Arminianism Has Flooded the Reformed Churches

Our opposition to the offer of the gospel is not academic. Through the teaching and practice of the offer, Arminianism has flooded the Reformed churches. Today, a Reformed man cries out: "O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps" (Ps. 79:1). The revivalistic, "soul-winning" mentality of free will has taken over among many Reformed people. The altar call, that johnny-come-lately innovation of Finney, an abomination before God and man, is widely practiced in Reformed churches. The evangelism of Billy Graham is revered, so that if one dares to call the message of Graham "the doctrine of Pelagius out of hell," as the Canons of Dordt do indeed call it, he is likely to be stoned as a blasphemer in the streets of Reformed Jerusalem. The children of the covenant are more and more viewed, not as covenant children to be reared in the truth but as potential converts who must make the decision for Christ. Reformed churches are wide open to the most blatant Arminian, "free willist," evangelistic societies, e.g., Campus Crusade for Christ. They are ravaged by ecumenical endeavors based on Arminian universalism., e.g., Key '73 and "Here's Life, America." Loosened from their moorings by Arminianism, they are swept by every wind of doctrine that finds salvation in man's feeling and experience, e.g., neo-Pentecostalism. Even the Holy Scriptures are defiled. Reformed people, schools, and churches gladly receive, eagerly use, and enthusiastically distribute as the Bible a book that is nothing other than a man's revision of the Scriptures along the lines of Arminian theology. Kenneth Taylor's The Living Bible, in all its myriad forms, is the bible of Arminianism. Systematically, it corrupts those passages of Scripture which teach the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation, so that they will teach the sovereignty of the will of man. With this book, the Remonstrants had routed the Synod of Dordt. If a Reformed man had done to the sacred Scriptures in the interest of the Reformed faith only one tenth of that which The Living Bible has done in the interest of Arminianism, he would have been drawn and quartered in every pulpit and religious paper in the land, and his bible would have been scorned at the book stores. As for The Living Bible, it is lavished with praise, and its sales are booming. Why? Because the spiritual leaders delude the people, so that they no longer know that salvation is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God Who showeth mercy, and the people love their delusion. 

There is only one hope for Reformed men and Reformed churches, and only the sovereign grace of God can realize it-- back to Calvinism: the old Calvinism of Dordt, of Calvin, of Augustine, of Paul. And this means the rooting out of the well-meant offer of the gospel. 

David J. Engelsma 

Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, pp. 63-65

Postmillennialism (6)

The Postmillennial Interpretation of Revelation 20 (cont.)

In the past, the majority of postmillennialists explainedRevelation 20:7-9 as teaching that the millennium will be followed by a final apostasy from the gospel and law of Christ and by a worldwide rebellion against the kingdom of Christ. Towards the very end of history, Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations and marshal them against the church. Among those who taught this final apostasy were the Presbyterian J. Marcellus Kik and the Christian Reconstructionist Gary North.¹ Kik's interpretation of the passage is representative: "For the thousand-year period he [Satan] was bound. He could no longer deceive the nations.... At the end of the millennium period he is again to be released to deceive the nations. That will be a woeful day for the world."²

Recently, prominent postmillennial Christian Reconstructionists Rousas J. Rushdoony and Martin G. Selbrede have rejected the teaching of a final apostasy as pessimistic. According to Selbrede, the millennium of Revelation 20 (which he understands as the glorious reign of the church over all her enemies in a "golden age") will climax in the salvation of every living human. To such a world, Christ will return. No worldwide rebellion against the kingdom of Christ will intervene between themillennium and the coming of Christ. Selbrede calls his doctrine of the last things "eschatological universalism" and praises it as a teaching of "unbounded optimism." He acknowledges that he is dependent for both the teaching and its name upon the noted Presbyterian theologian Benjamin B. Warfield.

The Optimistic Interpretation of Revelation 20:7-9

Optimistic though this rejection of a final apostasy and rebellion may be, it still must reckon with Revelation 20:7-9: "And when the thousand years [the millennium] are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together to battle...[against] the camp of the saints...and the beloved city." Even optimism must be "bounded" by the word of God.

Selbrede, the contemporary Christian Reconstruction postmillennialist, relies entirely on Warfield's exegesis of the crucial passage on a final apostasy.³ Warfield's explanation is a denial that the "little season" of Satan's loosing (Rev. 20:3) follows the thousand years in history. Rather, the "little season" is contemporaneous with the thousand years. While the saints are living and reigning with Christ in heaven, Satan is constantly opposing the church on earth. According to Warfield, the binding of Satan for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2) refers to his inability to trouble the saints in heaven. The loosing of Satan for a little season refers to his warfare against the church on earth (during much of the same time that he is bound with regard to the saints in heaven). In Warfield's explanation of the binding and loosing of Satan, time is not in view. It is a mistake to think in terms of before and after, as though Satan is bound before the millennium and loosed after it.

The chaining of Satan is not in the event a preliminary transaction, on which the security of the saints follows: nor is the loosing of Satan a subsequent transaction, on which the security of the saints ceases. The saints rather escape entirely beyond the reach of Satan when they ascend to their Lord and take their seats on His throne by His side.... But while the saints abide in their security Satan, though thus "bound" relatively to them, is loosed relatively to the world—and that is what is meant by the statement in verse 3c that "he must be loosed for a little time." ...We must here look on the time-element...as belonging wholly to the symbol and read in the interpretation space-elements in its place.4

Although Warfield does not make this explicit, his explanation of Revelation 20:7-9 includes that gradually Satan's assault on the church during the "little season" (which for Warfield is the entire present age up to the beginning of the "golden age") will weaken as the gospel converts more and more members of the nations, Gog and Magog. Then will be realized the "golden age," which will culminate in the conversion of every living human (Warfield's and Selbrede's "eschatological universalism"). Finally, Christ will return to a "converted earth."

Evidently, the "golden age" with its eschatological universalism must be inserted into Revelation 20 between verse nine and verse ten. The falling of fire from heaven upon the enemies of the church in verse nine cannot refer to the second coming of Christ, for according to Warfield and Selbrede no enemy of Christ remains at His coming. But the casting of the devil into the lake of fire in verse ten must occur at Christ's second coming. The "golden age" of postmillennialism must, therefore, be found between verse nine and verse ten.

This is the exegesis of Revelation 20:7-9 that Selbrede recommends to his postmillennial comrades, who hitherto have been afflicted with the dread malady of pessimism inasmuch as they have allowed the passage to convince them of a final apostasy. Selbrede's recommendation of Warfield's exegesis of the passage comes with a high cost to postmillennialism. The cost is giving up Revelation 20 as proof of postmillennialism's "golden age." As I pointed out earlier in this series on the last things, Warfield demonstrated that the millennium of Revelation 20 refers to the intermediate state. The living and reigning of the saints with Christ take place in heaven, not on the earth. According to Warfield, there is nothing of a "golden age" on earth in the whole of Revelation 20(Warfield finds the "golden age" of postmillennialism elsewhere in Revelation).5 It is very much to be doubted that postmillennialism is willing, or can stand, to pay this cost, even in order to rid itself of the incubus of a final apostasy.

Erroneous Interpretation

Warfield's interpretation of the loosing of Satan, inRevelation 20:7-9, is erroneous. It is so egregiously erroneous as to betray that Warfield's exegesis is driven by his postmillennial theology. A loosing of Satan towards the end of history resulting in a worldwide rebellion against the kingdom of Christ contradicts the dearest tenet of postmillennialism, namely, that history must come to a close with an earthly, visible, and complete victory of the Messianic kingdom. Therefore, the loosing of Satan must be explained away, regardless that the explanation violently conflicts with the plain language of the text and regardless that the explanation is burdened with insoluble difficulties regarding other elements of the passage, as Warfield himself admits.

The truth is that the loosing of Satan from his chain and prison follows the thousand years during which he had been bound: "When the thousand years are expired (Rev. 20:7)." "When" is a particle of time. The words "are expired" translate the Greek verb that means "were ended," or "were brought to [their] end." It is the same word used of the ending of the thousand-year period in verse three of Revelation 20 and there translated, "should be fulfilled": "that he [Satan] should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled." The thought is that Christ has a purpose with the binding of Satan for a thousand years. This purpose is the gathering of the elect church out of the nations by the preaching of the gospel. This purpose would be impossible of realization, if Satan were not bound and thus prevented from deceiving the nations under Antichrist. Only when Christ's goal, or end, with the thousand years has been reached, in the salvation of the entire church, will He loose Satan for a little season, to do his damnedest.

The element of time is very definitely in the passage, both grammatically and with regard to the doctrine.

That the loosing of Satan follows the millennium in time is clearly taught also in verse three. Satan is bound for a thousand years "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled[that is, ended, in the sense of having been brought to their appointed goal]: and after that he must be loosed a little season." Time is everywhere in the text. Time is prominent. Time is of the text's essence. Satan is bound at the beginning of the thousand years. During the long period of the thousand years, Satan remains bound. Only when the thousand years have ended is he loosed: "after that." And he is loosed "a little season [of time]."

In opposition to Warfield's assertion that the little season of Satan's loosing is the same period of time as the thousand years during which he is bound, verse three sharply distinguishes the time of Satan's binding from the time of his loosing. A thousand years is a long time. It is the time from Christ's ascension until shortly before His coming again. In contrast, the time of Satan's loosing is very brief: "a little season" (literally: "a little time"; time is in the passage literally). And this will be a great comfort to the church that must suffer the consequences of Satan's loosing.

