by Michael Haykin | Jan 30, 2024 | Church History, Practical Theology
Henry Forty (c.1620s?-1693) was a key figure in the early days of the Particular Baptists.[1] A Londoner probably by birth, he came to faith as a young person.[2] He signed the third edition of the 1644 Confession, issued by the London Baptists in 1651. He later served at a Baptist congregation in Totnes, south Devon, where he became associated with Abraham Cheare (1626-1668) of Plymouth. They were key signators of the tract Sighs for Sion (1656), for example, which may well have been co-written by Cheare and Forty.
This tract was especially critical of the Quakers, who were making inroads into Baptist congregations. According to Forty and Cheare and the other signatories, the Quakers were “vain men, unsound in the faith, disobedient to, and despisers of the precious ordinances of Jesus Christ,” people who abused the “light and Spirit of the Lord.”[3] Of course, this is a reference to the fact that the Quakers had abandoned those key means of grace¾baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Although neither Forty nor Cheare were given to political radicalism, there is a possibility that this tract is also critical of the regime of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), identified in it as “That man of Sin.”[4]
For the entire decade of the 1660s and in the early 1670s, Forty was imprisoned in Exeter and also in London for some twelve years,[5] almost as long as John Bunyan (1628-1688). Upon his release, in the mid-1670s, Forty moved to Abingdon, where he was called to pastor the Particular Baptist congregation there, which had been founded by John Pendarves (1622-1656). Forty played a key role in the revitalization of the Abingdon Association of Particular Baptist churches.[6] However, he continued to play a key role in London Baptist circles. He supported the refutation of the errors of Thomas Collier[7] and signed the Second London Confession of Faith when it was affirmed in 1689.
Three years earlier, in July of 1686, Forty had been arrested again along with twenty-five other Baptists from the Abingdon church and other areas of Berkshire for failing to worship at their parish churches. The trial ended suddenly, though, when the barrister for the defence, Thomas Medlycott (1628–1716), brought forward a royal pardon from the Earl of Sunderland. Forty and his Baptist friends were acquitted of all charges. The town authorities had locked up the Abingdon Baptist Chapel and, apparently, it had also been vandalized. But that night it was refurbished and the following day, a Sunday, it was filled with triumphant worshippers.[8]
Forty’s final years were dogged by ill-health that prevented him from preaching as he had once done.[9] In his funeral sermon for Forty, though, Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) made mention of “many in this Land” of England who had been converted through Forty’s preaching, including apparently his parents.[10]
[1] For a brief sketch of Forty’s life and ministry, see Anonymous, “Henry Forty,” Abingdon Area Archaeology and History Society (https://www.abingdon.gov.uk/abingdon_people/henry-forty; accessed January 22, 2024). This small biography has been helpful in the orientation of my sketch that follows.
[2] Benjamin Keach, “An Elegy Upon the Death of That Reverend and Faithful Minister of the Gospel” in his The Everlasting Covenant, A Sweet Cordial for a drooping Soul: Or, The Excellent Nature of the Covenant of Grace Opened (London: H. Barnard, 1693), [45].
[3] Abraham Cheare, Henry Forty, John Pendarves, et al., Sighs for Sion (London: Livewel Chapman, 1656), 17.
[4] Cheare, Forty, Pendarves, et al., Sighs for Sion, 8-9.
[5] Keach, “Elegy,” [45].
[6] “Henry Forty,” Abingdon Area Archaeology and History Society.
[7] In William Kiffen, Henry Forty, et al., “[Letter to the] Christian Reader” in Nehemiah Coxe, Vindiciae Veritatis, Or a Confutation of the Heresies and Gross Errours Asserted by Thomas Collier in his Additional Word to his Body of Divinity (London: Nathaniel Ponder, 1677), A2 verso.
[8] On Medlycott and this account, see “Thomas Medlycott,” Abingdon Area Archaeology and History Society (https://www.abingdon.gov.uk/abingdon_people/thomas-medlycott; accessed January 23, 2024).
[9] Keach, Everlasting Covenant, 44.
[10] Keach, “Elegy,” [45].
Born in England of Irish and Kurdish parents, Michael A.G. Haykin serves as professor of church history & biblical spirituality. Haykin has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto (1974), a Master of Religion from Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto (1977), and a Th.D. in Church History from Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto (1982). Haykin and his wife, Alison, have two grown children: Victoria and Nigel.
He is the author of a number of books, including The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (E. J. Brill, 1994); One heart and one soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends, and his times (Evangelical Press, 1994); Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Reformation Today Trust, 1996); ‘At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word’: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist (Paternoster Press, 2004); Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Evangelical Press, 2005); The God who draws near: An introduction to biblical spirituality (Evangelical Press, 2007).
Course taught for CBTS: Biblical Spirituality.
by Timothy Decker | Jan 29, 2024 | Apologetics, Church History, Historical Theology, New Testament
*Editors Note: This is the third installment of blogs related to Textual Criticism authored by Dr. Timothy Decker. Click on the following links to read the related blogs on this subject:
Does our confession require a printed text or indicate the need for a text critical methodology?
How the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, & Puritans Approached Textual Criticism: Part 1
How the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, & Puritans Approached Textual Criticism: Part 2
HOW THE REFORMERS, PROTESTANT ORTHODOX, & PURITANS APPROACHED TEXTUAL CRITICISM: PART 2
In the previous article, we noted that the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, and Puritans did not appeal to a specific printed edition of the Textus Receptus but rather engaged in the process of textual criticism. That is because, as Muller claimed, “The phrase ‘textus receptus’ or ‘received text’ comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 – and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible.”[1]
As pointed out in part 1, they appealed to matters of what later text critical methodologies would dub internal evidence and external evidence.[2] They also seemed hesitant toward textual certainty, at least on occasion. That trend will continue as we narrow the focus to a particular test case—Romans 12:11.
In taking up the polemical fight against the papists, the Protestants were battling charges against the Greek Ms tradition being authoritative.[3] Rome argued for the primacy of the Latin Vulgate, and in this debate, a number of passages were treated as proof of the Vulgate’s superiority. A common objection leveled by numerous Roman Catholics upon Protestants was Romans 12:11 and whether the reading should be “serving the Lord” (κυρίῳ kyriō) as in the Latin Vulgate or “serving time” (καιρῷ kairō) as many known Greek Mss of that time so read. Let us make use of this passage as a test case to observe the Puritan and Reformed Scholastics in text critical action.
Romans 12:11 as a Test Case
We begin by examining the work of Edward Leigh (1602-1671), a true renaissance man of the Puritan era. Both a statesman and a churchman, Leigh was a prolific force for the Kingdom of God.[4] How does Leigh treat a textual variant such as “lord” vs “time” at Rom 12:11? In his Body of Divinity of 1644, he writes:
Objection: They [papists] instance in Rom. 12:11 to be corrupt, the Greek hath serving the “time” καιρω, for serving the “Lord” κυριω.
