enter Capernaum in Luke 7:1.) In Lukan story-time, this looks like an anachronism, although the fact that Jesus is found ministering in Capernaum in the Mark chapter 1 shows that the flashback by no means violates the chronological ordering of the broader bed of tradition (which is almost certainly represented in Mark 6:1-6). Luke appears to have replaced the account of Jesus ministering in Capernaum with the telescopic report in 4:15: “And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.”

Such inconsistencies on the narrative surface are uncharacteristic of Luke. His failure to record the Capernaum ministry suggests that he is trying hard to make a point. The fact that Luke includes 4:14-15 shows that his theological motive is not to present the Nazareth incident as an inglorious ministry debut: it really is not a debut at all. Rather, the theological motive is found in what Jesus says to his hometown crowd at Nazareth.

 We must turn our attention to the passage that Jesus read, quoted here in its Lukan version (which omits “to bind up the brokenhearted” and adds [from Isa. 58:6] “to set at liberty those who are oppressed”):

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (RSV)

Few scholars are aware of the fact that this passage was apparently associated, in the minds of apocalyptically minded Jews, with the end time appearance of Elijah. There is, in fact, a very good (that is, by contemporary standards) exegetical basis for this belief: Isaiah 61 speaks, in the first person, of an “anointed” figure whose activities seem to suggest that he is prophet. Jews who knew their Bible well will have known that only two prophets in Scripture were said to be anointed: Elijah and Elisha. While the offices of king and priest were signified by an anointing,^[2] the office of prophet was not. This fact, combined with the anointing of Elijah and Elisha, led to the popular belief that Elijah was also a priest. He was, moreover, the priestly messiah, made famous in our day by the Dead Sea scrolls. Marks of Elijah’s priesthood appear all over the traditions of his end time reappearance.^[3] This identification of the anointed one of Isaiah 61 with a priest was undoubtedly abetted by the mention of the priesthood just beyond the part of the passage that Jesus quotes (v. 6: “But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD….”). The priestly nature of the anointed figure in Isaiah 61 has been noticed by Pierre Grelot and Emile Puech. Puech writes,

Some authors think that “The Spirit of Lord YHWH is on me for YHWH has anointed me, he has sent me to bring news to the poor…” can only be attributed to a prophetic figure, dismissing without any serious analysis and arguments the proposition of a high priest. On one side authors do not distinguish generally the gift of the spirit for prophecy and the anointing which is proper to king and priests, but is never said of a prophet. The unique example in 1 Kings 19:16 about Elijah is improper and is no anointing to become a prophet, thus the term “anointed- messiah” to designate a prophet must be taken as a figurative meaning (Psalm 105:15//1 Chronicles 16:22, 1QM XI 7, CD II 12, V 20-VI 1). But this cannot be the case in Isaiah 61:1, where the gift of the spirit of YHWH depends directly on the anointing.^[4]

Furthermore, the striking similarity between the works attributed to the anointed one in Isaiah 61 and those attributed to the end time Elijah in Mal. 3:23-24 (= 4:5-6) lends support to this reading. Furthermore, Isaiah 61 was apparently read in conjunction with an Elijianic messianism at Qumran. The wondrous works of Isaiah 61 are attributed to an eschatological figure in 4Q521, whom John J. Collins identifies as Elijah, on the basis of a reference to raising the dead and a possible echo of Elijah’s prayer to shut the heavens.^[5]  (In the Old Testament, raising the dead is a distinctively Elijianic miracle.) It should also be noted that Ben Sira read Elijah into another Isaian passage: Sir. 48:10 combines Mal. 3:23 with Isa. 49:6.^[6]

Jewish messianism of Jesus’ day was intensely interested in the figure of Elijah, but let us not forget that Elijah’s disciple Elisha was similarly anointed. If Jews in Jesus’ day associated Isaiah 61 with Elijah, the only thing that might have prevented their associating that passage with Elisha as well would have been the latter figure’s lack of an eschatological profile. That, of course, is no small matter, but suppose someone were to read this Isaian passage as paradigmatic for an end time redeemer, without supposing that the envisioned redeemer represented a literal return of Elijah. That is, what if the end time redeemer is not Elijah himself, but rather someone else working in the power and spirit of Elijah? In that case, might not Elisha sit alongside Elijah as a prototype for this end time figure? And could not the plural of “priests” in Isa 61:6 have promoted this understanding?