If further evidence of the falsity of Warfield's (and Selbrede's) interpretation of the loosing of Satan were required, it would be that this interpretation forces Warfield to explain the "nations" mentioned in verse three as the elect church in heaven. According to Warfield, the binding of Satan refers strictly to his inability to trouble the saints in heaven in the intermediate state. When verse three, then, teaches that Satan is bound "that he should deceive the nations no more," the meaning must be that he is bound so that he will not deceive the elect in heaven. Warfield recognizes his problem: "The only real difficulty lies in the word 'nations' [in v. 3]. Should we not expect 'saints' instead—for is it not merely with reference to the saints that Satan is supposed to be bound?"6 Half-heartedly, Warfield suggests as the solution to his problem that "nations" in verse three "may include Christians also."7 But he quickly admits that his attempt to explain "nations" in verse three is unsatisfactory. "It cannot be pretended that a real solution of its ['nations' in v. 3] difficulties has been offered in any case; it remains a dark spot in an otherwise lucid paragraph and must be left for subsequent study to explain."8

Apart from the usage of the word "nations" elsewhere in the book of Revelation, the word "nations" is used in verse eight of Revelation 20 to refer to masses of ungodly men and women on the earth. The "nations," identified as Gog and Magog, are the reprobate, ungodly enemies of the true church, whom Satan unites in the little season of his loosing to attack the church. The "nations" of verse three are the ungodly in the world whom Satan cannot deceive during the thousand years, but whom he does deceive during his little season after the thousand years. The "nations" in verse three are the same as the "nations" in verse eight. They are not the elect, believing church, much less the elect in heaven. They are the reprobate wicked, who are always susceptible to Satan's influence. One thing, and one thing only, prevents them from being deceived during the thousand years, and this is Christ's binding of Satan so that he cannot deceive them before Christ has accomplished His great purpose of gathering His church.

Warfield's interpretation of the loosing of Satan, let it be noted, completely distorts the prophecy of Revelation 20:7-9. The passage teaches a loosing of Satan towards the end of history that culminates in an all-out, worldwide attack on the church of Jesus Christ. The church will finally be delivered from this attack and from her ancient foe by a wonder. Fire will come down from God in heaven to devour the hordes of ungodly that assail the church. At that time, Satan will summarily be cast into hell. And then the final judgment will sit (Rev. 20:10ff.).

What is the explanation of the passage by Warfield (and presumably by the Christian Reconstructionist Selbrede)? Satan's attack on the church throughout this present age concludes with the total conversion of the nations, Gog and Magog, that had been attacking the church. Gog and Magog will be saved, to the last man or woman. The camp of the saints and the beloved city will go up on the breadth of the earth, compass the nations that are on the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, about, and successfully evangelize them so that every human then living will be saved. Then will follow a long period of earthly dominion by the saved human race, the "golden age." Where Satan will be during this "golden age," and what he will be up to, we are not told. To this "converted earth," Christ will one day return.
Revelation 20:7-9 is turned on its head.

David J. Engelsma  
http://sb.rfpa.org/articles/chapter-four-postmillennialism-6 

---

1 See the previous installment in this series on the doctrine of the last things.

2 J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 246.

3 See Martin G. Selbrede, "Reconstructing Postmillennialism," The Journal of Christian Reconstruction: Symposium on Eschatology 15 (Winter, 1998), 187, 188.

4 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, "The Millennium and the Apocalypse," in Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929), 655, 656.

5 See David J. Engelsma, "The Millennium (2)," Standard Bearer 85, no. 15 (May 1, 2009): 345.

6 Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, 656, 657.

7 Ibid., 657.

8 Ibid.

THE GREAT HERESIES that have destroyed many churches in the past, and that in in the process of destroying many other churches today

 With regard to the specific gross heresies that sweep a church away from Christ to antichrist, away from God to Satan, away from the true church to the false church, they include the following according to Scripture and the Reformed creeds.

There is the gross heresy that Jesus is not God come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-6). This is the lie of liberalism, particularly Protestant liberalism. But this lie has many aspects. And we must not suppose that this lie at once enters a church in the gross form of an outright denial of the deity of Jesus and of the Trinity. Usually, it enters a church in the form of a rejection of sovereign grace in salvation. Arminianism leads to theological liberalism. Arminianism is incipient theological liberalism. it is incipient theological liberalism by virtue of Arminianism's denial that God's (one) gracious will for the salvation of (elect) sinners is effectual. An ineffectual, dependent god is not the God of classical (biblical) Christianity.

There is the lie that salvation is earned by, or dependent on, the works of the sinner. This is the false doctrine of Rome. This error is exposed in the book of Galatians.

There is the lie of salvation by, and dependent on, the free will of the sinner. This is the false doctrine of much of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and neo-Pentecostalism today. Paul condemns the doctrine of free will as a form of a false gospel that characterizes a false church: "[Salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom. 9:16). The Synod of Dordt condemned this lie as a false gospel on behalf of all Reformed churches everywhere to the end of time.

But the doctrine of free will comes into churches subtly, usually by means of a teaching that, although there is a predestination of some to salvation (about which the churches hear less and less), there is also a universal love and grace of God in Christ that desires the salvation of all without exception and that goes out to all without exception, attempting the salvation of all.This universal grace, in the nature of the theory, is not efficacious, so that the implication is that the reception of this grace depends on the sinner's acceptance of it (about which the churches hear more and more as time goes on). The time to fight this false gospel to the death as at the point of its subtle introduction into a Reformed church). "Obsta principiis!" ("Resist the beginnings!")

In an informative book, the Presbyterian Gary North (with whom I have crossed swords over Christian Reconstruction post-millennialism) demonstrates that the apostasy of the once-great Presbyterian Church (USA), the church of the Hodges and Warfield, into deepest, darkest liberalism began in the early 1900s with the insertion into the Westminster Confession of an article teaching a universal love and grace of God and a desire of God for the salvation of all without exception. The revision of the confession, in 1903, consisted of a "missions-related affirmation that God loves humanity in general and seeks the salvation of all mankind - a denial, in other words, of God's 'double predestination' of fallen mankind to either heaven or hell."The apostasy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) went this way: "from Calvinism to Arminianism to liberalism."

I for one do not intend to be the reason that my grandchildren must fight criticism of Scripture, rejection of the deity of Christ, and denial of the resurrection of the body, because I would not fight the beginnings of liberalism in the denial of God's sovereignty in the salvation of elect sinners. Besides, I regard the false gospel of salvation by the free will of the sinner, making an inherently impotent cross effective for oneself, as being as much a denial of the gospel as is outright liberalism.

There is also the gross heresy that criticizes Scripture as a human word and a human book, full of errors, subject to the critical judgment of man's mind, whether his scientific mind, his philosophical mind, his ethical mind, or his religious mind. Invariably, it enters a church by the criticism of the opening chapters of the Bible. The battle should be fought there. If the battle with unbelief is lost in a church at Genesis 1, the end will be the criticism of the opening chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

There is the gross heresy of mysticism: salvation not by faith in Christ according to the word, but by feeling, by direct, emotional contact with God. This is the horrendous error of the charismatic movement, in addition to its other errors. But this movement does not take a church over all at once with the introduction of new prophecies, holy laughter, being slain in the Spirit, and other such monstrosities. It will seek entrance by asking for the "mere" approval of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in our age.

There is the gross heresy of antinomianism. This appeared already in the apostolic churches, as 2 Peter, Jude, ad the Nicolaitans and Jezebel in Revelation 2 and  3 prove. This is the error of licentiousness as the lawful implication of grace. But also this evil does not appear in a church full-blown: "Let us sin that grace may abound." Rather, it comes in almost innocuously: "We must not discipline the man or woman, but in love receive him or her, even though he or she walks impenitently in sin. Is Jesus not merciful (especially to my son or my daughter)? Is not God a God of love? Doesn't God forgive sinner's?" This seemingly Christian attitude and mind are, in fact, an attack on the third mark of the church. Their sentiment is also another gospel than the gospel of Scripture. The gospel of Scripture teaches salvation from sin, not salvation only from the punishment of sin, as though the forgiven sinner can, and even may, continue impenitently in the bondage of sin, to the great dishonoring of a holy God. The evangelical churches in the United States, in addition to their other errors, are antinomian through and through.

These are the great heresies that have destroyed many churches in the past, and that are in the process of destroying many other churches today.

Every believer must be on guard against them in his or her own church and fight them if they begin to appear.

Out of a love of the truth!

Prof. David J. Engelsma 

Bound to Join, pp.143-146

Postmillennialism (4)

The Postmillennial Interpretation of Revelation 20

The interpretation of Revelation 20, the one passage in Holy Scripture that mentions the millennium, or thousand-year period, is basic to the right understanding of the millennium and, indeed, of the truth of the last things generally. The explanation of the passage by Reformed amillennialism appeared earlier in this treatment of the biblical doctrine of the last things.¹

Here I sketch the interpretation of the passage by the leading spokesmen of postmillennialism in the Reformed tradition. According to the Puritans and their modern disciples, Presbyterian postmillennialists such as J. Marcellus Kik and Loraine Boettner, and the Christian Reconstructionists, who lean heavily on Kik's exegesis of Revelation 20, the millennium of Revelation 20 is a very long period of time, extending (in the judgment of most) from the ascension of Christ to a time shortly before Christ's coming again.

Like amillennialism, therefore, postmillennialism explains the millennium figuratively, not as a literal period of one thousand years. Indeed, many postmillennialists suppose that the heyday of the millennium—the "golden age" for the church on earth—will last for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the second coming of Christ.

But it is in its explanations of the binding of Satan (vv. 2, 3) and of the reign of the martyr-saints with Christ (v. 4) that postmillennialism differs radically from amillennialism in its interpretation of Revelation 20.

The Binding of Satan

Postmillennialism understands the binding of Satan to be Christ's gradual restricting of Satan's influence upon men and nations throughout this present age until finally at least the vast majority of humans alive in the world are converted to Christ; all nations are "Christianized," that is, governed by the law of God and influenced by the Spirit of Christ in all their activities; and such evils as war, poverty, and crime are severely curtailed.

The more optimistic postmillennialists suggest that when Satan's binding has been fully realized, even sin and death will sharply diminish. R.J. Rushdoony promises a "world relatively free of crime, at peace, and men having a long life expectancy."² Christian Reconstructionist Martin G. Selbrede envisions "voluntary obedience to Christ on a world-wide scale so total that all rebellion and depravity have been 'extinguished.'" Selbrede is certainly right to describe his millennial hope as "unbounded optimism."³

A curious feature of the postmillennial conception of the binding of Satan is the notion that the binding of Satan is dependent upon the aggressive actions of the church. Postmillennialists charge that Satan's obvious influence over nations and people in our day is the fault of the church. If the church would exert herself, she could accomplish Satan's full binding in the postmillennial understanding of it. Whereas Revelation 20:1 places the chain that binds Satan in the hand of the angel, postmillennialism puts it in the hand of the church.