Answer: Many of the ancient Greek copies and Scholiasts have also καιρω, as Salmeron the Jesuit confesseth, “Serving the Lord,” and it appeareth in the Syriack Translation. And who seeth not, that it might rather be an oversight of the writer taking one word for another, rather then a fault in the Text; and the cause of the mistake (saith Beza) was the short writing of the word Κω [now known as the nomina sacra], which was taken by some for καιρω whereas they should have taken it for κυριω. If we should admit the other reading, we must not understand the Apostle as if he commanded us to be Temporizers, or to apply our selves to the corrupt customs and manners of the times; but to keep time in all our actions, and do them in the fittest season, as Col. 4. 5. Ephes. 5. 16.”[5]
What do we make of Leigh’s text-critical approach? He appealed to the external evidence weighing the ancient date of the copies as well as the ancient reading from the Syriac translation. He then offered a helpful explanation as to how the erroneous reading “time” arose from the correct reading “Lord.” This is a textual criticism principle still practiced today which states, “The variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for the existence of the others.”[6] Also note that while Leigh offered a helpful textual critical argument for the “lord” reading, yet he still offered a fitting sense for the “time” reading as well, much like Perkins in Matt. 6:1.
Leigh’s argument for the “lord” reading was contrary to Calvin’s position on the variant a hundred years earlier. Calvin wrote of Rom 12:11 in his commentary (orig. 1539),
But Paul seems to me to set in opposition to idleness what he commands as to the serving of time. But as κυρίῳ, the Lord, is read in many old copies, though it may seem at first sight foreign to this passage, I yet dare not wholly to reject this reading. And if it be approved, Paul, I have no doubt, meant to refer the duties to be performed towards brethren, and whatever served to cherish love, to a service done to God, that he might add greater encouragement to the faithful.[7]
Calvin was convinced on internal grounds that “time” is the preferred reading and thus disagreed with the now accepted TR “lord” variant. However, he admitted the external evidence favored the “lord” reading, and even offered an interpretation for it should one decide to opt for that reading. Matthew Henry similarly explained both readings, though he seemed to prefer the “lord” variant. He said, “Serving the Lord. Tō kairō douleuontes (so some copies read it), serving the time, that is, improving your opportunities and making the best of them, complying with the present seasons of grace.”[8]
On the other hand, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, in his own 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament (and also a printed edition in the TR tradition), disagreed with Calvin and opted for the now standard reading of “lord” rather than “time.”
Romans 12:11 from Beza’s 1598 edition
In his textual notes, he said of the “lord” reading, “Thus in the most approved and ancient codex. And it is read in the Greek tradition, and the Syriac, and the old Latin translation.” He then cited Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clement, and Basil. He added, “Jerome rightly contends that such is the reading to Marcellas, towards the end of the second volume.” After citing Erasmus’s “time” reading, noting that Origen likewise followed the same, Beza said, “It can be explained in three ways. For there are those who think that the pious are admonished by this saying, that if something inconvenient happens, the good take refuge in it, that this may be consistent with what follows.” This offers an explanation of internal evidence based contextual consistency. Yet Beza would argue against this in his annotation, again appealing to the context and Paul, indeed all of Scripture saying, “I do not think that there is any place in Scripture in which such a saying occurs.” His explanation for the arrival of the “time” reading is based on the same logic as Leigh’s above: the misreading of the nomina sacra κω as καιρω rather than κυριω.
This logic was strong for the Anglican and Puritan divine, Andrew Willet (1562-1621).[9] After citing Beza’s argument against the “time” reading, he would go on to say, “The other reading [“lord”] is better,” and cited many of the same ancient authors and translations already mentioned. He added a few others witnesses (“Haymo… Lyranus, Beza, Tolet, Olevian, Faius, Pareus, with others”), as Willet was known to be a voracious reader.[10] What is even more interesting, however, is comparing his single paragraph he gave for arguing for the “better” reading (which he said, “I approve” of Beza’s annotations), with a longer paragraph of argumentation and interpretation from his initial treatment of the “time” reading.[11] (pp. 551–552). That is to say, in his commentary, he treated both readings with expository comments and left the reader to decide.
The venerable Scotsman, Robert Rollock (1555-1599), also had much to contribute to bibliology, the doctrine of preservation, and an approach to textual criticism of the reformation and post reformation eras.[12] Like Leigh, Rollock treats Rom 12:11, though after already handling quite capably other papist objections. He particularly noted Bellarmine, a Roman Catholic less extreme than other papists saying, “[He] do[es] not say that the Greek edition of the New Testament is altogether corrupt, as some of them have blasphemed; yet they say it is not so pure, that they can grant it to be authentical, because in some places it is corrupt.”[13] Rollock, in disputation with Bellarmine’s argument for the “lord” reading over the “time,” said,
“But the old Latin is, serving the Lord.” I answer, first, albeit ye read so the place, yet the sense is good and sound.[14] Secondly, the reading varies in many Greek copies, as witnesseth Origen’s interpreter, who reads the word κυριω, and he noteth it, that in many books he found καιρω, the time. The same saith Ambrose, who reads καιρω, serving the time; “yet” saith he, “in some books we find κυριω, the Lord.” Thirdly, the Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Basil read κυριω, the Lord; which reading we best like. For which cause our Beza translates the word Domino, the Lord.[15]
Just as with Perkins, Calvin, Henry, and Leigh; Rollock was willing to argue the viability of either variant contextually and theologically. However, after weighing external evidence, including a reliance upon church fathers and the ancient Syriac translation, as well as internal evidence such as “the sense is good and sound,” Rollock agreed with both Bellarmine, Beza, and Leigh, that the “Lord” reading is the “reading we best like.” Indeed, it was not a TR edition that sealed the argument for Rollock, for he seemingly had a penchant for the “time” reading. However, after weighing the evidence, Rollock concluded that “Lord” was preferable at Rom 12:11 given his approach to textual criticism.
Bellarmine’s explanation was similar to the Protestant argumentation above. Though he favored the Latin Vulgate, he said,
In Rom. 12:11 where we read: Serve the Lord, the Greeks do not have Κυρίώ but καιρώ δουλεύοντες, that is serve the time. And it is certain that our reading is the true one, both from Jerome in his letter to Marcellas, which begins with the words After the first epistle; here he says, that in the corrected Greek codices we do not find καιρώ but Κυρίώ; then we find the same thing in Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and other Greek Fathers, who have our reading, and they explained it in their commentaries.[16]
As it happens, the “lord” variant would eventually become the standard reading in the TR tradition, including the Elzevir’s 1624 text afterwards. The 1560 Geneva Bible also includes the “lord” reading. Therefore, at some point, the textual criticism of those involved with the TR tradition overcame the “time” variant and standardized the “lord” reading, which no one now disputes, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant.
