by CBTS | Mar 10, 2025 | Practical Theology
Zeal is an ardour of mind, a fervent affection for some person or thing; with an indignation against every thing supposed to be pernicious and hurtful to it. As it is a divine grace, it is a vehement affection for God and his glory; an earnest study, by all proper means, to promote it; with a resentment of every thing that tends to obscure, let, and hinder it; it is hot, burning, flaming love, which cannot be quenched by water, nor drowned by floods, nor abated, restrained, and stopped, by any difficulties in the way. It is sometimes used for that strong affection God bears to his people, expressed by his earnest care of them, and indignation against their enemies, called, the zeal of the Lord of hosts, and his great jealousy, Isa. 9:7, Zech. 1:14, and 8:2. And sometimes for a gracious disposition in man, which has God for its object, and is called, zeal towards God, an eager desire after his glory; and of which God is the author, and is called, a zeal of God, or a godly jealousy, 2 Cor. 11:2. In treating of which I shall consider,
I. The various sorts and kinds of zeal; that it may be the better known, what is right and genuine. And,
i. There is a zeal of God, which is not according to knowledge, which the Jews had, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 10:2, and which lay in a zealous concern for the performance of legal duties, and in a studious attempt to set them up, and establish them as a justifying righteousness before God; to the entire neglect and rejection of the righteousness of Christ. Which zeal of theirs, in this attempt, arose,
1. From ignorance of the perfection of God’s righteousness, which is displayed in all his ways and works, who is the Judge of the whole earth, and will do right; and will not clear the guilty without full satisfaction to his justice, nor justify any without a perfect righteousness; and his judgment of things is according to truth; and he cannot reckon an imperfect righteousness a perfect one; nor account that for righteousness which is none: to secure his honour and glory in this point, he has set forth Christ to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin, thereby making satisfaction for it; To declare his righteousness: but of this the legal zealot is ignorant, and therefore takes a wrong course.—2. It arises from ignorance of the righteousness which God in the law requires; the law is holy, just, and good, and requires a perfect righteousness; both as to the matter of it, and the manner of its performance; all that the law has commanded must be done, and as it is commanded, or it is no righteousness, Deut. 6:25; and the law is spiritual, and reaches to and is concerned with the heart, the spirit, and the soul of man; it forbids sinful thoughts, inward lusts, and irregular affections, as well as the outward and grosser sins of life; it allows of no peccadilloes, or little sins, but condemns all; so extensive is the law, and such the spirituality of it; which the Pharisee being ignorant of, sets up his own righteousness as sufficient, and zealously endeavours to establish it; but it will be of no service, Matt. 5:19, 20.—3. This ignorant zeal arises from a want of knowledge of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel; which is no other than the righteousness of Christ, who is God as well as man: being ignorant of this, its excellency, fulness, and suitableness, men submit not unto it, but reject it, stumbling at the stumbling stone and rock of offence.—4. It arises from ignorance of their own righteousness; the Spirit of God not having convinced them of it, how imperfect and polluted it is; how it is not answerable to the law of God; and how short it comes of its demands and requirements; and how insufficient it is to justify them before God; and whilst this is the case they are warmly attached to it, and zealous to establish it: but when they come to be made sensible of the imperfection and unprofitableness of it, they desire to be found in Christ, and in his righteousness, and not their own, Phil. 3:9.—5. It arises from want of faith in Christ; being destitute of that, the zealots follow eagerly after righteousness, but do not attain it; because they seek it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; now, what is not of faith is sin, and therefore zeal without faith cannot be right; zeal without faith in Christ, must be without knowledge, must be without the knowledge of Christ, and without the knowledge of God in Christ; and therefore cannot be well-pleasing and acceptable to God; nor is such a righteousness they are following after and endeavouring to establish. Wherefore,—6. Such a zealot goes contrary to the will and way of God, in the justification of a sinner; and therefore his zeal must be a false one: the declared will of God is, that a man is not, and cannot be, justified in the sight of God by the deeds of the law; but that a man is justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ, without the deeds of the law; the way and method God takes to justify men, is by grace, freely imputing righteousness, without works, unto them; by making and accounting them righteous, through the obedience and righteousness of his Son. And therefore it must be a blind, ignorant zeal, which sets up a man’s post by God’s post, and advances his own righteousness above that of Christ’s.
ii. There is a mistaken zeal of the glory of God; and for it.
1. When that is opposed which is right, under a false notion of its being contrary to the glory of God; as when Joshua requested of Moses to forbid the young men prophesying in the camp; as being neither, as he thought, for the glory of God, nor to the honour of Moses; and when the priests and scribes were sore displeased at the children in the temple, crying Hosanna to the Son of David; and when they exclaimed against the works of Christ done on the Sabbathday, as if contrary to the honour of the Sabbath, and the sanctification of it, and so to the glory of God in it; and such was the indiscreet zeal of Peter, in chiding Christ for saying he must suffer many things, as if it was injurious to his honour and glory; when all these things were right.—2. When that which is not for the glory of God, is wrongly thought to be so, and is zealously pursued as such: this is a mistaken zeal; as was the zeal of the idolatrous Gentiles for their idols, and idol-worship; and of the Papists, for their worship of images, angels, and saints departed, and for many other things; and of the Jews, for the traditions of the elders, of which the apostle Paul was very zealous, before conversion; and of the believing Jews, who were zealous for continuing the ceremonies of the law, though abrogated, Gal. 1:14; Acts 21:20.—3. When ways and methods improper are taken to defend and promote the glory of God; as when the disciples, in their zeal for the honour of Christ, were for having fire come down from heaven upon those who had shown some disrespect to Christ; and when Peter, in his preposterous zeal, drew his sword in defence of his Master, and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant; for which both the one and the other were rebuked by Christ.
iii. There is a superstitious zeal, such as was in Baal’s worshippers, who cut themselves with knives and lancets, whilst calling upon him; and in all idolaters using a multitude of superstitious rites, of which they are extremely zealous; particularly in the Athenians, who were wholly given to idolatry, and whose city was full of idols; of whom the apostle says, that he perceived that they were in all things too superstitious; and therefore, lest they should be at all defective in the objects of their worship, they erected an altar to an unknown God, that they might be sure to comprehend all; and in the Jews, who were zealous of the traditions of the fathers, and were superstitiously careful that they did not eat with unwashen hands, and of the washing of their cups and pots, &c.
