IMPOSSIBLE APOSTASY?No. 5 H. E.Phillips
In a previous article in this series I stated that
any reasonable study of I John 3:9 must consider
three questions: (1) Who is born of God? (2) What
does "cannot commit sin" — "cannot sin" mean ?
(3) What does "for his seed remaineth in him" have
to do with "he cannot sin?"
Concerning the first question, the term "born of
God" (KJV) is found six times: I John 2:29; 3:9;
4:7; 5:1; 5:4; 5:18. In the last article I John 4:7
was studied. Now for the three verses in I John 5.
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loveth him thatbegat loveth him also that is begotten of him" (vs.1). The love of one's brother has been the theme from early in this epistle. Here the Holy Spirit saysthat "every one" that loves God, also loves the childof God. Verse 2 makes it clear.
The one (whosoever) "believeth" that Jesus is the
Christ is born of God. Literally, he has been born
from God. But is not belief that Jesus is the Christ
a condition to become a child of God ? Is it not a con
dition rather than a fruit? It certainly is! Philip
told the eunuch that he could be baptized if he be
lieved and he said: "I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). Paul told the jailor to
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:21). "For God
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Jesus
said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved" (Mark 16-16).
How is it then that whosoever "believeth" in
I John 5:1 has been "born from God?" The tense of
the terms used and the context shows that the iden
tity of the child of God is under consideration and
not the conditions by which one is born of God. The
one who "continues on to believe that Jesus is the Christ" is the one who "has been born from God."
Lenski refers to I John 3:23 where the same word is used, and he says of the present tense: "The lat
ter means that we 'ever continue believing' just as
the next present tense says that we 'ever continueloving.' "
The one who "believeth" (who comes to believe
through the word of truth) have the power (right)
to become the sons of God ( John 1:12). He exercises
this power when he obeys the conditions set forth by
the Lord to become a child of God. "For as many as
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God" (Rom. 8:14). The context shows that the one
who is led by the Spirit is the one who "walks" or
"obeys" the things of the Spirit. That one who
comes to believe that Jesus is the Christ is led by
the Spirit to repent, confess Christ with the mouth
and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts
2:38; Rom. 6:3-5; Rom. 10:9,10).
But I John 5:1 refers to the "whosoever" that
continues to believe that Jesus is the Christ has
been born from God. He gives proof that he is the
son of God by continuing to believe just as he con
tinues to love his brother.
Why does he say that one to continues to believethat Jesus is the Christ has been born from God? Does not this infer that one who came to believe can cease believing? Yes, and the word of God so teaches. Some elements of Calvinism deny this and that is why this verse is so perverted. Some can depart from the faith (I Tim. 4:1). "Take heed,brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heartof unbelief, in departing from the living God. Butexhort one another daily, while it is called Today;lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" (Heb. 3:12,13).
Take heed is a warning implying some danger.
That danger is having an evil heart of unbelief in
departing from the living God. If one cannot depart
from God what sense does this warning make ? The
unbeliever (one who has never believed) could not
depart from the living God because he has never
been with Him. This departing is in unbelief. One
who believed departs from the living God when he
becomes an unbeliever. When he departs in unbelief
he sins and is not bearing the fruit of one born from
God as in I John 5:1.
That person under consideration in I John 3:9 is
the one who has been born from God as evidenced
by his life of love for his brother and continuingbelief that Jesus is the Christ.
I John 5:4,5 helps us understand this verse. "Forwhosoever is born of God (has been born from God)overcometh the world: and this is the victory thatovercometh the world, even our faith. Who is hethat overcometh the world, but he that believeth (continuing to believe) that Jesus is the Son ofGod?" If this does not make verse 1 clear, I do not know how language could do so. We overcome, beingborn of God, by our faith, and this faith is that
Jesus is the Son of God.
The KJV says whosoever is born of God "doth notcommit sin" and he "cannot sin." The ASV says
whosoever is begotten of God "doeth no sin" and he
"cannot sin." "Doth not commit sin" or "doeth not
sin" does not say inability to sin, but is not or does
not sin.
Westcott & Hort Greek Text has the expression:
"hamartian ou poiei" and Berry's Greek-English In
terlinear gives the literal English as: "sin not prac
tices." The meaning is that everyone born of God is
not continuing to practice sin. You could wring the
last drop of meaning out of this expression in the
original and never come up with the idea that onewho has been born cannot possibly commit sin.
Man is always a free moral being with the powerof choice just as long as he is responsible to Godfor his life. If the above expression means that the one born of God cannot possibly sin, it would haveto be for one of two reasons: he cannot physicallyand mentally commit sin, in which case he wouldlose his power of choice between good and evil; orGod will save him without condition. If there are conditions to salvation in heaven, and if man has achoice between obeying or disobeying these conditions, man can sin and be lost any where along the
span of life from responsibility to death.
W. E. Vine says of the term used here: "The
Apostle John, in his Epistles, uses the continuous
tenses of poieo, to indicate a practice, the habit of
doing something, e.g., I John 3:4 (the V.A., 'com
mitteth' and 'commit' in I John 3:8 and 9, e.g., is
wrong; 'doeth' R.V., in the sense of practicing, is the meaning)."
Perhaps a few translations will help us see the sense in the original. Rotherham's Emphasised Bible says of I John 3:9: "Whosoever hath been born of God is not committing sin, because a seed ofhim within him abideth; and he cannot be committing sin, because of God hath he been born." The New American Standard Bible New Testament: "No one who is born of God practices sin, because Hisseed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God." Berkeley Version of the New Testament: "Every
one who has been born of God commits no sin, for
a sperm divine remains within him; having been
born of God, he cannot practice sinning." James
Moffatt's Translation: "Anyone who is born of God
does not commit sin, for the offspring of God re
main in Him, and they cannot sin, because they are
born of God."
Baptist doctrine is the most ardent advocate of
impossible apostasy, and I John 3:9 is usually the
most important passage in trying to prove that one
born of God cannot possibly sin so as to be lost in
hell. The New Testament translation by Charles B.
Williams is perhaps the greatest thorn in the side
of Baptist preachers in arguing their position on
I John 3:9. This translation is published by Moody
Press and bears the recommendation of a number of
scholars in the Baptist Church. In the Introduction,
Edward A. McDowell of The Southern Baptist Theo
logical Seminary, Louisville, Ky., wrote: "I think
that the translation of the New Testament by Dr.
C. B. Williams is one of the best English transla
tions in existence. This translation gives the most
accurate rendering of the Greek text of any transla
tion with which I am acquainted."
J. R. Mantey, Department of New Testament Interpretation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill., said: "Dr. Williams has also brought out clearly John's meaning in I John 3:8 and 9 by indicating the progressive action implied in the Greek present tense: 'Whoever practices sin belongs to the devil. . . No one born of God makes
a practice of sinning.' "
William's Translation renders I John 3:9 as fol
lows: "No one who is born of God makes a practice
of sinning, because the God-given life-principle con
tinues to live in him, and so he cannot practice sin
ning because he is born of God."
