How To Energize Our Faith: Reconsidering The Meaning Of James 2:14-26

I. Introduction

The members of a small group Bible study gather to discuss personal evangelism, none of whom have ever persistently shared their faith. How passionate do you suppose their conversation will be? The members of another small group Bible study also meet to discuss personal evangelism. But in this group, each Christian is taking bold steps to win others to Christ. They are actually doing evangelism, not just talking about it. It is not too difficult to visualize how differently each group might present their beliefs about reaching the non-Christian for the Savior. Nor is it too complicated to understand how one’s belief in evangelism might be energized by the work of evangelism. Good works bring vitality and spirit to our faith. At the risk of oversimplification, this elementary but dynamic principle is what pervades Jas 2:14-26.

Because of various theologies and dogmas, evangelical exegesis of James 2 has unfortunately maintained a fixed focus that has obscured its perception of the chapter. In fact, I find that the traditional perspective of James 2 is so ingrained in our thinking that it is difficult for us to examine the passage with freshness and openness. The major traditional perspective on James 2 that stands out as a barrier to exegesis is the proposition that true faith always results in consistent good works in a believer’s life.¹ James 2 is most often used as the proof text for this conception.² According to this viewpoint, James 2 is addressing the problem of people who falsely profess to have faith.³ False faith, it is reasoned, is merely an “intellectual” faith inadequate to produce the necessary good works that prove that such a person is a true Christian. Support for this definition of faith is thought to be resident in the statement of Jas 2:14, “Can such faith save him?” (NIV), or that of 2:17, “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” Further support is garnered from the mention that even the demons believe (2:19)—a supposed example of false faith. In the final analysis, dead faith is equated with no faith at all. It is a false faith.

If this is James’s purpose for 2:14-26, one of two primary responses surfaces. First is the response of complacency. I might say to myself, “I know I’m a Christian and bound for heaven. By God’s grace, I have enough good works in my life to show it. These verses have no application for me because they are addressed to people who have false faith.”

A second response is that of an unhealthy questioning of my salvation. I might say to myself, “I’ve trusted Christ as my Savior and thought I was a Christian. But now I’m not sure if I really have enough good works to prove it.” Regardless of which response is the result, complacency or unhealthy introspection injures the Christian spiritually and the real impact of the passage is neglected.

James is one of the NT books that is extremely relevant for the twentieth-century church. Like American evangelicals, the Jewish Christians to whom James addresses his challenges are ensnared by worldliness (1:27b; 4:4) and are idolizing economic prosperity (2:2-4; 4:13). Their desire for material gain has prevented them from caring for the practical needs of others less fortunate (1:27a; 2:15-16).⁴ But much of the strength of James’s rebuke of worldly Christians goes unheeded. The blame for this may well lie at the feet of the true-faith-versus-false-faith theology that has been made to override all other concerns in James 2 and the epistle as a whole.⁵ In my opinion, the primary purposes of the latter half of James 2 is to incite within the Christian reader the need to be active in doing more good works that meet practical needs.⁶ That kind of exhortation is radically lost if we force on the unit a false faith/true faith purview.

The very heart and method of James’s appeal in chapter 2 is to arouse acts of mercy from those who know they have already received the mercy of God.⁷ James simply does not question the fact that his readers are true Christians. He appeals to them based on the reality of their new birth. Perhaps the most transparent statement to this effect is 2:1, “My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, do not show favoritism” (NIV).⁸ All that James has to say is designed to shake us “as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” from the comfort of worldliness and challenge us to meet the practical needs of others such as the needs of an orphan or a widow (1:26). He does so without ever finding it necessary to scrutinize our experience of salvation.

Many other Scriptures contradict the proposition that “all true Christians will produce good works that are pleasing to God.” For example, the teaching of 1 Corinthians 3 must be brought into the discussion. Concerning the future evaluation of a Christian, Paul explains that each believer must stand before the Lord Jesus Christ one day to have his works examined. At that time all of our deeds will go through a “fire” that tests their quality. In some cases a believer’s works may appear to be “good works” to others. But his inner motives may be impure (cf. Matt 6:1-18; Heb 4:12; 1 Cor 4:5), making the quality of his works unacceptable to God and therefore “burned up.” Of this person Paul says, “He shall suffer loss, yet he himself will be saved” (1 Cor 3:15). This is an undeniable case of a Christian who is bound for heaven but does not produce enough good works to ultimately please the Lord and be rewarded.⁹ Like 1 Corinthians 3 and the Corinthian church, the pages of Scripture contradict the idea that genuine Christians will consistently yield fruit that pleases the Lord. The Bible is filled with commands directed to true believers to be busy in doing good deeds (Col 1:10; 2 Thess 2:17; 1 Tim 2:10; 5:10; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:13, 8, 14; Heb 10:24; Jas 3:13; 1 Pet 2:12). It never presumes that good works will be done just because true faith exists.

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—43

II. Three Central Teachings from James 2

There are three correct perspectives that arise from James 2. First, James is teaching that speaking our faith without doing our faith cannot meet practical needs. We see this illustrated in Jas 2:16 by a brother or sister who is without clothing, in need of daily food. James continues, “and one of you [i.e., one of you Christians] says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?” Seeing a fellow Christian in need of food and clothing, this believer says to the destitute one, “Go, and may you be well cared for.” “What good is that?” James replies. The point is that faith (i.e., true faith, if the term is needed for some) by itself, without works, cannot meet the practical needs of a person. Faith just cannot do that. But deeds can.

A second correct perspective in James 2 is that by its very nature faith is invisible, but can be seen through our good works. It cannot be concluded from this that good works must be present for true faith to exist. Nevertheless, works make visible to other people the faith that is visible only to God. An imaginary opponent challenges James by saying, “You can’t see faith. Show me, even though I know you can’t.” James responds by declaring, “Indeed, you can see faith! You can see how Abraham trusted God when he offered Isaac on the altar. His faith and works were cooperating so that his faith became visible through his works.”¹⁰

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—44

A third correct perspective in this section is that when good works are added to our faith, our faith in Christ is matured. This is exactly the experience of Abraham. “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect (i.e., matured; Greek: teleioo„)?” (2:22). Abraham’s faith was matured when he added works to it.¹¹ Certainly James is not suggesting that Abraham’s work of offering his son Isaac in sacrifice proved his faith was genuine.¹² The sacrifice of Isaac took place as much as thirty-five years after Abraham’s justification by faith. Were there not many other earlier events that could validate Abraham’s faith just as clearly? The point of v 22 is not the substantiation of faith but the maturation of it. Romans tells us that Abraham initially trusted in the God of resurrection, i.e., that God could bring life to his dead body (Rom 4:17-20). But when he offered up Isaac, Hebrews tells us (11:17-19) that he believed that God would resurrect his son from the dead.¹³ His belief in the resurrection was put to the test (cf. Gen 22:1) and as a result of his works, his faith was matured.

III. Hermeneutics, the Epistles, and James 2

It is now common to view an epistolary introduction as an authorial device that announces the central themes of a letter.¹⁴

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—45

Like the growth of a flower, the prologue of an epistle is the thematic bud and the body of the epistle is the full blossom. Further, the conclusion and the introduction will often be joined with verbal and conceptual links that form a harmony of ideas, confirming the themes.¹⁵ These two hermeneutical principles form a check and balance system for interpretation. If I find in the body of an epistle several basic themes that are not found in the prologue or the epilogue, my exegesis may likely be faulty.

Traditional approaches to James 2 flounder against these hermeneutical tests.¹⁶ The issue of true faith/false faith does not appear in the introduction or conclusion of the letter. Nor does the introduction concern itself with a conception that true faith results in consistent good works. The opening of the epistle reveals that the saints to whom James writes are undergoing trials that are testing their faith (1:2). While some are convinced that this test is designed to separate genuine faith from spurious faith, such thinking is not readily evident. On the contrary, the testing process itself is a mark that one is within the family of God. As an OT believer, Abraham faced a test of his faith when he was commanded to offer up his son Isaac (Gen 22:1; Heb 11:17)—a test that forms the essential backdrop to the

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—46

mention of this incident in Jas 2:22. The Father is in the business of putting his children into situations that will develop their trust in Him.

The potter does not examine defective vessels…What then does he examine? Only the sound vessels…Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, tests not the wicked but the righteous, as it says, “The Lord trieth the righteous.”¹⁷

What the introduction does present is a contrast between a mature faith and immature faith. James reminds his readers that trials can lead to endurance, and endurance should be permitted to “have its perfect [teleios] work, that you may be perfect [teleios] and complete, lacking nothing” (1:4).¹⁸ The same Greek root used in 1:4 is employed by James in 2:22 (teleioo„) to describe the maturing of Abraham’s faith. If the believer will respond to trials with joy and allow endurance to have its perfecting (maturing) work, he will develop a mature, complete character.¹⁹ Since immediately following the Jas 2:14-26 context the

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—47

author brings up the thought of maturity again (3:2), there is no reason to think that the concept should not be given much greater weight in the James 2 unit than any conception of a so-called false faith.²⁰

IV. The Analogy of the Body and Spirit

If we were to construct an analogy between the body and the spirit and the words “faith” and “works,” how would we normally state the analogy? Invariably, our first response would be to say that “faith” corresponds to spirit and “works” corresponds to “body.” Our reasoning would be that faith forms the inner motivating force and any good work must have faith behind it in order for it to be a valid good work, pleasing to God.

Such a theology is precisely what Paul teaches (Gal 5:16b; 1 Thess 1:3). Unfortunately, this is one of the causes of our misguided views of James 2. Paul’s thoughts are erroneously superimposed on James. But James actually affirms the very opposite correspondence in the analogy. He summarizes this whole section (2:14-26) by saying, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”²¹ It should be carefully observed that “body” corresponds with “faith,” and “spirit” corresponds with

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—48

“works.” A body without the spirit is analogous to faith without works.

James is teaching that faith without works is simply a cold orthodoxy, lacking spiritual vibrancy. Practically speaking, we might think of a “dead church.” This is not to say that those gathering as part of this assembly are not Christians. As noted earlier James’s concerns are more practical than theological. The real issue for these believers is the absence or presence of a freshness, vitality, and energy in their faith. When a Christian engages in practical deeds to benefit others, James says our faith comes alive.

V. Objections to This Interpretation of James 2

A. The Salvation in 2:14

In rethinking James 2 with these insights, several objections may be raised against the overview presented so far. One might object by asking, Does not Jas 2:14 refer to a false faith that does not save? After all, it says, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”²²

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—49

This objection is balanced on the unstable assumption that “save” (so„zo„) in the verse is to be interpreted as a deliverance from eternal damnation. An exegetical conjecture as foundational as this must be proved as the intent of the author rather than assumed by the interpreter. There are numerous places where the NT (as well as the OT) refers to “saved” or “salvation” but the reference is not to justification or eternal life.²³ Lexicographically, the nature of the salvation or deliverance cannot be found in the Greek words so„zo„ (“save”) or so„te„ria (“salvation”) themselves. Instead, it must be determined from context. This exegetical-hermeneutical consideration must be allowed to bear on Jas 2:14.

Some versions have tried to assist the reader by translating 2:14, “Can that faith save him?” (NASB, italics added) or “Can such faith save him?” (NIV, italics added). Each of these translations have no clear justification from the Greek. They may also lead to the erroneous

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—50

conclusion that there is a kind of faith in Christ that brings eternal life (“true faith”) and another kind of faith in Christ that does not bring eternal life (“false faith”).²⁴ In the Scripture, however, faith placed in Christ always results in eternal life. The Bible only mentions two responses to Christ: faith and no faith. What is labeled as false faith must be categorized biblically either by faith or unbelief. If the response envisioned is unbelief, then the word “faith” should not be used. In Jas 2:14, the NKJV, KJV, NRSV, and RSV are fully correct to translate simply, “Can faith save him?”²⁵

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—51

If James is asking “Can faith alone get a person to heaven?” a serious contradiction exists with other Scriptures because the question posed in the Greek of 2:14b demands a negative answer: “Faith cannot save him, can it?” Without a doubt, Paul declares that faith alone justifies us before God (Rom 1:17; 3:22, 26, 28, 30; 4:3, 5; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:8). Evangelical attempts to impose a true-faith-produces-works solution on the passage are not helpful.²⁶ However, could it be that James is not talking about being saved from hell? Resistance to this possibility is strong. At least two objections are raised. First, some think that the merciless judgment mentioned in 2:12-13 must be the final judgment. As a result, the “save” in 2:14 must relate to eternal life.²⁷ But surely this exegesis cannot avoid the charge of a works salvation since according to 2:13 the doing of mercy (= works) will bring mercy in judgment (= forgiveness and eternal life).

The reading of Jas 2:12-13 as a reference to our eternal destiny in heaven or hell also confuses the NT teaching on the Judgment Seat of Christ for the believer (2 Cor 5:10) with the final judgment of the unbeliever (Rev 20:11-15). If space permitted, a more detailed analysis

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—52

could be presented to show the need to separate the Christian’s judgment from the judgment of all unbelievers. Instead, two observations from the text will be sufficient to remove the objection. A judgment of believers must be in view in 2:12 because James challenges his readership to act like those who have been forgiven and freed from guilt.²⁸ But unbelievers or false believers cannot act like they have been freed from guilt. Additionally, 2:12-13 corresponds to 3:1 as an inclusio. Therefore, the judgment mentioned in 3:1 corresponds with the judgment mentioned in 2:12-13. But in 3:1, James himself states that he will experience this judgment, and that it will involve greater strictness for him and for all teachers. Can anyone suppose that James thought of himself as appearing before God to determine his eternal destiny? Was heaven held in the balance for him? Absolutely not! But James did realize that even as the half brother of the Lord his life would inevitably pass through a scrutinizing evaluation by his Savior.

A second objection is raised against revisiting the “save” in 2:14. It is argued that “save” and “salvation” in the NT are so frequently used of deliverance from eternal destruction that it is nearly impossible that James uses the term differently. Schreiner writes, “[To take ‘save’ to refer to a deliverance from physical death] is an astonishing move since salvation and justification are typically associated in the New Testament with entering heaven.”²⁹ Schreiner demonstrates a common

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—53

error in exegesis, namely, making exegetical decisions based on the major use of a word rather than context. Applying this “majority-use” principle, the spies (Greek: angeloi, “messengers, angels”) that Rahab protected (Jas 2:25) would be angels rather than men, and the Christian believers to whom James writes would be gathering together in a Jewish synagogue (2:2, Greek: sunago„ge„) rather than a Christian assembly.³⁰

But even more serious under this “majority-use” principle is the fact that Jas 5:15, “the prayer of faith will save [Greek: so„zo„, italics added] the sick,” must also have reference to entering heaven. But as it stands, I am aware of no evangelical that equates the “save” of 5:15 with eternal life.³¹ By far the predominant view is that the “save” of 5:15 speaks of a physical healing, i.e., a deliverance from physical death. The exegetical lesson to be learned is this: Jas 5:15 makes it

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—54

thoroughly apparent that in his short epistle the author is fully capable of using the word “save” of something other than deliverance from eternal damnation.

In fact, the word “save” is used five times in James (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20) and there are no clear-cut cases where the word simply means, “to be delivered from hell.” In James 4:12 we read of the “Lawgiver, who is able to save [Greek: so„zo„] and to destroy.”³² We may be tempted to read the verse as a description of the Lord’s power over heaven and hell. But in the following verses (vv 13-15), the focus centers on one’s temporal life. James addresses a person who plans a future business deal in another country without taking into consideration how long he might live. “For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that’” (Jas 4:14b-15). James is clear: “Life is fleeting! It is best that you include God in your plans, for He alone has the power to preserve your life or to take it.”

The final two uses of “save” in the book of James (1:21; 5:20) both use the phrase, “save the soul,” perhaps better translated “save the life.”³³ Studies on this phrase have been developed by Dillow and

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—55

Hodges,³⁴ and do not need to be repeated here. The following conclusions can be drawn. First, in the LXX, the phrase means “deliverance from physical death,” and never relates to eternal salvation. Second, the NT continues to use the phrase in the identical sense (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; cf. 9:56, Majority Text and the TR). Third, building on the literal meaning of the phrase (deliverance from physical death), Jesus taught a metaphorical meaning of the term “save the life.”³⁵ Fourth, in Jas 5:20, it is a fellow believer (“Brethren, if anyone among you,” italics added; 5:19) whose “soul [life] is saved.”³⁶ To further clarify that physical death is in view, the verse adds the words, “from death.”³⁷ The fifth point is an observation not directly made by Dillow

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—56

or Hodges. The use of the phrase, “save the life” in 1:21 and 5:20—the first and last use of the word “save”—constitutes another inclusio in the book. Like parentheses around written material, it appears that James intended to use this inclusio to mark out a controlling theme for the intervening material and the remainder of his uses of “save.” We conclude, then, that there are very good reasons why James 2 may be saying, “Can faith alone save you from the devastating consequences of sin, ending in physical death?”³⁸

At first, the thought of being saved from physical death seems rather insipid.³⁹ However, James’s Jewish readers would have been

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—57

steeped in the OT. According to the OT, sin naturally leads to an early physical death. Even the one commandment that contains a promise (“Honor your father and mother”) promises a long life on the earth (Eph 6:2). It is a clear fact that sin tends to shorten one’s life. James’s point is that just because someone believes in Christ does not mean he is going to escape the devastation of sin and its ultimate consequence of physical death. New Testament Christians must realize that physical death is still a serious penalty for sin (1 Cor 11:30).

B. The Faith of Demons (2:19)

The second major objection to our approach to James 2 is this: Does not Jas 2:19 demonstrate the nature of a false faith when it mentions the faith of demons? Since I have dealt with this verse more thoroughly in another article,⁴⁰ I will summarize the salient arguments

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—58

that respond to this objection. Three factors militate against using Jas 2:19 as evidence of a false faith. First, the content of the faith described in 2:19 is not Christ but monotheism. The text says, “You believe that there is one God…Even the demons believe.” No one has ever been justified before God by faith that God is one. So then, using Jas 2:19 to compare false faith to true faith is a proverbial “comparing apples to oranges.” If the passage said, “You believe that Jesus is the Christ and your Savior; the demons also believe that,” then perhaps we could draw a theological lesson on the nature of faith.⁴¹

Second, it is theologically unsound to compare any kind of faith (true or false) expressed by demons with faith in Christ exercised by people. Where faith is concerned, the spirit world cannot be compared with the human world simply because there is no salvation for demons even if they did believe (Heb 2:16).

Third, it is highly likely that the words of 2:19, which include the phrase “the demons believe,” are not the teachings of James.

