Introdução

Quando me inscrevi para entrar no Seminário Teológico de Dallas (Texas, Estados Unidos), ao preencher o formulário de admissão, tive de responder algumas perguntas. Uma delas dizia respeito a uma área de interpretação bíblica em que há muita discordância entre os cristãos. Lembro-me de ter escrito que, embora concordasse pessoalmente com a opinião do seminário, não achava que a passagem citada desse embasamento a ela. Durante três anos ninguém disse nada. No que me dizia respeito, a questão estava encerrada.

Pouco antes do início do meu último ano no seminário, fui chamado à sala do reitor para um pequeno debate. Para meu espanto, a questão da diferença de opinião entre mim e a escola foi levantada. Caso interesse saber, minha posição pouco mudou, mesmo depois de anos de estudo e um pouco mais de aprendizado das línguas originais da Bíblia. Até certo ponto satisfeito com minhas respostas, o seminário me permitiu continuar o programa de estudos e me formar no ano seguinte.

O ponto onde quero chegar com essa ilustração é que, embora tenham permitido que a diferença de interpretação persistisse, houve uma época em que ela se tornou uma questão importante. Creio que, muitas vezes, Deus faça a mesma coisa. Ele permite que um determinado problema continue durante algum tempo, mas, mais cedo ou mais tarde, ele se tornará uma questão importante, e terá de ser resolvido.

Foi isso o que aconteceu com Abraão. Bem no início de seu relacionamento com Deus, ele recebeu uma ordem muito clara a respeito da sua família:

Ora, disse o SENHOR a Abrão: Sai da tua terra, da tua parentela e da casa de teu pai e vai para a terra que te mostrarei (Gênesis 12:1, ênfase do autor).

Sabemos, no entanto, que se passaram muitos anos até Abraão ser separado de seu pai; e quando isso realmente aconteceu, foi em consequência de morte, não de obediência de fato. Depois, foi sua relutância em se separar de Ló. No capítulo 21, foi o doloroso ato de ter de despachar Ismael, seu filho tão amado. No capítulo 22, Abraão chegou à sua última prova. Ele já era bem idoso e Sara logo iria morrer. Seu amor era dedicado a Isaque, o qual, após o capítulo 21, se tornou seu único filho (22:2). Deus levou Abraão a um ponto em que ele precisou dar prioridade à sua fé ou à sua família. Por isso, no capítulo 22, ele se defrontou com a maior prova da sua fé.

A Ordem (22:1-2)

Não sabemos exatamente em que época se deu esta última prova na vida de Abraão, só que ocorreu após os acontecimentos do capítulo 21. Pessoalmente, creio que foi uns dez anos depois, o que faria de Isaque um garoto mais ou menos da mesma idade de Ismael quando este foi mandado embora. Isso daria bastante tempo para a afeição de Abraão pelo primeiro filho ser transferida para o segundo, Isaque. Portanto, Isaque é, acertadamente, chamado de seu “único filho” e o filho a quem Abraão amava (versículo 2).

Contrariamente à conotação do termo “tentado”, empregado pelos tradutores da Versão King James no versículo dois, Deus provou Abraão para demonstrar sua fé em termos tangíveis. De acordo com a Escritura, sabemos que, embora Deus teste os homens para provar seu caráter santo, Ele nunca os leva a pecar (cf. Tiago 1.12-18). É por isso que, em Tiago 2, o apóstolo pode apontar para este acontecimento na vida de Abraão como evidência de uma fé viva:

Não foi por obras que Abraão, o nosso pai, foi justificado, quando ofereceu sobre o altar o próprio filho, Isaque? (Tiago 2.21).¹

A ordem de Deus deve ter pego Abraão totalmente desprevenido:

Acrescentou Deus: Toma teu filho, teu único filho, Isaque, a quem amas, e vai-te à terra de Moriá; oferece-o ali em holocausto, sobre um dos montes, que eu te mostrarei (Gênesis 22.2).

A maior dificuldade que encontro neste capítulo não é a conduta de Abraão, mas a ordem de Deus. Como pode um Deus de sabedoria, misericórdia, justiça e amor ordenar a Abraão que ofereça seu único filho como sacrifício? O sacrifício de crianças era praticado pelos cananeus, mas foi condenado por Deus (cf. Levítico 18.21; Deuteronômio 12.31). Além disso, esse tipo de sacrifício não tinha valor algum:

Agradar-se-á o SENHOR de milhares de carneiros, de dez mil ribeiros de azeite? Darei o meu primogênito pela minha transgressão, o fruto do meu corpo, pelo pecado da minha alma? (Miqueias 6.7)

Dizer que Deus interrompeu Abraão pouco antes da execução não resolve o problema. Como, em primeiro lugar, Ele poderia dar uma ordem como essa, se ela era imoral? Sustentar que Deus poderia ordenar a Seus filhos fazer algo errado, mesmo como um teste, é abrir as obras a todo tipo de dificuldade.

Vários fatores devem ser considerados para entendermos esta prova da forma apropriada. Em primeiro lugar, é preciso admitir um forte viés nesse assunto. Nós, que somos pais, sentimos repulsa só de pensar em sacrificar nossos filhos num altar. Por isso, projetamos nossa aversão em Deus, supondo que Ele também nunca pensou nisso. Em segundo lugar, vemos essa ordem do ponto de vista da cultura daquela época, que realmente praticava o sacrifício infantil. Se os pagãos praticavam, e Deus os condenava por isso, a prática tem de ser errada em qualquer contexto.

Mas somos forçados a concluir que o sacrifício de Isaque não poderia ser errado, quer fosse apenas tentado quer fosse realizado, pois Deus é incapaz de praticar o mal (Tiago 1.13 e ss; 1 João 1.5). Muito mais que isso, não poderia ser errado sacrificar um filho único porque Deus realmente sacrificou Seu único Filho:

Todos nós andávamos desgarrados como ovelhas; cada um se desviava pelo caminho, mas o SENHOR fez cair sobre ele a iniquidade de nós todos… Todavia, ao SENHOR agradou moê-lo, fazendo-o enfermar; quando der ele a sua alma como oferta pelo pecado, verá a sua posteridade e prolongará os seus dias; e a vontade do SENHOR prosperará nas suas mãos (Isaías 56.3, 10).

Porque Deus amou ao mundo de tal maneira que deu o seu Filho unigênito, para que todo o que nele crê não pereça, mas tenha a vida eterna (João 3.6; cf. Mateus 26.39, 42; Lucas 22.22; João 3.17; Atos 2.23; 2 Coríntios 5.21; Apocalipse 13.8).

Nesse sentido, Deus não pediu a Abraão para fazer algo que Ele mesmo não faria. De fato, a ordem de Deus tinha como objetivo preanunciar aquilo que Ele faria séculos depois na cruz do Calvário.

Só compreendendo a importância tipológica do “sacrifício de Isaque” podemos entender que a ordem de Deus é santa, justa e pura. A disposição de Abraão em renunciar ao seu único filho ilustrou, humanamente, o amor de Deus pelo homem, o qual O levou a dar o Seu Filho unigênito. A profunda agonia experimentada por Abraão refletiu o coração do Pai diante do sofrimento de Seu Filho. A obediência de Isaque tipificou a submissão do Filho à vontade do Pai (cf. Mateus 26.39, 42).

Deus interrompeu o sacrifício de Isaque por duas razões. Primeira, seu sacrifício não teria beneficiado outras pessoas. O cordeiro precisava ser “sem defeito”, sem pecado, inocente (cf. Isaías 53.9). Essa é a verdade implícita em Miqueias (6.7). Segunda, a fé de Abraão foi amplamente demonstrada no fato de ele estar totalmente disposto a cumprir a vontade de Deus. Sem sombra de dúvida, se Deus não tivesse intervindo, Isaque teria sido sacrificado. Na prática, Isaque já tinha sido sacrificado, por isso o ato era desnecessário.

A segunda dificuldade está no silêncio de Abraão. Um de meus amigos diz o seguinte: “Como é possível que Abraão tenha intercedido junto a Deus por Sodoma, mas não por seu filho, Isaque?” Precisamos nos lembrar de que as Escrituras são seletivas quanto ao que registram, preferindo omitir aquilo que não é essencial ao desenvolvimento do argumento da passagem (cf. João 20.30-31; 21.25). Neste capítulo de Gênesis, por exemplo, sabemos que Deus indicou um lugar específico para o “sacrifício” de Isaque (versículo 2) e que Abraão foi àquele local (versículo 9), mas não sabemos quando Deus revelou isso a ele.

Creio que Moisés, sob a orientação e supervisão do Espírito Santo, omitiu a reação inicial de Abraão à ordem de Deus para ressaltar sua resposta final — a obediência. Pessoalmente (embora não haja base na Escritura para sustentar minha suposição), creio que Abraão discutiu com Deus e implorou pela vida de seu filho, mas Deus preferiu não registrar esse ponto porque seria de pouco incentivo para nós. Sei que muitos crentes também não gostariam que Deus registrasse sua primeira reação a situações desagradáveis; é a reação final que importa (cf. Mateus 21.28-31).

Isso me ajuda quando leio, no Novo Testamento, a avaliação dos santos do Antigo Testamento. Não fossem as palavras de Pedro, eu nunca teria considerado Ló como um homem justo (2 Pedro 2.7-8). Em Hebreus 11 e Romanos 4, Abraão é retratado como um homem sem falhas ou defeitos, no entanto, o livro de Gênesis registra claramente suas fraquezas. A razão, creio, é porque os escritores do Novo Testamento veem aqueles santos como Deus os vê. Por causa da morte sacrificial de Cristo na cruz do Calvário, os pecados dos santos não são apenas perdoados, são também esquecidos. A madeira, o feno e a palha do pecado serão consumidos, deixando apenas o ouro, a prata e as pedras preciosas (1 Coríntios 3.1-15). Os pecados dos santos não são ignorados; eles são cobertos pelo sangue de Cristo. Quando esses pecados são registrados, é apenas para nossa admoestação e instrução (1 Coríntios 10.1 e ss, especialmente o versículo 11).

A Obediência de Abraão (22:3-10)

A despeito das lutas não relatadas de Abraão, ele se levantou de manhã bem cedo para começar a jornada mais longa da sua vida.