As alluded to already, the TR tradition initially read “time.”[17] From Erasmus’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions, as well as Köpfel (1524), Colines (1534), and Stephanus’s editions (1546, 1550, and 1551), the common reading TR reading was “time.” Even the 1657 London Polyglot, which Owen critiqued (see part 1), included this reading. Perhaps Stephanus 1550 was a transition point in that the “lord” reading was noted in the margins of the printed text (see below). Therefore, carefully consider that for these reformers, most of them opposed the initial TR reading (except Calvin), but rather the TR would eventually conform to the reformers’ (and papists’) textual criticism.
Romans 12:11 from Erasmus’s 2nd edition (1519)
Romans 12:11 from the Stephanus 1550 edition
Conclusion
Does §1.8 of our Confession indicate that we now have a perfectly preserved edition of the New Testament in the Textus Receptus and there is, therefore, now no longer any need to do the work of textual criticism? We might say, “What was good for the goose is good for the gander.” For those Reformed, Protestant Orthodox, and Puritans; they had to wrestle with textual variants and make textual decisions. And they did not all agree with one another. Nevertheless, as they were the theologians behind our own Confession of faith, would it not be reasonable to assume that if they had to wrestle with textual variants, make textual decisions given the evidence, and even update their Greek New Testaments; should we not also do likewise? And if Muller is correct in saying, “There was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition [of the TR]. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible,”[18] then those of us who uphold §1.8 of our Confession still have to employ textual criticism, just as our Puritan and Reformed forefathers did.
[1] Muller, PRRD, 2:399.
[2] Philip W. Comfort succinctly summarized both external and internal evidence saying, “These theories and methodologies generally fall into two categories: (1) those that pertain to external evidence (with a focus on the classification of manuscripts or studies of the documents themselves) and (2) those that pertain to internal evidence (with a focus on discerning the most likely reading from which all others deviated).” Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), xiii.
[3] See a previous article where I explain this very issue here: https://cbtseminary.org/does-our-confession-require-a-printed-text-or-indicate-the-need-for-a-text-critical-methodology/.
[4] For a brief but helpful biography, see https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/edward-leigh-1602-1671/.
[5] Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, 71.
[6] Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2001), 56.
[7] Calvin’s Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, note at 12:11.
[8] Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, One-Volume edition, p. 2,226. See also Matthew Poole’s similar handling of both variants.
[9] See Andrew Willet, Hexapla, that is, A six-fold commentarie vpon the most diuine Epistle of the holy apostle S. Paul to the Romanes, (Cantrell Legge of the University of Cambridge,1620), 552. For a thorough biography of Willet, see Benjamin Brooks, The Lives of the Puritans, (London, 1813), 284–288.
[10] Brooks said, “Dr. Willet was a man of uncommon reading, having digested the fathers, councils, ecclesiastical histories, the civil and canon law, and numerous writers of almost all descriptions” (p. 285).
[11] Willet, Romans Hexapla, 551–552.
[12] For a helpful biography of Rollock, see http://digitalpuritan.net/robert-rollock/.
[13] Rollock, Selected Works, 1:123.
[14] It is not clear to me if he is saying this concerning the “lord” reading or the “time” reading.
[15] Rollock, 1:125–126.
[16] Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith, tran. Kenneth Baker (Keep the Faith, Inc; 2016), 124.
[17] Actually, Erasmus’s first edition (1516) omitted the article and followed the “lord” reading: ζέοντες κυρίῳ. Only the Aldine 1518 edition followed this exact reading.
[18] Muller, PRRD, 2:399.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
by Timothy Decker | Jan 16, 2024 | Apologetics, Church History, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, New Testament
*Editors Note: This is the second installment of blogs related to Textual Criticism authored by Dr. Timothy Decker. Click on the following links to read the related blogs on this subject:
Does our confession require a printed text or indicate the need for a text critical methodology?
How the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, & Puritans Approached Textual Criticism: Part 1
How the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, & Puritans Approached Textual Criticism: Part 2
HOW THE REFORMERS, PROTESTANT ORTHODOX, & PURITANS APPROACHED TEXTUAL CRITICISM: PART 1
Did the reformers, Protestant Orthodox, and Puritans participate and practice in the discipline we now call textual criticism?[1] While we generally think of the field of NT textual criticism developing in the 19th and 20th centuries, it may well be observed that there was not as much methodological innovation in the 19th and 20th centuries as some might lead you to believe. Those who were reforming the church and maintaining their conviction of sola Scriptura did not assert a frozen text in time. They certainly confessed the doctrine of “providential preservation of Scripture,” but they believed that such preservation was in the Hebrew and Greek tradition of extant Mss. In producing the first printed editions of the Greek NT, they had to do the work of collating, studying, and comparing Mss. They had to do the work of textual criticism and make textual decisions. They also had to do it for polemical and apologetical reasons, largely against the papists. Nevertheless, despite what some will say, they practiced NT textual criticism.
Who Said It?
Allow me to start with a longer quote, that, if you did not know better, you might think it was written in the recent era of post-modernity and neo-orthodoxy. Commenting on a textual variant from Matthew 6:1, one writer said:
Which must not seem strange, that in God’s book there should be divers readings, for in former ages, before printing was invented, the Scriptures of God were conveyed from hand to hand by means of writing. Now they that wrote out the copies of Scripture did now and then mistake some words and letters by negligence or ignorance, and put one thing for another, whereupon do come these divers readings. Yet we must not think that the Word of God is hereby maimed or made imperfect, for the true sense of the Holy Ghost remains sound and perfect, that it may be we cannot discern of the right reading. And the sense of Scripture is rather to be judged the Word of God than the words and letters thereof. Now it being here uncertain, which reading to follow (for either of them contains a sense convenient to the place), therefore I will exclude neither, but from them both propound this instruction.[2]
Are there shades of Karl Barth in the words “the sense of Scripture is rather to be judged the Word of God than the words and letters thereof”? Is the author quoted above being a relativist/pluralist when he says “therefore I will exclude neither [variants from the discussion], but from them both propound this instruction”? Does he not communicate a sense of textual instability or uncertainty when he says “it may be we cannot discern of the right reading… Now it being here uncertain, which reading to follow…”?