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—59

Instead, they are the words of the imaginary objector that James introduces in v 18.⁴² It is surprising for some to discover that serious confusion exists on how far the objector’s words should extend. In an examination of varying English versions, the ending quote marks of the objector’s speech can be found in four different locations.⁴³ How far, then, does the objector’s words extend? In 1 Cor 15:35-36 and Rom 9:19-20 where an imaginary objector is introduced, the apostolic reply is initiated with a statement about the foolishness of the objector. James 2:19 is very parallel with the censorious address, “O foolish man.” Verse 20, therefore, begins James’s reply and v 19 originates in the mouth of the objector.

Time and space limitations prevent further exegetical details. But what can be said (though without further proof) is that the objector denies the visibility of faith in someone’s works, while James insists that it was clearly seen in the works of both Abraham and Rahab. So then, for the three reasons listed above, Jas 2:19 must be eliminated as a support for a false faith/true faith theology.

C. Justification by Works

A third objection centers on the concept of justification by works in James 2. The question is often asked, Is not James implying that if

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—60

someone is truly justified by faith, he will do good works? Appeal may be made to v 24 for support: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (NIV). In answer to this objection, it may be helpful to discover that in Scripture, justification means “to be declared righteous.” But there are three kinds of justification in the Bible. First, there is a justification by faith alone, which is a justification before God. Paul is clear in teaching that justification by faith is in the sight of God (Rom 3:20; 4:2; Gal 3:11). The good news of the gospel is that at the first moment of faith, the new believer is forensically declared to be just as righteous as Christ is righteous!

A second kind of justification is a justification by works (or faith and works) before God. That kind of justification is always presented in Scripture as heresy as is evident by Paul’s discussions in Romans and Galatians (Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2, 6; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). But a third kind of justification in the Scriptures is a justification by works. James specifically mentions the phrase “justified by works” three times (2:21, 25, 26).⁴⁴ Justification by works is in the sight of people, not God.⁴⁵

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—61

This is the logical conclusion given the fact that James is responding to an objector who holds that faith cannot be seen. James calls on him to “see” (blepo„ v 22; horao„ v 24) how Abraham’s works justified him.⁴⁶ Paul, in full harmony with James, considered the possibility of Abraham being justified by works “but not before God” (Rom 4:2).⁴⁷

With this in mind, one can better approach the meaning of v 24. The traditional understanding labors, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to harmonize the verse with Paul by insisting that saving faith will inevitably produce good works. Far too much must be read into the verse to satisfy objectivity. A greater harmony with Paul is achieved by understanding the verse as delineating two kinds of justification.⁴⁸ Several translations (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NJB) of v 24 utilize the word “only” rather than “alone”: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (NKJV). This translation opens the door to the alternative that James is referring to two different kinds of justification.⁴⁹ His readers need to comprehend that justification by

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—62

faith is not the only way a person is “declared righteous.” The world is watching and it is good works that justify in the eyes of others.

D. Dead Faith

What then does James mean by “dead faith” (2:17)? The only definition James offers is that dead faith is a faith that “does not have works” and is “by itself.” For Paul, that is the very faith that brings justification before God (Rom 3:28; 4:5-6; Gal 2:16). Evangelicals have been content to interpret dead faith as a false faith. The closest syntactical parallel to Jas 2:17 is found in Rom 7:8b, “For apart from the law sin is dead” (NASB).⁵⁰ No one would suppose that Paul intended to say that apart from the law sin was “false sin” or an unreal sinfulness.⁵¹ Sin is still real and true sin, even apart from the law. The thought is that sin lies dormant and unrecognized until the law arouses

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—63

it to action. In the same way, faith apart from works is true and real faith. But works have a way of enlivening faith and arousing it from abeyance.

If the Critical Text of 2:20 is accepted, faith without works is considered “useless” (argos). But regardless of the reading in v 20, James has implied this uselessness of faith without works by calling into question its “benefit” (ophelos, vv 14, 16). James, however, does not insinuate that faith without works cannot give eternal life. His interest resides in pragmatic matters. He has prepared for the thought of a useless, “dead” faith in 1:26-27. In those verses he faulted a devotion to the Lord that did not control the tongue or care for the needy. He concludes that, “this one’s religion is useless (mataios).” If a Christian does not bridle his tongue, is that reason to question his conversion? Said politely, such an interpretation misses the point.⁵² James is declaring that religious devotion that does not act mercifully to the needy or does not speak mercifully to others is devotion that is impractical.

It is valuable to return to the themes of the epistle introduced in the opening remarks of the book. After James reaffirms that endurance can mature our faith, he admonishes us to ask God for the wisdom we lack. But we must “ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—64

doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind” (1:6). In this context, there is no impression that those who lack faith in prayer are false Christians. To the contrary, the terminology identifies an immature believer.⁵³ While the readers trusted God for their eternal life, they doubted He would give them wisdom.⁵⁴ The result of this lack of faith is that the believer’s life becomes unstable and immature (1:8). This theme of immaturity is carried further in 2:5 where James affirms that the economically poor believers are “rich in faith.” The tacit contrast is between a poor (weak) faith and a rich (mature) faith, not a true faith and false faith. Finally, the elder as a righteous man can offer a “prayer in faith” (5:15) for the sick. To do so is to offer a prayer that “works” (5:16; Greek: energeo„). Once again, it is ludicrous to suppose that James contrasted a prayer offered in true faith with some sort of prayer offered with false faith. But he does imply that not all Christians are able to offer such mature, powerful prayer. All of these factors lead to a single conclusion: “dead faith” for James is an immature, weak faith and not a false faith as so many have supposed.

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—65

VI. Conclusion

We have discovered three central lessons in this passage. First, speaking our faith without doing our faith cannot meet practical needs. It is easy for us to talk our faith yet not do it. We are sometimes of the opinion that if we have talked about it, we have done it. If we have talked about the crisis pregnancy center and our stand against abortion, we think we have done it. We gather together in a prayer meeting and talk about prayer, so we think we have done prayer. We talk about evangelism, the poor, and other issues, yet we still avoid the effort of acting on our faith! The end result is a self-deception about how well we are doing in our dedication to God (1:22, 26).

There is one group of Christians who are most susceptible to the self-deception of talking our faith and not doing it. Notice that immediately following Jas 2:14-26, James directs his attention to the subject of the tongue (3:1ff). In the very first verse of this new unit, he describes the ones who most easily fall prey to talking faith but not doing it: teachers of biblical truth! The irony of this is that we evangelical teachers and preachers who need to learn this truth most desperately are the very ones who have obscured it the most. By reducing James to a theological treatment on the nature of faith, it is easier for us all to avoid the real unsettling challenges of James to help others like the poor. Even my own writing on the obligation to move beyond merely talking our faith does not go beyond talking my faith. While I may find a sense of fulfillment from the Lord in exhorting others to do good works, I am not by that writing and teaching released from the obligation to be engaged in good deeds myself.

Second, faith that is invisible can be seen through good works. You can see a person is trusting God by their works. If we do not see the good deeds, he or she may still be a Christian. But his or her faith

JOTGES—V12 #1—Spring 99—66

is not visible. Yet when good works are there, we can say, “Yes, I can see that that person is trusting God.”

Third, when good works are added to our faith, our faith in Christ is matured. We cannot move on to maturity until we actively participate in meeting the needs of the unfortunate, such as the care of widows and orphans. The way that I energize my faith, then, is to act on the real thrust of James 2. I must add to my faith the good works that will meet practical needs.

R. T. Kendall has an incisive observation about the James 2 passage that makes a very relevant conclusion. He writes:

What startles me is the number of people who insist that one must have works to show he is saved but who themselves have virtually nothing of the very works James has in mind! They wish to use James as a basis of “assurance by works” but not the kind of works James has in mind—caring for the poor. I have yet to meet the first person who holds (or preaches) that giving another “those things which are needful to their body” must follow faith to show that it is saving faith indeed. We prefer to be selective in our use of James.⁵⁵

We who hold firmly to the truth that faith alone brings justification without works of any sort must not be guilty of Kendall’s criticism. Let us lead the way in good works flowing from love and the power of the Spirit. Let us energize our faith to its fullest.

¹ The word “consistent” is a vital element in this statement. Note that we are not suggesting that true faith can exist without ever producing good works of any sort. See my article, “The Faith of Demons: James 2:19,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 8 (Autumn 1995): 39-54. Cf. also Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1989), 215.

² Many authors find this viewpoint in James 2. James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 120-24; Peter Davids, The Epistle of James, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 49-51, 120-21; Edmond D. Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 43-45; Robert V. Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26: Does James Contradict Pauline Soteriology?” Criswell Theological Review 1 (Fall 1986): 31-50; John Polhill, “Prejudice, Partiality, and Faith: James 2,” Review and Expositor 83 (Summer 1986): 395-404; R. E. Glaze Jr., “The Relationship of Faith to Works,” The Theological Educator 34 (Fall 1986): 35-42. The list of sources for this viewpoint could be greatly extended.

³ This approach to the book overwhelmingly dominates theological thinking. For example, in the opening paragraph to his entire commentary, Hiebert remarks, “The author’s central aim is to challenge the readers to test the validity of their faith.” D. Edmond Hiebert, James, 13. MacArthur writes, “His entire epistle consists of tests of true faith…” John F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, “Follow Me”? revised and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 252.

On the contrary, James addresses his readers as Christians, employing the term “brothers” (adelphoi) 19 times. Three of these uses are found in the intimate address, “my beloved brothers” (adelphoi mou agape„ toi). In the epistles, only 1 Corinthians has a greater use of the term “brothers” (39 times). Romans and 1 Thessalonians tie with James for 19 uses.

⁴ It must be admitted that the situation of 2:15-16 is a realistic possibility for genuine believers (“one of you says to them,” v 15a [italics added]). Since an epistle must be read in light of the occasion for writing (the life situation of the audience), it is highly likely that James is addressing a life situation that is actually taking place among his readers. By beginning his description with “If a brother or sister” (2:15), James confronts the relationship of one believer to another. Any attempt to find in 2:15-16 so-called “false believers” is gratuitous. Since these Jewish Christians had been scattered either throughout Palestine or other nations (1:1), additional burdens were placed on their finances. Lacking the kind of generosity that characterizes the very nature of God Himself (1:5, 17; 5:11), these Christians found ways to treat those with material needs rather mercilessly (2:2-6; 12-13).

⁵ Note how MacArthur transforms James’s appeal for Christians to repent of worldliness into an address to non-Christians: “One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the Epistles comes in James 4:7-10.” MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 252. If this passage is a “comprehensive invitation to salvation,” one wonders why there is an absence of such words as “faith” (pistis), “believe” (pisteuo„), “(eternal) life” (zo„e„), “forgiveness” (aphesis), “forgive” (charizomai), “save” (so„zo„), “salvation” (so„te„ria), and other terms that might invoke the thought that an invitation to salvation was being offered. To make matters worse, “Christ” or a related term is not mentioned in the passage, and His death and resurrection are not found in the entire book. Scholars have noticed the absence of these truths in James. Simon J. Kistemaker, “The Theological Message of James,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (March 1986): 56.

⁶ James is generally recognized to be a very practical book with less of a theological intent. Donald W. Burdick, “James,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 12:164; William Dyrness (“Mercy Triumphs Over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith and Works,” Themelios 6 [April 1981]: 12) remarks, “Most would agree with him [M. Dibelius] that James does not contain a developed theology.” It is puzzling, then, why the heavy theological emphasis is seen to dominate James 2. A practical approach is much more in harmony with the nature of the rest of the book.

⁷ James 2:12 is sufficient evidence that a key motivational technique for the author is to base his exhortation on the very fact of their assured conversion. N.B., the NLT’s free rendering of 2:12b, “remember that you will be judged by the law of love, the law that set you free.” Such statements are inappropriate for unbelievers or so-called “false Christians” who have never been set free.

⁸ Here the NLT (“how can you claim that you have…?”) and the NRSV (“do you with your acts of favoritism really believe…?”) read the Greek prejudicially.

⁹ It is the quality (1 Cor 3:10) and motives (1 Cor 4:5; Heb 4:12-13) of a believer’s works that are evaluated. It follows logically, then, that some Christians will appear to us to be doing consistent good works that prove they are saved, while the Lord views them as disobedient Christians like the worldly Corinthians (1 Cor 3:1-3).

¹⁰ The second person singular form of blepo„ (“you see”) is used in Jas 2:22, making it evident that James is personally responding to the objector’s comments and is arguing for the visibility of faith.

¹¹ Cf. Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension, revised and enlarged ed. (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1992); 34.

¹² Contra Kistemaker, “Theological Message of James,” 58; and Glaze, “Relationship of Faith to Works,” 41.

¹³ Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 34-35.

¹⁴ Robert W. Funk, “The Letter: Form and Style,” in Language, Hermeneutic, and the Word of God (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1966), 257, 269; Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1939), 25-26, 76-77. I have argued this in another article as it relates to the exegesis of Phil 1:6; “Does Philippians 1:6 Guarantee Progressive Sanctification? Part 1,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9 (Spring 1996): 37-58.

¹⁵ Technically, this harmony of the prologue and epilogue forms an inclusio.

¹⁶ Dyrness cites Dr. Newton Flew (the bibliographic information is not mentioned) as suggesting that James 1:1-10 (but especially vv 2-4) “lists all the topics James will cover in his letter” (the quote belongs to Dyrness). Dyrness, “Mercy Triumphs Over Justice,” 15, n. 17.

¹⁷ These words are taken from Rabbi Jonathan, Gen. Rab. 55:2, cited with agreement in Peter H. Davids, “Theological Perspectives in the Epistle of James,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (June 1980): 98. Cf. also Ps 11:5; Jer 20:12, where the Lord tests the righteous, but not the wicked.

¹⁸ The NIV of 1:4 states, “so that you may be mature and complete” (italics added).

¹⁹ The words teleios and teleioo„ are regularly used to denote maturity (1 Cor 2:6; 3:1; 14:20; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; Heb 5:14). William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated by Walter Bauer, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v. teleioo„, and teleios, 809-10.

²⁰ Of all NT books, the Epistle of James uses the words teleioo„ and teleios second in frequency (6 times) only to Hebrews (11 times). Other uses besides those mentioned above include 1:17 and 1:25.

²¹ Hodges suggests that this summary or conclusion to 2:14-26 might be a starting point for understanding the passage. Zane C. Hodges, Dead Faith: What Is It? A Study on James 2:14-26 (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1987), 7-8.

²² To this might be added the thought that James states that the man only “says” he has faith (2:14). But with the use of lege„ tis (“someone says”), there is no inference that the claim is devoid of reality. Plummer notes this fact: “St. James is not insinuating that the man says he has faith, when he really has none. If that were the case, it would be needless to ask, ‘can his faith save him?’ The question would be, ‘can his profession of faith save him?’” Alfred Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, in Expositor’s Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897), 137. Dibelius correctly interprets: “One cannot read into the words should claim [to have faith]…that what is meant here is a false faith, one which is only alleged. James certainly never sets correct faith over against such an alleged faith.” Martin Dibelius, James, ed. by Helmut Koester, translated by Michael A. Williams, revised by Heinrich Greeven (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 152. In addition, the exhortation to “so speak and so do” in 2:12 along with the tacit reference to boasting in 2:13 (katakauchatai) set the stage well for a contrast between words and actions as stated above—a contrast clearly surfacing in the parable of 2:15-16 and the diatribe of 2:18-19. Cf. the similar argument of Roy Bowen Ward, “The Works of Abraham: James 2:14-16,” Harvard Theological Review 61 (l968): 283-84. Exhortations against evil boasting, both explicit and implicit, surface within the epistle regularly, showing the addressees struggled with this sin (1:9; 2:13; 3:14; 4:16).

²³ See, for example, Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992), 111-33.

²⁴ Radmacher points out that the multitude of adjectives used by proponents of perseverance theology to describe faith (e.g., false faith, genuine faith, intellectual faith, etc.) are never found in the Bible. Earl D. Radmacher, “First Response to ‘Faith According to the Apostle James,’ by John F. MacArthur, Jr.,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (March 1990): 37.

²⁵ The article appears with faith (he„ pistis). Wallace argues against Hodges (Gospel Under Siege, 23) that the article is anaphoric rather than simply used with an abstract noun. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 219. Hodges has in his defense the uses of the article with faith (pistis) in the following context (2:17, 18, 20, 22, 26). Wallace still insists that the article in 2:14 is anaphoric and speaks of two kinds of faith. But even if the article were anaphoric, this use of the anaphoric article merely points back to an antecedent use of the word “faith.” (Cf. Nigel Turner, Syntax, in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. James Hope Moulton [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, LTD, 1963], 3:173.) The anaphoric article would be adequately translated like the RSV, “Can his faith save him?” (italics added). This rendering avoids reading into the verse any theological ideas about the nature of the faith under discussion. Cf. also A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 755.

²⁶ The popular ditty “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone,” is attributed to the Reformed preacher John Owens. Although it is rhythmic enough to sound noteworthy, in actuality it is self-contradictory. Rephrasing the aphorism, we might say, “Faith without works saves, but the faith that saves without works is never without works.” If the faith that saves is never alone, i.e., faith and works are “inseparable,” it seems as if works will need to accompany the initial faith by which we are first born again. But that conclusion sets itself squarely against Paul and the NT teaching on justification by faith alone.

²⁷ Gale Z. Heide, “The Soteriology of James 2:14,” Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992): 82-83.

²⁸ See note 7 above. For an understanding of the “law of liberty,” see Zane C. Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 44, 56.

²⁹ Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2 (Spring 1998): 45. Cf. also Robert L. Saucy, “Second Response to ‘Faith According to the Apostle James’ by John F. MacArthur Jr.,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (March 1990): 43-47.

³⁰ The Greek word angelos is used 175 times with only six or seven uses that are not translated as “angel(s).” Out of 56 uses of sunago„ge„ in the NT, only one (Jas 2:2, NASB) or two (Jas 2:2; Acts 13:43, NIV, NKJV) are translated with a word besides “synagogue.”.

³¹ Translators are so conscious of the fact that so„zo„ in 5:15 does not refer to eternal life that no modern evangelical version uses the word “save.” NASB uses “restore,” and the NIV and NLT translate, “make well.” “Save” is used in such versions as KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NJB, RSV, Phillips. Cf. Douglas J. Moo, James, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), 181; Peter Davids, The Epistle of James, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 194.

³² A parallel may be found in Mark 3:4: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save [Greek: so„zo„] a life or to kill?” Cf. Deut 32:39. Mark 3:4 uses the identical Greek phrase (to “save the life” or to “save the soul”) found in Jas 1:21 and 5:20.