The Holy Spirit does not say in I John 3:9 that itis impossible for the one born of God to sin. He sayshe does not keep on sinning. Verse 6 says: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.. ." What if he foes not abide in Christ, does he continue to sin not ?[John 5:18 explains still further: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not" — the fruit of being born of God is that one does not keep onsinning — "but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." He keeps himself; that is the reason he does not keepon committing sin.
I John 3:9 says: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin .. ." This simple phrase deals withthe cause and effect. The one born of God acts in a ray consistent with this relationship with God. Toparaphrase these verses in I John that tell what one born of God does, we have the following:
Every one that has been born from God "doeth
righteousness" (2:29). Every one that has been
born from God "doth not commit sin" (3:9). Every
one that has been born from God "loveth" and
"knoweth God" (4:7). Every one that has been born
from God "believeth that Jesus is the Christ" (5:1).
Every one that has been born from God "overcom
eth the world" (5:4). Every one that has been born
from God "sinneth not" and "keepeth himself"
(5:18).
Not one of the passages imply the impossibilityof one not to do what is stated of one born of God. It is possible for a child of God to sin, but it is notpossible for him to do so and remain consistent withbeing born of God. "My little children, these thingswrite I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, JesusChrist the righteous" (I John 2:1). This is addressed to the children of God. This was written that they sin not, but if they sin — showing the possibility of a child of God sinning. John says: "If we (including himself) say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" — "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar,and his word is not in us" (I John 1:8,10). I do not see how these verses could have any meaning at allif I John 3:9 means that a child of God can not pos
sibly sin.
The last part of I John 3:9 says: "... for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God." The reason why he "cannot sin" is
that the seed remains in him and he is born of God.
"Cannot sin" does not mean total inability, as we
have seen from these other verses in I John.
Maybe we can see this if we use another subjectin about the same language. "Whosoever is of normal weight does not gain weight; for he is on a diet:and he cannot gain weight, because he does not overeat." Now, can one of normal weight gain weight? Yes. But he cannot remain at normal weight andgain weight at the same time. It is physically possible for him to gain weight, but he cannot do so and remain at normal weight. But why does that one ofnormal weight not gain weight? Because he is on a diet. But can he leave that diet and gain weight? Yes. But as long as he is on that diet he will not gain weight. He can not gain weight because he does notover eat.
The "seed" that remains in one born of God is that word by which he was begotten (I Cor. 4:15).Paul said, "for in Christ Jesus I have begotten youthrough the gospel." Jesus explained the parable ofthe sower and said, "Now the parable is this: Theseed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11). Peter said,"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth andabideth for ever." "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (I Pet. 1:23,25). "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee" (Psa. 119:11). If the word of God, theincorruptible seed, remains in the heart of that oneborn of God, he will not be sinning — he will not
continue to practice sin.This is clearly taught in the book of Romans."There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after theflesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:1). This doesnot say that those who are in Christ Jesus and walkafter the Spirit cannot cease to so walk. It stateswhen there is no condemnation: "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.""For they that are after the flesh do mind thethings of the flesh; but they that are after the Spiritthe things of the Spirit. For to be carnally mindedis death; but to be spiritually minded is life andpeace. Because the carnal mind is enmity againstGod: for it is not subject to the law of God, neitherindeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:5-8). Can a spiritually minded person become carnal minded? To the church at Corinth who were "sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (I Cor. 1:2), Paul wrote:"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as untospiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes inChrist." "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas thereis among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (I Cor. 3:1,3).A child of God may become carnal minded and the end is death. "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For ifye live after the flesh, ye shall die:" (Rom. 8:12,13).As long as one walks after the Spirit he has no condemnation. But he may become carnal and cease towalk after the Spirit.The "seed" is the word of God. We are begotten
by the gospel, which is the word of God (I Cor.
4:15). When Jesus explained the parable of the
sower, he said: "The seed is the word of God" (Luke
8:11). Peter wrote: "Being born again, not of cor
ruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth forever" (I Pet.
1:23). In the last verse of this chapter he said: "But
the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is
the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
When the word of God (the seed) abides in one
born of God, he does not commit sin. It is when the
word does not abide in the person that he sins. In
Romans 8:1 the Holy Spirit said: "There is there
fore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit." But does this say that once a man starts
to walk after the Spirit he can never cease and turn
again to walk after the flesh? The whole book of
Romans and the New Testament is against this
view. Certainly one can cease to walk after the
Spirit, and when he does he falls under condem
nation.
Romans 4 and 5 teach justification by gracethrough faith in contrast to the works of the law.But grace in contrast to the law of Moses is a bodyof truth to be believed and obeyed. "For the law wasgiven by Moses, but grace and truth came by JesusChrist" (John 1:17). "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace,which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified" (Acts 20:32). "For the grace of God that bringethsalvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us ..."
(Titus 2:11,12). Since we are justified by grace, and grace teaches
— it is the word of God through His Son — it must
follow that this grace must abide in us if we are to
be justified by grace. So in the last verse of Romans
5 we find this: "That as sin hath reigned unto death,
even so might grace reign through righteousness
unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Sin sep
arates from God and brings a state of death (Eph.
2:1). But grace reigns through righteousness unto
eternal life.
Now what about this grace? Does it keep us regardless of our manner of life ? Romans 6 deals withthis very question, and it explains how and why theone born of God cannot commit sin when the seed
(word) remains in him.
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in
sin, that grace may abound? God forbid, How shall
we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"(Rom. 6:1,2).
If you will notice in this chapter, the inspired apostle is not teaching the impossibility of sin. He is
teaching that we cannot continue in sin because we
are dead to sin. But the very fact that he admon
ishes to yield your members to righteousness and
not to unrighteousness, shows the possibility of sin
ning. The point, however, is that when we are dead
to sin by the grace that reigns through righteous
ness (obedience to the commandments of God —
Rom. 10:1-3), we cannot continue to serve sin and
at the same time be alive to God by this grace. That
is the nature of the question: "Shall we continue in
sin, that grace may abound ?" Notice how this ques
tion is answered.
"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified withhim, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin" (vs. 6). Theold man (of sin) is put to death, crucified withChrist and buried with him by baptism into death,and this in order that the body of sin might be destroyed — all our sins forgiven — that henceforth (from now on), we should not serve sin. The reason is: "For he that is dead is freed from sin" (vs. 7).As Christ died to this life not to live in it any more,
"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead in
deed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your
mortal body, that ye should obey it in the luststhereof" (vs. 11,12).
We should not serve sin: "Let not sin therefore
reign in your mortal body." Why not? Because we
are dead to sin and should not continue to live in it.
