by Timothy Decker | Aug 27, 2024 | New Testament
*Editors Note: To read part 1 of this series, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/textual-oddities-of-the-textus-receptus-tradition-in-1-john-part-1-printing-oddities-within-the-tr-tradition-timothy-decker/
TEXTUAL ODDITIES OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TRADITION IN 1 JOHN
Part 2: Printing Oddities within the TR Tradition, Continued
In part 1, I spent time mainly showing how the printed editions of the TR traditions were not immune to printing errors, misspellings, and mishaps. For those who invest a great deal of stock in the preservation of the NT coinciding with the providential arrival of the moveable type-setting printed editions starting in the 16th century, there is reason to at least give pause before a conclusion can be reached about the Textus Receptus. However, the TR tradition oddities in 1 John go well beyond printing errors. Some of these strange occurrences call into question those who claim there is a great unity and consistency among the TR tradition.
While printer errors are easily observed and rather inconsequential, this next group of TR readings are very important for establishing the text of the original autograph of 1 John. Some, such as 1 John 3:16 is very important textually speaking. Others, like 1 John 2:6 are very minor and only serve to make a point about Scrivener’s 1881 edition. Lastly, when we examine the TR tradition at the notable Comma Johanneum, we see the lack of stability among the entire tradition.
Unique or nearly unique readings in the Scrivener TR
1 John 3:16
I begin with 1 John 3:16, comparing the KJV with the NKJV, both translations based upon the Textus Receptus:
The clear difference is that the NKJV did not retain the word “of God” describing “love” in the initial part of v. 16. Though we often recognize italicized words in our English translations to indicate words that are not in the original language, notice that the 1611 KJV did not do this (as it did at 1 John 2:23).
KJV1611 1 John 3:16
Neither did the 1637 Cambridge printed edition of the KJV:
KJV1637 1 John 3:16
This raises many questions: Why the difference between the KJV and the NKJV? Did the NKJV not follow the TR at this point? Or did it follow a different line in the TR tradition? Did the later revisions of the KJV recognize the weak attestation within the TR tradition and thereby render “of God” in italics?
Scrivener’s 1881 TR edition, which culminates the TR tradition and matches the places where the KJV followed Beza’s 1598 edition over Stephanus’s 1550 edition and vice versa, is the Greek text that reflects the KJV. In it, Scrivener includes the phrase “love of God”: ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ. However, and this is the oddity of the TR and its tradition in 1 John, a great many of the TR editions among the tradition omit the two Greek words translated “of God” (τοῦ Θεοῦ)! Of the 28 editions I have personally transcribed, only the following contain it: the Complutensian Polyglot (1514/22) and the final three major/folio editions of Beza (1582, 1588, and 1598). That it appears in BezaMaj1598 explains how it ended up in the KJV and thus in Scrivener’s 1881 TR.
However, Beza’s first folio edition of 1565 as well as all his minor/octavo editions leave it out (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604). Additionally, all 5 of Erasmus’s editions (1516, 19, 22, 27, & 35), Aldine (1518), Gerbelius (1521), Köpfel (1524), Bebelius (1524), Colineaus (1534), Sessa (1538), the four Stephanus editions (1546, 49, 50, 51), the Elzevirs (1624, 1633) and the Oxford 1873 TR all have the shorter reading!
Interestingly, in Beza’s annotation of his 1582 edition where he first included the longer reading “the love of God,” he justifies this by both internal evidence (it corresponds with Paul at Romans 5:8) and external evidence (that he derives it from the Complutensian Polyglot).[1] Even the 1550 edition of Stephanus, containing a textual apparatus in the margin, included the Complutensian’s longer reading yet did not follow this reading in the text. Thus, Stephanus rejected it in all four of his printed editions. Beza, however, trusted the Complutensian Polyglot enough to make this change. Mind you, it was not a Greek manuscript that convinced him. In essence, what we have here is the TR tradition elongating itself.
Therefore, this longer Scrivener TR reading has only one TR witness to support it—the Complutensian Polyglot! This is troublesome, because there is still not a consensus as to the MSS that the Complutensian NT followed.[2] Some have suggested Minuscules 140, 234, and 432 were used.[3] I personally confirmed that only 234 and 432 include 1 John, and neither of them follow the longer Complutensian reading. The ECM only lists Minuscule 629 to include the longer “love of God” reading. Typically, singular readings (if indeed there is no other MS support) are to be avoided.
What prompted Beza to follow the longer reading with only the Complutensian Polyglot as his evidence? Why did he only include it in his final three folio editions but in none of his octavo editions? We may never know these answers, but they are indeed oddities in the TR tradition at 1 John.
1 John 2:6
A far less important oddity within the TR tradition is found at 1 John 2:6: ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτω περιπατεῖν. The TR is often considered a less reliable text because it is far cleaner according to the rules of spelling and grammar. The assumption is that later scribes would be more likely to “fix” the Greek rather than leave it as is. To illustrate this “fixing,” I will offer an analogous English spelling matter. In English, when the indefinite article “a” precedes a word that starts with a vowel such as “apple,” the article changes to “an”—ergo, “an apple” not “a apple.” So likewise with Greek. It formally does something similar with a final sigma when preceding words that start with a vowel. However, the sigma could be removed if the following worded started with a consonant. Such is the case for the word οὕτω/οὕτως, which is how the standard NT Greek-English Lexicon of BDAG renders this entry. It can include the final sigma or leave it off.
At 1 John 2:6, the Scrivener TR of 1881 neatly reads “οὕτω περιπατεῖν” as the final sigma is left off due to the next word beginning with a consonant. However, inexplicable to me as it is, of all the editions of the TR tradition that I have transcribed, only 1 matches the spelling found in Scrivener’s 1881 edition—the 1518 Aldine edition—making this a near unique Scrivener reading (or what I call a “Scrivenerism”).