³³ James 1:21, 5:20, and 1 Pet 1:9 (using the noun phrase, “salvation of the soul”) are the only verses where the NT phrase is translated other than “save the life” (cf. Matt 16:25; Mark 3:41; 8:35; Luke 6:9; 9:24).

³⁴ Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings, 116-22, 189-91; Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 26-27; Hodges, Absolutely Free, 120-21.

³⁵ The metaphorical meaning cannot be developed here. It appears to carry the meaning of “a life delivered from being wasted on temporal pursuits and therefore eternally rewarded” (Matt 16:25; 8:35; Luke 9:24). See Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse: A Study on Eternal Rewards (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1985), 28-33. It is not impossible that this meaning is to be found in Jas 1:21 and 2:14.

³⁶ Only theological prejudice can find false believers in this text. James 5:20 sets forth a scenario of someone among the Christian readers who “wanders from the truth” and then another brother “turns him back.” If James is entertaining the thought of a so-called (false) Christian, how can such a person wander from the truth that he has never embraced? How also is he to be “turned back” to something he never had in the first place?.

³⁷ Physical death rather than eternal death is demanded by the verse because 1) the Christian’s eternal destiny is secure, with no threats of eternal damnation. Yet they can be subject to the death of 5:20; 2) James’s first mention of death resulting from sin can only be understood as physical death since sin “when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (1:15). The death under consideration results from the maturation of sin, not the inception of sin. Such a maturation is not necessary for either spiritual death in the life of the believer (broken fellowship) or eternal death for an unbeliever.

³⁸ For a similar treatment, see R. Larry Moyer, Free and Clear: Understanding and Communicating God’s Offer of Eternal Life (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997), 72-77. There are at least two other options for the salvation of 2:14 that do not take the word to speak of eternal life. First, Kendall suggests that the “save” relates back to the “poor man” of 2:6 and that the context (2:15-16) focuses on the needs of the poor. Since this is the case, 2:14 expresses the impossibility of faith alone to save the poor man. R. T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 216.

Another option is to understand the “salvation” to relate to the Judgment Seat of Christ described in 2:12-13. Hodges advises that this meaning is not likely. Among several reasons, he points out that Scriptures do not teach elsewhere a salvation related to the Judgment Seat. Hodges, James, 61. He may be right. Yet, it is attractive because of the contextual closeness of 2:14 with 2:13. The flexibility of the word “save” lends itself to thinking this way. James could be arguing that faith without works cannot deliver a person from a merciless evaluation at the Judgment Seat of Christ. This would reflect the metaphorical use of the phrase, “save the life.” See note 35 above.

³⁹ “But with this interpretive construct Hodges unknowingly renders James’s argument from Abraham completely irrelevant (the issue in the patriarch’s case is obviously not the preservation of his physical life).” R. Fowler White, “Review of Zane Hodges’s The Gospel Under Siege,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (Fall 1984): 428. The illustration of Abraham (2:21-22) comes after the objector’s challenges (2:18-19) and therefore moves beyond the focus of 2:14 alone. Abraham is most appropriate to demonstrate justification by works and the visibility of faith in works. But it must also be admitted that death surrounds all of James’s illustrations. Faith cannot preserve the life of a fellow Christian without food (2:15-16). By his obedience, Abraham preserved the life of his son. If the Lord sought to kill Moses for his disobedience in circumcising his son (Exod 4:24-25), then perhaps Abraham also averted his own death by his obedience in sacrificing Isaac. Rahab also preserved her life and the life of her family by her works.

⁴⁰ “The Faith of Demons.” See note 1.

⁴¹ Some hold that demons do indeed believe in Christ. Yet there are no passages that use the word “believe” (pisteuo„) of demons other than Jas 2:19 (cf. Matt 8:29, par Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28; Mark 1:24, par Luke 4:34; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41). The emphasis does not fall on faith but on knowledge (“I know who You are,” Mark 1:24; par Luke 4:34). Demons certainly know that Jesus is the Christ in the same way they know the authority of Paul as an apostle (Acts 19:15). In my opinion, however, demons do not believe in Christ because in the NT faith is always a personal appropriation of the truth of Christ’s death. In other words, for a demon to believe in Christ would mean that he would trust that Christ died for his sins. But demons understand that Christ did not die for the spirit world.

⁴² While the opponent is imaginary, the content of his objection probably represents the opinion of several teachers within the assembly. Cf. 3:1. The rebuke of v 20, “do you want to know…?” (“When will you ever learn…?” NLT) reflects their desire to teach but their unwillingness to learn—a blemish that must be conquered by all teachers and preachers.

⁴³ Ibid, 48-49.

⁴⁴ It is significant that James never uses phraseology such as “justified by faith that produces works,” “justified by faith and works,” or any such combination. It is strictly, “justified by works.”.

⁴⁵ Works are transparently the means of the primary “justification” with which James is concerned. (He does, of course, make reference to justification by faith.) Any attempt to read James as if he were redefining Pauline justification by faith is fully misdirected. The NLT and TEV have no grounds for repeatedly adding to James the phrase “with God.” For example, “our ancestor Abraham was declared right with God because of what he did” (NLT, v 21), effectively puts Paul at odds with James. The rendering, “we are made right with God by what we do, not by faith alone” (NLT, v 24), brings inerrancy into question and denies the sole condition (faith) for eternal life. Cf. also v 25.

⁴⁶ In like manner, to the teachers (or anyone else) who wish to talk their faith rather than do it, James commands that wisdom be shown (deiknumi) rather than spoken (3:13).

⁴⁷ Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 33-34.

⁴⁸ Calvin agrees. “That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, ‘Shew to me thy faith,’ &c. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works…” (italics original). John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, translated and ed. by John Owen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 314-15.

⁴⁹ The grammatical issue is whether the Greek monos (“only,” “alone”) is used adverbially or adjectivally. Adjectivally, it would modify the noun “faith,” and translated “and not [justified] by faith alone.” Adverbially, it would modify the verb “justified” and be translated, “not [justified] only by faith.” Hodges argues that in most cases when an adjectival use is employed, monos has a grammatical agreement with the noun. But in Jas 2:24, the normal adverbial form is used; Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 159, n. 12. Therefore, James says (reordering the clauses), “A man is not justified by faith only, but [also] by works.”.

⁵⁰ This parallel is all the more impressive when the Greek of the Majority text of v 20 is read, “…that faith without works is dead.”.

⁵¹ “That sin was ‘dead’ does not mean that it did not exist but that it was not as ‘active’ or ‘powerful’ before the law as after.” Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 437. In the same way, “dead faith” does not mean that (true) faith did not exist.

⁵² Again, we insist that the Christians to whom the book is written do not have control of the tongue. If this is not the case, then most of the exhortations in the book are inchoate. On the one hand, these believers blessed God; but they also criticized their fellow brothers and sisters with the same mouth (3:9). A judgmental spirit flourished among them (2:3-4; 4:11-12). Other sins of speech are mentioned directly or indirectly (1:17; 2:14, 16, 18; 3:14; 4:1, 13, 16; 5:9, 11).

⁵³ Cf. the Lord’s rebuke of the disciples, “you of little faith” (oligopistoi), used five times in the gospels (Matt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; Luke 12:28). Cf. also oligopistia (“small faith”; NKJV, “unbelief”) in Matt 17:20.

⁵⁴ The error in the thinking of these Christian readers was their view of God. Specifically, they doubted God’s generosity and goodness to give wisdom (1:5-7), or for that matter any good gift (1:17-18). Being deceived about His character (1:16), the trials that came upon them were thought to be God’s enticement to evil (1:13). With such thinking, it was natural to be bitter at God. Having misunderstood His compassion and mercy (cf. 5:11), they failed to express mercy to the poor (2:6, 13; cf. 3:17). God is a giving God (1:5; 4:6), but they would not imitate Him (2:16). All of this evidences their immature faith.

⁵⁵ R. T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved, 212.

Foundational Principles of Leadership

OVERVIEW:

The heart of a leader demands a love that will get involved in the struggles and messes that their followers face in life, a love that will confront out of a security drawn from knowing God and His purposes in our lives.

To accomplish the purpose of forming leaders, the leader former must have:

a clear understanding of the nature of leadership
a sound sense of self-awareness
in-depth relationships
the ability to confront
the courage to take loving stands
the willingness to be vulnerable
the willingness to humble one’s self
clarity of vision
an understanding of truth
the willingness to risk rejection
insight into the heart of others
sensitivity as to how to respond to others

FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES:

Leaders must understand what leadership is.

Leadership is the act of influencing/serving others out of Christ’s interests in their lives so they accomplish God’s purposes for and through them.

Influence comes from serving by

modeling

instructing

exhorting

evaluating

confronting

training

releasing

Influence does not come by

overpowering

belittling

manipulating

threatening

avoiding

competing

controlling

Serving is slave leadership—a radical commitment to Christ in every follower’s life that impels the leader to act in love with truth no matter what it costs that leader (Mt. 20:26-27; John 13:16; Phil. 2:5-11; II Cor. 4:5).

The leader focuses on God’s purposes for and through the followers.

God’s purpose for the followers is to grow them into Christlikeness, and the leader is one of His prime instruments in guiding the followers to become more and more like Christ.

God’s purpose through the followers is to participate with Him in accomplishing the Great Commission in accordance with their gifts and opportunities.

The leader focuses on both the functional and the foundational in the followers’ lives.

The functional refers to the tasks the followers undertake and to their competence in light of their gifts, knowledge, and developed skills.

It refers to the followers’ competencies.

The foundational refers to the followers’ character, the core essence of their being on which all they do rests.

The foundational determines how well the leader and the followers function.

It relates to their character, that is, who exercises the knowledge and skills to get the vision accomplished.

It relates to their motives, that is, why they do what they do.

It relates to their actions, that is, what they do (for example whether they confront, avoid, forgive, overlook, exhort, lie, cheat, steal, say harsh words).

It relates to their method, that is, how they do what they do (for example use a method that communicates freely or seeks to hold power to themselves, sacrifices their own recognition or grasps platform for themselves).

It relates to their situation, that is where they act (for example acting appropriately in public in such a way that the leader and followers demonstrate a wisdom that is appropriate for the moment or living in private what they proclaim in public).

It relates to their timing, that is when they act based on the depth of relationship they have with the followers, the need in the moment, the particular lesson they seek to teach, and the need in their followers that must be met before they can become increasingly effective in serving Christ.

When the foundational and the functional integrate with consistency, leaders and followers will show an uncommon Christlikeness. In a very real sense, character controls competence. Leadership is not only getting something done; leadership is getting someone grown. Ultimately leadership is as much about leadership development and leader formation as it is about the act of leading itself. Leading is knowing where you want to go and getting others to go there with you.

Leading is getting a vision accomplished.

But leadership is about far more than this.

To get a vision accomplished and burn followers out is to fail as a leader.

To get a vision accomplished and build followers up is to succeed as a leader.

If you pursue leadership development (knowledge and skill development) and leader formation (character growth) in the action of accomplishing a specific vision, you will more than get that vision done.

Leaders must have a sound sense of self-awareness

Leaders must have a sound sense of self-awareness that they pass on to their followers. This means leaders must think of themselves in appropriate ways and teach their followers to do the same. Leaders must think of themselves as new mind leaders.

To do this they must understand several critical realities:

new identity (Rom. 6:1-14)
new resource (John 15:1-11)
hardened hearts (Mark 6:52-8:33)
new power (Eph. 5:18)
new life (Rom. 6:4; 8:1ff)
new role (John 13:1-17)
new mind (Co. 3:1-2)
new self (Rom. 12:3ff)
new community (Rom. 12:9-15:1)
new commitment (Mark 8:34)
new hope (I Peter 1;13)

They must understand that they have everything for everything
(II Peter 1:2-4).

Leaders and followers must think of themselves in light of how God has gifted them (Rom. 12:3).

God has given every believer a gift (Eph. 4:7ff).
God plans to bless every believer through the exercise of these gifts (I Cor. 12:6).
God expects leaders and followers to use his/her gift(s) in accordance with God’s grace (Rom 12:6-8).

Leaders are responsible to equip followers in the exercise of their gifts (Eph. 4:11-12).

Leaders must know how to

equip their followers to exercise their gifts (Eph. 4:11)—mend nets (Mk. 1:19), restore sinners (Gal. 6:1), set bones
develop their followers skills (12345)
delegate, evaluate, and hold their followers accountable
observe, correct, train, rebuke, and encourage
wash feet—confront character needs and even remove followers when necessary, no matter how strong his/her skills may be or how many followers that follower may have

Leaders must have in-depth relationships

You cannot have an in-depth relationship with everyone you lead, but everyone on your team or in your sphere of responsibility should have some kind of in-depth relationship with a leader former. Some will be more effective than others as leader formers, but all must have someone ahead of them who seeks to know them at the heart level.

To know someone at the heart level, you must know that person’s

fears
reasons for anger
dreams
identity needs—

where they feel they lack
the emptiness they’re trying to fill through achievements
the things that drive them and generate their expectations, both appropriate and inappropriate

To get to know someone, do a Life Story exercise halfway through their first semester on the field using the principles developed by the Center for Christian Leadership

Leaders must have the appropriate ability to confront

You need to determine your own willingness to confront when you must despite your adversity to it; know your primary and secondary styles. Understand confrontation biblically, not culturally or personally. Note different confrontation models for differing circumstances:

inferior to superior (Nathan to David)
superior to inferior (Jesus to Peter + James and John)
equal to equal (Paul to Peter + Paul and Barnabas to one another.

Realize there are many levels/kinds of confrontation from gentle correction to direct command. Understand what it will cost not to confront and see which is the most costly, confronting or not confronting.

Leaders must have the courage to take loving stands

The courage to take loving stands relates directly to your willingness to confront. Taking stands doesn’t always involve confrontation, but it certainly can lead to it. Frequently, followers want their leader to take a stand even when they argue for a different position. Sometimes they are seeking for leadership from their leader as well as testing their leader’s willingness and courage to fulfill their responsibility and lead. Taking stands does not mean you should be inflexible; the secret to taking stands is knowing what is worth entering tension over and what isn’t. Make certain the stand you take is for the benefit of the person’s growth in light of the defined and agreed upon vision and goals, not just for policies, your preference or convenience.

Leaders must be willing to be vulnerable

Vulnerability is the willingness to let my followers see my needs, my fears, my feelings, and my growth in such a way that it edifies them and helps then grow in character and competence. Vulnerability must edify without manipulating. You will be vulnerable against your will because one of the key reasons why God has you in leadership is to grow you in public. Because of this, God will make certain that you have many opportunities to be vulnerable, and not infrequently, against your will. This is not because God wants to embarrass or shame you, but grow you in such a way that you model growth for others and influence them to know God through your struggles. When God makes you vulnerable, don’t run away and hide—everyone already knows what’s going on, and you will gain and keep respect by being appropriately accountable about your vulnerability.

Invite others into your pilgrimage in the way Paul did in the New Testament:

he frequently gave his testimony, even though it wasn’t complimentary to him;
he spoke of fear and trembling when coming to Corinth;
he spoke of facing lions and fearing for his life in Ephesus;
he spoke of not finding rest for his soul in Troas;
he spoke of his inadequacy for God’s triumph to the Corinthians;
he spoke of his weakness as his strength, that is, his vulnerability was the channel God most used to make a difference in others through him;
he spoke of the weight of the churches upon him;
he spoke of his need to confront Peter for the Gospel in Galatians;
he spoke of his gratitude for funds in Philippians;
he spoke of his need for prayer to the Colossians;
he spoke of his need for funds to the Romans;
he spoke of the hurt done to him by those who attacked him to Timothy;
he spoke of his intense loneliness and need for others when he was deserted after his trial for his life in II Timothy.

Follow Paul’s lead and be vulnerable about your pilgrimage; it will make a great deal of difference in the lives of those who follow you.

Leaders must willingly humble themselves

Jesus washed feet because none of His followers had the currency to pay the emotional bill to serve when it came due. He knew this and chose to model self-humbling to them because He knew power plays, self-assertion, and competition would never accomplish His mission. Jesus knew power leadership may be short-term, productive leadership, but in the end it is actually destructive leadership. Jesus also knew His men would never change without some very direct teaching, but the teaching could not be in words; the teaching had to be in unforgettable actions that would make a permanent impact on them. We find the currency to humble ourselves where He found it—in a relationship and mission that meant more to Him than His image, His power, His drive to be right, His need to win, or anything else in the world. This relationship and mission was motivated by a love that only He can give. Leader formers must be growing in a love for Christ that frees them from every other dependency and releases them to humble themselves and serve.

Leaders must follow Jesus and model what they want their followers to be and do

Jesus alone was willing to do what the disciples should have fallen all over themselves to do. He knew exactly what He was doing and why He was doing it when He got up from the table, stripped to the waist, took a towel and a basin of water, and went from man to man washing their feet.

He knew who He was and what His authority over them was.

He knew the only way He could demonstrate true authority was to serve.

He knew they would never have true authority unless they became servants in exactly the same way as He did.

He knew He was living out what Paul came to describe in Philippians 2, the very same mental attitude the apostle calls us to have.

He knew only this mind-set can take up the cross and He had already established that fact that without the cross, the disciples would never be able to follow Him.

He consciously chose to model what He wanted them to become.

He deliberately commanded them to do what He did, to follow Him as a model.

If we are to have His same mind-set and follow His model, then we will be models for those emerging leaders whom we are forming. This is the way of obedience for us as leader formers.

Leaders must have clarity of vision

Vision focused our Lord’s love and gave Him a dream for His men. He saw them doing things they could never do apart from His love and His mission for them. He saw these ordinary fishermen, businessmen, and common villagers changing the world.

He called them because of His vision for them
He taught them because of His vision for them
He challenged them because of His vision for them
He cleansed them because of His vision for them
He confronted them because of His vision for them
He modeled for them because of His vision for them
He commissioned them because His bigger vision of the world included them

Jesus was never off vision; He always knew what He was doing because He always knew why He was doing it. You must always be on vision, always forming your emerging leader’s character and competence in light of your vision—the vision Jesus has called you to pursue, to which they have responded and committed themselves with you. You must align your emerging leaders’ character and competence with the vision and keep calling them to it. You must also allow them to pursue the vision according to their peculiar (unique) God-given make up and not force them to pursue it according to yours; the point is to achieve the vision well, not to conform to the gifts and approaches of others.

If you force them to do what your do or to do things the way you do things is not vision, it’s control, and it’s the Lord’s responsibility to control others, not yours.