When we allow the word of God to guide and govern
our lives, and "yield yourselves unto God, as
those that are alive from the dead, and your members asinstruments of righteousness unto God," we will notsin because his seed (word) remaineth in us, and we
cannot sin because we are born of God.
We do not sin when we obey the word. We cannot
keep sinning, "continue in sin" as before, because
we are dead to sin and alive to God. We do not sin
when the word abides in us, and we cannot sin as
one born of God. The only impossibility is to remain
as one born of God when we continue to sin.
The church has witnessed the formation of a new
denomination in its midst. The division is complete
and there is no fellowship between the original
church of Christ and the Institutional group that
has sprung up and adopted the various human insti
tutions among us.
For a time the proponents of these societies werewilling to defend what they were doing in public debate. But they have ceased to do so. In fact, one never hears a word from the Liberal Brethren about trying to defend what they are doing. It is next toimpossible to arrange a debate with one of them.The churches among them won't attempt a defense and the preachers among them are just as reluctantas are the churches. I am sure we know why.
It didn't take long for the people to see who had
the truth when the debating was going on. Guy N.
Woods rose up and it seemed that he would be happy
to continually defend their societies. But he folded
up and will not now even talk about debating the
issues. Others arose and engaged us in a number of
discussions. But they also decided to give up the
practice. The result is that there is no talk now of
any more debates.
The church of Christ always has been willing to
submit what they believed to a public discussion.
The church of Christ is STILL READY and willing
to do so. But, as has been the case many times, fac
tions arise and for a time try to defend their posi
tion. Failing, they decide that their cause is better
served by refusing to debate. Consequently, debates
with any of the factions in the church is just about
a thing of the past.
I would hate to hold a position that would not stand an investigation. I would hate to preach something that couldn't stand examination. I would hate to preach for a congregation that wouldn't defend its position on any subject. There is somethingwrong with a preacher, and a congregation, if theywill not defend what they teach. And there is something wrong with a doctrine if it cannot be defended.
— 3411 Royal Dr.
Owensbro, Ky. 42301
"BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH"
A DUAL PLAN
The scheme of redemption is dual in nature: it isboth divine and human. Consequently, the schemeof redemption involves dual activity: divine and human. The apostle Paul concisely expresses thisconcept in Eph. 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is thegift of God: Not of works, lest any man shouldboast."
THREE VIEWS OF EPH. 2:8,9
There are at least three views of Eph. 2:8,9. Manyaffirm that these verses teach salvation by grace alone without any human agency whatsoever. ThisCalvinistic view holds the theory of unconditionalelection, or, that( God has unconditionally electedsome to eternal life.
Others affirm that Eph. 2:8,9 teach that salvation
is by faith alone before and without any further acts
of obedience.
A third view, which I believe to be the Scriptural
view, holds that the expressions "by grace" and
"through faith" are both used in a comprehensive
sense; that "by grace" embraces all divine elements
and "through faith" embraces all human elements
in the scheme of redemption. This means, then, that
salvation is neither by grace alone nor by faith
alone.
FIRST VIEW
It appears on the very surface of Eph. 2:8,9 thatthe apostle is not teaching unconditional election,for these verses themselves say that salvation is "through faith." Since faith is an act of man (Rom.10:17), the verses under consideration cannot be teaching unconditional salvation.
It is often argued that if salvation is by grace it
cannot involve any human agency whatsoever; that
if man does anything in the plan of salvation, God's
grace is either lessened or nullified completely.
Surely, this logic would be used only in religion. All
believers concede that our physical blessings such
as food and raiment are provided by the grace of
God, but no believer argues that grace is lessened
when we appropriate these blessings. Why, then,
should God's grace in the scheme of redemption be
nullified simply because man appropriates that
grace? Does any believer argue that he is going to
quit eating, for fear he will nullify God's grace that
provided his food ? Does any believer reason that he
doesn't drink water lest he make void God's grace
Page 6
that provides his water ? Then, by what logic do believers reason that human agency in the scheme ofredemption will lessen God's grace in the matter? God's favor in the spiritual realm is no more lessened by human agency than that same grace in thephysical realm is lessened when we appropriate physical blessings.
SECOND VIEW
The idea that Eph. 2:8,9 teach salvation by faith alone is actually not consistent with what "faith alone" advocates really believe and teach. More ofthis will be seen in observing the third view ofEph. 2:8,9.
THIRD VIEW
First, we may see that "by grace" and "through
faith" are both comprehensive; that divine activity
and human obedience, respectively, are embraced in
these expressions. Second, we may see what consti
tutes this activity and obedience.
"BY GRACE"
All believers must admit that "by grace" cannotbe limited to one act or provision of God. To the contrary, all God has provided in order to man's salvation must be embraced in this expression. It is impossible to list here every divine element involved in redemption, but the few that follow willillustrate the present point. I Tim. 2:3 ascribes oursalvation to God. Matt. 1:21 attributes our redemption to Christ. Rom. 1:16 teaches that we are saved by the Gospel. Rom. 5:9,10 credit our salvation to
the life and to the blood of Christ. Surely, "by
grace" embraces these and every other divine pro
vision in the redemption of man.
"THROUGH FAITH"
"Through faith" in Eph. 2:8,9 cannot mean "through faith alone." The Bible nowhere uses the
phrases "by faith" and "through faith" to mean "by faith alone" and "through faith alone" when such faith to said to procure the blessings of God. To thecontrary, in such instances, the faith contemplated is always active. The eleventh chapter of Hebrewsproves this beyond question. A few cases in pointfrom Heb. 11 are the following: "Through faith we understand . . ."; "By faith Abel offered . . ." ;"By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark . .."; "By faith Abraham . .. obeyed . . ."; "Through faith he kept the passover..."
From the above instances it may be seen that certain activities were wrought. And yet, the Bible says
these activities were wrought by, or, through, faith.
We cannot, therefore, miss the point that "by faith"
and "through faith" in Heb. 11 contemplate activity.
"Through faith" in Eph. 2:8,9 is no exception to this
construction.
As further evidence of the fact that saving faith
embraces obedience we may note interchangeable
uses of "faith" and "obedience." In I Pet. 2:7 the
apostle describes those who lack faith as "disobe
dient." Paul tells us in Rom. 1:8 that the faith of
the Roman Christians was universally known. And
yet, in chapter 16:19 the apostle makes the same
comment in reference to their obedience. The Re
vised Version of John 3:36 describes the unbeliever
as one who "obeyeth not."
FAITH "ALONE": A CONTRADICTION
It was observed in a previous paragraph of this
article that the idea of salvation by faith alone is
actually not consistent with what "faith alone" ad
vocates really believe and teach. This is true, for
these advocates admit that saving faith cannot be
divorced from repentance; therefore, the faith of
Eph. 2:8,9 cannot be divorced from repentance;
therefore, "through faith" in Eph. 2:8,9 cannot
mean "through faith alone," inasmuch as it must
include repentance.