It may come as a shock to find that this was written by the father of puritanism himself, William Perkins (1558-1602)![3] Rather than leveling such accusations against Perkins, it seems more likely that he was just being honest with the textual data and cautious with his textual certainty. In the very least, we see that dealing with textual variants was a regular part of the pastoral work, even for the Puritan and Reformed.
Neither did Perkins appeal to a received or traditional text such as the TR in order to handle the controversy or answer the textual decision. Yet we are told of those Reformers, Protestant Scholastics, and Puritans, “Those godly men maintained that the Lord had not only immediately inspired the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek, but that he had also kept them pure in all ages. This led them to affirm the classic Protestant printed editions of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament as the standard text of the Christian Bible.”[4] Does this hold up to the historical evidence?
I have no doubt Perkins would affirm WCF §1.8, were it written while he was alive. And yet, Richard Muller would contradict the above assertion saying, “The phrase ‘textus receptus’ or ‘received text’ comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 – and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible.”[5] Muller would go on to speak of “[t]he Protestant orthodox approach to textual criticism” on the next page, using Buxtorf and the Hebrew Bible as an example. For the purposes of this post and the next, however, I would prefer to use some NT examples, particularly from Romans 12:11 (see part 2), and observe how these godly men approached textual criticism and textual variants.
Reformed, Protestant Orthodox, and Puritan Text Critical Principles
To see that Muller was correct to speak of a “Protestant orthodox approach to textual criticism,”[6] Francis Turretin, James Ussher, Richard Baxter, and John Owen give helpful text critical principles.
Turretin used a common-sense approach for identifying the correct reading of a variant by utilizing what later would be known as “internal evidence” and “external evidence.”[7] He said, “The various readings which occur do not destroy the authenticity of the Scriptures because they may be easily distinguished and determined, partly by the connection of the passage [internal evidence] and partly by a collation with better manuscripts [external evidence]. Some are of such a kind that although diverse, they may nevertheless belong to the same text.”[8] For Turretin, there was the idea of weighing Mss and treating them as “better,” or the implication worse.
James Ussher had to do work in handling textual variants. And we know that he was influential for the Particular Baptist Hercules Collins, as Collins cited Ussher when dealing with the Apostles’ Creed’s “descent clause” in his Orthodox Catechism. Ussher was the Archbishop of the Church of Ireland and tried to reunite the Anglicans and Presbyterians. Though he was invited to the Westminster Assembly, he declined. In a letter to Louis Cappel, Ussher made the comment when dealing with variants in the Hebrew text saying,
In the variant readings, a great consideration must be given to the antiquity of the copies from which they are taken: and where those older translators have used them, when they agree with the reading of the Hebrew text received today, it is not to be confused with the name, because the later reading, or translators, or even other Hebrew models, differs from it. All other things are found to be equal, to that canon you must resort: that one should be preferred which produces the more suitable sense, and the one more in harmony with what follows and precedes.[9]
Here, the appeal was not only to external evidence and weighing the manuscript evidence, but Ussher fell back on a (now disputed) canon of internal evidence: the sensible and contextual reading is the best reading. This would seem to conflict with the later lectio difficilior potior or preference for the harder reading as the stronger one. Regardless, he made the text critical decision based on a methodology of internal evidence rather than relying upon any one printed edition.
Richard Baxter adhered to a dictum that B. B. Warfield would later employ. Baxter said of the reality of variants and obvious errors that “It is unlikely that this should deprave all copies, or leave us uncertain wholly of the right reading, especially since copies were multiplied, because it is unlikely that all transcribers, or printers, will commit the very same error.”[10] Centuries later, Warfield would say something very similar in his explanation of WCF §1.8,
“What mistakes is in one copy is corrected in another,” was the proverbial philosophy of the time in this matter; and the assertion that the inspired text has “by God’s singular care and providence been kept pure in all ages,” is to be understood not as if it affirmed that every copy has been kept pure from all error [something we know is not true by the light of nature and observation], but that the genuine text has been kept safe in the multitude of copies, so as never to be out of the reach of the Church of God, in the use of the ordinary means.[11]
Both Baxter and Warfield are certain that the preservation of God’s Word has been kept in the Ms tradition and can be verified by an approach to textual criticism without concern that there is a loss of God’s Word.[12]
Finally, we have John Owen who wrote, “It is true, we have not the autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the apographa, or ‘copies’ which we have contain every iota that was in them.” Yet he goes on to admit the textual situation, “There is no doubt but that in the copies we now enjoy of the Old Testament there are some diverse readings, or various lections.”[13] Similarly, he says of the NT situation, “That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance, is acknowledged.”[14]
In dealing with Walton’s London Polyglot (1657) containing an appendix of variant readings, Owen lamented it and gave 10 points of criteria by which he may ascertain the preferred reading. That is, he engaged in the practice of textual criticism and employed a text critical methodology.[15] More specifically, his first 8 criteria were related to matters of internal evidence, such as redundancy of words (known as dittography) or unnecessary words. He also dealt with intentional tampering of the text when there was a move toward either the Latin Vulgate or the Septuagint. Included was the matter of conflation of parallel passages. His tenth criterion was against readings that had been corrupted by heretics for doctrinal reasons. He cited 1 John 5:7 as example, although I would take issue with Owen at this point.[16] Only the 9th criterion did he give over to external evidence when variants “arise out of copies apparently corrupted, like that of Beza in Luke.” Therefore, he weighed manuscripts and found corrupted manuscripts to have less value than others. What he did not do, however, was appeal to a standardized printed edition as though the matter was settled. While Owen may have come the closest to being a text absolutist, nevertheless he would still arrive at his position by way of doing textual criticism. If we are to retrieve the views of Owen,[17] are we not also to retrieve his methods as well?
Summary so far
What have we seen so far? It would be grossly naïve to think that the Reformers all the way to the Puritans did not deal in matters of textual variants and engage in textual criticism. Point of fact, textual criticism was not a modern invention nor did it begin to be practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries. In matters of variants and textual issues, the Reformed and Puritans appealed to Ms evidence and reasoned internal arguments for one reading over another. And they were not always in agreement with one another. Neither was there an appeal to a particular printed edition as though that settled the textual matter. It turns out that they did not believe a printed edition was a settled matter, as we are sometimes led to believe. The TR tradition itself was continually being revised and updated.[18]
Therefore, it seems to be a logical leap to say on the one hand (correctly, in my opinion) that “those godly men [of the Reformation, Protestant Orthodoxy, and Puritans] maintained that the Lord had not only immediately inspired the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek, but that he had also kept them pure in all ages,” while on the other hand assert that such a belief would result in or appeal to a standardized text like the TR: “This led them to affirm the classic Protestant printed editions of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament as the standard text of the Christian Bible.”[19] I find this to be a logical disconnect (non sequitur) and not confirmed historically.