Leaders must have an accurate understanding of truth

Theology matters, and even more so in an emerging church. Consider the first five hundred years of the church when virtually all theological problems were considered and defined. There is great theological diversity in your area at this time and a limited ability to communicate or to have theological conversation across the culture. It is critical for solid theological development to mark the emerging church or the cults will have a field day in the future. Jesus knew exactly how to serve Peter because He knew theology—He knew the truth Peter need to know if Peter was going to be useful to Jesus in the course of his life. Truth was critical to Peter’s future. Jesus knew the right truth at the right moment; He knew to say the right thing that would make the right impact. Leader formers must both know truth and know how to use truth to edify those they are forming in such a way that they are impacted and changed for a lifetime. Emerging leaders need to understand the truths concerning God, the trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to this, they must need to understand at the heart level a core of truths concerning the ways of God in forming leaders through pilgrimage:

factors of identity from Romans 6
the reality of the flesh and the Spirit from Romans 7 and Galatians 5
the nature of spiritual gifts including how to discern theirs and how to develop theirs and others
the need for community
the value of injustice, suffering, and grief in God’s hand and how to respond appropriately to each
the truth depth of sin and its impact on them (sin hides in the nooks and crannies of our lives and masquerades itself as humanness and other destructive excuses
the heart of love and forgiveness.

All of these truths must be communicated in the action to people who already think they know them and who, like the disciples, frequently are blind to their own blindness.

Leaders must be willing to risk rejection

Jesus clearly risked rejection by the leaders of His day, both Jewish and Roman. But He also risked the rejection of the very leaders He was forming, even as Peter rebuked and resisted Him; Jesus even asked them at one point if they would leave Him. Rejection comes whenever one person goes against the values, expectations, desires, or demands of others in such a way that those others feel challenged, threatened, and angry. Jesus went against the selfish values, core expectations, driven desires, and overt demands of His followers as represented by Peter who rebuked Him (Mark 8:33). Those engaged in leader formation must take the same risk and may even pay the same price of desertion and denial. Unless the leader former runs this risk—and even experiences it—he will not be effective in fulfilling his task. Like Jesus, the leader former must have the emerging leader’s needs and not his own success in view.

Leaders must have insight in the hearts of others

Leaders must understand the hearts of those they influence:

insight comes first from Scripture
insight comes from observing the experience of others
insight comes from reading what others have learned
insight comes from the counsel of others who have wisdom about the heart
insight comes from personal experience and growth

Leader formers need to keep a journal of their growth, recording

what they learned
how they learned it
what they felt while learning
what overcame their resistance to learning
what helped them through their learning experience
what changed in the core of their being as a result of their learning

Insight into their own hearts—without projecting themselves on others—brings humility, sensitivity, patience, and understanding of the hearts of those they form. The formation of their own hearts gives them significant insight into the hearts of those they influence.

Leaders need sensitivity as to how to respond to others

They respond sometimes directly.

They respond sometimes indirectly.

They respond sometimes publicly.

This comes from knowing people by

understanding their temperaments,
respecting their concerns,
believing in their gifts
supporting their dreams
challenging their flaws

What's the Greatest Mission Field of the 21st Century?

ChineseMan It's a difficult question.

What's the greatest mission field of the 21^st Century? Is it China? Many would say yes. Or, is it the Internet? Many others would say yes to that.

At Bible.org, we are building the best (maybe the only) web-based Chinese Study Bible in the world. For the first time in history, Chinese pastors, students, and lay people will have immediate access to the collective knowledge of 2,000 years of Christian teaching and insights - in their very own language.

Bible.org is translating into Chinese all of the study notes currently available in the NET Bible. This means we will have not only God's Word in Chinese, but also over 60,000 notes.

Open 24 hours a day 7 days a week Imagine the potential. There are 1.3 Billion people in China, most of whom have little or no access to the Bible -- much less study notes! You can help us take the gospel to non-believers, teach Word-starved Bible students and equip desperate Chinese pastors.

In order for Bible.org to complete this project, we need your help now.

Please click the URL below or go here to help us reach the greatest mission field of the 21^st Century -- China -- via the Internet.

http://www.bible.org/donate_form.php?ref=07_china

We can only continue with your help. Please give today.

Help us
Pray For China!

Join now for email updates (please be sure to reply to the confirmation email.)

About bible.org

Bible.org is a non-profit (501c3) Christian ministry headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The ministry launched in 1994 to leverage the internet for ministry. Bible.org has grown to serve millions in more than 200 countries by providing trustworthy resources for Bible study - including a new translation of the Bible (the NET BIBLE^©).

Thank You

Thank you for your support. Also, don't forget to sign up to help us pray for China (above).

Gratefully yours,
Chris Goodman
Director, Ministry Development
bible.org

Silent Night Unresolved

Related Media

Recently Lynna and I were with some friends when one of them, Jane (a real person, but not her real name), a former piano teacher, played her favorite version of Silent Night. The traditional melody was there evoking all the moments of Christmas—Mary and the manger, shepherds and sheep, the star and the wise men—but it was accompanied by the clashing clang of sharps and flats and minor chords that conflicted with the peace of Christmas. When she finished I kept waiting for the final note that would tie it all together and transform the chaos into harmony. But that final note never came. It was Silent Night. Unresolved.

Why is this Sue’s favorite version of Silent Night? Because as the wife of a businessman, mother of adult children, a Young Life leader, mentor of college girls, and a seminary student, it speaks to her of life and all the struggles she sees in herself and those she serves. She hears the harmony of God’s presence conflicting with the clash of life’s stress. Like her favorite version of Silent Night, life is unresolved.

So it was for Jesus on that first Christmas. Many seem to think Jesus was born into peace and security. Hardly. He was born in a stable and laid in a manger where animals. fed. The shepherds were an interruption—what mother wants strangers bursting in on her immediately after she’s given birth? When He was two his parents had to run for his life. And after the danger was past they returned to Nazareth, a Roman army town, where streets echoed with the sounds of marching feet, pounding hooves, groaning wagon wheels, the curses of soldiers, the laughter of camp followers, and the shrieks and cries of the crucified. That’s where Jesus grew up—where Roman power was everywhere and crucifixion was anything but rare. Like Sue—and us—He knew all about Silent Night. Unresolved.

Then came that other Silent Night, the one in the Garden, when the disciples slept while Jesus wept. He cried for the cup to be removed but submitted to His Father. For His followers that Silent Night was horribly unresolved, as was the cross. To them, “It is finished,” meant only that His life was over and their crowns were gone, not that their eternal future was assured.

But what of Mary who treasured that first Silent Night in her heart? What about the silent night following the cross? What else could it be but a Sobbing Night, a night of heart break and horror? And how could she make any sense of those reports about a resurrection? They couldn’t possibly be true! Yet they were! That’s when Silent Night unresolved became Silent Night resolved, even as it does for us.

We live with life unresolved—with the melody God’s presence conflicting with the clashing chords of struggling marriages and stressful careers. That’s when our Silent Nights become sobbing nights.

The resurrection resolves these nights, not just the promise of eternal life for us, but the presence of Eternal Life in us. And how does this happen? When we join Paul and determine to pay any price to deny self and enter into Christ’s death, we find the fullness of Christ’s resurrection. When we choose to enter into Christ’s sufferings to become conformed to His death so we can fully enter into His resurrection power, we have it. Silent Night and sobbing nights. Resolved.

Discussing the DaVinci Code

We've searched all around to compile what we consider to be the best resources to help you study, teach and train others. Welcome to bible.org's Discussing the Da Vinci Code Resource Center.

Audio and video resources indicated as
The best books we've found are indicated as

BOOK/MOVIE FACT VS. FICTION	PERSONAL STUDY RESOURCES	CHURCH HISTORY AND TRUTH
Redeeming the Da Vinci Code offers some ideas to discuss these issues with non-Christian friends Our newest addition from J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace Reinventing Jesus	Ask Questions/Talk about it. Visit bible.org's Da Vinci Code Discussion Forum Unraveling The Da Vinci Code by: Kenneth Boa Do we have the right books in our Bible? Inspiration & Inerrancy by: M. James Sawyer Preparing for the Da Vinci Code Study Package What do the Scriptures say about the humanity of Christ? What is Gnostic dualism? Scripture Canon resources on bible.org	What is the Church? The History of the Doctrine of Inspiration From the Ancient Church Through the Reformation by: M. James Sawyer What are the two main theological positions on the difference between men and women? "You got to know when to hold em": Trumping the Bauer Thesis by: Mike Svigel The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives by: Dr. Greg Herrick A Survey of Historical Jesus Studies: From Reimarus to Wright by: Dr. Michael H. Burer

Law in the Book of Romans Part 2

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

(Concluded from the January-March Number)

{Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original printed edition were numbered 11-18, but in this electronic edition are numbered 1-7 respectively.}

Chapter II. Righteousness Apart from Law

Introduction

Having proved that law in any form can only condemn, Paul now turns to the central theme of Romans: God’s undertaking in behalf of condemned mankind. Paul first of all sets out to prove that there is now a way of righteousness which is apart from law, which is through faith in Christ, made possible by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. He begins by stating the content of this doctrine.

1. The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Stated

In 3:21, the theme is stated: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” Paul has a new thing to present. Something which will meet the need the law failed to meet. The first instance of νόμος in this verse is without the article, and seems to point to law in the sense of any moral law whatsoever. The righteousness of God which Paul is now presenting is not through another law, superceding the law of Moses, but through an entirely new method which is apart from all law. This new method, however, is referred to in the second reference, the law. The second reference in this verse has the article and quite clearly refers specifically to the law of Moses, possibly including the rest of the Old Testament. There is repeated reference throughout the Old Testament both in type and in definite prophecy that salvation was to come not through the law, but through the redemptive work of the Messiah. This “righteousness of God” is now to be set forth by the apostle.

In the section 3:22-26, the content of justification by faith is defined. It is shown to be by faith in Jesus Christ, through grace, and through “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Paul concludes in vs. 27 that in this kind of justification boasting is excluded, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.” An unusual use of νόμος occurs in this verse in both instances. Both are without the article. Both are the use of law in its widest possible sense-a recognized principle in operation. Thayer calls it “any law whatsoever.”1 Boasting is excluded not on the principle of operation of law, but by the principle of operation of faith. Works do not exclude boasting in the nature of things, as it refers to that we have done, while faith excludes boasting in that it is extended to the work and character of another-in this case, Christ.

On the basis of these facts which Paul has brought out in this section on justification by faith, he comes to his conclusion in vs. 28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Νόμος here is without the article and apparently is the same use as in 3:20 -including any moral law whatsoever.

2. Justification By Faith Establishes Law

While Paul is outspoken on the fact that justification is apart from law, he is nevertheless careful to guard the holy character of law. Justification is not lawless; it is not a trampling on the law. It is the fulfillment of its holy demands in the Person and work of Christ. In 3:31, this is brought out, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” In both these instances the article is not used. It is evidently a reference to all moral law, for all law which is true moral law comes from God and cannot be waived. Christ in His death on the cross met the requirements of all moral law. He met the requirements of Mosaic law; he met the requirements of the whole content of the Old Testament; He met the requirements of Gentile law. In dying, He did not make void any law. He met its demands. Hence, law is not made void by the death of Christ; it is fulfilled. difference of opinion among scholars. Being without the article, it refers apparently to any law at all. If there were no law at all, there would be no transgression. As Charles Hodge points out, the subject here is justification.3 The law cannot justify. It can only condemn. If there were no law, there would be no condemnation because there would be no transgression. Since there is law, there is condemnation and wrath. Those who are under wrath could not be heirs, and hence the promise of heirship is to those who have justification by faith, and is not through law. This fact is stated in vs. 16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.” The meaning of this verse is apparent in its own statement. Νόμος here has the article and evidently refers to the Mosaic law. Since the promise is conditioned only on faith and is of grace not law, the promise is sure to those who believe. The Jewish law is not inclusive enough, even if it were a ground of justification, which it is not. The promise is by faith so that all might be partakers with Abraham who have the faith of Abraham. As Paul points out later in the chapter, Christians who put faith in Christ partake of the promise of Abraham and of the justification which God gave Abraham.

In chapter four, then, Paul has supported his argument for justification by faith apart from law by the case of Abraham and the condition of the promise to Abraham. It is historically true, that justification is on the basis of faith, not the works of the law. Israel had notably failed in this regard, as is indicated in the ninth and tenth chapters of the epistle, to which we will now turn.

4. Israel’s Failure to Apprehend the Faith Principle

Chapter nine of the Epistle to the Romans deals primarily with the fact and significance of Israel’s failure as a nation to embrace the true Messiah. One reason for this failure was their lack of comprehension of the purpose and limitations of law. In 9:31, 32, we have definite reference to this, “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone.” The two references to νόμος in vs. 31 are without the article. The reference in vs. 32 is omitted in some manuscripts, but if genuine is also without the article. A further textual problem is found in the omission of the second “of righteousness” in vs. 31. With these textual criticisms in mind, with a more literal translation, as found in the American Standard Version, we find Paul’s statement to be as follows: “But Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works.” If this is what Paul actually wrote, it would seem that the two instances that are left are both references to law in the sense of a principle of operation, as in 3:27. Israel strove to arrive at a method of obtaining righteousness. They thought this method was to attain perfection by observing the Mosaic law. Δικαιοσύνης, translated of righteousness, is probably an objective genitive, a regular Greek usage, with the meaning of the righteousness which proceeds from law. The Mosaic law, however, is not a means of attaining “the law of righteousness.” The only way is by the law or principle of faith, an expression which is used in 3:27. Paul points this out in 9:32. Their works could not save them. They were trying to do something only God could do. This was a cause for rejection of the Messiah when He came.

In the tenth chapter of Romans we have reference to God’s present dealings with Israel. In the opening three verses of the chapter, Paul continues the discussion of the truth in the ninth chapter, showing that the cause of the failure of Israel was that, “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” In contrast to this, in Christ the law is fulfilled, “For Christ is the end of the law of righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.” In both instances, νόμος occurs without the article. In the first instance, in vs. 4, it seems clear that the reference is to any moral law. The argument is that Christ is the end of all law, as far as law resulting in righteousness is concerned. The demands of all moral law reach their destination in Christ. In righteousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) implies that the law comes into its destination and there stops. The believer in Christ has righteousness from God forever. In contrast to this, the kind of righteousness of the law of Moses demands constant and unfailing obedience. The righteousness of the law was the righteousness of works. The difficulty lay in the fact that the law demanded perfect obedience, which no man could render. In order to have the righteousness of the law, it was necessary to live according to the law. The Christian puts faith in the work of Christ already finished. The Jew could only hope in a perfection which he could not attain. Νόμος is evidently used in vs. 5 in reference to the law of Moses in its quality as law.

5. Conclusion: Justification Is Apart From Law

Thus, by a threefold argument, law is dismissed in any form as a means of justification. He has already shown the failure of Israel under law to attain righteousness. Now he shows, first, that Christ died as the Redeemer of the world, a fact which has no explanation if there is saving righteousness through law. Second, he goes back to the case of Abraham and shows that Abraham received the promise of his inheritance by faith and was justified by faith apart from any law, much less the law of Moses which was not yet written. Third, Paul shows that Israel at present is estranged from God because they sought to make the law a means of justification, rejecting Christ. It is not a case of abstract reasoning simply. It is historically true. Israel had failed; Christ had died; Abraham was justified by faith; Israel is now estranged from God. At the time Paul wrote this was evident, and it was soon to become more evident when Jerusalem was destroyed. Having proved that justification is apart from law, Paul now turns to prove that sanctification is also apart from law, dealing with this subject beginning in 5:12, and continuing through the book, particularly in the seventh and eighth chapters.

Chapter III. Sanctification Apart from Law

Introduction

Paul proves that sanctification is apart from law by a fivefold argument. Introducing the argument in 5:12-20, he proves that we are not under law, but have a new master; that experience has demonstrated that it is impossible to be sanctified by the law; that God’s instrument of sanctification is the Holy Spirit, not the law; and that law is fulfilled in us through love born of the Holy Spirit.

In the opening part of this section (5:12-20), three references are made to law, two in 5:13 and one in 5:20. All are without the article. In this section Paul sets out to prove that sanctification cannot come through the law because the cause for sin is rooted not in a lack of law, but in a sin nature which resulted when Adam fell, and was passed on to Adam’s posterity through natural generation in addition to the imputation of sin and death to the race. In vs. 13, Paul writes, “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” The first reference to νόμος is evidently a reference to the Mosaic law in its quality as law, as there is no article. Up to the time that a law dispensation came into being with the advent of the Mosaic law there was sin in the world just as there was sin in the world after the law. The difference was that law made sin plain and gave a ground for imputing such sin to those who committed it. specific law which may be under observation. What is true of one law is true of another in this case.

In vs. 2, Paul appeals to the marriage law to illustrate his point. A married woman is married only so long as her husband lives. If her husband dies, she is free to marry again as if never married. So Paul argues in the case of the Christian. We formerly were married to the law. Then we were put to death in the death of Christ. Death broke the bond. Now we are free to be married to Christ. Of the two instances of νόμος, the first has no article and the second has. The first instance refers to any law, but is limited by the context to the marriage law, whether Jewish, Roman, or otherwise. The article in the second instance is used to call attention to the modifier-“of her husband,” i.e., it is the particular law which sets forth the relation to husbands. Verse 3 furnishes an illustration of the anaphoric use of the article, referring back to the same law as in 7:2, that is, the law of her husband. Beginning in vs. 4, the argument is applied to the Jewish law in particular, using the article in vss. 4, 5, and 6. As far as the law is concerned, it has exacted its penalty, and we are legally dead in the death of Christ. He therefore concludes we are delivered from the law. (7:6).

In vss. 7 to 13, Paul reveals some of his own experiences with the law as an unregenerate man and in the new light which came with his conversion. In vs. 7, he denies that the law is sin, for it is the law that reveals sin. Of the three instances in this verse, the first is with the article, and refers to Mosaic law; the second, without the article, referring to any moral law; the third, Mosaic law, having the article. The Mosaic law is not sin because of the principle inherent in all moral law that moral law reveals sin. As an example of this, Paul refers to the tenth commandment which convicted him of sin of covetousness. The verse is an interesting example of the accuracy of the use of the article.

In vss. 8 and 9, νόμος occurs without the article. The meaning of the passage depends on what interpretation is placed on the expression “sin was dead.” Charles Hodge6 and C. I. Scofield7 both take it as autobiography of Paul. Paul at one time considered himself “blameless” as far as the law was concerned. With his conversion, he saw how condemned he was under the very law in which he had taken refuge. If this is correct, Paul is saying that without law (or rather the consciousness of it) sin is dead. This is true experimentally. Only as we understand moral law are we aware of transgression of it. In this sense sin is dead. When Paul became a Christian, sin came to life, and Paul perceived his true condition. Law is used in both verses in the sense of any moral law, including of course, the Mosaic law.