Levantou-se, pois, Abraão de madrugada e, tendo preparado o seu jumento, tomou consigo dois dos seus servos e a Isaque, seu filho; rachou lenha para o holocausto e foi para o lugar que Deus lhe havia indicado (Gênesis 22.3).

Já disse que, embora levantar-se de madrugada possa refletir a determinação de Abraão em fazer a vontade de Deus, isso também pode conter alguns fatores humanos. Primeiro, imagino que o sono tenha fugido de Abraão naquela noite, especialmente após Deus ter ordenado claramente o sacrifício de Isaque. Algumas pessoas se levantam cedo por não terem esperança de pegar no sono novamente. Além disso, eu também não gostaria de deixar que Sara desconfiasse dos meus planos para os próximos dias. Enquanto Abraão estava resignado a fazer a vontade de Deus, Sara nem sabia o que ia acontecer (pelo menos, até onde vai o registro das Escrituras). 

Depois de uma dolorosa jornada de três dias, a montanha do sacrifício é avistada. Nesse ponto, Abraão deixa seus servos e segue sozinho com Isaque:

Então, disse a seus servos: Esperai aqui, com o jumento; eu e o rapaz iremos até lá e, havendo adorado, voltaremos para junto de vós. Tomou Abraão a lenha do holocausto e a colocou sobre Isaque, seu filho; ele, porém, levava nas mãos o fogo e o cutelo. Assim, caminhavam ambos juntos (Gênesis 22.5-6).

Mesmo em meio à grande angústia da alma, há uma bela expressão de fé e esperança no versículo 5:

Então, disse a seus servos: Esperai aqui, com o jumento; eu e o rapaz iremos até lá e, havendo adorado, (nós) voltaremos para junto de vós (ARA, ênfase do autor).

Não creio que essas palavras foram ditas em vão, mas que refletiram uma profunda confiança em Deus e nas Suas promessas. O Deus que ordenara o sacrifício de Isaque também prometera que dele nasceria uma grande nação (17.15-19; 21.12).

Enquanto os dois sozinhos subiam a montanha, em direção ao lugar do sacrifício, Isaque fez uma pergunta que deve ter cortado o coração de Abraão: “Eis o fogo e a lenha, mas onde está o cordeiro para o holocausto?” (versículo 7).

A resposta deve ter sido muito penosa para Abraão; no entanto, ela não é apenas deliberadamente vaga, ela também contém um quê de esperança: “Deus proverá para si, meu filho, o cordeiro para o holocausto; e seguiam ambos juntos” (versículo 8).

A cada passo, Abraão deve ter esperado que houvesse alguma mudança de planos, alguma alternativa. Eles chegaram ao local, o altar foi construído e a lenha arrumada. Finalmente, não havia mais nada a fazer, a não ser amarrar Isaque, colocá-lo sobre a lenha e cravar o cutelo em seu coração.

A Provisão de Deus (22.11-14)

Somente quando o cutelo já estava no alto, reluzindo ao sol, Deus impediu Abraão de oferecer seu filho em sacrifício:

Mas do céu lhe bradou o Anjo do SENHOR: Abraão! Abraão! Ele respondeu: Eis-me aqui! Então, lhe disse: Não estendas a mão sobre o rapaz e nada lhe faças; pois agora sei que temes a Deus, porquanto não me negaste o filho, o teu único filho (Gênesis 22.11-12).

No último minuto ficou claro que Abraão estava disposto a renunciar a tudo, até mesmo ao filho, seu único filho, por amor a Deus. Embora Deus já conhecesse seu coração, a reverência de Abraão agora foi evidenciada pela prática.

Foi também no auge da sua obediência que veio a provisão de Deus. Deus não interrompeu o ato de sacrifício; Ele providenciou um carneiro como substituto de Isaque:

Tendo Abraão erguido os olhos, viu atrás de si um carneiro preso pelos chifres entre os arbustos; tomou Abraão o carneiro e o ofereceu em holocausto, em lugar de seu filho (versículo 13).

Por essa experiência, vemos que a fé de Abraão na provisão de Deus para a oferta sacrificial (versículo 8) foi honrada e que Deus realmente proveu:

E pôs Abraão por nome àquele lugar - O SENHOR Proverá. Daí dizer-se até ao dia de hoje: No monte do SENHOR se proverá.

A Promessa de Deus (22.15-19)

Além da intervenção de Deus para evitar que Abraão sacrificasse seu filho, houve também a confirmação das Suas promessas por meio de Isaque:

Então, do céu bradou pela segunda vez o Anjo do SENHOR a Abraão e disse: Jurei, por mim mesmo, diz o SENHOR, porquanto fizeste isso e não me negaste o teu único filho, que deveras te abençoarei e certamente multiplicarei a tua descendência como as estrelas dos céus e como a areia na praia do mar; a tua descendência possuirá a cidade dos seus inimigos, nela serão benditas todas as nações da terra, porquanto obedeceste à minha voz. Então, voltou Abraão aos seus servos, e, juntos, foram para Berseba, onde fixou residência (Gênesis 22.15-19).

Há pouca coisa nova nesta confirmação divina², embora haja uma mudança impressionante. Nas ocasiões anteriores, estas promessas foram feitas de forma incondicional (cf. 12.1-3; 15.13-16; 18-21). Aqui, as bênçãos são prometidas a Abraão porque ele obedeceu a Deus nesta prova (22.16, 18).

No entanto, a mudança não é tão dramática quanto possa parecer a princípio. No capítulo 17, Deus reafirmou Suas promessas, começando com estas palavras: “Eu sou o Deus Todo-Poderoso; anda na minha presença e sê perfeito. Farei uma aliança…” (versículos 1 e 2).

Além disso, Abraão foi instruído a “guardar a Minha aliança” (17.9, 10, 11). E, depois, no capítulo 18, lemos:

… visto que Abraão certamente virá a ser uma grande e poderosa nação, e nele serão benditas todas as nações da terra? Porque eu o escolhi para que ordene a seus filhos e a sua casa depois dele, a fim de que guardem o caminho do SENHOR e pratiquem a justiça e o juízo; para que o SENHOR faça vir sobre Abraão o que tem falado a seu respeito (18.18-19).

Precisamos entender que o fato de Deus ter escolhido Abraão incluía não só o fim proposto por Ele (as bênçãos), mas também os meios (fé e obediência). Depois da sua última prova no monte Moriá, Deus pôde dizer que as bênçãos eram resultado da obediência decorrente da fé. Essa mesma sequência é muito clara no Novo Testamento:

Porque pela graça sois salvos, mediante a fé; e isto não vem de vós; é dom de Deus; não de obras, para que ninguém se glorie. Pois somos feitura dele, criados em Cristo Jesus para boas obras, as quais Deus de antemão preparou para que andássemos nelas. (Efésios 2.8-10)

Sabemos que todas as coisas cooperam para o bem daqueles que amam a Deus, daqueles que são chamados segundo o seu propósito. Porquanto aos que de antemão conheceu, também os predestinou para serem conformes à imagem de seu Filho, a fim de que ele seja o primogênito entre muitos irmãos. E aos que predestinou, a esses também chamou; e aos que chamou, a esses também justificou; e aos que justificou, a esses também glorificou (Romanos 8.28-30).

A obra de Deus começa com uma promessa que precisa ser aceita pela fé. Depois, essa fé, se for genuína, será demonstrada por boas obras (cf. Tiago 2). As promessas de Deus são uma certeza para todos os crentes, pois Deus é soberano em cada etapa — da fé à obediência, da obediência à bênção.

Conclusão

Este incidente na vida de Abraão teve diversas consequências para ele.

(1) Cuidou de um problema que atormentou Abraão durante toda a sua vida — o vínculo prejudicial com sua família. Foi aqui que Abraão teve de escolher a quem colocar em primeiro lugar: Isaque ou Deus. Sua obediência, finalmente, deu um jeito nesse problema.

(2) Sua obediência à vontade revelada de Deus comprovou sua profissão de fé:

Assim, também a fé, se não tiver obras, por si só está morta. Mas alguém dirá: Tu tens fé, e eu tenho obras; mostra-me essa tua fé sem as obras, e eu, com as obras, te mostrarei a minha fé. Crês, tu, que Deus é um só? Fazes bem. Até os demônios creem e tremem. Queres, pois, ficar certo, ó homem insensato, de que a fé sem as obras é inoperante? Não foi por obras que Abraão, o nosso pai, foi justificado, quando ofereceu sobre o altar o próprio filho, Isaque? Vês como a fé operava juntamente com as suas obras; com efeito, foi pelas obras que a fé se consumou, e se cumpriu a Escritura, a qual diz: Ora, Abraão creu em Deus, e isso lhe foi imputado para justiça; e: Foi chamado amigo de Deus (Tiago 2.17-23).

Nestes versículos, Tiago não está discordando de Paulo. Ele concorda que uma pessoa é salva pela fé, não pelas obras (cf. Romanos 4), mas ele defende que uma fé salvadora é uma fé operante. Uma fé professada, mas não praticada, é uma fé morta. Embora Abraão tenha sido justificado diante de Deus por crer nas Suas promessas (Gênesis 15.6; Romanos 4.3), ele foi justificado diante dos homens por sua obediência (Gênesis 22; Tiago 2). Deus podia examinar o coração de Abraão e ver que sua fé era genuína; nós precisamos olhar para a sua obediência para ver que sua profissão de fé era sincera.

(3) A obediência de Abraão resultou em crescimento espiritual e numa compreensão mais profunda da pessoa e das promessas de Deus. Nenhuma outra experiência na vida de Abraão deixou mais evidente a pessoa e a obra de Cristo. É por isso que nosso Senhor pôde dizer aos judeus da Sua época: “Abraão, vosso pai, alegrou-se por ver o meu dia, viu-o e regozijou-se” (João 8.56). Ainda hoje, os tempos de provação também são tempos de crescimento na vida dos crentes.

