-
Summary of the Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21
Full Articles: https://drsantos.org/2025/11/23/exegesis-of-romans-512-21/
Introduction & Exegetical Idea
The paper situates Romans as Paul’s most theologically comprehensive letter, framed by the thesis of Romans 1:16–17, where the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (dikaiosynē theou, righteousness of God) is revealed by faith. Romans 1–3 establishes universal condemnation (Gentile, moralist, Jew), while 3:21–5:21 expounds justification by faith. Romans 5:12–21 forms the climactic explanation of imputation and functions as a bridge to Paul’s doctrine of sanctification and the role of law.
Exegetical idea: if sin and death truly entered the world διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου (di’ henos anthrōpou, through one man—Adam), then it is theologically coherent that righteousness and life come διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (di’ henos anthrōpou Iēsou Christou, through one man, Jesus Christ).
I. Sin Came into the World Through One Man (5:12a)
Key text: διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν
(dia touto hōsper di’ henos anthrōpou hē hamartia eis ton kosmon eisēlthen)Paul introduces the section with διὰ τοῦτο (dia touto, therefore/for this reason*), linking 5:12–21 to the preceding discussion (5:1–11). The aorist verb εἰσῆλθεν (eisēlthen, entered) marks sin’s decisive historical entrance into the world through ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου (henos anthrōpou, one man), identified later as Adam. This establishes Adam’s federal headship over humanity.
II. Death Came to All Men Through One Sin (5:12b)
Key text: καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος
(kai dia tēs hamartias ho thanatos)The same verb governs this second clause: death (ὁ θάνατος, ho thanatos) entered through sin. Death is portrayed not as a natural phenomenon, but as a penal consequence. Sin is the channel (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, dia tēs hamartias) through which death enters and begins its reign.
III. All Men Have Sinned (5:12c)
Key text: καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον
(kai houtōs eis pantas anthrōpous ho thanatos diēlthen eph’ hō pantes hēmarton)Death διῆλθεν (diēlthen, spread) to all humans, because πάντες ἥμαρτον (pantes hēmarton, all sinned). The aorist verb ἥμαρτον points to a single past event rather than a series of individual acts. The paper interprets this as indicating that all sinned in Adam’s one transgression, reflecting federal solidarity rather than mere imitation.
IV. Before Law, Sin Was in the World (5:13a)
Key text: ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ
(achri gar nomou hamartia ēn en kosmō)A parenthetical section begins (vv. 13–17). Even “until law” (ἄχρι νόμου, achri nomou, i.e., prior to the Mosaic law), sin was present in the world. The fall of Genesis 3 inaugurated a sinful condition long before Sinai, and the presence of death demonstrates this reality.
V. Sin Is Not Imputed When There Is No Law (5:13b)
Key text: ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου
(hamartia de ouk ellogeitai mē ontos nomou)The verb ἐλλογεῖται (ellogeitai, is put to one’s account) appears here in a legal sense. Where there is no law, sin is not formally charged, though it exists. The Mosaic law does not bring sin into being; rather, it makes sin explicit and juridically accountable.
VI. Death Reigned from Adam Until Moses (5:14a)
Key text: ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως
(alla ebasileusen ho thanatos apo Adam mechri Mōyseōs)Despite the absence of the Mosaic law, ὁ θάνατος (ho thanatos, death) ἐβασίλευσεν (ebasileusen, reigned) from Adam to Moses. The verb βασιλεύω (basileuō) presents death as a ruling monarch, demonstrating that the root cause of death precedes and transcends Sinai.
VII. Death Reigned Even Over Those Who Did Not Sin Like Adam (5:14b)
Key text: καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ
(kai epi tous mē hamartēsantas epi tō homoiōmati tēs parabaseōs Adam)Death reigned even over those who did not sin “according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (παράβασις, parabasis, conscious violation). This includes those who did not knowingly break a specific command, such as infants or pre-law generations. Their death reveals the imputation of Adam’s guilt rather than simple personal imitation.
VIII. Adam Is a Type of Him Who Was to Come (5:14c)
Key text: ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος
(hos estin typos tou mellontos)Adam is described as a τύπος (typos, type, pattern) of the coming One, Christ. Both Adam and Christ stand as representative heads whose single acts affect “the many.” The remainder of the passage expounds this typology through parallelism and contrast.
IX. The Gift Is Not Like the Transgression (5:15a)
Key text: ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα
(all’ ouch hōs to paraptōma, houtōs kai to charisma)A major contrast is introduced: the free gift (τὸ χάρισμα, to charisma) is “not like” the trespass (τὸ παράπτωμα, to paraptōma). While Adam’s act and Christ’s act are structurally parallel (one act with corporate consequences), their nature and efficacy differ radically.
X. Many Died Because of One Transgression (5:15b)
Key text: εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον
(ei gar tō tou henos paraptōmati hoi polloi apethanon)Because of the one man’s trespass, οἱ πολλοί (hoi polloi, the many = all humanity) ἀπέθανον (apethanon, died). The focus is on the single act of Adam; that act brought universal death, confirming the reality of corporate ruin.
XI. Grace Abounded to Many Through One Man, Jesus Christ (5:15c)
Key text: πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ… ἐπὶ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν
(pollō mallon hē charis tou theou… epi tous pollous eperisseusen)The “much more” formula (πολλῷ μᾶλλον, pollō mallon) emphasizes the superiority of Christ’s work. The grace of God and the gift in Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) ἐπερίσσευσεν (eperisseusen, abounded) to the many. Grace not only meets the need created by Adam’s sin but surpasses it.
XII. The Gift Is Not Like What Came Through One’s Sin (5:16a)
Key text: καὶ οὐχ ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα
(kai ouch hōs di’ henos hamartēsantos to dōrēma)The δώρημα (dōrēma, gift) is again contrasted with what came through the one who sinned (ἁμαρτήσαντος, hamartēsantos). Though both are “through one,” the origin, character, and outcome of the gift differ fundamentally from the result of Adam’s sin.
XIII. The Result of the One Sin Is Condemnation (5:16b)
Key text: τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα
(to men gar krima ex henos eis katakrima)Judgment (τὸ κρίμα, to krima) from one trespass leads εἰς κατάκριμα (eis katakrima, to condemnation). The term κατάκριμα includes not only a guilty verdict but also the execution of the sentence, emphasizing the penal dimension of Adamic guilt.
XIV. The Gift from Many Trespasses Is Justification (5:16c)
Key text: τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα
(to de charisma ek pollōn paraptōmatōn eis dikaiōma)In contrast, the gift arises ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων (ek pollōn paraptōmatōn, from many trespasses) and leads εἰς δικαίωμα (eis dikaiōma), i.e., to a justifying verdict. Many sins become the occasion for a single comprehensive declaration of righteousness in Christ.
XV. Death Reigned Through the Transgression of One (5:17a)
Key text: εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν διὰ τοῦ ἑνός
(ei gar tō tou henos paraptōmati ho thanatos ebasileusen dia tou henos)Once more, Paul affirms that through the one man’s trespass death ἐβασίλευσεν (ebasileusen, reigned) διὰ τοῦ ἑνός (dia tou henos, through the one). Death’s dominion is historically tethered to Adam’s act.
XVI. The Gift Will Continue to Abound in Jesus Christ (5:17b)
Key text: πολλῷ μᾶλλον… οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(pollō mallon… hoi tēn perisseian tēs charitos kai tēs dōreas tēs dikaiosynēs lambanontes en zōē basileusousin dia tou henos Iēsou Christou)Those who receive τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος (tēn perisseian tēs charitos, the abundance of grace) and τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης (tēs dōreas tēs dikaiosynēs, the gift of righteousness) will reign in life (βασιλεύσουσιν ἐν ζωῇ, basileusousin en zōē) through the one, Jesus Christ. The regime of death is replaced by the regime of life for those who receive this gift.
XVII. One Sin → All Men Condemned (5:18a)
Key text: ἄρα οὖν… διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα
(ara oun… di’ henos paraptōmatos eis pantas anthrōpous eis katakrima)Paul formally resumes the comparison begun in 5:12. Through διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος (di’ henos paraptōmatos, one trespass), condemnation comes εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους (eis pantas anthrōpous, to all men). Adam uniquely embodies the race as its original representative.
XVIII. One Righteous Deed → Justification of Life for All (5:18b)
Key text: οὕτως καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς
(houtōs kai di’ henos dikaiōmatos eis pantas anthrōpous eis dikaiōsin zōēs)Correspondingly, through διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος (di’ henos dikaiōmatos, one “justifying sentence”), there is δικαίωσις ζωῆς (dikaiōsis zōēs, justification of life) for all men. The provision is universal in scope; its saving effect is applied to those who believe.
XIX. Through One Man’s Disobedience All Were Made Sinners (5:19a)
Key text: διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί
(dia tēs parakoēs tou henos anthrōpou hamartōloi katestathēsan hoi polloi)Adam’s sin is characterized as παρακοή (parakoē, disobedience). Through this, “the many” (οἱ πολλοί, hoi polloi) κατεστάθησαν (katestathēsan, were made/constituted) sinners. The verb καθίστημι (kathistēmi) here signifies a change of status: humanity is placed in a state of sin.
XX. Through One Man’s Obedience Many Will Be Made Righteous (5:19b)
Key text: οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνός δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί
(houtōs kai dia tēs hypakoēs tou henos dikaioi katastathēsontai hoi polloi)By Christ’s ὑπακοή (hypakoē, obedience), “the many” will be made righteous (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται, dikaioi katastathēsontai). The same verb in the future passive indicates a new, enduring status. In relation to Adam, the many are sinners; in relation to Christ, the many are righteous—namely, those who believe.
XXI. Law Came and Sin Increased So That Grace Might Abound (5:20a)
Key text: νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα
(nomos de pareisēlthen hina pleonasē to paraptōma)The νόμος (nomos, law) “slipped in beside” (παρεισῆλθεν, pareisēlthen), indicating a secondary, temporary role. Its purpose (ἵνα, hina) is that τὸ παράπτωμα (to paraptōma, the trespass) might πλεονάσῃ (pleonasē, increase). Law does not remedy sin; it reveals and multiplies it in clarity.
XXII. Sin Increased, but Grace Abounded More (5:20b)
Key text: οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις
(hou de epleonasen hē hamartia, hypereperisseusen hē charis)Where sin ἐπλεόνασεν (epleonasen, increased), grace ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν (hypereperisseusen, abounded exceedingly). The intensive compound verb underscores that grace more than compensates for the proliferation of sin; it overwhelmingly surpasses it.
XXIII. Sin Reigned in Death and Grace Reigns in Righteousness (5:21b)
Key text: ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, οὕτως καὶ ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης
(hina hōsper ebasileusen hē hamartia en tō thanatō, houtōs kai hē charis basileusē dia dikaiosynēs)Paul presents the ultimate purpose clause: as sin reigned (ἐβασίλευσεν, ebasileusen) ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ (en tō thanatō, in death), so grace might reign (βασιλεύσῃ, basileusē) διὰ δικαιοσύνης (dia dikaiosynēs, through righteousness). The old regime is characterized by sin’s rule expressed in death; the new regime is grace’s rule expressed through justifying righteousness.
XXIV. Righteousness Reigns to Eternal Life (5:21c)
Key phrase: διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον
(dia dikaiosynēs eis zōēn aiōnion)Grace reigns through righteousness and leads εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (eis zōēn aiōnion, unto eternal life). Righteousness here denotes God’s justifying action that inaugurates and guarantees the eschatological goal of salvation—eternal life.
XXV. Eternal Life Is Through Jesus Christ (5:21d)
Key phrase: εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
(eis zōēn aiōnion dia Iēsou Christou tou kyriou hēmōn)The passage culminates with the affirmation that eternal life is διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (dia Iēsou Christou tou kyriou hēmōn, through Jesus Christ our Lord). As sin and death entered through one man, so righteousness and eternal life come through the last Adam. The entire argument moves from Adamic death to Christ-centered life.
Application (Summary)
The paper concludes that Adam’s willful disobedience plunged all humanity into a state of condemnation and death, while the righteous, atoning work of Christ offers justification and eternal life to all who believe. Recognizing the magnitude of this grace leads naturally into the ethical exhortation of Romans 12:1–2: presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice and pursuing transformation by the renewing of the mind, in order to live out what is “good and acceptable and perfect” in the will of God.
-
EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 5:12-21
Romans 5:12–21 (NASB95) 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Exegetical Outline:
- Sin came into the world through one man 12a
- Death came to all men through one sin 12b
- All men have sinned 12c
- For before law sin was in the world 13a
- Sin is not imputed when there is no law 13b
- Death reigned from Adam until Moses 14a
- Death reigned even over those that did not sin in Adam’s offence 14b
- Adam is a type of Him who was to come 14c
- The gift is not like the transgression 15a
- Many died because of one transgression 15b
- The grace of God abounded to many through one man Jesus Christ 15c
- The gift is not like what came through one’s sin 16a
- The result from the one sin is condemnation 16b
- The gift from many condemnations is justification 16c
- Death reigned through the transgression of one 17a
- The gift will continue to abound in Jesus Christ 17b
- The consequence of one sin is all men are condemned 18a
- Thus through one righteous deed acquittal 18b
- Through one man’s disobedience all were made sinners 19a
- Through one man’s obedience many will be made righteous 19b
- Law came and sin increased so that grace could abound 20a
- Sin increased but grace abounded more 20b
- Sin reigned in death and grace reigns in righteousness 21b
- Righteousness can reign to eternal life 21c
- The eternal life is through Jesus Christ 21d
Exegetical Idea:
Did sin and death enter the world through one man? If sin has entered the world through one man then it is possible for one man to remove sin and death and replace it with righteousness and life.
Introduction:
The book of Romans stands as the single most theologically complete book in the New Testament. It is the Apostle Paul’s masterpiece and stands as a shining example of first century rhetoric in form, style, and content. In this book Paul presents a systematic theology of the doctrines of universal condemnation, justification, atonement, sanctification, and restoration of Israel as well as sections on practical theology.
Everything in the book comes back to Paul’s bold thesis found in 1:16-18, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (NASB)[1] Paul brilliantly takes on every potential objection that can be raised against justification by faith with rhetoric and Biblical examples and still manages to bridge his argument to sanctification; which continued to support his previous arguments.
Following Paul’s thesis is three chapters proving universal condemnation. Paul breaks this argument into three divisions; 1) the heathen (1:18-32); 2) the religious hypocrite that can also be seen as the cultured Greek (2:1-3:8); and 3) the Hebrew (3:9-20). From there Paul dives right into the doctrine of justification by faith alone (3:21-5:21).
Paul’s argument for and explanation of justification by faith can be seen in four parts. The first section describes the origin of righteousness (3:21-31). The second section gives Biblical examples of righteousness (4:1-25). The third example describes the benefits of righteousness (5:1-11). And finally, the imputation of righteousness is explained (5:12-21). This final section, 5:12-21, which this work will provide exegesis on, serves two purposes. The first is that it provides an apologetic for the corruption of all men through Adam’s one sin and the impartation of righteousness through Jesus Christ. But the second purpose for this section is that it introduces the purpose of law. Understanding the purpose of law is important both for justification and sanctification. The law can be used to point out sin and the need for a savior.
There have been some that understood justification by faith but turned back to the law for the purpose of sanctification. There is an alarming trend today as many believers are being led down this same path by modern day Judaizers. Paul uses 5:12-21 as a bridge to his arguments about law and sanctification. Chafer agreed and wrote; The intermediate portion, now being considered, is a consummation of that which goes before and a preparation for that which follows.”[2]
Paul rounds out the book with an explanation of sanctification (6:1-8:39). He then turns his attention to describing the future restoration of Israel (9-11). And finally Paul presents instruction to the believers of the Church of Rome with practical theology of living righteously (12:1-15:13); which is a natural progression from the doctrines of righteousness.
The exegesis of Romans is not without problems. Schreiner wrote that “Romans 5:12–21 is one of the most difficult and controversial passages to interpret in all of Pauline literature.”[3] The truths that are presented in this section of Scripture are often not popular as they present man in his natural state in a very low condition. It shows man in a much lower condition than Adam was in before the fall. But, it also exalts the regenerate man to the right view of his new condition. A follower of Jesus Christ is to place the inspired Word of God as the authority; unconditionally. Therefore whatever the exegesis and interpretation with a consistent literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic bare: that is what the follower of Jesus must believe. Before embarking on the exegesis of this watershed passage it would be good to review the words of wisdom given by Chafer regarding the exegesis of Romans 5:12-21. He wrote,
In further preparation for a right exegesis of Romans 5:12, it is important to observe that the one initial sin of Adam—properly styled the original sin, so far as humanity is concerned—is the main subject under discussion. As before stated, the original sin of Adam is the fontal source from which two widely different lines of influence proceed. The previous thesis has dealt with the transmitted sin nature which is received mediately from generation to generation, which nature is so closely allied to spiritual death. The present objective is to trace the other line of influence arising from Adam’s initial sin, which line is that of imputed sin and is the only reason assigned in the Word of God for the imposition upon the race of physical death. The first line of inference mentioned has to do with corruption, while the second, now in view, has to do with guilt.[4]
Commentary:
Sin came into the world through one man
This first verse has three divisions with each division containing its own main verb. Paul begins this division on sin entering the world with the phrase διά τοῦτο ὥσπερ. Διά τοῦτο is a common phrase in the New Testament, especially in Pauline writing. It is used 64 times in the New Testament with 22 occurrences in the Pauline Corpus with 5 of those used in Romans alone. Porter suggests that this phrase is causal[5] in its New Testament use; in a sense causing to pass through; in this case passing through one man’s sin. The addition of the conjunction ὥσπερ translated “therefore” indicates an antecedent passage. Some suggest that the reference is to verse 11 while others see a connection to verses 1-11. Porter wrote, “In Rom. 5.12, most commentators agree that διὰ τοῦτο refers at least to vv. 9–11, quite possibly to vv. 1–11, and perhaps even further back. Relative pronouns may have no referent.”[6] Hodge wrote, “The wherefore (διὰ τοῦτο) is consequently to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from the whole of the previous part of the epistle, and especially from the preceding verses.”[7] Morris summarized the debate when he wrote,
This verse begins a new section, linked to the preceding with a Therefore. Immediately we encounter disagreement. Barrett discovers only “a loose relation” with the preceding and Käsemann refers to “the break in thought,” whereas Lenski speaks of “a close connection” and Boylan sees what follows as “an inference from the section, vv. 1–11”. We should take Paul’s Therefore seriously. He is linking this new section to the preceding. It is because of the reconciliation Christ has brought about that the evil Adam introduced into the world has been overcome, and more than overcome.[8]
This debate is unnecessary, as all would agree that verses 12-21 are at least connected to verse 11. The previous verse itself connects itself to the preceding verses and texts by the continuous use of conjunctions all the way back to Paul’s thesis in 1:17. Furthermore, the passage at hand becomes a bridge from Paul’s argument for universal condemnation as he places all men seminally in Adam to all that accept the free gift of justification in Christ Jesus. As one crosses this bridge from the doctrines of justification it will lead to doctrines of sanctification of the believer. Schreiner suggests that chapter five is connected to following chapters thematically with the theme being hope. He wrote,
If my analysis of the structure of chapters 5–8 as a whole is on target, then it is probable that the two sections are joined by the theme of hope. The hope trumpeted in verses 1–11 is firmly based because Christ has overturned the negative consequences of Adam’s sin. The power of grace is stronger than both sin and death, and thus believers can be assured that they will reign in life (v. 17) and that grace will reign and result in eternal life (v. 21). The rule over creation that Adam lost will be restored (cf. 8:18–25), and creation itself will experience transformation. Those in Christ will enjoy sovereignty over creation through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who succeeded where the first Adam failed.[9]
The conjunction clause is followed by the genitive clause διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου (through one man). In this clause the object of Paul’s thought is presented as the one man who’s sin he compared the action of Jesus. Though not mentioned until verse 14 the one man is Adam. ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν (sin entered into the world) contains the subject of the verb and the verb. The main verb εἰσῆλθεν is the aorist active indicative 3rd person singular form of εἰσέρχομαι (eisérchomai) meaning “enter, come into, or go in” and is translated “entered.”[10] The nominative feminine form of sin ἡ ἁμαρτία accompanied with the article is the subject of the verb. It is the sin that entered. It entered the world as seen in the clause εἰς τὸν κόσμον which is an accusative neuter clause or indirect object of the verb. The thrust here is that sin entered the world by Adam’s sin.
καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος is the final clause of this division. It is also modifying the verb εἰσῆλθεν rendered entered.” ὁ θάνατος is in the nominative form and is the subject of the verb in this clause. τῆς ἁμαρτίας (sin) is the genitive making the sin the conduit which the subject, death, entered the world.
Death spread to all men through one sin
This division contains a main verb that is found at the end of the clause just as the previous verb was. This verb is διῆλθεν which is the aorist active indicative 3rd person singular of διέρχομαι which is translated here as “spread.” It has the sense of going through or passing through. The nominative noun ὁ θάνατος or “death” is the subject of the verb with the accusative clause being εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. This verse shows the connection of all people to that one sin. As will be illustrated more completely, all are sinners and condemned through this one sin.
The second word [of verse 12], as, is no less important since it indicates the first of a series of contrasts, which contrasts characterize this portion of the Scriptures. The two members of this comparison are justification through One Man over against ruin through one man. The as connects that which has gone before with the idea of sin entering by one man. It may be paraphrased: Wherefore as the case of justification is, being by one man, so the case of ruin is, being by one man. Such, indeed, is the substance of the more detailed argument which follows in the context.
The words, “as by one man sin entered into the world,” imply that sin had already had its manifestation in other spheres and that the one man, Adam, became the avenue or open door by which it entered into the cosmos world. But more is added, since the text goes on to state, “and death by sin.” Though a close relation exists between spiritual death and physical death—they both begin with the one initial sin of the first man and converge alike on each individual of Adam’s race—the reference in verse 12 is to physical death. It is possible that some reference is made before the end of this context is reached to death on so broad a scale that it may include both of its forms; but the meaning of the word in the primary statement is of physical death. The universal character of physical death requires no defense. Thus the Scriptures declare, “It is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27), and it is no different message when the Apostle states here, “And so death passed upon [spread through] all men, for that all have sinned.” Since the aorist tense is used in the last clause and thus a single, historical act completed in the past is indicated, the phrase “all have sinned” is better rendered all sinned. The effort of language at this point is to say that each member dies physically because of his own part in Adam’s sin. Since one complete, single, historical act is in view, the words all sinned cannot refer to a nature which results from that act, nor can it refer to personal sins of many individuals. It is not that man became sinful. The assertion is that all sinned at one time and under the same circumstances. In like manner, the penalty—death—is not for pollution, which would indicate spiritual death, but for guilt, or for participation in an act; and that indicates physical death. The statement is clear, the issue being that all had a part in Adam’s initial sin. [11]
All men have sinned
The aorist active indicative 3rd person plural verb ἥμαρτον (from ἁμαρτάνω) is once again found at the end of the clause. The verb is rendered “sinned.” It begins with the preposition ἐφʼ followed by the dative relative pronoun ᾧ. The subject of the verb is πάντες·which is a plural noun meaning “all.” This is a dependent clause describing the causal nature of the previous sections to all sinning. All have sinned in the one’s transgression. “In 1 Corinthians 15:22 this statement appears: ‘For as in Adam all die,’ and this implies the same federal coaction as is asserted in the words all sinned.”[12] Schreiner explains,
…we should not read a Pelagian interpretation from this, for the ἐφʼ ᾧ phrase explains why all human beings have sinned. As a result of Adam’s sin death entered the world and engulfed all people; all people enter the world alienated from God and spiritually dead by virtue of Adam’s sin. By virtue of entering the world in the state of death (i.e., separated from God), all human beings sin. This understanding of the text confirms the view of scholars who insist that original death is more prominent than “original sin” in this text. The personal sin of human beings is explained by the sway death holds over us. [13]
It should be noted that this section carries differences from the rest of the section. Most of this passage has a balance produced by the comparison of Adam and his sin to Jesus and His righteous act. In this verse Paul does not complete his thought and does not return to it until verses 18 and 19. In some senses verses 13 through 17 are parenthetical to the thoughts of verses 12 and 18 through 19. Hodge made this same observation and summarized it by writing,
From an inspection of vs. 12, 18, 19, which contain the whole point and substance of the comparison. Verses 13–17 are virtually a parenthesis; and vs. 20, 21, contain two remarks, merely incidental to the discussion. Verses 12, 18, 19, must therefore contain the main idea of the passage. In the 12th, only one side of the comparison is stated; but in vs. 18, 19, it is resumed and carried out: ‘As by the offence of one all are condemned, so by the righteousness of one all are justified.’ This, almost in the words of the apostle, is the simple meaning of vs. 18, 19, and makes the point of the comparison and scope of the passage perfectly clear. It is therefore not only admitted, but frequently and freely asserted, that vs. 12, 18, 19, contain the point and substance of the whole passage, vs. 13–17 being a parenthesis. Yet, in vs. 12, 18, 19, the super abounding of the grace of Christ is not even hinted. Can the main design of a passage be contained in a parenthesis, and not in the passage itself? [14]
For before law sin was in the world
Paul begins his parenthetical discussion of verses 13-17 with the phrase “ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ” (for until the Law sin was in the world). ἄχρι which is a genitive proposition meaning until followed by the conjunction γὰρ meaning for and νόμου meaning law. The entire phrase is “for until law” is a dependent clause “as a conjunction expressing time up to a point,”[15] which is up to the Mosaic Law being given. The phrase defines the age that Paul is describing. He is expressing that even before there was law there was sin in the world. It was previously written that sin entered the world through the one man’s sin and through that sin death has reigned.
Sin is not imputed when there is no law
This section introduces the verb ἐλλογεῖται which is translated as “imputed.” It is a verb that is used only here and in Philemon 18. It is closely related to λογίζομαι which is translated 5 times in Romans by the AV as imputed. While λογίζομαι carries the meaning of calculating or reckoning ἐλλογεῖται carries the weight of force behind it of being charged to one’s own account. The subject of the verb is ἁμαρτία or sin modified by the conjunction δὲ and the negative particle οὐκ. The conjunction serves to tie the noun to the previous clause giving the meaning that while there was not sin in the world it was not imputed to the accounts of those alive. This is further described in this section by the phrase μὴ ὄντος νόμου. A. T. Robertson translates this phrase as, “when there is no law.”[16] He went on to explain the meaning in more detail. He wrote,
Genitive absolute, no law of any kind, he means. There was law before the Mosaic law. But what about infants and idiots in case of death? Do they have responsibility? Surely not. The sinful nature which they inherit is met by Christ’s atoning death and grace. No longer do men speak of “elect infants.”[17]
Death reigned from Adam until Moses
This section begins with the conjunction ἀλλὰ which is a strong adversative[18] that is similar to the nevertheless connecting this section to the preceding section. It serves to connect the verb βασιλεύω (basileuō) rendered here as reigned. This is a common verb that is used 21 times in the New Testament with 10 by Paul. Paul uses βασιλεύω six times in Romans with five of those occurring in chapter five (vv. 14; 17-2x; 21-2x). βασιλεύω is found 386 times in the Septuagint with at least twelve Hebrew equivalents. The primary equivalent is מָלַך (mālak) which is a denominative verb that means “become king or queen, reign.”[19]
Βασιλεύω is modified by the nominative article and noun ὁ θάνατος (the death). Θάνατος is followed by two prepositional clauses ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ and μέχρι Μωϋσέως. Death was reigning in the period of time from Adam to Moses. This is true even though there was no law and sin was not imputed because there was no law.
Death reigned even over those that did not sin in Adam’s offence
ἐβασίλευσεν of the previous division is also modified by the clause of this division. The two divisions are divided by the conjunction καὶ which is translated here even. Death reigned even over those that had not sinned. Paul himself added to the Biblical record that death and sin entered through Adam’s failure. Robertson explained further,
Adam violated an express command of God and Moses gave the law of God clearly. And yet sin and death followed all from Adam on till Moses, showing clearly that the sin of Adam brought terrible consequences upon the race.[20]
The past tense word sinned is the aorist active participle ἁμαρτήσαντας which is the accusative plural form of ἁμαρτάνω. ἁμαρτήσαντας is the direct object and is found in the prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας. Sinners are the direct object or receive the action of the verb which in this case is death. These sinners were born into Adams sin without having to commit that sin themselves. Schreiner added,