In vss. 12 and 14, the law is revealed to be holy and spiritual. The article occurs in both instances, and evidently points specifically to the Mosaic law. As such it worked death in him.

With the new birth, Paul at once came into the experience of strife between the old and new natures. In vs. 16, Paul states that his new nature admits that the Mosaic law is good. Νόμος evidently occurs here with the article and evidently refers to Mosaic law specifically. His sins are not committed because he does not see the fact that the law is holy and good, but because his sinful nature gets the victory at times. In 7:21, he states this as a principle, “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.” Νόμος, here with the article, is used in the sense of a principle of operation. The principle or law here is that though Paul wants to do good, he finds evil is present with him.

As a result of this principle of the working of the sinful nature in spite of the new nature, Paul has a struggle going on within himself. He first of all takes delight in the law of God, as stated in 7:22. In this verse, law is without the article and refers to any moral law of God. In spite of this fact, in vs. 23, he says, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into the captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” The first instance of law has no article. It is law in the sense of a principle of operation as in 7:21. This is the activity of the old nature. It wars against the law of his, mind.

The second instance is with the article. The article is used to call particular attention to the modifying phrase “of my mind.” It is law in the sense of a sphere of rule or domination. The third instance in this verse is similar, being also with the article. Sin also has a sphere of domination which Paul calls the “law of sin.” Paul’s mind wanted to do good. He refers to the will of the new nature. The old nature insists also on domination. It wants to rule.

In, vs. 24, Paul cries out for deliverance from such a fight. He finds it in vs. 25. It is Christ himself who will deliver him, as we learn in chapter eight, through the Holy Spirit. In vs. 25, in the two instances in the verse, neither have the article. The former is used in the sense of any moral law of God. The latter is the sphere of domination of sin. The new nature turns naturally to God’s moral standards. The old nature is under the domination of sin.

From Paul’s own experience, it is perfectly obvious that the law of Moses or any moral law has no ability to deliver from the old nature. All any law could do would be to condemn. Paul found himself incapable in his own strength of attaining victory. He turns to Christ in faith for that which the law could not do. The law could not sanctify. It could only condemn.

3. Sanctification By the Holy Spirit

In Romans 8:2, Paul answers the problem of the seventh chapter, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” The Spirit is evidently the Holy Spirit. Νόμος in both instances in this verse is a sphere of domination, the article with both calling attention to the particular sphere of domination indicated by the modifiers. One law or sphere of domination is that of the Holy Spirit. This rule of the Spirit liberates from the rule of sin and death. What moral law could not do, the Holy Spirit accomplishes. In vs. 3, it occurs with the article, and evidently refers to Mosaic law specifically. It is said to be weak and unable to gain victory over the flesh. In vs. 4, νόμος again with the article and again meaning Mosaic law is said to be fulfilled in us experimentally by the Spirit, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” The righteousness of the law which we could not attain in ourselves experimentally is wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. The necessity of this is again pointed out in vs. 7, where it is stated that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God. In vs. 7, it occurs without the article and refers to any moral law. Thus Paul, in sanctification as well as in justification, points to the inadequacy of the law and the sufficiency of God. We are justified by faith apart from the law. We are sanctified by faith apart from the law.

4. The Law of Love

Only two references to law remain to be considered in Romans. These occur in Romans 13:8, 10. In vs. 8, Paul writes, “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” In vs. 9 he points out that the ten commandments which relate to man’s relation to man are fulfilled in the law of love. He explains this in vs. 10, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” In both verses, νόμος occurs without the article and refers to all moral law. Paul evidently had the Mosaic law foremost in his mind, however, and quotes from that. Love fulfills all moral law, not only the law of Moses.

It is the clear teaching of Scripture that the great work of the Holy Spirit in the saved soul is to plant there a love for God and man which is more than human affection. It is the quality of love which God has toward man, sacrificial, mindful of true values, and yearning for the other’s highest good. If the Christian would act on the principle of pure love, he would work no ill toward his neighbor, and if his love toward God were perfect, he would perfectly serve God. Love therefore is a standard which is higher than law, fulfilling the law, and accomplishing through the Spirit what the law could not. Love is the crown of sanctification as sanctification is the crown of justification. All are accomplished by God for man; all are apart from the law; all are a fulfillment of the law.

5. Conclusion

The conclusions which may be reached upon a study of the use of νόμος in the Epistle to the Romans are manifestly quite definite. The entire epistle is seen to be a presentation of the central fact that “the just shall live by faith” (1:17). Salvation in all its forms is a work of God for man and not a work of man for God. The epistle is addressed to both Jews and Gentiles who attempt to be saved by their own works. It is a piece of logic which has never been excelled. The conclusions to which Paul comes are irrefutable.

As has been shown, Paul uses a threefold argument to prove his case for the faith principle. He shows first of all that all law, Gentile or Jewish, can only condemn. Law after all speaks of the holiness of God to which no man can attain in himself. Paul then shows that law which condemns is met in the death of Christ. Christ in His work on the cross met all the just demands of moral law and of God’s righteousness. God has now declared “his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (3:26). Paul concludes that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (3:28). With this conclusion as background, Paul goes on to refute the more subtle idea that sanctification is through law. He shows that this is impossible through the nature of the case as the law can only condemn. He shows that experimentally it does not work. We cannot keep the law even after we are saved. He points to the Holy Spirit as the way of sanctification and love as its chief and dominating fruit. When Paul has concluded his argument, he leaves law stripped of all its false claims, leaving only the fact which even he does not deny that all moral law is but an interpretation of the righteousness of God, to which righteousness we are to attain perfectly by the Spirit of God.

John F. Walvoord
Dallas, Texas

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

¹ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 427.

³ Ibid., pp.188-191.

⁶ Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 351-352.

⁷ Scofield Reference Bible, note 2, p. 1199.

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 1

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

[Editor’s Note: This article is the first of a series dealing with the words for sin in the New Testament, an important foundation for the study of Hamartiology.]

Introduction.

Every system of theology can be characterized by its conception of sin. It is, therefore, a matter of great importance that the words used in the Holy Scriptures for sin in its various aspects be carefully studied with a view to establishing distinctions and conclusions which are fundamental to the study of Hamartiology and which bear an important relation to the doctrine of salvation. Fundamentally, this is the task of the lexicographer, but it is impossible for either the lexicographer or the theologian to work alone, as the work of either is colored by the work of the other.

The present study is limited to the thirty-three words for sin found in the New Testament. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has pointed out that there are thirty-three aspects to the riches of grace bestowed upon the believer in Christ at the moment he believes.1 It is interesting that there should be, in contrast, exactly thirty-three generic words for sin in the New Testament, excluding specific names for acts of sin. While the Old Testament has its important contribution, and the Septuagint does much to link it with the New Testament, in the final analysis the New Testament must be its own authority as to its definition of words for sin, with uses outside the Scripture merely confirming and illustrating their meaning.

Before turning to the ten words for sin in the New Testament from which all the rest are derived, it may be helpful to take a foreview of the contribution of each. The thirty-three words for sin consider sin from every angle, even different forms of the same root word not being used exactly with the same emphasis. One of the most important words is ἁμαρτία and its kindred forms, in which sin is viewed as missing the mark, “coming short of the glory of God.” In παραβαίνω, we see sin as transgression, characterizing sin as a breaking of moral law and a turning from the perfect will of God. In παράπτωμα, sin is viewed as a fall. In παρακούω there is a picture of sin in the light of failing to listen to God, with open and flagrant disobedience being the result of this failure. The verb ἀδικέω and its kindred words point to sin as being unrighteous, unjust, void of God’s approval, and contrary to the holy character of God. ᾿Ασεβέω defines sin as rebelling against God, open and active sinning in defiance of God and His jqdgment. Another word for sin, not found in verb form, is ἀνομία, which considers sin as being lawless, in spite of and contrary to law. ᾿Αγνοέω traces sin as springing from ignorance as well as the resulting blindness to spiritual truth, combined in the definition, to err. &Ηττάω views sin as a defeat, and when used in the passive means to be defeated, overcome, pointing to the need of the power of God for victory. Finally,πονηρία pictures sin as utter corruption, depravity, iniquity, which is to be subjected to the righteous judgment of God.

The panorama of sin furnished by these words for sin is a commentary in itself in the number of words used and the frequency of their occurrence. What meaning it gives to the Scripture that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3)!

I. &Αμαρτία

(ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμαρτία ἁμαρτωλός, ἁμάρτημα, προαμαρτάνω, ἀναμάρτητος)

1. Preliminary Definition.

The Greek word for sin, ἁμαρτία, is one of the most common found in the New Testament. From it comes the formal name for the doctrine of sin, Hamartiology. The noun form occurs 174 times in the New Testament, with the adjective, ἁμαρτωλός, next in number with 47 instances. The verb, ἁμαρτάνω, occurs 44 times, and the other forms are found only four times or less. The large number of instances makes it the most important word for sin in the New Testament.

A simple definition, as commonly accepted, is missinq the mark, which is the consistent use of the word both in classic literature as well as the New Testament, though in the New Testament it is restricted in its use to moral or ethical significance.

2. Derivation.

There is a significant difference of opinion on the derivation of these words for sin which has an important bearing on the ultimate definition and the resulting theology. According to Trench,2 Suidas has suggested that these words are derived from μάρπτω, meaning to grasp, which, with the alpha privative comes to mean a failure to grasp. A more common conjecture, however, which is accepted generally, is that ἁμαρτία is derived from μέρος and μείρομαι. This is advanced by Thayer in his discussion of the verb,3 and even Trench admits this when he writes:

“Buttmann’s conjecture (Lexilogus, p. 85, English ed.), that it belongs to the root μέρος, μείρομαι, on which a negative intransitive verb, to be without one’s share of, to miss, was formed (see Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 36), has found more favour (see a long note by Fritzsche, on Rom. v.12, with excellent philology and execrable theology).”4

Thayer and others go back to classical literature to prove their contention that the word has a deeper meaning than that offered by Suidas. Thayer quotes Homer’s Iliad, 8, 3111, and also 10, 372, to illustrate this point.5 The word is commonly used to represent the situation where a spear is thrown but fails to hit the mark. Trench finds a hundred such instances in Homer.6 In Thucydides, iii.98.2, Trench points out that the same word is used to represent the idea of missing one’s way.7 From these references in Greek literature, it is plain that two things are true: first, the true meaning of the word in classical literature is to miss the mark, or to fail to attain the goal; second, in classical use the word does not always involve moral guilt or ethical failure. In the instances cited above, it is obvious that the word is used in an unmoral sense. In contrast in the New Testament the word is always used in a moral sense in the 272 instances it occurs, illustrating the premise that in determining the technical meaning of words for sin in the New Testament, in the last analysis, the usage of the New Testament itself is the final authority. A preliminary investigation of the derivation of the word, therefore, leads to the conclusion that ἁμαρτία and its other forms mean essentially to miss the mark in a moral or ethical sense, a deeper significance than merely a failure to grasp or achieve intellectually.

3. The Verb &Αμαρτάνω.

The verb naturally expresses the action involved in sin. In 39 out of 44 instances it is translated sin in the Authorized Version, the other translations being, trespass (3 times), offend (once), and for your faults (once). It is used as a general word for sin as an act of any character which is inferior in righteousness to the holy character of God and fails to measure up to the standard.

The chief passage in which the importance of the use of the verb is illustrated is Romans 5:12-21. In this passage and its description of original sin much depends upon the meaning of the words used for sin, and in turn, the passage helps to define the nature of sin. In particular the statement, “all have sinned,” is important. The passage reveals the far-reaching effect of Adam’s missing the mark. All the race are seen to have sinned in Adam; Adam’s act is revealed to be their act; because of Adam’s sin, all the race receive the imputation of sin, pass into a sinful state, and are under the domination of sin. It is significant that these tremendous results follow Adam’s sin.

In William G. T. Shedd’s discussion of the subject of original sin he points out that the expression “all have sinned” means that all individuals sinned in Adam, i.e., that Adam’s act is their act.8 As such the reference is to Adam’s sin and not to the individual’s sin. It is the imputation of the first sin, not the sins of individuals which are committed throught choice after human birth. Shedd brings this out in the following discussion:

“But while ἥμαρτον in Rom 5:12 is active in signification, it does not denote the transgressions of each individual subsequent to birth, and when no longer in Adam, but the transgression of Adam and Eve inclusive of their posterity. This is proved by the following considerations: 1. One, and but one sin is specified as the ground of the penalty of death. This is asserted five times over, in succession, in Rom 5:15-19. In Rom 5:12, ἥμαρτον unquestionably refers to the same sin that is spoken of in Rom 5:15-19.

“2. In Rom 5:14, some who die, namely, infants, ‘did not sin after the similitude of Adam’s first transgression.’ That is, they did not repeat the first sin. They must, therefore, have sinned in some other manner because they are a part of the ‘all’ (πάντες) who sinned, and because they experience the death which is the wages of sin. The only other conceivable manner of sinning is that of participation in the first sin itself. But participation in Adam’s first sin is not the repetition of it by the individual.

“From these considerations, it is evident that the word ‘sinned’ in Rom 5:12 is active in its signification.”9

Now, if the meaning of active sin be affixed to the verb ἁμαρτάνω, the suggestion of Suidas and others that the word means only an intellectual insufficiency is at once ruled inadmissible. Adam’s sin, and our participation in it, is not simply a failure to grasp the character of sin and the results of sin. It was willful disobedience in the face of God’s specific instruction on the matter of inevitable punishment if he sinned. It may, therefore, be concluded that Adam’s first sin, being active in its nature and tremendous in its results, characterizes the meaning of the verb.

There is no necessity of defining the verb further inasmuch as the discussion of the various uses of the noun-form to all practical purposes coincides with the verb, except, of course, that the verb is limited to the idea of action, while the noun may refer to a state or a condition. Apart from this, the noun and the verb are used in the same sense.

4. The Noun &Αμαρτία.

The noun is found most frequently in the New Testament, a total of 174 times, and is translated sin in all but two instances in the Authorized Version (offence, once, and sinful,once). As indicated above, it is identical in idea to the verb.

A study of the uses of the noun reveal that there are seven important aspects indicated in the meaning and use of the word: (1) the sin which is imputed to man because of Adam’s sin; (2) the sin nature, which is transmitted from generation to generation; (3) the sphere of domination of the sin nature in which the sin nature rules; (4) the act of sin itself; (5) sin in its total, i.e., the collective use of the word; (6) the use of the abstract (ἁμαρτία, sin), for the concrete (ἁμαρτωλός, sinner); (7) the use of the noun (ἁμαρτία) for the adjective (ἁμαρτωλός).

The first use of the noun, in reference to imputed sin, may be well illustrated by Romans 5:12. If the expression “all have sinned” refers to the participation of the race in Adam’s sin, it necessarily follows in the nature of the case that the noun found in the same verse would be similar in meaning. In both cases in verse twelve the article is used with the noun, in contrast to verse thirteen where the article is not used. In verse thirteen, it is referring to sin in general, such as was in the world before law came into existence in the form of the law of Moses. In verse twelve, death is directly related to “the sin,” that is, to the sin which “entered the world.” Death is said to have come by this sin. It must follow, as Shedd indicates, that sin here is imputed sin, whereby the race is placed in a state in which there is an absence of righteousness.

It may be noted, however, that in addition to the imputation of Adam’s sin, God imputes or does not impute acts of sin performed after Adam. In Romans 4:8, for instance, where we have an accurate translation of Psalm 32:1, 2, the state of the righteous and the unrighteous is contrasted in that though both are sinful, God does not impute sin in the case of those who stand justified. It is clearly not only Adam’s sin that is meant here, but acts of sin on the part of the individual.

The second use of the noun is in reference to the sin nature. It is an historic fact that all men since Adam have sinned. This is best explained on the ground that they have inherited a sin nature. In contrast to imputed sin, which is not experimental, the sin nature is felt and seen in action by everyone. A. A. Hodge in his discussion of the effects of Adam’s sin in outlining the sin nature which men from Adam down have possessed writes:

“The whole nature became depraved. The will being at war with the conscience, the understanding became darkened; the conscience, in consequence of the constant outrage and neglect, became seared; the appetites of the body inordinant, and its members instruments of unrighteousness.... There remained in man’s nature no recuperative principle; he must go on from worse to worse, unless God interposes.”10

The fact of the sin nature is everywhere assumed and clearly taught in Scripture. Romans six and seven constitute an exposition of the sin nature as well as its manifestations. In this section, the sin nature is viewed as our master until Christ came and through His death wrought liberty for us. The sin nature must be carefully distinguished, however, from its manifestations. Every Christian has the sin nature, but it does not necessarily follow that this sin nature should be allowed to manifest itself. Progressive sanctification is only possible in human experience as the character of the sin nature is recognized and the principles of overcoming it are understood and used.

In 1 John 1:8, 10, we have a careful distinction between the sin nature and sins which proceed from it. The sin nature is always represented by the singular, while the act of sin which proceeds from the sin nature may be either singular or plural, though usually plural in the nature of the case. In 1 John 1:8, there is clear reference to the sin nature, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Sin is a translation of ἁμαρτία in the singular. In verse ten, the verb is used, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” The verb (ἡμαρτήκαμεν) is found in the perfect active indicative and its aktionsart is iterative. The meaning is, then, that in the past there have been definite acts of sin repeatedly committed until this reiteration can be said to be a settled habit.

In verse nine, which precedes this verse, John has just pointed the way in which a sinning Christian is restored into fellowship with God, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” In verse nine, the noun for sins is in the plural as in the English translation, and it refers to sinful acts. In these three verses there is a threefold argument. In verse eight, the existence of the sin nature is revealed. In verse nine, the manifestation of the sin nature in acts of sin is shown to require confession for restoration. In verse ten, denial of sins is declared to be a lie and a token that the word of Christ is not in us. One who properly interprets the Word of God will recognize both the sin nature and its manifestations.

The character of the sin nature is best understood in the light of the sphere of domination of the sin nature. We know the sin nature by what it does. In Romans six, it is revealed that the death of Christ voids the claim of the sin nature for expression. We are exhorted to lay hold in faith on this fact that the singular is used is important in specifying the collective use of the word.

An interesting reference to the use of the abstract to represent the concrete is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” As Thayer puts it, “He treated him, who knew no sin, as a sinner.”11 There is no thought of inaccuracy in its use here, however. While Christ was made sin for us, i.e., our sin was imputed to Him, He was not made sinner for us, though He took the sinner’s place. Christ was treated as if He had missed the mark, but it was His sin judicially not experimentally.