WHAT OBEDIENCE?
Acts 2, particularly verses 36 through 38, teachesthat the human activity involved in the plan of salvation is faith, repentance, and baptism. This obedience is "for" or "in order to" the remission of sins. "Through faith" in Eph. 2:8,9 must, therefore, embrace this obedience. Advocates of salvation by faith alone admit that repentance must be implied in Eph.2:8,9. But the logic that implies repentance in these verses will, and does, imply baptism also.
The Freed-Hardeman College Lectures in 1970 were on the theme "The Church Faces Liberalism." The lectures are in print and are worth reading. The list of speakers included some who have been in theforefront in defending the unauthorized agencies ofcentralization, or denominational machinery. Their work might remind one of the Christian Standardwhose writers worked so hard to defend and strengthen the American Christian Missionary Society, and then for decades sought to restrain the huge monster it had tended.
Herald of Truth, which these lecturers defendedso earnestly, will likely be as effective an instrumentof ultra-modernism as was the ACMS when the Christian Standard began to try to restrain it. Thewisdom of God is demonstrated in the fact that the church in New Testament times moved in its local capacity alone. That is, there were no central boardsor sponsoring churches. The church gave to the person at work, to the person in need, or to the eldersof the church in places of special distress. It hasbeen difficult for men of all ages to avoid trying toreorganize the church for the big display. The Lordknew that ten thousand little efforts would get moredone. Periods of rapid growth for the Lord's church have been periods without the "brotherhood" agencies. Mushrooming institutionalism has alwaysbrought digression, liberalism, division, and a serious slowing of the back to the Bible efforts. These central agencies were digressive themselves, andthey gave men much room to work toward broadening the narrow way of truth.
The latter half of the last century saw the Woman's Board of Foreign Missions, American Christian Missionary Society, Christian Endeavor, Ladies' Aid Societies, church supported schools, societies for benevolent work, etc. The elders had less and lessto do. They could distribute the money and givemoral support to these institutions of human originand be highly honored. Even Sunday Bible classesbecame organized edification societies with their own officers and treasuries. The liberalism, division, and the serious hindering of the worthy "back to the Bible" efforts, followed this turn back toward denominationalism. Brethren then were copying thedenominations rather than walking by faith.
The spirit of the institutionally minded brethrenin the last score of years has been identical with the spirit of the promoters in the last half of the lastcentury. The same arguments were made in bothperiods, with the same bitterness, and with the sameresults. The division is already here, and the digression has again been more popular than the simplicityof the Bible pattern. Some, who must be blind, saythat we will all get back together. They see littlereal difference between those who do their work through central agencies and those who do not. One big difference is the direction. We came to the forksof the road, and some went one way and some another. With the passing of the years the differencewill become much more conspicuous. Think, for example, of the "Disciples of Christ." They were ofus until they went out from us. In a few score yearsthey have gotten much closer to the sentiment and thinking of the Methodists than they are to us.Their movement began and continues as a back todenominationalism movement. They have landed in the confused mess of denominations of America.
There are many congregations that are still veryclose to the safe way. They made the wrong turn atthe forks, but they have not yet gone "way out" inthe entertainment and institutional craze. They willgo further because they refuse to be warned. Insome cases this prejudice against the "antis" is almost the only digression. Promoters of church support of entertainment and institutions have worked harder to "quarantine the antis" since the Gospel Advocate suggested it than they have in promoting their unauthorized schemes. These promoters and the devil know the churches will drift their way if the voices of those who would warn of thedanger can be silenced. The building of this soundproof wall is one of the most successful efforts putforth in the last two decades. It is also one of the most unfortunate things that has happened in these two decades as far as the souls of men are concerned.
In one of the Freed-Hardeman Lectures a youngman admitted that a few isolated little groups ofpeople he calls "antis" still meet, but he informs usthat they are withering away. Is he that ignorant,or is he dishonest? I suppose it is altogether ignorance. The sound-proof wall is very effective. He hasnot been where we have been, nor has he read whatwe have read. He has not met as many of the wonderful advocates of the old paths as we have met.The rebuilding process is taking place much fasterthan it did after the digression of the last century.He does not see these active, growing, and multiplying groups from his ivory tower. There are no windows on our side of his ivory tower. He does notknow us, and we do not know him. The "loyal brethren" do not know the "sound brethren!"
This young lecturer who spoke of these "isolatedgroups" that are withering seems to have someworthy principles of life. He does not like the arrogant and malicious traits of these offensive people("antis") who have cut their own throats. These "antis" are such extremists and they take away the true Christian's freedom by making laws that Godnever made. These fanatics were quick to draw theline of fellowship. Poor fellows! They cut themselves off from the main stream.
This young man does not seem to be dishonest.His ignorance is the outgrowth of the work of manyolder men who labored to cause him and others to get this view. Any who are arrogant and maliciousdeserve criticism for this. It seems that many, manytimes the remarks of the "mainstream" and "loyal"brethren have had the odor of malice and arrogance.It seems that they made a law that we must support "our institutions" or be kicked hard. We may havefelt our freedom restricted. We had no trouble deciding about the lines of fellowship. The lines weredrawn and pointed out to us in no uncertain terms.Things can appear so different from two sides of the fence. Honestly, this is sad and an occasion for tears,but there is little we can do about it because we are not likely to sit down together to talk, study, and pray. We will just get so far away from each otherthat we do not even hear of each other.
The young Saul of Tarsus could not at first see the arrogant, malicious, and offensive deceitfulnessof those cunning crafty Jews who stoned Stephen.He could see it all later. Let us all be ashamed of our hate. Are there any among our associates asarrogant and bitter as some of those Freed-Hardeman lecturers ? Let us then repent in sack cloth andashes. Another wall may be beginning to take shapeforetelling the day when the loyal friends of Freed-Hardeman will cry out earnesty against Lipscomb,Abilene and Pepperdine. Is Freed-Hardeman goingout for shortstop somewhere between home plate and the outfield ? These are sad days of confusion.
There has been a rather instructive axiom circu
lated over the years that says, "The pot shouldn't
call the kettle 'black.'" It may have been over
worked in past years, but it is nonetheless true. (We
should probably explain for many of my generation
that the old-time pot and kettle were both the same
color.) All such gleams of light radiate from the
Light of the world, and so it is in this case. Jesus
said, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall
be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:2).
THE KETTLE
is worldliness (loving to conform to the world ofsin). This worldly attitude of heart manifests itself
in the form of church-sponsored recreation, human
methods of church-cooperation, and general borrow
ing from the Denominational Storehouse. The Pot
will by no means tolerate, condone, or appear in the
same clothing (a misplaced, I think, figure of
speech) as the Kettle, at least in this matter.