Paul does indeed claim that people die because of sin, but he also insists that they sin because they are dead (i.e., separated from God). All human beings enter the world alienated from God, and as a result of this alienation they sin. It is also true that they will experience eschatological death if they sin.[21]
Adam is a type of Him who was to come
This third division of verse 14 begins with the nominative singular masculine relative pronoun ὅς which identifies Adam as its antecedent. Adam is in apposition with the noun τύπος rendered here as type. Robertson wrote that, “Adam is a type of Christ in holding a relation to those affected by the headship in each case, but the parallel is not precise as Paul shows.”[22] Chafer summarized the importance of this who section when he wrote, “The two federal headships—that of Adam and that of Christ—are set side by side in their similarities and dissimilarities. The first Adam wrought the ruin of his race; the Last Adam wrought the eternal salvation and glory of His people.”[23] He added,
Two exceedingly important truths emerge from the vast array of theological writings regarding that image in which man was created, namely, (a) that fallen man bears the inalienable image of God, and (b) that man is injured by the fall to the extent that only redeeming grace can rescue him. Both of these truths are deeply embedded in the Scriptures regardless of any seeming contradictions they may present. Neither truth may be modified or surrendered.[24]
The gift is not like the offence
This division begins with a phrase that introduces the comparison of the transgression which introduced death with the grace of God and the gift through Jesus Christ. The first clause “Ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα,” which means “but not like the trespass” is followed with “οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα” meaning “thus also the gift.” Παράπτωμα and χάρισμα are both nominative nouns. The phrase οὐχ ὡς is the combination of a negative particle οὐχ and a comparative adverbial conjunction ὡς translated as “not like.” This division establishes the contrast of the rest of the verse. Paul will use several comparisons and contrasts to add force to the reality that all are dead in Adam’s original sin but that the grace of God is greater than that failure.
Many died because of one transgression
The first half of this comparison is that because of Adam’s transgression many died. The attention is on the action rather than the person in this instance. The verb is the aorist active indicative 3rd person plural verb ἀπέθανον which is from the word ἀποθνῄσκω. Paul has returned to the form of earlier verses where the verb is inserted at the end of the thought. The genitive article and noun τοῦ ἑνὸς sit between the dative article and noun τῷ and παραπτώματι. τοῦ ἑνὸς is “the one” that trespassed. “The one clearly means Adam, but he is not named after verse 14. There is not the slightest doubt that he is constantly in mind, but his name is not used.”[25] The subject of the verb is οἱ πολλοὶ rendered here as the many. This phrase could potentially have a multiple meanings. Morris explained the proper meaning writing,
The many can mean any of a number of things, such as “the majority” or “a great number”; it takes its meaning from its context. Here it signifies the totality of mankind. This way of putting it forms an effective contrast with the one. The effect of Adam’s sin, then, was disaster. It meant death for everyone.[26]
The grace of God abounded to many through one man Jesus Christ
The contrast to the death of many in one transgression is found in the grace of God abounding to many through Jesus Christ. Paul begins this division with the phrase πολλῷ μᾶλλον translated much more a phrase that is used only 10 times in the New Testament. It is a phrase that adds emphasis to the second half of the contrast similar to an “if then” statement in English. It is a rhetorical device used for emphasis essentially saying if the first was significant the other is amazing. Jesus used this device in Matthew 6:30 “when He clothes the grass of the field will He not much more clothe you?” Paul used this device in Romans 5:10 to demonstrate that justification in Christ’s death even while believers were enemies to God; much more having been justified they can now be saved by His life.
The gift is not like what came through one’s sin
In the first division of verse 16 Paul introduces another contrast. This begins a number of contrasts. In fact this verse, “a fourfold contrast: the gift is set over against “one having sinned”, judgment against the gift, one sin against many trespasses, and condemnation against justification”[27] The first contrast is that the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. One of the difficulties of translating verse 16 is that there are no main verbs; therefore they must be supplied in the translation. This translation moves τὸ δώρημα to the beginning of the phrase as it is in the nominative case and is the subject of the sentence with the verb is being provided.
The division begins with the conjunction καὶ followed by the negative particle οὐχ and the comparative conjunction ὡς. Then there is the key genitive prepositional phrase διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος. διʼ ἑνὸς which has been used before; as the phrase through the one is a common theme in Romans 5:12-21. διʼ ἑνὸς is used 4 times in 3 verses (Rom. 5:12; 16; 18-2x). The unique element to this phrase is the use of ἁμαρτήσαντος the aorist active participle in the genitive singular masculine form of ἁμαρτάνω. The aorist participle has the unique property of antecedent action which allows this participle to have a referent which is in this case Adam from verse 14. Robertson agreed and noted in his grammar, “In Ro. 5:16, διʼ ἑνός ἁμαρτήσαντος, there is a reference to Adam (verse 14).”[28] He also added a description of the property associated with some aorist participles. He wrote,
Antecedent Action. This is the usual idiom with the circumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of the aorist participle. But it must not be forgotten that the aorist part. does not in itself mean antecedent action, either relative or absolute.[29]…
Judgment came from the one transgression resulting in condemnation
The contrast begins with the observation that judgment came from one transgression and resulted in condemnation. The subject of the verb arose (which is supplied) is κρίμα which is in the nominative singular neuter form translated as judgment. Opening the phrase is a nominative singular neuter article followed by two particles. The first particle is μὲν which is a correlative conjunction followed by a logical explanatory conjunction γὰρ often translated for. Here this combination has been translated on the one hand. The logical correlation introduced the subject κρίμα and the implied verb arose and is followed by two short prepositional phrases. The first is ἐξ ἑνὸς which is a genitive phrase translated from one which indicates origin of judgment. It is followed with εἰς κατάκριμα and accusative phrase translated to condemnation.
The gift came from the many transgressions resulting in justification
Judgment came from one transgression and resulted in condemnation. Now Paul presents the second half to the contrast; which is, that gift in justification was the result of many transgressions. In this division the subject of the verb is χάρισμα translated here as free gift with the verb arose being supplied. There are two prepositional phrases that follow χάρισμα as there was in the previous division. And just like the previous division there is a genitive phrase followed by an accusative phrase. The first prepositional phrase is ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων translated from many transgressions demonstrating origin of the nominative χάρισμα. The final phrase εἰς δικαίωμα is a prepositional phrase in the accusative and is translated in justification. Justification is the direct object of the action of the verb. Therefore, as the free gift came out of many transgressions the result was justification. This speaks to the efficacy of the action of one action, the rise of justification.
Death reigned through the transgression of one
This first division of verse 17 demonstrates that death reigned through the one. The main verb of the division is ἐβασίλευσεν, the same verb from verse 14 translated reigned. Previously it was used to illustrate that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Here the subject of the verb is the nominative θάνατος translated death. Paul opens this division with the phrase εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι. “Again we have a conditional clause implying that the condition has been fulfilled, “If, as is the case….” The thought of verse 14 is taken up again, that death reigned through what Adam did. Death is supreme—no one escapes its rule.”[30] This conditional clause is made up of two conjunctions, the first is conditional εἰ and the second is causal, γὰρ. This first class conditional clause could be translated since rather than for it by which may help to recognize the causal nature of Paul’s argument that death reigned because of Adam’s transgression death reigned through the one; Adam. “He is not saying that death reigned over us all because we all sinned; he is saying that death reigned over us all because Adam sinned.”[31]
The gift will continue to abound in Jesus Christ
Paul transitions from the demonstration of death reigning through Adam to the demonstration life reigning through Jesus Christ with the much more construction. The attention of this division is on grace and life which come through one other than Adam, Jesus Christ. The main verb is βασιλεύσουσιν which is the future active indicative 3rd person plural form of βασιλεύω translated will reign. The subject of the verb is the nominative plural masculine article οἱ and is translated those who. There is a long phrase that modifies the subject; τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ. Λαμβάνοντες is a nominative participle that means to receive and helps to describe the subject as those who receive…
The phrase meant to describe those who receive begins with accusative phrase τὴν περισσείαν the abundance. It is followed by three genitive phrases each being of the abundance. τῆς χάριτος is of the grace, καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς and of the gift, τῆς δικαιοσύνης and of the righteousness. They will reign ἐν ζωῇ, in life. Paul completes the thought by identifying the origin of the life which is διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ or through the one, Jesus Christ.
The consequence of one sin is all men are condemned
In verse 18 Paul returns to the thought from verse 12. He did not complete that thought previously but with the comparison and contrasts done he will finish the thought that death came to all men through one sin. He returns to this thought with the consequence or “Consequently, a term that stresses the logical sequence.”[32] There are no verbs in verse 18 but the construction is direct and simple, contrasting the fall of man in sin with the righteous deed of Jesus. Each man had universal effect; death to all men in Adam and justification of life being offered to all men in Jesus. “Adam contained the race in himself in a manner which is not true of any succeeding progenitor in his line.”[33]
Following the transitional and comparative conjunctions οὖν ὡς Paul stresses that condemnation of all men was in Adam’s transgression. He began with the prepositional phrase διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος which is a genitive phrase meaning through one trespass or transgression. This is followed with two accusative prepositional phrases. The first is εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, to all men; followed by εἰς κατάκριμα, to condemnation. While the NASB uses the word condemnation in 45 instances only three of those instances are from κατάκριμα; and all of those occur in Romans (5:16; 18; 8:1). Κατάκριμα carries with it the sense of punishment. This is explained by the BDAG which said, “In this and the cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt, but the adjudication of punishment.”[34] The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament both confirms the conclusion and adds to it. It said that κατάκριμα is “a legal technical term for the result of judging, including both the sentence and its execution condemnation, sentence of doom, punishment.[35] So then, it is to all men that condemnation with punishment came from Adam’s one transgression.
Thus through one righteous deed acquittal
It is clear that all mankind naturally exist in a state of condemnation through Adam’s original sin. Now Paul contrasts that doctrine with the justification of life that is offered to all men. Once again it should be noted that there is no verb in this sentence making it somewhat difficult to translate. Some have chosen to provide verbs in the translation while others do not. Following the introductory adverb and conjunction οὕτως καὶ Paul presents the clause διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, through one righteous act which is perfectly balanced with the through one transgression of the previous division. The word δικαιώματος is translated here righteous deed but that translation causes problems as it is the same word that is translated justification in verse 16. Morris explained the trouble when he wrote,
There is a problem with the word translated one act of righteousness. It is the word that is translated “justification” in verse 16, and it normally refers to a pronouncement of some kind, not an action. But most translators and commentators accept a meaning like that of NIV (e.g., NEB, JB, Murray), largely, it would seem, because they see the word as giving an exact antithesis to one trespass, even though in doing so they give the same word two different translations (v. 16 and here). We are faced with a choice between an inexact antithesis and using the word in two different senses in the same passage without explanation (cf. Parry). It seems better to retain consistency both in the way the word is used generally and in the way it is used in verse 16 (so SH, Lenski, and others). “Sentence of justification” or “justificatory sentence” (Godet, Gifford) suits the present context admirably, while the word has the meaning “righteous act” rarely if at all.[36]
Paul continued to balance this second half of verse 18 with the first as he wrote that through the one act of justification to all men. He used the prepositional phrase εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους which is perfectly balanced with the thought of the previous division. This thought ends with a second accusative propositional phrase εἰς δικαίωσιν and the genitive ζωῆς meaning to the justification of life.
Through one man’s disobedience all were made sinners
Paul began this division with two conjunctions, a comparative and a logical explanatory ὥσπερ γὰρ which has been translated for as. The introductory conjunctions are followed by a genitival phrase διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου. The preposition διὰ or through is followed by τῆς παρακοῆς which means disobedience. “This time Adam’s sin is called disobedience, which brings out a salient feature of the wrong he did. His sin was voluntary.”[37] The final clause of the prepositional phrase is τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου which has become a familiar clause; this time in the genitive meaning of the one man. This should be seen as the willful disobedience of the one man. διὰ carries the sense of being causal and the prepositional phrase is the conduit for ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί which is translated the many were made sinners. Regarding the one and the many Robertson wrote,
Here again we have “the one” (του ἑνος [tou henos]) with both Adam and Christ, but “disobedience” (παρακοης [parakoēs], for which see II Cor. 10:6) contrasted with “obedience”…[38]
The key verb is κατεστάθησαν which is in the aorist active indicative form of καθίστημι. “The verb were made presents problems. It does not mean that sinless people were compelled to become sinners, but rather that Adam’s sin constituted them as sinners. They were born as members of a race already separated from God.”[39] There are two nominative verbs, ἁμαρτωλοὶ and οἱ πολλοί translated as sinner and the many.
Through one man’s obedience many will be made righteous
Paul explained that it was through one man’s disobedience that all were made sinners. To follow up and contrast Adam’s disobedience Paul used the obedience of Jesus Christ to explain how righteousness could be offered to the many. The division begins with οὕτως καὶ translated even so and is followed with a prepositional phrase διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς. The proposition διὰ is used once again to begin the phrase and is translated through. It is followed by τῆς ὑπακοῆς translated as the obedience and is the genitive of ὑπακοή and has the idea of obedience with a response or answer. ὑπακοή is found 15 times in the New Testament and is translated in the NASB as obedient in all cases except one which is translated as obey. The final clause of this phrase is τοῦ ἑνὸς or the one.
The verb is κατασταθήσονται the future passive indicative 3rd person plural of καθίστημι which is the same verb from the previous division. There it was used in the aorist tense and now is used in the future tense. All men were made sinners, the many will be made δίκαιοι or righteous. Morris’s treatment of the many is worth quoting. He wrote,
The many comes last in both clauses, thus standing each time in strong contrast to one. Though the words translated the many are identical in the two places, the meaning is not the same. The first time the many points to the entire human race; all were caught up in the effects of Adam’s sin. But Paul does not hold that all are to be saved (2:12); moreover, “his entire presentation of salvation has emphasized the fact that justification is granted only on the basis of faith” (Harrison). The second time he is referring to the many who believe. All people insofar as they relate to Adam are sinners and insofar as they relate to Christ are righteous.[40]
Law came and sin increased so that grace could abound
Now the text adds a new element to the thought which is the Mosaic Law. There are three verbs in this division that will be treated together in this work. The first thought that Paul asserted was that νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν which is a reference to the Mosaic Law rather than general law of conscience. The thought was added by the clause νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν which is a simple construction of a nominative verb νόμος or law a logical connective conjunction δὲ and παρεισῆλθεν which is the aorist active indicative 3rd person singular form of παρεισέρχομαι which means to come in or to slip in. “The Law’s reign began at Sinai and ended with Christ’s death and resurrection. It is an ed interim dealing “till the seed should come.” It is a temporary economy and should never be treated as the principal divine objective—as too often it has been treated.”[41] Morris added,
Law, says Paul, was added, the verb showing that it held no primary place. Its purpose101 was that the trespass might increase. It was not concerned with preventing sin (it was too late for that). Nor was it concerned with preventing sin (it was too weak for that). The law can only condemn (4:15). It was concerned with showing sin for what it is, and it certainly showed magnificently that there was much sin (cf. 3:19–20). Notice the singular; Paul does not say that the “trespasses” increased; it is what sin essentially is that the law magnified.[42]
After recognizing that law came in he explained the purpose for the law coming in. Paul used the clause ἵνα πλεονάσῃ which is an adverbial conjunction that often shows purpose and in this case is used with the verb πλεονάσῃ which is the aorist active subjunctive 3rd person singular form of πλεονάζω meaning to increase and is translated would increase. The phrase ends with τὸ παράπτωμα translated the transgression.
…the law was given so that trespasses might be made very clear. How does one know he has sinned? He knows because the law spelled out in detail what was permitted and what was not permitted. The law with 613 commandments revealed sin. [43]
Sin increased but grace abounded more
Paul showed that the law came to illuminate sin. But that is not his main point. Rather he used the purpose of law as an additional contrast. But instead of a contrast between sin abounding without law and grace now the contrast is sin as shown by law and grace. He begins the division with the conjunction οὗ and the logical conjunction δὲ translated but where. The main verb is ἐπλεόνασεν which is the aorist active indicative 3rd person singular form of πλεονάζω which means to increase. ἡ ἁμαρτία is the subject of the verb, thus it is sin that increases.
But the contrast is that grace abounds more exceedingly than did sin. The main verb is ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν which is the aorist active indicative 3rd person singular form of ὑπερπερισσεύω which means to be in great excess and is translated abounded all the more. “ὑπερεπερισσεύειν is superlative, and not comparative, and περισσεύειν is stronger than πλεονάζειν, as περισσόν is more than πλέον. The fact, therefore, of the triumph of grace over sin, is expressed in the clearest manner.”[44] ἡ χάρις, is the subject of the verb ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν making it the grace that abounds more.
Sin reigned in death and grace reigns in righteousness
Most of mankind’s history is dominated by sin and death reigning over everything. The weight of the curse was an oppressor upon the entire creation. This division begins with the double conjunction construction similar to what Paul has used previously. The ἵνα ὥσπερ translated so that introduces the main clause. “So that introduces a clause of purpose (as in v. 20). The purpose of the superabundant grace was to replace the reign of sin.”[45]
That—even so grace might reign (ἱνα—οὑτος και ἡ χαρις βασιλευσῃ [hina—houtos kai hē charis basileusēi]). Final ἱνα [hina] here, the purpose of God and the goal for us through Christ. Lightfoot notes the force of the aorist indicative (ἐβασιλευσεν [ebasileusen], established its throne) and the aorist subjunctive (βασιλευσῃ [basileusēi], might establish its throne), the ingressive aorist both times. “This full rhetorical close has almost the value of a doxology” (Denney).[46]
The opening conjunctions are followed by the main verb ἐβασίλευσεν which is the same verb used in verse 14 twice in verse 17 and twice in the present verse and is translated reigned. It is modified by the nominative article and verb ἡ ἁμαρτία which is the subject of the verb making the sentence sin reigned. The subject is followed by a prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. This phrase uses a dative construction making it in death. It is also the indirect object of the verb. One may ask what kind of death is being spoken of here; as it could be physical death or spiritual death. “The mention of eternal life in the second half of the verse indicates that we should understand death here as spiritual as well as physical.”[47]
The final phrase of this clause is the contrast to the first half. While the first half continued to dwell on sin reigning in death the second half will focus on grace reigning. The clause begins with a conjunction and an emphatic particle οὕτως καὶ. It is followed with the nominative article and verb ἡ χάρις which means grace. It modifies the subjunctive verb βασιλεύσῃ which is translated would reign.
Righteousness can reign to eternal life
The passage is closing with the thought that grace might reign. There are two prepositional phrases to describe the cause of grace being able to reign. The first is διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. διὰ is followed by the genitive noun δικαιοσύνης which means righteousness. Hodge wrote, “δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ‘righteousness which is unto eternal life, because the antithesis is not between death and righteousness, but between death and life: ‘Sin reigns in death, grace reigns unto life.’ That the benefits of redemption shall far outweigh the evils of the fall is here clearly asserted.” [48] Newman explained Paul’s use of the word righteousness by writing,
…the use of righteousness in this verse needs to be made clear. Righteousness is best understood in the sense of “God’s putting men right with himself,” which is understood as the beginning point and eternal life as the final point of the salvation experience. The meaning, then, is that God’s grace rules us by putting us into a right relation with him and by leading us to eternal life (see verse 6:22) through Jesus Christ our Lord. [49]
The διὰ is modified by the prepositional clause εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον which is translated to eternal life. It is an accusative construction making eternal life the indirect object of the action of the verb would reign.
The eternal life is through Jesus Christ
The final clause is that eternal life is through Jesus Christ our Lord. The preposition διὰ or through is used once again and carries with it the sense of cause. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου uses a genitive construction with the personal pronoun ἡμῶν meaning our. “It is God’s purpose that not sin but grace should be the ruler, and grace reigns through righteousness.”[50] It is fitting that the final phrase of this great passage focus on eternal life through Jesus Christ. It makes the overall contrast complete from verse 12 of sin and death coming into the world through one man. Now Paul has shifted his attention to the last Adam; Jesus Christ who has brought in righteousness and eternal life that is offered to all men.
Application:
Paul has given clear instruction as to the nature and efficacy of Adam’s sin which was willful disobedience to God. Through that one sin, Adam’s sin, all men are born dead in that trespass regardless of personal sin. The result of being born separate from God in that trespass is condemnation and punishment. But, if one man’s unrighteous action can bring condemnation to all; much more so that the Son of God’s righteous action as propitiation could impute righteousness to all. Once the miracle of salvation and eternal life are recognized for what they really are the response should be appropriate; as Paul wrote in Romans 12:1-2, “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
Work Cited:
Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993)
Culver, Robert D., “1199 מָלַך” In , in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999)
Friberg. Timothy, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000)
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G., Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel Ministries, 1994)
Gesenius, Wilhelm and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 2003)
Hodge, Charles, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009)
Holmes, Michael William, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999)
Kettel, Gerhard, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-)
Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995)
Logos Bible Software, Naḥal Ḥever Greek Minor Prophets, Reconstruction (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010)
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996)
Morris, Leon, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988)
Mounce, William D., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006)
Newman, Barclay Moon and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994)
Porter, Stanley E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999)
Robertson, A.T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos, 1919; 2006)
_____________ Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997)
Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 6, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998)
Strong, James, S.T.D., LL.D., vol. 2, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009)
_____________, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996)
Swanson, James, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997)
[1] All Scripture will be quoted from the New American Standard 1995 unless otherwise noted.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 299.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 6, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 267.
[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 297-98.
[5] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 148. The preposition διά may be related to the word δύο, ‘two’, and perhaps had the original meaning of ‘between’ (fig. 7). The sense captured by the translation ‘through’ perhaps originated in the idea of moving between two objects, or passing through between them. The causal sense seems to have been a further metaphorical extension, in that the conveyance through implies the cause of passing through, or the means by which passage is obtained.
[6] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 128-29.
[7] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 223.
[8] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 228.
[9] Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 6, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 271.
[10] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 293-94.
[11] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 300-01.
[12] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 303.
[13] Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 6, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 275-77.
[14] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 222-223.
[15] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 85.
[16] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:13.
[17] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:13.
[18] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 233.
[19] Robert D. Culver, “1199 מָלַך” In , in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 507.
[20] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:14.
[21] Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 6, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 277.
[22] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:14.
[23] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 299.
[24] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 169.
[25] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 235.
[26] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 235.
[27] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 236.
[28] A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos, 1919; 2006), 860.
[29] A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos, 1919; 2006), 860.
[30] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 236.
[31] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 237.
[32] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 238.
[33] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 302.
[34] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 518.
[35] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 218.
[36] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 239.
[37] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 240.
[38] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:19.
[39] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 240.
[40] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 240.
[41] Lewis Sperry Chafer, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 307.
[42] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 241.
[43] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 592.
[44] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 278.
[45] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 242.
[46] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 5:21.
[47] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 242.
[48] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 278-79.
[49] Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 110.
[50] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 242.
-
GOD’S SOVEREIGN WORK:
An Exegetical-Theological Study of Romans 8:28–30
David Q. Santos*
GOD’S SOVEREIGN WORK:
An Exegetical-Theological Study of Romans 8:28–30
David Q. Santos*
The book of Romans is unique among all the New Testament as it is the most thorough explanation of theology; in systematic fashion, it addresses anthropology, sin and salvation, condemnation, salvation by faith alone, redemption, adoption, sanctification, sanctification excepting law, freedom from sin, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, eternal security, Israelology, and practical theology. By means of brilliant rhetorical usage, Paul utilized his education to advance the Word of God, as a consequence of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8 is one of the most theologically diverse passages in all Scripture; it speaks powerfully with regard to pneumatology, soteriology, and personal eschatology. Romans 8 answers the difficulty raised at the end of chapter seven, wherein Paul realized that even he could not live the life he was called to live by himself. He was not capable of winning the war that was waging within him between his desire to live for Christ and the desire of his flesh. He asked who could save him from his body of sin. The answer is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (8:1–11). He also explained the meaning of sonship to the believer who has been adopted into the family of God (8:12–17), and he also wrote concerning the reality of present sufferings in the life of the believer.