Unfortunately the Church of today does not realize the power that Christ has given her. Christ has placed in her hands the chain by which she can bind Satan. She can restrain his influence over the nations. But today the Church bemoans the fact that evil is becoming stronger and stronger. She bemoans the fact that the world is coming more and more under the control of the Devil. Whose fault is that? It is the Church. She has the chain and does not have the faith to bind Satan even more firmly. Satan is bound and the Church knows it not! Satan can be bound more firmly and the Church does it not!4

Christian Reconstruction likewise condemns the Christian church for the sorry state of a world under the spiritual domination of Satan. Especially if the church would promote the law of God in national and societal life, Satan would soon be completely bound.

The teaching that the coming of the millennial kingdom of Christ in its full glory is being held back by an unfaithful church is yet another instance of the striking formal similarities of postmillennialism to premillennial dispensationalism that I have already noted.5 Dispensationalism teaches that the millennial kingdom Christ intended to establish at His first coming was delayed by the unbelief of the Jews. Postmillennialism teaches that the millennial kingdom in the fullness of its power and glory is being delayed by an unfaithful church.

What postmillennial interpretation of the binding of Satan ignores is that the binding of Satan is a present reality, not a future possibility. He is bound. He has been bound. He has been bound as tightly and completely as can and need be during this present age. The one who has bound him is an angel from heaven, not the church. The church has many important callings. Binding Satan is not one of them. And, of utmost importance, the binding of Satan concerns one limitation of the devil, and one only: he is not able to deceive the nations, so as to bring about the world-kingdom of Antichrist. His binding has nothing to do with converting a majority of the human race, "Christianizing" the nations, putting an end to wars, diminishing crime, and increasing "material blessings" for the human race.

The Reign of the "Souls"

The reign of the "souls" with Christ of Revelation 20:4-6, according to postmillennialism, coincides with the gradual binding of Satan. Throughout the present age, as Satan is increasingly bound, the church progressively gains influence in society and power over the nations until at last, in the heyday of the millennium, she will have dominion—earthly dominion—over all the nations of the world. By the word of God (for Christian Reconstruction especially the law of God), the church and her members will control politics, civic justice, public morality, economics, education, the media, entertainment, and the arts—worldwide. Coming is a universal, earthly kingdom of Christ, prior to the bodily return of Jesus Christ. This will be the mediatorial, or Messianic, kingdom in its fullest and final manifestation. Leading postmillennial theologians teach that this glorious manifestation of the kingdom of Christ may last hundreds of thousands of years before Christ returns.

This splendid earthly kingdom will be the victory of Christ in the world. Apart from this kingdom, Christ would be defeated.

For this kingdom, the postmillennialists ardently hope—as ardently as the dispensationalists hope for their earthly kingdom.

When this kingdom holds sway over all nations and peoples, the Christian Reconstructionists intend to implement once again the civil and judicial laws of the Old Testament, which ordered the national life of Israel. Hence, the name "theonomy" for the doctrine of Christian Reconstruction. "Theonomy" means 'law of God' with reference specifically to the civil and judicial laws of Old Testament Israel. Christian judges likely will sentence Sabbath-breakers to be stoned to death according to the Old Testament law of Numbers 15:32-36.

The First Resurrection

Basic to this postmillennial explanation of the reign of the saints with Christ is its interpretation of the "first resurrection," in Revelation 20:5, 6, as regeneration. Postmillennialism denies that the first resurrection is the translation of the souls of elect believers into heavenly life and glory at the moment of death. It is essential to the postmillennial explanation of the reign of the saints, as to its understanding of the millennium, that the first resurrection be interpreted as regeneration. For only then can the reign of the saints take place on the earth. If the first resurrection is, in fact, the translation of the souls of believers at death, the reign of the saints of Revelation 20:4-6 occurs in heaven as part of the communion of the saints, in their souls, with the reigning Christ at the right hand of God. And this would mean the collapse of the entire postmillennial conception of a coming "golden age" for the church in history, at least on the basis of Revelation 20.

Kik, therefore, calls the interpretation of the "first resurrection," in verse five, as the spiritual regeneration of God's people in this world the "key" to a right understanding of the millennium of Revelation 20.6

Postmillennial, Christian Reconstructionist (to be redundant) David Chilton does not greatly exaggerate when he judges that he can dispose of amillennialism by refuting its interpretation of the first resurrection as the translation of believers into heaven in their soul at death.

We can dispose of the amillennial position right away, by pointing out the obvious: this is a resurrection, a rising again from the dead. Dying and going to heaven is wonderful, but, for all its benefits, it is not a resurrection. This passage cannot be a description of the state of disembodied saints in heaven.7

With regard to John's seeing "souls" reigning with Christ, postmillennialists point out that "souls" can refer to 'persons,' or to 'lives.' Here, they say, the reference is to regenerated persons reigning on earth in both a body and a soul, especially during the time of the "golden age."

This postmillennial interpretation of the reigning of the saints, as seen by the apostle in Revelation 20:4-6, is exposed as false by the conclusive testimony of the passage that the reign of the saints follows their death—their physical death. It is not, therefore, a reign on this earth, but a reign in heaven. The conclusive testimony is not only that John sees "souls," in distinction from "men," or "believers," or "saints," that is, men and women living earthly life in the body, although this deliberate mention of "souls" is significant. Earlier, referring to the same persons in virtually the same language, John located "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God" "under the altar" (Rev. 6:9). He distinguished these souls (and their abode in heaven) from their brothers who still must be killed, as the saints in heaven had been, by the wicked who "dwell on the earth" (Rev. 6:10, 11).

But the conclusive testimony is that John sees "souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus." These persons, who have been killed by the anti-christian world-power for their faithful confession of Jesus Christ, lived and reigned with Christ. Souls of those who have been beheaded do not exercise earthly dominion in history.

That the souls who reign with Christ are the saints who have been taken up to heaven at death is confirmed by the mention of the "second death" in verse six. The second death is hell, as verse fourteen establishes: "The lake of fire [is] the second death." The first death is physical death. Corresponding to these two forms of death are two forms of resurrection, or deliverance from death. The second is the resurrection of the body into immortality. The first is the translation of the soul of the believer at the moment of physical death.

Contrary to the emphatic, but ungrounded, denial of the postmillennialists, the deliverance of the believer in his soul at death is indeed resurrection. The soul of the regenerated Christian in earthly life is corrupted by sin as much as is his body. Besides, his soul is earthy—completely adapted to living earthly life in this world and completely unsuited to living heavenly life in the other world, where Christ sits at the right hand of God. In addition, as corrupted by sin (as corrupted as is the body) and as guilty of all kinds of transgressions of thought, will, and passions, the soul of the believer is fully deserving of the punishment of eternal death at the moment of its separation from the body in death. That Christ perfectly purifies the soul of depravity, transforms it so that it is now fit to live heavenly life, and takes the soul into the eternal life of heaven at the moment of the believer's death is resurrection—real life for the believer out of real death.

The Intermediate State

Revelation 20:4-6 describes the "intermediate state" of elect believers.8

So clearly does the passage speak of the intermediate state that Benjamin B. Warfield, postmillennialist though he was, acknowledged that Revelation 20:4-6 teaches the intermediate state, and may not, therefore, be appealed to by postmillennialism on behalf of a reign of the church on earth. Recognizing that the "souls of them that had been beheaded" are "disembodied souls," Warfield concluded, concerning the millennium of Revelation 20, particularly verses four through six:

The picture that is brought before us here is, in fine, the picture of the "intermediate state"—of the saints of God gathered in heaven away from the confused noise and garments bathed in blood that characterize the war upon earth in order that they may securely await the end. The thousand years, thus, is the whole of this present dispensation, which again is placed before us in its entirety, but looked at now relatively not to what is passing on earth but to what is enjoyed "in Paradise."9

He added: "The millennium of the Apocalypse is the blessedness of the saints who have gone away from the body to be at home with the Lord."10

The Earthly Victory of Christ

Most postmillennialists, however, differ with Warfield. In the light of their exegesis of Revelation 20, particularly the binding of Satan and the reign with Christ of believing members of the church, as sketched above, most postmillennialists view the millennium as the history of this present age destined to climax in the future in a long period of time during which the church will enjoy almost total earthly victory over her enemies.

The church shall have dominion over land and sea/earth's remotest regions shall her empire be/they that wilds inhabit shall their off'rings bring/kings shall render tribute/nations kiss her ring.

This earthly victory of His church will be Christ's supreme triumph, according to postmillennialism, and the full and final glory of His kingdom. In jarring conflict with this giddy prospect of Christ's victory in history is the sobering conclusion of the vision of Revelation 20 concerning the thousand years. "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations...and they...compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city" (vv. 7-9).

How does postmillennialism explain this overthrow of the dominion of Christ and His church at the end of the millennium and history? And how does postmillennialism harmonize this worldwide revolt against Christ's kingship at the end with postmillennialism's conviction that Christ must have an earthly triumph in history? Does not this revolt represent, for postmillennialism, the defeat of Christ—the decisive defeat of Christ?

Prof. David J. Engelsma 
http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/chapter-four-postmillennialism-4 

---

1. Standard Bearer 85, no. 15 (May 1, 2009): 343-346; no. 19 (August 2009): 448-450.

2. R.J. Rushdoony, God's Plan for Victory: The Meaning of Postmillennialism (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, 1977), 2.

3. Martin G. Selbrede, "Reconstructing Postmillennialism," Journal of Christian Reconstruction: Symposium on Eschatology 15 (Winter, 1998): 202, 194. The emphasis is Selbrede's.