My goal here was to demonstrate that the Reformers, Protestant Orthodox, and the Puritans all dealt with textual variants, applied standard methods of textual criticism that we still practice today, and therefore involved themselves in the discipline of textual criticism. And if retrieval and resourcement is the aim, then by Jove, let’s retrieve it! Or maybe we should be asking, “Did we even lose it so as to retrieve it?” Aren’t we simply continuing the tradition of examining the Ms data and producing a more accurate rendering of the text with every new edition of the Greek NT? If so, then by consequence, this also means that the Reformers and Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries did not think of preservation to mean a frozen text in a particular printed edition in the way that some TR advocates might.
[1] When I wrote this article, I was still awaiting Peter Gurry’s 2023 ETS presentation entitled, “Textual Criticism in the Reformation.” Any overlap of content is coincidental.
[2] William Perkins, Works, 1:392–393. The textual variant to which he is referring is between doing “almsgiving” (ελεημοσυνην) before men versus “righteous acts” (δικαιοσύνην) before men. The TR tradition is not unified on this reading, as Beza’s 1598 edition of the TR followed the “righteous acts” reading whereas Erasmus’s 2nd edition, the Stephanus 1550 edition, and Elzevir 1624 edition opted for the “almsgiving” reading.
[3] My thanks for Dr. Daniel Scheiderer for pointing me to this quote from Perkins.
[4] Riddle & McShaffrey, “Editorial Introduction” in Why I Preach from the Received Text (Winter Springs, FL: Greater Heritage Christian Publishing), 15.
[5] Muller, PRRD, 2:399.
[6] Muller, PRRD, 2:400. Jeffrey Riddle himself spoke of John “Calvin’s approach to text criticism.” See his “John Calvin and Textual Criticism,” PRJ 9.2 (2017): 138.
[7] Philip W. Comfort succinctly summarized both external and internal evidence saying, “These theories and methodologies generally fall into two categories: (1) those that pertain to external evidence (with a focus on the classification of manuscripts or studies of the documents themselves) and (2) those that pertain to internal evidence (with a focus on discerning the most likely reading from which all others deviated).” Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), xiii.
[8] Turretin, Institutes, 1:114.
[9] Ussher’s Works, 16:223 partially quoted from Milne, 272-273. In Latin, the entire phrase reads: In variantibus lectionibus magnam antiquitatis exemplarium unde eae sunt desumptae rationem esse habendam: et ubi eaquibus antiquiores interpretes sunt usi cum hodie recepta Hebraici textus lectione consentiunt, non esse eam eo nomine sollicitandam, quod posteriorum, vel interpretum vel aliorum etiam, Hebraicorum exemplarium lectio ab ea discrepet. Denique ubi caetera omnia reperiuntur paria, ad illum tuum recurrendum esse canonem: ut ex variantibus lectionibus ea praeferatur, quae sensum parit commodiorem, atque consequentibus et antecedentibus magis coharentem.
[10] Baxter, Practical Works, 3:93.
[11] B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 1:238-239.
[12] For an excellent overview of Warfield’s wholly faithful understanding of WCF’s doctrine of preservation at §1.8, see Jeff Stivason, “B.B. Warfield and the Autographa,” in Advancing the Vision: Essays in Honor of John H. White (Beaver Falls, PA: Falls City Press, 2019), 185–194.
[13] Owen, Works, 16: 300-301.
[14] Owen, Works, 16:363.
[15] See Owen, Works, 16:366-367.
[16] Bugenhagen, Luther’s pastor and student in 1527 argued that “if Father, Logos, and Holy Spirit were one as Spirit, water, and blood are one, then the Arians are the winners; for this verse states only a unity of consensus, not a unity of essence.” For this and other rejections of the “Johannine Comma” of 1 John 5:7 among Luther and those in the Lutheran tradition, see Franz Posset, “John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 40 no. 4 (1985): 245–252.
[17] See this exhortation by Jeff Riddle himself in his recent article, “Retrieving the Bibliology of John Owen,” JIRBS (2023): 19–55.
[18] For a list of what I am referring to as the “TR tradition,” see the list and editions listed here: https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editions,
[19] Riddle & McShaffrey, “Editorial Introduction” in Why I Preach from the Received Text (Winter Springs, FL: Greater Heritage Christian Publishing), 15.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
by Ben Carlson | Jan 15, 2024 | Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Were Adam and Eve Saved?[1]
Introduction
Adam and Eve heard from the mouth of God the first promise of the gospel in Genesis 3:15. But did they believe in it? Did they receive and rest their souls in the promise that the Redeemer would be sent into the world to destroy the devil and reverse the curse and bring in everlasting blessedness?
I believe they did. Though they died in their sin the day that they ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17), at the end of their lives they died in faith, trusting and hoping in the promised Messiah to come (Hebrews 11:13).
Although there are no explicit statements in the Bible which tell us this, there are some indications and evidences in the beginning chapters of Genesis which reveal the faith of our first parents after they fell into a state of sin.[2]
Adam’s Faith
Although Adam is responsible for bringing eternal ruin and destruction into this world, and although he is the covenantal head and natural root of all his fallen race, and although he received God’s curse upon his labors and upon his life (Genesis 3:17-19), there are good reasons to believe that he embraced the promise of salvation by faith and became part of the line of promise.
1.) Adam may have named his wife in light of the promise of Genesis 3:15.
Before the Fall, Adam calls his wife “Woman” (Genesis 2:23). But after the Fall, he calls her “Eve”. Genesis 3:20 states, “The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” Eve means “Life” or “Living-one”. This is a remarkable name that Adam gives his wife. Immediately before this, God announces all the curses that would come upon them and the universe for their sin. The worst of these curses is death (v. 19). Both Adam and Eve would die and return to the dust. In light of this, we might think that a more fitting name for Adam’s wife is “Maveth” (meaning death) because in her fallen state, she was the mother of all dying. And yet, in the face of the curse of death, she is called Life.