Aldine1518 1 John 2:6
Erasmus1516 1 John 2:6
This Aldine spelling is more than curious, for this 1518 edition is based on the Erasmus 1516 edition, and follows it very closely, even down to such spelling matters. Yet the Aldine 1518 edition leaves off the sigma at 1 John 2:6. According to the front matter and appendix, Scrivener had access to Aldine’s edition, though he does not cite it at this location. It could be that he arrived at this spelling on his own. Perhaps he was following some MS that support that reading. The CNTTS apparatus list Minuscules 1244 and 2197 as reading οὕτω. But the overwhelming majority of Greek MSS and TR editions have the more common οὕτως.[4] But for reasons I can only speculate, Scrivener used the corrected spelling, even though nearly the entire TR tradition is against it.
Instability w/in the TR Tradition itself
While there are a few places in the TR tradition where Scrivener’s 1881 has very little support among those of the tradition, at other times there is an inconsistency among the TR editions, making it feel shakier and less stable. Here, I’ll only mention two.
1 John 1:2–3, 5
Like the unique spelling at 2:6, many are familiar with Scrivener’s 1881 edition reading ἀγγελία (“message”) instead of ἐπαγγελία (“promise”) at 1 John 1:5, as so many other editions among the TR tradition. Of course, one could argue that the difference is minimal. However, the meaning of the word is very different, and the context does not fit “promise” at all. Additionally, at 1 John 2:25, both the noun form ἐπαγγελία as well as its verbal cognate ἐπηγγείλατο appear, while at 3:11, John switches back to ἀγγελία. Therefore, John made a distinction between the two words when he wanted to use the various terms. That makes this a more consequential inconsistency among the TR tradition.
What makes this strange in the TR tradition is that Scrivener’s 1881 TR along only one other TR edition, Colinaeus’s 1534 edition, have the ἀγγελία reading. And it is not as though the more popular TR reading of ἐπαγγελία is unattested among the manuscripts. A quick scan of the NA28 will demonstrate that. Rather, it is strange that almost universally the TR tradition followed the more standard ἐπαγγελία reading, while Scrivener and Colinaeus departed. In fact, in the appendix of Scrivener’s 1881 TR, he cites as justification for his rendering Colinaeus1534, the Latin Vulgate, and Tyndale’s “tidings” translation.[5] On the other hand, the TR tradition’s reading of “promise” (ἐπαγγελία) is said to be ceteri omnes or “all the rest.”
Now this instability gets more complicated when we stretch backwards to include 1 John 1:2–3. Those three verses alone (1 John 1:2, 3, and 5) use many words with the same -γγελία root, whether nouns or verbs. While the TR tradition at 1 John 1:2 typically reads ἀπαγγέλλομεν “we announce;” Erasmus1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, and Colinaeus all read καταγγέλομεν “we proclaim/announce” while the Complutensian Polyglot reads ἐπαγγέλλομεν “we publicly notify by authority.”[6] All are synonyms of one another, and the spelling is very similar. But which is it?
The next verse in 1 John 1:3, the TR tradition again reads ἀπαγγέλλομεν “we announce.” However, Beza’s last two minor (octavo) editions of 1590 and 1604 read ἐπαγγέλλομεν “we publicly notify by authority.” While Scrivener appealed to 1 John 2:25 and 3:11 to compare with 1:5, there is essentially no variation among the TR tradition there. However, there is a great deal of instability at 1 John 1:2–5 when it comes to words with the -γγελία root.
1 John 5:7–8
As a final example of the instability of the TR tradition, or maybe better its evolution, we end where we began this article—the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8. I’ll not get into the MSS situation here.[7] However, as it pertains to the TR tradition, the text certainly developed over time to read as it would eventually appear in Scrivener’s 1881 TR. Below is a rough presentation of the TR tradition and critical apparatus of 1 John 5:7–8:
If this seems confusing and convoluted, that is because the TR tradition is very much so here at this notorious passage. When I say that the text evolved or developed, I mean that very literally.[8] Among the TR tradition, the well-known phrase would not appear exactly as it does in Scrivener’s final TR form until Stephanus’s fourth and final 1551 edition. And even then, later editions, such as some of Beza’s, would revert. Now if we were to ignore the final variation of the last word of v. 8 (a final nu), then we could move this earlier to the second edition of Stephanus (1549).
Most notably, the inclusion of the comma did not begin until Erasmus’s 3rd edition of 1522. And even then, it reads almost perfectly with the Latin Vulgate, omitting the articles (Latin has no articles!) and following the Latin word order. In his 4th and 5th editions, he would include the Greek articles, but still maintain the Latin word order. However, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, Colinaeus do not include the Trinitarian formula at all! The first Stephanus edition (1546) would transpose a couple of the words. The final three minor/octavo editions of Beza would add a word. And the Complutensian Polyglot traversed its own unique path.
Now, I readily admit that the variations among the 30 editions of the TR that I consulted are very minor. Most differences are omissions of the Greek article, changing word order for “holy Spirit,” or adding “and” to the list of heavenly witnesses. Yet these differences reflect the likelihood that the Johannine Comma developed over time and actually arose from the Latin text handed down from the Western church.
But the point here is, again, one of stability. It is more than fair to say that the inclusion of the “heavenly witnesses” in this Trinitarian formula is a staple to the TR tradition. Even the small variations among the various TR editions that depart from the common TR reading are extremely minor in terms of meaning and translation. I only include them here to be thorough and to show that the TR is not as uniform as is so often claimed.[9] And like nearly all printed Greek New Testaments, there is development and change over time, with the goal of getting the text right.