The present passage is a kind of summary of 8:1–27. It prepares for, and to some extent is similar to, the grand climax found in verses 37–39. It cannot be fully understood except in the light of verses 1–27. It draws a conclusion; in fact, a very comforting conclusion.1
COMMENTARY AND OUTLINE
Verses 28–30 must be read in light of the preceding verses, as is the case with the entire book of Romans (since each chapter further develops the previous, which is even true in verses 28–30). Each verse, phrase, clause, and word was carefully constructed to be impactful, and thus demonstrates God’s sovereign work in the world, the believer’s responsibility, and the Christian’s security in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:28–30 may be outlined as follows.
I. We Know that to Those Who Love God all Things Work Together for Good (28a)
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good” (οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν). Romans 8:28 opens with a dependent clause: “and we know that.” The clause begins in the Greek text with the verb οἴδαμεν, which is the perfect active form of οἶδα and which is defined as “to have information about, know.”2 In Romans 8:28, it is translated as “we know” with the “we” being the implied subject of the verb based upon that verb’s morphology, One should notice that most translations place the connective conjunction δέ as the first word and translate it as “and,” thus implying “an inference from what Paul had taught concerning afflictions.”3 Morris explained the debate regarding the introductory conjunction.
There are different views about the opening of this verse. Some favor “and”, seeing not a contrast with the preceding but a transition to a further thought of much the same kind (e, g., Murray). Others perceive a contrast between the groanings of the previous section and God’s working in this one (e.g., Godet). Either is possible, and many solve the problem by leaving out the connective (e.g., JB).4
The best approach would be to maintain the “and” of this passage, and retain the sense of believers in Christ being transitioned from suffering to glory. While this may seem insignificant to some, how this conjunction is understood can have significant implications for the remainder of the verse in addition to the subsequent verses. The “and” supports the view that this passage is a transition from the groaning and suffering in the previous passage to the glory that is given to those that love God; it is also a progression of the ministries of the three persons of the Trinity. According to verse 26, the Holy Spirit helps the “we” (i.e. believers). Verse 27 reveals that Jesus, the one who “searches hearts” and “knows the mind of the Spirit” intercedes for the saints. Verses 28–30 then focus upon the purpose of God the Father.
The conjunction ὅτι translated “that” is a subordinating conjunction that is commonly used after verbs that “denote mental or sense perception, or the transmission of such perception, or an act of the mind, to indicate the content of what is said, etc.”5 In this case, it denotes the perception or understanding that believers possess regarding God’s eternal purpose for their lives. The conjunction and dependent clause also serve to connect the latter content with the former (further supporting the transition from the ministries of the Son and the Spirit to the Father).
The phrase “those who love God” consists of two clauses. The first is the dative clause τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν (those who love) followed by the accusative clause τὸν θεόν (the God). The dative clause consists of the plural masculine article and the plural masculine participle of ἀγαπάω (which is in the present active form). Using the participle of ἀγαπάω was a unique way for Paul to describe believers. As Schreiner noted, “Paul does not speak often of believers loving God (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; 8:3; Eph. 6:24), and here the phrase is merely another way of denoting those who are believers.”6 The clause is in apposition with the phrase “called according to His purpose,” which Paul used to further express who is receiving the action of the verb (translated as “working together”). Morris affirmed this usage when he wrote, “Those who love God are also those who have been called according to his purpose.”7
The phrase “those who love God” modifies the key verb συνεργεῖ which is the present active form of συνεργέω and has the meaning “work together.” Συνεργέω is only found five times in the New Testament (Mark 16:20; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 16:16; 2 Cor 6:1; Jas 2:22) and is found only twice in the Septuagint, both of which are in the apocryphal books (1 Esd 7:2; 1 Macc 12:1). The sense of the word often is that two individuals or groups work together (Mark 16:20; 1 Cor 16:16; 2 Cor 6:1), although it can also prove multiple actions or events working together (Rom 8:28; Jas 2:22). Based primarily upon the context of the passage, Romans 8:28 has the sense of multiple actions or events working together, which is confirmed by a thorough study of the entire clause πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν. Furthermore, it should be observed that the adjective πάντα and the prepositional phrase εἰς ἀγαθόν both modify the verb συνεργεῖ. Both modifiers are in the accusative case and there is no nominative noun to be found, thus making it difficult to decide what is the subject of the verb.
There is considerable debate with regard to the subject of the verb συνεργεῖ. Three basic solutions have been given. Some believe that the subject is the Spirit as, in their view, this passage continues to describe the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The second solution is to understand the adjective πάντα as the subject. The third interpretation argues that God is the subject. The position has already been adopted in this study that verses 28–30 transition from the previous text into a fuller description of the ministry of God the Father. Therefore, based upon context, the Holy Spirit is not the subject, which results in two other options. The continued debate between “God” as the subject and “all things” is made more difficult by a textual problem where ὁ θεός is added to some manuscripts. However, it is not possible to find enough support for this addition to include it. Schreiner explained, “the witnesses supporting this variant are both early and notable, they are not widespread enough to overturn the majority of the manuscript tradition, which omits ὁ θεός.”8 Wallace provided a thorough and concise treatment of the subject.
God causes all things [πάντα] to work together for good to those who love God
Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether a particular sentence even has a direct object. In this instance, such doubt is due to textual uncertainty and the syntactical range of the verb. συνεργέω is one of the verbs that can be either transitive or intransitive. If ὁ θεός is original, the verb is transitive here (and πάντα is the acc. direct object). But since ὁ θεός is textually suspect, it is better to read the text without it. This leaves two probable options: either “he works all things together for good” or “all things work together for good.” In the first instance the subject is embedded in the verb and “God” is clearly implied (as in v 29). In the second instance, πάντα becomes the subject of an intransitive verb. In either case, “What is expressed is a truly biblical confidence in the sovereignty of God.”9
One may regard it as likely that those witnesses who added ὁ θεός to their manuscripts did so for the purpose of clarifying their view of what the subject was. Schreiner agreed with this suggestion and wrote, “the insertion of ὁ θεός by scribes is explicable since they presumably wanted to clarify that God was the agent by whom all things worked together for good. This last argument is not definitive, however, because ὁ θεός could have been dropped because it was deemed to be insufferably awkward to insert it on the heels of τὸν θεόν.”10 Based upon the context, grammar, and comparison to Pauline theology, this study concludes that God is the subject of the verb and maintains the two accusative modifiers as direct objects.
Πάντα is the accusative adjective that means “all things” since it is also in the neuter gender and has no object of its own; it is also one of the direct objects of συνεργεῖ. God is working all things εἰς ἀγαθόν for good. Wallace wrote,
It is difficult to pass over a verse such as this without noting two additional items: (1) the good that is accomplished is specifically for believers; and (2) that good is in connection with conformity to Christ through suffering (so vv 17–30). Thus to say (as is frequently done nowadays, even in non-Christian circles), “Everything will work together for the good,” as if things work out by themselves and the good is human comfort, is hardly Pauline and hardly biblical.11
Romans 8:28 began with the statement “and we know,” which links this passage with the theme of the previous verses. Paul introduced the theme in verse 18 where he stated that the current sufferings cannot be compared to the glory that is to come. Believers must have knowledge that allows them to recognize that there will be tribulations in life and a future reward for enduring for Christ’s name. Christians are to wait eagerly for this future reality to become present. The knowledge is that God is working in the world and in the lives of believers and everything is working for good to the follower of Christ. Paul may have recollected Genesis 50:20 wherein Joseph said, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.”
II. God Works All Things for Good according to His Purpose to Those He Calls (28b)
“According to his purpose to those that are called” (τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὗσιν). Paul introduced the theme of present suffering with a future of glorification. The glorification is to those who love God. Paul further developed the thought of who the beneficiaries are of God working all things together for good. First, it is those who love God (as explained in the previous section). Paul next described them as being those who are called. Paul transitioned to this expanded explanation with the preposition κατά which has the accusative noun πρόθεσιν and yields the translation “according to.” The accusative noun πρόθεσιν is the direct object of the verb συνεργεῖ, which is translated with the preposition “according to the purpose.” There is a dative article at the beginning of this phrase and a dative participle οὗσιν (from the verb εἰμί which is translated “are”).
According to his purpose [κατὰ πρόθεσιν] (kata prothesin). Old word, seen already in Acts 27:13 and for “shewbread” in Matt. 12:4. The verb [προτίθημι] protithēmi Paul uses in 3:24 for God’s purpose. Paul accepts fully human free agency but behind it all and through it all runs God’s sovereignty as here and on its gracious side (9:11; 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9).12
An important aspect of this phrase is the adjective κλητοῖς (“called”). The dative adjective κλητοῖς is related to the article and the participle by morphology and is used to identify the group who are “the called.” The word that Paul used for “called” is found ten times in the New Testament (Matt 24:14; Rom 1:1, 6, 7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:1–2, 24; Jude 1; Rev 17:14). In all cases (except the occurrence in Matt 24), the word has the sense of an urgent invitation or to be summoned and commissioned.13 Paul used it of his own calling as an apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1) and of believers who were called to their position in the same manner Paul was called (Rom 1:6, 7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:2, 24). Paul used κλητός (an adjective) seven times, but if one expands the search to include uses of the word κλῆσις (the noun form translated as called or calling), then a total of sixteen occurrences are found, nine of which are nouns14 (Rom 11:29; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20; Eph 1:8; 4:1, 4; Phil 3:14; 2 Thess 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9). Many of the verses bring tremendous clarity to how Paul felt regarding the believer’s calling. An example of this can be seen in 2 Timothy 1:9 where Paul wrote, “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” The calling of the believer is not based upon works but according to God’s divine purpose. The calling relies upon grace of which Christ Jesus is the conduit who allows the Christian to partake in the calling. Furthermore, the calling has a responsibility to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling” (Eph 4:1) recognizing that the believer is now part of the family of God by adoption. In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prayed that the believers in Ephesus would recognize the “hope of His calling” and the promise of a rich inheritance as the children of God.
Furthermore, Paul declared (in the very text being examined in this work) the true depth of what it means to be called. In verse 30, Paul declared that those that are called are justified. Paul’s statement goes far beyond a simple invitation of the gospel message. The Word of God demonstrates that it is all who are called who are justified (declared righteous) in Christ Jesus. Morris wrote, “the idea of the divine call is very important for Paul. In the Gospels we sometimes read ‘many are called, but few chosen’, but Paul is not using the term ‘call’ in that sense. He means ‘effectual call’; he is speaking of those who have not only heard the call but have responded.”15 Schreiner added:
It is not merely an invitation that human beings can reject, but it is a summons that overcomes human resistance and effectually persuades them to say yes to God. This definition of “calling” is evident from Rom. 8:30, for there Paul says that “those whom he called [ἐκάλεσεν] he also justified.” The text does not say that “some” of those called were justified. It fuses the called and justified together so that those who have experienced calling have also inevitably received the blessing of justification.16
All things are being worked together for good according to God’s purpose for those who are called; this truth proves that those who are called have been called for a specific purpose or plan. They are called by Christ to be used as they have been gifted. All things are being worked together for good according to God’s plan to those who are called. The sovereign purpose is for those that love God and are called of God. One should give special attention to Paul’s use of the word κλητοῖς in identifying who are the recipients of God’s purpose or plan. Hodge explained the significance of the word “called” (κλητοῖς). He wrote, “The word called … is never, in the epistles of the New Testament, applied to those who are the recipients of the mere external invitation of the gospel. It always means effectually called, i.e., it is always applied to those who are really brought to accept of the blessings to which they are invited.”17
God is working all things together for good according to his purpose to those who are called. The phrase is important to clarify God’s sovereignty in “all things” and the comforting effect that knowledge has upon believers who are suffering. The reader of Romans, at this point, may be reminded of what Paul wrote in 5:3–5 with regard to suffering. The Christian should find joy in tribulation knowing that that suffering is being used by God as a refiner’s fire to accomplish perseverance, character, and finally hope (or expectation). What Paul wrote is not the mere “everything will work out in the end” type of statement that is offered freely in secular circles as a means of comforting one another. There is a tremendous principal in this passage and it is not that everything will be okay in the end or that with time “all wounds are healed.” The trite sayings lack any real potency. Paul declared that God is in control and those who love God are those who are called, and to them God is working all things for divine eternal purpose.
III–IV. God Foreknew the Called and Predestined Them to Be Conformed to Jesus’ Image (29a)
“For whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). Verse 29 has two major phrases (29a, 29b), neither of which have a nominative verb acting as a subject. The first phrase contains two indicative verbs, while the second does not contain a primary verb of its own. Verse 29 opens with the conjunction ὅτι (which is translated here as “for” and thus indicates an intimate relationship with the preceding text and could just as well be translated “because”) and the relative pronoun οὓς (which is translated as “whom”).
Paul introduced the first primary verb προέγνω (from προγινώσκω), which has the basic meaning of “knowing in advance.”18 Chafer indicated, “This specific term means merely that God knows beforehand. It is used of Israel (Rom. 11:2) and of the Church (Rom. 8:29).”19 The morphology (aorist active) yields the subject, which must be provided in English by the translation “He foreknew.” Προγινώσκω is a verb used only five times in the New Testament (Acts 26:5; Rom 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:17) but does not occur in the Septuagint, Philo, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Προγινώσκω only appears twice in the Apostolic Fathers (viz. Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 4.3.4;20 Parable 721). Some argue that this verb has stronger meaning than simply knowledge, referencing its Old Testament equivalent, which means “choosing in advance.”
Many scholars feel that we cannot take the verb in this place to refer to no more than knowledge. They point out that in the Old Testament the equivalent means something like “choose in advance” (as in Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2). This must surely be borne in mind, but we must also remember that Paul’s next verb is predestined and we must be on our guard against making the two say the same thing.22
Προέγνω “is the first of a series of five verbs outlining what God has done in fulfillment of his saving purpose.”23 “Each verb differs in meaning from the others, yet each is related to and grows out of the one which it follows.”24 All of these verbs are found in the aorist tense even though they indicate the future for believers. “An author sometimes uses the aorist for the future to stress the certainty of the event. It involves a ‘rhetorical transfer’ of a future event as though it were past.”25 The series begins with foreknew and continues with predestined, called, justified, and glorified. The progression demonstrates the position and situation of the believer past, present, and future. The progression demonstrates how all things are being worked together for those who love God and are called.
The good realized is not due to fate, luck, or even the moral superiority of believers; it is to be ascribed to God’s good and sovereign will, which has from eternity past to eternity future secured and guaranteed the good for those whom he has chosen. This is the significance of “the golden chain” that charts the course from God’s foreknowledge of believers to their glorification. In each case God is the subject of the verbs, for it is he who foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. The good he has begun he will finish (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:24).26
The next primary verb is προώρισεν, which follows directly after προέγνω (separated only by the conjunction καί). Προώρισεν is from the verb προορίζω which is in the aorist active form, as are all the principal verbs in these verses. One should note the consistent use of the same morphology since the same implied subject (God) is also maintained throughout the entire passage, thus προώρισεν is translated as “He predestined.” Προώρισεν is another rare verb in the Bible and ancient literature; it is found only six times in Scripture (Acts 4:28; Rom 8:29–30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11) and once in the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, “To the Ephesians,” salutation).
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church at Ephesus in Asia, blessed with greatness through the fullness of God the Father, predestined before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever, united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God, a church most worthy of blessing: heartiest greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy.27
Ignatius understood predestination as occurring “before the ages” and related to the unchangeable glory that will be realized in the future by the believers of the church at Ephesus. He also related the hope of glory to suffering believers by means of the doctrine of predestination and the understanding that God sovereignly works all things together for the church. Paul described predestination as including adoption as sons by Jesus Christ, which is the will and pleasure of God the Father (Eph 1:5). God also predestines according to his purpose because He works all things according to his will (1:11). Robertson wrote that προορίζω means, “to appoint before hand” with an emphasis “for eternity.”28 “The predestination follows, and is grounded on the foreknowledge. The foreknowledge therefore expresses the act of cognition or recognition, the fixing, so to speak, the mind upon, which involves the idea of selection.”29
Foreordination and Predestination. These words, almost complete synonyms, are used in the New Testament to declare the truth that God determines what shall be before it comes to pass. These words are more concerned with that to which men are divinely appointed than with the men themselves. God’s foreordination and predestination precede all history. As foreknowledge recognizes the certainty of future events, foreordination and predestination make these events sure. The two divine activities of foreseeing and foreordaining could not function separately. They do not occur in succession, but are dependent on each other and either one is impossible without the other.30
Paul wrote that those who were known beforehand and predestined are to be conformed. Conformed (συμμόρφους) is a unique adjective that is followed by a genitive phrase τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Συμμόρφους is the accusative adjective (from συμμόρφους), which means “having a similar form, nature, or style, similar in form τινός as or to something; like his Son in form or appearance.”31 The adjective is modified by the genitive clause τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ thus demonstrating how those who love God are to be conformed. The clause begins with τῆς εἰκόνος, which is translated as “the image.” “The image” is modified by the second genitive clause τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, in addition to the singular masculine “the son” and the personal pronoun αὐτοῦ, which yields the translation “the image of His son.” Philippians 3:20–21 provides some insight regarding the meaning of being conformed to the image of his son. The text reads, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.” Paul wrote with regard to the anticipation of Christ’s return and that He would transform the current body of the believer to make it conform to the body of his own glory. The power for this transformation is that of Jesus who will make all things come into subjection to himself since He makes all things work together for good with this very glory in mind.
V. They Were Conformed So They Might Be the Firstborn of the Brethren (29c)
“So that they might be the firstborn among many brothers” (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·). The next phrase begins with a unique construction: εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “Εἰς governing the Infinitive with τό most commonly expresses purpose. It is employed with special frequency by Paul.”32 The infinitive verb εἶναι is modified by the previous clause, thus demonstrating purpose for those who love God (i.e. that they might be conformed to the image of the Son). As they are conformed to the Son’s image, they become πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς the firstborn among many brothers. Christ is “first born” of all creation (Col 1:15); however, in Colossians, He is “first born from the dead” (1:18), the Eldest Brother in this family of God’s sons.…”33 Jesus is the firstborn and all those who are conformed have become part of the family of God.
VI. The One that Was Predestined Was Called (30a)
“And whom He predestined, them He also called” (οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν·). The conjunction δέ is followed by the principal verb προώρισεν, which is again translated as predestined. The predestination is what God did in eternity past. In eternity past, the believer was called (as revealed in this second clause τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν). The conjunction καί is translated “also” and is followed by the next principal verb, ἐκάλεσεν. The verb ἐκάλεσεν is translated “called,” which is effectual, as described previously by the Apostle Paul.
VII. The One that Was Called Was Justified (30b)
“And those whom he called he also justified” (καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν·). Paul continued the progression by writing καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν. By referencing “those whom He called,” this served to recall the previous principal verb. The next progression is that those God called He also justified. The same construction was used here as the second half of the previous phrase but a new verb was introduced into this “unbreakable chain” that began in eternity past. The verb translated He justified is ἐδικαίωσεν (from the word δικαιόω), which has the idea of being legally declared righteous. Those who are called are declared righteous because they have become children of God by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Hodge explained, “The justification here spoken of, is doubtless that of which the apostle has been speaking throughout the epistle, the regarding and treating sinners as just, for the sake of the righteousness of Christ.”34
VIII. The One that Was Justified Was Glorified (30c)
“And those whom he justified he also glorified” (οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν.). Using the same construction as previously, ἐδικαίωσεν (“and those whom He justified)” is now mentioned in relation to being “glorified.” Furthermore, the final clause and final verb are both introduced with the same construction. The clause τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν is translated “He also glorified.” The verb ἐδόξασεν is from the word δοξάζω and means glorify, praise, or honor; it is used in 53 different verses of the New Testament, 131 verses of the Septuagint in addition to numerous uses among the Apostolic Fathers, Philo, and many other Greek classics. Many of the biblical uses describe the action of humanity towards God, as in its first New Testament use found in Matthew 5:16, which says, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” In the example of Matthew, humanity glorified God for the works that his followers are accomplishing. By means of glorification, the believer will fully be conformed to the image of the Son. When the justified finally see Jesus they will be like Him. First John 3:2 reads, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.” Wallace explained that the “idea is that the very ones whom God predestined, called, and justified are also glorified. The compounding of pronouns thus has a dramatic effect: No one is lost between the eternal decree and the eternal.”35 He also added one more critical point: “The glorification of those who have been declared righteous is as good as done from Paul’s perspective.”36
Believers are called in accordance with a settled plan and purpose of God, for whom he calls he had previously predestinated: and as all the several steps or stages of our salvation are included in this plan of the unchanging God, if we are predestinated and called, we shall be justified and glorified.37
CONCLUSION
Romans 8:28–30 is a stunning depiction of God’s sovereign work in election, salvation, and ultimately, glorification of the believer. The passage is both soteriological and eschatological. Romans 8:28–30 primarily addresses God’s calling to the elect, and the process of justifying them and glorifying them in the future. Verses 28–30 serve in a complementary relationship to the first 27 verses of Romans 8 (and, of course, to the final nine verses of the chapter). Romans 8:1–11 addressed the believer’s empowerment by the indwelling Holy Spirit to be free from sin. Verses 12–17 describe the sonship through adoption that allows the believer to enjoy in the inheritance with Christ. Verses 18–27 describe how the believer should understand present sufferings of the world. Verses 28–30 forge a relationship wherein believers understand their position in God, which is summarized in verse 39 to the effect that nothing can separate believers from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.
Paul explained that believers are foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son. They are being conformed in this present day by the refiner’s fire of suffering. In the future, these same believers will be completed by the glorification done by God. The transition from suffering to glory proves that God has everything under subjection and is working all things together for the believer’s future glorification. “Between the start and finish of God’s plan are three steps: being called (cf. Rom. 1:6; 8:28), being justified (cf. 3:24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9), and being glorified (cf. 8:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4), and in the process not a single person is lost. God completes His plan without slippage.”38 Believers can rejoice in the knowledge that if they love God and are called according to his purpose, they are secure in their salvation.
* David Q. Santos, M.T.S., pastor, Mid Valley Baptist Church, Durham, California; and, graduate student, Tyndale Theology Seminary (Now MA, MDiv, PhD and Professor of History at Shasta Bible College)
1 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 278.
2 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 693.
3 Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, new ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2009) 440.
4 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 330.
5 Arndt et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 731.
6 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 450.
7 Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 331.
9 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 180–81.
11 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 180–81.
12 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman, 1931) 4:377.
13 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989) 1:423.
14 Paul used κλῆσις 5 times in the genitive case, 2 times in the dative, and once in the accusative and nominative cases.
15 Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 331–32.
17 Hodge, Epistle to the Romans, 441.
18 Arndt et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 866.
19 Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. in 4 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993) 3:168.
20 Michael William Holmes, trans. and ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, updated ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 382.
21 Ibid. 450.
22 Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 332.
23 Ibid.
24 Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994) 167.
25 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 564.
27 Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 137. Ignatius used the aorist active participle.
28 Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:377.
29 Hodge, Epistle to the Romans, 447.
30 Chafer, Systematic Theology, 3:168.
31 Arndt et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 958.
32 Ernest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 161.
33 Robertson, World Picture, 4:378.
34 Hodge, Epistle to the Romans, 450.
35 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 330.
37 Hodge, Epistle to the Romans, 445.
38 John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, gen. eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 2 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983) 2:474.
-
A brief overview of the history of biblical archaeology
Bibliography
Collins, Steven, and Joseph M. Holden. The Harvest Handbook of Bible Lands: A Panoramic Survey of the History; Geography; and Culture of the Scriptures. Eugene: Harvest House Publishing, 2019.
Graves, David E. Biblical Archaeology: An Introduction with Recent Discoveries that Support the Reliability of the Bible. New Brunswick: 2014.
Joukowsky, M. A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Luraghi, Nino. “Author and Audience in Thucydides’ “Archaeology”. Some Reflections.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100 (2000): 227-239.
Archaeology is the study of ancient things. The term itself is made up of two Greek words, arche (ἀρχή) which can mean first or ancient things, and logos (λόγος) meaning words, teaching or study. Archaeology is then the study of ancient things which was used by the Greek historian Thucydides. This ancient author notes the study of past people even in his own time when a gravesite was discovered containing material different than their own. Modern archaeology begins in the late eighteenth century, with interest artifacts, treasures, and relics from the classical world. These archaeologists were primarily treasure hunters, with this model of study lasting decades. October 22, 1738, Roque Joaquín Alcubierre opened a new chapter in archaeology when we began exploring Pompeii, as a military man, Alcubierre decided to organize the collection of artifacts by detailing the provenance of the treasures that were uncovered. This at least opened the door to keeping records on later archaeological excavations and recording the provenance of relics.