Was Adam acting presumptuously? No. He had warrant to believe and hope in God’s mercy not simply because God did not immediately strike them down with death but because of God’s promise to them in Genesis 3:15. John Gill remarks that Adam gave his wife this name because it “was prophetic of what she would be . . . and the ground of this faith and persuasion of his, that he and his wife should not die immediately for the offence they had committed, but should live and propagate their species, as well as be partakers of spiritual and eternal life, was the hint that had been just given, that there would be a seed spring from them; not only a numerous offspring, but a particular eminent person that should be the ruin of the devil and his kingdom, and the Saviour of them; and so Eve would be not, only the mother of all men living in succeeding generations, but particularly, or however one descending from her, would be the mother of him that should bring life and immortality to light, or be the author of all life, natural, spiritual, and eternal; and who is called ‘the life’, which is the same word by which the Greek version renders Eve in the preceding clause.”[3]
2.) God did something for Adam and Eve to picture and point them to the promise of salvation.[4]
Right after Adam named his wife Eve, we are told in Genesis 3:21, “And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” Previously, our first parents covered their nakedness with loincloths made of fig leaves (v. 7). But now, God clothes their whole bodies with “garments [or tunics] of skins”. These garments were most likely made from animal hides. This material would better protect Adam and Eve from the harsh elements of a fallen world. But I believe there was a greater purpose for these hides. They symbolized how life would come to sinners in a fallen world. We are not explicitly told how these animals died, nor how God made these garments, but it seems clear that this happened by way of the first animal sacrifices recorded in the Bible. Animal skins are later used as a covering for the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Numbers 4:6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14) and in making sin offerings (Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:11; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27; 19:5) and burnt offerings (Leviticus 7:8) to the LORD. These sacrifices atoned for the guilt and sin of the worshiper and made him acceptable before God. And this is what we see God doing for our first parents. For life and restoration to come to Adam and Eve, God had to lay their sins and punishment on another and clothe them with the life of their substitute. This act of atonement and imputation was typified in the garments of skins they were given, but it would be accomplished in the substitutionary death of Eve’s Seed who would be crushed for their iniquities and would cover them with His righteous life.
Gill remarks that the purpose of these animal skins was not just for clothing or for protection “but for sacrifice, as a type of the woman’s seed, whose heel was to be bruised, or who was to suffer death for the sins of men; and therefore to keep up and direct the faith of our first parents to the slain Lamb of God from the foundation of the world, and of all believers in all ages, until the Messiah should come and die, and become a sacrifice for sin, the sacrifices of slain beasts were appointed”.[5] And Charles Ellicott adds, “Until sin entered the world no sacrifices could have been offered; and if, therefore, these were the skins of animals offered in sacrifice, as many suppose, Adam must in some way, immediately after the fall, have been taught that without shedding of blood is no remission of sin, but that God will accept a vicarious sacrifice.”[6]
3.) Adam’s actions after God expelled him from His glorious presence in the Garden indicate that he was not barred from the promise of salvation.
Although Adam was driven out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24), he did not move far away from the Garden. He wanted to be as close to God in a fallen world as he possibly could. In fact, he may have lived close enough to the Garden that his family could regularly approach the LORD at the east entrance and bring offerings and sacrifices to Him (Genesis 4:3-4). And eventually, his family would call upon the name of the LORD in organized worship (Genesis 4:26). So, although Adam was excommunicated from God’s garden temple, he still taught and led his family to worship God in the wilderness.
But contrast Adam’s actions with the actions of his son, Cain. After God rejected his offering and after he murdered his brother Abel, God punishes Cain by making him a fugitive and wanderer on the earth. But unlike Adam, Cain had no desire to draw near to God after God judged him for his sin. He left the special presence of God and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4:12-16). There he built an impressive city that was artistically and culturally advanced but was also full of blasphemy, debauchery, and bloodshed (Genesis 4:17-24). Cain named this city after his son Enoch, which means “wandering, flight, or unrest”. Alfred Edersheim remarks that this city “has been aptly described as the laying of the first foundations of that kingdom in which ‘the spirit of the beast’ prevails.’”[7] It was full of godless people with godless pursuits who worked independently of God to accomplish their worldly endeavors. So, after Cain fell, he lived like a cursed man who hated the LORD. But after Adam fell, he lived like a man redeemed by God’s grace who determined that he and his house would serve the LORD.
4.) Adam finds a place in the lineage of the redeemed.
The genealogy in Genesis 5 is “the book of the generations of Adam” (v. 1). But in particular, it is the book of the generations of Adam’s son Seth (v. 3). Unlike Cain and his descendants, the descendants of Seth are those who find favor with God (like Noah), call upon God in worship (like Enosh), walk with God (like Enoch), and believe God’s promise of salvation (like Lamech).
Why then is Adam included in this genealogy? Because he not only stands as the head of his fallen race, but he also stands as the head of the redeemed race. He is not numbered with Cain and his cursed descendants, but he finds his name in the generations of those who have faith. And since he was the first to put his trust in the promise of redemption, he is first on the list. Patrick Fairbairn comments, “It is as the parental head of the whole lineage of believers that [Adam] is represented.”[8]
Eve’s Faith
Eve doubted and distrusted God’s Word when she obeyed the devil and ate the fruit, but there are good reasons to believe that she also believed in the promise of salvation.
1.) God promised that Eve would become an enemy of the devil and his works.
In the first part of Genesis 3:15, God declares to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman”. God promises here that the woman, who is Eve, would renounce her allegiance to Satan and become his avowed enemy. At the Fall, they were on good terms with each other. In fact, Eve willingly subjected herself to the devil when she sinned against God. But God says here that enmity or hostility would soon mark their relationship. Eve would fight against the serpent and be at war with him the rest of her life. Implicit in this pronouncement is the promise of Eve’s deliverance and salvation. Her friendly ties with Satan would be broken, and she would repent and return to the side of God again.
2.) Eve may have believed that God’s promise of redemption would be fulfilled in the fruit of her own womb in the names that she gives to her children Cain and Seth.
Cain
Eve names her first son “Cain”, which means “gotten or acquired”. In this name she confesses, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD” (Genesis 4:1). This may seem like a simple statement of praise to God for the blessing of a child, but there may be more here than what initially meets the eye.
There is debate about how to interpret the Hebrew particle eth in the phrase eth-Yahweh. Many English versions translate it as a preposition. They read, “from the LORD” (KJV, NKJV) or “with the help of the LORD” (NIV, ESV, NASB). But at least one English version translates it as an accusative/object sign. The International Standard Version reads, “I have given birth to a male child—the LORD.” This translation makes clear that Eve believed Cain to be the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 and thought he was the promised God-man and Messiah!