(4) A provação de Abraão no monte Moriá o preparou para o futuro. Não é surpresa alguma que o capítulo seguinte (23) trate da morte de Sara. O que precisamos entender é que Deus usou o oferecimento de Isaque para preparar Abraão para a morte de sua esposa. Pelas palavras de Abraão (22.5), e por sua interpretação pelo escritor aos Hebreus (11.19), sabemos que a fé demonstrada por ele no monte Moriá era uma fé no Deus que podia ressuscitar homens e mulheres da morte (cf., ainda, Romanos 4.19). Embora Abraão só tivesse de enfrentar a morte no capítulo 23, ele lidou com ela no capítulo 22. Os testes de Deus, com frequência, são preparatórios para coisas maiores que estão por vir (cf. Mateus 4.1-11).

Além de cuidar de Abraão, Deus também usou este incidente no monte Moriá para instruir a nação de Israel, a qual recebeu este livro, bem como os outros quatro livros da lei, da pena de Moisés. Para aqueles que tinham acabado de receber a lei, com seu complicado sistema sacrificial, este acontecimento na vida de Abraão proporcionou uma compreensão mais profunda do significado do sacrifício. Eles deviam perceber que o sacrifício era substitutivo. O animal devia morrer no lugar do homem, exatamente do mesmo jeito que o carneiro foi provido para o lugar de Isaque. Mas eles também deviam perceber que um Filho, um Filho único, devia pagar o preço pelo pecado, o qual nenhum animal poderia pagar. Contra o pano de fundo do sacrifício no monte Moriá, todo o sistema sacrificial da Lei foi visto com um significado mais profundo e mais completo.

Este incidente na vida de Abraão também foi destinado à nossa edificação e instrução (1 Coríntios 10.6; 11). Permitam-me sugerir algumas coisas que devemos aprender com a vida de Abraão, como descrita no capítulo 22.

(1) Este acontecimento é uma bela prefiguração, um tipo, da morte de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Abraão representa Deus Pai, O qual, por amor ao ser humano, deu Seu único Filho como sacrifício pelos pecadores (João 3.16). Isaque é um tipo de Cristo, O qual Se submete à vontade do Pai. Isaque carregou a lenha para o holocausto da mesma forma que nosso Senhor carregou Sua cruz (Gênesis 22.6; João 19.17). Foram três dias desde a partida de Abraão para o sacrifício até ele e seu filho voltarem juntos. Depois de três dias, Abraão recebeu seu filho de volta (Hebreus 11.9). Depois de três dias nosso Senhor ressurgiu dos mortos (João 20; 1 Coríntios 15.4).

Além de tudo isso, Isaque foi “sacrificado” no mesmo lugar onde nosso Senhor daria Sua vida séculos mais tarde, no monte Moriá, nos arredores de Jerusalém. De acordo com 2 Crônicas 3.1, sabemos que foi nesse lugar que o Senhor apareceu a Davi e onde Salomão construiu o templo. Assim, Abraão levou seu filho ao monte próximo a Jerusalém para oferecê-lo como sacrifício no mesmo lugar (ou próximo dele) onde nosso Senhor iria morrer anos depois. Que bela ilustração da infinita sabedoria de Deus e da Sua inspiração nas santas Escrituras!

(2) Esta passagem também nos lembra da importância da obediência para os cristãos. Foi devido à obediência de Abraão que as bênçãos prometidas foram confirmadas no clímax da nossa passagem (versículos 15 a 18). Muito embora o homem não seja salvo por suas obras, a fé salvadora inevitavelmente deve ser manifesta em boas obras (Efésios 2.8-10). Crer e obedecer são o caminho do cristão.

(3) Vemos também que a vida cristã é paradoxal. Parece que ela é meio contraditória. Abraão ganhou seu filho quando o entregou a Deus. Somos exaltados aos olhos de Deus quando consideramos os outros superiores a nós mesmos (Mateus 23.11; Filipenses 2.5 e ss). Somos líderes quando servimos; salvamos nossa vida quando a perdemos (Mateus 16.25). Os caminhos de Deus não são os caminhos do homem.

(4) A vida cristã não é vivida sem razão ou sem racionalidade. Tenho muito receio de que algumas pessoas leiam esta narrativa da vida de Abraão e concluam que Deus nos prova levando-nos a fazer algo que é totalmente irracional.

O perigo é a tendência que temos em presumir que qualquer coisa que não faça sentido para nós deve ser a vontade de Deus. Muitos críticos têm sugerido que cristãos são aqueles que tiram o chapéu, e a cabeça, quando entram na igreja. Mas não é assim.

Por outro lado, precisamos reconhecer que aquilo que Abraão foi ordenado a fazer parecia sem sentido. Por meio de Isaque ele deveria ser o pai de multidões. Como isso poderia acontecer se Isaque estivesse morto? Sacrificar um filho deve ter parecido totalmente contrário ao caráter de Deus. Será que Deus estava lhe pedindo para agir com fé irracional? Observe o que diz o escritor aos hebreus:

Pela fé, Abraão, quando posto à prova, ofereceu Isaque; estava mesmo para sacrificar o seu unigênito aquele que acolheu alegremente as promessas, a quem se tinha dito: Em Isaque será chamada a tua descendência; porque considerou que Deus era poderoso até para ressuscitá-lo dentre os mortos, de onde também, figuradamente, o recobrou. (Hebreus 11.17-19, ênfase do autor)

A palavra grega utilizada aqui, logizomai, expressamente claramente o fato de Abraão ter agido com a cabeça³. Não foi uma “fé cega”, como se costuma dizer. A fé sempre age com base nos fatos e na razão.

O que quero dizer é simples. O mundo gosta de acreditar que age usando a cabeça, enquanto os cristãos agem sem pensar. Mas esta é uma premissa totalmente falsa. A verdade é que existem dois tipos de raciocínio: o pensamento secular e o pensamento cristão. Pedro, quando censurou nosso Senhor por falar da Sua morte sacrificial, estava pensando humanamente:

Mas Jesus, voltando-se, disse a Pedro: Arreda, Satanás! Tu és para mim pedra de tropeço, porque não cogitas das coisas de Deus, e sim das dos homens. (Mateus 16.23)

Existem dois tipos de mentalidade: a cristã e a secular:

Porque os que se inclinam para a carne cogitam das coisas da carne; mas os que se inclinam para o Espírito, das coisas do Espírito. Porque o pendor da carne dá para a morte, mas o do Espírito, para a vida e paz. Por isso, o pendor da carne é inimizade contra Deus, pois não está sujeito à lei de Deus, nem mesmo pode estar. (Romanos 8.5-7)

O apelo de Paulo em Romanos 12 é dirigido tanto às nossas emoções quanto às nossas mentes:

Rogo-vos, pois, irmãos, pelas misericórdias de Deus, que apresenteis o vosso corpo por sacrifício vivo, santo e agradável a Deus, que é o vosso culto racional. E não vos conformeis com este século, mas transformai-vos pela renovação da vossa mente, para que experimenteis qual seja a boa, agradável e perfeita vontade de Deus. Porque, pela graça que me foi dada, digo a cada um dentre vós que não pense de si mesmo além do que convém; antes, pense com moderação, segundo a medida da fé que Deus repartiu a cada um. (Romanos 12.1-3)

O que devemos oferecer como sacrifício a Deus é o nosso corpo vivo, ou seja, o nosso ato de culto lógico ou racional (do grego logicos). Isso é realizado pela renovação da nossa mente (versículo 2). O ser humano inteiro foi afetado pela queda: suas emoções, seu intelecto e sua vontade. Portanto, tudo precisa passar por uma transformação radical a fim de sermos conformados à semelhança de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Em Romanos 12.3 somos chamados a pensar, pensar, pensar. É para isso que serve a nossa mente renovada. O cristianismo é racional, mas de uma forma totalmente diferente da forma do mundo.

O raciocínio cristão tem como base a convicção de que há um Deus, O qual é o nosso criador e redentor (Hebreus 11.1 e ss). O raciocínio cristão tem como base a convicção de que a Palavra de Deus é absolutamente verdadeira e digna de confiança. Deus tinha prometido a Abraão um filho por meio de Sara e por meio do qual as bênçãos seriam recebidas. Abraão creu em Deus (Gênesis 15:6). Deus também lhe disse para sacrificar esse filho. E Abraão pôs sua fé em Deus e O obedeceu, apesar do raciocínio humano questionar a sabedoria disso.

O raciocínio de Abraão também tinha como base sua experiência com Deus ao longo dos anos. Continuamente, Deus tinha provado ser seu provedor e protetor. O poder soberano de Deus tinha sido repetidamente demonstrado, mesmo no meio de pagãos como faraó e Abimeleque. Embora Abraão e Sara estivessem “praticamente mortos”, no que se referia a gerar filhos, Deus lhes deu o filho prometido (Romanos 4.19-21).

Talvez Abraão não compreendesse porque recebera uma ordem para sacrificar seu filho, e nem como Deus iria cumprir Suas promessas se ele obedecesse, mas ele conhecia Aquele que lhe dera a ordem. Ele sabia que Deus era santo, justo e puro. Ele sabia que Deus era capaz de ressuscitar os mortos. Com base nessas convicções, contrárias à sabedoria humana, mas totalmente baseadas no raciocínio cristão, ele obedeceu a Deus. O raciocínio cristão tem suas razões. Podemos não saber como ou porque, mas sabemos Quem e o quê. E isso é suficiente!

(5) Nosso texto nos ensina um belo princípio: “... No monte do SENHOR se proverá” (versículo 14).

No versículo 8, Abraão assegurou a Isaque que Deus proveria o cordeiro, e assim o Senhor fez (versículo 13). O princípio não é que Deus proverá em determinado lugar, e sim que proverá sob certa condição. Num momento de fé e obediência, num momento de desamparo e dependência, Deus proverá. Muitas vezes, creio, não vemos a provisão de Deus porque não chegamos ao ponto de desespero.

Lembro-me da história de dois marinheiros que, sozinhos, sobreviveram a um naufrágio. Eles ficaram à deriva no mar em uma jangada improvisada. Quando já tinham perdido todas as esperanças de serem resgatados, um disse ao outro que eles deveriam orar. Ambos concordaram e, quando um deles começou a clamar a Deus por ajuda, o outro o interrompeu, dizendo: “Espera aí, nem se incomode, acho que estou vendo um barco”.