iv. There is a persecuting zeal under a pretence of the glory of God; so Saul, before his conversion, says of himself; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; that is, he showed his zeal, as he thought, for the glory of God, when he persecuted the church of Christ, and made havock of it; and he seems to have respect to this when he tells the Jews that he was zealous towards God, as ye all are this day; so the devout and honourable women, whom the Jews stirred up to persecute the apostles, were, no doubt, under the influence of such a false zeal; imagining, that what they did was for the glory of God, and the honour of religion.
v. There is a hypocritical zeal for God; as in Jehu, when he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord; when, at the same time he took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord, nor did he depart from the sins of Jeroboam; for though he destroyed the images of Baal, he worshipped the calves at Dan and Bethel; and in the scribes and Pharisees, who brought the woman taken in adultery to Christ, under a pretence of a great regard to the law; and yet were guilty of like sins and others; and in Judas, who pretended regard to the poor when he only sought to gratify his covetousness; and in the Pharisees, who made a show of great zeal for piety, by their long prayers, when they only sought to devour widows’ houses by that means.
vi. There is a contentious zeal; which often gives great trouble to Christian communities: of men of such a spirit the apostle speaks when he says, If any man seem to be contentious, about trivial matters, things indifferent, and of no moment, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; nor should such be indulged: this sort of zeal is oftentimes no other than a mere logomachy, a striving about words to no profit; it is a contention about foolish and unlearned questions, which gender strifes; and at best about things curious and useless; whereas true zeal is always employed about the more solid and substantial doctrines of the gospel, and the ordinances of Christ.
vii. Sometimes it is only a temporary passion; a flash of zeal, and continues not; so Joash, whilst Jehoiada the priest lived, did what was right, and showed zeal in repairing the house of God; but after his death, left the house of the Lord God of his fathers, and served groves and idols. John the Baptist was a burning and shining light, and his hearers and disciples burned with zeal for him, his ministry and baptism, and envied, on his account, the increasing interest of Christ; but it was but for a season they rejoiced in his light: so the Galatians were zealously affected towards the apostle Paul, to such a degree, that they would have been willing to have plucked out their eyes and given them to him; whom they first received as an angel of God, even as Jesus Christ, so acceptable was his ministry; and yet he became their enemy, because of his preaching the same truths.
viii. True zeal is no other than a fervent ardent love to God and Christ, and a warm concern for their honour and glory; such who are truly zealous for the Lord of hosts, love him with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their strength; they love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, as well as one another fervently; it is accompanied with a saving knowledge of God and Christ; of God in Christ, and of Christ and him crucified; and such prefer the excellency of the knowledge of Christ above all things else, and prefer him to all created beings, they have faith in God, and also in Christ; a faith which works by love, and this love constrains them, inspires them with zeal to seek their honour and glory; whatever they do, whether in things civil or religious, they do all to the glory of God. To true zeal there must be spiritual knowledge, unfeigned faith, and undissembled love; and this stands opposed,—1. To a neutral spirit in religion, to a halting between two opinions, condemned by Elijah in the Jews, 1 Kings 18:21. There can be no true zeal to the truth of worship, doctrines, and ordinances, where there is no stability; but a continual wavering and inconstancy.—2. To carelessness and indifference about religious matters; when men, like the Jews of old, regard their own ceiled houses, and not the house of God; when they mind their secular affairs more than the interest of religion; when, as to the church of God, the truths of the gospel, and the ordinances of Christ, Gallio like, they care for none of these things.—3. To lukewarmness, with respect to divine and spiritual things; which the Laodicean church is charged with, and resented by Christ, Rev. 3:15, 16. I proceed to consider.
II. The objects of zeal.
i. The object of it is God; even a false zeal is called, a zeal towards God; and that which is not according to knowledge, is said to be a zeal of God; Jehu called his hypocritical zeal, a zeal for the Lord; true zeal most deservedly bears this name; so Phinehas had the covenant of an everlasting priesthood given him, because he was zealous for his God, Numb. 25:13; which springs from a principle of love to God, and its end is his glory; and it has for its objects the worship of God, the word of God, and the truths contained in it.
1. The worship of God; who must be known, or he cannot be worshipped aright: the Samaritans worshipped they knew not what; and the Athenians erected an altar to an unknown God; and therefore, though they were both zealous of worship, their zeal was not according to knowledge; but true believers worship God in the Spirit, whom they know in a spiritual way; through faith in Christ, and with a zealous concern for his glory: and they worship him in truth, and keep close to the pattern of worship shown them; to which they are zealously attached, and will not depart from it. Wherefore,—2. The word of God is the object of their zeal; to the law and to the testimony they appeal for the truth of all they say and do; they make that the standard of their faith and practice, and the rule of their worship; they earnestly contend for the perfection and integrity of it; and endeavour, with all their might and main, to preserve it pure and incorrupt, 2 Cor. 2:17.—3. The truths contained in the word; they who have a true zeal are valiant for the truth; and can do nothing against it, but every thing for it, in defence of it, and for the continuance of it; they will buy the truth, give a great price for it, and highly value it; but will not sell it, nor part with it at any rate.
ii. The cause of Christ is another object of zeal, and which is a good one, and the apostle says, It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, Gal. 4:18; and those who are possessed of this zealous affection seek not their own things, but the things of Christ; they have a sort of natural care, as Timothy had, for the state of the churches, and interest of Christ, and of true religion, and for the support of it; not only in that branch of it to which they more peculiarly belong, but in others; as the Corinthian church, who was not only zealously concerned for their own welfare, but for that of others; and the apostle testifies that their zeal in their liberal ministration to the saints had provoked very many, 2 Cor. 9:2. True zeal for the cause of Christ is concerned about the gospel of Christ, the ordinances of Christ, and the discipline of his house.