But is this translation exegetically possible? Yes. John Walton remarks, “The . . . expanded ‘with the help of’ makes sense, but is difficult to support from Hebrew usage of the preposition. The alternative is to treat ’et as the direct object marker. In that case ’et-yhwh must be taken appositionally (i.e., ‘I have acquired a man, that is, the Lord’), as suggested by Luther. This same grammatical construction is used in the next verse [Gen. 4:2], ‘his brother, Abel [’et-hebel].’ Grammatically this is not impossible, but it makes for very difficult theology to describe Yahweh as a man. Those who choose this option usually make reference back to 3:15 and speculate that Eve mistakenly believes she has given birth to the Messiah.”[9]
Has this translation been embraced by any in church history? Yes. A long line of theologians has interpreted Eve’s words in a messianic sense. Herbert Edward Ryle elaborates, “According to the traditional Patristic and mediaeval interpretation, the sentence admitted of a literal rendering in a Messianic sense: ‘I have gotten a man, even Jehovah,’ i.e. ‘In the birth of a child I have gotten one in whom I foresee the Incarnation of the Lord.’ . . . The Targum of Palestine . . . has ‘I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.’”[10] Edmond Clowney, a modern-day theologian, also sees this translation as a possibility when he says, “Eve, too, spoke in faith when her first son was born: she had brought forth a man with the help of the Lord (Gen. 4:1 could be translated, ‘I have brought forth a man: the Lord.’).”[11]
In light of this exegetical and historical reading, it is possible to understand Eve’s naming of Cain as an incorrect yet admirable act of faith in thinking that he was the Divine Warrior promised in Genesis 3:15 sent to destroy the devil, his kingdom, and his works.[12] In other words, her doctrine was right but her timing was off.[13] Martin Luther comments, “Hence it was that Eve, when she brought forth her first-born, Cain, hoped that she had now ‘gotten’ that bruiser of the head of Satan. And though she was deceived in that hope, yet she saw that the promised Seed would assuredly at length be born at some time or other from her posterity.”[14] And Alfred Edersheim states, “Apparently she connected the birth of her son with the immediate fulfilment of the promise concerning the Seed, who was to bruise the head of the serpent . . . It . . . showed how deeply this hope had sunk into her heart, how lively was her faith in the fulfilment of the promise, and how ardent her longing for it.”[15]
Seth
But even after Cain demonstrates by his murderous deed that he is not the promised Messiah but is a child of the serpent, Eve gives birth to another son and calls his name “Seth”. She may have thought that this new son had taken the place of Cain as the promised Seed when she says, “God has appointed for me another offspring [or seed] instead of Abel, for Cain killed him” (Genesis 4:25). Gill comments, “and by calling him a ‘seed’, she may have respect unto the promised seed, whom she once thought Cain was, or however expected him in his line, as being the firstborn; but he proving a wicked man, and having slain his brother Abel, on whom her future hope was placed, has another son given her, and substituted in his room, in whom, and in whose family, the true religion would be preserved, and from whom the Messiah, the promised seed, would spring.”[16]
Eve’s naming of her children, then, may show us how convinced she was that God would bring forth from her womb the promised Seed and Savior of the world.
Conclusion
Were Adam and Eve saved? Without being too dogmatic, I believe they were. And their salvation serves as a remarkable example of how the Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners. Adam and Eve may have brought ruin upon the whole human race, but they were not excluded from the promise of redemption. As Article 17 of the Belgic Confession states, “We believe that our most gracious God, in His admirable wisdom and goodness, seeing that man had thus thrown himself into temporal and spiritual death, and made himself wholly miserable, was pleased to seek and comfort him when he trembling fled from His presence, promising him that He would give His Son, who should be made of a woman, to bruise the head of the serpent, and would make him happy.”
From this, let us glory in the work of Christ and the power of His gospel, which saves all kinds of sinners. It saves self-righteous Pharisees (Paul), wicked, idolatrous kings (Manasseh), criminals facing the death penalty (the thief on the cross), our fallen first parents (Adam and Eve), and children of wrath like us who come from them. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
[1] This question assumes that Adam and Eve were real, historical people; were under the wrath and eternal condemnation of God because of their sin of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and were offered terms of peace and salvation by God in the first promise of the gospel recorded in Genesis 3:15. These things can be proved from Scripture, but that is not the purpose of this article.
[2] A.W. Pink takes the opposite view in his book The Total Depravity of Man. He asserts, “Nothing whatever is mentioned to Adam’s credit afterward [after being driven out of the Garden of Eden]: no offering of sacrifice, no acts of faith or obedience. Instead, we are merely told that he knew his wife (4:1, 25), begat a son in his own likeness, and died (5:3-5). If the reader can see in those statements any intimation or indication that Adam was a regenerated man, then he has much better eyes than the writer—or possibly a more lively imagination” (https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/depravity_nook.html#chapter2). Humbly and respectfully, I hope to show you in this article that there are intimations and indications in Genesis that after the fall Adam was a regenerated man (and Eve a regenerated woman).
[3] Gill, commentary on Genesis 3:20.
[4] I am indebted to Joe Wilson for the thought that the animal skins were “a picture of the gospel”. See his sermon “Where Are You” at https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=17241754144137.
[5] Gill, commentary on Genesis 3:21.
[6] Ellicott, commentary on Genesis 3:21.
[7] Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament, 19.
[8] Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1989), 1:267.
[9] John Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 262. Logos Bible Software. The NET Translation Notes criticize this view in part because of a differing interpretation of Genesis 3:15. It states, “Some understand ta, as the accusative/object sign and translate, ‘I have acquired a man – the LORD.’ They suggest that the woman thought (mistakenly) that she had given birth to the incarnate LORD, the Messiah who would bruise the Serpent’s head. This fanciful suggestion is based on a questionable allegorical interpretation of Gen 3:15.” I obviously don’t think seeing Genesis 3:15 as the protoevangelium is “a questionable allegorical interpretation”!
[10] Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, commentary on Genesis 4:1.
[11] Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 39.
[12] If this is the correct reading, Eve held to a very high Christology at the beginning of redemptive history. She believed her human baby was Yahweh in the flesh!
[13] Richard Barcellos, “What does Hebrews 10:7 Mean?”, www.tinysa.com/sermon/94222149101296.
[14] Luther, Commentary on Genesis 3:15. https://www.wolfmueller.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Genesis1-4Study.pdf.
[15] Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995), 15.
[16] Gill, commentary on Genesis 4:25.
Ben has been one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, since June 2017. In February 2018, he received his Master of Divinity from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben has been married to his lovely wife Ali since September 2011. They have four children together: Liam, Luther, Cosette, and Maezie. In his spare time, Ben enjoys playing with his kids, coaching, doing yard work, and Friday family nights.
by Tom Nettles | Jan 2, 2024 | Old Testament, Practical Theology
*Editor’s Note: This is the ninth installment in a 9-part series on the book of Job by Dr. Tom J. Nettles. As more installments are released, each part of the series will be linked to each post.
To read part 1, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/have-you-considered-job-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 2, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-heavenly-origin-of-earthly-events-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 3, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-name-of-the-lord-is-to-be-blessed-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 4, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/it-is-your-fault-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 5, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/it-is-very-difficult-to-discuss-a-matter-with-god-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-will-just-listen-to-me-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 7, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-be-against-us-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 8, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-be-for-us-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 9, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/write-my-words-tom-j-nettles/
Job’s questions and writhingly open-ended meditations show that he regards the rigid and condemning counsel of his friends-turned-tormentors aggravatingly as flighty and pestilential as dandelion seeds. His refusal to concede to their assumptions brings back Bildad with a bitter speech; Job responds with a statement of increasing hope in God alone.