The use of ἁμαρτία in place of the adjective is the seventh and last use of the noun. A good example is found in Romans 7:7, where the question is asked, “Is the law sin?”. The obvious meaning is, “Is the law evil,” as Charles Hodge points out.12 The noun is used where normally an adjective would be expected. Calvin’s explanation that the law is regarded as the cause of sin, as Hodge points out, is improbable.13

All the uses of the noun in the New Testament consistently support the definition that ἁμαρτία is active sin, distinctly moral and ethical in its nature and involving God’s judgment upon it and the death of His Son. There is absolutely no ground for minimizing the nature or results of sin from the use of this word in the New Testament.

5. The Adjective &Αμαρτωλός.

Of the remaining words with the same root, the adjective is found most often, occurring 47 times in the New Testament, and is similar in meaning to the idea of the noun and verb just discussed. The adjective specifies an act, condition, or state as coming short of the perfect righteousness of the character of God.

In its use in the New Testament, it is remarkable that the adjective is used as a noun, or with a noun understood, in every case except four, where it is translated sinful. An interesting case where it is translated in its natural force as an adjective is found in Romans 7:13, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” Hodge in commenting on this verse says, “The true character of sin, as sin, is revealed by its making even that which is in itself good the means of sin.”14 The adjective is used in reference to the display of sin in its true character.

The use of the adjective for the noun, or with the noun or pronoun understood (a regular Greek idiom), is capable of different shades of thought, even though it is uniformly translated sinner. It is sometimes used in the sense of not being free from sin, as Thayer points out in discussion of the adjective.15 Examples of this may be found frequently in the Gospels, and in Romans 3:7; 5:19; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 7:26.

The adjective is frequently found, however, to refer to those particularly devoted to sin, especially sinful, or guilty of certain degrading sins in the eyes of others. Thus in the Gospels, tax-gatherers are called sinners (Luke 15:2; 18:13; 19:7). The expression publicans and sinners is frequently found in the Gospels (cf. Matt 9:10; 11:19, etc.). Gentiles in general are called sinners by the Jews (Mark 14:41; Luke 24:7; Gal 2:15). The adjective as a whole, then, can be said to first of all represent the natural state of all men as not free from sin; second, it refers to men whose condition or act is especially sinful, i.e., above that of other men.

6. The Noun &Αμάρτημα.

According to most texts, ἁμάρτημα is found only four times in the New Testament (Mark 3:28, 29; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 6:18). Some manuscripts have it also in Mark 4:12, as in the Authorized Version, and in 2 Peter 1:9. The text accepted for the American Standard Version eliminates the word from Mark 4:12 entirely, and in 2 Peter 1:9 the more common noun ἁμαρτία is recognized as correct.

&Αμάρτημα is a noun, meaning, according to Thayer, a sin, evil deed.16 It is the concrete of which ἁμαρτία is the abstract. In Mark 3:28 and in 1 Corinthians 6:18, it is used in a general reference to all sins. In Mark 3:29, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is called “an eternal sin” if ἁμάρτημα is the correct text instead of κρίσεως. In Romans 3:25, it is used for sins committed before the cross. There is no question that the word means sin in the act, as contrasted to and being more specific than ἁμαρτία, sin in the abstract. In the light of the previous discussion on Romans 5:12, it is highly significant that ἁμαρτία and not ἁμάρτημα is used in Romans 5, or else we would be compelled to interpret Romans 5:12 as meaning that sinful acts entered the world, which is not the primary thought.

7. The Verb Προαμαρτάνω.

This verb found twice in the New Testament (2 Cor 12:21; 13:2) is identical in meaning with the verb ἁμαρτάνω, which has been already discussed, but with the additional thought in the prefix of before or already. The context of the two instances indicates that Paul is referring to acts of sin committed before he wrote 2 Corinthians. Apart from this time factor, the word has no separate significance.

8. The Adjective ᾿Αναμάρτητος.

According to Thayer this word has two possible meanings: ”one who has not sinned, and one who cannot sin.”17 In the only instance in which it occurs in the New Testament (John 8:7), it is used in Christ’s question, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Here it is obviously the former of the two meanings, though the latter is not impossible. In that case, Christ would have meant, “He that is not capable of the same sin,” i.e., adultery, “let him first cast a stone.” The word occurs frequently in the Septuagint and in Greek literature from Homer down.

9. Conclusion.

In the foregoing discussion, which has included the six different words of the same root found in the New Testament, the general character and meaning of this group has been established. All six words have a moral or ethical meaning in the New Testament in every one of the many instances in which they are found. All represent a position, state, condition, or act which falls short of the holy character of God. This is shown to be more than a lack of comprehension or an intellectual limitation. In every case there is a failure or sin which is subject to judgment. Because of the ἁμαρτία of Adam the whole race came under the curse of sin, and Christ in His death atoned for ἁμαρτία. To affirm in the face of these facts that this word does nor represent any serious departure from the will of God is at once to declare God unrighteous in imputing Adam’s sin and make the death of Christ an unnecessary and arbitrary act. Taken in the light of further discussion of other words for sin, the whole picture is tremendous in its revelation, portraying both the utter need of salvation and the wonder of God’s grace.

Dallas, Texas

(Series to be continued in the April-June Number, 1943)

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

¹ Salvation, pp. 54-68.

² Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 240.

³ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v.

⁴ Loc. cit.

⁵ Loc. cit.

⁶ Op. cit., p. 241.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 169-256.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 183, 184.

¹⁰ Outlines of Theology, p. 324.

¹¹ Loc. cit.

¹² Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 246, 247.

¹³ Loc. cit.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 354.

¹⁵ Op. cit., s.v.

¹⁶ Ibid., s.v.

¹⁷ Ibid., s.v.

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 2

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

(Continued from the January-March Number, 1948)

{Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original printed edition were numbered 18-35, but in this electronic edition are numbered 1-18 respectively.}

II. Παράβασις

(παράβασις, παραβαίνω, παραβάτης)

After the study of ἁμαρτία in the previous article, it is fitting, now, to turn to the three important words to be considered in this section. Not only are the words in themselves significant as a contribution to the larger doctrine of hamartiology, but they refute by their very definition all the philosophies which find root in the idea that man will choose good if he knows it. The ancient Socratic motto that “virtue is knowledge,” i.e., “that if only men can be brought to see what the better course is they will spontaneously follow it,”1 is branded as false, along with all other theories asserting that man is naturally good. The Bible consistently teaches that men are wilfully sinful as the ensuing discussion helps to demonstrate.

1. Παράβασις

Παράβασις, like παραβαίνω and παραβάτης, is derived from βαίνω, a common verb meaning to go, to walk, to step. Though found frequently in the classic Greek, it does not occur in the New Testament without a prefix. The addition of the prefix, παρά gives its New Testament form the meaning, ”to go past or to pass over without touching a thing.”2 In its tropical use in the New Testament, it is defined, ”to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress.”3 An interesting instance of its classical use is that in Homer, where the form παρβεβαώς occurs to represent warriors who stand side by side in a war-chariot.4 The New Testament form is translated six times in the Authorized Version by the word transgression and once by breaking. A study of these passages reveals that it is a more serious sin and a stronger word than ἁμαρτία.

The central thought of the word παραβαίνω is that of wilful disobedience. In Romans 2:23, for instance, the Jew is challenged, “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” The sin in view is not imputed sin, a sin of ignorance, nor the fact of the sin nature, but it is rather the flagrant sin of disobedience to the law which the Jews themselves regard as their very own.

Another notable instance is the transgression of Adam and Eve-a disobedience to a specific command-to which reference is made in Romans 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:14. In Romans 4:15, the interesting statement is made that it is necessary to have law in order to have transgression (παράβασις). The remaining references (Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2; 9:15) bring out the same thought of sin in its character of wilful transgression of known law.

2. Παραβαίνω

To all practical purposes, the uses of the verb are identical to those of the noun as far as meaning is concerned. The four instances (Acts 1:25; Matt 15:2, 3; 2 John 9), or possibly only three if the reference in 2 John be omitted, following the best manuscripts, afford some further illustrations, however. In Matthew 15:2, the transgression in view is that of the tradition of the elders, in contrast to the transgression of the commandment of God in the following verse. In both these instances, however, the transgression is a violation of definite rules of conduct which were known, following the idea of wilful sin. The sin of Judas in Acts 1:25 has the same character.

3. Παραβάτης

The remaining noun form is similar to the two other words discussed, being used to represent the one transgressing. It is translated once as breaker (Rom 2:25); three times as transgressor (Gal 2:18; Jas 2:9, 11); and once as who doth transgress (Rom 2:27). The context of these instances bears out the previous definition that transgression is of known law, the sin being wilful disobedience’

The three words discussed in this section add their distinctive note to the whole doctrine of hamartiology. Sin is seen as an overt act, a wilful disobedience. None of these three words is used to represent the sin nature, imputed sin, or sin in the abstract. Sin is painted in its ugly reality of opposition to the revealed will of God, at once a proof of human depravity and the refutation of all worldly views of sin as a mere intellectual error. Transgression of the will of God is viewed more seriously than ἁμαρτία, and it is in contrast to ἀγνοέω, which speaks of sin as springing from ignorance and the natural blindness of the human heart to the things of God.

III. Παράπτωμα

(παράπτωμα, παραπίπτω)

Two Greek words in interesting contrast to παράβασις are παράπτωμα and παραπίπτω, the former occurring twenty-three times in the New Testament, and the latter being found once. Both words are derived from the verb πίπτω meaning to fall, and the preposition παρά meaning alongside of, or near. Thayer states it is nowhere found in its proper meaning of to fall beside.5 In its use in the New Testament, it means ”a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness.”6 In other words, it may represent sin in the act or merely ignorance. The Revised Version translates the word trespass. As used in the New Testament, both words are always used in an ethical sense, though outside the Bible this is not the case. The important point to be remembered in the use of these words is that it represents a deviation from the right path either in thought, knowledge, or act. It is therefore less emphatic in its representation of sin than any of the words previously studied. to designate sins not of the deepest dye and the worst enormity.”8

While, as Trench points out, there is more of the thought of inability, lack of knowledge, and moral weakness in παράπτωμα, and the root idea of falling connotes at least some inability to prevent it, the word is nevertheless used in Scripture to refer to serious sin. For instance, in Romans 5:15, 17, 18, it is used of the original, sin of Adam, and hence we speak of Adam’s fall. In the LXX, there is a similar use of the word to represent serious sin, i.e., sin resulting in physical death (Ezek 18:26). In other instances, however, a weaker sense of the word may be observed, as in the fall of Israel from their privileged result of sin rather than a sin in itself (Rom 11:11, 12). Taking all factors into consideration, it is hardly sufficient to say as does Fritzsche, quoted by Thayer in the discussion of the meaning of παράπτωμα, that it differs “from ἁμάρτημα in figure not in force.”9 It is perhaps better to conclude that παράπτωμα indicates sin more from the viewpoint of inability than wilful sin, dwelling on the concept of failing to keep the right way in thought or deed rather than a deliberate choice of evil.

2. Παραπίπτω

In general, the verb follows the same definition as the noun and is important in itself because it occurs in a passage of difficult interpretation. In its only use in the New Testament, it is found in Hebrews 6:6, where it refers to the “falling away” of one near faith in Christ. The context indicates that the person in view has tasted of spiritual things, though he has never really eaten. It is a picture of one trying something out, examining it, and determining whether to embrace it or not. Having once come to this point of decision, the Scripture tells us in Hebrews 6:6, that if they fall away, i.e., go past the place of decision without taking the right road, it is impossible for them to come back. This is, however, from God’s viewpoint, as no man can say of another that he has passed the place of opportunity. If one comes into the full light of the Gospel, insofar as this may be known by anyone unsaved, and with this knowledge deliberately spurns the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ, there is no further step possible.

The sin in view is the sin of unbelief-deliberate unbelief. Whether the word means to fall short of true faith, or to pass by and thereby miss true faith, the result is the same. Needless to say, no one under conviction (John 16:7-11) has passed the possibility of faith in Christ, and no one however careless in previous opportunities to accept Christ need seek in vain if he wants to believe. The marks of the one who has “fallen away” in the sense of Hebrews 6:6 are indifference and deepening blindness. From a practical standpoint, however, it is the Christian’s duty to continue to preach, to pray, and to exhort in the hope that saving faith may yet follow.

The study of these two words has brought out some of the distinctions which the Scriptures afford. The emphasis throughout is on the idea of falling into the wrong path or the wrong choice rather than the choice itself, upon the fact of sin rather than the sinfulness of it. Its use in the New Testament indicates that it does not represent sin of as deep a dye as many other words.

IV. Παρακοή

(παρακοή, παρακούω)

Another of the compounds which has the prefix παρά are the verb παρακούω, found twice in the New Testament (Matt 18:17), and the noun παρακοή, found three times (Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 10:6; Heb 2:2). Both words are derived from the verb, ἀκούω, meaning to hear, with the preposition παρά, meaning, as has already been explained, alongside of. The compound comes to mean to hear alongside of, or to hear amiss. According to Thayer, this primary meaning is never found in the New Testament, however.10 Rather, the thought of unwillingness to hear or disobedience is the apparent usage. The idea inferred is that the one who fails to hear does so of his own will with the intent of disregarding and disobeying what he ought to hear and obey. It is therefore worthy of censure and judgment inasmuch as it is an unwillingness to hear, rather than an inability to hear. In contrast to παράπτωμα, where the emphasis is on inability, the important point in these words is upon the will, a deliberate disregard of a prohibition. Thayer defines the verb, ”to refuse to hear, pay no regard to, disobey.”11

1. Παρακοή

In Romans 5:19, a good example is found of the true meaning of the noun. The reference is to Adam’s sin as a disobedience. The facts of Adam’s sin as related in Genesis show that Adam knew the will of God through the express command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In spite of this command, knowing that he was disregarding the prohibition, Adam failed to listen and disobeyed. The reference to Adam’s sin as a παρακοή, then, is pointing out that the cause of the sin lay in failure to listen to God’s warning and command. The emphasis is not on the result, as would be indicated by παράπτωμα, but upon the cause.

Along this line Trench writes, ”Παρακοή is in its strictest sense a failing to hear, or a hearing amiss; the notion of active disobedience, which follows on this inattentive or careless hearing, being superinduced upon the word; or it may be, the sin being regarded as already committed in the failing to listen when God is speaking.”12

In 2 Corinthians 10:6, this same meaning is borne out. The Corinthians, or a portion of them, had failed to listen to Paul, and had cast reflections upon his apostleship. In reply, Paul warns them of the punishment that awaits those who fail to listen either to him as God’s apostle, or to the truth he preached. He contrasts it to ὑπακοή, to hear, to place the ear under, or to give heed, or obey. Again the emphasis is on the failing to hear the truth.

In Hebrews 2:2, we find the context indicates that the hearing of the truth is the point in the exhortation. In Hebrews 2:1, we are exhorted, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.” In the verses which follow, accordingly, the writer points to the judgment awaiting failure to hear, “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” Trangression is παράβασις and is in evident contrast to παρακοή, disobedience. Not only shall transgression, a definite and positive act of sin, be punished, but even a failing to hear.

2. Παρακούω

The verb is found twice in one verse (Matt 18:17), where it is translated in both instances, neglect to hear. The context deals with rules governing action against a sinning brother. The rule laid down, therefore, is “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church, but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (italics not in original). Again we have a positive reference pointing to the sin of failing to hear, not because hearing was impossible, but because they did not want to hear.

It may be concluded, without further discussion, that the primary meaning of the word as used in the New Testament is to hear amiss or fail to hear, proceeding from wilful neglect of the divine command.

V. ᾿Αδικέω

(ἀδικέω, ἀδικία, ἀδικος, ἀδίκως, ἀδίκημα)

We turn now to a number of words which have the alpha privative prefixed to the root. Of such words, the five treated in this section form an important part. The idea back of all the five words is found in the adjective δίκαιος, meaning, according to Thayer, in its widest sense, ”upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God.”13 A standard of right and wrong is assumed against which one is compared. The words we consider here have the alpha privative, indicating that the standard is not reached, that the person or act is not in conformity.

1. ᾿Αδικέω

Two general lines of thought seem to prevail in the verb, which is found twenty-seven times in the New Testament first, the failure to measure up to perfect righteousness, i.e., to commit an unrighteous or wicked act; second, the result of the act, the wrong, injury, or hurt which is inflicted or received because of the sin of oneself or another. The idea of justice and injustice is prominent, or the idea of right and wrong. Accordingly, the verb is translated to be an offender, once; to be unjust, twice; to do wrong, eight times; to hurt, ten times; to injure, once; to wrong, twice; and to take wrong, once.

The verb is used in reference to both human and divine standards. In Acts 25:11, in reference to Paul it is used of civil law. Usually, however, moral law is involved and a special emphasis is laid on the injury which results from a violation of moral law. In Colossians 3:25, for instance, we read, “But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons” (italics not in original). The context deals with a servant’s relation to his master. The statement in this verse is to the effect that a servant wronging his master by not rendering a full measure of service due shall receive judgment from the Lord. The servant is not only sinning, coming short of the perfect righteousness of God, but he is wronging, or inflicting injury on his master, by depriving him of his just due.

There are a few instances in which ἀδικέω is found used with very little or no ethical sense (cf. Luke 10:19; Rev 6:6; 7:2; 9:4, 10). In Luke 10:19, the reference is to the fact that scorpions will not be able to hurt the seventy disciples involved. No moral issue is in question, but merely the matter of damage or injury. So in Revelation 6:6, the point is the damaging of the oil and the wine. The use without moral significance is common in classic Greek. In general, however, it is used in the ethical sense in Scripture, and even in most of the non-ethical passages there is some connection to God’s judgment or His dealing with righteousness with those who trust Him.

2. ᾿Αδικία

The noun is found twenty-five times in the New Testament of which six instances carry the translation iniquity; sixteen times it is translated unrighteousness, once, wrong, twice as injury. Thayer states that the noun is found in three senses in the New Testament: (1) injustice; (2) unrighteousness of heart and life; (3) a deed violating law and justice, act of unrighteousness.14 Of the first, Luke 18:6 may be taken as an example. Here reference is made to an “unjust judge,” i.e., a judge who does not render judgment which is according to law. The result is injustice. In the second sense suggested by Thayer, Romans 1:18 may be taken as an illustration. There the word ἀδικία, translated unrighteousness, is linked with ἀσέβεια, translated ungodliness. God’s wrath is declared to be poured out on those who are described in this way. The primary meaning of ἀδικία is that of a general lack of righteousness, positional and experimental. The last part of the verse connects this kind of righteousness with holding down the truth. There is evidently a connection between the lack of truth and holding down the truth and the state of unrighteousness. Not only here but in John 7:18 and Luke 16:9 there is a connection between this unrighteous state or general disposition and the truth. It is seen either to effect the teaching of error, or to result in holding down the truth, or both. Unrighteousness is both a result and a cause of being deceived.