1. The gospel of Christ: great reason there is to be zealous for that; since it is the gospel of the grace of God, which displays the free grace of God in every part of our salvation; and therefore the apostle was so zealously concerned for it, as not to count his life dear to himself, so that he might finish his course with joy, by bearing a testimony to it: and because it is the gospel of salvation, which publishes salvation by Christ, and declares, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved: and because it is the gospel of peace, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, and by the blood of his cross; and because in it forgiveness of sin is preached in the name of Christ, and justification by his righteousness.—2. The ordinances of Christ, which every true Christian should be zealous for, that they be kept as they were first delivered, without any innovation or corruption; that the mode of administration of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper should be strictly adhered to; and that none be admitted to them but believers in Christ, or such who profess faith in him.—3. The discipline of Christ’s house should be the object of our zeal, as it was of his, who said, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and this is shown when the rules of discipline are strictly observed, both with respect to private and public offences: when churches and the members of them, like the church at Ephesus, cannot bear them which are evil, to continue them in fellowship with them; whether men of immoral lives, or have imbibed false doctrines; but withdraw from them that walk disorderly, and reject such who are not sound in the faith.
iii. Every thing that is evil is the object of zeal, or against which true zeal should be expressed. As,
1. Against all false worship, particularly idolatry, or the having more and other gods than one, whether found among the heathens, or any that bear the Christian name; as was by Moses, when his anger, zeal, and indignation waxed hot against the Israelites for their idolatrous worship of the calf, and he broke the tables of the law which were in his hands, and ordered the Levites to put their swords by their side, and slay every man his brother, companion, and neighbour: and so Elijah, who was jealous for the Lord God of hosts, because Israel had forsaken the covenant of the Lord, had thrown down his altar, and slain his prophets; and where there is true love for God, and zeal for his worship, there will be a hatred of every false way, be it in what shape it may.—2. Against all errors in doctrine, especially such as affect the persons in Deity, Father, Son, and Spirit, with all others which are the fundamental doctrines of religion; such as deny them are to be rebuked sharply, warmly, vehemently with a becoming zeal, that they may be sound in the faith; such who bring not the doctrine of Christ, respecting his person, office, and grace, are not to be received into the houses of saints, nor to be bid God speed.—3. Against all immorality in practice; true zeal will be as much levelled against a man’s own sins as against the sins of others; he will be concerned to remove the beam out of his own eye, as well as the mote out of his brother’s; he will be severe against right-hand and right-eye sins, such as are dear to the flesh as these be; and real godly sorrow for sin, and true repentance unto salvation, is always productive of zeal. What zeal it wrought in you? against a man’s own sins more especially, as against others; and that which is against the sins of others, is tempered with commiseration and pity to the sinner, 2 Cor. 7:11, and 12:21.
iv. True zeal is concerned in all the duties of religion, and shows itself in them; in the service of God in general, we should be fervent in spirit, warm, hot, zealous, serving the Lord, in such a manner, and not in a cold indifferent way, and in the ministration of the gospel; it is said of Apollos, that being fervent in spirit he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, the doctrines of the gospel, so far as he was then acquainted with them, Acts 18:25. It is also very requisite in prayer to God; it is said of Epaphras, that he was always labouring fervently in prayers for the church at Colosse; and it is the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man that availeth much, Col. 4:12, James 5:16. And it should be shown in the love of the saints to one another, 1 Pet. 1:22, and 4:8. In short, believers in Christ ought to be zealous of good works, careful to maintain them, diligent in the performance of them, especially of those which are the greater and weightier duties of religion, though they are not to neglect and omit the lesser ones. To say no more, good men are the objects of true zeal; the apostle Paul was informed of the fervent mind or zeal of the Corinthians towards him, of the warm love and ardent affection they had for him; and he advises them to covet earnestly, to desire the best gifts, spiritual ones, fitting for public service, even prophecy or preaching, 2 Cor. 7:7, 1 Cor. 12:31.
III. Motives or arguments exciting to the exercise of true zeal.
i. The example of Christ, whom David in prophetic language personated, saying, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up, consumed his spirits, his strength, and life; so much did he exert himself in his public administrations: he showed his zeal for the doctrines of the gospel by his warm and constant preaching them, even with power and authority, as the scribes and Pharisees did not; in the indefatigable pains he took, travelling from place to place to do it, running the risk of his life, and exposing himself to frequent dangers on that account: and for the worship of the house of God, as appears by inveighing so severely against the traditions of men; by asserting the purity of worship in spirit and in truth; by expressing his resentment at the profanation of the house of God, driving out the buyers and sellers from it, which brought the above passage to the mind of the disciples, who clearly discerned the fulfilment of it: the zeal of Christ against immorality was seen also in his sharp reproofs of the vices of the age, both in professors and profane, and in all he is a pattern worthy of our imitation.—2. True zeal answers a principal end of redemption by Christ, Tit. 2:14; and where there is no zeal for God, and for that which he requires an observance of, the claim to redemption seems very precarious. The love of Christ in redeeming his people will constrain them to show a zeal for his glory, both with respect to doctrine and practice.—3. It is good, the apostle says, to be zealously affected in and for that which is good; and it is approved and commended by Christ, as the church at Ephesus was for it; because she could not bear them that were evil; and a contrary disposition, that of lukewarmness, is disapproved of and resented; as in the church of Laodicea, threatened to be unchurched for it, and therefore strongly exhorted to be zealous and repent, Rev. 3:15, 16, 19, 20.—4. A lukewarm temper, which is the opposite to zeal, seems not consistent with true religion, which has always life and heat in it; to be neither cold nor hot is condemned as having no religion at all.—5. The zeal of persons shown in a false way, should stimulate the professors of the true religion to show at least an equal zeal; for that all people will walk every one in the name of his God, and appear zealous for his worship, we will walk in the name of the Lord our God, at least we ought to do so, and determine upon it. The Pharisees showed great zeal, and took great pains, compassing sea and land to make one proselyte, though made worse than he was, and worse than themselves; and should not we Christians exert ourselves to the uttermost for the interest of the Redeemer, this must be a becoming zeal. And in order to keep up and promote such zeal, it will be proper frequently to meditate on the love of God and Christ, the blessings of the gospel of the grace of God, the excellency of the Christian religion, the benefits and privileges of the house of God, and to converse often with warm and lively Christians, and to sit under a savoury and fervent ministry.
John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, New Edition, vol. 2 (Tegg & Company, 1839), 519–526.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 4, 2025 | Apologetics
Cornelius Van Til developed the system of apologetics known as presuppositionalism in conscious interaction with Warfield and Kuyper. As the name suggests, presuppositionalism stresses the importance of understanding that both Christian and non-Christian thinking is controlled and begins with certain presuppositions or first principles. We will treat the development of Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics by means of the same five categories under which we have looked at Old Princeton and Amsterdam.
Internal Unity
- The preceding survey of the Old Princeton and Amsterdam apologetic approaches makes clear that from a biblical viewpoint, they had opposite or contrasting strengths and weaknesses. Spencer comments on the relation of the deficiencies of the Amsterdam and Old Princeton schools of apologetics.