Calvin believed this to be the case as he himself likely changed GNTs over time. He would say of this passage’s inclusion, “[I]t is found in the best and most approved copies,”[10] likely meaning printed editions. Some have argued that Calvin was dissatisfied with the 1534 text of Colinaeus (which omitted the Johannine Comma) and would switch to either Erasmus’s 4th edition or Stephanus’s 1546 (first) edition.[11] If that is the case, then Calvin commented on a general form of the Comma Johanneum, but not its final form as found in the Scrivener TR, inconsequential as these earlier editions may differ. Not only that, but he pursued a printed GNT that reflects what he felt was a better text. Should we not also do likewise?
Conclusion
I am the first to admit that a portion of what I have discussed in both part 1 and part 2 is not essential for determining the text of the NT, nor is it essential for interpretation or meaning. On the one hand, typesetting errors and inconsistencies among the TR tradition do not make or break the textual readings of the TR. On the other hand, some of these oddities of the TR tradition of 1 John are essential and do affect meaning. Nevertheless, the goal here is to demonstrate that the printing press being the technological feat that it was, did not perfect the reproduction of the NT. Not immediately, anyhow. It seems to be premature to base one’s view of preservation of Scripture upon a certain textual tradition such as the TR in part because it arose at the same time that the providential technological advancement of the printing press. As good as it was in the beginning, such printing of the GNT needed to be refined.
Nevertheless, what these editions among the TR tradition did produce is nothing short of extraordinary. These editions of the GNT would trailblaze a pathway for the development of future printed editions that we still enjoy today. Their past labors, mistakes, frustrations, and determination to produce what they believed to be the best representation of the text of the NT are our present gains.
In future articles on the TR in 1 John, I intend to move away from printing oddities and switch to textual oddities or strange and uncharacteristic readings of the TR in 1 John. We will also examine some very poor, weakly attested readings of the TR in 1 John.
*Pictures of the TR Tradition are provided from the Basel University’s digital library and CSNTM. They are displayed here for research purposes.
[1] “Sic Paulus Rom 5.8 & sic habet Complutensis editio. Syrus autem interpres legit multo etia apertius, τὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν.” The last sentence, Beza appealed to a looser reading followed in the Syriac which translates “his love for us,” which would imply “the love of God.”
[2] See a helpful overview of the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament by Peter M. Head, “10 January 1514: Complutensian Polyglot New Testament,” Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, January 2014, accessed: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2014/01/10-january-1514-complutensian-polyglot.html. He cited the editors who claimed, “Ordinary copies were not the archetypes for this impression, but very ancient and correct ones; and of such antiquity, that it would be utterly wrong not to own their authority.”
[3] See “1520 Complutensian Polyglot Bible” at https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Complutensian-Polyglot. Of these, only 234 and 432 include 1 John.
[4] A third reading listed by the CNTTS apparatus has minuscules 999, 1243, and 1751 reading ουτος.
[5] In the appendix which marks the places where his TR departs from Beza’s major 1598 edition to agree with the KJV, it says, “1 John 1. 5 ἀγγελία] Col. Vulg. (tydynges Tynd.). ἐπαγγελία ceteri omnes. Confer ii. 25 cum iii. 11.” F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press, 1881), 654.
[6] For these terms, consult LSJ’s A Greek-English Lexicon.
[7] For this, see the excellent overview by Elijah Hixson, “The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8),” Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, January 2020, accessed: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html.
[8] Parker implied this of the TR, “Authorized by Erasmus, canonized by Stephanus, and deified by Beza, Textus Receptus reigned pre-eminent in the reformed Churches of the sixteenth century.” T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Second ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 155.
[9] For another example of this, see my guest article at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog “A Critical Apparatus of the Textus Receptus Tradition,” March 2024, accessed: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-by-timothy-decker-critical.html.
[10] Calvin’s Commentary at 1 John 5:7.
[11] See Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 151–57. See also John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 41–42.
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 Tom Nettles | Aug 26, 2024 | Old Testament
Elihu interacts with Job on the mystery of God’s ways with a sinful world, its sinful people, his wrath, and his way of bringing people to repentance and obedience.
The righteous are always under the protective eyes of God (7). In a prophetic word about the exalted position of the righteous, Elihu tells Job that they are exalted and seated with kings on the throne. Paul duplicated this image in his celebration of the efficacious, saving grace of God: God “made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:5, 6).
How does God deal with those who have this king of exalted position. When calamity comes (“bound in fetters, … cords of affliction”) to those whom God has set in positions of privilege and authority, God shows them the character of their sin. “Then he declares to them their work and their transgressions, that they are behaving arrogantly.” As the NASB says, “They have magnified themselves.” God gives them instruction and requires that they turn from iniquity (10). God has never relinquished his moral authority over any portion of the world at any time. Every culture, and every person within that culture will be held accountable to God. When Paul preached that in times past God “winked” at the transgressions of the nations outside the messianic covenantal community, he did not mean that they were without any revelation of right and wrong and that God never inflicted judgment. He meant that in light of the coming redemption and the necessity of the continuation of the race, God did not enact a full measure of wrath on either the elect or the non-elect. From the woes pronounced by the Old Testament prophets against the nations (e.g. Ezekiel 25-32), it is clear that God frequently acted in a retributive manner. Here Elihu, keenly sensitive to manners in which God revealed elements of responsibility to all people, says that God “opens their ears to instruction.” He issues a call to repentance.