Of the third meaning of ἀδικία, unrighteousness in deed, we may take Hebrews 8:12 as an instance. Found here in the plural, it clearly refers not to abstract injustice, nor to a disposition or state of unrighteousness, but to deeds which may be so classified (cf. Acts 1:18; 2 Pet 2:15; 1 John 5:17). In general, the noun bears the same meaning as the verb.

3. ᾿Αδικος

The adjective follows the same threefold meaning as the noun. As Thayer points out, it is used of one who is unjust as a judge (Rom 3:5; Heb 6:10); of general unrighteousness or sinfulness (Matt 5:45; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 6:1; 1 Pet 3:18; 2 Pet 2:9), and in a specific way of one who betrays a trust (Luke 16:10).15 It is translated eight times as unjust, four times as unrighteous.

4. ᾿Αδίκως

The adverb occurs only once (1 Pet 2:19) where it is translated wrongfully. The context is similar to Colossians 3:25 which has already been discussed, and deals with the relation of servant to master. Again, it is stated that for a servant to serve his master improperly is to wrong his master by withholding that which is due. The meaning of the adverb is the same as the other forms already discussed.

5. ᾿Αδίκημα

As A. T. Robertson points out, this noun means essentially injury, as in Acts 18:14, one of the three instances found in the New Testament.16 In Acts 24:20, it is translated evil doing, with the idea of a misdeed,17 as Thayer points out in his definition.18 In Revelation 18:5, the remaining instance, it is translated iniquities. In contrast to ἀδικία, it may be said that ἀδίκημα is more concrete and less abstract. This is the usual meaning of the μα ending. It is deeds that are in view, rather than a state or a disposition. The deed may be viewed, however, either in the injury done, as in Acts 18:14, or as the deed itself as in the other references.

A survey of the five words treated in this section reveals that their meaning is to all practical purposes the same. Sin is viewed as something which is not right, not in harmony with God’s character, and resulting in injustice and wrong to others. It is clearly taught that injustice must be corrected with justice; that wrong must be made right; that sin in its consequences must be met. Lack of righteousness is seen to be not only manifest in deed with injury to those concerned, but it is also viewed as a state or disposition. lack of righteousness in state and act is revealed to be a part of the problem which Paul meets in Romans. In answer to man’s righteousness, God offers His righteousness, not only justification, but sanctification, not only positional, but experimental and ultimate sanctification.

Dallas, Texas

(Series to be concluded in the July-September Number, 1943)

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

¹ Fuller, History of Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 56.

² Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v.

³ Loc. cit.

⁴ Loc. cit.

⁵ Ibid., s.v.

⁶ Loc. cit.

⁸ Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 246.

⁹ Op. cit., s.v.

¹⁰ Ibid., s.v.

¹¹ Loc. cit.

¹² Op. cit., p. 243.

¹³ Op. cit., s.v.

¹⁴ Ibid., s.v.

¹⁵ Ibid., s. v.

¹⁶ Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 301.

¹⁷ Cf. Robertson, ibid., Vol. III, p. 420.

¹⁸ Op. cit., s. v.

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 3

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

(Concluded from the April-June Number, 1943)

[Editor’s Note: This article is the last in the series of three on the words for sin found in the New Testament. A new series of articles on a different subject will begin in the next issue.]

{Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original printed edition were numbered 36-43, but in this electronic edition are numbered 1-8 respectively.}

VI. ᾿Ασέβεια
(ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβής, ἀσεβέω)

The three words to be considered in this section are the second group of words for sin beginning with the alpha privative, ἀδικέω having been discussed at the close of the previous article. The three words here examined are derived from σέβω, meaning to reverence or to worship, and with the alpha privative come to mean, not to reverence, not to worship. The words in whatever form they are found, noun, verb, or adjective, indicate an active and positive withholding from God of the worship due Him. It is a matter of choice and does not refer to one’s state, disposition, imputed sin, or condemnation. Trench in comment upon the noun ἀσέβεια writes: ”᾿Ασέβεια...is positive and active irreligion, and this contemplated as a deliberate withholding from God of his dues of prayer and of service, a standing, so to speak, in battle array against Him.”1 A study of the three forms in which the words occur reveals that to all practical purposes their definition is the same.

1. ᾿Ασέβεια.

The noun form is found six times in the New Testament (Rom 1:18; 11:26; 2 Tim 2:16; Titus 2:12; Jude 15, 18), and is translated four times as ungodliness and twice as ungodly, i.e., ungodly deeds. In every instance except 2 Timothy 2:16, it is used regarding unsaved men, and in the one exception it is a doubtful reference to Christian conduct. It is characteristically used of the attitude of the unbelieving world which rejects God.

2. ᾿Ασεβής.

The adjective is translated ungodly in eight out of its nine instances in the New Testament, and once as ungodly man. While an adjective in form, it is often used as a noun, or with the noun understood. In Romans 4:5 and 5:6, the ungodly are said to be the objects of justification by faith. Twice it is paired with ἁμαρτωλός, a sinner, a word already discussed (1 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 4:18). Like the noun, the adjective is used to describe a positive and deliberate disregard of God. For instance, in 2 Peter 2:5, the adjective is used to describe the world destroyed by the flood; in 2 Peter 3:7, it is used in reference to the world which will be destroyed by fire. In Jude 4, men are described as “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

An interesting instance is found in Jude 15 where all three words for ungodliness are found, the adjective twice, “To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly [adjective] among them of all their ungodly [noun] deeds which they have ungodly committed [verb], and of all their hard speeches which ungodly [adjective] sinners have spoken against him.” The verse and the context describes the world to be judged at the second coming of Christ-a condition of active rebellion against God.

3. ᾿Ασεβέω.

The verb is found only twice in the New Testament (2 Pet 2:6; Jude 15). Both references are to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha and those who live like their inhabitants. Again, the same positive quality of ungodliness is found in its use as in the other forms.

A survey of the seventeen times these three words occur in the New Testament illustrates the fact that they are used consistently to describe unsaved men. While ungodly men are those for whom Christ died (Rom 5:6), and they can be justified by faith (Rom 4:5; 5:9), they apparently are no longer to be considered ungodly after salvation. Those who remain ungodly face the certain judgment of God for their persistence in rebellion against Him. They are not only unlike God in moral quality, but they do not want His righteousness through Christ.

VII. ᾿Ανομία
(ἀνομία, ἀνομος, ἀνόμως)

All three words considered here are derived from the common word νόμος, usually translated law, with the prefix of the alpha privative. The resultant meaning is without law, or lawless. One can be without law or be lawless in three senses: without law in that no law is imposed; without law in the sense that the knowledge of it is withheld; or a violator of law, that is, one who lives as if there were no law. There may be varied significance to the reference to law itself. The reference may be specific, referring to some law such as the law of Moses, or it may be general as a reference to any moral law.

1. ᾿Ανομία.

The noun form is found fourteen times in the New Testament, twelve times translated iniquity, once transgression of the law, and once unrighteousness. The noun form is never used in the sense of a lack of knowledge of the law, but always refers to a positive transgression of the law. Of the Pharisees, Christ said, “Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt 23:28). The Pharisees, who boasted in the law of Moses, were breakers of the law. Lawlessness is predicted as a characteristic of the close of the present age (Matt 24:12). The coming Man of Sin is designated as one who is a violator of law-a lawless one (2 Thess 2:3). Again, Christ is revealed to have redeemed us from all iniquity or lawlessness (Titus 2:14).

An interesting instance is found in 1 John 3:4, where ἁμαρτία is defined as ἀνομία. In this verse it is stated, “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (Revised Version). The passage consists in a description of the character of ἁμαρτία specifying that it is a violation of law. This is seen in the nature of the case as behind all moral law is the perfectly holy character of God, and any missing the mark is a failure to attain this standard. It is clear from the passage that all ἁμαρτία is lawlessness, the description being of the whole, not of a particular kind of missing the mark. For this reason it is stated in 1 John 3:6, “Whosoever abideth in him does not keep sinning: whosoever keeps sinning hath not seen him, neither known him” (literal translation). The fact that all sin is a breaking of law gives to sin such a character that one who abides in Christ cannot keep sinning.

Trench, in commenting on Romans 5:13, contends that there may be ἁμαρτία and ἀδικία without law, but not ἀνομία.2 An inquiry into the subject will lead to the conclusion, however, that all sin is based on the concept of breaking of law. It is true that Paul indicated there was no law in the period from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:13, 14), but the reference is to the law of Moses for Israel, not law in general. In fact, it is clear from the Bible that sin reigned from Adam to Moses as proved by the universality of death. Peter concludes, for instance, that the flood came as a result of sin (2 Pet 2:5; 3:6, 7). The phrase “sin is not imputed where there is no law” is simply a reference to the fact that the law of Moses was not retroactive-did not apply before it was given.

The use of the plural of ἀνομία differs from the singular only as the collective and abstract differs from the particular. The plural emphasizes the acts of iniquity or lawlessness in their several violations. In Romans 4:7, an illustration is afforded, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” We find ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία paired, both in the plural, speaking of specific acts of sin. is used only to represent the idea of being destitute of the law, not in the sense of violating the law.

᾿Ανομία and its two kindred words have the meaning of being without law in that the law in question is not imposed, without law in the sense of having no knowledge of it, or without law in the sense of refusing it and violating its precepts. The condition of violating law has significance according to the meaning and extent of the law involved. In some cases, this is specifically the law of Moses, in others, all moral law, as in 1 John 3:4. When used in the sense of violation of any moral law, it may be said to characterize all sin, calling attention to the fact that sin in every dispensation is a violation of law-if no other, the underlying moral law of the known will of God.

᾿Ανομία is always used of one in the condition or of a deed that is contrary to law. The adjective is used usually in the sense of being without the law of Moses or a law such as the law of Moses. The adverb is used exclusively for the idea of being without the law of Moses. The chief contribution which a study of these words affords is the concept that sin is a violation of the moral government of God, that law for different peoples and times is not the same-all peoples having not the same obligations. The concept of sin is removed from a relative human standard to the touchstone of the moral law of God as it extends to all peoples.

VIII. ᾿Αγνοέω
(ἀγνοέω, ἀγνοια, ἀγνόημα, ἀγνωσία)

The four words which constitute the group now to be examined are derived from the common verb γινώσκω, which is defined by Thayer, “a discriminating apprehension of external impressions, a knowledge grounded in personal experience.”3 The emphasis is not on knowledge learned through others, but on knowledge which has become real in experience, i.e., knowledge which is not intuitive on the one hand, nor theoretical on the other, as other Greek words are used to express these ideas.

The words under consideration have the alpha privative and therefore connote ignorance or lack of knowledge. There is a lack of understanding or ignorance of the significance of the facts. Resulting from this ignorance or lack of understanding, comes the error or sin resulting from it. All of these ideas appear in different force in the instances where these words are used.

1. ᾿Αγνοέω.

The verb, found twenty-two times in the New Testament, is used usually in the sense of ignorance. In 1 Timothy 1:13, for instance, Paul, speaking of himself, writes, “Who was before a blasphemer and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (italics supplied). The point at issue is not that Paul had never heard of Christ or His claims, but that he was ignorant of the truth and significance of Christian faith. He points out that one reason for mercy being extended to him was the fact that his sin was not in flagrant and willful disobedience of God, even though it was “injurious” and he was a “blasphemer.” A similar reference is found in Acts 13:27 where it is written that the rulers of Jerusalem “knew him not.” Paul often uses the phrase, “I do not wish you to be ignorant,” referring to truth he is about to present to them. All of these references point to the fact that the essential meaning of the word is ignorance of facts or ignorance of the truth of facts.

Another meaning of the verb is found in Mark 9:32, where it is said of the disciples that “They understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.” What they did not understand is explained by the context to be the reference by Christ to His death and resurrection. They knew that Christ had spoken the words, but they were ignorant of their significance. Later, when the prophecy was fulfilled, they no longer misunderstood or failed to understand. The same incident with the same use of the verb is found in Luke 9:45.

The resultant idea is found in the meaning, to err, or sin through mistake.4 There is no clear example of this in the New Testament, but Hebrews 5:2 may be taken in this light. The context refers to sins such as would need sacrifices in the Jewish order, and the verse itself refers to the high priests as those “who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way” (italics supplied). Westcott points out, “The compound description may either indicate the source (ignorance) and the issue (going astray) of sin; or it may describe sinners, so far as they come into consideration here, under two main aspects.”5

If the meaning of the verb here is ignorance as the source of sin, it cannot be called specifically sin. However, if it is taken as describing sinners, it indicates sins committed in ignorance. The general meaning of the verb is clearly that of ignorance, the question in every instance being the extent of the ignorance or its issue into sin.

2. !Αγνοια.

The noun is found four times in the New Testament (Acts 3:17; 17:30; Eph 4:18; 1 Pet 1:14), always translated ignorance. The noun does not differ to any extent from the meaning of the verb. In Ephesians 4:18, however, it should be noted that ignorance is sin in itself, apart from its issue into further sin, as it has the element of choice in it. Ignorance of God’s will is always a result as well as a cause of sin. As John 7:17 reveals, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” In Acts 3:17 it is used in reference to the ignorance of the rulers of Jerusalem in crucifying Christ. The ignorance was real in the sense that they actually thought Christ was an imposter. On the other hand, they were blinded to the proofs of His Messiahship by their own sin. A similar reference is found in Acts 17:30, where the times in which idolatry was practiced by Gentiles is called, “the times of this ignorance.” While idolatry is based on ignorance, nevertheless, Paul goes on to say that they are to repent. While ignorance, therefore, is specified as sin, it is clearly sin in a mild light as contrasted to willful and God-defying sin.

3. ᾿Αγνόημα.

Found only once in the New Testament (Heb 9:7) this noun, in contrast to the one just discussed, indicates a concept which is more concrete, as would be expected from the μα ending. In its use in the New Testament, it refers to the sins of the people (“errors of the people”) for which the priest made sacrifice. While the use of the verb in Hebrews 5:2 may not necessarily refer to acts of sin proceeding from ignorance, it is clear that in Hebrews 9:7 the noun definitely refers to the act and not simply to a lack of knowledge. This noun may be taken as a reference to an act of sin.

4. ᾿Αγνωσία.

This noun is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:34 and 1 Peter 2:15 where it is used in contrast to the idea in the Greek word γνῶσις, hence, has the meaning lack of knowledge or ignorance. The word is used in both instances where Christians are exhorted to bear in mind the ignorance of the world and to act and speak accordingly. The facts of which the world is ignorant are shown by the context to be either the reality of the truth n Christ, or the general view of the world as a Christian sees it. As pointed out in 1 Peter 2:15, we are to take into consideration in our action not only the Christian view, but we must also consider how the world views the act. The issue in point is subjection and obedience to civil authority (cf. Rom 13).

The reference in 1 Corinthians 15:34 would seem to indicate a willful attitude of ignorance. In the context there is discussion of the unbelief of some in the doctrine of resurrection, and refutation of the skepticism is advanced. It would seem that in 1 Corinthians 15:34, where Paul writes, “For some have not the knowledge of God,” that he is not merely stating the fact of ignorance, but revealing their attitude of skepticism. It may be noted that the English word agnosticism is derived directly from ἀγνωσία. They not only did not know, but they did not want to know. As A. R. Fausset writes in this regard commenting on the word, “Stronger than ‘are ignorant of God.’ An habitual ignorance: wilful, in that they prefer to keep their sins, rather than part with them in order to know God (cf. John 7:17; 1 Peter 2:15).”6

In contrast to ἀγνοια, ἀγνωσία seems to be a state of ignorance based on unbelief, the unbelief being willful, and the ignorance at least in part a matter of choice. This ignorance has an element of skepticism which is at once a cause and a result of ignorance of God. While ἀγνοια is used of unbelief of the Jewish rulers, blinded by prejudice and preconceived ideas, ἀγνωσία is something else, and an unbelief based on skepticism and coming nearer being an attitude of mind and a philosophy of life. Hence, while a Sadducee could be accused of both forms of unbelief, a Pharisee could be accused only of ἀγνοια.

In reviewing the four words discussed in this section, while there is underlying unity in their meaning of ignorance as manifested in lack of knowledge and comprehension of the truth, there are some distinctions which may be observed. The verb is used in the most general sense, including all the other ideas, however. !Αγνοια is the abstract conception of ignorance, being less concrete than ἀγνόημα and less willful than either ἀγνόημα or ἀγνωσία. ᾿Αγνόημα places emphasis on the result of ignorance rather than the cause or the fact of ignorance. It is used only as ignorance manifested in deed in the New Testament. ᾿Αγνωσία has been shown to embrace the idea of skepticism and to be the description of a philosophy of life or attitude of mind toward facts which discredits the facts as being irrational or as not subject to knowledge or proof. The aspect of unbelief is prominent in ἀγνοια and ἀγνωσία in contrast to ἀγνόημα in which unbelief is not necessarily postulated. In general, all four words picture sin in the mild light of ignorance, mistake, or misconception, and the words are used where a mild picture of sin is intended. character as a noun, it is defined most accurately as defeat or loss. It is made positive and definite by the μα ending, which points to the idea as having been made concrete or real. In Romans 11:12, the word is used to describe the “diminishing” of the Jews in their present dispersion. Nationally they had rejected Christ and had fallen from their place of privilege. Gentiles now have their opportunity. As in the verb, we have here the idea of defeat or loss. In 1 Corinthians 6:7, the only other reference, we find it translated fault, referring to saints going to law with each other. While undoubtedly it was sinful for saints to go to law with each other, the point is rather that this state of affairs is going to result in spiritual loss to both parties and to the church in general. It is going to constitute a blot on their testimony. The noun form, like the verb, is used as a mild word for sin, in which the sin specified is shown to be less than the best way of doing things, an error in judgment or use of wrong tactics rather than flagrant sin.

3. @Ηττων.

The adjective, found twice in the New Testament (1 Cor 11:17; 2 Cor 12:15) is given the translation worse. The first instance is in relation to their abuse of the Lord’s Supper, in which Paul tells them that they “come together not for better, but for the worse” (italics supplied). The moral idea is more remote than any of the instances previously considered. In the second instance (2 Cor 12:15), there is apparently no moral idea at all, as Paul writes, “Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved” (italics supplied). The word is used simply to describe degrees of affection.