Às vezes, Deus nos leva ao mesmo ponto a que levou Abraão no monte Moriá — a depender totalmente Dele. É nesse ponto que precisamos reconhecer Sua provisão. É aí que homens e mulheres devem chegar para serem salvos. Eles precisam ver a si mesmos como pecadores perdidos, merecedores da eterna ira de Deus. Eles precisam abandonar qualquer fé em si mesmos e qualquer obra que possam fazer para receber o favor de Deus. Eles precisam voltar-se somente para Ele para lhes prover o perdão de pecados e a justiça necessária para a salvação. A provisão de Deus já foi feita pela morte de Seu Filho sem pecado, Jesus Cristo, na cruz do Calvário, há mais de 2.000 anos. Meu amigo, se você atingiu o ponto de desespero, gostaria que soubesse que esse é também o ponto de auxílio e salvação. Lance toda a sua esperança sobre o Cristo do Calvário e, com certeza, você encontrará a salvação.

(6) Finalmente, esta passagem tem sido usada com um fim trágico, o sacrifício de nossos filhos e filhas sob o pretexto de obedecer a uma ordem divina. Deus nunca disse aos Seus santos para sacrificar suas famílias em prol de qualquer ministério ou chamado. É verdade que precisamos colocar Deus em primeiro lugar (Mateus 10.37), mas a obediência a Ele requer a provisão e instrução da nossa família (cf. 1 Timóteo 5.8; Efésios 6.4; 1 Timóteo 3.3-4, 12).

Muitos pais, como Abraão, pensam no futuro como algo ligado exclusivamente a seus filhos. Querem manipular suas vidas para que possam viver neles seus sonhos e esperanças. Precisamos entregar nossos filhos ao Senhor e submetê-los, e a nós também, ao Seu cuidado e providência. Só então, nós, e eles, encontraremos as bênçãos de Deus.

É com tristeza que devo admitir que o problema de Abraão é um tanto estranho à nossa época. Quase não precisamos nos preocupar com o apego exagerado aos filhos numa época em que a prática do aborto está desenfreada e pais e mães abrem mão de suas famílias por um estilo de vida mais livre. É nesse sentido que vemos a profecia sobre o fim dos tempos sendo cumprida em nosso meio:

Sabe, porém, isto: nos últimos dias, sobrevirão tempos difíceis, pois os homens serão egoístas, avarentos, jactanciosos, arrogantes, blasfemadores, desobedientes aos pais, ingratos, irreverentes, desafeiçoados, implacáveis, caluniadores, sem domínio de si, cruéis, inimigos do bem, traidores, atrevidos, enfatuados, mais amigos dos prazeres que amigos de Deus, tendo forma de piedade, negando-lhe, entretanto, o poder. Foge também destes. (2 Timóteo 3.1-5)

No versículo 3, a primeira palavra, “desafeiçoados”, significa literalmente “sem amor pela família”. Esta é uma época em que a afeição natural dos pais está se tornando rara. Com certeza a volta do Senhor está próxima. Que Deus nos capacite a amar nossos filhos a tal ponto que entreguemos suas vidas nas mãos Dele.

© 2017 Bible.org. All Rights Reserved.

Tradução e Revisão: Mariza Regina de Souza

¹ Neste capítulo, Tiago não está debatendo a teologia de Paulo, e sim ressaltando uma verdade complementar: embora as obras não possam salvar, uma fé operante realmente pode. A justificação sobre a qual Tiago fala no capítulo 2 não é diante de Deus, mas diante dos homens. A fé que uma pessoa tem em seu coração a justifica diante de Deus, mas a fé demonstrada em sua vida justifica sua profissão de fé diante dos homens.

² As observações de Stigers, no entanto, são dignas de reprodução: “A frase “a cidade dos seus inimigos” (versículo 17) tem uma abrangência importante para o futuro do plano redentivo de Deus. Os outros elementos desse juramento/promessa, a numerosa descendência e a bênção sobre as nações, são os mesmos encontrados em 12:1-3; no entanto, a frase “a terra que te mostrarei/darei” agora é substituída por “possuirá a cidade dos seus inimigos”. Isso amplia o significado da promessa referente à terra: o de assumir o lugar e o poder dos povos anteriores. No entanto, a promessa não é limitada; pode ser qualquer inimigo, de qualquer época; a menos que Israel negue seu Deus (cf. Salmo 89:30-33). A frase denota a vitória final da santidade sobre todas as coisas, compartilhada pelo povo de Deus”. Harold Stigers, Comentário em Gênesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 190-191.

³ “Portanto, logizomai significa: a) considerar, ponderar, julgar, calcular; b) considerar, deliberar, compreender, chegar a uma conclusão lógica, decidir”. J. Eichler, “Logizomai,” Novo Dicionário Internacional de Teologia do Novo Testamento (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), III, p. 822-823.

November 5, 2017

“Why would the pastor want to preach on the five points of Calvinism? Is he trying to stir up controversy?” No, my aim is not to be controversial, but to clarify some important but frequently misrepresented and misunderstood truths about salvation that the Reformation recovered.

While understanding the five points is not essential for salvation, these truths are important for your spiritual life. They will deepen your understanding of God and His grace; man as sinful; salvation being for God’s glory alone; Christ’s work on the cross; the new birth; assurance of salvation; and, evangelism. Many godly giants of the faith have proclaimed these doctrines of grace, including the Reformers, most of the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, C. H. Spurgeon, George Muller, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and many others.

The view that opposes Calvinism is called Arminianism (after Jacob Arminius). Spurgeon humorously pointed out that by nature we’re all born as Arminians (C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography, The Early Years [Banner of Truth], 1:164), so God has to open our eyes to these truths. Usually, it’s a process. My aim is to help you along in that process. Spurgeon (ibid. 1:168) calls these truths, “the essence of the Bible,” “the gospel, and nothing else.”

In my case, I came to understand four of the five points long before I ever read a page of Calvin or any Reformed theologian. As a college student, I used to wrestle with Romans 9, where Paul states (v. 16), “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Finally, I realized that I wasn’t wrestling with Paul. By resisting God’s sovereignty in salvation as plainly and repeatedly revealed in Scripture, I was fighting against God Himself! At that point, I submitted to God’s Word. But I didn’t come to understand the fifth point, so-called “limited atonement,” until the mid-1990’s when I read John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [Banner of Truth]. (More on that later.)

Calvin himself did not delineate these five points. He died in 1564. In the early 1600’s, Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and his followers disagreed with some of the main teachings of the Reformers. They came up with five points to state their views. Reformed scholars at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) rebutted these points by coming up with what are now called the five points of Calvinism. They are summarized by the acronym TULIP: Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistible grace; and, Perseverance of the saints. Those titles don’t accurately describe these doctrines and have led to a lot of misunderstanding (Piper, Five Points [Christian Focus], p. 13). But, since they’re an easy way to remember the points, I’ll use them here.

But you still may wonder, “Why speak on these points since they are so controversial?” The fact that they are controversial is no reason to avoid them. The Bible has many difficult, controversial truths. The question is, are these doctrines in the Bible? If they are, then we need to understand them for our spiritual good (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Since books have been written on these points, I can’t go in depth or answer all objections. But here’s why they matter:

The five points of Calvinism matter because they help you glorify God by better understanding His great salvation.

J. I. Packer (Introduction to Owen, Death of Death, p. 6) says that the one point of Calvinism is that God saves sinners; sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all. If you were partly responsible for your salvation, then you can share in the glory. If God did it all, He gets all the glory. So salvation is totally of the Lord. That is the main issue.

1. Total depravity: By nature, all people are born in sin, enslaved to sin, hostile toward God, unwilling and unable to repent and believe in Christ.

Some mistakenly think that “total depravity” means that people are as evil as they possibly could be. Thankfully, that’s not true! Total depravity refers to the impact of sin on every part of every person: our intellect, emotions, and will are sinful by nature. Because of Adam’s fall into sin, all people (except for Jesus) have been born sinners, alienated from God. As sinners, no one is willing or able to come to Christ apart from God’s intervention. The will of sinners is free to act according to its sinful nature, but it is not free to choose and follow Jesus Christ apart from the new birth. As Charles Wesley put it (“And Can it Be?”) we were “fast bound in sin and nature’s night.” We were enslaved to sin, spiritually blind and dead (all biblical metaphors that picture inability).

Ephesians 2:1-3 asserts: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Later (Eph. 4:17), Paul asserts that unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” Being dead in sins, darkened in understanding, and hard of heart picture the total spiritual inability of the natural man.

Paul also explains (1 Cor. 2:14): “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” “Cannot” means inability. He repeats (2 Cor. 4:3-4): “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Blind people are incapable of seeing the glory of Christ in the gospel.

Paul also describes those outside of Christ (Rom. 8:7-8): “… the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” He is again asserting the inability of fallen sinners to please God. Since saving faith pleases God, apart from God’s gracious intervention, no sinner is able to believe in Christ.

Jesus taught the same thing. He told Nicodemus (John 3:1-8) that his religious piety would not get him into God’s kingdom. He needed to be born again by the Holy Spirit. Just as a baby cannot will himself to be born, so a sinner can’t will himself to be born again. Jesus said to the Jews who were challenging Him (John 8:43): “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.” He added that the reason they could not hear His word was that they were of their father the devil. They needed to be born of God. Many of Jesus’ miracles, such as healing the lame, opening the ears of the deaf and the eyes of the blind, and raising the dead are spiritual pictures of the helpless condition of sinners. They need God’s mighty power to save them.

Arminians claim that because of what they call “prevenient grace,” God has given all people the ability to believe in Christ. Otherwise, they argue, it is absurd to tell unbelievers to believe in Jesus if they are incapable of believing. While that argument sounds logical, it is not biblical, because as we’ve seen, the Bible repeatedly teaches the unwillingness and inability of sinners to repent and believe in Christ. And yet Scripture repeatedly exhorts sinners to repent and believe. Also, there are no solid verses to support the idea of prevenient grace (see Thomas Schreiner, Still Sovereign [Baker], pp. 229-246).

If you accept total depravity as true, then the other four points necessarily follow:

2. Unconditional election: By His grace alone, apart from any foreseen faith, before the foundation of the world God chose to save many, but not all, for His glory.