Interestingly, these deficiencies are not in identical aspects. Each school’s weaknesses are aligned [arranged‑-SW] opposite strengths in the other school. For example, Old Princeton emphasizes the cognitive [rational or reasonable‑-SW] basis for faith, neglected by Amsterdam, while Kuyper and Bavinck emphasize the internal witness of the Spirit as the solely sufficient persuasive [convincing‑-SW] agent concerning the divine origin of Scripture. Again, Old Princeton emphasizes the enduring rational character of man even in sin while Amsterdam emphasizes the radical and pervasive effects of the fall and their significance for apologetics.
This situation points to a resolution of the dispute: a wedding or fusion of the two schools of thought, gaining the strengths and insights of both and avoiding the weaknesses of each. In so doing, a more consistently Biblical position in apologetics emerges. This indeed is what has happened historically in the thought of a man deeply indebted to both traditions, Cornelius Van Til.[1]
- There is in Van Til’s teaching a conscious resolution and synthesis (or blending) of the antithesis (or contradictions) between Old Princeton and Amsterdam. When we speak of Van Til synthesizing or combining these two schools, however, it is not as though we are saying that Van Til owes an equal debt to both. Rather it is clear that Van Til stands basically in the Amsterdam tradition. This, in fact, is how Spencer repeatedly treats him. Van Til, speaking of the debate between Warfield and Kuyper, straightforwardly asserts, “I have chosen the position of Abraham Kuyper.” [2]
- Yet Van Til has a conscious difference of opinion with Kuyper. He makes clear his differences with Kuyper by saying, “But I am unable to follow him when from the fact of the mutually destructive character of the two principles he concludes to the uselessness of reasoning with the natural man.” [3] In other words, Van Til believes it is incorrect to reason as follows: The natural man, because of his unsaved and depraved mind, has a completely different approach to knowledge than the believer. Therefore, it is useless to reason with him or try to defend the faith to him. We must simply wait for the Spirit to give him the eyes to see the truth. Van Til expands in another place on this point and shows his appreciation of Warfield on this point.
Warfield stresses the objective rationality of the Christian religion. This is not to suggest that Kuyper does not also believe in such an objective rationality. But by pointing out again and again that the Christian faith is belief on evidence not blind belief, Warfield makes plain that Christianity is “rationally defensible.” This has direct significance for apologetics. Kuyper seems sometimes to argue from the fact that the natural man is blind to the truth, to the uselessness of apologetics. But Warfield points out that this does not follow. On this point he closely follows Calvin. Men ought to conclude that God is their Creator, their Benefactor and their Judge. They ought to see these things because the revelation of God to them is always clear. The fact that men do not see this and cannot see this is due to the fact that their minds are darkened and their wills perverted through sin. Such is the argument of Calvin. And Warfield’s insistence that we believe Christianity because it is “rational,” not in spite of the fact that it is irrational, is fully in accord with it. To the extent that Warfield differs on this point with Kuyper and has called us back to Calvin, he has done great service for Christian apologetics.[4]
- Van Til saw tension between Warfield and Kuyper. He gave a sharp and perceptive analysis of their approaches to apologetics. He felt that both were emphasizing vital but balancing aspects of the truth. He also felt that both were deducing ideas and views from their positive emphases, which were false. His crucial interaction with Warfield and Kuyper comes in The Christian Theory of Knowledge where in a chapter entitled, “Natural Theology and Scripture,” he interacts with the thought of both these men. His key statements and criticisms are brief but piercing:
Warfield has greatly stressed the point that God’s revelation is present to every man and sometimes draws from it the illegitimate conclusion that therefore the natural man, disregarding his ethical alienation from God, can give an essentially correct interpretation at least of natural revelation. Kuyper has stressed the natural man’s ethical alienation from God and sometimes draws from it the illegitimate conclusion that the natural man is unable to understand the intellectual argument for Christianity in any sense.[5]
This brief statement keenly summarizes the contrasting apologetic strengths of Warfield and Kuyper. It also neatly summarizes and analyzes their contrasting weaknesses. Warfield fails to distinguish natural revelation and natural theology and, therefore, deduces from or includes in natural revelation the idea of natural theology. Kuyper similarly fails to properly distinguish natural revelation and natural theology clearly and, therefore, deduces from the noetic or intellectual effects of sin and the impossibility of a genuine natural theology the idea that man is inaccessible to natural revelation. All of this points us to a distinction between natural revelation and natural theology, which is vital to Van Til’s apologetic and crucial to a proper assessment of and approach to the natural man.
- Van Til clearly makes a distinction between natural theology and natural revelation by speaking of two different senses in which we may speak of men knowing God. This distinction is stated clearly by the paradox which says that man both knows and does not know the living God. In the sense of being aware of the witness to the existence and attributes of God given by general or natural revelation all men without exception know God. In the sense of being able to construct from the data of natural revelation a natural theology or system of knowledge which would be a practical and godly basis for their lives unregenerate men do not know God. Their sinful intellects always confuse, distort, and pervert natural revelation when they construct their systems of philosophy or religion. Listen to Van Til:
He knows God …Yet ethically he does not know God … So then in his preaching the Reformed theologian is anxious to do justice to both aspects of biblical truth on this matter. He should stress on the one hand, the objective clarity of God’s revelation to man. He should stress that this revelation is unavoidably present to the natural man since it always enters into the penetralia [the innermost or secret parts‑-SW] of his consciousness. On the other hand he should stress the ethical darkness of the mind of man. As a consequence of this darkness of mind, this spiritual blindness, the natural man does not know that which, in the sense above defined, he knows and cannot help but know.[6]
Philosophical Influences
- His General Approach to Secular Philosophy
Van Til manifests a greater, self-conscious awareness of the dangers of secular philosophy than either Old Princeton or Amsterdam. In contrast to both schools, Van Til adopts an openly Christian approach to philosophy, which is in conscious contrast to non-Christian philosophy. Spencer very ably summarizes Van Til’s approach to secular philosophy. Van Til asserts that all non-Christian philosophy grows out of the evil hearts of unbelievers. This heart condition of being alienated or separated from God gives an anti-Christian tendency and meaning to everything the unbeliever says in his philosophy. The unbeliever may not be fully consistent with his ungodly heart and presuppositions, but everything he says will, to one degree or the other, be affected by them. This means that the believer may never unthinkingly or naively adopt any non-Christian philosophy. Van Til believes that the believer may use the same terminology as the unbeliever. Both unbelievers and believers may agree in saying that man is `rational.’ Yet the believer must beware that this “formal similarity” of words does not deceive him into thinking that the believer and unbeliever mean the same thing by such terms. To summarize Van Til’s general perspective about secular or worldly philosophy we may say that the Christian may learn from the unbeliever, but he may never borrow from him. Here are Spencer’s comments:
Van Til attempts to more faithfully elaborate an explicitly self-consciously Christian philosophical position (Christian Philosophy, pp. 4, 6, 7).