Some Kettle preachers, elders, paper editors, col
lege leaders, teachers, parents, and others have tried
to make the subject of the present apostacy a "no-
no." (Some spoke and wrote out in certain places,
but found the audiences had been conditioned to quit
listening or reading at the mention of the subject;
others of the audience would smile that "knowing"
smile that says, "Oh, well, another crackpot.") The
Pot soon found that this spirit of compromise was byno means the exclusive possession of one region.Some of those who seemed to see the trend was
wrong simply said, "It's no use fighting." But the
Pot could not compromise. No, not even when the
cry was heard, "Well, there is just no clear state
ment in the Bible on these matters."
The Pot did then, and so continues, to cry, "The
Kettle is black! The Kettle is black! We will save
as many, or as few as we can. We cannot compro
mise or accept on unscriptural peace" (enter such
quotations as Micah 3:5-7). And rightly so.The phoney peacemakers ("We mustn't hurt any
one's feelings ... shh ... shh") had a host of ex
cuses, but not a single good argument. 1. "Most of
our 'leading preachers' approve." 2. "It's just a mat
ter of expediency and temporary methods." 3. "We
should let the elders make their own decisions for
the church." 4. "Some churches can't find the will
ingness to use the Bible way, so we will just substi
tute with this." The Pot issued a challenge: find one
unscriptural arrangement that hasn't been justified
with such excuses. And rightly so.The tolerating, condoning, and participating in
apostacy is ungodly and indefensible. The attitude
necessary for such compromise is unscriptural and
anti-scriptural. It is a ghastly blot upon the church
of Christ and a personal insult to Christ ("Ye have
done it unto me," the Savior says; his heart must
bleed to see such ingratitude and compromise).
Apostasy involves lack of respect for Christ, self,
and others. Shall such go unrepented of? If so, it
shall not go unpunished.
THE POT
is worldliness (loving to conform to the world ofsin). This worldly attitude of heart manifests itselfin the form of immodest dress tolerated ("We giveour children the correct information and then let them make their own choices"), condoned ("It's justa fad; why make a big thing out of it?"), and worn("I can't find anything else").
From my 15 years residence in Florida, I knowwell that this subject is a "no-no." (In fact, some ofthe readers who started this article are about ready to quit reading; others have smiled that "knowing"smile that says, "Oh, well, another crackpot.") Recent experiences in Alabama, Kentucky, and elsewhere show the spirit of compromise is by no meansthe exclusive possession of Florida.
Some preachers (and teachers and parents) simply give this retreat-from-modesty the silent treatment ("it's no use," we are told). Some would speak out, but they have voted with those brethren whose
lips drop with honey ("No one thinks anything about it, anyway, except the dirty-minded"), whose marching cry is, "Well, you just can't define modesty." Perhaps a quote from another source is inorder. "Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophetsthat make my people err, that bite with their teeth,and cry, Peace;... Therefore night shall be untoyou, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be
dark unto you . . ." (Micah 3:5-7).
The phoney peacemakers ("You'll hurt someone's
feelings") have a host of excuses, but not one single
good argument. Here is a fair sample. 1. "Everyone
around here has accepted it" (this ticket is good for
many points on the Worldly Tour; please present it
as you enter Las Vegas, Greenwich Village, and Can
nibal Island). 2. "It's just a fad" (so are drinking,
hard-rock music, drugs, shop-lifting, and even mug
ging in some communities). 3. "We let our children
make their own choices" (for those who wish a fav
orable discussion of this viewpoint, please consult
How I Raised Mine, 1st edition, by Dr. Eli, Flimsy
Press, Hadean World; price: your children's purity;
also see I Samuel 3:11-14 for additional comments).
4. "We can't find anything else" ("Who can find a
virtuous woman ... She maketh herself coverings,"
Prov. 31; yes, some things are just hard to find).
Challenge: find one immoral trend that could not be justified by these same excuses.The tolerating, condoning, and wearing of immod
dest dress is ungodly and indefensible. The attitude
necessary for such compromise is unscriptural and
anti-scriptural. It is a ghastly blot upon the church
of Christ and a personal insult to Christ ("Ye have
done it unto me," the Savior says; his heart must
bleed to see such ingratitude and compromise). Im
modest dress involves lack of respect for Christ, self,
and others. Shall such go unrepented of ("Bring
forth fruit in keeping with your repentance,"
Matt. 3) ??? If so, it shall not go unpunished. CHRIST SPOKE
to some pots who called kettles "black." He is stillspeaking today. By quoting his words, we are not judging anyone's motives; we are content to let The
Word do its own work in all our hearts, according to
our need. The paraphrases substitute modern Pots
for those of Christ's day, but the principles involved
are the same. "Hear ye him."
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again" (Matt. 7:2).
"Woe unto you," preachers and other brethren,for ye tolerate immodest dress and yet make longprayers for the purity of the church (Matt. 23).
"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say," Who
soever shall wear immodest dress, it is nothing; but
whosoever shall change the church, he is a debtor!
Whoso sinneth in one, sinneth against God; andwhoso sinneth in the other sinneth against God.
"Woe unto you," preachers and other brethren,
for ye know all the English words which refer to an
elder, the shade of difference in the Greek between
poimen and episcopos, and the precise limits of an
elder's oversight, and have omitted the great neces
sity of individual piety and personal purity (which
involves justice, mercy, and faithfulness, Matt. 23).
"Ye blind guides," which strain at too-regular
picnics on the grounds of the meeting-house, but
swallow a member who goes two-thirds naked to
public beaches or wears short dresses that reveal
more than this writer cares to say when they are
seated. Neither the gnat nor the camel should be
swallowed (Matt. 23).
"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the
things which I say?" (Luke 7:46).
And do we not even now hear the words yet to be
spoken echoing down the halls of the Final Court,
"Come, ye blessed of my Father — Depart from me,
ye cursed—" (Matt. 25). Let us urge one another
with all earnestness and love to hear him gladly
now, that we may together hear him gladly then!500 Chandler St. Athens, Ala. 35611
It would be a good thing if everyone could experience heartburn. I recommend that all my brethren get a strong case of heartburn. No, not the physicalkind, but the spiritual kind.
Listen to Luke's account of two men with spiritualheartburn: "And He said unto them, '0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?' And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, He expounded untothem in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself ... And their eyes were opened, and theyknew Him; and He vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, 'Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:2527 and 31, 32).
Can you imagine the thrill of hearing, in person,
the Lord Jesus "open the scriptures" to your ears?
The text says that Jesus began from Moses and all
the prophets and interpreted or explained to them
the scriptures regarding the Son of God. That, my
friends, was an infallible interpretation. These two
traveling to Emmaus had their hearts burn within
them as Jesus taught the scriptures to them. Here
was the Son of God explaining the Word of God.
