Ridderbos:

Verses 14 and 15 speak with increasing clarity about the way this descent and ascent of the Son of man, as well as the salvation represented in those events, is effected. Vs. 14 does so by comparing the raising up of the Son of man with that of the serpent in the wilderness. The reference is to the story in Nu. 21 :8f., where Moses raised a serpent up on a pole as a visible sign of salvation for all who thought they were about to die. Jesus speaks of the exaltation of the Son of man, so “lifted up” acquires a double meaning here (as also in 8:28; 12:32, 34): the exaltation of the Son of man (= his glorification) is effected by his being raised up on a cross. The comparison brings this last meaning to the fore as tertium comparationis, since the element of glorification cannot be applied to the serpent. In this connection the redemption-historical “necessity” (“must be”) of this being “lifted up” is important, strongly reminiscent as it is of passages like Mt. 16:21; Lk. 9:22 in which the humiliation of the Son of man is described as the way of his exaltation and is related to God’s counsel of salvation. Still–and this is typical for the Fourth Gospel–the crucifixion is not presented as Jesus’ humiliation but as the exaltation of the Son of man. The reason, obviously, is that Jesus’ suffering and death were the way in which he would return to God and be glorified by him and that in that way he would grant eternal life to those who believed in him (vs. 15). This last point again ties in clearly with Numbers 21: Just as gazing at the serpent was the God-given means of life, a sign both of God’s will to save and of his power over death, so Jesus as the Son of man in his suffering and death on the cross also embodies God’s will to save and power over death. But it “had to” happen in the way of the descent from heaven, of the incarnation of the Word, of his suffering and dying on the cross. Later, therefore, the living bread that came down from heaven and that “the Son of man will give” (6:27) will also be called his “flesh” that he gives for the life of the world, and only those who “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” will have life in themselves (6:51,53).

But all this is not further explicated, at least not in vss. 14 and 15. Here the reference is to “whoever believes in him.” 107 The object of this faith is the Son of man as the crucified one as well as the crucified Son of man. The Son of man “must” go this way, which is inconceivable to the flesh. But he takes it as one destined by God to the highest glory, as one who enters death in order thus, like the serpent lifted up by Moses, to be the great sign that in him God has the will and the capacity to save from destruction everyone who believes. Faith receives its character from the one as well as from the other truth. It is faith in the powerful Messiah-King promised by God, the Son of man, but in him as the crucified one; it is faith in the power of him who is powerless in the flesh and in the eyes of the flesh. Therein, also, lies the difference from “belief in his name” (2:23), which rests exclusively on the manifestation of Jesus’ power and which by itself need be no more than a conclusion of which the “flesh” is capable. But to be able to see and to believe in the heaven descended, cross-exalted Son of man–that takes a different set of eyes, and for that one must be born from above.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

Owen’s verses considered.

Phil. 1: 29

hoti humin echaristhe to huper christou, ou monon to eis auton pisteuein alla kai to huper auton paschein

This is a verse Owen uses relatively frequently and with a consistent interpretation. He understands it to say “It is given unto us, huper christou on the behalf of Christ, for Christ’s sake, to believe on him.”¹⁹ Owen clearly takes the verse, in the form he has cited it, to indicate that we are granted the gift of faith ‘for Christ’s sake’, that is, as a reward for Christ’s obedience on the cross. This understanding is not argued, but assumed. However, it is a misunderstanding of the relation of huper christou to echaristhe and to pisteuein. The function of the verse is to explain to the Philippians why their present trials are a sign from God of their salvation. This is so “because their believing in Christ and especially their suffering for his sake had been ‘graciously given to them by God’.”²⁰ Within that context the huper christou is related to the paschein. As Moises Silva writes,

this phrase [huper chistou] is not to be construed with what precedes, as is suggested by some English translations [ . . . ], but rather with paschein ‘to suffer for Christ’s sake.’ As Ltf. points out, “The sentence is suspended by the insertion of the after- thought” [namely, the clause où monon to eis auton pisteuein]. then it is resumed with alla.²¹

Taken with paschein the phrase huper chistou now gives the reason for the suffering of the Philippians, “out of devotion for, on account of our identification with, Christ.”²²

The verse is helpfully diagrammed thus:

hoti umin echaristhe     to huper chistou      [paschein understood]

ou monon                     to eis auton             pisteuein

alla                               to huper autou         paschein.

There are repeated articular infinitives as co-ordinated objects of the verb echaristhe indicating what is given by God, with each articular infinitive containing within it a prepositional phrase further specifying the action of the infinitive. The to huper autou is resumptive.²³ It is clear that while faith is the gracious gift of God, huper autou does not indicate the cause of God giving faith to the Philippians, rather it specifies the one for whose sake, on whose behalf, they are undergoing suffering. This verse does not speak of a purchase of faith, or a bestowal of faith by God as a reward for Christ’ obedience.