The explanation of how he desires to do this and how he will relate to non-Christian thought is in chapter one of A Survey of Christian Epistemology. There Van Til rejects the position which advocates that a distinctively Christian philosophy will utilize distinctively Christian terms (personal conversation with the writer, June 22, 1978; Defense of the Faith, p. 23, n. 1; Jerusalem and Athens, pp. 125-126). Van Til sees no need for that. The problem, as he sees it, is not so much with terms and labels per se as with the meaning and content of the terms and labels (see, e. g., Survey, pp. v, 5-6). For Van Til, the presuppositions of an unregenerate’s philosophical perspective, growing out of his heart condition of alienation from and enmity toward God, are anti-Christian. This gives an anti-Christian cast to the entire system which is elaborated upon those presuppositions. The unregenerate may not be fully consistent in the out-working of his anti-God stance, but the opposition will always, in greater or lesser degree, make itself felt in the positions taken on all questions (See Survey, pp. 183-185; Jim S. Halsey, For a Time Such as This, pp. 100-106).
This implies two things: first, that the Christian may not borrow intact any aspect of an unregenerate’s philosophical position. Every aspect of the latter’s world-view is related to his heart-commitment to rebellion against God. Therefore, when a Christian borrows a portion of an unregenerate world-view, he obtains a contaminated portion. He cannot use non-Christian elements without detracting from the fully Christian and godly quality which he desires that his world-view manifest (see Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 47; see Van Til, Towards a Reformed Apologetics, p. 28).
Second, Van Til states that, though Christian and non-Christian philosophy will never, if each is consistent, share any common positions because each position is qualified and characterized by the basic heart commitment out of which it arises, there will nonetheless often be a formal similarity between the two positions (Survey, p. 2). That is, the external form or structure (considered in abstraction apart from its content) may often be similar. For instance, both may speak of man as a “rational” person. However, by “rational” they will each mean something drastically different. The Christians will speak of God, man and the world as creations of God, man in the image of God, and revelation. On the other hand, the non-Christian will refer to the natural realm, man as the accidental product of natural forces, truth as defined purely in terms of the natural order, the independence of man in rising above and subduing his environment, and truth as transient.
According to Van Til, the Christian may learn from the non-Christian but he may not borrow from him. Whatever is said by the non-Christian is distorted by his rebellion against God and his consequent refusal to define or understand anything by reference to God. When a Christian learns from the non-Christian, he must take pains to ensure that the insight gained from the non-Christian is thoroughly and radically re-worked and modified in terms of a theistic foundation, context, and standard. When this is done, there will be only a formal similarity between the insight as it is present in the non-Christian’s system and the insight as it is present in the Christian system.[7]
- His Specific Interaction with Secular Philosophy
Van Til was subjected to or learned from two major sources of secular philosophy during his education: Personal Idealism and Kantianism. Spencer gives us the following biographical insight into the influences with which Van Til interacted.
Van Til did his doctoral studies under A. A. Bowman, a personal idealist at Princeton University …, and did his dissertation on the comparison of the Absolute of Idealist Philosophy and the God of the Bible … Idealism thus constitutes one major philosophical influence. His Th.M. thesis and his first written syllabus both concerned the metaphysics of apologetics and both manifested Van Til’s conviction regarding the significance of the thought of Immanuel Kant … Kant is the second major influence upon Van Til.[8]
Keeping in mind Van Til’s perspective that Christians may learn from non-Christians but not borrow from them, Spencer raises the question of what Van Til learned from these influences. Here are his answers:
From Kant and his successors, Van Til gained the insight into the nature and role of presuppositions …This concern regarding presuppositions is indebted to Kant’s discussion of the transcendental method, that is, a method which is concerned to examine an item of data, inquiring as to the necessary preconditions and foundation for its existence. It asks not merely “how do men think?”, but “what is necessary to make it possible for men to think?” … Though the question is similar for Kant and Van Til, the answers they give are diametrically [completely‑-SW] opposed to each other. Van Til states: “… it is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian [the Christian who understands the truth about how we know what is true‑-SW] that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence” …
From Idealism, Van Til saw that a system of knowledge must be all-inclusive. Everything must be known before anything is known. That is, because each “fact” or aspect of reality is related to every other fact and thus must be interpreted in terms of that, for it is qualified by that, to know truly any aspect demands a knowledge of all other aspects lest the one which is ignored be determinative for the one being examined … Again, however, the indebtedness is formal; materially the idea of system and the relationship of the general to the particular differ greatly as understood by Christianity and Idealism.[9]
Spencer’s conclusion properly contrasts Van Til with his predecessors in both Old Princeton and Amsterdam.
In Van Til, thus, there is found a greater self-consciousness regarding the relationship between Christian and non-Christian thought and a more explicit discussion of a method for working for the latter.
Though there are significant differences between the philosophical influences upon the orientation of Old Princeton and Amsterdam, there are also striking similarities. Kuyper and Bavinck as well as Old Princeton appeal to consciousness, “common sense,” and universal consent to justify their starting points in the perceiving and reasoning of man. Neither clearly builds from Scripture and God in so doing, but instead they both start from human experience itself considered apart from God, His Word, and regeneration. Both, thus, are less than explicitly Biblical and Christian in their philosophical orientation. They have been less than selective in their indebtedness to philosophical influences.[10]
The Noetic Effects of the Fall
For Van Til it is important to recognize that sin is a matter of ethics and not a matter of being. In other words, sin does not bring man closer to the abyss of non-being or diminish his dependence on God. Spencer states first that the effects of the fall are ethical, not ontological.