Although I have no proof that Elisha was also read into Isaiah 61, I think that the likelihood of this reading helps explain Jesus’ mini-sermon in Luke 4:16-30. After closing the “book,” Jesus announces to the congregation that “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Notice what Jesus says in verses 23-27:

And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country.'” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” (RSV)

For whatever reason (see below), these words incensed the crowd, and they attempted to stone Jesus. (As Robert Lindsey well recognized, the attempt to push Jesus off a precipice was the first step in the ritual of stoning.)

It is not coincidental, I suggest, that the examples Jesus cites happen to be the only two Old Testament prophets who fit the description of Isaiah 61, that is, the only two who were anointed. In other words, Jesus does not adduce Elijah and Elisha as two random examples of prophets who are not accepted at home, but rather he is referring to the two prophets that are specified according to contemporary exegesis of the Isaiah passage that Jesus read. This should affect how we understand the point of what Jesus is saying.

I agree with those scholars who think that the crowd originally welcomed Jesus, and that they even received his announcement that Isaiah 61 was being fulfilled in their midst. It is what Jesus says next that turns the crowd against him. The crowd hopes to see Jesus work the wonders that have made him famous, and they correctly read their hopes and understanding of Jesus’ ministry into the passage that he quotes. They are not ready, however, for Jesus to press the parallels between his ministry and the careers of Elijah and Elisha in quite this way. How dare Jesus compare the Nazarenes with the apostatized public of Elijah’s and Elisha’s day! As it turns out, their conduct betrays the correctness of Jesus’ judgment against them. The final detail, that Jesus “passing through the midst of them went his way” (v. 30), is perhaps a final echo of the Elijah-Elisha cycle, as it recalls the way in which Elijah so facilely slipped through the grips of Ahab and Jezebel.

Nowhere else in the Gospels are the remnants of an Elijianic model of messianism so clearly preserved. As is well known, the evangelists much prefer to portray Jesus as a Mosaic or Davidic messiah. Luke 4:16-30, however, shows that the struggle to understand Jesus took in just about the whole range of Jewish messianic expectations, and it was up to the evangelists to show in what way Jesus fulfilled these expectations. The loudest echoes are those stemming from proof texts incorporated into the earliest kerygma (preaching) of the Church, which included Mosaic (esp., Ps. 68) and Davidic (esp. Ps. 2, 110) echoes. In other contexts, not directly shaped by the kerygma, there was an equal opportunity for Elijianic echoes to be heard.

By Jack Poirier

[1] Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke Acts (JPTSup 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 213.

[2] The root mashah denotes a king in Jdg. 9:8, 15; 1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 9:16; 10:1; 12:3, 5; 15:1, 17; 16:3, 6, 12-13; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16, 21; 2:4, 7; 3:39; 5:3, 17; 12:7; 19:10, 21; 22:51; 23:1; 1 Kgs. 1:34, 39, 45; 5:1; 19:15-16a; 2 Kgs. 9:3, 6, 12; 11:12; 23:30; 1 Chron. 11:3; 14:8; 16:22; 29:22; 2 Chron. 6:42; 22:7; 23:11; Ps. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; 89:20, 38, 51; 105:15 (?); 132:10, 17; Isa. 45:1; Lam. 4:20; 9:25-26 (messianic); Hab. 3:13; and a priest in Exod. 28:41; 29:7; 30:30; 40:13, 15; Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:20, 22 (ET); 7:36; 8:12; 16:32; Num. 3:3; 35:25. [return to article]

[3] I discuss this at length in the next issue of Dead Sea Discoveries, in an article entitled “The Endtime Return of Elijah and Moses at Qumran.” [return to article]

[4] Emile Puech, “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism,” The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (eds. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 545-565, esp. 556-557. See also Pierre Grelot, “Sur Isaie LXI: La Premiere Consecration d’un Grand-Pretre,” RB 97 (1990), 414-431. John Collins disagrees with the arguments of Puech and Grelot (“A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1-3 and its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders [eds. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 225-240, esp. 227; see also William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ [London: SCM, 1998], pp. 7-8), but see my response in “The Endtime Return of Elijah and Moses at Qumran.” [return to article]