We today can still have the thrill of "hungering
and thirsting after righteousness," and "being
filled." But how many of our brethren are truly ex
periencing this spiritual heartburn?
You ought to be happily afflicted with genuine
spiritual heartburn, or come eternity and you will
suffer a burn of another kind. How tragic. Eternity is
getting closer with every breath you take.
— 4349 Vassar
Port Arthur, Tex. 77640
THE GRACE OF GOD
Pryde E. Hinton
We can understand God's wrath toward man bet
ter than we can understand "the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge" (Eph. 3:19). I can un
derstand that my love for Him will finally overcome
my fear (I John 4:17,18). I understand that my love
for Him may be shown by my obeying His com
mandments (John 14:15). Perfect love would never
fail to keep His commandments. And yet, He has
promised to not remember my sins and my iniqui
ties (Heb. 8:12) :' "What wondrous love is this, for
my soul?" How could He love me that much? I shallwonder at this all of my life!
Even when we were sinners and enemies, God loved us enough to give His Son to die for our sinsagainst Him (Rom. 5:6-10) ! Please read this passage, if you do not know it. No wonder Paul said that He determined not to know any thing among the Corinthians but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (I Cor. 2:1-5). In I Cor. 15:1-4 Paul tells by theHoly Spirit that he had preached to them the gospel,wherein they stood, by which they were saved, andthat Christ died for their sins, was buried, and raised the third day, according to the Scriptures.Surely if we are saved, reconciled to God, by the
death of His Son, this is that which we should
preach to get people to come to Jesus in faith and
obedience, and be saved! What else do we have to
reconcile men to God? Read in Acts 2:22-36 what
the men on that Pentecost heard that pricked theirhearts.
I Peter 1:13 tells us that we shall be brought grace at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 4:15,16 tells us that upon certain conditions we shall receive mercy and grace, not to mention the grace by which we are saved from our sins (Eph. 2:7-9).We should also read Hebrews 2:9 and see that Jesus tasted death by God's grace for every man. I need all of this grace, because I know that even IF I couldand did obey all that He commands us, I would still be an unprofitable servant (Luke 17:10)—He wouldstill have to give me a home in that city foursquare,to which He has gone. May God help us to trust in His grace, mercy, and love, as well as fear lest Hehas left us a promise of which we fall short (Heb.4:1,2).
(Please study this article with an open Bible,preferably the American Standard Version which isused by the author as his basic text.)
"We preach Christ crucified," wrote Paul to the Corinthians. The apostolic message offered to theworld not the wonder working Messiah required byJews nor a philosopher Messiah to suit the wisdomseeking Greeks, but a crucified Messiah, one who saves from death by dying and seeks his crown bythe path of the cross.
But however such a Christ might disappoint Jewish expectation, the apostles and early evangelistswere insistent that just such a Christ was demandedby Old Testament prophecy. Their constant appealin preaching Jesus as the Christ was to what is written (cf., for example, Luke 24:44-47; Acts 3:18; 13:27-29; 26:22-23; I Cor. 15:3).
When Philip approached the Ethiopian treasurerhe found him reading in Isaiah about a mysterioussuffering servant of Jehovah. When the Ethiopianinquired about the application of this passage which had him thoroughly puzzled, Philip began at thatscripture and told him about Jesus.
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is one of the famous "servant passages" of Isaiah. Isaiah looks upon Israel as the servant of Jehovah when he thinks of God's purposein creating the nation and its divine mission in theworld (41:8-10; 44:1-2). But often he will turn fromsuch an ideal view and see Israel as it is. It is the servant of Jehovah, to be sure, but deaf and blind(42:18-20), sinful and in desperate need of redemption (44:21-23). But turning yet again from such a view, Isaiah comes to see the servant of Jehovah interms of an individual representative of the nation(42:1-9; 49:1-7), an individual bearing the nameIsrael (49:3), yet distinguished from the nation (49:5-6). Just as Jesus took upon himself humanform so that he might be the pioneer in and through whom fallen man rises to the exalted position intended for him by his Creator (Heb. 2:5-10), so thisindividual servant of Jehovah appears, as the Israelite indeed above all others and the perfect representative of the nation, to accomplish that wherein thenation has failed, to rescue a sinful people, and, forthe first time ever, perfectly to carry out the idealimplied in the name servant of Jehovah. It is thisindividual servant of Jehovah whose career is sketched in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
CHAP. 52, V. 13-15
The passage begins (52:13) and closes (53:12)with Jehovah himself speaking, telling of the glorious victory and exaltation of his servant. This first paragraph is a prelude or introduction to the wholepassage. The theme of the whole text, the exaltationof Jehovah's servant, is first presented in summary fashion in this introductory paragraph, and then elaborated in the chapter following.
Behold — an exclamation calling attention to something remarkable and worthy of notice.
my servant shall deal wisely — i.e., shall use wisdom in executing his mission. It is this wisdom which explains the success of his mission.
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be veryhigh — the necessary consequence of his dealing wisely. The prophet heaps up the terms, one on top of the other, to describe his exaltation. No one termis sufficient adequately to represent his super-exalted state.
Like as ... so. The relation between like as (beginning of v. 14) and so (beginning of v. 15) must beobserved. As this, so that. The idea is that one thingis proportionate to another. As was the astonishment of many at him due to his deep humiliation, sowill be the effect of his work in his exalted state.
many were astonished of thee — cf. Lev. 26:32; IKings 9:8; Jer. 18:16; 19:8; Ezek. 26:16; 27:35.
his visage ... sons of men — a parenthesis explaining the reason for the astonishment. His visage (or looks or appearance) was so marred (or disfigured) more than any man, or as the margin has it, literally, from that of man — i.e., his appearance was sodisfigured that he was hardly recognizable as a man.This disfigured appearance, Chap. 53 will make clear,was the consequence of his sufferings.
so shall he sprinkle many nations. For the relation between this clause and v. 14 indicated by the word so, see the comment on like as above. Running thereferences on the Hebrew verb for sprinkle reveals a uniform usage. It is used uniformly of sprinkling for the purpose of cleansing or expiation, most often as the action of a priest. As the servant will be viewed as a sacrifice (53:10), so is he here viewedas a priest, applying his blood for the cleansing ofthe nations. Note how his work is to apply to many nations and not just to the Jews.
kings shall shut their mouths at him — i.e., with
astonishment, in reverence and awe. Cf. Job 29:9;
40:4 on "shut mouths" and Isa. 49:7 on the whole
clause.
for that which had not been told them, etc. — the reason for their astonishment. They receive knowledge of that which they had not known before, something entirely new to them. The reference would appear to be to the Gentiles. Cf. Paul's application ofthe statement (Rom. 15:21).
CHAP. 53, V. 1-3
The prophet interrupts his account of the servant's exaltation and success to lament the fact that so few accept the message concerning the servant.He projects himself into the future and looks back upon the rejection of the message as if it were already past.