For Van Til, sin is man’s rejection of God as his standard. “Sin is an attempt on the part of man to cut himself loose from God” … This “breaking loose,” Van Til hastens to add, is ethical, not metaphysical. “Sin is the creature’s enmity and rebellion against God, but is not an escape from creaturehood” … Man cannot alter his ontological dependence upon God. He still lives and moves and has his being” in God. The rebellion is ethical. Man has forsaken his obligation to serve and worship and love God.[11]
Sin does, however, have a profound effect on the way men think. The moral or ethical state of a man is basic to everything else about him. It is basic to the way he thinks. Because sin makes men hate God and brings them under His wrath, they do not want to think about God or honor Him. For this reason they attempt to interpret everything without reference to God. But without referring to God, men cannot think correctly about themselves or the world. Furthermore, there can never be any unity in the non-Christian’s system. Because only God can unify and explain the universe as it really is.[12]
Revelation
- General (Natural) and Special (Positive) Revelation
Here, there is a marked advance beyond Amsterdam and Old Princeton in the clarity of Van Til’s thinking. Theologians of both schools had either tended to think of revelation as being exclusively redemptive and, thus, obscured general revelation or else had tended to make special revelation exclusively redemptive and post-lapsarian [after the fall] and, thus, obscured the proper distinction between general and special revelation. With the help of another Dutch theologian, Geerhardus Vos, Van Til clearly rejects such obscurities. Rather he makes a distinction between the pre-fall and pre-redemptive phase of special revelation and the post-fall and redemptive phase of special revelation.[13]
Note the following diagrams, which show forth the differing positions on general and special revelation:
- Natural Revelation and Natural Theology
Building on his clarified view of the noetic or intellectual effects of sin and general revelation, Van Til makes the crucial distinction between natural (general) revelation and natural theology which we mentioned above. Spencer remarks:
From this universal, inescapable revelation of God to man, Van Til draws a conclusion. “Men ought, therefore, to know Him” … Despite the clarity and unavoidability of this revelation which causes man to be “always confronted with the face of God, man has not truly and properly known God. The reason for this failure lies not in God’s revelation, but in man himself. God’s revelation is still clear and unescapable but, “in sinning, man, as it were, took out his own eyes, so that he could no longer see God in his general revelation” … God has revealed himself and men consequently respond and seek the revealer but in their perverseness, they distort the content of the revelation and seek after false gods.[14]
Theistic Proofs
Under this heading both the theistic proofs proper and the argument for the authority of Scripture will be treated. These issues are closely related since they deal respectively with how we prove the divine authority of general (natural) revelation on the one hand, and special (positive) revelation on the other. A common approach or theme, therefore, permeates Van Til’s approach to these issues.
- The Proofs for the Existence of God
Van Til rejects a number of diverse ideas regarding theistic proofs. The idea of Bavinck that they are merely testimonies and not proofs, the idea of Kuyper that the natural man working with his natural principium is immune in every sense to theistic proofs, the idea of Old Princeton that they provide probable evidence for the existence of God: all these Van Til rejects. Spencer ably and insightfully summarizes Van Til’s position:
Theistic proofs must be demonstrations of the existence of God by one who knows the answer already. They must be articulated in a theistic context if they are to be valid. Unless the world and all that is in it and man and all his capacities are understood to exist and have meaning only because of God and His activity then the proofs will fail; they will prove a false god, one who is subject to man’s epistemic standards [rules for how something can be proven‑-SW] and who does not give existence and meaning to all that is. The context must be theistic if the proof is to be truly and properly theistic. One cannot argue for the existence of God in a conceptual context which is anti-theistic.
This is what Van Til asserts in his discussion of the traditionally formulated theistic proofs. He is frequently misunderstood at this point, by both friend and foe. He is not arguing against theistic proofs per se, but against a particular tradition of theistic proofs, i. e. proofs elaborated on a “neutral,” “common,” and thus in reality, antitheistic basis …
For Van Til, all the proofs (design, morality, and cause) can and should be combined into an argument or proof which says that all of life and reality (ontology, epistemology, and axiology) must presuppose God as its only explanation and foundation. Without God there would be no life and reality. That they exist means that God exists. To live and function is possible only because of God and His activity.
The second problem is that of the expectations men have of the proofs. Many apparently anticipate that the proofs will make Christians out of those to whom they are presented. The proofs will persuade them to acknowledge God. This of course does not happen …
In recognition of this, many have reduced the status of these traditionally-formulated arguments from proofs to witnesses or testimonies (e. g. Bavinck, Valentine Hepp, Masselink). This category apparently is for non-binding, non-compelling evidence-backed assertions. The one advocating the positions is assured of its truthfulness but on grounds which cannot be shared or formulated …
Those advocating this estimate of the arguments for the existence of God have failed, it would appear, to make a crucial distinction. They have assumed that a valid proof, that is, an argument which incontrovertibly establishes a position, like mathematical proofs do, will necessarily, always and everywhere, persuade the hearer to assent … Proof and persuasion are synonymous for them. Since people are not always persuaded by theistic arguments, they must not be proofs. They fail to distinguish the objective validity of the arguments (their validity in terms of valid inference and structure and also the truth of the premises) from the subjective acceptability of the arguments. Man’s approval is not essential to truth …
Van Til saw this and refused the lowering of the estimate of the demonstration of God’s existence. “It is not true that these proofs may well establish the believer in his faith and be merely witness to unbelievers. What is objectively valid ought to be proof and witness for both unbeliever, and believer, and what is not objectively valid ought to be neither for either … we cannot say that the Christian may use these arguments as witnesses, though not as proofs. If they are constructed as all too often they have been constructed, they are neither proofs nor witnesses …[15]
To summarize, with reference to the theistic proofs of proper and natural revelation, Van Til rejects probabilism in favor of asserting that the theistic proofs are absolutely valid and provide certainty to the human mind of the existence of God. This certainty is only possible if they are not constructed on the basis of a supposed (epistemological) common ground with the natural man. The proofs must presuppose the existence of God. Arguments constructed on the basis of supposed neutral ground are of no help at all and provide not even probable evidence for the existence of God. This approach governs Van Til’s approach to Warfield’s probabilism with regard to the authority of Scripture.
- The Proofs for the Authority of Scripture
Van Til stresses that there is a relationship between the Old Princeton approach to the theistic proofs and Warfield’s approach to the proof of the authority of Scripture.