[5] “The Works of the Messiah,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), pp. 98-112. Turner demurs, suggesting that “the parallels with 11QMelchizedek do not favour an Elijianic identification” (Power from on High, p. 116, n. 27). [return to article]

[6] See James D. Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective,” Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature (OS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 107-123

First, he was the Old Testament professor at Wheaton College 50 years ago who gave me a B+ on a paper I wrote under which he added in large letters, “FOOLISHNESS!” 

When I was in Walter Kaiser’s class (his second year of teaching I believe) a Q and A exchange began between him and his students where I kept my mouth shut and my ears open wide.  The questions were tough and I sat there spell-bound, a country boy from Tennessee, hungry to get answers to things that puzzled me.

Then came the lecture that changed my life.

A student asked a technical question that was so clever I wouldn’t have thought of it.  I sat, pen poised for another answer to carry back home to use in defending the faith.

Kaiser paused…gave that pensive look some professors use when on the verge of a significant pronouncement, and said, “I just don’t know.  That’s a question I have on the back burner for now.”

That class, the highlight of my semester, opened me up to the Old Testament. And he’d taught me the importance of honesty, not with an underlineable explanation, but by example.

Let me quickly add: Kaiser then was by no means a destructive critic who relished finding holes that naïve traditionalists had overlooked for years.  He simply had a reasonable faith.  The puzzle of what he saw before him had been more than enough to compel him to trust and commit to the God of the Bible, even though some pieces that showed up from closer inspection hadn’t snapped neatly into place.  (The “puzzle” metaphor here is mine.  If you brand it “foolish,” please use lower case…)

Just last October Kaiser and I both happened to be guests at a dinner at my daughter-in-law’s parents’ house.  So, at a pause in conversation, I pulled out my old paper and asked if he’d take another look at it.  (College professors can get away with doing things like that to each other.)

No pensive look from the teacher this time.  He just stared in amazement and laughed.  (That’s a rare vote for saving everything!)

Dr. Kaiser, who wrote the last feature article, is a world class Old Testament scholar.  He’s passionate about the Old Testament and the New, and has been a country boy (though northern) himself in high school.  When disturbed by the debunking of Genesis in his biology class (circa 1948), he dared voice another opinion to his teacher, who let him produce a 40-page paper complete with anthropological drawings and bibliography.

This triggered a lifelong interest in God’s Word, particularly the Old Testament (while most fellow classmates were focusing on the New Testament), that led to his teaching at Wheaton College (his alma mater), Trinity Evangelical School (where he later became Vice President and Academic Dean), and Gordon-Conwell (where he became a Distinguished Teaching Professor and later President).

He has worked with Biblical (and related) languages: Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Middle and Late Egyptian Cuniform and Assyrian Cuniform, and Greek.  He understands ancient history and has skillfully debated alongside scientists who share his faith in inerrant Scripture.

Among his 346 (to date) publications, Torah Class readers should especially enjoy these books:

Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament

The Hard Sayings of the Bible

The Archaeological Study Bible (Kaiser, the editor).  (My wife and I have read aloud through this thick book twice—notes and all.  A real feast!)

The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of Old and New Testaments

Revive Us Again: Biblical Principles for Revival Today

To learn more, visit www.walterckaiserjr.com and watch for more articles here.

A closing comment: A day after my dinner conversation with Dr. Kaiser I had the privilege of sitting under his teaching again (at age 77) as he subbed for a sick teacher at Houghton College (where he was leading several days of Christian emphasis meetings—see the last book listed above).  Patiently, he engaged student after student one-on-one, tracing God’s promise-plan of salvation beginning with Adam and moving out to others, down through the seed of Abraham and the Jews to the gentiles (where I fit in), showing the big picture, careful not to employ “eisegesis,” or reading into the text things never intended to be there.

Beginning, of course, with Genesis, which New Testament believers should never ever forget.

Author: John Knapp II, PhD