One of archaeology’s earliest important figures is Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) who is credited with finding the city of Troy. Schliemann found this site with the information provided by Frank Calvert. The key find was the “treasure of King Priam.” In the case of these finds they were not what Schliemann thought they were as they should have dated to c. 1200 BC but many found them to be from 1000 years earlier. Later,
Places like Pompeii caught the interest in the public, especially well-off British society who had the means to experience a grand tour of the classical world. This group also found interest in seeing the Holy Lands and owning a relic from the time and land of the Bible. As western thought was developing there was a renewed interest in classical and biblical languages. This new interest was coincided with Napoleon taking troops to Egypt along with an entourage of scholars who recorded Egyptian monuments and discovering the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 opened the doors to mysteries of the ancient world while offering hope of unraveling some of those mysteries. Christian had many reasons to find excitement for the hunt for the ancient world of the Bible. Some say a change to demonstrate the authenticity of Scripture to newly emerging critics and to have a closer connection to that lost world.
Napoleon’s scholars used an approach to the study of the past that was innovative for that day. They made drawings of their discoveries and kept detailed records of their activities and finds. The Rosetta Stone expanded European interest beyond just the classical world of Greece and Rome. Spurring further interest in visiting the Ancient Near East, especially Egypt was the use of the Rosetta Stone to decipher hieroglyphs which was accompanied by Jean-François Champollion in 1822. After many years of studying the Rosetta Stone and other examples of ancient Egyptian writing, Jean-François Champollion cracked the code to hieroglyphs. Thomas Young (1773–1829), an English physicist, added to the world of Champollion as he was one of the first to show that some of the hieroglyphs on the Rosetta Stone wrote the sounds of a royal name, that of Ptolemy. Another key scholar is Sir Austen Henry Layard (1817-1894) a British archaeologist that focused on Mesopotamia, he found many artifacts that were sent back to Britain. Layard, along with Paul-Emile Botta (1802-1870) sent many articles to Europe that were links to the world of the patriarchs.
Sir Flinders Petrie is a scholar that holds an important position in the development of biblical archaeology. British archaeologist: begins the era of true biblical archaeology. He explored many areas of Egypt and the Levant. He is one of the first to notice stratigraphy. This becomes a key element of archaeological dating. He developed the idea of a Tell or mound as an archaeological site. He logically thought that the deeper a layer the earlier the material must represent. He noticed that the pottery that was deep looks different than the pottery closer to the surface. He develops a typology that came to be known as ceramic typology based on layers and the pottery in a layer. He drew timelines based on similar pottery between pottery found in Egyptian tombs to get a sequence. This begins the idea of sequencing between Pharaohs and people and events of the Bible. Petrie’s work led to many principles of biblical archaeology. The first is stratigraphy, as noted. He is considered by some to be the father of stratigraphic analysis. Ceramic typology is a critical element to Ancient Near East archaeology.
Ceramic typology is a step that helps make archaeology more scientific. One reason for this is that ceramics are predictable and repeatable across locations. Ceramics also have a predictability of changes over time. Ceramics are identifiable and assemblages can be used to demonstrate a connection between one site and another. Eventually this leads to a measurable and repeatable discipline. Key is that pottery was found in most sites even when other material was not available. Petrie notes a similarity of some types of ceramics across a large region. He considered the means by which these types were spread across a region so rapidly. This allowed specific levels across a large area to have similar technology at the same time. He thought of the idea of constant migration as populations change by climate change or natural demographic changes. This becomes a mechanism for having a chronological sequence. This helps the study of the Ancient Near East define periods in the chronological sequence.
A key event for pottery technology in the past was the invention of the “fast wheel.” The invention of the fast wheel is an identifiable change in technology of pottery which provides a chronological anchor point. The fast wheel came into used in c. 2100-2000 BC. It is a fast turning platform that advanced technology of pottery production. Collins argues that Mesopotamians created the fast wheel in the North and not the southern Levant or Egypt. (EB3 Central Anatolia making distinctive black/red slip ware. The technology seems to have been translated quickly to Galilee as seen at Beit Yara / Kerak. https://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Khirbet_Kerak.html) Before the fast wheel all pottery was made by hand which was a labor-intensive process with little replication. The fast wheel increased productivity with a repeatable product.
Petrie’s ideas get adopted by people like WF Albright and then become primary methods of biblical archaeology. William F. Albright (1891–1971) was a key figure in biblical archaeology beginning in the 1920s. He was born into a Methodist missionary family. He earned a PhD in Semitic languages from Johns Hopkins University.
Albright had a comprehensive knowledge of many aspects of archaeology. He had a broad knowledge which included stratigraphy, methodology, lithics, ceramics, linguistics, philology, original languages. Thus, it makes sense than many view him as the father of biblical archaeology. As the dean of Palestinian archaeology, he instructed many of the top scholars including, Bright, Garstang, Kenyon, GE Wright, Joseph Free, Dever, and Kenneth Kitchen. Albright accepted the documentary theory and made it acceptable to conservative Christian scholars. Overall, he believed in the historicity of the Biblical narratives. Among this many awards and honorary degrees, Albright was given Israel’s highest honor, the title “Nobleman of Jerusalem.” He stands as a giant in the field of biblical archaeology.
One prominent scholar from the “Albright School” is Kathleen Mary Kenyon. Kenyon, along with Mortimer Wheeler, is credited with developing a grid system for archaeology known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method. She studied under Wheeler at a Roman site in Britain. She was director of the British School of Archaeology from 1951-1962. While she ad several important excavations, the excavation of Jericho (1952-1958) is one of the best known. A key reason this site is important is that she argued that Joshua could not have gone to Jericho, as there was not inhabited city during the time she assigned to Joshua. This excavation followed the work of John Garstang who previously excavated in the 1920s. Garstang thought he’d found Joshua’s Jericho in late bronze age (1450-1440). Kenyon thought Garstang’s excavation was from the middle bronze (c. 1550 BC) and argued there was no LB except for a small building. She held to a 13th century exodus under Ramses the Great (if there was an exodus), placing the Exodus and conquest in a time period when there was not Jericho for Joshua to interact with. She shifted Garstang from the late bronze to the middle bronze age. Kenyon’s ideas shifted the concept of Jericho from LBA and brought about doubts about the historicity of the bible for some.
Joseph A. Callaway (1920–1988) is a sad account of biblical archaeology. Callaway was a professor of Old Testament who set out to discover the Biblical city AI. Callaway was unable to demonstrate any material from the time assigned to Joshua. The city he found was from the Early Bronze Age (c. 2500 BC) which was too early for Joshua. This led Callaway to question the historicity of the Old Testament.
Also from the Albright school, William Dever has been from the University of Arizona. He is one of the key scholars that has carried on after Albright. Dever is one of the archaeologists that has not totally give up on the bible though he does reject historicity of the Torah (like many other scholars such as Israel Finkelstein). Dever was able to add technological advancement to the study of the past. He started to test for pollen, residue in vessels, bone analysis, signs of tool manufacturing and metallurgy, climatological analysis, geology. All of these are key advancements in biblical archaeology.
Additional Summaries
Heinrich Schliemann (1822–1890): Though primarily known for his excavations at Troy, Schliemann also made important contributions to biblical archaeology. His work at the site of Hissarlik in Turkey provided early evidence of a historical basis for Homeric epics, which influenced the study of biblical history by demonstrating the potential for historical truth in ancient texts.
Charles Warren (1840–1927): An English engineer and archaeologist, Warren conducted extensive surveys and excavations in Jerusalem in the 1860s. His work uncovered parts of the city walls and the Warren’s Shaft, providing critical evidence of the city’s layout during the time of King David.
William Foxwell Albright (1891–1971): Often considered one of the leading figures in biblical archaeology, Albright’s work in the early 20th century helped establish the field as a rigorous academic discipline. His excavations in sites like Tell Beit Mirsim and his work on the chronology of ancient Palestine provided crucial insights into the historical context of the Bible.
Sir Flinders Petrie (1853–1942): Known for his pioneering work in the method of stratigraphic excavation, Petrie made significant contributions to the study of ancient Egypt. His work at sites such as Tell el-Hesi and Lachish in the Near East helped establish a chronological framework for the region, which was essential for understanding biblical narratives.
Edward Robinson (1794–1863): An American biblical scholar and geographer, Robinson conducted extensive surveys in Palestine and produced important work on the geography of the Bible. His detailed descriptions of biblical locations provided a foundation for later archaeological work.
The earliest archaeological finds in Egypt date back to the early 19th century and include several significant discoveries that laid the foundation for the field of Egyptology. Here are some of the key early finds:
- Rosetta Stone (1799): Discovered by French soldiers near the town of Rosetta (Rashid) during Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign, the Rosetta Stone is one of the most famous archaeological finds. It features a decree issued by King Ptolemy V in three scripts: Greek, Demotic, and hieroglyphic. The stone was crucial for deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs, thanks to Jean-François Champollion’s work in the early 1820s.
- The Memphite Tombs (Early 19th century): Early excavations around Memphis (near modern-day Mit Rahina) revealed several important tombs, including those of high-ranking officials from the Old Kingdom. These tombs provided valuable insights into ancient Egyptian burial practices and art.
- The Tomb of Seti I (1817): Discovered by Giovanni Battista Caviglia and later explored by the famous British archaeologist Sir Belzoni, the tomb of Seti I in the Valley of the Kings is one of the most well-preserved and richly decorated tombs from the New Kingdom period. Its extensive and detailed wall paintings provided significant information about Egyptian funerary beliefs and art.
- The Temple of Karnak (Early 19th century): Systematic exploration of the Temple of Karnak in Luxor began in the early 19th century. This vast complex of temples and chapels dedicated to the god Amun was extensively studied, revealing much about ancient Egyptian religious practices and architectural achievements.
- The Temple of Abu Simbel (1813): Although the site of Abu Simbel was known earlier, it was formally recorded and documented in the early 19th century. The temples, carved out of a mountainside by Ramses II, were recognized for their grandeur and later became a key site for understanding the art and architecture of the New Kingdom.
The earliest archaeological finds in Mesopotamia date back to the 19th and early 20th centuries and have been critical in understanding the ancient civilizations of this region. Here are some key early discoveries:
- The Ruins of Nineveh (1840s–1850s): Excavations at Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, were conducted by Austen Henry Layard and Hormuzd Rassam. These excavations uncovered the ruins of the grand palace of King Sennacherib, as well as important artifacts like the library of Ashurbanipal, which included thousands of clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions. These finds provided significant information about Assyrian history, literature, and administration.
- The Code of Hammurabi (1901): Discovered by French archaeologist Jean-Vincent Scheil at Susa, Iran, this stele contains one of the earliest and most complete written legal codes from ancient Mesopotamia. The Code of Hammurabi, dating back to around 1754 BCE, offers insight into the legal and social practices of Babylonian society.
- The Royal Tombs of Ur (1920s–1930s): Excavations led by Sir Leonard Woolley at the site of Ur, a major Sumerian city-state, revealed a series of spectacular royal tombs dating back to the Early Dynastic III period (circa 2600–2500 BCE). These tombs, including the famous “Great Death Pit,” contained an array of artifacts, such as jewelry, weapons, and musical instruments, which provided valuable information about Sumerian culture and burial practices.
- The Ziggurat of Ur (1920s–1930s): Woolley’s excavations also uncovered the ziggurat at Ur, a massive stepped pyramid dedicated to the moon god Nanna. This structure was one of the best-preserved examples of Mesopotamian architecture and helped scholars understand the significance of ziggurats in religious and administrative contexts.
- The Tell el-Amarna Tablets (1887): Found in the Egyptian city of Amarna, these tablets are diplomatic correspondences written in cuneiform between the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten and various rulers of the Near East, including those from Mesopotamia. They provide valuable insights into the political and diplomatic relations of the period.
-
The Deity of Jesus in the Gospel of John In Contrast to Mormon Theology
This was a paper I wrote as an undergrad. It discusses both Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses theology of Christ.
If you are interested you should especially note the issue of the word “begotten.”
The Deity of Jesus in the Gospel of John In Contrast to Mormon Theology
David Q. Santos
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John explained clearly what his purpose was for writing this Gospel account in chapter 20 verse 31. John’s Gospel described seven of thirty five miracles that are recorded in the four accounts. John gave special consideration to these seven in order that people might come to believe that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God. By that belief he intended to develop faith that would bring life to some.
Jesus performed many miracles during His ministry to illustrate that He was the true messiah. John, in his Gospel account chose to only record seven of these signs to prove that Jesus’ power stemmed from God the Father.
Jesus’ Seven “Signs” in the Gospel of John[1]
Miracle Reference Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding in Cana 2:1-11 Healing an official’s son in Capernaum 4:46-54 Healing an invalid at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem 5:1-18 Feeding the 5,000 near the Sea of Galilee 6:1-14 Walking on Water 6:15-21 Healing the blind man in Jerusalem 9:1-7 Raising Lazarus from the dead in Bethany 11:1-45 This unique gospel account was written primarily as an apologetic document. The seven signs that are included in this account are intended to prove Jesus is the Messiah. But this account has a powerful and important perspective and theme. That theme is the deity of Jesus.
In the Book of John there are seven “I AM” statements. These statements declare the deity of Jesus. They do this in two ways. First they overtly declare through symbolism His deity. But the “I AM” is the critical part of these phrases. I AM is the name of deity. In Greek it is egō eimi (ἐγώ εἰμί) which could be translated as the self existent one.
Root Words of “I AM”[2]
egw (eg-o’): A primary pronoun of the first person, “I” (only expressed when emphatic): – I, me.
eimi (i-mee)’: First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): – am, have been, X it is I, was.
This phrase is used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament when God reveals His name to Moses to identify who was sending Moses.
Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. (kai eipen o yeov prov mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv toiv uioiv israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav)
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Jesus’ Seven “I AM’s” in the Gospel of John[3]
I AM phrase: Reference: Parallel OT Verse: I am the Bread of Life 6:35 I am the Light of the World 8:12 I am the Gate for the Sheep 10:7, 9 I am the Good Shepherd 10:11, 14 I am the Resurrection and the Life 11:25 I am the Way and the Truth and the Life 14:6 I am the True Vine 15:1, 5 The Nelson NKJV Study Bible writes of the theology of the gospel of John;
The Gospel of John is a persuasive argument for the deity of Jesus. It concentrates on presenting Jesus as the Word, that is, God (1:1) who became a man (1:14). Thus John meticulously records the statements and describes the miracles of Jesus that can only be attributed to God Himself.
Jesus called Himself the bread of life (6:35, 41, 48, 51), the light of the world (8:12, 9:5), the door for the sheep (10:7, 9), the good shepherd (10:11, 14), the resurrection and the life (11:25), the way, the truth, the life (14:6), and the true vine (15:1, 5). Each of these statements begins with the words, “I am,” recalling God’s revelation of His name, “I AM,” to Moses (see Ex. 3:14). Jesus did not say He gave bread; He said He is the Bread which gives life. He did not say He would teach the way, the truth, and the life; instead He said He is the Way, because He is the Truth and the Life. These are Jesus’ clear claims to deity: He was not a mere man.
Then there are the signs of Jesus’ deity. Miracles in the Gospel of John are called “signs” because they point to Jesus’ divine nature. John records seven such signs: changing water into wine (2:1-11), healing an official’s son (4:46-54), healing a lame man (5:1-9), multiplying bread and fish (6:1-14), walking on water (6:15-21), healing a blind man (9:1-7), and raising Lazarus (11:38-41). These miracles show that Jesus is God, He possesses power over nature. Other indications of Jesus’ deity include the testimonies of John the Baptist (1:32-34), Nathanael (1:49), the blind man (935-38), Martha (11:27), and Thomas (20:28)-not to mention Jesus’ own words (5:19-26).[4]
The primary theme of this gospel account is the deity of Jesus. John begins his account by describing Jesus as the Word. He wrote in chapter 1 verses 1-5,
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (KJV)
The Nelson Study Bible says of these verses,
“John 1:1 is probably the strongest passage in the New Testament for declaring the deity of Jesus Christ. Because of this many who deny this biblical doctrine, especially cultists, have attempted to undercut it by arguing that this passage only teaches that Jesus is “a god” and so not fully Deity. This confused position falls on at least two grounds. Such a view is polytheistic, the belief in more than one god. Second, it betrays a misunderstanding of Greek grammar. Verse 1 of the first chapter of John reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The last portion of 1:1 is the major point of contention. It reads in the Greek theos en ho logos, or literally, “the Word was God.” God, or theos, occurs in this verse without the Greek article statement to be translated “the Word was a god.” The best understanding for the translation, however, as recognized by Greek scholars, is that since theos is a predicate and precedes the noun logos and the verb, it is natural for it to occur here without the article. Greek scholars are agreed that the verse should be translated as it regularly is in modern and ancient translations, clearly affirming that Jesus is indeed God.[5]
The denial of the deity of Jesus has led many groups to fall away from truth and fall into heretical doctrine. John 1:1 begins the debate of deity. The Bible Knowledge commentary argues that this verse is teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh. It says, “As far back as man can think, in the beginning… the Word was existing. The term “Word” is the common Greek word logos, which meant “speaking, a message, or words.” Logos was widely used in Greek philosophical teaching as well as in Jewish wisdom literature and philosophy. John chose this term because it was familiar to his readers, but he invested it with his own meaning, which becomes evident in the prologue.”
“The Word was the God in a special relationship of eternal fellowship in the Trinity. The word “with” translates the Greek pros, which here suggests “in company with” (cf. the same use of pros in 1:2, 1 Thes. 3:4, 1 John 1:2). John then added that the Word was God. Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this clause, “The Word was a god.” This is incorrect and logically is polytheism. Others have translated it “the Word was divine,” but this is ambiguous and could lead to a faulty view of Jesus. If the verse is correctly understood, it helps clarify the doctrine of the Trinity. The Word is eternal; the Word is in relationship to God (the father); and the Word is God.”[6]
The view held by Jehovah’s Witnesses that John 1:1 says “a god” has led to a polytheistic view. Of course polytheism not only contradicts this verse but many others as well such as Isaiah 43:10 which states that there are no other gods past present or future.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Of course there are other scriptures that can be used to identify Jesus’ deity and refute the Jehovah’s Witness view. All seven of the “I AM” statements are Jesus’ own testimony that He is God incarnate. A very powerful verse is found in John chapter 8. During a heated debate with the Pharisees Jesus ends the debate by saying in verse 58, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” The “I am” statement in this verse is the egō eimi (Ἐγώ εἰμι) from the seven “I AM” statements. Charles Ryrie wrote of this verse in the Ryrie study Bible, “The ‘I AM’ denotes absolute eternal existence, not simply existence prior to Abraham. It is a claim to be Yahweh of the Old Testament. That the Jews understood the significance of this claim is clear from their reaction in verse 59 to the supposed blasphemy.”[7] This time the Jewish leaders understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, so they took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (see Leviticus 24:16).[8]
It is also plausible to make a case of Jesus’ deity based on his acceptance of worship which was always rejected by spirit beings such as angels and reserved only for the one and only Living God of Heaven. A great example of this is found in Revelation 19:10 which says, “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” This account shows John the Apostle attempting to worship an angel but is told not to. Yet in contrast Jesus does accept worship throughout the New Testament. An example of Jesus receiving worship is found in John chapter 9 verses 35-38. It reads, “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.”
Faulty theology and incorrect hermeneutics come from the denial of Jesus as deity. Another group that claim to be followers of Jesus, view Him as part of the “god-head”, but reject the premise that Jesus is God incarnate is the Mormon church. Their denial of this scriptural fact has led this group to misunderstand scripture and Jesus Himself. In the book “Gospel Principles” which is a book published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints many of these faulty principals are easily identified. This book describes Jesus as the first born of spiritual children of God; brothers to every person born and brother of Lucifer. It says,
God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All men and women are … literally the sons and daughters of Deity… Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body’ (Joseph F. Smith, The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80).”
It goes on to say, “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).[9]
This heretical teaching continues by saying, “When the plan for our salvation was presented to us in the spirit world, we were so happy that we shouted for joy (see Job 38:7). We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our heavenly parents. While we were away from them, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so he planned a way to help us.”
“We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our heavenly Father. Our Father said, ‘Whom shall I send?’ (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said ‘Here am I, send me’ (Abraham 3:27).[10]
“Satan, Who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, ‘Behold here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor’ (Moses 4:1).[11]
The premise that these teachings are based on is faulty and contradicts divinely inspired scripture. Mormons are teaching that Jesus is only a spirit being; like any other man or even the same as Satan. To say that Jesus is only a spirit being; the same as man or Satan is to preach another Jesus, and is heresy. This type of misunderstanding of scripture comes from a lack of proper exegesis and study of the original language. Because of this poor exegesis the Mormon Church had the need to adopt extra-biblical material (which they call another gospel) to support their theology. In the book of Galatians Paul adamantly exhorts the Galatians not to accept any “other gospel” that anyone preaches; even if it was an angel or Paul don’t accept it. Galatians 1:8-9 says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
The inability to discern that when Jesus says that He is the “I AM” He is proclaiming to be egw eimi, the Self Existent One, Yahweh will always lead to heretical teachings. Jesus told the Pharisees that He was God, in existence before Abraham, not just the first born of spiritual babies in a world of people trying to become their own gods. In the book of Colossians Paul warns about being led astray or spoiled by the philosophies and deceit of men. In addition, God is very clear how He feels about the idea of “other gods.” He does not want us to even mention their names out of our mouths. That would seem to prohibit man’s exaltation to god status as taught by Mormon doctrine.[12]
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Exodus 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
A study to the word “begotten” may prove useful in this discussion, since this word is often misused by those who deny Jesus’ character of deity by saying that this word means that Jesus is a created being. There are four words that are translated as “begotten” in the New Testaement. They are monogenes (μονογενής), gennao (γεννάω), anagennao (ἀναγεννάω), and prototokos (πρωτοτόκος).
The last form of begotten on this list is prototokos which is used only one time in the New Testament. That incident is found in Revelation 1:5 and speaks of Jesus being the “first begotten of the dead.” This form of “begotten” is literally first born. But this term is not used of Jesus’ incarnation as a man but rather being the first born of the resurrection.[13]
Anagennao is also only used one time in the New Testament. It is found in 1 Peter 1:3. This word speaks of being born again and can speak of changing one’s mind or can be interpreted as producing again.[14]
The next two words are used more frequently and are more closely related to the issue of Jesus’ deity. The word “monogenes” is used six times in the New Testament. Four of those instances are found in the book of John. As a matter of fact this is the only word used in the book of John. This word deserves close examination since it is the term John used to denote the “only begotten Son of God.” This word is used in scripture only of Jesus. Even the writer of Hebrews took note of this word; also using it when speaking of Jesus as the Son of God. This is a very unique word that one could strongly argue refers to Jesus as the only one of His kind. It certainly does not say that Jesus is the created of God.
Begotten “monogenes”[15]
3439 monogenhv monogenes mon-og-en-ace’ from 3441 and 1096; TDNT-4:737,606; adj AV-only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9 1) single of its kind, only 1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) 1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God The most prominent verse that contains this word is John 3:16 which says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The bible knowledge commentary says of this verse;
God’s love was expressed in the giving of His most priceless gift-His unique Son (cf. Romans 8:3, 32). The Greek word translated one and only, referring to the Son is monogene, which means “only begotten” or “only borne-one. It is also used in John 1:14, 18, 3:18; and 1 John 4:9.
The word “gennao” is used in the New Testament seven times. It is a word that is closely related to family or offspring. If the writer of John had wanted to illustrate that Jesus was the first born of many offspring he would have use this word in relation to the “Son of God.” We also have the benefit of having both gennao and monogenes used by a writer in the same letter. The book of Hebrew uses both words as does the first epistle of John. The usage of both words in 1st John is especially useful in this discussion.
Begotten “gennao”[16]
1080 gennaw gennao ghen-nah’-o from a variation of 1085; TDNT-1:665,114; v AV-begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ’s work 1 John 4:9 uses the word monogenes. When John uses this word he uses it to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. This word is made up of two root words and when scrutinized the mystery is quickly dispersed. It is made up of monos and ginomai . Monos is translated as only or alone. Ginomai is a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb that is most often translated as “be” or “come to pass.” So it is easy to argue that the most literal translation of the word monogenes is “come to pass alone” which would imply that Jesus is the only one of His kind; God incarnate.
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten (monogenes) Son into the world, that we might live through him.
John’s other usages of the word gennao do not apply directly to the nature or origin of Jesus. Rather John uses this word to speak of believers being begotten or born of God. Believers are born into the family of God.
1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten (gennao) of him.
1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten (gennao) of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
In his book, “Systematic Theology” Wayne Grudem explains the difficulty of translating and interpreting these words thorough history. He wrote;
“The controversy over the term ‘only begotten’ was unnecessary because it was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Greek word monogenes (used of Jesus in John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9). For many years it was thought to be derived from two Greek terms: mono, meaning ‘only,’ and gennao, meaning ‘beget’ or ‘bear.’ Even the received version of the Nicene Creed understands it that way, since the explanatory phrases ‘begotten of the Father before all worlds’ and “begotten, not made’ both used the verb gennao to explain monogenes. But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the word is not closely related to the verb gennao (beget, bear), but rather to the term genos (class, king). Thus the word means rather the ‘one-of-a-king’ Son or the ‘unique’ Son.”
“The fact that the word does not mean ‘the only son that someone has begotten’ can be confirmed by noticing its use in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s mongenes-but certainly Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, for he had also begotten Ishmael. The term there means rather that Isaac was Bgraham’s ‘unique’ son, that there was none other like him.”[17]
An un-debatable proof of the deity of Jesus is found in John chapter 1. When John the Baptist tells the religious leaders that he is the “voice of one crying in the wilderness…” he was referencing Isaiah 40:1ff. That passage contains the Phrase “prepare ye the way of the LORD…” the word translated LORD is the Hebrew name for God, YHWH. Since John was preparing the way of Jesus, then the only conclusion is that Jesus must be YHWH. This is beyond debate or refute. Jesus is God by direct statement and it is as reliable as the algebraic transitive property, if a = b, and b = c, then a = c. If God is YHWH and Jesus is YHWH then Jesus is God.
John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