If “right reason,” or a man “in the natural use of reason” can discover that God, that is the true God, exists, he has therewith already found the possibility of supernatural revelation. He needs only to engage in historical research in order to look for the reality of such a revelation. In doing so he will then be asked first to look at the New Testament as a human document written by trustworthy men. He must not be asked directly to regard these documents as being the Word of God.[16]
Van Til, in the above sentence, has begun to summarize Warfield’s approach to the authority of Scripture. He continues:
… for the sake of letting “right reason” judge for itself whether they are such [whether they are the Word of God], these records must first be presented as being ordinary historical records. As historical records written by the apostles they tell us about the life and labors, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The picture given in these records leaves the impression of verisimilitude Jesus of Nazareth appears from them as being the very son of God. He promised to the disciples the Spirit of truth so that they would be inspired to write the New Testament as the Word of God. It is thus that we get to the idea of infallible inspiration by way of a process of reasoning. We must not, argues Warfield, begin with it as immediately and directly a part of the Bible that as Christians we present unto men.[17]
Warfield, therefore, plainly denies that we should make all the truths or teachings of Scripture depend upon the doctrine of inspiration as their logical foundation.
Let it not be said that thus we found the whole Christian system upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. We found the whole Christian system on the doctrine of plenary inspiration as little as we found it upon the doctrine of angelic existences. Were there no such thing as inspiration, Christianity would be true, and all its essential doctrines would be credibly witnessed to us in the generally trustworthy reports of the teaching of our Lord and of his authoritative agents in founding the church, preserving in the writings of the apostles and their first followers, and in the historical witness of the living church. Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them to be inspired.[18]
Warfield is open about the result of this methodology upon the certainty (epistemological status) of the authority of Scripture. He frankly adopts the doctrine of probabilism. “Of course, this evidence is not in the strict logical sense `demonstrative’; it is `probable evidence’. It therefore leaves open the metaphysical possibility of its being mistaken.”[19]
Van Til proceeds to argue that Warfield is inconsistent with his own apologetic. Warfield, that is to say, really does not believe that there is any doubt about the status of Scripture. Furthermore, Warfield is inconsistent with Warfield’s own Reformed theology. “It was only an inconsistency on Warfield’s part to advocate a method of apologetics that is out of accord with the foundation concepts of his own Reformed theology.”[20]
In the midst of his rebuttal of Warfield, Van Til states his own doctrine on this matter.
The identification of Scripture as the Word of God is, of necessity, also the work of the self-attesting God, in this case effected through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The identity of Scripture as the Word of God can, therefore, be effected no other way than by way of the self-testimony of Scripture. And it can be accepted, in the last analysis, in no other way than through the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Scripture as self-attesting.[21]
Thus, Van Til rejects Warfield’s method of appealing to the historical verification of Scripture as, first of all, only trustworthy history. He rejects the probabilism this implies. Van Til regards special revelation as possessing the same divine and self-attesting certainty as natural revelation. As the source of all meaning and certainty, the Word of God cannot be verified by foreign evidence from outside itself. Such merely probable evidence is useless in establishing its identity as the Word of God.
[1]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 7.
[2]Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 265.
[3]Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 265.
[4]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 243.
[5]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 245, 246.
[6]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 245.
[7]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 32-34.
[8]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 34.
[9]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 35.
[10]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 36.
[11]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 51.
[12]ibid. “What then are the noetic consequences of this rebellion?” Spencer asks. He then replies: “The result was that man tried to interpret everything with which he came into contact without reference to God”…The unregenerate consciousness seriously mis-evaluates its situation in reality. “It in effect denies its creaturehood. It claims to be normal. It will not be receptive of God’s interpretation; it wants to create its own interpretation without reference to God”…When the unregenerate, fallen man rebels against God, and rejects Him as his standard, then his thought loses coherence, cohesiveness, and unity. “There is no unity and never will be unity in non-theistic thought; it has cut itself loose from the only existing source of unity …”
[13]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 55. Spencer asserts: “Van Til…explicitly rejects an exclusively post-lapsarian [after the fall‑-SW] concept of special revelation. “…even in Paradise man had to interpret the general (natural) revelation of God in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him through special revelation (Jerusalem and Athens, ed., by E. R. Geehan, 18)….It should also be recognized that man was, from the outset, confronted with positive, as well as with natural revelation. Dr. Vos speaks of this as pre-redemptive special revelation (Notes on Biblical Theology of the Old Testament). God walked and talked with man. Natural revelation must not be separated from this supernatural revelation (Common Grace and the Gospel, 69).”
[14]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 61.
[15]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 94-96.
[16]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 246.
[17]ibid.
[18]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 247, 248.
[19]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 248.
[20]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 253.
[21]Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge, 250-251.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTS | Mar 3, 2025 | Practical Theology
The foundation of the whole ensuing discourse laid in Rom. 8:13—The words of the apostle opened—The certain connection between true mortification and salvation—Mortification the work of believers—The Spirit the principal efficient cause of it—What meant by “the body” in the words of the apostle—What by “the deeds of the body”—Life, in what sense promised to this duty.
That what I have of direction to contribute to the carrying on of the work of mortification in believers may receive order and perspicuity, I shall lay the foundation of it in those words of the apostle, Rom. 8:13, “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live;” and reduce the whole to an improvement of the great evangelical truth and mystery contained in them.
The apostle having made a recapitulation of his doctrine of justification by faith, and the blessed estate and condition of them who are made by grace partakers thereof, verses 1–3 of this chapter, proceeds to improve it to the holiness and consolation of believers.
Among his arguments and motives unto holiness, the verse mentioned containeth one from the contrary events and effects of holiness and sin: “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.” What it is to “live after the flesh,” and what it is to “die,” that being not my present aim and business, I shall no otherwise explain than as they will fall in with the sense of the latter words of the verse, as before proposed.
In the words peculiarly designed for the foundation of the ensuing discourse, there is,—
First, A duty prescribed: “Mortify the deeds of the body.”
Secondly, The persons are denoted to whom it is prescribed: “Ye,”—“if ye mortify.”
Thirdly, There is in them a promise annexed to that duty: “Ye shall live.”
Fourthly, The cause or means of the performance of this duty,—the Spirit: “If ye through the Spirit.”
Fifthly, The conditionality of the whole proposition, wherein duty, means, and promise are contained: “If ye,” etc.
1. The first thing occurring in the words as they lie in the entire proposition is the conditional note, Εἰ δὲ, “But if.” Conditionals in such propositions may denote two things:—
(1.) The uncertainty of the event or thing promised, in respect of them to whom the duty is prescribed. And this takes place where the condition is absolutely necessary unto the issue, and depends not itself on any determinate cause known to him to whom it is prescribed. So we say, “If we live, we will do such a thing.” This cannot be the intendment of the conditional expression in this place. Of the persons to whom these words are spoken, it is said, verse 1 of the same chapter, “There is no condemnation to them.”