The common misunderstanding here is, “If God chose who would be saved, then we’re just robots. We don’t have any free will.” But “free will” is a misnomer. None of us are totally free. We didn’t choose our family or when or where to be born. We didn’t choose our DNA or gender. We didn’t choose to be born sinners. As I said, sinners are free to act in line with their nature, but they’re not free to choose Jesus Christ. They are slaves to sin (Rom. 6:17) and they love their sin (John 3:19-20). Unless God intervenes to open their blind eyes and deliver them from the power of sin, no one could or would come to Christ for salvation. He has to take the initiative in our salvation.

Scripture is clear that He graciously took this initiative before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Paul states (Eph. 1:4-5), “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will ….” Or (Rom. 8:29-30), “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

Arminians pounce on “foreknew,” asserting that God predestined those whom He knew in advance would believe. I deal with this at more length in my sermon on Romans 8:29. But here I can only point out that the theology behind the Arminian view robs God of His sovereignty and gives it to sinful people. God’s eternal plan would be contingent on which sinners decide to choose Christ. So rather than creating the universe and devising the plan of salvation for His glory, God just saw how the parade of history would go and jumped in front of the parade. He was relieved to see that a rebel like Saul of Tarsus would decide to believe, but He didn’t graciously choose to save Paul before Paul was born. Read the account of Paul’s salvation and see if that interpretation fits!

A second reason to reject the Arminian view of foreknowledge is the biblical usage of the word. When God is the subject, to foreknow means to choose or determine beforehand, often with the sense of choosing before to enter into a relationship (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans], p. 532). Obviously, God foreknows everything because He is omniscient. But He foreknows His people in the sense of choosing to enter a special relationship with them (Rom. 11:2; Amos 3:2; Jer. 1:5; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:20). Geoffrey Bromiley explains (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Baker], p. 420), “What [God] knows, he does not know merely as information. He is no mere spectator. What he foreknows he ordains. He wills it.” As Paul puts it (Eph. 1:11), we were “predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

Some object, “If God didn’t choose everyone for salvation, then He doesn’t love everyone. And the Bible says that He is not willing that any should perish.” But the Bible is clear that God chose Israel as His people (Deut. 7:6). That means that before Christ He didn’t choose any other people on earth. And since the time of Christ, there have been many peoples who have lived and died with no gospel witness. Does that mean that God predestined some to go to hell? The Bible is clear that if anyone is saved, it is because God chose to save him. But if anyone goes to hell, it is because of his willful sin. For reasons we do not know, God permits many nations to go their own ways (Acts 14:16). He will be perfectly just when He judges them. No one will be judged unfairly (Matt. 11:20-27).

3. Limited atonement: Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin to secure salvation for all whom the Father had given Him.

As I said, this was the last point that I came to understand. It does not mean that we should limit the offer of the gospel to the elect (we don’t know who the elect are before they believe). Also, as many have pointed out, everyone limits the atonement in some way. The Arminian limits the effectiveness of Christ’s death: It didn’t actually save anyone, but only made salvation possible for those who choose to believe. The Calvinist limits the intent of the atonement as being only for the elect, but affirms that it is absolutely effective for them.

“Limited atonement” could better be called “particular redemption.” The real issue is the purpose for Christ’s death. Did He die to make salvation possible for all, but certain for none? Or, did He die to “save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21)? Did He die on the cross even for those who will finally reject Him and be condemned? Or, did He give Himself for His church, which He purposed to save (Eph. 5:25)? Revelation 5:9 pictures the redeemed in heaven singing, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” He didn’t purchase all people, but rather some from every people.

John Owen (The Death of Death, pp. 61-62) clarified and convinced me of this truth with his argument that Christ did not only aim for our salvation when He died, but He died in our place actually to secure our redemption. He fully paid our penalty so that we do not have to pay. Owen presents three options: Either God imposed His wrath and Christ paid the penalty for all the sins of everyone, in which case everyone will be saved. But this contradicts Scripture, which teaches that some will be lost. Or Christ died for some sins of everyone, the sin of unbelief being excepted. But where does the Bible teach this? And, how would unbelief be atoned for? This leaves a third option: Christ died to pay the penalty for all the sins of some people, namely, the elect, whom the Father gave to the Son before the foundation of the world.

Practically, this means that when Christ died, it wasn’t an impersonal, blanket plan for whoever may believe. Rather, He died specifically for you as His chosen child. He went into the orphanage, picked you out, and paid the price to make you His child.

Thus you were helplessly, hopelessly lost in sin. But God graciously chose you in Christ before the foundation of the world. Christ came and died to pay the penalty of sin that you owed.

4. Irresistible grace: Through the working of His Spirit, God infallibly draws to Himself all whom He has chosen to save.

This could better be called, “effectual calling.” It doesn’t mean that sinners are dragged to Christ kicking and screaming against their own will. Clearly, some sinners resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). Rather, it means that the Holy Spirit effectually makes those He chooses to save gladly willing to come to Christ.

Jesus taught this (John 6:37): “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” He did not say, “I hope that all the Father gives to me will decide to come to Me, but it’s their choice.” He stated that they will come to Him because the Father had already given them to Him. He added (John 6:44), “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” When some of His disciples stumbled over this and turned away, He didn’t soften it, but rather reinforced it (John 6:65): “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” But if the Father grants it and draws that person, he will definitely come to Jesus for salvation.

Does this mean that a person has no choice in the matter? No, you must gladly decide to follow Jesus (as we sometimes sing), but you never would have decided to follow Jesus if God did not first graciously open your blind eyes and draw you to the beauty of Christ crucified for your sins. As His sovereign gift, He revealed to you the treasure of all that Jesus is. As a result, you joyously sold everything you had so that you could buy the field with that treasure (Matt. 13:44). The reason you chose to trust in Christ is that the Spirit first softened your hard heart to draw you to trust in Christ. Finally,

5. Perseverance of the saints: All whom God has chosen for salvation and saved by His grace will persevere unto eternal life.

Some teach that if a person prayed the sinner’s prayer or went forward at an altar call and professed faith in Christ, he is eternally secure, even if there’s no subsequent evidence of repentance or new life. But that’s not true. Genuine saving faith results in a life of godliness. The perseverance of the saints means, as Jesus promised (John 6:39-40; 10:27-30), that He will not lose any whom the Father has given to Him. On His part, He keeps us. On our part, perseverance in faith and obedience is the evidence that we’re truly saved.

I’ve had many Christian parents tell me, “I know that my child is going to heaven because when he was ten, he made a decision for Christ.” So even though he’s into drugs and immorality now and wants nothing to do with God, they think he’s saved because he made that decision. But the question is, did God change his heart through the new birth? Did he become a lover of God and His Word? Did he repent of his sins and seek to grow in obedience out of love for the Savior?

Granted, some true believers backslide for a time, but if the Holy Spirit lives in them, they can’t be happy in their sins. They can’t persist in unbelief and disobedience. As John explains (1 John 3:9-10): “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” Perseverance in faith and obedience is the evidence that a person is one of God’s elect (2 Pet. 1:10-11).

Conclusion

In this one message, I cannot answer all of your questions or objections. But I assure you that there are solid biblical answers to those questions! The Arminian view that is common in American evangelicalism has a truncated view of God and an inflated view of man. It is based on human logic, but is not in submission to what God’s Word repeatedly asserts. Historically, Arminianism is dangerous because it has led to theological liberalism and Unitarianism. The current Open Theism teaching, which denies that God knows or controls the future, is a logical outworking of Arminianism.

Understanding these truths will deepen your understanding of how sinful you were when God rescued you; how amazingly gracious God is; and how great His love for you is as seen in sending His own Son to die to save you. It will give you a deeper love for God. You will glorify Him more as you see that He saved you by His grace alone (Rom. 11:33-36). You will have hope that what He began in you, He will perfect (Phil. 1:6). You will be encouraged to evangelize, knowing that God will save His elect through the proclamation of the gospel (Acts 13:48; 18:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:10).

So I encourage you to go deeper in these truths! For a short, easy to understand treatment, John Piper’s Five Points [Christian Focus] is a good place to start. James Boice & Philip Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace [Crossway], and David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism [P&R], are also helpful. The five points of Calvinism matter because they will help you glorify God alone by better understanding His great salvation.

Application Questions

1. Discuss with some friends how each of these five points should affect your walk with Christ.
2. A critic says, “If God could save everyone but chose only to save some, He is unloving toward the rest.” Your response?
3. Some say that these five points are just a theological debate that has no practical value. Agree/disagree? Why?
4. Some who argue against the first four points yet argue that a Christian cannot lose his salvation. Why is this inconsistent?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl

Hell is not a pleasant topic. It’s an ugly, unsettling, dangerous reality—expedient to dismiss, easy to avoid serious discussion about, convenient to disregard by joking about in a way that trivializes it.

This will not do, though, because the sobering certainty about Hell is this: One day every person who has ever lived will stand in judgment for their conduct in this life. For multitudes, that will not go well because for them, when the final gavel falls, Hell will be their sentence.

The nature of that sentence is our concern here. However, regardless of how one construes what happens in Hell, one point is clear: Hell is the end of the line. It is the final state. It is the ultimate destination for the damned. Hell’s door is shut forever, and its sentence can never be undone, revoked, or reversed. Ever.

When dealing with something as real and as dreadful as Hell, then, it is important we get our facts straight. Our interests are best served by sticking with a reliable authority. In “Hell Interrupted Part 1” ¹ we reasoned that if you want to know what Hell is actually like, let God tell you. More precisely, listen to what Jesus says not just about the reality of Hell, but also about the subjective nature of that dread sentence. The Son created Hell. He sustains it. He is the one who decides who ends up there.² And He is the one who sounds the clearest, unambiguous warnings of its dangers.

Here is what we found.

In our first installment we pointed out that what happens at the final judgment is a critical piece of the Christian theological puzzle. Eternal judgment (however it’s ultimately defined) is an “elementary teaching” at the very foundation of Christian doctrine.³ We also noted that for two millennia the church universal was not divided on the doctrine of unceasing suffering for those condemned to Hell. Indeed (we noted), there was more debate about the Trinity than there was about Hell’s misery.⁴

There was a reason for the large consensus in the church about Hell’s anguish. Christians were convinced this was what Jesus Himself taught. Christ said that when He comes in glory, He will banish the “accursed” goats from His presence sending them into the furnace of “the eternal fire…prepared for the devil and his angels.” There they will experience ongoing, conscious “wailing” and “weeping” and “gnashing...teeth” in the of agony of “eternal punishment.”⁵ This, we argued, is the plain, ordinary sense of Jesus’ teaching on Hell.