A consideration of all the uses of these three words leads one to the conclusion that they refer to a concept of sin in which sin is described as the inferior path, the lesser of the two possibilities. While in most instances the reality of the sin is not questioned, the emphasis is rather upon defeat and inferiority than on sin as a violation of righteousness. At question is strength and victory, rather than righteousness. been shown that acts so described are completely wicked. While the element of choice is postulated, the emphasis is on the essential nature of the act as being wicked. The words, therefore, describe sin from the standpoint of value and quality. The point at issue is not so much that this wickedness proceeds from choice or an act of the will, but rather that the act whatever its cause is essentially bad in its nature. No attempt is made to condone sin when these words are used. It is a picture of sin as God sees it, in its utter worthlessness, depravity, and evil character, fit for nothing except judgment. From its derivation comes the idea of unrecompensed toil, so well illustrated in the activity of Satan, whose activity is patent in its utter wickedness, and its issue will be judgment when his wickedness will come to naught.

Conclusion

The rapid sketch afforded the doctrine of sin by a study of the words relating to the doctrine in the New Testament is revealing not only in its detail but also in its more general features. Sin is viewed from every angle. In ἁμαρτάνω and its other forms sin is viewed as missing the mark, “coming short of the glory of God.” As transgression and a violation of moral law sin is revealed in the instances where παραβαίνω is used. A lesser word for sin, summed in the concept of the word fall, is found in παράπτωμα. The need for hearing the voice of God, and the danger of failing to listen are embodied in the word παρακούω. The unrighteous and unjust character of sin is revealed in ἀδικέω. Defiance of God and His judgment and open rebellion against God are described by ἀσεβέω. The lawless character of sin is defined in ἀνομία. Sin springing from ignorance as well as the concept of the resulting blindness to spiritual truth is expressed by the word ἀγνοέω. Sin as a defeat and inferior choice is represented by ἡττάω. Finally, sin in its utter corruption, wickedness, and evil character is portrayed in the word πονηρός.

No one who has examined the many words for sin in the New Testament can fail to arrive at the conclusion that sin is a great reality, that it is utterly wicked, that it is worthy of righteous judgment, and that only through a salvation from sin provided through the sacrifice of Christ can anyone hope to know true righteousness. What significance it gives the words of Romans 5:7, 8, “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Dallas, Texas

* * * * *

Another advantage of the Biblical morality arises from the fact that it lays its prohibition on the first tendency to evil in the heart. It does not wait for the overt act, nor for the half-formed desire. It denounces the slightest parleying with temptation, the entertaining for the briefest moment of a corrupt wish. In its view, the apostasy did not consist in plucking the fruit. The race was ruined, when the first suggestion of the tempter was not instantly repelled. Death eternal hung on a moment’s weakness in the will. All hope was gone when the moral principle wavered. In the estimate of God’s law, the highway robbery is comparatively innocent. The crime was in the covetous glance of the eye-in not instantaneously crushing the avaricious desire. What is called a fraudulent bankruptcy may be venial. The guilt was in the assumption of obligations which there was no reasonable prospect of discharging, or rather it was in the state of mind which first began to elevate riches into a god. The degenerating process began in the idolatry of gold, in the first turning of the feeblest current of the affections in the wrong direction. Men charge the deviation of the youth from the paths of virtue to some overmastering temptation, to some public and astounding offence. But the divine precept laid its finger on the desire, years before, to read a certain book, against which, at the time, conscience remonstrated. Thus the Word of God becomes the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. No latent desire can evade its searching glance; no recess of the soul is so barred as to exclude it.”-Bibliotheca Sacra, February, 1846.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

¹ Synonymns of the New Testament, pp. 242, 243.

² Synonymns of the New Testament, p. 244.

³ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v.

⁴ Thayer, loc. cit.

⁵ Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 121.

⁶ Critical and Explanatory Commentary on the Bible, 1 Cor 15:34.

A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Systematic Theology”

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

The appearance of the eight-volume work in Systematic Theology by President Lewis Sperry Chafer of Dallas Theological Seminary is without question an epoch in the history of Christian doctrine. Never before has a work similar in content, purpose, and scope been produced. Its appearance in a day when liberal interpretation and unbelief have riddled the Biblical basis for theological study is in itself highly significant.

Protestant systematic theology had its origin in the early works of the Reformers. Among the first was the Loci Theologici of Melanchthon published in 1521. Zwingli produced his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione in 1525. William Farel brought out his theological manual in 1534 with the title, Summaire briefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. The most famous early work was that of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, and later entirely rewritten and enlarged through successive editions until the definitive edition of 1559. No one can question that these works shaped the theological thinking of their own and successive generations and played a large part in the formation of creeds still recognized today. They were in the main a return to Biblical teaching in the fields of bibliology, anthropology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The issues were the doctrine of illumination—the work of the Holy Spirit teaching the Scriptures without the medium of priest or church, the priesthood of every believer, justification by faith, and the authority of the Bible. The Protestant theology of the Reformers was occasioned by the revolt against the corruption and misuse of Biblical revelation. It concerned itself largely with correcting these abuses by a return to the Scriptures. deity of Christ, and substitutionary atonement for which the Reformers stood. In eschatology, amillennialism became more vocal, divided into different systems of interpretation within themselves, and postmillennialism, an offshoot of Socinianism, came into vogue. For the most part, the Roman background of amillennialism and the unitarian background of postmillennialism1 did not deter many who continued in the Reformed theology as a whole from embracing one or the other view of eschatology.

While theologians were grinding out reproductions of Reformed theology, it remained for a widespread movement for direct Biblical studies to find the fatal defect in the Reformed treatment of Roman doctrine. Springing from Bible study groups such as the Plymouth Brethren, attention was directed to the teachings of the Scripture on such important subjects as the nature of the true church, the need for consistent literal interpretation of Scripture, and the important place given to eschatology in the Bible. The result was a revived interest in the second coming of Christ, a movement away from the established church as a decadent institution, and a return to the more simple Biblical and apostolic concepts, methods, and beliefs. The movement was not without its excesses, but it came as a refreshing breath of new life to Biblical interpretation. In the course of time, this new interest in Bible study and the new recognition that the Bible was intended to be understood by all Christians in its apparent literal meaning gave rise to many new groups. Bible institutes sprang up. There were great revivals. Gradually the doctrines of the new movement came to be known by the name of Fundamentalism and by similar titles. Without any organizational unity, a system of doctrine gradually developed, greatly aided by the widespread use of the Scofield Reference Bible, the teachings of Bible institutes, prophetic conferences, and summer Bible conferences. literal interpretation made impossible an objective study of the great body of Scripture dealing with this doctrine. The divine program for the ages, the contribution of prophecy as a whole, the divinely purposed illustrations afforded in typology, and the blessed hope of the imminent return of Christ are important doctrines which determine the value and content of the message of the preacher. Yet these are either denied or ignored in the traditional method of theological study. The need for a new definitive work in systematic theology which would be unabridged, premillennial, dispensational, and following a literal interpretation of Scripture became imperative. President Chafer felt called of God to undertake this sacred and unprecedented task. The result of ten years of reducing the studies of a lifetime to writing was recently completed and has now been reproduced in eight beautiful volumes, totalling 2,700 pages.

The importance of this new treatise in the field of systematic theology is highlighted by the current disrepute of theology. The inroads of higher criticism on the doctrine of the inspiration anid infallibility of Scripture and the current indifferentism and secularism in the organized church have reduced the recent notable theological works to a trickle. About the only works which have gained widespread recognition in theology have been the restatements of modernism and liberal theology in the form of crisis theology and neo-orthodoxy which have in some respects indicated a reaction from extreme liberalism. As far as furnishing a new and effective approach to Biblical studies their doctrines have been utterly opposed to the theology of the Reformation as well as to modern premillennialism. Modern Christianity has too often been reduced to promotion of an idealistic moralism and a desire for organizational unity.

The general features of Systematic Theology by President Chafer make it clear that we have here something entirely different than any previously written theology. For the first time the whole scope of theology is considered from the standpoint of premillennial interpretation. The work is remarkably Biblical. The appeal is constantly to Biblical authority rather than to philosophy, tradition, or creed. There has been proper appreciation of the doctrinal heritage of the Church Fathers and the Protestant Reformers. The work is in no sense iconoclastic. In the treatment of bibliology and theology proper as well as in later discussions President Chafer quotes extensively with approbation from the best theological statements extant. In general a broad and moderate Calvinism is followed in the theology. The work as a whole definitely belongs within the limits of Reformed theology with certain important additions and qualifications. It is however quite distinct from various restatements of Reformed theology. It is a fresh and creative work, a pioneer in a new field, a gathering together in theological system of an interpretation of Biblical doctrines never before treated in this way. It is essentially an exposition and systematization of premillennial and dispensational theology rather than an apology for it. The doctrines which it contains have been preached in various forms by most of the great premillennial Bible teachers of the last fifty years. For the first time these doctrines have been reduced to a written system of theology, related to theological problems, and expanded into all the fields in which revelation has provided teaching. It provides for all who hold the premillennial interpretation of the Scriptures a systematic statement of the content, implications, and relations of their doctrines. For those who would be instructed in what are the proper inclusions of premillennialism it provides an ordered statement of the doctrine as a whole such as has never been provided in one work before. Regardless what theological position may be assumed by the reader, he will find this work definitive in its field.

An analysis of the content of each volume provides ample proof of these general conclusions. While it is impossible within reasonable limits to reproduce the scope of contents, the contribution of each volume may be considered in its separate presentation. race are presented. Of great value from a practical viewpoint is the discussion of the divine remedy for sin, whether the sin nature, imputed sin, or sin in the life of the Christian. The treatment is again fresh, original, Biblical, and practical. The discussion covers a field which is usually neglected in most discussions of anthropology.

Volume III
Soteriology

The contribution of President Chafer in the field of soteriology has been hailed as the most important of all his theological works. The treatment is divided into six sections, the first dealing with Christ as the Savior. The positions of Christ, His offices, His sonship, the hypostatic union, and the sufferings of Christ are included in this discussion. The doctrine is presented in such a complete way that it is difficult to make adequate comparisons. The second and third sections deal with the doctrine of election and the answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die?” In general the Calvinistic position characterizes the teaching here, but the viewpoint of unlimited atonement is maintained. The saving work of God and the doctrine of eternal security occupy the fourth and fifth sections. The wonders of the saving work of God, the grace of God and the contrasting positions of Calvinism and Arminianism on eternal security are discussed in full. The discussion of soteriology concludes with a division on the terms of salvation in which the simple exhortation of “Believe” is contrasted to all confusions which arise from adding other conditions. The final section is most practical and helpful. The volume on soteriology, if it stood alone, would in itself assure the author a place among notable writers of Christian doctrine. There is no volume in the field of systematic theology which approaches it in Biblical insight, spiritual comprehension of the saving work of God, and unabridged treatment of the great work of God in salvation. It deals fully with the technical problems of theology in this field and yet is brilliant and moving in its presentation. elements, by its close adherence to Biblical teachings, and by its unfolding of premillennial truth in this field. The entire volume again reflects the original approach of the author and constitutes a new landmark in the field of eschatological literature.

Volume V
Christology

Having treated the doctrine of Christ in theology proper and soteriology, President Chafer presents here the entire doctrine systematically in new form and additional content. In general following the chronological pattern, the preincarnate person and work of Christ are considered first. Major attention is given to the incarnation, which is presented as an event of immense theological significance. Considered first are His birth, childhood, baptism, temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and His extensive teachings. The sufferings and death of Christ and the resurrection which followed are treated historically and doctrinally. A thorough discussion follows on the ascension and heavenly session of Christ—material often omitted from theologies. The treatment of Christology is concluded by discussion of the second coming of Christ, the Messianic kingdom and His eternal kingdom.

Volume VI
Pneumatology

The need for a comprehensive statement of the entire doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Spirit called for this volume. After an introductory chapter on the name of the Holy Spirit, the deity of the Spirit is sustained by delineation of the Scriptural evidence found in His divine attributes and in His divine works. Also treated are the types of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, and the distinct character of His present work.

With rare clarity and insight into Scriptural revelation, President Chafer presents the work of the Holy Spirit in the world and in the Christian. The Holy Spirit convicts the world. He regenerates, indwells, baptizes, and seals the Christian. All of these great works of the Spirit are accomplished simultaneously in the believer when he is saved.

Of greatest importance is the presentation of the believer’s responsibility in relation to the Holy Spirit. The intdwelling Spirit is presented as the source of power to overcome sin and is the author of the fruit of the Spirit. The filling of the Spirit is offered to all who meet the three conditions: “Grieve not the Holy Spirit,” “Quench not the Spirit,” and “Walk in the Spirit.”

The same clear distinctions which have made his earlier work, He That Is Spiritual, such a blessing to the Christian public are followed in this volume. It presents material almost always omitted from systematic theologies. The writer knows no volumes on systematic theology that even approach the clarity and insight into the doctrine which appear here. Like the volume in Christology, Pneumatology is complete in itself and at the same time gathers together previous material in the series on the subject. It will take its place among the truly great works on the Holy Spirit.

Volume VII
Doctrinal Summarization

The value of a doctrinal summarization is apparent. In presenting a system of theology various aspects of important doctrines are necessarily treated separately in different places and are often subordinated to the doctrine being considered. The need for gathering pertinent material on important Biblical and theological themes is apparent not only to the theologian but also to the preacher.

In this unique volume, one hundred and eighty-four important subjects are treated in alphabetical order. The volume stands on its own merits antd presentation and is also a summary of the doctrinal material which precedes it. The value of this volume to those seeking material on a particular subject is obvious. It is an invaluable source-book for doctrinal teaching and preaching. It constitutes almost an encyclopedia of Scriptural doctrines.

BSac 105:417 (Jan 48) p. 127

Volume VIII
Index

To provide easy access to related material in the entire series a separate volume of indices has been prepared, including a Scriptural index, an index of authors, and a subject index. The index to Scripture references has been limited to passages which are actually discussed, comprising several thousand entries. The index to the authors is arranged alphabetically and provides a bibliography of all quotations. The subject index provides the key to discussion of themes which appear repeatedly throughout the seven preceding volumes. A brief biographical sketch of the author is included, written by Dr. C. F. Lincoln, who has been closely associated with President Chafer for many years.

The Work as a Whole

Taken as a whole the eight volumes in Systematic Theology constitute a monument in the field of theological literature. It is the first consistently premillennial systematic theology ever written. For the first time modern Fundamentalism has been systematized in an unabridged systematic theology. The work is definitely creative and original. There is no other work in systematic theology which is comparable to it. Its form of treatment, method of interpretation, and unabridged character have no parallel. Unlike most systematic theologies, it is presented in highly readable form, deals with practical as well as doctrinal problems, and constitutes a veritable thesaurus of sermonic material for the preacher. It abounds in devotional passages and is closely linked with the content of the Scriptures. As a product of a lifetime of study, the work has been tested and tempered through years of classroom and public ministry in which the author was recognized internationally as an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures. As a representative, authoritative, and comprehensive treatment of systematic theology it will occupy a place filled by no other publication.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

¹ Daniel Whitby, founder of postmillennialism, is called a “convinced Unitarian” by The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, XII, 339. Whitby’s Last Thoughts were published in 1841 by the Unitarian Association.

You are here

How To Energize Our Faith: Reconsidering The Meaning Of James 2:14-26

I. Introduction

II. Three Central Teachings from James 2

III. Hermeneutics, the Epistles, and James 2

IV. The Analogy of the Body and Spirit

V. Objections to This Interpretation of James 2

A. The Salvation in 2:14

B. The Faith of Demons (2:19)

C. Justification by Works

D. Dead Faith

VI. Conclusion

Foundational Principles of Leadership

OVERVIEW:

FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES:

Leaders must understand what leadership is.

Leaders must have a sound sense of self-awareness

Leaders must have in-depth relationships

Leaders must have the appropriate ability to confront

Leaders must have the courage to take loving stands

Leaders must be willing to be vulnerable

Leaders must willingly humble themselves

Leaders must follow Jesus and model what they want their followers to be and do

Leaders must have clarity of vision

Leaders must have an accurate understanding of truth

Leaders must be willing to risk rejection

Leaders must have insight in the hearts of others

Leaders need sensitivity as to how to respond to others

What's the Greatest Mission Field of the 21st Century?

Silent Night Unresolved

Discussing the DaVinci Code

Law in the Book of Romans Part 2

Chapter II. Righteousness Apart from Law

Introduction

1. The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Stated

2. Justification By Faith Establishes Law

4. Israel’s Failure to Apprehend the Faith Principle

5. Conclusion: Justification Is Apart From Law

Chapter III. Sanctification Apart from Law

Introduction

3. Sanctification By the Holy Spirit

4. The Law of Love

5. Conclusion

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 1

Introduction.

I. &Αμαρτία

1. Preliminary Definition.

2. Derivation.

3. The Verb &Αμαρτάνω.

4. The Noun &Αμαρτία.

5. The Adjective &Αμαρτωλός.

6. The Noun &Αμάρτημα.

7. The Verb Προαμαρτάνω.

8. The Adjective ᾿Αναμάρτητος.

9. Conclusion.

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 2

II. Παράβασις

1. Παράβασις

2. Παραβαίνω

3. Παραβάτης

III. Παράπτωμα

2. Παραπίπτω

IV. Παρακοή

1. Παρακοή

2. Παρακούω

V. ᾿Αδικέω

1. ᾿Αδικέω

2. ᾿Αδικία

3. ᾿Αδικος

4. ᾿Αδίκως

5. ᾿Αδίκημα

Thirty-Three Words for Sin in the New Testament Part 3

VI. ᾿Ασέβεια(ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβής, ἀσεβέω)

1. ᾿Ασέβεια.

2. ᾿Ασεβής.

3. ᾿Ασεβέω.

VII. ᾿Ανομία(ἀνομία, ἀνομος, ἀνόμως)

1. ᾿Ανομία.

VIII. ᾿Αγνοέω(ἀγνοέω, ἀγνοια, ἀγνόημα, ἀγνωσία)

1. ᾿Αγνοέω.

VI. ᾿Ασέβεια
(ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβής, ἀσεβέω)

VII. ᾿Ανομία
(ἀνομία, ἀνομος, ἀνόμως)

VIII. ᾿Αγνοέω
(ἀγνοέω, ἀγνοια, ἀγνόημα, ἀγνωσία)

Volume III
Soteriology

Volume V
Christology

Volume VI
Pneumatology

Volume VII
Doctrinal Summarization

Volume VIII
Index