This call will be effectual to those who indeed are recipients of justifying mercy. Repentance will renew their standing in divine favor (11); a refusal to repent will result in righteous judgment. They will “die without knowledge,” (12) that is, without a saving knowledge of God, without the knowledge of the beauty of his holiness. This message of repentance was the fundamental message of John the Baptist in preparation for the Messiah and it was the initial message of Jesus Himself. It was a necessary element of the message that the apostles preached, “repentance and forgiveness of sin” (Luke 24:47); “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Jesus said, “I tell you nay, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13: 3, 5).
Those who refuse to heed divine warnings in temporal discipline but scoff against God will end their lives among the godless and the grotesque violators of God’s righteous character (13, 14). Though they sense righteous anger against them (13), they refuse to repent but rather indulge in greater transgression. Their apparent standing in righteousness will be revealed as mere posturing in light of perceived privileges. Should they refuse this admonition and this opportunity for submission and increased sanctification, they reveal that true grace is not theirs and they put themselves in the precarious position of those described in Hebrews: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries” (Hebrews 10:26, 27). Is Job dangerously close to this end or will he endure God’s treatment of him with a view to justifying God in his work?
Job’s former condition of prosperity, though he could have been born to affliction, was a matter of divine grace toward him. Job revered God and had a desire to please God in all of his doings by virtue of God’s opening his ear. Verse 15 has happened in reverse for Job. He was sent to affliction while rich and his oppression has brought, not clarity, but confusion. God himself enticed Job from the distress that could have been his from the beginning. Instead of a life of distress as a sinner, God gave Job riches, possessions, family, influence, and abundance of daily provisions. Did Job think that these gifts from God were because of his righteousness? Did he fall into the trap of his earlier three advisors and believe that his life of thriving was a reward for goodness? True riches come to the contrite in heart (16).
In verses 17-18, Elihu warns Job that he is being led to despise the greatness of God’s grace toward him by being puzzled at the slight show of affliction. The present condign infliction of chastening should not puzzle Job but should heighten his gratitude for grace. “Beware that wrath does not entice you to scoffing” (18 NASB). Our due from God is immediate subjection to eternal wrath. As some portions of judgment begin to replace the privilege of grace, Job should not despise the reality that deliverance comes only from an infinitely righteous ransom and deliverer from judgment. Elihu has introduced this rescue by ransom in 33:23-30. It is too large for any man to pay but God in infinite wisdom and effectual aggressive grace has made a way for wrath-deservers to find riches—eternal riches—in the presence of God. To resist God’s right to judge in demonstration of the perfect holiness of his character and his sovereign prerogative to deal with human pollution as he sees fit is to minimize the infinite price of redemptive grace. “Do not let the greatness of the ransom turn you aside.” Theologians who deny substitutionary propitiation as central to Christ’s atoning work often argue that they magnify the grace of God by their denial—that he simply forgives apart from any ransom or manifestation of wrath. In reality they diminish both the immutable holiness of God and the infinite love and grace of God as demonstrated by his provision of the only way in which the grace of forgiveness could be ours (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10; John 3:16-18).
Elihu pressed Job, and presses us, to pursue a heart of gratitude for eternal riches, to take every moment of temporal distress and affliction as a reminder that he has rescued us from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10).
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.
by Tom Nettles | Aug 26, 2024 | Old Testament
After Elihu has given a lengthy defense of the justice of God in light of Job’s protests that he has not been allowed to present his case (Job 34, 35), he reprimanded Job for seemingly challenging God as his equal and concludes, “Job opens his mouth in empty talk; he multiplies words without knowledge” (35:16) God uses this same accusation against Job (38:2).
Elihu claims qualifications to speak to Job in this matter (36:1-4), particularly because he perceives that his three antagonists have not given a clear view of the mystery and the prerogative of God. “There is yet more to be said in God’s behalf, … I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker” (2, 3). He claims to speak by revelation: he uses phrases such as “knowledge from afar; . . . For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you” (3, 4). This does not seem to be a false claim on the part of Elihu, but a recognition that knowledge of these mysteries comes only through divine instruction.
Following through on his assertion of ascribing righteousness to his Maker, Elihu in verses 5-7, shows that God is no respecter of persons but knows each one thoroughly and deals justly. His actions toward people do not arise from amoral manifestations of power (“God is mighty, but despises no one” [NKJV]). His power is governed by his perfect holiness and goodness. In 34:4, Elihu has set as one of his goals in his interaction with Job and the three friends is this: “Let us choose justice for ourselves; let us know among ourselves what is good.”
Goodness does not mean moral gullibility and can include no compromise of perfect justice. It can be seen as a summation of the full character of God. Good is used 7 times in Genesis 1 as God’s own evaluation of every part of the created order prior to the fall. We find the word 5 times in Genesis 2. Twice there (2:9, 17) “good” is contrasted immediately with evil, “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” in simple and absolute disparity. When God’s wisdom, power, and purpose exist with purity and simplicity in anything—a material thing, a thought, a moral action—it is “good.” When compromise of God’s purpose infects anything, it is evil. Virtually an infinite number of points exist between absolute good and unmitigated, intrinsic, original evil. Perhaps, nothing, in fact, is absolutely devoid of good in any sense at all, for God has created all things and something of the wisdom, creative energy, and infinite intelligence must of necessity continue to exist in all things. This is one reason the church resisted Gnosticism. Its dualism posited an evil deity that had brought all material substance into existence. The church, however, confessed, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” In the end, therefore, perfect justice and goodness will rule in unambiguous dimensions in both heaven and hell. In this fallen world, because Adam and Eve chose the knowledge of evil over the knowledge of good, nothing in the created order except unfallen angels can be called “good” absolutely. Everything is to some degree evil. This fact led the Psalmist to assert in 14:1, 3 “There is none that doeth good,” and Paul to cite that phrase as a part of his argument for universal sinfulness, “There is none that doeth good, no not one” (Romans 3:12).