(2.) The certainty of the coherence and connection that is between the things spoken of; as we say to a sick man, “If you will take such a potion, or use such a remedy, you will be well.” The thing we solely intend to express is the certainty of the connection that is between the potion or remedy and health. And this is the use of it here. The certain connection that is between the mortifying of the deeds of the body and living is intimated in this conditional particle.
Now, the connection and coherence of things being manifold, as of cause and effect, of way and means and the end, this between mortification and life is not of cause and effect properly and strictly,—for “eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ,” Rom. 6:23,—but of means and end. God hath appointed this means for the attaining that end, which he hath freely promised. Means, though necessary, have a fair subordination to an end of free promise. A gift, and procuring cause in him to whom it is given, are inconsistent. The intendment, then, of this proposition as conditional is, that there is a certain infallible connection and coherence between true mortification and eternal life: if you use this means, you shall obtain that end; if you do mortify, you shall live. And herein lies the main motive unto and enforcement of the duty prescribed.
2. The next thing we meet withal in the words is the persons to whom this duty is prescribed, and that is expressed in the word “Ye,” in the original included in the verb, θανατοῦτε, “if ye mortify;”—that is, ye believers; ye to whom “there is no condemnation,” verse 1; ye that are “not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,” verse 9; who are “quickened by the Spirit of Christ,” verses 10, 11; to you is this duty prescribed. The pressing of this duty immediately on any other is a notable fruit of that superstition and self-righteousness that the world is full of,—the great work and design of devout men ignorant of the gospel, Rom. 10:3, 4; John 15:5. Now, this description of the persons, in conjunction with the prescription of the duty, is the main foundation of the ensuing discourse, as it lies in this thesis or proposition:—
The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.
3. The principal efficient cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit: Εἰ δὲ Πνεὑματι,—“If by the Spirit.” The Spirit here is the Spirit mentioned verse 11, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, that “dwells in us,” verse 9, that “quickens us,” verse 11; “the Holy Ghost,” verse 14; the “Spirit of adoption,” verse 15; the Spirit “that maketh intercession for us,” verse 26. All other ways of mortification are vain, all helps leave us helpless; it must be done by the Spirit. Men, as the apostle intimates, Rom. 9:30–32, may attempt this work on other principles, by means and advantages administered on other accounts, as they always have done, and do: but, saith he, “This is the work of the Spirit; by him alone is it to be wrought, and by no other power is it to be brought about.” Mortification from a self-strength, carried on by ways of self-invention, unto the end of a self-righteousness, is the soul and substance of all false religion in the world. And this is a second principle of my ensuing discourse.
4. The duty itself, “Mortify the deeds of the body,” is nextly to be remarked.
Three things are here to be inquired into:—(1.) What is meant by the body; (2.) What by the deeds of the body; (3.) What by mortifying of them.
(1.) The body in the close of the verse is the same with the flesh in the beginning: “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye.… mortify the deeds of the body,”—that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle hath all along discoursed of under the name of the flesh; which is evident from the prosecution of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. The body, then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part, is the seat and instrument, the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby, Rom. 6:19. It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression, that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, and σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the “old man,” and the “body of sin,” Rom. 6:6; or it may synecdochically express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.
(2.) The deeds of the body. The word is πράξεις, which, indeed, denoteth the outward actions chiefly, “the works of the flesh,” as they are called, τὰ ἔργα της σαρκός, Gal. 5:19; which are there said to be “manifest,” and are enumerated. Now, though the outward deeds are here only expressed, yet the inward and next causes are chiefly intended; the “axe is to be laid to the root of the tree,”—the deeds of the flesh are to be mortified in their causes, from whence they spring. The apostle calls them deeds, as that which every lust tends unto; though it do but conceive and prove abortive, it aims to bring forth a perfect sin.
Having, both in the seventh and the beginning of this chapter, treated of indwelling lust and sin as the fountain and principle of all sinful actions, he here mentions its destruction under the name of the effects which it doth produce. Πράξεις τοῦ σώματος are, as much as Φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός, Rom. 8:6, the “wisdom of the flesh,” by a metonymy of the same nature with the former; or as the παθήματα and ἐπιθυμίαι, the “passions and lusts of the flesh,” Gal. 5:24, whence the deeds and fruits of it do arise; and in this sense is the body used, Rom. 8:10: “The body is dead because of sin.”
(3.) To mortify. Εἰ θανατοῦτε,—“If ye put to death;” a metaphorical expression, taken from the putting of any living thing to death. To kill a man, or any other living thing, is to take away the principle of all his strength, vigour, and power, so that he cannot act or exert, or put forth any proper actings of his own; so it is in this case. Indwelling sin is compared to a person, a living person, called “the old man,” with his faculties, and properties, his wisdom, craft, subtlety, strength; this, says the apostle, must be killed, put to death, mortified, that is, have its power, life, vigour, and strength, to produce its effects, taken away by the Spirit. It is, indeed, meritoriously, and by way of example, utterly mortified and slain by the cross of Christ; and the “old man” is thence said to be “crucified with Christ,” Rom. 6:6, and ourselves to be “dead” with him, verse 8, and really initially in regeneration, Rom. 6:3–5, when a principle contrary to it, and destructive of it, Gal. 5:17, is planted in our hearts; but the whole work is by degrees to be carried on towards perfection all our days. Of this more in the process of our discourse. The intendment of the apostle in this prescription of the duty mentioned is,—that the mortification of indwelling sin remaining in our mortal bodies, that it may not have life and power to bring forth the works or deeds of the flesh is the constant duty of believers.
5. The promise unto this duty is life: “Ye shall live.” The life promised is opposed to the death threatened in the clause foregoing, “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;” which the same apostle expresseth, “Ye shall of the flesh reap corruption,” Gal. 6:8, or destruction from God. Now, perhaps the word may not only intend eternal life, but also the spiritual life in Christ, which here we have; not as to the essence and being of it, which is already enjoyed by believers, but as to the joy, comfort, and vigour of it: as the apostle says in another case, “Now I live, if ye stand fast,” 1 Thess. 3:8;—“Now my life will do me good; I shall have joy and comfort with my life;”—“Ye shall live, lead a good, vigorous, comfortable, spiritual life whilst you are here, and obtain eternal life hereafter.”
Supposing what was said before of the connection between mortification and eternal life, as of means and end, I shall add only, as a second motive to the duty prescribed, that,—
The vigour, and power, and comfort of our spiritual life depends on the mortification of the deeds of the flesh.
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 5–9.