Chambers, N.A. “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 204-207. [Some reformatting; old style title emphasis converted to italics; italics original; underlining for side-headers original; and inline underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

FAITH

The soul can do without anything but the word of God; and apart from the word it has no means of help. When it has the word, however, it has no need of anything else.¹

Owen’s presentation confronts the reader with two issues in relation to faith. Firstly, is faith properly conceived as ‘purchased’ for believers on the cross, and, secondly, is unbelief a sin like any other, the penalty for which Christ suffered on the cross? As was seen in the summary of Owen’s argument both of these assertions are important to Owen’s position and each will be considered in turn.

The purchase of faith.

Owen introduces the idea of the purchase of faith, considered as the essential means of salvation, early in the second book.² In chapter one, considering the intermediate end of Christ work which is work, which is “bringing many sons to glory”, he tells us that this subservient end can be “considered distinctly in two parts, whereof one is the end and the other the means for attaining of that end.” He is insistent that both, “the one the condition, and the other the thing promised upon that condition”, are

equally and alike procured for us by Jesus Christ; for if either be omitted in his purchase, the other would be vain and fruitless.³ [my italics]

The means are characterized as grace, holiness, and faith; the ends as glory, blessedness and salvation. Owen focuses on faith as the means and condition, salvation as the end or promised inheritance, and, demonstrating what Muller calls “the Ramist tendency to delineate exhaustive and inclusive categories,”⁴ expands faith to be a category that comprehends “all saving grace that accompanies it,” that is “all the effectual means of faith, both external and internal”, “all advancement of state and condition attending it,” and “all fruits flowing from it”⁵. Salvation is likewise taken to encompass “the whole ‘glory to be revealed.’.” He concludes the chapter thus

A real, effectual, and infallible bestowing and applying of all these things (that is faith and all that accompanies it N. C. J . . . unto all and everyone for whom he died, do we maintain to be the end proposed and effected by the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, with those other acts of his mediatorship which we before declared to be therewith inseparably conjoined: so that everyone for whom he died and offered up himself hath, by virtue of his death or oblation, a right purchased for him unto all these things, which in due time he shall certainly and infallibly enjoy.⁶

While some of these things are bestowed “upon condition that they do believe” Owen is insistent that faith itself is bestowed “absolutely upon no condition at all.”⁷ Thus the elect have a right to the means of salvation purchased for them by Christ, and faith is seen as the principal of these means whose bestowal is guaranteed unconditionally by the purchase of Christ. Owen recognizes the

Read the rest of this entry »

Clifford:

Consistent with his commercialism, [John] Owen insisted that God’s justice was only satisfied by Christ’s payment of the same quantitative penalty or debt owed by the elect to God on account of their sins–the solutio ejusdem.³¹ Baxter (following Grotius at the only point where he could do so with any real justification) argued that, in virtue of the differences (in detail and duration) between Christ’s sufferings and the actual sufferings of the lost, Christ only paid a qualitative equivalent–the solutio tantidem.³² Since the penalty of the law threatens eternal punishment to impenitent offenders, Christ clearly did not suffer the identical punishment, for his resurrection terminated his banishment.³³ God therefore relaxed the law with regard both to the persons who should suffer (which Owen obviously agreed with)³⁴34 and to the penalty suffered. Clearly, there was not the ‘sameness’ Owen pleads for.

Although a strict particularist like William Cunningham denied the importance of this issue,³⁵ Owen saw clearly that his doctrine of limited atonement hung upon the ‘sameness’ between Christ’s sufferings and those deserved by the elect. However, he could only argue his case with the aid of Aristotle’s metaphysics. His very language betrays him: ‘When I say the same, I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all the accidents of duration and the like; for it was impossible that he should be detained by death.’³⁶ He therefore resorts to Aristotle’s dubious essence-accidents theory³⁷ to prove his point. In Baxter’s view even this statement ‘yieldeth the cause,’³⁸ but after learning of Baxter’s criticism Owen granted that ‘There is a sameness in Christ’s sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of essence, and equivalency in respect of attendencies.’³⁹

But Owen’s use of this philosophical distinction simply obscures the fact that there is a real difference between Christ’s temporary sufferings and the eternal sufferings deserved by the elect. He cannot establish his concept of ‘sameness’ without philosophical double-talk. If he is prepared to grant an equivalence in either respect, he is forced to concede that there is only a similarity, and not a sameness at all. Clearly, Aristotle’s metaphysical formula⁴⁰ only serves to permit unreal and meaningless distinctions. Had Baxter been as nimble as David Hume⁴¹ at this point, he would have exploded Owen’s case; however, Aristotle had a few more years to reign in scholastic circles. In view of later criticism of ‘the philosopher’ it is possible to see how Owen’s questionable commercialism falls to the ground, and with it the classical doctrine of limited atonement. In other words, he cannot demonstrate that the sufferings of Christ were commensurate with the deserved sufferings of the elect without the doubtful support of Aristotle. He fails, therefore, to prove that the atonement is necessarily limited by its nature. Indeed, his thesis requires that the sinner be eternally saved at the ‘expense’ of the Saviour’s eternal loss.

Read the rest of this entry »