For to Job to imply, therefore, that something is awry in the way God has dealt with him completely twists one’s grasp of both God’s justice and his mercy. As Anselm said in Proslogion, “Oh measureless Goodness, passing all understanding, let that mercy which proceeds from thy great wealth come upon me! It flows forth from thee; let it flow into me! Spare in mercy, lest thou punish me in justice! For though it is hard to understand how thy mercy is consistent with thy justice, yet we must believe that what flows forth from thy goodness-itself nothing without justice—is in no way opposed to justice, but agrees perfectly with justice. Indeed, if thou art merciful because thou art supremely good, and though art supremely good only because thou art supremely just, then thou art merciful simply because thou art supremely just.”
Elihu’s premise, therefore, that “God is mighty but despises no one; He is mighty in strength of understanding” is a statement about treatment of all in accord with his perfect justice being consistent with his “understanding.” Paul says, hat God has “in all wisdom and understanding, prudence, insight made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself” (Ephesians 1:8, 9). Elihu reminds those who were listening that God’s dealing with men always arises from his infinite understanding and the supreme good of making himself known as a God of perfect goodness and justice.
In pursuit of showing the tragic misperception of God’s character implied in Job’s increasingly querulousness, Elihu stated categorically, “He does not preserve the life of the wicked, but gives justice to the oppressed. He does not withdraw his eyes from the righteous” (36:6, 7a). In each case, God operates according to his goodness and how his understanding has deemed it worthy of manifestation. Elihu, by God’s inspiration, seeks to help Job confirm with David, “You are good and do good; teach me your statutes. …It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn your statutes” (Psalm 119:68, 71).
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.
by Austin McCormick | Aug 26, 2024 | New Testament, Preaching, Systematic Theology
*Editor’s Note: This blog post is a portion of Pastor Austin McCormick’s sermon manuscript from a message titled “Faith Without Works is Dead, Pt.3.” The author was greatly helped by the commentators Matthew Poole and Francis Turretin in arranging these four points. For a more thorough examination of the differences between Paul and James on justification, the author encourages readers to consult Poole and Turretin.
In James 2:21, James uses the word “justified” for the first time in his letter. And within this part of his argument, he teaches that we are “justified by works” three times. Upon an initial glossing of this phrase we have an apparent, although not an actual, contradiction to Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:28 that we are justified by faith alone. I have intentionally called this an “apparent” contradiction because the phrases themselves initially seem to contradict one another. But when we consider them in their respective contexts, we should be able to discern that they are not actually contradicting one another. Rather, their teachings perfectly harmonize. Let us then look at four contextual factors that help us see that Paul and James are not at odds with one another.
First, consider the problems that these authors address. When Paul says that we are justified by faith alone, he confronts those who rely upon their obedience to the law to become Christians… Paul argued against the Pharisees and the Judaizers who were trusting in their own merits and their own self-righteousness as the grounds of their acceptance before God… To combat this error, Paul teaches that our works don’t merit God’s approval of us. If our works merited our salvation, then salvation wouldn’t be a gift that we freely receive! It would be a wage that God would owe us… And this would only cause us to boast in ourselves for our accomplishments… But Paul teaches that God gets the glory in our salvation and that we become Christians through the instrumentality of faith alone.
But James combats a completely different issue! James confronts those who merely profess to have faith but then use that profession as a license to continue in sin. To correct that error of lawless living, James teaches that good works function to evidence who is truly planted into Christ. In the New Covenant, God has written his law upon the hearts of his people and has given them a desire in the inner man to obey Him… Disciples of Christ, then, evidence that God has regenerated their hearts by their good works.
II. Different usages of “faith”
Secondly, it is important to recognize that these authors use the word “faith” differently. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he refers to a true and living faith, a sovereignly gifted faith from God, a faith that passively receives and rests in Christ and His righteousness in order to become Christians… But James frequently uses the word “faith” to refer to a false faith. He concedes, for the point of making an argument, that false faith is a form of faith. But he calls it a “dead faith” and a “useless faith.”
III. Different usages of “justify”
Not only do Paul and James use the word “faith” differently. Thirdly, these authors also use the verb “justified” differently. When Paul uses the verb “justified,” he speaks of that act of God’s free grace whereby God freely pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous persons because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us… For Paul, “justification” refers to the legal verdict that we are accepted as beloved ones and pronounced “not guilty” by God.
But when James uses the verb “justified,” he means “proven to be right” or “shown to be true.” And Scripture frequently uses this original word (δικαιόω) in this sense. So, for instance, Luke 7:29 says that all the people “justified” God… They didn’t forgive God of his sins and declare him to be “not guilty.” No! They justified him, meaning they “showed that it was true,” that He is God. Similarly, when James uses the word “justified,” he means “shown to be true.”
IV. Different types of persons
And lastly, Paul and James speak of different types of persons who are justified. Categorically, only two types of people descend from Adam by ordinary generation. There are lost sinners under the guilt of the broken covenant of works. And there are believers who have been brought into the covenant of grace through the blood of Jesus. The former are ungodly; the latter are beloved of God. And these two categories of people help us to distinguish between different types of persons who are justified.
When Paul refers to justification, he is referring to the justification of an ungodly person who is then declared “not guilty” through faith. James, however, refers to the justification of persons already godly who prove themselves to be “not pretenders” by their works.