Further, we learned that Jesus’ own teaching dovetails perfectly with John’s description of the same event. At the end of the age the devil is “thrown into the lake of fire” where he “will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” All those who worship the beast and his image, along with all those whose names are not found in the book of life, suffer the same fate—”tormented with fire” with “no rest day and night”—in the same place, “the lake of fire.”⁶ Again, this is the ordinary and natural reading of John’s description of Hell’s punishing flames.

There is more to the story, though, some say. Conditionalists—those who hold to the annihilation of the wicked at the judgment—insist that Jesus’ and John’s descriptions be interpreted in light of other passages, texts they think give an entirely different picture. Fair enough. We’ll take a look. First, though, some basic rules of order.

A Point on Procedure

Both conditionalists and traditionalists read the same biblical texts but come to different conclusions about what those passages mean. Is there a way to judge fairly between diverse interpretations offered by equally sincere people who all share a high view of Scripture? We think there is.

According to Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, a standard text on the craft of interpreting the Bible,⁷ “God intended the Bible to function… as a window into the worlds and meanings of the authors…,”⁸ and, “The writers…of the Bible intended to communicate to their readers in the same way people normally communicate [emphases added].” ⁹ These are common-sense notions everyone in this discussion is committed to.

Our goal when interpreting any communication, then, is to determine an author’s intended meaning using the ordinary conventions of language. Here’s where the basic “rules of order”—a handful of equally common-sense interpretive principles—come into play. We suggest three.

First, “Each statement must be understood according to its natural meaning in the literary context in which it occurs.”¹⁰ Simply put, context is king. The meaning of any text is derived from the flow of thought in the immediate context of a passage without reference to any other books—or, especially, another Testament—if the contextualized meaning itself is straightforward. As some have put it, “If the plain sense makes common sense, don’t add any other sense to it.”

Second, “The correct interpretation of Scripture is the meaning required by the normal meaning of the words in the context in which they occur [emphasis added].”¹¹ Most words are equivocal (having multiple possible meanings) rather than univocal (having only one meaning). This rule says that we let the text tell us the specific meaning from the range of meanings of any word or phrase.

Our first two rules are consistent with our common-sense approach to ordinary communication. The third is unique to the Bible: “Biblical teaching in earlier parts of the Bible…are developed and enlarged in later revelation….In some instances, God reveals His truth progressively [emphasis added].”¹²

Often, the first word is not the complete story. Later revelation gives us the fullest picture, the most complete characterization. Consequently, “where earlier revelation has progressively prepared the way for later formulation of God’s truth, we must give priority to the later [emphasis added].”¹³ Put simply, the final word is the last word.

These three well-established, standard principles of hermeneutics are not controversial and comprise basic canons of biblical interpretation. They are the rules everyone follows to get the meanings right. We are looking for 1) the common-sense meaning of a passage, in light of 2) the meanings of the words as the authors use them in context, while 3) being sensitive to the flow of progressive revelation where later writers provide more clarity to our doctrine.

With those ground rules in place, it’s time to look at a central argument of the conditionalists: the language of death and destruction.

Dead and Gone?

Let’s go directly to the heart of the conditionalists’ complaint, what might be called the “vocabulary of destruction.” Note Clark Pinnock:

The Bible repeatedly uses the language of death, destruction, ruin, and perishing when speaking of the fate of the wicked. It uses the imagery of fire consuming (not torturing) what is thrown into it. The images of fire and destruction together strongly suggest annihilation rather than unending torture…. Does the burden of proof not rest with the traditionalists to explain why the strong impression of the destruction of the wicked that the Bible gives its readers should not just be believed? ¹⁴

Edward Fudge—who some consider the father of the modern conditionalist movement—writes, “The Old Testament utilizes some 50 Hebrew words and 75 figures of speech to describe the ultimate end of the wicked—and every one sounds… like total extinction.”¹⁵ The venerable John Stott weighed in with, “It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed.”¹⁶

The point sounds compelling at first glance, but note D. A. Carson’s important observation:

Stott’s conclusion… is memorable, but useless as an argument, because it is merely tautologous: of course those who suffer destruction are destroyed. But it does not follow that those who suffer destruction cease to exist. Stott has assumed his definition of “destruction” in his epigraph [Carson’s emphasis].¹⁷

Do not miss Carson’s meaning. Treating “destruction” words (et al.) as if they had only one meaning (the conditionalists’ meaning) is not an argument, but question-begging (Carson’s “tautology”¹⁸). His point applies equally to Fudge’s references and to Pinnock’s “strong impression of the destruction of the wicked.” So here’s our question. Do those words mean total destruction, that is, complete non-existence—annihilation—as conditionalists conclude? They do not—at least, not necessarily, and that is the key.

“Destroy,” for example, does not always mean loss of being, but often means loss of well-being, as New Testament scholar Douglas Moo demonstrates:

The key words for “destroy” and “destruction” can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (olethros in Ezek. 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (apoleia in Matt. 26:8; Mk. 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (apollymi in Matt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37); to a coin that is useless because it is “lost” (apollymi in Lk. 15:9); or to the entire world that “perishes,” as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state.¹⁹

This way of understanding “death” and “destruction” comports completely with our common-sense use of those notions. In fact, most of the time we do not use them to mean “cease to exist.” If a tornado destroys a house, the debris remains but is useless for its intended purpose as a suitable shelter. If bad news “destroys” our vacation, the enjoyment is gone, but the holiday labors on. If cancer kills a patient, the body remains even though some part of that person has “passed away.” Some part has gone elsewhere, which is precisely what the biblical record teaches (e.g., Lk. 23:43).

To be destroyed or to suffer death or to be “wiped out” or to “be no more” or any of its other equivalents does not mean to vanish. In the Bible, destruction language is not synonymous with nonexistence.

Here is the problem. Conditionalists jump to passages in the Old Testament describing the destruction of the wicked, yet consistently fail to make the distinction between earthly destruction and eternal nonexistence. Pinnock writes:

Consider Psalm 37 where we read that the wicked fade like grass and wither like the herb (v. 2), that they will be cut off and be no more (v. 9-10), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (v. 20), and be altogether destroyed (v. 38).”²⁰

However, in this very Psalm (like many others), David contrasts the earthly fate of the wicked with the earthly fate of the righteous. Verse 9 simply says, “For evildoers will be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord, they will inherit the land.”

Being “cut off” does not mean finally and irreversibly annihilated. It means to be killed. In Exodus God refers to Jews being “cut off from the earth” through pestilence (9:15). Sabbath breakers were to be “cut off from among God’s people” (Ex. 31:14)—executed, that is (cf. Num. 15:32-36). Indeed, Daniel tells us “the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing” (9:26).

David continues, “In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there” (Ps. 37:10). The wicked are gone from their place. That’s all. Pinnock’s passage does not teach that they cease to exist. It doesn’t address that issue. That is not David’s intention.

Examples like this are legion. “Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more” (Ps. 104:35), or, “He has utterly destroyed them. He has given them over to slaughter. So their slain will be thrown out, and their corpses will give off their stench….” (Is. 34:2-3), or, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land…” Gen. 6:7.

The wicked are physically destroyed. Their bodies are blotted out and their cities vanish in the smoke of judgment. That is the plain sense of these passages. That is the intended meaning, in the context. That and no more.

Here we return to one of our core hermeneutical rules of order. Everything hinges on how “destruction” words were treated by the original authors. Check any Old Testament text cited to support annihilation and ask if the author is principally describing the physical, earthly perspective, or is he unequivocally describing the eternal fate of the wicked. ²¹

Contrary to the conditionalists’ view, death and destruction and nonexistence simply are not interchangeable terms in these texts. It does not matter how many Old Testament examples there are—thousands, even—if the entire lot of them is compromised in exactly the same way. Nothing can be inferred about the eternal state of the wicked from statements that focus on temporal punishment. That must be determined on other grounds.

Do any Scriptures address the eternal fate of the wicked? Yes, they do, with clarity.

Dead and Away

Scripture uses destruction language to describe eternal judgments, too. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell” (Matt. 10:28). Does Jesus mean annihilation? He doesn’t say, but Paul does.

Paul offers a clear picture of the nature of eternal destruction in 2 Thess. 1:9. He says that at the coming of Christ the wicked “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power….”

Once again we have destruction language, but notice the qualifier. The apostle uses spatial language. A nonexistent being can have no spatial relationship to God. Those who do not exist are not “away” in any sense.

Earlier in this passage (v. 6) Paul also says it is “just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you.” The punishment is in kind—affliction for affliction. Affliction is felt and banishment is experienced. Both require conscious existence. None of this can happen with annihilationism.

Additionally, Paul’s destruction/banishment language fits like a glove with Jesus’ and John’s own characterization of the damned who are told to “depart” who are “cast out” and “thrown out” and “go away into eternal punishment” and are “thrown into” the lake of fire.²²

Because they are banished, the wicked are “destroyed,” that is, ruined for their original purpose of eternal friendship with God. Destruction isn’t eternal annihilation; it’s eternal alienation—total and everlasting separation from God.

There is complete harmony with each of these texts. Not surprisingly, these details come from the New Testament, completely in keeping with our rule regarding progressive revelation. The Old Testament gives us part of the picture; the New Testament provides the rest.

How do conditionalists respond? Since it’s difficult to take exception with the plain sense of 2 Thess. 1:9 read in context, conditionalists contest the translation. They contend the Greek should not be rendered “away from” but rather “comes from,” that God’s presence is the source of the destruction with nothing said about location. Note conditionalist Pere Grice: “The conditionalist reading is that the glorious presence and power of the Lord causes the punishment of destruction, which is everlasting because it is God’s permanent judgment.” ²³

This simply will not work. Virtually all modern translations render the Greek as “away from,” “separated from,” or “shut out from” for good reason. Paul quotes Is. 2:10 here. In the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul is probably quoting from here—the Greek is almost ­identical. Isaiah describes the wicked hiding “from the terror of the Lord and from the splendor of His majesty.” That’s spatial language. The translators have not erred.

There is no safe harbor for conditionalists with this move. Paul speaks clearly. The plain sense of the passage makes common sense. No need to add any other sense to it.