It is clear that Jesus did in fact claim deity for Himself. But the question is, how did He prove it? Josh McDowell, author and apologist has written many books supporting the Christian faith. In his book “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” McDowell writes that “Jesus has three basic credentials: (1) The impact of His life, through His miracles and teachings upon history; (2) Fulfilled prophecy in His life, and (3) His resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together.”[18] McDowell point to Jesus’ physical resurrection as the key piece of evidence of Jesus’ Messiah-ship and deity. He wrote, “Since Jesus Himself pointed to the physical nature of His resurrection body as evidence that He had risen from the dead, and since by implication this proved His claim to be God incarnate, the assertion by critics that His body was merely immaterial undermines the deity of Christ”[19]
McDowell continues on this point by writing, “Jesus not only predicted His resurrection but also emphasized that His rising from the dead would be the “sign” to authenticate His claims to be the Messiah (John 2).[20]
John 2:18-22 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Jesus was asked to give a sign or proof of His authority as Messiah and God incarnate. The sign Jesus predicted was His death and resurrection of His physical body.
In the book of Exodus chapter 19 the Hebrew people come to Mount Sinai and receive God’s commandments. As part of this account God speaks to the entire congregation from the midst of a cloud. Even this minimal exposure to the Glory of God was enough to convince the Israelites that they did not want to be in the presence of God’s Glory. They said that they would submit to all of God’s commandments as long as Moses continued to speak for them and bring them God’s words without them having any real contact with God. In the book of Revelation the Apostle John fell at the feet of Jesus when he saw the full glory of God as revealed in the resurrected and glorified Jesus. Often times in the Old Testament the image from Revelation chapter 1 is also seen when God is revealing Himself to a person (see Ezekiel 1:26-28, Isaiah 6). But when God became flesh His Glory was veiled in that flesh, making it possible for men to be in the presence of God with out falling down at His feet. Man was once again able to commune with God, just as Adam did.
Hebrews 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God;
Matthew Poole wrote of this verse, “Through the veil, that is to say, his flesh: the inner veil, that separated the holiest of all from the holy place, was a type of the flesh of Christ, veiling his Deity; through the breaking and rending of which by death, he opens the way to the throne of grace in the holy of holiest in heaven, and so made God accessible to believers there, Hebrews 9:12; compare Matthew 27:51.”[21]
It was through the resurrection that Jesus authenticated Himself as Messiah. It was also through this act that He revealed Himself as God in the flesh. And most importantly to a believer in Jesus, He provided a way for man to access God’s holiness even though he is still full of sin. Jesus did not present Himself as a sacrifice for a perfect man. Rather, He presented Himself a perfect sacrifice for sinners that He chose to save.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Jesus did unveil His deity. He did show His power and identity on various occasions. One of the most amazing events where Jesus unveiled His power is found in John 18:2-6. It says, “And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus often times resorted thither with his disciples. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
In this account Judas brings solders to apprehend Jesus. When Jesus says I AM in verse 5 he uses the phrase egō eimi (ἐγώ εἰμί) again. At the sound of the name of deity the solders fall back to the ground. This event is recorded to show that Jesus was in control of all of the events that took place in His life as a man. He died only because He chose to.
Philippians 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
But unlike any other “religious leaders” that were only men Jesus did not stay in the grave. He arose, appeared too many, and ascended into heaven promising to return. Upon that return, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The best blessings will come for those that repent of their sins and believe in Jesus as Lord now. As for the rest they will see Jesus for who He really is when He returns. At that time every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
WORK CITED
Easton Revised Bible Dictionary. The Online Bible Millennium Edition Version 1.2. Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 2001.
Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, UT. 1978.
Grant, Michael. Herod the Great. American Heritage Press. New York, NY. 1971.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids Michigan. Zondervan. 2000.
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville, Tennessee. Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1999.
Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville TN. 1997.
Poole, Mathew. Mathew Poole’s Commentary of the Bible Rev 2:27. The Online Bible Millennium Edition, version 1.2. Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 2001.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago, Moody Press. 1978.
Smith Revised Bible Dictionary. Prophet I. The Name. The Online Bible Millennium Edition Version 1.2. Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 1999.
Strong’s Bible Dictionary. The Online Bible Millennium Edition Version 1.2. Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 1999.
Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, New Testament. Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cook Communications Ministries, 2004.
[1] Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, New Testament. pg. 269.
[2] Smith Revised Bible Dictionary. Prophet I. The Name.
[3] Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, New Testament. pg. 269.
[4] Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. pg. 1754.
[5] Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. pg. 1756.
[6] Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, New Testament. pg. 271.
[7] Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Ryrie Study Bible. pg. 1618.
[8] Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. pg 1778.
[9] Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. pg. 11
[10] Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. pg. 17.
[11] Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. pg. 18.
[12] Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. pg. 301 & 302.
[13] Strong’s Bible Dictionary. # 4416.
[14] Strong’s Bible Dictionary. #G313
[15] Strong’s Bible Dictionary. #G3439
[16] Strong’s Bible Dictionary. #G1080
[17] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. pg. 1233.
[18] McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. pg. 203.
[19] McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. pg 204.
[20] McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. pg 210.
[21] Poole, Mathew. Mathew Poole’s Commentary of the Bible Rev 2:27. Hebrews 10:20.
-
POSTMILLENNIAL THOUGHT AND MARXISM: Theology of False Optimism
David Q. Santos*
Calvin wrote with regard to man’s innate awareness of God.1 Other scholars recognize this same innate awareness of God that is found in all men. One such scholar, Carl F. H. Henry, expanded on this simple truth by writing, “The awareness of God rooted in conceptual knowledge carries over into the whole of life.”2 Consequently, in Henry’s opinion, the awareness of God goes beyond simple knowledge. He explained that the awareness actually impacts life.
Henry added the importance of this knowledge of God: “The knowledge of God innately written on the nature of man is moral as well as rational.”3 The statement means that the knowledge of God has an impact on one’s moral behavior in addition to intellect. While man’s sin nature dominates his life, there is a moral conscience motivated by an awareness of his Creator and that Creator’s perfect moral nature. Obscured by the sin nature is a desire to know God and to live in His perfect original creation.
THE PERFECT CREATION
The Bible teaches that God provided a utopian world in the creation (Gen 2). The original world reflected the perfection of God and was the world in which God desired man to exist. God’s perfect creation was without sin and without death. Unfortunately, the perfect creation was lost through one man’s sin (Rom 5:12). The Bible also teaches that God will, in the future, restore the creation (Rom 8:21–23) and bring into existence a perfect society, a kingdom on earth (Rev 11:15). In that kingdom, Jesus Christ will rule and reign from His throne (Rev 3:21) with a rod of iron (Ps 2:9; Rev 19:15). Scripture does not reveal when the restoration will occur or when the kingdom will be established; it only reveals that it will occur when the Father chooses, and that He alone knows when that will be (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32).
Both prior to the time of Christ’s ministry and since His ascension from earth to Heaven (Acts 1:9–11), men have tried to create this kingdom by their own power. By observation, one could suggest that along with man’s innate awareness of God comes a desire for His utopian kingdom. Mankind has tried to replace God with things such as intellectual endeavors, passions, and even good deeds. In like manner, humanity has designed multiple governmental schemes to replace God’s true plan for mankind. Within Christendom, this manner of thinking is commonly called Dominion Theology, which seeks to “reconstruct society to fit its template of Christian law and ethics.”4 Dominion Theology is best understood in postmillennial eschatology; it is the view that by action the church can do enough good in the world and force the kingdom of God to begin.
The dominionist philosophy is certainly not found in Christian theology only. Many humanistic approaches to government and ethics have been made to “bring in the kingdom,” a utopian nirvana without a god. The trouble with all of these systems of ethics and government is that they all fail to meet the problem of mankind and sin nature. The systems all perceive the world through the perspective of a man-centered reality. The systems affirm an evolutionary worldview and an anthropology that purports that men are inherently good. The systems rely upon the presupposition that both the world and mankind are getting better as a function of evolution. They could not agree with biblical anthropology, which points to unregenerate man as being a slave or dominated by his sin nature, as argued by the Apostle Paul (Rom 6:6, 16, 18, 20, 22).
The Greek philosopher Plato presented one such system. Plato’s Republic presented a utopian society with a three-cast system that would be efficient and complete. The casts would include producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc), warriors, and guardians who were to be philosopher kings that made social and legal decisions. Plato’s system did not place the burden of child rearing on individuals; it placed children into communal nurseries that would develop each child to its appropriate potential. The system took from individuals according to their ability to give. The premise—taking according to ability and giving according to need—is foundational to the modern system developed by Marxism.
THE MARXIST UTOPIA
Marxism sought to establish a utopia on earth without a god, presenting optimism and hope to the oppressed masses. Marxism is “the political and economic theories of Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95), later developed to form the basis for the theory and practice of Communism.”5 Marxism is an “atheistic form of postmillennialism, as are other humanistic utopias.”6 The premise of Marxism is to remove all class distinctions with the presumed conclusion of a perfect society. The Communist Manifesto states that all existing society is the “history of class struggles.”7
Marxism contains the presupposition that only economics influence history. Harold J. Ockenga (in his article on Gustavus Adolphus, who was a Swedish ruler who militarily came to the aid of the reformers) indicated that the “Marxian maxim is that only the struggle for bread, or the philosophy of economic determinism controls history. Factors like religious faith, personal magnetism, military genius and statesmanship, to say nothing of romance, directly influence the events of history.”8 Marx (et al) regarded all struggles of history as only a struggle of existence. The struggle, in the Marxist view, is with two classes: the oppressed and the oppressors, or the bourgeoisie. Ockenga stated, “Marx made the struggle for a living the determining factor in political, legal and religious institutions. He believed that the self-interest of people led them to look primarily after their own welfare when left free, and that this economic self-interest expressing itself in relation to production and exchange was the stuff out of which history was made.”9 As found in other systems of government and ethics, self-interest causes the problems. Ockenga explained:
This interpretation of history supported the Marxian theory of “class struggle,” which prophesied struggles between different economic classes of society until all men became producers and then society would be emancipated, in his words, “from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinction and class struggle.”
The underlying causes of a community’s, a state’s or a nation’s development and decline may be sought in the field of their economic conditions. In the words of the Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.”10
Therefore, for Marxism, the concluding answer to class struggle is to remove all classes. The removal is accomplished by three means. The means are: “(1) the abolition of private property, (2) the abolition of classes (including any and all family relations), and (3) the abolition of religion.”11 Marxism maintained several elements found in Plato’s Republic such as the state raising and educating children, giving according to ability, and centralized government. Marxism was presented as a governmental system by which all could be better. Many considered it a system of hope. In this author’s view, Marx (and others) were not very good students of history. It can be demonstrated that Marxism emphasizes many of the characteristics that led other governments and societies to fall. For example, in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote with regard to the five points that brought ancient Rome to its decline; several of which are highlighted in Marxism. He described Rome’s fall as coming from:
1. The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society;
2. Higher and higher taxes; the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace;
3. The mad craze for pleasure;
4. The building of great armaments when the real enemy was within the decay of individual responsibility;
5. The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, losing power to guide the people.…12
The parallel elements that caused the fall of Rome (and other societies) with Marxism should be exceedingly obvious. Destruction of family, removal of religion, and higher taxes provide an impetus (in addition to the removal of freedom that comes from ownership of property) that will doom any culture. Upon historical and political examination, the destructive reality of Marxism is evident. The utopia of a society in commune, or held by the state, has always morphed into a culture of tyranny with tyrants lording over the people; it exchanges individual opportunity for the hope of equality. Phillip Johnson described Marxism as “a liberation myth that has become a new justification for ordering people not to think for themselves.”13 The “liberation myth” attempts to establish a kingdom like the one that only God can provide, which abstemiously replaces God in their lives. If it is man that establishes the kingdom then those same men are only accountable to other men.
A government where the workers of the world could unite, giving what they have and taking according to their need, was never instituted. Instead, a new platform for dictators was designed with integral controls of the people, as their right to exist without the state was no longer intact. There was no right to property since ownership would lead to classes. Property ownership was deemed necessary for liberty. The philosopher John Locke argued property ownership is an essential component to ethics.
A much-overlooked impact of Marxism is how it affected Christian theology. Millard Erickson stated as follows: “Marxism as the world’s hope for a better future, has had great impact on various Christian theologians. They have felt challenged to set forth an alternative, superior basis for hope.”14 One must ask how this occurred. With such an anti-biblical worldview, how does Marxism infiltrate the church? The infiltration of the church occurred primarily through a misguided understanding of the church’s role in dealing with social problems and the single word “hope.” Marxism presents itself as a system of hope, and this theme seemed true to some in the Christian community.
Like all other beliefs, “Marxism [and liberation theology] needs to be subjected to the light of biblical authority.”15 In general, Christendom rejected the premises found in Marxism, and this rejection was primarily due to the anti-theistic worldview found in socialism. Following the Reformation, the world abounded with a revived theology that man did not need a human intercessor to intervene before God on his behalf. The same type of thinking was at least, in part, responsible for the revolutions of the eighteenth century, including the American Revolution. Essentially, if man did not need a religious hierarchy to approach the Almighty God, then they certainly could exist without a monarchy. The thought inspired writers, such as Thomas Payne, to rebel against both monarchies and centralized government without representation. Louis Berkhof wrote, “Questions of social reform there always have been, but never in all the history of the world have they forced themselves on the attention of all classes of men, as they do today.”16 He then cited the French Revolution and the philosophical and cultural changes across the world as one of the causes of this revolution. Berkhof cited two other changes in culture that influenced social unrest: the industrial revolution and the rise of socialism.
Marxian socialism maintained its desire for a utopian society with the promise of bringing an end to social injustice. Hillquit, a socialist proponent, explained how this utopian society would be established. He wrote, “The ethics of Socialism seeks not the ideal society through the ideal individual, but conversely the ideal individual through the ideal society.”17 Berkhof took note of other types of Marxian slogans such as, “The emancipation of the workingmen can only be accomplished by the workingmen themselves,” and, “Workingmen of all countries unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to gain!”18 Amidst the flattering promises of a better life, it is obvious why some would be enticed by this philosophy.
CHRISTIAN AND MARXIST RESPONSIBILITY
However, the church rejected socialism because it was seen as a return to placing personal authority and responsibility with the government. Christian dominated cultures were not willing to relinquish the rights and responsibilities they had fought to recover. It has not been until recent years that some Christian theologians began to consider the ethical problems of the world and allowing the possibility for Marxian socialism to be the solution. Theologians were considering social problems and the responsibilities of the church, with an emphasis upon determining the proper response to these problems. For some of these theologians, Marxian socialism seemed compatible with Christian ideals. Alan Hamilton made an interesting observation in his article addressing the social gospel. He observed that some Christians were embracing some of the tenants of Marxism. The “veil of hope” and equality became appealing to some. Indeed, one of these authors wrote that the only difference between Marxists and Christian responsibility was that the Marxists actually made an attempt to apply their beliefs. Hamilton wrote,
A recent student of the relationship between the ideas of Marx and those of Christian thought points out: “Marx recognized that in form of statement the criteria of justice, equality, the brotherhood of man and the primacy of human values over such standards as that of efficiency in production sound like Christian ideals. But the difference, he maintained, between him and Christian advocates of the same principles was that he expected to put them into practice, whereas Christians were content to leave them in an uncontaminated, transcendental sphere.”19
Hamilton made a rather harsh accusation that also holds a serious error. To believe that Christians are not effective in matters of humanitarian needs around the world is to be unaware of what the church is and has been doing. More importantly, however, it is to believe that the gospel message itself is ineffective in the world. Indeed, this author’s view is that areas that have received mass conversions by preaching a pure gospel have been more effective at curing social problems than social movements. However, even with its anti-theistic worldview, some theologians have concluded, “they agree his [Marx’s] ethical ideas are close to (if not identical with) the ideals of Christian ethics and that Marxism cannot be considered apart from its theological implications.”20 Hamilton recognized that some theologians are willing to accept some of the premises or “ethical principals” of socialism. Harold Hagar adopted a more biblical approach to this topic. He regarded the modern social gospel for what it really is, that is, false doctrine. He wrote:
Among the worst of the testings that can come to a child of God are those borne on the winds of false doctrine in the forms of pseudo-Christianity so rapidly sweeping across our nation today. On every hand there are numerous cults and isms with attractive programs, and enticing promises to lure the Christian away from his faith. Modernism also is making headway like an army of termites among our churches, and the appeal to disparage doctrinal discernment and denominational distinctions and be united in Christ is heard on every hand. But the worst enemy of all is Marxism, in the form of a modern social-gospel projected on religious grounds, so subtle in its propaganda that many people are unaware of its danger and progress.21
Hagar recognized the many attacks on the church that are occurring today. The attacks are “weaving” false doctrine into the “tapestry” of Christendom, and normalizing anti-biblical worldviews. One should be reminded of the many warnings found in Scripture describing false teachers as “wolves” (Matt 7:15) who would secretly bring destructive heresies and would even deny the Lord that bought them (2 Pet 2:1). Nevertheless, Hagar still believes that Marxism, as presented in the form of the modern social gospel, is the worst enemy of all. The modern hieratical movement has a connection to liberation theology, dominion theology, and theonomy (all of which have been influenced by postmillennialism). The central theme in each is to inaugurate the kingdom through social action.
POSTMILLENNIAL THOUGHT IN RELATION TO MARXISM
Postmillennialism is an eschatological view that Christ returns after the millennium; it presents itself as an optimistic view of the church and its role in establishing the kingdom of God. Postmillennial author Keith A Mathison wrote, “God has promised the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against her, that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord, and that all the families of the nations will worship before Him.”22 Mathison summarized:
Postmillennialism teaches that the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second coming. Some postmillennialists teach that the millennial age is the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advents, while others teach that it is the last one thousand years of the present age. According to Postmillennialism, in the present age the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be a general resurrection of the just and unjust, and the final judgment will take place.23
The essence is that there will be a gradual movement of the church through the age that establishes the kingdom of God. Postmillennialists argue that the church will introduce the kingdom by the preaching of the gospel to the world in order that the Great Commission can be fulfilled. It is only after this manmade millennium is complete that Jesus Christ will return. During this millennium, Jesus will continue to reign from heaven while the world is “Christianized.” Even though it is as Mathison indicated with regard to the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, there may be significant opposition in the meantime. Louis Berkhof described this process as being like a “gradual fermentation wrought by the leaven” as opposed to a quick geologic event.24
Thomas Ice wrote an article that examined neopostmillennialism, wherein he noted that there are two types of postmillennialism: (1) conservative (after the Puritan tradition and B. B. Warfield of Princeton); or, (2) after the liberal view which led to modern theonomy, dominion theology, liberation theology, and Reconstructionism. “Liberation theology is an ethical theology that grew out of social awareness and the desire to act.”25 Reconstructionism “is the name given to the movement within Reformed Theology which seeks to reconstruct society to fit its template of Christian law and ethics.…”26
“Reconstructionists believe that the ‘theonomic mandate’ demands an optimistic view of the subjugation of the kosmos by the Gospel prior to the Second Advent.”27 They believe that while the church is waiting for Christ’s return, the command given to Adam to subdue the earth is still in effect (Gen 1:28). The optimism is that the church will overtake and dominate the world through its engagement. Therefore, they must rid the world of injustice and inequality, and force the world to accept living under biblical law with both its rewards and punishments. As one author stated, “It is impossible, we are told by … dominion-theology advocates, to have the law of God without accepting all of its sanctions and penalties as well.… As surely as law embodies the essential ideas of command and obligation, it must likewise embody the idea of sanction.”28 The quote provided demonstrates the desire by adherents of liberation theology to impose biblical law with both its rewards and punishments to advance a social agenda. In making a similar case, Bahnsen wrote, “God’s law is binding in every detail until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise … the civil magistrate today ought to apply the penal sanctions of the Old Testament law to criminals in our society.”29 It might seem obvious to some that this error can only be made by those with a covenant theological persuasion, since Old Testament law is being applied to the church as though the church is Israel. Such a realization may help in understanding the origin, motivation, and hermeneutics of reconstructionists.
The beginning of the social gospel is related to the Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) and his work entitled, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century.30 Rauschenbusch was reared as a biblical literalist by his father, who was a German preacher but as an adult departed from that view. In his work, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century, Rauschenbusch demonstrated his admiration for communism and his ignorance of social political systems. Rauschenbusch’s view of the gospel, the kingdom of God, and his view of humanistic world systems can be summarized in his own words.
But after all this has been said, it still remained a social hope. The kingdom of God is still a collective conception, involving the whole social life of man. It is not a matter of saving human atoms, but of saving the social organism. It is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven [emphasis added].31
Rauschenbusch believed that Jesus Himself was a prophet, who sought to accomplish social awareness, and through His faith, “transform the common hope.”32 He found biblical authority in his belief that Scripture was tainted by oral tradition33 and that the kingdom is already here.34 Rauschenbusch argued that communism is what freed the peasant from the feudal lord and that all social benefits like parks and water systems are functions of communistic thought. His premise was that the home, the state, and the church are communistic and should be embraced. His eventual conclusion was “that one of the greatest services which Christianity could render to humanity in the throes of the present transition would be to aid those social forces which are making for the increase of communism.”35
Rauschenbusch desired to amalgamate the church with communism with the intention of ending social problems and establishing the kingdom of God in all of its fullness. Rauschenbusch failed to recognize the intrinsic problems of communism. The problems are all related to anthropology. In order for Rauschenbusch’s premise to be correct (i.e. man can inaugurate a utopia through hope and social reform) human beings would have to be innately good. Scripture, however, teaches just the opposite: the natural man is dominated by his sin nature and no matter what social system is employed, the fallen nature will eventually come to prevail. Therefore, the result will always be simply exchanging one oppressor—the bourgeois—for another, such as a central government.
Postmillennial dominion theology is a hope-centered theology that places its hope in social reform. Its popularity ebbs and flows with the state of the world and the church. For example, after World War II there were nearly no postmillenarians. Until that point, however, optimism abounded in many circles and had social impact. Ice indicated that some postmillenarians admit that the “optimism” of postmillennial theology aided the rise of both Nazism and Marxism and also noted that some postmillenarians have tried to separate themselves from the social gospel movement.
[O]ne cannot overlook the role that postmillennialism in general played in the rise and development of the “social gospel.…” Chilton [postmillenarian] does admit to some postmillennial heresy. “Examples of the Postmillenarian heresy would be easy to name as well: the Munster Revolt of 1534, Nazism, and Marxism (whether ‘Christian’ or otherwise).” Nazism and Marxism are undesirable movements. Why then does Chilton not admit the relationship of postmillennialism to the “social gospel” movement?36
It was man-centered optimism, even with the backdrop of Christian ethics, that allowed for the rise of Marxian Socialism. Some have used the phrase “Christian Utopianism” to try and describe the philosophy of dominion theology. Christian Utopianism held a strong influence in Latin America. “Its missionaries attended to the faith, culture, and experiences of the people, while drinking from the wells of theologians and the 16th century humanist-utopian thinkers.”37 They drew upon humanistic thinking and amalgamated it with Christian ethics. The combination produced a theology that was more concerned about human struggle and its remedies than the biblical truth. Such a perspective is derived from the belief that the world must be won by the church for Christ to return. “Today’s liberation theologians have related their own work to this utopian school, which they call “theology from below,” a type of theological reflection that accounts for people’s faith, culture, struggles, and human rights.38 Latin American liberation theology has used prophetic texts to “substantiate the ‘preferential option for the poor’ and their critique of unjust social and economic structures.”39
Liberation Theology has challenged Christian churches and leaders to take up a “prophetic voice.” To be prophetic, in this view, means denouncing injustice in solidarity with the poor, raising their consciousness about their suffering and the possibility for change, and announcing the hope of an achievable, historical utopia that would bring a new sociopolitical, economic, and cultural order.40
Once again, hope has been used as the enticement for a philosophy that promises the kingdom through domination. The focus is upon the injustices of the world for the purpose of gaining support, and the argument is that class warfare is the answer to the injustices of the world. The presupposition is that the church must engage—not ministering to the needy—but rather in overthrowing the oppressors who Marx called the bourgeois.
Postmillennialism has presently found its niche among denominational groups that are inclined to themes of optimism and cultural engagement as a means for hastening the return of Christ, which is evident in the acceptance of postmillennial eschatology as presented by Reconstructionism within the charismatic movement.
The wedding between certain errant charismatic theologies and current neopostmillennialism may be similar to the deterioration of Puritan postmillennialism into the social gospel movement. If this is happening, then one may expect to see the spread of optimistic eschatology at the expense of historic orthodoxy. And again the tendency of postmillennialism to raise false hopes will have occurred.41
The potential is great for false hope to be elevated to a point where biblical authority is disregarded for a social theological tumult of reform and reconstruction with the intention being social reengineering. The tumult can be observed in the “positive confession” charismatic movement, which embraces social reform and modern ecumenical theology. Such hope and optimism places the total substance of the kingdom of God on their ability to change the world. “They seem to ignore the thought of any kind of divine intervention in the curative process. The divinity developed in liberation theology is the “divinity” to be found in all mankind.”42