Bildad upbraided Job for refusing to listen to him and the others as if their brains were impermeable to the truth. His response called into question the settled philosophy of good and evil. Astonishingly, he contemplates that they might be wrong. Job has utter confidence both in himself and in his evaluation of the moral philosophy of the ages. Job seems to regard them as having insight and rationality as equal to cattle or roaming beasts. His rejection of their counsel sends a message to them that they are stupid. When Bildad asks, “Shall the earth be forsaken for you?” he indicates that his perception of the issue is as sure as the earth’s fixedness in the created order.
Bildad gives a narrative of the unremitting woes of the wicked, clearly implying that bad things happen to bad people (18:5-21). The wicked man dwells in the gloom of darkness, emotionally, morally, and socially (5, 6, 18). Because he flatters himself and trusts his own opinion, unpredictable, hidden dangers are set loose on him and constantly badger him (7-12). Demonic forces are given free rein to destroy his health and render his personal presence, his past, his future, and his posterity of no account. “The memory of him perishes from the earth” (17). Having described the dangers, toils, snares, and traps that systematically and pervasively assault the proud and unrepentant wicked person, Bildad concludes with obvious reference to Job, “Such is the place of him who knows not God” (21).
Having endured another onslaught of accusations, Job reasons his way to an affirmation that since God is his adversary, and none can oppose him or explain his ways accurately, then God alone can be his Redeemer.
Job wonders why these friends see it as intelligent or merciful on their part to torment him with accusations. Why do they seek to magnify themselves by using his disgrace as an argument against him? Job finds it impossible simply to concede to their argument and manufacture some false repentance for a crime he does not know he has committed. They believe he is recalcitrant and is hiding and caressing some secret evil, for none of these things would have happened if that were not the case. Job is looking for justice. He knows that this is God’s doing, but he does not know its root.
God has so completely walled Job in and stripped him of every common grace that his condition is utterly helpless and hopeless unless God himself relents. Whereas Paul exclaims concerning the immutable purpose of God to save, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” Job sees the other side of this, saying in essence, “If God be against us, who can be for us?” (19:8-12).
God has turned every person in his social and familial circle against him. Brothers, relatives, close friends servants, guests, his wife, siblings, children of the community, and intimate friends make him and his condition the topic of their conversation and a reason to avoid him. He pleads with these friends for compassion. Why should they add pain to pain by removing their friendship when he has done nothing but show kindness to them? God may have some legitimate reason for his affliction of Job, a reason that he has not cared yet to reveal, but what could these people have against Job? Why do they act as if they were as justified as God in their removal of favor from him? “Have pity on me, have pity on me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has struck me! Why do you persecute me as God does, and are not satisfied with my flesh?” (21, 22)
Job has reached a clear conclusion about this matter. It is as if a theophany has occurred and he wants his utterance to be recorded for all succeeding generations to see. “O that my words were written!” He has gradually been moving to this viewpoint but now gives a clear statement that, in light of the justice of God and the silence in this life concerning his suffering, he will appear before God in the flesh even after his death. And, as none but God can inflict such humanly inexplicable trouble on a man, none but God can bring redemption from such trouble. God will stand upon the earth, and even after the destruction of this present sore-ridden body, in his flesh Job shall see God. The conclusion is overwhelming. “I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!” (27)
Job then warns those who continue to pursue him with and ridicule him for some secret extravagance of sin, that they make themselves liable to judgment. Job has grasped the teaching of Jesus, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged” (Matthew 7:1, 2).
Zophar now arrives with his second speech, and Job gives a deepening and more confident response. In what is now a tiresome theme, reworked with a variety of images and some new flourishes of rhetoric, Zophar reiterates the received wisdom of the day that the wicked always receive quick judgment. They may have some brief time of prosperity and some quick moments of delight, but everything soon turns to poison. Every pleasure flees and brief security gives way to terror and darkness and wrath and bitterness. “In the fullness of his sufficiency, he will be in distress. . . . This is the wicked man’s portion from God, the heritage decreed for him by God.” No one needs to wait until the final day to sort out God’s ways with the righteous and the wicked, it is already occurring and is clearly revealed in this life. So Zophar.
Job declares that the entire scenario presented by Zophar, and the others, is demonstrably false. “The wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power” (21:7). Suppose God reserves his wrath for their children; does that matter to them? In reality, the wicked do not receive their judgment in this life but often prosper and are “spared in the day of calamity . . .[and] rescued in the day of wrath” (21:30). Job is done with giving any attention to what they say. He wants them to know that his understanding, though he still wrestles with pain and loss, has gone far beyond their platitudes and their mere birdsong of the commonly received worldview. “There is nothing left of your answers but falsehood” (21:34).
What a marvel of consistency and beauty is divine revelation! This book, so ancient, explores questions that are indeed timeless. This book, so enmeshed in one culture, sustains an extensive dialogue intrinsic to all cultures. This book, so particularized in the experience of one man, intrigues our minds and bares our hearts to the experience of all. This book, so hard in the tragedy of pervasive loss, sustains a solicitation for a revelation of the wise purpose and benevolence of God. This ancient book, so dismally silent at each advancing mental and spiritual crisis, blares in our ears the message of divine prerogative and sovereignty. This book presents a perplexing situation so hopeless from a human standpoint, yet nurtures a deeper hope that a witness, even a neighbor, will open up floodgates of mercy. This book is so intent on obliterating hope, yet refuses to admit that the hope of a man before God can perish. Beyond that, the periodic flash of insight into the way in which a downtrodden man under the severity of divine testing may look for deliverance prepares the soul for the matchless wisdom and redemptive beauty of the incarnation.
At the same time, we must recognize that this particular struggle and this manner of questioning God and reasoning about one’s personal afflictions were brought to pass and recorded for posterity before the time of the prophets, the incarnation, the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Job’s struggles are not recorded as a model of how we are to question God. Job’s perplexed wranglings with God and accusations of his unfairness are not given to justify anger toward God. They are presented in all their complexity and emotion so that we might know the transcendent profundity of the redemption we have in Christ and the great clarity that the gospel has given to these questions. Matters of both redemption and the existential struggle with pain have been given an extensive foundation of purpose since Job struggled toward his answers. We have the word of the prophets made more clear (2 Peter 1:19) and to this advance in clarity through the Scriptures, we do well to take heed as to a light that shines in a dark place.
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