The prophecies concerning Jehovah's servant werenot believed, for which reason the servant is notrecognized as such when he appears. He does notfulfill the expectation of the people. His lowlinessand his sufferings cause him to meet with contemptand to be disregarded.
Who hath believed our message? So few credit the message that one must ask who believed it. The implication is, Nobody, or: Hardly anybody, or: So fewas to be beneath notice.
to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? It is by means of his arm that Jehovah moves things,accomplishes work, fulfills his purposes. The nationswere to rely upon Jehovah's arm (51:5). A captivepeople calls upon the arm of Jehovah, seemingly asleep in its apparent inactivity, to awaken and clothe itself with strength (51:9). And it did awaken! "Jehovah hath made bare his holy arm inthe eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of theearth have seen the salvation of our God" (52:10).
God had flexed his muscles and raised up Cyrusto overthrow Babylon and deliver his people (41:1-4; 44:24-45:7). But Israel's real problem was not Babylon ; its real problem was within itself. And far moreserious than the Babylonian captivity was the captivity to sin. As the arm of Jehovah had raised up Cyrus to deal with the Babylonian problem, it nowwas at work again in the career of his servant, working out the solution to the sin problem. But hardlyanyone recognized the activity of the arm of Jehovah in the work of the servant.
For he grew up before him. The verbs, until v. 7, arein the perfect tense (past time, completed action).The KJV handles these "prophetic perfects" in a most inconsistent manner. The standpoint of the prophet is in the future. He sees all these events asdone. In fact, in the divine purpose the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world ,(cf. I Pet. 1:19-20; Rev. 13:8).
as a tender plant — or "as a sapling" (Cheyne) or "a suckling" (Alexander).
and as a root out of a dry ground — i.e., a parched soil that could produce only a scrawny plant at best.Note that these are similes. He was not a plant or aroot, but grew up like these.
he hath no form nor comeliness — cf. I Sam 16:18 where David is described as "a man of form," the Hebrew idiom being rendered "a comely person."
and when we see him, there is no beauty that weshould desire him. The servant in his state of humiliation was without those external features which are calculated to attract the attention of the world. He lived among the people; they saw him; but they saw nothing in him to attract them to him.
He was despised. Contrariwise, men were repulsed.Those who measure greatness and nobility by external and worldly standards held him in contempt.
and rejected of men — or "forsaken of men" (Alexander) or "deserted of men — "one from whom men held themselves aloof" (Cheyne). Cf Job 19:13-22 for the thought, but especially v. 14 which containsa verbal root which is the same as here.
a man of sorrows — or pains, another meaning of theHebrew word; i.e., one whose chief characteris-ticis pain or sorrow.
and acquainted with grief — or literally, sickness ;but not necessarily implying that he was himselfsickly; to think of him as one who mingled among
the sick, entering into sympathy with them, suffering under their burdens, would suit the case quiteas well.
and as one from whom men hide their face — ortranslating literally with the KJV margin, "as a hiding of faces from him or from us," which wordshave been variously explained. Thus Alexander:"Like a hiding of the face from us, i.e. as if he hid his face from us in shame and sorrow." The meaning of our versions is: as one that men find so repulsive that they avoid him and turn away their faces from him with disgust. In this manner was he
despised.we esteemed him not — i.e. had no regard for him,did not value him at all.
Vv. 4-6
The meaning of the servant's sufferings is explained. Notice that the prophet seems to speak forthe people of the future as their representative — or at least for that portion of the people of the future that finally comes to its senses and recognizesthe true character of the servant's sufferings. Penitently they confess how wrong they had been. Theyhad regarded the servant as smitten and afflicted byGod. But they now see that in reality it was for theirsins that he suffered, not his own.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows — the explanation of his sufferings and thetrue state of the case as contrasted with the view of the people presented in the second half of the verse.The Hebrew for griefs is literally sicknesses. The servant was "a man of sorrows, and acquainted withsickness." But when these sufferings are understoodin their true light, it is seen that these were our griefs (or sicknesses) and our sorrows which he bore.
Matt. 8:17 applies this statement to the miraculous healings of Jesus. But this is clearly a secondary application of the passage, a fulfillment like thatof Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15, and not the primary application of Isaiah's language. Sicknesses in Isaiah has primary reference to spiritual rather than physical disorders, as appears from the fact that it iswith his stripes, not by means of miraculous works, that we are healed.
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Having presented the true state of the case
(v. 4a.), the prophet now presents, by contrast, thefalse view of the sufferings held by the people (v. 4b). They regarded him as a sinner, being punished by God, getting his just deserts.But he was wounded for our transgressions, etc. — continuing and elaborating "the true state of thecase as contrasted with their false judgment" (Delitzsch). Concerning the words wounded and bruised, Delitzsch remarks: "There were no stronger expressions to be found in the language, to denote a violentand painful death." V. 8 will make it clear that the sufferings were indeed "unto death."
the chastisement of our peace — i.e., the chastisement (or punishment) which brings about or leadsto our peace. Cf. the statement in Heb. 12:11 about
the effect of chastening: "afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them that have been exercised thereby." Man's sins had separated, alienated, estranged him from God (Isa. 59:1-2). Peace refers to the restored relation with God, reconciliation andfellowship with God. Cf. Eph. 2:14-18; Col. 1:19-23.
was upon him — so that he endured the chastise
ment necessary to our peace. and with his stripes we are healed — combining the thoughts of he hath borne our sicknesses and the chastisement of our peace was upon him. With hisstripes = the chastisement; we are healed, i.e., from our sicknesses=our peace, reconciliation and harmony with God. Again it is evident that the prophet has sins, spiritual disorders, primarily in mind in theword sicknesses. The whipping that leaves woundsupon God's servant is the means of our healing.
All we like sheep have gone astray, etc. — giving the reason the servant's sufferings were necessary. Wewere estranged from God like scattered sheep, each choosing its own path rather than following the shepherd.
Cheyne's observation on all we is worthy of note: "Consequently 'the Servant' can hardly be a mere personification either of the whole people of Israel, or of its pious kernel, or even of the body of prophets."
and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.Margin, made to light on him. So Cheyne and others, translating literally. Sin overtakes a man; it falls upon him. Compare Num. 32:23 ("be sure your sin will find you out"), Psalms 40:12 ("mine iniquitieshave overtaken me"), and II Cor. 5:10 ("...thateach one may receive the things done in the body").But in this case, rather than letting the sin to lightupon the sinner and bring about his destruction,Jehovah made the iniquity of us all to light upon hisservant (cf. II Cor. 5:21), so that he bears our iniquity and suffers for us. The clause explains how itcame about that he suffers for our sins.
If this paragraph (vv. 4-6) does not describe vicarious suffering (one person for or in the place ofanother), such a thought simply cannot be put into words.