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, it is the innate awareness of God and the desire to exist in His perfect garden that motives men to make the attempt to establish a kingdom after their own image. Christians who maintain a biblical worldview anticipate their king’s return imminently, at any moment. Those that do not maintain this view still have the desire for the original creation. Even people in their natural state have an awareness of this perfect world. Whether it is Marxism or postmillennialism, the kingdom of God will not be accomplished by man’s will. Newell wrote, “The end of governmental things is at hand. Kings lost their majesty to democracy; aristocracy lost its dignity to socialism, finally to communism. This all comes, of course, to tyranny under a dictator like Napoleon on the ruins of the French Revolution, Stalin succeeding Marxism.”43 The promise of a perfect world government will be the mantra of the Antichrist who will rule the world for a time that God has sovereignly decreed.
There is a blessed hope in the future. The Apostle Peter taught that the church should be submissive to its authorities while waiting for Christ’s return. However, the emphasis is still upon 1) waiting and watching for Christ’s return to establish His kingdom, and 2) preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the sure word of God. Peter did not teach that the church is to arise and become a political entity that holds the power to overthrow governments and exchange a less desirable ruler for another. In the culmination of the end times, there will not be theonomy but rather a theocracy when Christ returns. In the meantime, humanity embraces one system of government for another; they receive one leader who proposes hope to the next; humanity is drawn by optimism that their salvation will be found. They hope that they will gain enough momentum this time to establish a utopia in which everyone can exist in harmony. Those that know Jesus Christ patiently wait for His imminent return. All men know that they are responsible to something beyond themselves. Mankind longs to have the creation restored and the world to be ruled by the true king, Jesus Christ. However, the rebelliousness of the human heart rejects the moral and ethical standards of God. Therefore, they establish themselves as gods and develop man-centered governments. However, at the culmination of the present age, every tongue will confess and every knee will bow to Jesus Christ as Lord.
* David Q. Santos, pastor, Mid Valley Baptist Church, Durham, California; and, graduate student, Tyndale Theological Seminary
1 Christopher Cone, Life Beyond the Sun: An Introduction to Worldview & Philosophy Through the Lens of Ecclesiastes (Fort Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2009) 417.
2 Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999) 1:341.
3 Ibid.
4 Paul Martin Henebury, “The Eschatology of Covenant Theology,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 10 (September 2006): 14.
5 Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
6 Norman Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (July–September 1985): 255.
7 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 1,” (Marxists Internet Archive, accessed 23 December 2009) available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm.
8 Harold J. Ockenga, “The Reformation and Gustavus Adolphus,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104 (October 1947): 472.
9 Kenneth M. Monroe, “Biblical Philosophy of History,” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 (July 1934): 321.
11 Cone, Life Beyond the Sun, 252.
12 Roy Wallace, Studies from Revelation (Shreveport, LA: LinWel, 2002) 151–52
13 Phillip E. Johnson, “Separating Materialist Philosophy from Science,” Bible and Spade 10 (Spring 1997): 34.
14 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 1158.
15 J. Ronald Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (January–March 1990): 102.
16 Louis Berkhof, The Church and Social Problems (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1913) (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009) 5.
17 Ibid. 65.
19 Alan H. Hamilton, “The Social Gospel Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (January–March 1951): 92–93, as quoted by Elizabeth Paxton Lam, The Place of Marx in Christian Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939) 148.
20 Ibid.
21 Harry Hager, “The Amazing Power of Unbelief in the World Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (April 1953): 170.
22 Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999) xi.
23 Ibid. 10.
24 Berkhof, Church and Social Problems, 3.
25 Thomas G. Sanders, “The Theology of Liberation: Christian Utopianism,” Christianity and Crisis 33 (17 September 1973): 168.
26 Henebury, “Eschatology of Covenant Theology,” 14. Their great foundational text is Matthew 5:17–19 though they strive to translate plerosai as “confirm.”
27 Ibid.
28 Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (July–September 1990): 291.
30 Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009) [eBook, Kindle version]. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. “PBS recently called him ‘one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years’ ” (backcover).
32 Ibid.
36 Thomas Ice, “An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July–September 1988): 290.
37 Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, eds., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 1999, 2003) 3:188.
38 Ibid.
39 M. Daniel Carol R., “Considering the Case for ‘Prophetic Ethics’, Surveying Options and Recognizing Obstacles,” Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 3.
41 Ice, “Theonomic Postmillennialism,” 290.
42 Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 95.
43 Williams R. Newell, “The End of All Things is at Hand,” Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (July–September 1952): 252.
-
Religion and Rhetoric in the Constitution: How Witherspoon’s Fist Political Sermon is Reflected in the Political Philosophy of James Madison
By David Q Santos MA, MDiv, PhD
Introduction
Just like many family gatherings today, mixing politics and religion has often been considered taboo or at least unwise. Even some of the men in the Constitutional Congress found reasons to reject Benjamin Franklin’s appeal to daily prayer for God’s guidance in drafting the foundational document of the political experiment now known as the United States of America.[1] Like the preverbal Thanksgiving dinner or the decenters from the call for prayer many historical works decide to just leave religion out of the conversation, especially when it is related to politics. The trouble with this approach to early America is that early America was a nation born into a world of both philosophy and religion. To even attempt to understand the words and rhetoric of early America in that matter should be discouraged as that interpretation will be tainted by one’s own worldview. As historian Joseph Loconte notes, “numerous scholars have overlooked the importance of faith to his political philosophy.”[2] Therefore, the approach taken here will be to draw upon the words of the subjects in their original context and referencing complimentary documents from the same era to let the subjects speak for themselves.
The subjects under examination are two men, both Founding Fathers of the United States of America. The first is John Witherspoon, a preacher and professor who holds the distinction of being the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. He also held the honor of serving as the president of the College of New Jersey, now known as Princeton. And though he is one of the less known founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas miller describes him as a “central figure for anyone interested in understanding rhetorical theory and practice in eighteenth-century America.” He also noted that some “have concluded that he was the first significant rhetorical theorist in America.”[3]
The second is one of Witherspoon’s many prominent pupils, James Madison. Madison earned his degree from Princeton and then stayed an additional year while studying directly with Witherspoon. This study will compare Madison’s philosophy of politics found in The Federalist Papers with Witherspoon’s first political sermon The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. In this sermon Witherspoon articulates his theology of liberty and support of the war against the British that was heating up. Madison’s essays in The Federalist Papers represent a type of document whereby Madison (along with Hamilton and Jay) argues for his philosophy of government as the architect of the Constitution which he desired to see ratified. These are the papers where Madison publicly argues for his own philosophy. As a student of Witherspoon, one expects to see many places where Witherspoon and Madison are in agreement as well as where they diverge from one another.
Witherspoon: The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men
Surely the Wrath of Man shall praise thee; the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.
Psalm 76:10
John Witherspoon opened the door to his public and overt support and involvement into the politics of revolutionary war with his first political sermon given at Princeton University in May of 1776, just weeks before signing the Declaration of Independence. This sermon “signaled his support for American independence” as he began to detail his theology of politics and liberty.[4] Dominion of Providence was quickly republished the following month, on June 22, 1776 and began to be circulated. Witherspoon’s sermon was reprinted at least five times in the colonies and in Europe causing a stir among those that read it.[5] Witherspoon preaching Dominion “stirred ideas and values that were uncharacteristic of his Scottish ecclesiastical career.”[6] Dominion is, on one hand, a Calvinistic treatise that offers an optimistic outlook for Christian people. On the other hand, it is a realistic apologetic for the necessity of rebellion from an oppressive government and corrupt ecclesiastical system were both civil and religious rights and liberty were being stomped on. The sermon’s apologetic nature takes a clear progression from the dominion of God through four theological points by which rebellion becomes a moral imperative for the godly. Certainly, Witherspoon knew that liberty could have a cost. As Gideon Mailer noted, it would only be a few months later when the cost would be realized by Witherspoon at the loss of two sons, one dead and the other imprisoned. Mailer also notes that Witherspoon’s personal library would be burned by British soldiers. The imagery of the classical works from Greek and Latin authors burning seems fitting as Witherspoon’s sermon was filled with the wisdom from these books. His ideas stirred up his audience and prepared them for what would be the hard-fought revolution.[7]
John Witherspoon’s message The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men is both a theologically rich sermon and a well-crafted philosophy of liberty. In this study Dominion is examined systematically. The systematic analysis will examine Witherspoon’s sermon in three topics; providence, nature of man, and liberty. When necessary the study draws upon additional works of Witherspoon for clarity of Witherspoon’s meaning. Witherspoon’s meaning will then be compared to Madison on the same topic from The Federalist Papers.
The Theology and Philosophy of Providence
Witherspoon’ Theology
Providence is an important doctrine to Witherspoon’s worldview. It was likely his influence that led to the Declaration of Independence inclusion of the phrase “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”[8] Therefore, it should be of no surprise that “providence” is an important theme to Dominion. The title of the sermon provides that much information. Morrison makes this point writing, “The ‘Dominion of Providence’ was, as its title implies, a predictable Calvinist discourse on the general sovereignty of God, inspired by Psalm 76:10.”[9] Morrison is right in his observation that providence would be a predictable theme for the Calvinist pastor. However, one should not consider providence a minor topic within Witherspoon’s sermon. It is an essential part of Witherspoon’s concept of liberty and rebellion as will be demonstrated through the systematic analysis of Dominion. Witherspoon uses the word “providence” fifteen times in the text of Dominion which provides ample opportunity to understand Witherspoon’s reliance on providence. Drawing from Scripture, Witherspoon explains that providence is God’s universal presence, attention, influence, and operation of God’s providence.[10] (emphasis added) Witherspoon will conclude his sermon with an appeal that describes human existence in terms as though human existence is within a bubble of God’s providence, providence requires true religion, and asks God to grant America true religion that produces civic liberty that is indivisible from religious liberty. Witherspoon is clearly establishing his view that America is unique, and he asserts in prayerful fashion that America would have true religion which equates to being united with the will of the God of providence which requires religious and civic liberty.[11] Witherspoon uses the rhetorical device of providence to argue for the superiority of the American experience setting the enemy of the rebellion as standing against the will of God, as with David and Goliath, where the colonies are David and Britain is the debase Philistines championed by a giant.[12]
Providence Compared to Madison
Some would argue that Madison was “not necessarily known as outspoken regarding his Christianity.” [13] Yet, when it came to Franklin’s appeal to prayer at the Constitutional Congress that was noted earlier in this study, Madison “made the motion that the Convention delegates accept Benjamin Franklin’s appeal for prayer, a motion seconded by Roger Sherman.”[14] Madison sees in the completion of the Constitution the hand of God Himself and in the Federalist 37 writes of being directed by God’s finger to overcome difficulties. He observes, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”[15] James Madison does not use the language of the great theologian. Madison is direct in his application of providence placing the idea of God orchestrating the events and even ideas of the establishment of government as defined in the constitution as illuminated by God Almighty. For the skeptic, Madison includes the notion that that the medium by which God directs men is dim, though it is still the Almighty that is communicating and providentially directing man.[16] Witherspoon’s sermon places man within the realm of providence regardless of their belief system or their status. In Witherspoon’s estimation everyone has a duty to find the truth of God and the Gospel. Witherspoon portrays the providence in an optimistic fashion that allows for people to operate within God’s providence in an honorable way. Witherspoon unites the idea of duty and providence, writing, “It is the duty of every good man to place the most unlimited confidence in divine wisdom, and to believe that those measures of providence that are most unintelligible to him, are yet planned with the same skill, and directed to the same great purposes as others, the reason and tendency of which he can explain in the clearest manner.”[17] Madison saw the finger of the Almighty as the driving force that overcame the challenges of drafting the constitution. In this matter Madison affirms, like Witherspoon, that the new nation is a nation created by God Almighty. Madison wrote, “it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.”[18] Both Madison and Witherspoon see America as a nation established for God’s purpose.[19] Both see this responsibility through the lenses of a Christian worldview where they expect the majority to hold to a similar worldview.
The Theology and Philosophy of the Nature of Man
Witherspoon
The link between providence and human nature is important in examining both Witherspoon and Madison. The theology of human nature is the lynch pin between providence and protection of liberty. Witherspoon goes so far as to note that if human nature were not corrupt then heaven would be a place on earth. He stated, “the disorders in human society, and the greatest part even of the unhappiness we are exposed to, arises from the envy, malice, covetousness, and other lusts of man. If we and all about us were just what we ought to be in all respects, we should not need to go any further for heaven, for it would be upon earth.”[20] A key aspect of Witherspoon’s sermon is to prove and reflect on the depravity of nature and the “the corruption of our nature, which is the foundation stone of the doctrine of redemption.”[21] Witherspoon also makes his view clear that those with a corrupt nature are still subject to God and thus also obligated to the providence of God. On this he wrote, “…in the course of nature; and even so the most impetuous and disorderly passions of men, that are under no restraint from themselves, are yet perfectly subject to the dominion of Jehovah.”[22] While Witherspoon points to what he believes is the human condition, corrupt and disorderly, there is an optimism to his theology. In contrast to the selfish nature there is another nature for God’s saints or believers. Those saints are sanctified and overcome the selfish nature. Witherspoon refers to this in a contrasting manner of the “salutary nature” and the “sanctifying influence.” Marrow understands Witherspoon’s view of human nature and passion in the following fashion, “Passion, for example, was accepted as an inherent, observable part of human nature; it could both lead people to undertake moral actions and it could make a person “quicksighted,” inflamed, and driven to vice.”[23] However, Witherspoon does not put a positive spin on passion or human nature apart from sanctification in the Gospel. Witherspoon’s optimism is that the human nature and passion can be overcome because of sanctification and an observation of the presence of God.
Madison
It is not clear whether Madison’s view of human nature is totally the product of Biblical anthropology as it would be of Witherspoon. It is likely that Madison is also drawing on the philosophy from his classical education that was still provided by Witherspoon. Gideon Mailer points out that “Madison defended the new American Constitution by asserting that the ‘latent causes of faction’ were ‘sown in the nature of man.’”[24] Madison’s view of human nature leads him to be concerned about factions that can form. Madison addresses human nature in several of his essays in The Federalist Papers including number 55. In that essay Madison describes the two natures that people have, one of dignity and the other of depravity. In evangelical theology the dignity would originate from mankind being made in the image of God. The depravity has its origin in the original sin. Madison wrote, “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”[25] Mailer noted that Madison described human nature as being prone to factions which is an element of the nature of man that Madison is concerned with. He wanted to deal with the propensity to form factions by which the government could be overthrown or one faction could dominate other minority groups. Madison was well aware that some would eventually take advantage of the system and that moral traditions and religion would not prevail against the immoral faction that desired power and oppression.[26] Where Witherspoon had confidence that the redeemed would aspire to the greater good while living in the providence of God Almighty, Madison is less confident that the faults of human nature can be overcome without some kind of mechanism built into the system for protections of rights and liberty. This holds true for both religious and civic liberty. Madison’s policy became to set factions against one other. Let them have their selfish whims but keep them small and spread out. In The Federalist Papers 51 Madison explains his solution. He wrote, “There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority—that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.”[27] Madison adopted Witherspoon’s view of human nature, but only that of the natural or corrupt state. Madison did not appear to have confidence in the ecclesiastical piety that would produce a faction of moralists. Michael McConnell explains, “The Federalist Nos. IO and 5I, is to understand factions, including religious factions, as a source of peace and stability. If there are enough factions, they will check and balance one another and frustrate attempts to monopolize or oppress, no matter how in- tolerant or fanatical any particular sect may be.”[28] Madison had already seen that good men would ignore the greater good of nation building in favor of their own inclinations. These are the challenges that were overcome in drafting a national constitution. If left to their own devises, apart from the providence of God the constitution would not exist as noted previously in Madison’s writings. While Madison breaks to a degree with Witherspoon’s optimistic outlook he is in agreement with the theology of Witherspoon’s Biblical anthropology. As Mailer notes, “His greater realism did not deny the role of factionalism—even moral discrepancy—in human association. In this respect, at least, he did not contradict the Calvinistic emphasis of his earlier learning. He would construct a national constitution with the human propensity for factionalism, egoism, and disorder at the forefront of his mind.”[29]
The Theology and Philosophy of Liberty of Witherspoon and Madison
Witherspoon concludes his sermon with the prayer, “God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both”[30] which as noted earlier in this study is related to the topic of providence. Witherspoon’s solution for factions is true religion. This is a world where even those outside of Witherspoon’s orthodoxy are still part of greater Christendom such as Catholics. Witherspoon fought to end persecution of Catholics just as Madison fought to end persecution of Baptists in Virginia. The key principle seems to be a religion that did not do harm to the greater community. Both men would have been aware of the persecution of the Anglican church which is perhaps why Madison was less optimistic about the ability of religion to solve the issue of factions. Witherspoon’s appeal to true religion is that of an outward conduct that is representative of an inward temper while recognizing a providential circumstance. Morrow observes that it is the problem of human nature, factions, and the necessity of protecting liberty that led to “rejection of pure democracy and its invitation to popular participation.”[31]
Witherspoon’s concept of liberty and theology of rebellion is that America had the opportunity to exist with an “undefiled religion” and a nation where morality would be the social norm to be a “friend to American Liberty.”[32] Witherspoon wrote, “The magistrate ought to defend the rights of conscience, and tolerate all in their religious sentiments that are not injurious to their neighbors.”[33]
The religious protection would include protection from having one’s conscience manipulated by force. [34] In his lectures of moral philosophy Witherspoon describes this philosophy as allowing a person to “judge for himself in matters of religion” and the government providing protections against religious discrimination for one’s choices.[35] This rhetoric is the key to a theology of rebellion. Witherspoon and Madison have both concluded that liberty must be protected. Those that oppress religious and/or civic liberties are an enemy of the country as well as of God. Therefore, rebellion becomes a moral and religious duty. It would also be a duty to rebel against any ecclesiastic system that oppresses other Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism, such as the Church of England. Madison did not employ the same language of Witherspoon who seems to argue for a special covenant between God and the United States of America. As Morrison notes, “Engaged as they were in a desperate war with Great Britain, ‘public bodies, as well as private persons,’ were urged by Witherspoon and Congress ‘to reverence the Providence of God, and look up to Him as the supreme disposer of all events.’”[36] Witherspoon’s appeal to the greater cause is bound back to providence in his theology. He argues that protections of liberty must go beyond the civic. He knows that the fervent servant of God will not comply with unjust or sinful regulations. He wrote, “Another reason why the servants of God are represented as troublesome is, because they will not, and dare not comply with the sinful commandments of men. In matters merely civil, good men are the most regular citizens and the most obedient subjects. But, as they have a Master in heaven, no earthly power can constrain them to deny his name or desert his cause.”[37] In the Federalist 51 Madison agrees with Witherspoon’s argument that both civil and religious liberties must be preserved together.[38] Madison wrote, “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights” which seems to mimic Witherspoon’s argument for protecting civil and religious freedoms.[39]
Conclusion
Witherspoon’s Dominion of Providence is more than a theological sermon. It represents Witherspoon’s theology of rebellion and government. It reveals that his view of providence and human nature lead to an imperative to create a new nation devoid of the oppression of the British civic and religious systems. He is clearly arguing that America is a nation with a covenant with God and therefore will providentially prevail. Much of Madison’s argument for government building mimics the theology of Witherspoon, though Madison stretches the boundaries in favor of stronger protections than perhaps Witherspoon would have sought. Although
Madison’s thinking follows closely with Witherspoon’s theological progression expressed in Dominion of Providence. Though many have missed a key point, Witherspoon and Madison both wrote from a Christian worldview. When they speak of religious protections, they do distinguish those protections are for religions or denominations that could fit into a framework of this liberated society. Both men have a desire to see the Unites States of America exist within the providence of God providing a nation of true religion dwelling in the providence of God Almighty.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Madison, James. Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785. In the Madison Papers. Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163.
_____. The Federalist Number 10 The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.
_____. The Federalist Number 37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.
_____. The Federalist Number 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.
_____. The Federalist Number 55 The Total Number of the House of Representatives. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.
_____. To Thomas Jefferson from James Madison, 24 October 1787. In the Madison Papers. Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0274.
Witherspoon, John. “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. A Sermon Preached at Princeton on the 17th of May 1776.” In Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Volume 1, 1730-1805, edited by Ellis Sandoz, 529-558. Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund Inc., 1998.
__________. “Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving After Peace: Sermon 45” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.
__________. “Lectures on Moral Philosophy: Lecture XIV Jurisprudence.” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.
__________. “The Charge of Sedition and Faction Against Good Men, Especially Faithful Ministers.” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D.,” Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.
Secondary Sources
Brant, Irving. James Madison—Father of the Constitution, 1787–1800. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950.
Bow, Charles Bradford. “Reforming Witherspoon’s Legacy at Princeton: John Witherspoon, Samuel Stanhope Smith and James McCosh on Didactic Enlightenment, 1768-1888,” History of European Ideas 39, no. (2013): 650-69.
Foster, James. “Of the civil magistrate: John Witherspoon’s doubly religious Toleration,” Global Intellectual History 5, no. 2 (2020): 264-78.
Mailer, Gideon. John Witherspoon’s American Revolution: Enlightenment and Religion from the Creation of Britain to the Founding of the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017.
Morrison, Jeffry H. John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic: Catholicism in American Culture, 113-28. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.
Gaustad, Edwin S. Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011.
Gingrich, Robert D. Faith and Freedom: The Founding Fathers in Their Own Words. Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing, Inc., 2012.
Loconte, Joseph. “Faith and the Founding: The Influence of Religion on the Politics of James Madison.” Journal of Church and State 45, no. 4 (Autumn 2003): 699-715.
McConnell, Michael W. “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion.” Harvard Law Review 103, no. 7 (May 1990): 409-1517.
Morrison, Jeffrey Hays. “John Witherspoon and ‘The Public Interest of Religion.’” Journal of Church and State 41, no 3 (Summer 1999): 551-573.
Morrow, Terence S. “Common Sense Deliberative Practice: John Witherspoon, James Madison, and the U.S. Constitution.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29 no. 1 (Winter, 1999): 25-47.
Miller, Thomas. “John Witherspoon and Scottish Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in America.” Rhetorica 10, no 4 (1992): 381–403.
Wallbuilders. Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Accessed October 1, 2020, https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/.
[1] Irving Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution, 1787–1800 (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950), Vol. III, 84. For a discussion of the debate and possible fallacies surrounding the call to prayer see, Wallbuilders, Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Accessed October 1, 2020, https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/.
[2] Joseph Loconte, “Faith and the Founding: The Influence of Religion on the Politics of James Madison,” Journal of Church and State 45, no. 4 (Autumn 2003): 699.
[3] Miller, Thomas, “John Witherspoon and Scottish Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in America,” Rhetorica 10, no 4 (1992): 381.
[4] Gideon Mailer, John Witherspoon’s American Revolution: Enlightenment and Religion from the Creation of Britain to the Founding of the United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017): 26.
[5] John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. A Sermon Preached at Princeton on the 17th of May 1776,” in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Volume 1, 1730-1805, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund Inc., 1998): 532.
[6] Charles Bradford Bow, “Reforming Witherspoon’s Legacy at Princeton: John Witherspoon, Samuel Stanhope Smith and James McCosh on Didactic Enlightenment, 1768-1888,” History of European Ideas 39, no. (2013): 654.
[7] Mailer, 1.
[8] Robert D. Gingrich, Faith & Freedom: The Founding Fathers in Their Own Words (Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Books, 2012), Chapter 6.
[9] Jeffry H. Morrison, John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic: Catholicism in American Culture (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005) 20.
[10] Witherspoon, Dominion, 533.
[11] Ibid, 533, 558.
[12] Ibid, 547.
[13] Gingrich, Chapter 7.
[14] Ibid.
[15] James Madison, The Federalist Number 37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 7.
[16] Madison, Federalist 37, 10.
[17] Witherspoon, Dominion, 535.
[18] James Madison, To Thomas Jefferson from James Madison, 24 October 1787, in the Madison Papers, Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0274.
[19] John Witherspoon. “Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving After Peace: Sermon 45,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815), 61. Witherspoon’s Thanksgiving sermon is devoted to the topic of divine providence in the establishment and victory of liberty for the colonies. He explains all of the ways in which God providentially provided for the establishment of the United States of America and what the nation owes God in return.
[20] Witherspoon, Dominion, 536.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid, 533.
[23] Morrow, 27.
[24] Mailer, 38.
[25] James Madison. The Federalist Number 55 The Total Number of the House of Representatives, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 9.
[26] James Madison, The Federalist Number 10 The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued), (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.), 12.
[27] James Madison, The Federalist Number 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 10.
[28] Michael W. McConnell, “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion,” Harvard Law Review 103, no. 7 (May 1990): 1515.
[29] Mailer, 410.
[30] Witherspoon, Dominion, 558.
[31] Morrow, 32.
[32] Witherspoon, Dominion, 554.
[33] John Witherspoon “Lectures on Moral Philosophy: Lecture XIV Jurisprudence,” The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, Second Edition, Revised and Corrected., vol. 3 (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), 448.
[34] James Foster, “Of the Civil Magistrate: John Witherspoon’s Doubly Religious Toleration,” Global Intellectual History 5, no. 2, (2020): 272.
[35] Witherspoon, Jurisprudence, 448.
[36] Morrison,21.
[37] John Witherspoon, “The Charge of Sedition and Faction Against Good Men, Especially Faithful Ministers,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D.,” Second Edition, (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815), 415.
[38] Madison, Federalist 51, 4-10.
[39] Ibid, 10.
-
Wilhelm Straub and Margaret Gehr-Straub: Owners of the Adin Hotel
Wilhelm Straub and Margaret Gehr-Straub: Owners of the Adin Hotel
by David Q Santos and N.J. Santos
Wilhelm and Margaret are the grandparents of my Dad’s dad Cecil Oral Santos.