4. J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 196.

5 Standard Bearer 86, no. 2 (October 15, 2009): 34, 35.

6. Kik, Eschatology of Victory, 179.

7. David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler, Texas: Reconstruction Press, 1985), 196. The emphasis is Chilton's.

8. See my treatment of the intermediate state, with specific reference to Revelation 20:4-6, in previous articles in this series: Standard Bearer 80, no. 9 (February 1, 2004): 210-213; 82, no. 3 (November 1, 2005): 64-67; 82, no. 10 (February 15, 2006): 225-228; 82, no. 20 (September 1, 2006): 465-468; 85, no. 3 (November 1, 2008): 57-60; 85, no. 6 (December 15, 2008): 132-134.

9. Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Millennium and the Apocalypse," in Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929), 649. Warfield found evidence for a future "golden age" elsewhere in Scripture, especially the Old Testament prophecies and Revelation 19:11-21.

10. Ibid., 662.

Postmillennialism (3)

Postmillennialism in the Reformed Tradition (cont.)

Contemporary advocates of postmillennialism in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, particularly the disciples of the Puritans and the Christian Reconstructionists, can appeal to a prominent, powerful strand of the Reformed tradition in support of their doctrine of the last things. Unlike premillennial dispensationalism, the other important challenge to Reformed amillennialism, postmillennialism must be taken seriously by the Reformed church in the twenty-first century.

Edwards and the Puritans

In the preceding installment in this series on the doctrine of the last things, I quoted Jonathan Edwards' postmillennial hope in his The History of Redemption1 as representative of many, though not all, of the Puritans. George Marsden accurately describes Edwards' (and many of the Puritans) bright view of the earthly future of the church. During the coming millennium, "almost everyone would truly follow Christ. As a result, wars would cease, nations would dwell together as brethren, 'the wolf should dwell with the lamb.' There would be 'vast increase of knowledge,' and 'all heresies and false doctrines shall be exploded.' In short, the triumph of Christ's kingdom [in the "golden age" of the millennium—DJE] 'is an event unspeakably happy and glorious.'"2

Edwards called the coming earthly reign of Christ through His church the "church's latter-day glory."3

Marsden indicates an important motivation of Edwards' doctrine of a future millennium prior to the coming of Christ. Edwards was concerned that the number of those who are saved be greater in the end than the number of the lost.4

Typical of the postmillennial Puritans was Edwards' expectation of a future great revival that would usher in the millennium. In order to bring this necessary revival about by the extraordinary work of the Spirit, Edwards organized a vast, worldwide prayer chain. All Christians everywhere in the world were to pray at the same time that the Spirit would send the great revival.

It is a very suitable thing, and well-pleasing to God, for many people, in different parts of the world, by express agreement, to come into a visible union in extraordinary, speedy, fervent, and constant prayer, for those great effusions of the Holy Spirit, which shall bring on that advancement of Christ's church and kingdom that God has so often promised shall be in the latter ages of the world.

Edwards concluded that this prayer for the great revival and, thus, for the millennium was a "duty" of all Christians.5

Recognizing that the biblical teaching of future lawlessness in the world and nominal church, of apostasy on the part of churches and professing Christians, of the rise of Antichrist, and of great tribulation for the true church is a "great damp" on millennial hopes and prayer chains, Edwards neatly consigned the realization of all such New Testament passages to the past, specifically, the time of the Protestant Reformation. "This notion [of a future Antichrist and tribulation—DJE] tends to discourage all earnest prayer in the church of God for that glorious coming of Christ's kingdom, till it be actually come; and that is to hinder its ever being at all."6 That is, like all postmillennialists, Edwards was, and had to be, at least a "partial" preterist.

A full, consistent preterist in eschatology is one who explains all New Testament prophecies of Christ's coming and the things attending that coming as having been fulfilled in the past, whether in AD 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem, or in the time of the persecution of the early New Testament church by the Roman empire. A "partial," inconsistent preterist is a theologian who does exactly what the preterist does with eschatological prophecy, except for the prophecy of the coming millennium and the prophecy of the bodily return of Christ—especially the prophecy of the coming millennium.7

Dutch Reformed

It was not only the Puritans in the broadly Reformed tradition who taught postmillennialism. Prominent, influential Dutch Reformed theologians also advocated a coming "golden age" for the church before the return of Christ. Wilhelmus àBrakel looked for "the glorious state of the church during the thousand years prophesied in Revelation 20."8 Ushering in this glorious, earthly state of the church, àBrakel held, will be a "conversion of the entire Jewish nation," involving "a restoration of the nation [of Israel], not only in a spiritual sense, but also in a physical sense"; the return of the Jews to Canaan; and the literal rebuilding of the earthly city of Jerusalem.9

Waxing ecstatic over the prospect of the "wondrous increase in the measure of grace," the "great numbers" of converts, and the fine earthly state of the church worldwide in the millennium, as well as of the grand, earthly kingdom of the Jews in Canaan, àBrakel exclaimed, "Oh, what a glorious time this will be!" Wistfully, he added, "Who will then be alive?"10—a question that ought to have made him reexamine his postmillennial eschatology. Are all the Old Testament saints and the multitudes of New Testament Christians who will have died before the millennium to miss out on the most wonderful realization of the kingdom of Christ?

Scottish Presbyterians

Postmillennialism has also been the eschatology of Scottish Presbyterians. Writing in the middle of the nineteenth century, David Brown explained the millennium of Revelation 20 as that time in the future, prior to the return of Christ, when the biblical prophecies of the coming glory of the Messianic kingdom will be fulfilled in "their full earthly sense." According to Brown, there will be a "universal reception of the true religion, and unlimited subjection to the scepter of Christ," so that all the religions of the pagans, the "imposture" of Islam, the false religion of the Jews, and the superstition of popery will be abolished. There will be universal, earthly peace; "much spiritual power and glory" because of a more copious outpouring of the Spirit; "the ascendancy of truth and righteousness in human affairs"; and "great temporal prosperity" for true believers and ungodly alike. As is invariably the case with the postmillennial vision, the beginning of the millennium will be the national conversion of Israel.11

Presbyterians in the US

Presbyterians of stature in the United States have also espoused postmillennialism. On the basis, significantly, not of Revelation 20 (the passage that speaks of the thousand-year period), but of Revelation 19:11-21, the vision of the conquering Christ, northern Presbyterian Benjamin B. Warfield forecast a "golden age before the Church," prior to the return of Christ. It will be "at least an age relatively golden gradually ripening to higher and higher glories as the Church more and more fully conquers the world and all the evil of the world." Such will be the church's victory over evil, in Warfield's mind, that he left it an open question whether the millennial "winning of the world implies the complete elimination of evil from it."12

The southern Presbyterian Robert L. Dabney shared his northern colleague's view of the last things. "Before this second advent, the following events must have occurred. The development and secular overthrow of Antichrist...which is the Papacy. The proclamation of the Gospel to all nations, and the general triumph of Christianity over all false religions, in all nations.... The general and national return of the Jews to the Christian Church." Dabney called these future events "this state of high prosperity" for the church on earth. He evidently saw this "prosperity" as the meaning of the millennium of Revelation 20, since he appealed to the chapter in support of his expectation of it.13

The strong presence of postmillennialism in the Reformed tradition does not make the millennial error respectable, much less an option for Reformed churches in the twenty-first century. Postmillennialism is false doctrine concerning the return of Christ, and a practical danger to believers and their children. But the presence of postmillennialism in the tradition does demand that we take the challenge to Reformed amillennialism today, especially by the disciples of the Puritans and by the men of Christian Reconstruction, seriously.

Prof. David J. Engelsma

http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/chapter-four-postmillennialism-3 

rfpa.org 

 

---

1 Jonathan Edwards, The History of Redemption (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers & Authors, n.d.), 305, 307.

2 George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003), 335.

3 Jonathan Edwards, Praying Together for True Revival, ed. T. M. Moore (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2004), 14.

4 Marsden, Edwards, 335, 336.

5 Edwards, Praying Together, 26. The emphasis is Edwards'.

6 Ibid., 128, 129.

7 For the Reformed criticism of "partial" preterism and the demonstration that "partial," inconsistent preterism necessarily commits one to full, consistent preterism, see my Christ's Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism (Redlands, CA: The Reformed Witness, 2001), 129-158.

8 Wilhelmus àBrakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, tr. Bartel Elshout, vol. 4 (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995), 531.

9 Ibid., 348, 526, 530.

10 Ibid., 516.

11 David Brown, Christ's Second Coming: Will It be Premillennial? (Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1983), 424-440. The emphasis is Brown's. As the subtitle indicates, much of the book is also an incisive, helpful criticism of premillennialism. John Macleod says of Brown's book that it was "perhaps the most influential book" of that period in Great Britain on the return of Christ (John Macleod, Scottish Theology, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, repr. 1974, 278). Brown was obviously heavily influenced by the postmillennialism of Jonathan Edwards.

12 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, "The Millennium and the Apocalypse," in Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929), 662-664.

13 Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, repr. 1972), 838.

Hating the Haters of the Lord

 

A sermon on a difficult and controversial text: May we "hate" as Christians?

Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies (Ps. 139:21-22).

To say that the attitude expressed in the text is unpopular with Christians to day is an understatement. There is simply no place in present-day Christianity for the sentiments found here. We must love everyone; we may hate no one.

Does a notable heretic arise in the church, overthrowing the most basic doctrines of the Christian faith and gaining adherents to his lie? We must love him and not hate him. Does someone openly walk in gross disobedience to the law of God? We must love him and may not hate him. Is there a cult that practises the vilest immorality and that shamelessly blasphemes the name of God? We must show love to them and may not hate them. So it is said and so many firmly believe.

It seems that nothing is unchristian except hating someone and no one is hated except the man who hates the evildoer. On everyone’s lips are the words: “Love your enemies,” as if the Bible said nothing more than this.

As regards this and similar passages of Holy Scripture that teach the saints hatred of some men, such passages are simply ignored. If someone has the courage to raise these passages, what the passages teach is dismissed.