Life and Death

Conditionalists frequently make what they think is an obvious point: Christians live forever (i.e., have eternal life) and the dead die forever (i.e., cease to exist). They say that on the traditionalists’ view, though, the “dead” don’t die, and the wicked get eternal life.

Note how conditionalists have expressed their concerns: “Eternal life is made possible and received only through Christ”²⁴ and, “Everlasting life is existence that continues without end, and everlasting death is destruction without end,”²⁵ and, “The word ‘death’ has in Scripture its natural meaning of the extinction of life”²⁶ or the “end of existence,”²⁷ and, “It would be hard to imagine a concept more confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying.”²⁸

These statements are an interesting mixture of both truth and confusion. First, the truth. We would never deny that eternal life is made possible only through Christ. We also can’t deny, for example, that “death is the cessation of life” or that “everlasting life is existence that continues without end.” Of course death means dying, just like “those who suffer destruction are destroyed.” We cannot take exception here either since both phrases are, once again, mere tautologies. Those observations take us nowhere. That’s part of the confusion.

The key issue for us is the biblical meanings of “death” and “eternal life” (as opposed to everlasting life). The idea that everyone exists forever does not mean, as one put it, “Everyone has eternal life!”²⁹ That is not the way the biblical writers use that term.

So, what is the meaning the biblical authors employ for these words?

First, the phrase “eternal life” is a term of art—it has a specialized meaning in biblical use that is different from our ordinary understanding of the words. Jesus tells us, famously, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (Jn. 17:3).

For Jesus, the point of eternal life was not the duration of existence, but the quality of relationship. Eternal life, then, is the Christian’s present, precious possession of an intimate friendship with God that never ends. This is Jesus’ definition, in context. It does not follow, though, that other human beings—the damned—do not have everlasting existence. Again, that must be determined on other grounds.

It is clear that John intends us to understand Jesus’ words this way, since he uses the same grammatical structure in other passages: “This is my commandment, that you love one another” (Jn. 15:12), and, “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 Jn. 6), and, “The testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:11).³⁰

In Scripture, eternal life simply is not a synonym for “everlasting existence,” so it is a mistake to force that meaning on it. Neither, as it turns out, does “death” mean non-existence. It refers, instead, to a kind of separation. In physical death the soul is separated from the body, so the body expires, but the soul lives on. In spiritual death the person is estranged from God, but the person lives on.

In the garden, God told Adam and Eve, “In the day that you eat from [the tree] you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Clearly, though, they did not die physically on the day they disobeyed. They “died” in a different way. Their relationship with God was severed. Separation of man from relationship with God is what God Himself calls a death.

This concept of separation fits the biblical teaching of both life and death in our relationship to God. In the New Testament, those who do not know God are spiritually “dead in…transgressions and sins,” even though they may be physically alive (Eph. 2:1). Conversely, Christians are “alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), even though they may be physically dead (like the martyrs in Rev. 6:10-11). This biblical understanding of death and life also meshes perfectly with Rom. 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And if “death” does not mean destruction in the sense of annihilation, then “everlasting death” does not mean everlasting annihilation. That meaning must also be determined on other grounds.

There are many other examples such as this, but these are adequate to answer the only question that matters regarding the conditionalists’ concern: Are the terms “death” and “eternal life” as used in the Bible synonymous with annihilation and everlasting existence, respectively? Clearly the answer is no. So, again, it is a mistake to force those meanings on them to justify conditionalism.

Put simply, the classical view fits the plain sense and the common sense, so far, of all of the passages in question. Therefore, there is no need to strain at finding any other sense (e.g., conditionalism/annihilationism). That move is an artificial one, considering the author’s meaning in those texts.

In “Hell Interrupted Part 3,” we will look closely at the book of Revelation, which presents—by the conditionalists’ own admission—the most powerful evidence for the traditional view. Consistent with the pattern of progressive revelation, the final word will be the last word.

¹ Available in enhanced digital form at str.org.

² Col. 1:16-17, Acts 17:31.

³ Heb. 6:1-2.

⁴ Please note that, though we think our case is strengthened by the general consensus of the church over the ages, it is not the basis for our view. Rather, we’re convinced Scripture teaches eternal torment, and so we argue here. Thus, dissenting voices from the past in themselves have no bearing on our argument.

⁵ Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, 25:41, 46; Lk. 13:27-28.

⁶ Rev. 14:9-11, 20:10, 15.

⁷ It’s the text I (Koukl) was assigned as a grad student at Talbot seminary.

⁸ Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 264.

⁹ Ibid, 264.

¹⁰ Ibid, 298.

¹¹ Ibid, 325.

¹² Ibid, 586.

¹³ Ibid, 586.

¹⁴ Clark Pinnock in Rethinking Hell: Reading in Evangelical Conditionalism, ed. Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books), 64.

¹⁵ Ibid, 79.

¹⁶ Ibid, 51.

¹⁷ D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 522.

¹⁸ Simply saying the same thing twice in a different way.

¹⁹ Douglas Moo in Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 105.

²⁰ Rethinking Hell, 64.

²¹ Strictly speaking, all we have to show is that earthly judgment is a reasonable understanding of these texts and that annihilation is not required, though we think our case is much stronger than that.

²² Matt. 8:12, 25:30, 41, 46 and Rev. 20:15.

²³ http://rethinkinghell.com/2016/11/annihilation-in-2-thessalonians-19-part-1-destroyed-by-the-glory-of-his-manifest-presence/.

²⁴ Glenn Peoples in Rethinking Hell, 12.

²⁵ Philip Hughes in Rethinking Hell, 162.

²⁶ Basil Atkinson in Rethinking Hell, 114.

²⁷ Harold Guillebaud, in Rethinking Hell, 162.

²⁸ Philip Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1989), 403.

²⁹ Glenn Peoples in Rethinking Hell, 12.

³⁰ Note the present tense here.

Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. Peace to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. (Ephesians 6:21-24 NET)

What are attributes of godly soldiers?

It is no accident that Paul mentions himself and Tychicus right after teaching about spiritual warfare and the armor of God. These men are models of war-torn, decorated soldiers from whom we can learn much. If we are going to fight this spiritual war well, we must model godly soldiers like Paul and Tychicus.

Tychicus is briefly mentioned only five times in Scripture.¹ His name actually means “lucky.”² Many believe he was a convert from Paul’s ministry in Ephesus because he is first mentioned in Acts 20:4, at the end of Paul’s missionary work there.³ From there, he accompanied Paul on many missionary journeys, and was sent to relieve Timothy as the pastor over Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12) during Paul’s second imprisonment. He was probably also sent to Crete to relieve Titus (Tit 3:12).

In this text, Paul sends Tychicus on a mission to complete two duties. He was to deliver the Ephesian letter (Eph 6:21), and also the Colossian and Philemon letters (cf. Col 4:7-8). In addition, he was to inform the Ephesian church (and probably other Asian churches) of Paul’s situation, and to encourage them (Eph 6:22).

Since Tychicus was probably an Ephesian convert, the church knew him well, just as they knew Paul well. No doubt, these two soldiers inspired the Ephesians to stand strong in spiritual warfare. As we study these two men in the final section of Ephesians, we will consider attributes of godly soldiers—ones worth modeling.

Big Questions: What attributes of godly soldiers can we discern from Paul’s description of Tychicus, and from his benediction? How can we model these attributes in our spiritual lives?

Godly Soldiers Are Loving

Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing. (Ephesians 6:21 NET)

Paul describes Tychicus in many different ways, but the first way is with the word “dear” or it can be translated “beloved.” He calls him a dear brother. This certainly means that Paul and the Ephesians loved Tychicus. However, it probably also means that his character was loving. Steve Cole’s insight on this is helpful. He says,

He could have called him just a “brother,” but he adds this word, beloved. It shows that Tychicus was a warmly relational man. He wasn’t cold and aloof. He wasn’t brusque and insensitive. He wasn’t grumpy and difficult to be around. He was beloved. When Paul used that word to describe Tychicus, everyone who knew him would have nodded and thought, “Yes, he is a dear, loving man. We love him dearly ourselves!”⁴

How would people describe you? Are you loving and relational? Do you take time to get to know people in the church and do they know you? If not, that probably says more about you than it does about the church.

Christian soldiers are not hardened like many other war veterans; they are deeply loving and relational. Hebrews 10:24-25 says this:

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Godly soldiers are not only loving, but they also constantly seek to help others love as well. In fact, Jesus says, “by this all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).

Are you constantly considering how to stir others to love God and others more? Are you continually gathering with the saints out of sincere love for them? This is the character of a godly soldier—a beloved brother or sister.

Application Questions: How is God calling you to become more loving in your relationship with the body of Christ? In what ways should we demonstrate this love?

Godly Soldiers Are Faithful

Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing. (Ephesians 6:21 NET)

Paul calls Tychicus a “faithful servant” here, and a “dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord” in Colossians 4:7, emphasizing just how faithful Tychicus was.

Interpretation Questions: What does the term “faithful” mean? How was this exemplified in Tychicus’ character, and how should we model it?

1. To be faithful means to be honest.

Tychicus was a man whose “yes” meant yes and whose “no” meant no (cf. James 5:12). People could count on him. This is why Paul called him to relieve other pastors in ministry. He relieved Timothy at Ephesus and probably Titus at Crete. He also was entrusted with carrying the Scriptures to various churches.

Can people trust you? Does your “yes” mean yes and your “no” mean no? Are you honest? Godly soldiers are honest.

2. To be faithful means to faithfully use one’s gifts to serve God and others.

No doubt, Tychicus had the gifts of helps—wherever there was a need, he lent a helping hand. He probably had the gift of teaching, as he relieved pastors, and probably the gift of encouragement, as he was sent to encourage the Ephesians. He was not one of those Christians who are content sitting on the bench and not getting in the game (cf. Matt 25:24-28). He was using every ounce of his person to serve Christ and to faithfully use his gifts.

Paul instructs Timothy to “fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Timothy 1:6). We each have a responsibility to find out what our spiritual gifts are and to cultivate them to their maximum potential. Is your gift serving? Serve. Is it teaching? Teach. Is it evangelism? Evangelize.

Are you faithfully using your gifts? When Christ returns, he will reward those who have done so (Matt 25:21).