Wilhelm Straub (1840-1870) was born October 21, 1840, in the Black Forest of Germany. He was born to Konrad Straub and Maria Rosa Marx. He was baptized Oct 22, 1840 in Saint Silvester Church.
Margaret Gehr (1849-1925) was born May 24, 1849 in Baden, Baden Germany to Katharina and Melchior Milton Gehr. Katharina died in Napa California 1889. We currently do not know when she came to the United States.
The 1880 census records that Wilhelm was a Shasta County farmer. Wilhelm and Margaret had six children. The census indicates the six children were Albert, Margaret, William H., Charlie L., Katharina, and George A. The 1900 census shows those six children plus Joseph B. and an occupation change. That census shows Wilhelm and Margaret being owners of a hotel in Adin. Daughters Gussy and Gertrude were both added to this census. Wilhelm died of a heart attack at the hotel in 1903 at the age of 62. After Wilhelm’s death Margaret sold the Adin hotel and moved to Fall River Mills CA apparently to live with her children. She died May 18, 1925 at the age of 75.

(Margaret Straub, date unknown)

(This is 1948 Adin CA in Lassen County. The Hotel on the right was owned by Wilhelm Straub (1840-1903) and Margaret Gerh 1849-1925), my great, great grandparents and parents to Gussie Straub, wife of Frank Francis Santos)