Some say that these passages belong to the Old Testament, as though the life of the Old Testament saint was not the life of Christ and as though the New Testament did not require the very same attitude of the New Testament Christian. Others reject these passages as uninspired. Some dare to say that our text and the passage in Psalm 137 that speaks of the blessedness of those who dash the little ones of Babylon and similar passages are merely the unsanctified, personal feelings of the writer, not the inspired word of God.

In the end, those who are determined to hold the position that the Christian should hate no one must come to this conclusion, namely, that all these passages are not inspired. The seriousness of this is that it is an attack on Scripture. Our feelings are allowed to contradict the plain testimony of the Word of God.

Apart from all other considerations, the folly of this is plain with regards out text. Psalm 139 is a beautiful and well-known Psalm. In the opening verses, it confesses that we cannot flee from God. In the closing verses, it calls upon God to search the believer and to know him. Are we then to suppose that the Spirit inspired David in all that precedes and all that follows the text but that He failed David in verses 21-22?

It is of great importance that we heed the Word of God in our text (for this is what it is—not the word of David). We must not be seduced by the popular notion that we may hate no one. This is the inspired Word of God and, as such, it sets forth the experience and the calling of every child of God.

It is a sore evil in the church that there is no hatred for anyone. Why do they not hate those who hate the Lord? There is a reason for this and the reason is the sad spiritual condition of the church today. Since they hate no one, neither do they count anyone their enemy; and if the wicked is not an enemy, he is a friend, a friend of the church. And this destroys the churches today.

The Character of This Hatred

The hatred of the text is real hatred. It is to regard someone with loathing, as a disgusting person, and to will his destruction. Hatred is the exact opposite of love and love is to have delight in someone to wish him well. Hatred in the text is not lesser love. Such an explanation is a popular way of evading Scripture’s teaching that God hates some men and we do also. Try to read the text this way once, substituting “love less” for “hate.” Immediately, you sense the utter folly of such an explanation.

The hatred of the Psalmist for certain men is the same as the hatred of those men for the Lord and their hatred of the Lord is not “lesser love” but real hatred. What the Psalmist means by this hatred is brought out in what follows: “and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?” His being grieved with these men explains his hatred of them. The word translated “grieved” is even stronger than our version would indicate. The word means “loathe,” so that we may read the text, “Do not I loathe those that rise up against thee?”

This is how the word is translated, for example, in Ezekiel 20:43: “and ye shall loathe yourselves in your sight for all your evils that ye have committed.” To loathe someone is to regard him as disgusting and to abhor him. Only if hatred is real hatred does it follow that you count the one whom you hate as your enemy. You do not count for an enemy one whom you love with a lesser love but one whom you hate. And the Psalmist concludes in verse 22: “I count them mine enemies.”

This hatred, according to the text, is a “perfect hatred.” Perfect hatred is not, as is commonly supposed, a hatred uncorrupted with sin, a holy hatred. This is true, of course. Our hatred of the wicked must be holy. It must not be contaminated by sinful passions such as envy, desire of revenge or the like. The text makes plain how the hatred of which it speaks is holy and how it remains holy. Nevertheless, this is not what is meant by “perfect.” Perfect hatred is hatred that is thorough, complete and extreme. It is not half-hearted hatred. We see those whom we hate as completely disgusting and we firmly regard them with abhorrence. We will their destruction, their eternal destruction, as God reveals this to be their just punishment in His Word.

“Is this right? Is this Christian?” you ask. We must let the Psalmist himself answer the question. The Psalmist shows that, in taking this attitude of hatred, he is perfectly confident that he is right with God, that he is pleasing to God. He is criticised today for being unspiritual here. But he breathes the confidence that his spiritual condition is good. For the confession that he hates some men appears in a question that he asks of the Lord: “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee?” He asks this question of the Lord as a man who is sure that Lord will find this praiseworthy in him. In the very next breath, he invites the Lord to search him, whether there be any evil way in him. He is supremely confident that in hating the wicked he has the full approval of the Lord.

Beyond all doubt, Scripture here teaches that hatred of the wicked by the child of God is part of his holy life in the Spirit and not some gross iniquity. Therefore, one who cannot present himself before the Lord as hating those who hate God is in the wrong and displeases God. He has a serious defect in his spiritual life. The trouble is that so many fail to acknowledge that God hates some men. Hatred of another is condemned as such, because men believe that God loves all men and hates no man. But hatred as such cannot be condemned as evil, for God hates—God hates some men. Romans 9:13 teaches that God hated Esau. Psalm 5:5 teaches that God hates “all workers of iniquity.” God’s hatred of some men is clearly brought out in the verses that precede our text. Verse 19 says, ”Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God.” This is the most extreme expression of hatred: God will kill them, not only temporally but also eternally. God loathes them and wills their destruction. This is little heard of in the church today. It is all but ignored. At the same time, the truth of eternal punishment of hell is silenced. God hates and, since He hates, hatred is not an evil thing.

The question is: Whom do we hate and why do we hate? The object of our hatred is persons, flesh-and-blood persons. We hate not just the sins of wicked people but the people themselves. A notion that passes for wisdom is that we must love the sinner but hate the sin. Men even say this of God. Now it is true we must hate sin. It is even true that our hatred of certain persons stems from our hatred of their sins. But it is not true that we hate only the deeds of men and not the men themselves, anymore than it is true of God that he hates sins only and not sinners. God, after all, is going to cast sinners into hell, not only sins. You simply cannot so easily separate the person and his sins. A man’s sins cling to him and stain him, unless they are washed away by the blood of Jesus. The text does not say, “Do not I hate the sins, O Lord, of those that hate thee?” But it says, “Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies” (Ps. 139:21-22).

These are persons who hate God. They loathe God and will God’s destruction. As much as in them lies, they try to accomplish His destruction also. They rise up against God, according to the text, that is, they go to war against Him as enemies. How do they do this? The preceding verse shows: “For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.” They blaspheme God, curse and swear, oppose His truth and worship. Especially do they despise and attack His Christ and the gospel of Christ. The text uses the covenant name of God, Jehovah. These men hate Jehovah as He is revealed in Jesus. They rise up against God by violence against their neighbours. Not only do they break the first table of the law but they also break the second table. Verse 19 calls them “bloody men.” They are violent rebels against the authority of their parents, of the state and of the employer. They are cruel deserters of wives and children. They are thieves and robbers. They are slanderers and backbiters—they have bloody tongues. In short, they are men, women and children who do not believe or obey the law. They are the wicked, the impenitent wicked.

Note well, however, that it is possible that they be pleasant people in the judgment of men—courteous, helpful, decent, friendly. But they hate God. Note too, that they may be next–door neighbours, a parent, a child or some other close relative. Of such, of all such, the believer says, “I hate them; I hate them with a perfect hatred.” The description of those whom David hates is at the same time the ground of his hatred of them.

The Ground of This Hatred

The reason for David’s hatred of these men is their hatred of God. We may read the text this way: ”Do not I hate them, O Lord, because they hate thee? Do not I loathe them, because they rise up against thee?” This comes out even more strongly in the original Hebrew. Literally, we read: “Is it not so, them that hate thee, O Jehovah, I hate?” Their hatred of God is put first in the text, as the cause of our hatred of them. Therefore, there is nothing carnal, nothing selfish and nothing “personal” in our hatred. It is not due to any injury that they did to us. Even though in their hatred of God they probably cursed, mocked and hurt us, it is not what they did to us that explains our hatred. We are not being vindictive in hating them. The reason is this only: they hate God. Thus, our hatred is a holy hatred.

We must be sure of this. It is so easy to corrupt our hatred with personal and carnal motives. In this light, we can see how our hatred for God’s enemies is to be harmonized with our calling to love our enemies. In Matthew 5 and Luke 6, Jesus tells us to love our enemies. We read in Matthew 5:43-44: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” We must not hate our enemies but love them. These are people who bear a personal grudge against us. But they are people who are also our enemies for Christ’s sake, for they persecute us.

It might seem that there is conflict between Psalm 139 and Matthew 5, between our calling to hate God’s enemies and our calling to love those who persecute us. This is, in fact, the position of those who say that we may never hate anyone. They view Matthew 5 as contradicting Psalm 139 and they use Matthew 5 to set Psalm 139 aside.

We hold, however, that the two passages do not contradict each other. Both are Scripture and both must be true in the life of Christ’s disciple. There is harmony between the passages, and the harmony is this: We love men who are our enemies but we hate men who are God’s enemies. This can be one and the same person. Insofar as a man hates, curses and harms me, I love him and I show this by doing acts of kindness to him. Inasmuch as the same man hates God and opposes him, I hate him and count him my enemy. The trouble often is that we do opposite: we readily hate our personal enemies but go on loving those who hate God.

The ground of our hatred of some men is their hatred of God. Ultimately, the ground of our hatred of them is our love of the God whom they hate. Our hatred for those who hate God is an aspect of love—love for God. We love this God. We love him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength. Our love for God, by grace, is a “perfect” love, that is, a thorough, complete, extreme love. We love Him as the only God. We love Him as our maker, as verses 13-16 of this Psalm confess. We love him as Jehovah, the God of our salvation in Jesus Christ. Because we love Him, we hate those who hate Him. This is the high spiritual plane that the Old Testament saints stand on in our text.

Would God that the church today stood so high. Why is it that so many, today, can love those that hate God? Is it not because they themselves do not love God as they ought? Who cares, really, about God? Who cares, really, about God’s name? Who cares, really, about God’s commandments? The child of God hates those who hate the God he loves. He loathes those who loathe the God he adores. He wills the destruction of those who will the destruction of the God he blesses. He is an enemy to the enemies of the God who is his friend.

The Expression of This Hatred

We express our hatred of those who hate God by counting them our enemies. So we read in verse 22: “I count them mine enemies.” This is an act of the believer. Those who hate God may still feign friendship with us. They may even seem to seek our friendship. But we, on our part, refuse that friendship and regard them as our enemies. We make this known to them also: “Depart from me therefore, ye bloody men,” we say to them, according to verse 19. We have no communion with them. We do not help them in their wicked course of life. We condemn them and their evils.