Vv. 7-9
The description of the sufferings of the servant iscontinued with particular reference to the unresisting submission with which he suffered, the mannerof his death, and closing with "a retrospective glance at His burial" (Delitzsch).
he opened not his mouth — i.e., to protest or resist; "who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; whenhe suffered, threatened not" (I Pet. 2:23). He voluntarily and unresistingly suffered. Cf. Psalms 38:1315; 39:9.
as a lamb — a simile which gives forceful emphasisto the unresisting manner in which he submitted tohis sufferings.
By oppression and judgment — or, from, as in the margin. The forms of justice were observed. A trialwas held; a sentence was passed. But the judgmentwas one that could naturally be coupled with oppression— i.e., an oppressive, unjust judgment. In fact.
the servant was the victim of a judicial murder.
he was taken away — i.e., out of life by a violentdeath, as in Ezek. 33:4 ("if the sword come, andtake him away"), for this expression finds a parallelin the second half of the verse in he was cut off out of the land of the living.
as for his generation, who (among them) considered, etc. — probably the most difficult part of thetext. The KJV seems to follow the Septuagint in itsconstruction. For a commentary from one who accepts the KJV arrangement, see Barnes. Most nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship seems tosupport the construction adopted in the ASV. See Alexander, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Young, and RSV. Themeaning would then be: Of the men of his generation, who considered that he was slain for the transgression of my people? The implied answer is: Noone, or: Hardly anyone. On the contrary, they considered him "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."that he was cut off out of the land of the living — referring to a violent death. Cf. Dan. 9:26.
for the transgression of my people. "The people, then, is distinct from the suffering Servant" (Cheyne).
to whom the stroke (was due). The pronoun in the original is plural. Therefore, the ASV follows theconstruction suggested by Hengstenberg as described in the following from Alexander: "Hengstenberg admits that the pronoun is here plural, butrefers it to the people, and supplies a relative — forthe transgression of my people who were smitten,literally to whom there was a stroke or punishment,
i.e. due or appointed."
However, this plural is often used for a singular,and many competent scholars support the renderingof the KJV, "was he stricken."
And they made his grave with the wicked, and witha rich man in his death. I agree with Delitzsch. Thisis one statement which would be impossible to understand without having its fulfillment before us.But in the light of the historical fulfillment all isperfectly clear. Jesus died the death of a criminal.One would expect that he would have been given theburial of a criminal instead of receiving an honorable burial with his family. But a rich man, Josephof Arimathaea, intervened, and supplied a rich man's tomb for the body of Jesus. The word made is to be understood as meaning appointed or assigned. Thus Delitzsch explains: " 'They assignedHim His grave with criminals, and after He hadactually died a martyr's death, with a rich man;'
i.e. He was to have lain where the bodies of criminals lie, but He was really laid in a grave that wasintended for the corpse of a rich man. . . . The firstclause states with whom they at first assigned HimHis grave; the second with whom it was assigned Him, after He had really died a painful death."
The KJV's he is somewhat misleading. The ASV has they. The pronoun is really indefinite and could be rendered one, or the statement could be taken as a passive without changing the meaning — i.e. his grave was made.
although he had done no violence, etc. Thus he was an innocent sufferer, and his suffering was that of
the innocent suffering for the guilty. Vv.
10-12
The way of the cross leads to the crown. So, thelast paragraph describes the exaltation of the suffering Servant, the success of his work, and his triumphant end.
Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him — that is, in thelight of the ends to be attained God was pleased tobruise him (Barnes).
he hath put him to grief — literally, as in the mar
gin, made him sick.when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin —or, as the margin, when his soul shall make an offering. See below on he poured out his soul.
he shall see (his) seed — i.e., his posterity or descendants. Among the greatest of blessings for theHebrew people were (1) length of days and (2) a numerous posterity. The reward of Jehovah's servant is described in these terms. Cf., especially, Gen.48:11; 50:23; Job 42:16 on see seed. Not only would Jehovah's servant have seed, he would see them. The reference is to his spiritual posterity, the many whoare justified by him (v. lib).
he shall prolong his days — i.e., have a long life. This after his suffering and death! Cf. Rev. 1:18.
and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in hishand. The servant does not retire from all activityafter his suffering. The purpose of Jehovah is placed in his hand, under his control and direction, and iscarried forward with great success through hiswork.
He shall see of the travail of his soul — i.e., the agony and suffering undergone by him.
(and) shall be satisfied — i.e., find satisfaction in theoutcome of the travail. The reference, as suggestedby the context, is undoubtedly to the "seed" to beseen by him and to the prospering of Jehovah'spleasure in his hand. The agony was great, but heshall find in its outcome a satisfying sight.
by the knowledge of himself — literally, by hisknowledge, which refers to either the knowledgewhich he himself possesses (cf. Isa. 11:2; 50:4;Matt. 11:27) or the knowledge others have of him (cf. Jer. 31:34; John 17:3).
shall my righteous servant justify many — or, as the margin has it, make many righteous. The next clause explains how. He shall bear their iniquities,taking them away, bestowing forgiveness of sins.Cf. Rom. 4:6-8 for this relation between justification and forgiveness.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
etc. The victor's crown is held out to him. He takes his place among the greatest conquerors. The reward of his voluntary suffering is the spoil of victory. However, unlike others among the great, men like Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, his victory and hisempire are spiritual. No other kind could come, asthese do, as the fruit of voluntary humiliation andsuffering (Hengstenberg).
Others translate, among the great, explaining the statement in the light of such passages as 49:7 and 52:15, so that the meaning would be that he makesconquests among the great ones of the earth. See Barnes and Delitzsch for this view.
One should also observe the similarity of languagein passages like Matt. 12:29, Eph. 4:8-11, and Col.
2:15.because he poured out his soul — i.e., his life or his
life-blood (cf. Lev. 17:11). The voluntary nature ofhis sufferings is stressed.
and was numbered with the transgressors — i.e. regarded as a sinner; treated as a criminal (cf. Mark15:28; Luke 22:37).
yet he bare the sin of many — although himself in
nocent.and made intercession for the transgressors — cf.Luke 23:34, although this verse does not exhaust the application of Isaiah's thought. See Rom. 8:34;Heb. 7:25.
A CLOSING WORD
I have tried simply to give an exegesis of this textwithout reading anything into it, making referenceto the historical fulfillment only when the interpretation seemed to require it. The effort has been tolet the passage speak for itself so far as possible.But having done this, I must confess I hardly seehow one can fail to see its historical fulfillment in the career of Jesus. I really feel that were a skepticacquainted with the life of Christ but not with thebook of Isaiah, he would surely take this passage for a historical essay and meditation on Jesus. Onemust be blind indeed not to see Jesus of Nazareth in Isaiah's word portrait of Jehovah's suffering servant.
Box 155
Romulus, Mich 48174