(headstone of Wilhelm Straub in the Adin cemetery)

(headstone of Margaret Straus in Fall River Cemetery)

(Margaret in Adin hotel, year unknown)

(Margaret holding Gertrude, August 1890)

Obituary: Fall River Tidings. “Straub, Beloved Resident.” Fall River: 1925.

(1970 US Census)

(1880 US Census)

(1890 Census Record)

(1900 US Census)
-
James Quinne: Pioneer of Siskiyou County and Hydroelectric Entrepreneur
Title: James Quinne: Pioneer of Siskiyou County and Hydroelectric Entrepreneur
By David Q. Santos and N.J. Santos
Abstract:
James Quinne came to America in 1854 and married Margret Devine. They had a long and successful life together in Northern California. They had four grown children and a successful career. James was known as the “Pioneer of Siskiyou County” as well as the developer of the first hydropower plant in America.
Full Post:
This is the story of my Dad’s Mom and how her family arrived in America and specifically the area of Northern California.
These are some details about how they got here and what the family did when they arrived.
This is James Quinne my Great, Great Grandfather. He is my Grandmother Margaret’s (dad’s mom) grandfather.

This is Margaret Devine, my great, great grandmother.

James was born in Glasgow in May of 1830. James’ father was from Scotland and his mother was from Ireland. James’ father died when James was only 24.
His father was killed on October 25, 1854 during the Crimean War.
He was a gunner who was killed at the Battle of Balaclava (read the Charge of the Light Brigade) which was also knows as “The Thin Red Line” because of the thin numbers of Scottish soldiers.
Both of Margaret’s parents were from Ireland.
James was “naturalized” July 11, 1865. This is drawn from the Siskiyou County Voter Registration from 1898.


James and Margaret were married in 1866. As of the 1870 Census of Siskiyou County James and Margaret had one son.
In this census James lists his occupation as “miner”. This census also shows that James had two laborers, one from Iowa and the other from China.
This census also has one unique feature, James lists his birthplace as Ireland while all other documents list it as Scotland.
This shows there are variants at times in such documents.


1870 Siskiyou County Census
As of 1880 James and Margaret had four children, three sons and one daughter. They had a total of six children, Frank J., Dr. John J. Quinne (my great, great grandfather), one daughter, Mrs. Nellie Dewitt, and George E. Quinne, with the other two dying as babies.


1880 Siskiyou County Census

James was the founder of the Quinne Electric Light plant, the first electric light plant in Siskiyou County. James was connected with the “big ditch” which was sold to Edson and Foulke in 1906. He was the first person to operate the canal making him an expert in water movement. In 1880 the Big Ditch was sold by Quinne when he moved to San Francisco where he became the Collector of Customs and engaged in commissioned businesses. In 1890 he relocated back to Siskiyou County and built the first hydroelectric power plant in the United States known as the Shasta River Power Plant (in 1906). The Quinne Power Company was important to the local community. The Overland Monthly noted in 1897 the size of the plant and that Mr. Quinne had been ridiculed for his plan to build the power plant. The Mining and Scientific Press took exceptional note of the works of Quinne in both water management and power supply. Quinne had been called on to supply water to new mining ground as well as supplying more energy than anticipated.

By 1900 the household had changed a lot. After 36 years of marriage James and Margaret had only one son left at home, George. On the 1900 census George is listed as an electrician. Also included in the census is Homer Dorland a boarder and electrician who probably worked at the power plant as George did and Ching Loo the household cook. The sons of James and Margaret, Frank and John, were out of the house as was daughter Nellie. John would not get married until 1917, after the death of his parents.



He was chairman of the Democratic County Committee from 1898-1902, retiring due to his poor health.
The power plant was sold in the early 1900s to E. T. Osborn.
James moved back to San Francisco because of his health concerns where he continued to invest in real estate. He was well known as the Pioneer of Siskiyou County.

Obituary: SF Call, January 2, 1904

Siskiyou Daily News Jan 4, 1906 Page 3


Holy Cross Catholic Cemetery
Colma, San Mateo County, California, USA
-
Myth, Truth, and Treasure of Family History
Myth, Truth, and Treasure of Family History
David Q Santos and N.J. Santos
The study of Family history can be a difficult but interesting and rewarding study. DNA analysis and access to digital records across the globe have added new layers to the average amateur historian and family genealogist. Anyone that has endeavored to unravel the mystery of their own family knows the challenges. For many, family oral history often sounds like ancient mythology and simple truths can be a mix of complexity and confusion. And then, there are those moments where a real family history is found.
I want to use my own family’s study into our ancestors as an example. In the mythology of my Dad’s parents there were several stories that deserved to be revealed. But the beginning of this adventure in history was the DNA; I should have been about 25% Portuguese and 25% Irish as my Dad’s dad was from Portugal, and my Dad’s mom was from Ireland. The surprise was that I only showed being 3-6% Portuguese and was way more Scottish than Irish. In total, I am really strongly western European, mostly Scottish, English, Irish, and German. So I set aside my linguiça and went shopping for some blood sausage and Sauerkraut while trying on plaid skirts, uh, I mean kilts. I have nice legs so I can pull it off with gusto, though it is a little breezy.
So first, the myth and the truth. There had been a family story for many years that upon arrival from Portugal my grandpa took his wife’s maiden name. Since there is no evidence of anyone from my family exchanging names, this is a myth that was not true. Also, my grandpa was born in Petaluma CA, it was Francisco Francis Santos, my grandpa’s grandpa, that immigrated to CA in 1868 and then married a Portuguese woman named Mary Perry. They were married at the Saint Vincent De Paul church in Petaluma CA on Oct. 27, 1873. Francisco and Mary lived in Petaluma with Mary’s parents for a time. Francisco and Mary had five children, one of whom died young. Annie Leal was their adopted daughter who immigrated herself from the Azores Portugal. Annie was 7 when she came from Portugal. Together the family was involved in the poultry business. Francisco and Mary moved from the farm to a house in town late in life when Francisco was 68, the year before he died, and Mary was 67. William P Santos lived with them at the time. Frank Francis Santos, the second child of Francisco and Mary had taken over the poultry farm. Many of the graves for this family can be seen at the Calvary Catholic Cemetery in Petaluma CA.

(Pete Santos’ Bible, where the following photo and handwritten note were found)


(Photo found in Pete Santos’ Bible with hand written note)
Now, back to the kilt, we have traced our family back to the Scottish clan McQueen; but that’ll have to wait until next time.

Picture Francisco Francis Santos (my grandfather’s grandfather)
Immigrated in 1868 at age 11
Photo from 1910-1920

Immigration passport for Francisco Francis Santos

Mary’s parents house where Francisco and Mary lived in Petaluma CA

This was the rented house that Francisco and Mary lived in late in life