This applies to the church. The church may not have communion with God’s enemies in the World Council of Churches. Nor may the church help the ungodly in their lawless, revolutionary enterprises, whether financially or morally. The question of Jehu the seer to King Jehoshaphat, when Jehoshaphat had leagued himself with apostate Ahab, applies here: “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (II Chron. 19:2).

Nor may the believer personally include the wicked in his fellowship, in his family visits, in his games and in his festive meals. There may be contact, but it consists of the admonition, “Repent!” This holds even though the wicked is a close relative. All should know—including my parents, my children and my wife—that for them to leave God is to leave me; to become God’s enemy is to become my enemy. Did not Jesus say in Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” We have friendship with those who are friends of God. This is the implied teaching of the text. They are not necessarily the nicest personalities. They may even sometimes treat us unkindly. Nevertheless, I count them my friends. Those who love God, I love. Those who bless God, I bless. Those who are friends of God shall be friends of mine.

Prof. David Engelsma 

http://limerickreformed.com/articles/by-topic/ethics/item/183-hating-the-haters-of-the-lord

The English Translation of Holy Scripture

Introduction

The subject of the English translation of the Bible becomes complicated, especially in the unavoidable area of textual criticism. There are some 5,000 manuscripts (MSS) of the Greek New Testament, each with its name, date, and contribution to the New Testament text. This field of study has its jargon ("genealogy"; "text-type"; "conflation"; etc.). The subject plunges us at once into controversy: the King James Version (KJV) versus the modern versions; the majority of MSS versus Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) MSS; Burgon versus Westcott and Hort (W-H). Besides, the material is voluminous. Books, pamphlets, and English Bibles multiply. Not only the layman, but also the pastor is inclined to throw up his hands in despair of ever coming to know the subject.
But the subject is obviously of great importance. It concerns the Bible that we use in the church and in our personal life -- the very heart of our ecclesiastical and spiritual life.
Nor can we ignore the issue: which English Bible? Many new versions have been published and are clamoring for our acceptance. They demand acceptance on grounds that must be taken seriously: better MS basis; clearer translation; more helpful for the twentieth century church. The advocates of these versions make the sharpest criticisms of the KJV and of our continued use of the KJV. Our people, especially our young people, are affected by the modern versions and their claims. Some begin to use a modern version for private devotions; others carry a modern version to Bible study; and others ask whether it is proper for the family to use a modern version in family devotions.
A survey of the history of the English Bible shows that the KJV was the only English Bible from 1611 to the end of the nineteenth century. In 1881-1885, the Revised Version (RV) was published in England. (The American Standard Version is the American form of the RV, published in 1901.) The publication of the RV was a turning point in the history of the English Bible. It was not merely a revision of the KJV, although seemingly this was the expressed intention. But it was a version based on different MSS in the New Testament than those used by the KJ translators. These were the newly discovered MSS, B and Aleph. The men mainly responsible for the rejection of the MSS used by the KJ translators and for the adoption of B and Aleph were two English scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. They were the heroes or the villains in the story of the English Bible from about 1870 to the present time. For the many versions that followed the RV basically adopted the Greek text of the New Testament proposed by W-R. These versions include the Revised Standard Version (RSV); the New English Bible (NEB); Today's English Version (TEV, also known as Good News for Modern Man); and the New International Version (NIV).
It must be noted from the outset, that those who promote the new versions criticize the KJV, not only as an inadequate translation for twentieth century men (e.g., using archaic words), but also as based on an inferior Greek text. Hort, with something less than scholarly objectivity, contemned the Greek text behind the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), as "vile" and "villainous."
In the past, some preachers have defended the KJV as the best English translation, while conceding that the MSS behind the new versions are the best Greek MSS of the New Testament and that they give the better reading in places where they differ with the text behind the KJV. How often, e.g., have not our people been told at Christmas, concerning Luke 2:14, "Now the better reading of the text is, '...and on earth peace to men of good-pleasure"'? This seems to me to be an indefensible, and, in the long run, impossible, position. I contend that the KJV is the best English version, not only because it is the best translation (i.e., as regards faithfulness to the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture; clarity; and beauty), but also because it is based on the best MSS - the MSS that faithfully transmit to us the original Scriptures, particularly the Scriptures of the New Testament. We should heed VanBruggen, Pickering, the Trinitarian Bible Society, Burgon, and others who ask concerning the theory of W-H, whether the emperor has any clothes, and who defend the text of the KJV the Majority, or Byzantine, or Traditional, Text.

Criticism of Various, Modern English Versions

Many of the modern versions are to be criticized apart from the matter of the Greek text of the New Testament.
The Living Bible, among its countless faults, is a biased paraphrase of Scripture, in which no regard is shown for the verbal inspiration of the Bible. The human author of this best-selling book, which is neither the Bible nor living, has willfully and systematically corrupted the passages that teach salvation by sovereign grace (cf. Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28ff.; and Romans 9, throughout). It is a repository of false doctrine.
Good News for Modern Man, or TEV, weakens the Deity of Jesus, e.g., in John 1:1 ("Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God"), and in Romans 9:5 ("they are descended from the patriarchs, and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised for ever! Amen."). it translates "virgin" as "girl" in Luke 1:27. It omits "begotten" in John 1:14, 18 and elsewhere in John. As is well known, it systematically translates "blood" as "death" e.g., in Acts 20:28 ("...Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the death of his own Son" - where the Godhead of Jesus is also obscured by the translation), thus robbing the church of the precious comfort of the blood-theology of Holy Scripture. Throughout, this version omits, adds, and changes words at its pleasure.
The New English Bible is ravaged with theological modernism. In Genesis 1:2 it has a "mighty wind" sweeping over the waters of the chaos. In Isaiah 7:14, "virgin" is translated "young woman." Isaiah 9:6 raises ancient Arius from the dead: "For a boy has been born for us... and he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like ..." God is stripped of His sovereignty and the saints, of their comfort at Romans 8:28: "and in everything... he co-operates for good with those who love God..."
The Revised Standard Version renders "virgin" as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14; "from everlasting" as "from ancient days" in Micah 5:2;and "only begotten" as "only" in John 1:14, 18 and elsewhere in John - thus weakening the testimony to the Godhead of Jesus.
Evident in these representative versions is a weakening of Scripture's testimony to the Godhead of Jesus and, therefore, to the Trinity, and a weakening of Scripture's teaching of God's sovereignty. Glaringly evident is the disbelief on the part of the translators of the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture, extending to all its parts - the doctrine which the church has expressed as "verbal inspiration." This is the reason why the translators paraphrase Scripture; deliberately falsify the words of Scripture; change the words; and add or omit words.
It is this unbelief concerning Scripture's inspiration which also accounts for the theory of translating which gains ground today, namely, "dynamic equivalence." In the interests of putting the language of Scripture into the language that the people of a certain age and culture will understand, this theory permits the translator to depart widely from the very words which God breathed out in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The reader of a version which has been translated according to the theory of dynamic equivalence cannot be sure that he has God's Word at any point; the word may well be the word of the translator. The main proponent of this theory is Eugene A. Nida, who holds important positions in both the United Bible Societies and The American Bible Society.1 Nida himself indicates how this theory of translation may affect the doctrinal content of the English Bible:

One of the most common interpretations of the atonement has been substitutionary, in the sense that Christ took upon Himself our sins and died in our place as a substitutive sacrifice. This interpretation, true and valuable as it may be for many, is not communicable to many persons today, for they simply do not think in such categories ... the presentation of the Atonement in terms of reconciliation is more meaningful, since in this way they can understand more readily how God could be in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.2

Our objection to this theory of translating does not imply the demand for a literal, word-for-word translation. As Luther, masterful translator of the German Bible, insisted in defense of his own work, translation of Scripture requires the freedom to express the text in the idiom of the people for whom Scripture is being translated. The Bible must be made to speak German, or English, or Chinese. At times, this means that the translator gives up the words of the original Hebrew and Greek and renders the thought of the passage in different words.

...at many places we have departed rather freely from the letter of the original... Again in Psalm 68 we ran quite a risk, relinquishing the words and rendering the sense. For this many know-it-alls will criticize us, to be sure, and even some pious souls may take offense. But what is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it - once he understands the Hebrew author - that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, "Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?" Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows.3

But this necessary freedom in translating differs essentially from the changing of the text of Scripture by "dynamic equivalence." For even the free translation of Luther was always a faithful rendering of the thought and meaning of the original. Besides, when it came to doctrines, Luther translated literally, keeping strictly to the words of the original. Here, he was willing to sacrifice the German idiom. If, at times, he made the Jews speak German, Luther also made the Germans learn Hebrew.