So, after considering these four factors that help us harmonize Paul and James, we could paraphrase their teachings like this:
Paul teaches that an ungodly person is declared “not guilty” through the instrumentality of faith alone, which rests in Christ alone.
James teaches that a believer is proven “not a pretender” when they produce good works that flow from their union with Christ, and not by a mere profession only.
Paul speaks of the cause of our justification; James, the effect. Paul addresses the root of our faith; James, the fruit. Paul talks about how we become justified; James talks about evidencing that we are justified. There is no contradiction.
Use #1: We need both Paul and James on justification.
And we need to understand them as sweetly complying with one another! Paul will guard us from the errors of legalism and self-righteousness. James will guard us from the errors of antinomianism, easy-believism, and licentious living. Paul will guard us from the errors of justification by our sincere obedience or justification by our faithfulness… James will guard us against an erroneous understanding of eternal security, which teaches that we can just make a profession of faith, join a church, and then live like God-offending heathens for the rest of our lives.
Well, let us then continually sit at the feet of these divinely inspired Apostles and soak in what they are teaching us! Getting Paul and James right will help us get the law and the gospel right. May we get the law and the gospel right so we’re not tossed to and fro by every wave of deceptive doctrine.
Use #2: We should unwaveringly affirm that the Scriptures cannot be broken, that there are no faults or errors in them, and that they are the very words of God Himself, who cannot lie.
Each seemingly contradictory passage in Scripture is only such because of some fault in our understanding of Scripture, not in the author of Scripture, nor the content of Scripture. So, whenever we don’t fully grasp God’s Word, let us not call into question its authority. Instead, let us prayerfully call out to the God of order and truth to teach us the beauties in His Word so that we may behold wondrous things from his law.
Austin McCormick is a Pastor of Covenant Baptist Church (Clarksville, TN). He holds a B.A. in Biblical Studies from Spurgeon College, a M.A. in Pastoral Studies and a M.Div from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. By God’s free and sovereign grace, Austin was saved early in his adulthood. He is married to Rachel, and together they have three children: Geneva, Benjamin, and Bristol.
by CBTS | Aug 15, 2024 | Church History, Practical Theology
*The following excerpt is from John Owen’s work, The Mortification of Sin.
How do we begin to mortify sin?
First, consider what dangerous symptoms thy lust hath attending or accompanying it,—whether it hath any deadly mark on it or no; if it hath, extraordinary remedies are to be used; an ordinary course of mortification will not do it.
You will say, “What are these dangerous marks and symptoms, the desperate attendancies of an indwelling lust, that you intend?” Some of them I shall name:—
1. Inveterateness.—If it hath lain long corrupting in thy heart, if thou hast suffered it to abide in power and prevalency, without attempting vigorously the killing of it, and the healing of the wounds thou hast received by it, for some long season, thy distemper is dangerous. Hast thou permitted worldliness, ambition, greediness of study, to eat up other duties, the duties wherein thou oughtest to hold constant communion with God, for some long season? or uncleanness to defile thy heart with vain, and foolish, and wicked imaginations for many days? Thy lust hath a dangerous symptom. So was the case with David: Ps. 38:5, “My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.” When a lust hath lain long in the heart, corrupting, festering, cankering, it brings the soul to a woful condition. In such a case an ordinary course of humiliation will not do the work: whatever it be, it will by this means insinuate itself more or less into all the faculties of the soul, and habituate the affections to its company and society; it grows familiar to the mind and conscience, that they do not startle at it as a strange thing, but are bold with it as that which they are wonted unto; yea, it will get such advantage by this means as oftentimes to exert and put forth itself without having any notice taken of it at all, as it seems to have been with Joseph in his swearing by the life of Pharaoh. Unless some extraordinary course be taken, such a person hath no ground in the world to expect that his latter end shall be peace.
For, first, How will he be able to distinguish between the long abode of an unmortified lust and the dominion of sin, which cannot befall a regenerate person? Secondly, How can he promise himself that it shall ever be otherwise with him, or that his lust will cease tumultuating and seducing, when he sees it fixed and abiding, and hath done so for many days, and hath gone through a variety of conditions with him? It may be it hath tried mercies and afflictions, and those possibly so remarkable that the soul could not avoid the taking special notice of them; it may be it hath weathered out many a storm, and passed under much variety of gifts in the administration of the word; and will it prove an easy thing to dislodge an inmate pleading a title by prescription? Old neglected wounds are often mortal, always dangerous. Indwelling distempers grow rusty and stubborn by continuance in ease and quiet. Lust is such an inmate as, if it can plead time and some prescription, will not easily be ejected. As it never dies of itself, so if it be not daily killed it will always gather strength.
2. Secret pleas of the heart for the countenancing of itself, and keeping up its peace, notwithstanding the abiding of a lust, without a vigorous gospel attempt for its mortification, is another dangerous symptom of a deadly distemper in the heart. Now, there be several ways whereby this may be done. I shall name some of them; as,—
(1.) When upon thoughts, perplexing thoughts about sin, instead of applying himself to the destruction of it, a man searches his heart to see what evidences he can find of a good condition, notwithstanding that sin and lust, so that it may go well with him.