3. To be faithful means to persevere through difficulties.

Tychicus was a man who did not give up easily. Not only did he accompany Paul on his missionary journeys, he was with Paul during his imprisonment in Rome even though it might have meant his own imprisonment and death. He was also with Paul during the second imprisonment, when Paul sent him to relieve Timothy (2 Tim 4:12). Tychicus was the kind of friend who would be right next to you while you were sick, or going through bankruptcy, divorce, or even death.

In fact, he was not only beside Paul, he no doubt often suffered with Paul, simply by being associated with him. Many of the difficulties that Paul recounts in 2 Corinthians 11:23-33—shipwreck, stoning, beatings, sleeplessness, hunger and more—must have also happened to Tychicus. He faithfully persevered through many difficulties while serving Christ and others.

Many Christians want to quit at the first sign of trouble. They got in a fight with their small group leader, their pastor hurt them, or the music director changed the worship music—so they abandon their church or ministry. These Christians are not faithful—they don’t persevere. No doubt, Tychicus experienced all this (and some) and yet faithfully persevered.

Are you faithful when encountering difficulties, or are you a quitter?

Here is a great illustration that demonstrates the importance of faithfulness:

“In the eleventh century, King Henry III of Bavaria grew tired of court life and the pressures of being a monarch.  He made application to Prior Richard at a local monastery, asking to be accepted as a contemplative and spend the rest of his life in the monastery.

“Your Majesty,’ said Prior Richard, “do you understand that the pledge here is one of obedience?  That will be hard because you have been a king.”

“I understand,” said Henry.  “The rest of my life I will be obedient to you, as Christ leads you.”

“Then I will tell you what to do,” said Prior Richard. “Go back to your throne and serve faithfully in the place where God has put you.”

When King Henry died, a statement was written: “The king learned to rule by being obedient.”

When we tire of our roles and responsibilities, it helps to remember God has planted us in a certain place and told us to be a good accountant or teacher or mother or father. Christ expects us to be faithful where he puts us, and when he returns, we’ll rule together with him.” ⁵

Godly soldiers are faithful—they are trustworthy, they use their gifts fully, and they persevere through difficulties. How about you?

Application Questions: In what ways is God calling you to grow in faithfulness? How is he calling you to persevere in your current situation? What gifts is he calling you to cultivate and use? Are there any current challenges to your integrity?

Godly Soldiers Are Servants

Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing. (Ephesians 6:21 NET)

Paul also describes Tychicus as a servant. Godly soldiers faithfully serve Christ and others. It has been said that in every church there are two types of people. One type thinks, “Here I am church! Meet my needs!” These people often leave disheartened because the church failed them in some way. The second type asks, “How can I serve this church? What are the needs and how can I meet them?” Like Christ, they don’t come to be served, but to serve others (Mark 10:45).⁶

Which type are you?

Tychicus did menial tasks like delivering letters to various churches. Many pastors would say, “I didn’t go to seminary for this! Somebody else can do it!” However, Tychicus was willing to serve by performing small tasks, and also big tasks like pastoring a church when Titus or Timothy wasn’t around.

I think that marks true servants—they essentially say, “What is the need? I’ll do my best to meet it or find someone who can.” And one day, Christ will say to them, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness.” (Matt 25:21).

Are you a servant? Godly soldiers serve God and others.

Application Questions: What are some other characteristics of good servants? How is God calling you to grow in servanthood?

Godly Soldiers Are Encouragers

I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. (Ephesians 6:22 NET)

The last characteristic we can discern about Tychicus is that he was an encourager. Paul sent him to Ephesus to encourage the saints. Again, he had been with Paul during his imprisonment—keeping him company, serving him, and encouraging him when he was feeling down. No doubt Paul knew from his own experience that Tychicus would be very helpful at encouraging the Ephesians, who were probably discouraged by Paul’s sufferings (cf. Eph 3:13) and the persecution happening to them and other believers.

Application Questions: How would Tychicus encourage them? How can we encourage others when they are discouraged or going through trials?

1. We encourage others by coming alongside them.

Encourage is from the Greek word “parakaleo,” which means “to come alongside for help.”⁷ It is related to the word Christ used for the Holy Spirit in John 14:16. The Holy Spirit is our paraclete—our counselor, our advocate, and our helper.

If we are going to encourage others, the first step is to simply come beside them. Often we are afraid because we don’t know what to say or do when somebody is hurting or struggling—so we say and do nothing. We must remember that the first step is just to be there for them. When Job’s friends just sat in silence with him while he mourned (cf. Job 2:11-13)—they did well.

How else should we encourage others?

2. We encourage others by listening to them.

3. We encourage others by praying for them.

4. We encourage others by sharing God’s Word with them.

Application Question: Share a time God used somebody to really encourage you.

Godly Soldiers Are Disciplers

Peace to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. (Ephesians 6:23-24 NET)

It was the custom for correspondents in the ancient world to end their letters with a wish for the readers’ health and happiness, typically invoking the names of the gods. Paul doesn’t abandon this tradition, but he Christianizes it. Instead of a wish, he gives a benediction—a prayer for blessing. ⁸

However, this benediction is more than just a benediction—it is a summary of many of the rich themes in the epistle.⁹ Paul prays that God will enable the Ephesians to internalize these truths so that they can look more like Christ.

And this is true for all godly soldiers—one of their primary focuses in life is helping others know and look more like Christ. Again, as we look at the blessings, they demonstrate the major truths in Ephesians.

Observation Question: What blessings does Paul pray for the Ephesians and how are they demonstrated throughout the book?

1. Paul prays for Ephesians to have peace.

No doubt this pictures the believers’ peace with God. However, it also pictures their peace with one another, a primary theme throughout the book of Ephesians, especially in chapter 2. Paul teaches that Christ made the Jew and Gentile one by breaking the dividing wall of the law to unite them and becoming their peace (cf. Eph 2:14-17).

Paul prays that the Ephesians will not be divided by race, ethnicity, or tradition, but that they will truly be one in Christ. This should be true of us as well.

Are you walking in peace with others?

2. Paul prays for the Ephesians to have love.

In Ephesians 1:15, Paul declares how he heard about the Ephesians’ “love for all the saints.” It’s one thing to love some saints, but to love all the saints is special. Though they already excelled in love, he calls for them to imitate God and further live a life of love, just as Christ loved and died for us (Eph 5:1-2).

Are you loving others sacrificially?

3. Paul prays for the Ephesians to have faith.

This word is used seven other times in this small epistle.¹⁰ Paul wants them to develop a deeper trust in God regardless of their circumstances, and also to trust in God’s Word—believing his promises. Kent Hughes paraphrases the aspect of faith in Paul’s benediction this way, “Ease back and rest on what you believe. Put your whole weight on it.”¹¹

Are you growing in your trust in God and his Word? Are you putting all your weight on Christ in every circumstance? First Peter 5:7 says, “Cast your cares upon the Lord for he cares for you.”

4. Paul prays for the Ephesians to have grace.

This is the twelfth occurrence of the word “grace” in the letter.¹² It is used in the introduction (Eph 1:2, 6), closing, and throughout the letter. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

However, we are not just saved by grace. John 1:16 says, “For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (ESV). God continually pours grace on believers, especially as we are obedient to him—grace upon our marriages, families, work, and churches. This should be our hope and prayer for all who call on Christ—grace upon grace—unmerited favor upon unmerited favor. As James 4:6 says, “he gives us more grace.”

Are you daily seeking his renewed grace?

Godly soldiers are continually seeking the spiritual maturity of others. They desire other believers’ lives to be full of peace, love, faith, and grace.

Application Questions: Why is discipleship so important? What spiritual leaders have most influenced your spiritual life in a positive manner? Who has God called you to disciple?

Godly Soldiers Are Intercessors

Peace to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. (Ephesians 6:23-24 NET)

Not only can we see Paul’s heart for discipleship in his benediction, but also his heart for prayer. In Ephesians 6:18-20 Paul has just described the need to pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all types of prayer—and what he taught, he practiced. He prays for the Ephesians in chapters 1 and 3, and now again in closing. He prays for peace, love, faith and grace over the church. This is the practice of all godly soldiers—they are faithful intercessors.

Where worldly soldiers put confidence in their strength, training, and knowledge, godly soldiers understand they are unequipped even for mundane tasks—only God’s grace and strength will do. Therefore, they are constant in prayer.

Are you praying and interceding for others in this battle? Ezekiel 22:30-31 says,

“I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

God seeks those who will faithfully intercede for others in order to preserve them from destruction and lead them into blessing. Isaiah 62:6-7 says,

I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the LORD, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem and makes her the praise of the earth.

Brothers and sisters, give our Lord no rest as you intercede for kings, presidents, business people, wives, mothers, children, churches, communities, and nations. Give him no rest until he makes our world fully his own. This is the heart and practice of godly soldiers—like Paul, they are intercessors.

Application Questions: How would you rate your prayer life on a scale of 1 to 10, and why? What are some good practices to help us grow in intercession?

Conclusion

What are attributes of godly soldiers—ones worth modeling—as revealed in Tychicus and Paul?

1. Godly soldiers are loving.
2. Godly soldiers are faithful.
3. Godly soldiers are servants.
4. Godly soldiers are disciplers.
5. Godly soldiers are Intercessors.

Copyright © 2016 Gregory Brown

Unless otherwise noted, the primary Scriptures used are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NET) are taken from the NET Bible ® copyright © 1996-2016 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV or AKJV are from the King James Version or Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations and commentators’ quotations have been added.

¹ Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 262). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

² Accessed 12/05/2015 from https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-63-caring-church-ephesians-621-24

³ Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 262). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

⁴ Accessed 8/17/16 from https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-63-caring-church-ephesians-621-24

⁵ Teacher's Outline and Study Bible - Commentary - Teacher's Outline and Study Bible – Ephesians: The Teacher's Outline and Study Bible.

⁶ Accessed 12/06/2015 from https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-63-caring-church-ephesians-621-24

⁷ Accessed 12/05/2015 from https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-63-caring-church-ephesians-621-24

⁸ Stott, J. R. W. (1979). God’s new society: the message of Ephesians (pp. 289–290). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

⁹ MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (p. 385). Chicago: Moody Press.

¹⁰ Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 266). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 

¹¹ Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 266). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

¹² Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 266). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.