On the other hand we have at times also translated quite literally - even though we could have rendered the meaning more clearly another way - because everything turns on these very words ... out of respect for ... doctrine ... we should keep such words, accustom ourselves to them, and so give place to the Hebrew language where it does a better job than our German.4 I have been very careful to see that where everything turns on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not lightly departed from it.5

Luther's concern to be faithful to the inspired Word in translating comes out in his defense of that particular translation which was most vehemently attacked: Romans 3:28. As is well known, Luther's translation "inserted" the word, "only" (German: allein). Admittedly, this word does not appear in the original Greek. The Roman Catholics professed outrage and accused Luther of deliberately tampering with the text, in order to buttress his beloved doctrine of justification by faith only. Luther does not admit to any "insertion" of a word into the Bible, without any warrant in the text itself. On the contrary, the word, "only," is called for by the meaning of the text itself and by good German usage. The thought of the apostle Paul in Romans 3:28, justification by faith without the deeds of the law, is that expressed by the word, "only." In addition, good German often uses "only," when an affirmative and a negative statement are contrasted. The word, "only," is not necessary in a German translation of Romans 3:28; but it does make Paul's statement "more complete and more intelligible" than would be the case if it were omitted.6
In contrast to Luther's faithfulness to the inspired Word, "dynamic equivalence" produces versions which change the Word of God, not only as regards words, but also as regards sense, thought, and doctrine. But a Bible is worthless, if it cannot be trusted to give faithfully and reliably the Word inspired by God.
Although a main objection to the New International Version concerns the Greek text of the New Testament used in its translation, also the NIV often fails faithfully to give in English the words of the Hebrew and Greek original. According to David Stark, in a brochure, "Prove all Things," "the whole O.T. is riddled through with textual reconstruction, independent of the Hebrew Manuscript Authority. This is done twenty-one times in the book of First Chronicles, alone!" VanBruggen writes: "In the N.T., the ...... is also too free in its translation." He illustrates this charge in an "Appendix."7 Other weaknesses of the NIV are its translation of "only begotten Son" as "one and only Son, "or "only Son"(omitting "begotten"), in the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John, and its footnotes which destroy the confidence of the reader in basic teachings of Scripture at crucially important passages. At Romans 9:5, e.g., the NIV translates correctly, "...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.;" but a footnote casts doubt on this clear teaching of the Deity of Christ: "Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!"
Heretical views of Holy Scripture prevail in the churches today, especially among the scholars and theologians. There is the view that the Bible is only the fallible testimony of Israel and of the church to Jehovah and to Jesus of Nazareth. But there is also the view that Scripture as given by God cannot effectively communicate to modern men, or to certain groups of modern men, e.g., the youth. It must be adapted by the church, in order to be able to speak to men today. These low views of the Word of God influence the translation of the Bible. They give the translators license to render Scripture almost as they please. This is seen today in the version being prepared by the National Council of Churches which will filter the Bible through the mind of the women's liberation movement, even though we lose our Heavenly Father and our Elder Brother in the process. I suppose that these translators are sincere and that their work on this version is consistent with their view of Scripture: it must be made to speak to twentieth century "liberated " women, if not to a unisex society. It is not at all inconceivable that future versions will be made to "communicate" with Marxists; proponents of liberation theology; homosexuals; and those who take salvation as a purely this-worldly event.
There is a spiritual issue, here - the issue raised in Isaiah 66:2: "...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word"; in John 10:35: "...and the scripture cannot be broken"; and in Revelation 22:19: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
In light of this consideration of a reliable translation alone, how excellent is the KJV. It is a perfectly faithful and reliable translation into English of the Hebrew and Greek original. Men translated it who believed the Bible to be a Divine, and not a human, book, and who believed that God would be able to "communicate" with His people by the words which He inspired, faithfully rendered in English.
Such men are required for the translating of the Bible. It is not enough that they be scholars of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and adepts in the language into which the Bible is translated; but they must also be godly, orthodox saints who reverence Scripture as the holy Word, wholly God-breathed.

Ah, translating is not every man's skill as the mad saints imagine. It requires a right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart. Therefore I hold that no false Christian or factious spirit can be a decent translator.8

The Issue of the Greek Text of the New Testament

It is impossible, however, to do justice to the subject of the English Bible without treating the issue of the authentic Greek text of the New Testament. (As concerns the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, there is no controversy; there is one Hebrew text - the "Masoretic Text.") The controversy concerns the Greek text of the New Testament; and the issue makes a significant difference in the New Testament that is put into the hands of the people of God in an English translation.
The facts in the case are these. The KJ translators used Greek MSS that represent the type of Greek text supported by an overwhelming majority of extant Greek MSS of the New Testament. There are, according to Wilbur N. Pickering, more than 5,000 Greek MSS of the New Testament.9 Eighty to ninety percent of these MSS are in basic agreement among themselves. The Greek text contained in this majority of MSS is known as the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Traditional Text (TT). The text of the KJV, which belongs to this majority of MSS, but is not perfectly identical with the TT, is known as the Textus Receptus(TR) - the "Received Text." This text was accepted as the authentic text of the New Testament by the Protestant Church from the Reformation to the nineteenth century and by the Greek Church for more than a thousand years before the Reformation. In the nineteenth century, Westcott and Hort asserted the superiority of a type of text represented by a small minority of Greek MSS, particularly Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), which had recently been discovered. They made this text, which they called "Neutral" and which is now called "Alexandrian," the basis of the RV of 1881-1885. Their rejection of the TR and of the TT won the day, not without strong protest, most notably by John W. Burgon, an outstanding scholar in the field of textual criticism in the nineteenth century. All the modern versions, including the NIV, adopt the position of W-H and are based, in the New Testament, upon the text which they proposed. Basically, this is the text found in B and Aleph, especially B.
In his review of Burgon's works, B.B. Warfield remarks that there was some truth in the reproach of Hort, "that he looked upon B as an infallible voice proceeding from the Vatican and upon the combination B Aleph as a manifest deliverance from heaven itself."10
Many Reformed and Presbyterian preachers have accepted the theory of W-H.
Probably, they use a Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies edition of the New Testament. And they are accustomed, now and again, to tell the congregation that a reading in B or Aleph is "better" than the reading of the TT.
At the same time, some stoutly maintain and vigorously defend the KJV.
This is an indefensible position. First, an integral part of the W-H theory is its sharp attack on the KJV. The "preface" of the RSV is typical:

...the KJV has grave defects ... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation ... The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying ... We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T., and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

D. A. Carson makes the same charge: "the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts..."11 To adopt the W-H theory is to accept this criticism of the KJV.
Second, mere tradition ("We have learned to love the KJV,, etc.) cannot, in the end, hold out against other, vehement attacks being made upon the KJV from conservative and Reformed quarters. Carson writes:

The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior (sic!) saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians.12

He quotes Edwin H. Palmer, spokesman for the NIV, attacking the KJV almost fiercely:

Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable.13

Third, preachers weaken the people's trust in the reliability of the Bible which they use when they so often and so casually say, "The reading of the KJV is wrong; the better reading is..." I find evidence of mistrust when, in a debate in a Bible study class, a member will say, "Maybe the Greek is different," or, somewhat cynically, "Probably, the original has something else."
At the very least, we ought to subject the W-H theory to a critical examination. Our love for the KJV and the obvious, serious weaknesses of the modern versions should motivate us to do this. It is to be feared that Reformed men, including the influential Warfield, accepted the views of W-H uncritically, without seeing the weaknesses and implications of their theory.
Perhaps Wilbur N. Pickering is too strong when, having examined the W-H critical theory, he concludes: "It is evidently erroneous at every point."14 But his careful examination clearly shows that it certainly would not be too strong to conclude that the W-H theory is unproven at every point. One cannot but ask, "Why was their theory so readily and widely accepted as gospel truth in the realm of textual criticism?"
The W-H theory chooses the few older MSS rather than the many later MSS. But it is not proved that the oldest are the best; it is not proved that the oldest MSS contain the authentic text. There is reason to suspect the oldest MSS. All are from one region - Egypt, where the climate allows for the preservation of MSS. The oldest MSS differ greatly from each other; "B and Aleph... disagree over 3,000 times in the space of the four Gospels. "15 The very fact that these MSS exist at all may be evidence that the church did not use them.
The W-H theory rejects the testimony of the majority of Greek MSS because they are alleged to be a later text. It is now freely admitted by some defenders of the W-H text that the TT is an ancient text, going back at least to the time of B and Aleph. It is demonstrated that Byzantine, or Traditional, readings appear in the MSS and in the church fathers long before Nicea (A.D. 325).
The W-H theory discounts the majority because they are said to be one, related family. All of the Majority MSS are said to derive from one, common, parent MS. Therefore, the testimony of the many MSS carries little weight. But this dogma of W-H concerning genealogy is not proved. Indeed, there is solid evidence that, although there is essential agreement among the majority of MSS (which are not limited to one region, but are scattered through all parts of Christendom), the Majority MSS are not related genealogically.
The W-H theory attempts to account for the TT and for its dominance by positing a recension of the Greek text by one Lucian of Antioch (d. A.D. 311). A"recension" is a deliberate, editorial revision of the text of Scripture, by which a new text is composed from existing, earlier texts. This revised text, then, becomes the "official" text used by the church. Bruce M. Metzger notes that the assertion of W-H, that "the Byzantine text is an essentially revised text - following sometimes one, sometimes another of the earlier texts," is the crux of the W-H theory.16 For at one fell swoop, the TT is judged a later, unreliable, and unauthentic text of Scripture, while at the same time its popularity in the church is accounted for. But this assertion of a recension of the Greek text of the New Testament by Lucian is sheer speculation, devoid of proof.
Similarly ungrounded is the assertion that the dominance of the TT in the Greek Church from the fourth or fifth century on was due to the extraordinary influence of Chrysostom. As the former confidence in a supposed "Lucianic recension" fades, those who reject the TT must look elsewhere for an explanation of the use of the TT by the church. Some look to Chrysostom. This is how Gordon D. Fee attempts to explain the dominance of the TT:

One can scarcely underestimate the influence of Chrysostom in the history of the Greek Church... It is almost inevitable that the text form Chrysostom used first at Antioch and then later carried to Constantinople should become the predominant text of the Greek Church.17

The W-H theory judges the TT inferior because it exhibits "conflation," i.e., a certain text is supposed to have combined the different readings of two or more MSS. "Conflation is the term used to denote... editorial change in which two variant readings of a text are combined forming a new reading not precisely identical with either of the two source readings.18 The TT was alleged by Hort to be characterized by a combining of the readings of the "Neutral" and of the "Western" texts. As a result, the TT (called "Syrian" by Hort) is a more complete text than the others. This, too, is mere speculation and is rightly challenged, and exploded, today.19
The W-H theory charged that the scribes responsible for the form of the TT deliberately added material to the text and simplified hard readings. Hence, two sacred canons (cows?) of textual criticism are that the shorter reading is to be preferred and that the harder reading is to be preferred. On this basis, W-H criticized the TT for "lucidity and completeness," "apparent simplicity," and being "conspicuously a full text." The natural reaction is: Why should not the authentic text, faithfully transmitting the autographa, be lucid, complete, simple, and full? These characteristics are not unworthy of inspired Scripture!
It is this aspect of the W-H theory that may be the most dangerous of all. Called "the internal evidence" of the readings, it really consists of the scholar's judgment as to what the original reading of a given passage probably was. The scholar judges that scribes added material; the scholar decides that scribes simplified passages. There is reason to fear that this subjectivity is manifest today in the "eclectic" method of establishing the Greek text - a select body of scholars pick and choose readings as suits them. The NIV acknowledges that "the Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one" ("Preface"). Should the church be so at the mercy of the scholars in such a matter as determining the Greek text of the New Testament? Still more, some who develop the W-H theory of textual criticism have come to have doubts about the very possibility of the church's possession of the authentic text of the New Testament. In his "Introduction" to Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, Edward F. Hills quotes F.C. Conybeare:

The ultimate (N.T.) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.20

Hills quotes Kirsopp Lake to the same effect:

In spite of the claims of W-H and of vonSoden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.21

Now this may be the personal doubt of scholars who lack the faith that God preserves His Word, seeing to it that not one word falls to the ground; but it may also be the final working out of the very principles of W-H.
It is not correct to minimize the significance of this issue of the Greek text, as though the differences in any case are minor. According to Pickering, there are over 5,000 differences between the TT and the text of W-H. Although many are minor, adoption of the text of W-H means that we lose a sizable portion of the New Testament, including Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and John 5:3b, 4. One can check these passages in TEV or NIV, to see that the modern versions set these passages aside as uninspired. In his convincing work, The Woman Taken in Adultery and God Was Manifested in the Flesh, Burgon shows, among other arguments, that the omission of John 7:53-8:11 destroys the coherence of the passage: John 8:12 does not relate to John 7:52. 22 It is significant that the translators of the NIV, feeling the incoherence, were forced to translate 8:12 in a manner wholly unwarranted by any Greek reading: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said," etc. The Greek text does not have "when," nor does it have "the people."
Another serious aspect of the issue is the weakening of the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus in the text of W-H. An outstanding instance is I Timothy 3:16, unaccountably omitted from the chart reproduced by D.A. Carson in which he tries to disprove the charge that the modern versions weaken the testimony to the Godhead of Jesus.23 Where the KJV has "God was manifest in the flesh," the text of W-H and the modern versions, including the NIV, have, "He," or "Who" , thus nullifying at a crucial point the testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ. Textually, the reading, "God," is well-supported; indeed, the support is overwhelming. Aleph stands virtually alone in rejecting the reading, "God." The passage itself demands the reading, "God," just as Isaiah 7:14 requires the translation, "virgin." No more than it is a sign that a young woman has a child is it the great mystery of godliness that "he" is manifest in the flesh. For myself, I will accept no Bible that does not read "God "in I Timothy 3:16. Yet another example is the omission of "the Son of God" in Mark 1:1 by the text of W-H. Where the KJV reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," the W-H text reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Although the NIV and the New American Standard Bible do translate, "the Son of God," in Mark 1:1, both have weakening footnotes, that some MSS omit these words. Other instances of a weakening of the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus by the W-H text include John 6:69; Acts 8:37; Acts 20:28; and I Corinthians 15:47.
In its fine pamphlet, "The Bible A Sure Foundation," the Trinitarian Bible Society points out that by its omission of the words, "...and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him..., " in Luke 24:51, 52, in connection with its omission of the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, the W-H text not only removes a powerful testimony to Jesus' Deity, but also the entire account of the historical event of Jesus' Ascension in the Gospels.
In opposition to the theory of W-H, we should at least consider, with utmost carefulness, the claim of the Greek text in the majority of MSS to be the authentic text of the New Testament Scriptures. This is essentially the text of our KJV. VanBruggen 24, Pickering, the TBS, and Burgon 25 before them have convincingly defended the TT on textual grounds. The TT is the text of nineteen-twentieths of the manuscript evidence; it is an ancient text; it is the text found everywhere in Christendom.
And this is the Greek text that the church, in the Providence of God, accepted and used for some 1500 years.

The Argument from God's Providence

Christ promised His church that she would always have His Word: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). This is necessarily implied in the doctrine of Scripture. If Scripture is God-breathed, as II Timothy 3:16 teaches, God in His Providence will surely preserve Scripture for His church in all ages. The Greek Church maintained the TT for some 1000 years prior to the Reformation. The Protestant Churches accepted it and used it for some 350 years (and some continue to use it to this very day). It is, of course, the text not only of the KJV, but also of Luther's German Bible and of the Dutch Bible of the Synod of Dordt, as well as others.
How widely this text has prevailed in the actual use of the church, Bruce M. Metzger, himself no advocate of the TT, indicates. It "spread widely throughout Greek speaking lands." It was the text of the first translation of the Bible into Teutonic language, by Ulfilas, "apostle to the Goths," in the second half of the fourth century. It was the text of the first translation of the Bible into a Slavic language, thus forming "the basis of the New Testament ... for millions of Slavic peoples." Metzger concludes:

As regards the history of the printed form of the Greek New Testament, the so-called Textus Receptus, which was based chiefly on manuscripts of the Antiochian recension (sic), has been reprinted, with only minor modifications, in almost one thousand editions from 1514 down to the twentieth century. When one considers how many translations into the vernaculars of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America have been based on the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament (such as the King James version or Luther's translation), it will be appreciated how enormous has been the influence of Lucian's recension (sic), made in Antioch about the turn of the third and fourth centuries of the Christian era.26

Although the defenders of the text of W-H and of the modern versions are severely critical of the argument from Providence, it is striking that W-H could never account for the use of the TT by the church after A.D. 300, along with the disuse of the text of B and Aleph. Nor can the present critic of the TT give satisfactory explanation.
It is, at the very least, difficult to imagine that the genuine text went unused and largely unknown for some 1500 years, only to be picked out of a waste-paper basket on Mt. Sinai and discovered in the Pope's library in the nineteenth century (as Burgon sarcastically put it).
The text of B and Aleph, then, is a text which God led the church to reject, just as He led her to reject spurious books from the New Testament canon. The church recognized this text as corrupted by heretics in the time when the doctrines of the Deity of Jesus and of the Trinity were being assailed, and corrupted by careless scribes who were prone to omission.

 

Our Present Task

We ought to renew our gratitude to God for the KJV. Our congregations should be instructed to prize the KJV, not only because of its reliability and other precious characteristics as a translation, but also because it presents the authentic text of the New Testament. We ought to defend it, and repudiate the modern versions, on this ground, as well as others. We should continue to use it, and it only, in our churches, homes, personal devotions, and schools, as our English Bible.
We could profitably arrange lectures in which we teach the fascinating history of the English Bible; set forth the worth of the KJV; and warn concerning the dangers of the modern versions.
The preachers should acquire a TR and the Byzantine, or Majority, or Traditional, Text.27 They should stop referring to B and Aleph as the best text.
We should acquaint ourselves with the work and materials of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
As VanBruggen points out, there is still room for work in textual criticism, determining the exact text of the majority of MSS.
Is there a need for a new English version based on the TT? In my judgment, this would be warranted only if the English of the KJV is not clear to present readers. It is conceivable that the English language undergoes such change that this is the case. But this is not the case today. The reason for the ignorance of many church-members is not the darkness of the KJV. The proof is our own children. I make bold to say that they, reared solely on the KJV, know more of Scripture than most who use the modern versions. The reason is, first, that the KJV is clear and, second, that they are thoroughly instructed in the truth of Scripture. Lack of good instruction, and not the KJV, is the reason for much ignorance in Protestantism today. As for the few out-dated words in the KJV, let preachers, parents, and school-teachers explain them to the children.
Our main task, therefore, is that which it has always been: preaching, teaching, hearing, reading, and studying Holy Scripture, the God-breathed Word, which, by the grace of God, we have: "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (II Tim. 3:15).


Prof. David J. Engelsma
http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/310-the-english-translation-of-holy-scripture

 

---

Endnotes

1. Cf. Jacob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Nashville and New York: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1978), pp. 67ff., 151ff.
2. Eugene A. Nida, Message and Mission (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p.59. Quoted in Theodore P. Letis, "A New Hearing for the Authorized Version" (Springfield, Missouri: Reformation Research Press Inc., 1978), p. 13.
3. Martin Luther, "Defense of the Translation of the Psalms," Luther's Works, Vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), pp. 209, 213.
4. Ibid., p.216.
5. Martin Luther, "On Translating; An Open Letter," Luther's Works, Vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), p.194.
6. Ibid., pp. 185ff.
7. VanBruggen, op. cit., pp.149, 169ff.
8. Luther, "On Translating: An Open Letter," Op. cit., p 194.
9. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 16.
10. B. B. Warfield, Critical Reviews (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), p.29. Warfield enthusiastically embraced the W-H theory and became an influential promoter of the theory in Presbyterian and Reformed circles. Cf. also his The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), pp. 23~242, and his An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, a popular textbook.
11. D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p.36.
12. Ibid., pp.101, 102.
13. Ibid., p.102.
14. Pickering, op. cit., p.96.
15. Ibid., p.126.
16. Bruce M. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1963), pp.19, 20.
17. Gordon D. Fee, "Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus, "Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March, 1979, pp.19-33.
18. Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976), p.41.
19. Cf. Pickering, op. cit., pp. 58~2.
20. John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959), p. 41.
21. Ibid., p. 41.
22. John W. Burgon, The Woman Taken in Adultery and God Was Manifested in the Flesh, pp. 235ff. (Neither publisher nor date is given.)
23. D.A. Carson, op. cit., p.64.
24. Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier Printing Ltd., 1976). Cf. also his The Future of the Bible.
25. Edward F. Hills has been instrumental in reviving John W. Burgon's defense of the TT and opposition to the W-H theory. Cf. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1956, 1973). Cf. also The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, Theodore P. Letis, Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute For Biblical Textual Studies, 1987).
26. Metzger, op. cit., pp.27-30.
27. The TR is available from the Trinitarian Bible Society (Canada), 39 Caldwell Crescent, Brampton, Ontario L6W I A2. The JT is available from D.C. Divry, Inc., 293-7th Ave., New York, N.Y. 10001.