For a man to gather up his experiences of God, to call them to mind, to collect them, consider, try, improve them, is an excellent thing,—a duty practised by all the saints, commended in the Old Testament and the New. This was David’s work when he “communed with his own heart,” and called to remembrance the former loving-kindness of the Lord. This is the duty that Paul sets us to practise, 2 Cor. 13:5. And as it is in itself excellent, so it hath beauty added to it by a proper season, a time of trial or temptation, or disquietness of the heart about sin,—is a picture of silver to set off this golden apple, as Solomon speaks. But now to do it for this end, to satisfy conscience, which cries and calls for another purpose, is a desperate device of a heart in love with sin. When a man’s conscience shall deal with him, when God shall rebuke him for the sinful distemper of his heart, if he, instead of applying himself to get that sin pardoned in the blood of Christ and mortified by his Spirit, shall relieve himself by any such other evidences as he hath, or thinks himself to have, and so disentangle himself from under the yoke that God was putting on his neck, his condition is very dangerous, his wound hardly curable. Thus the Jews, under the gallings of their own consciences and the convincing preaching of our Saviour, supported themselves with this, that they were “Abraham’s children,” and on that account accepted with God; and so countenanced themselves in all abominable wickedness, to their utter ruin.
This is, in some degree, a blessing of a man’s self, and saying that upon one account or other he shall have peace, “although he adds drunkenness to thirst.” Love of sin, undervaluation of peace and of all tastes of love from God, are inwrapped in such a frame. Such a one plainly shows, that if he can but keep up hope of escaping the “wrath to come,” he can be well content to be unfruitful in the world, at any distance from God that is not final separation. What is to be expected from such a heart?
(2.) By applying grace and mercy to an unmortified sin, or one not sincerely endeavoured to be mortified, is this deceit carried on. This is a sign of a heart greatly entangled with the love of sin. When a man hath secret thoughts in his heart, not unlike those of Naaman about his worshipping in the house of Rimmon, “In all other things I will walk with God, but in this thing, God be merciful unto me,” his condition is sad. It is true, indeed, a resolution to this purpose, to indulge a man’s self in any sin on the account of mercy, seems to be, and doubtless in any course is, altogether inconsistent with Christian sincerity, and is a badge of a hypocrite, and is the “turning of the grace of God into wantonness;” yet I doubt not but, through the craft of Satan and their own remaining unbelief, the children of God may themselves sometimes be ensnared with this deceit of sin, or else Paul would never have so cautioned them against it as he doth, Rom. 6:1, 2. Yea, indeed, there is nothing more natural than for fleshly reasonings to grow high and strong upon this account. The flesh would fain be indulged unto upon the account of grace, and every word that is spoken of mercy, it stands ready to catch at and to pervert it, to its own corrupt aims and purposes. To apply mercy, then, to a sin not vigorously mortified is to fulfil the end of the flesh upon the gospel.
These and many other ways and wiles a deceitful heart will sometimes make use of, to countenance itself in its abominations. Now, when a man with his sin is in this condition, that there is a secret liking of the sin prevalent in his heart, and though his will be not wholly set upon it, yet he hath an imperfect velleity towards it, he would practise it were it not for such and such considerations, and hereupon relieves himself other ways than by the mortification and pardon of it in the blood of Christ; that man’s “wounds stink and are corrupt,” and he will, without speedy deliverance, be at the door of death.
3. Frequency of success in sin’s seduction, in obtaining the prevailing consent of the will unto it, is another dangerous symptom. This is that I mean: When the sin spoken of gets the consent of the will with some delight, though it be not actually outwardly perpetrated, yet it hath success. A man may not be able, upon outward considerations, to go along with sin to that which James calls the “finishing” of it, as to the outward acts of sin, when yet the will of sinning may be actually obtained; then hath it, I say, success. Now, if any lust be able thus far to prevail in the soul of any man, as his condition may possibly be very bad and himself be unregenerate, so it cannot possibly be very good, but dangerous; and it is all one upon the matter whether this be done by the choice of the will or by inadvertency, for that inadvertency itself is in a manner chosen. When we are inadvertent and negligent, where we are bound to watchfulness and carefulness, that inadvertency doth not take off from the voluntariness of what we do thereupon; for although men do not choose and resolve to be negligent and inadvertent, yet if they choose the things that will make them so, they choose inadvertency itself as a thing may be chosen in its cause.
And let not men think that the evil of their hearts is in any measure extenuated because they seem, for the most part, to be surprised into that consent which they seem to give unto it; for it is negligence of their duty in watching over their hearts that betrays them into that surprisal.
4. When a man fighteth against his sin only with arguments from the issue or the punishment due unto it, this is a sign that sin hath taken great possession of the will, and that in the heart there is a superfluity of naughtiness. Such a man as opposes nothing to the seduction of sin and lust in his heart but fear of shame among men or hell from God, is sufficiently resolved to do the sin if there were no punishment attending it; which, what it differs from living in the practice of sin, I know not. Those who are Christ’s, and are acted in their obedience upon gospel principles, have the death of Christ, the love of God, the detestable nature of sin, the preciousness of communion with God, a deep-grounded abhorrency of sin as sin, to oppose to any seduction of sin, to all the workings, strivings, fightings of lust in their hearts. So did Joseph. “How shall I do this great evil,” saith he, “and sin against the Lord?” my good and gracious God. And Paul, “The love of Christ constraineth us;”2 and, “Having received these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit,” 2 Cor. 7:1. But now if a man be so under the power of his lust that he hath nothing but law to oppose it withal, if he cannot fight against it with gospel weapons, but deals with it altogether with hell and judgment, which are the proper arms of the law, it is most evident that sin hath possessed itself of his will and affections to a very great prevalency and conquest.
Such a person hath cast off, as to the particular spoken of, the conduct of renewing grace, and is kept from ruin only by restraining grace; and so far is he fallen from grace, and returned under the power of the law. And can it be thought that this is not a great provocation to Christ, that men should cast off his easy, gentle yoke and rule, and cast themselves under the iron yoke of the law, merely out of indulgence unto their lusts?
Try thyself by this also: When thou art by sin driven to make a stand, so that thou must either serve it and rush at the command of it into folly, like the horse into the battle, or make head against it to suppress it, what dost thou say to thy soul? what dost thou expostulate with thyself? Is this all,—“Hell will be the end of this course; vengeance will meet with me and find me out?” It is time for thee to look about thee; evil lies at the door. Paul’s main argument to evince that sin shall not have dominion over believers is, that they “are not under the law, but under grace,” Rom. 6:14. If thy contendings against sin be all on legal accounts, from legal principles and motives, what assurance canst thou attain unto that sin shall not have dominion over thee, which will be thy ruin?
Yea, know that this reserve will not long hold out. If thy lust hath driven thee from stronger gospel forts, it will speedily prevail against this also. Do not suppose that such considerations will deliver thee, when thou hast voluntarily given up to thine enemy those helps and means of preservation which have a thousand times their strength. Rest assuredly in this, that unless thou recover thyself with speed from this condition, the thing that thou fearest will come upon thee. What gospel principles do not, legal motives cannot do.
5. When it is probable that there is, or may be, somewhat of judiciary hardness, or at least of chastening punishment, in thy lust as disquieting. This is another dangerous symptom. That God doth sometimes leave even those of his own under the perplexing power at least of some lust or sin, to correct them for former sins, negligence, and folly, I no way doubt. Hence was that complaint of the church, “Why hast thou hardened us from the fear of thy name?” Isa. 63:17. That this is his way of dealing with unregenerate men no man questions. But how shall a man know whether there be any thing of God’s chastening hand in his being left to the disquietment of his distemper? Ans. Examine thy heart and ways. What was the state and condition of thy soul before thou fellest into the entanglements of that sin which now thou so complainest of? Hadst thou been negligent in duties? Hadst thou lived inordinately to thyself? Is there the guilt of any great sin lying upon thee unrepented of? A new sin may be permitted, as well as a new affliction sent, to bring an old sin to remembrance.
Hast thou received any eminent mercy, protection, deliverance, which thou didst not improve in a due manner, nor wast thankful for? or hast thou been exercised with any affliction without labouring for the appointed end of it? or hast thou been wanting to the opportunities of glorifying God in thy generation, which, in his good providence, he had graciously afforded unto thee? or hast thou conformed thyself unto the world and the men of it, through the abounding of temptations in the days wherein thou livest? If thou findest this to have been thy state, awake, call upon God; thou art fast asleep in a storm of anger round about thee.
6. When thy lust hath already withstood particular dealings from God against it. This condition is described, Isa. 57:17, “For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.” God had dealt with them about their prevailing lust, and that several ways,—by affliction and desertion; but they held out against all. This is a sad condition, which nothing but mere sovereign grace (as God expresses it in the next verse) can relieve a man in, and which no man ought to promise himself or bear himself upon. God oftentimes, in his providential dispensations, meets with a man, and speaks particularly to the evil of his heart, as he did to Joseph’s brethren in their selling of him into Egypt. This makes the man reflect on his sin, and judge himself in particular for it. God makes it to be the voice of the danger, affliction, trouble, sickness that he is in or under. Sometimes in reading of the word God makes a man stay on something that cuts him to the heart, and shakes him as to his present condition. More frequently in the hearing of the word preached, his great ordinance for conviction, conversion, and edification, doth he meet with men. God often hews men by the sword of his word in that ordinance, strikes directly in their bosom-beloved lust, startles the sinner, makes him engage unto the mortification and relinquishment of the evil of his heart. Now, if his lust have taken such hold on him as to enforce him to break these bands of the Lord, and to cast these cords from him,—if it overcomes these convictions, and gets again into it old posture,—if it can cure the wounds it so receives,—that soul is in a sad condition.
Unspeakable are the evils which attend such a frame of heart. Every particular warning to a man in such an estate is an inestimable mercy; how then doth he despise God in them who holds out against them! And what infinite patience is this in God, that he doth not cast off such a one, and swear in his wrath that he shall never enter into his rest!
These and many other evidences are there of a lust that is dangerous, if not mortal. As our Saviour said of the evil spirit, “This kind goes not out but by fasting and prayer,” so say I of lusts of this kind. An ordinary course of mortification will not do it; extraordinary ways must be fixed on.
This is the first particular direction: Consider whether the lust or sin you are contending with hath any of these dangerous symptoms attending of it.
Before I proceed I must give you one caution by the way, lest any be deceived by what hath been spoken. Whereas I say the things and evils above-mentioned may befall true believers, let not any that finds the same things in himself thence or from thence conclude that he is a true believer. These are the evils that believers may fall into and be ensnared withal, not the things that constitute a believer. A man may as well conclude that he is a believer because he is an adulterer, because David that was so fell into adultery, as conclude it from the signs foregoing; which are the evils of sin and Satan in the hearts of believers. The seventh chapter of the Romans contains the description of a regenerate man. He that shall consider what is spoken of his dark side, of his unregenerate part, of the indwelling power and violence of sin remaining in him, and, because he finds the like in himself, conclude that he is a regenerate man, will be deceived in his reckoning. It is all one as if you should argue: A wise man may be sick and wounded, yea, do some things foolishly; therefore, every one who is sick and wounded and does things foolishly is a wise man. Or as if a silly, deformed creature, hearing one speak of a beautiful person, should say that he had a mark or a scar that much disfigured him, should conclude that because he hath himself scars, and moles, and warts, he also is beautiful. If you will have evidences of your being believers, it must be from those things that constitute men believers. He that hath these things in himself may safely conclude, “If I am a believer, I am a most miserable one.” But that any man is so, he must look for other evidences if he will have peace.
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 43–50.
