Dearman:

6:7 The prophet illustrates Israel’s ongoing faithlessness by reference to an incident at a place named Adam and wickedness in Gilead. Some interpret Adam as a personal name arid thus as a reference to Gen. 3 and the disobedience in the garden.⁴⁹ According to this view, Israel was repeating the error of the first man’s disobedience to divine command. Another possibility is to take ādām as a collective reference to "people" acting disobediently.⁵⁰ The Hebrew particle šām ("there") in the verse, however, marks a geographical reference, and Adam is the likely antecedent (see below). In Hos. 10:9 a similar syntactical expression occurs, with an initial reference to Gibeah followed by the particle "there" in the next clause. BHS, followed by a number of commentators, suggests that the kě ("like/as") prefixed to Adam be changed to a bě ("in/at"), so that the phrase would read "but they transgressed the covenant in Adam." Given Hosea’s propensity for similes and comparisons employing a kě, the use of the kě to compare an action at a place is not unexpected.

As noted, at Adam in v. 7 is the likely antecedent for the particle there, although the particle possibly anticipates the reference to Gilead in v. 8. According to Josh. 3: 16 a city on the east bank of the Jordan River is named Adam (modem Tell Damiyeh), not far from Zarethan and the joining of the Jabbok River with the Jordan. The settlement was located along a route between Ephraim and Gilead, which would makes geographical sense, given the reference to the city of Gilead in v. 8. There are, furthermore, indications elsewhere in the broader historical context for political intrigue in Gilead that this obscure reference may reflect, such as the murder in Samaria of Pekahiah, king of Israel, by Pekah, who was accompanied by fifty men from Gilead (2 Kgs. 15:25).⁵¹ This event took place ca. 738, during the public activity of Hosea.

The phrase transgress the covenant in v. 7 occurs elsewhere in Hosea (8: 1) and in the or (2 Kgs. 18: 12; Jer. 34: 18), but the nature of the covenant transgressed at Adam is unclear. Should we think of it as the Mosaic covenant, as seems likely in 2 Kgs. 18: 12 (and probably in Hos. 8: 1); as the violation of a self-commitment, such as that indicated in Josh. 24: 16ff.; as a reference to some solemn commitment, like that of Jer. 34:18 (a solemn agreement to free slaves); or even to some agreement made with another state that infringes on YHWH’s sovereignty? In context the critique of Hos. 6:7-11a is that of Israel’s rebelliousness against YHWH; so that whatever particularities are to be associated with place and precipitating event(s) there, it is YHWH’s covenant that has been transgressed.⁵² Perhaps a parallel might be that of the "covenant of brothers" (Amos 1 :9), where the city-state Tyre is judged for breaking a solemn relationship by engaging in the slave trade or some other form of violence against a group of people. J. Andrew Dearman, The Book of Hosea (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 197-198. [Footnote values and content original.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Godfey:

1) Path to Compromise

This sensitivity [for Protestant unity concerning Reformed relations with Lutheranism] did not move the strict group, however. The strict German and Swiss delegations through bitter experience had already been disillusioned about hopes of concord with Lutherans. The Dutch provincial delegations had other reasons for disregarding an appeal to Lutheranism. They read such an appeal in the context of their own struggles with the Remonstrants and construed the call to Protestant unity as another Remonstrant smoke screen designed to obscure the real issues. This fear seemed to be supported because as early as 1609 defenders of Arminius had claimed that their teachings were no different from what was taught by Lutherans on the matters at hand.⁴⁴ On January 16, 1619 the Remonstrants wrote to Maurice asking for toleration if they could not support the decrees of the Synod. Brandt summarized this letter: “. . . they humbly pray’d that the same freedom might be allowed to them which the Lutherans had enjoy’d in these Provinces, and who were of the same opinion themselves, in the business of the Five Points, and who moreover differed from the Reformed in other matters.”⁴⁵

Brandt also noted the appeal of March 19, 1619 that the Remonstrants made to the political delegates at the Synod when they submitted the last of their written defense:

Observe then how inconsistently they act with themselves; they who in Germany call Melanchthon, a most pious Soul, and cry him up for his extraordinary virtues and gifts of all kinds (as Zanchius and all the Palatine Divines are wont to do) yet here in the Low-Countries will not so much as admit, either to the exercise of their Ministry, or to the Table of the Lord, one who practices Melanchthon’s moderate way of preaching, and who, for the sake of peace, is contented to forbear meddling with the doctrines of the Contraremonstrants.⁴⁶

Although the strict Calvinist group at the Synod was not moved by an appeal to Lutheran feelings, there were three grounds upon which an effective appeal for compromise might succeed with them. In fact, the final compromise was accomplished on the basis of these appeals. The first plea was the need for the decisions of the Synod to be approved unanimously. The second appeal was the form in which final Canons were to be stated, and the third was the need to placate the English delegation that represented the largest Reformed church and was the strongest political ally of the United Provinces. On the basis of these three considerations, the strict group was willing to compromise.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hypercalvinism arose out of Protestant Scholastic categories and exegetical conclusions. Stated another way, hypercalvinism could not have arisen directly out of the pre-Protestant Scholastic categories or theologies of such men as Bullinger, Calvin, Zwingli, or Luther.

The very categories and exegetical turns developed in 17th century Protestant Scholastics, even from the early half of that century, were the building blocks for later Husseyite and Gillite hypercalvinism. And as much as Gill grounded his theology in the categories of Owen, others, such as Toplady in the 18th century, based many of their exegetical conclusions in Gill’s exegesis. Specifically, I argue that the exegetical categories which underlie Gill’s exegesis are to be sourced and were derived from theologians such as John Owen himself.

Below is a specimen example of my argument. Included are some excerpts John Gill, the “head of hypercalvinism” as Spurgeon described him. These comments will demonstrate how Gill “explains” the various Ezekiel passages where God declares that he wills not the death of the sinner. After this, Owen is quoted for the purpose of comparison.

John Gill:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies; wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye;" (Ezekiel 18:13.) all which cannot be said of an eternal death; dying in his iniquity, is the same with dying for his iniquity, as it is rendered in verse 26, and designs some severe temporal calamity or affliction; which is often in Scripture called a death, Exodus 10:17, 2 Corinthians 1:10, and 2 Corinthians 11:23; such as captivity, in which the Jews then were, of which they were complaining, what was owing to their sins, and from which they were capable of being recovered. “This answer, it is said, contradicts the express words of the prophet about twenty times;” though not one single instance of it is given. Gill, Cause of God and Truth, Eze 18:24.¹

Read the rest of this entry »

Justin:

1) Chapter LXXIV.—The beginning of Ps. xcvi. is attributed to the Father [by Trypho]. But [it refers] to Christ by these words: “Tell ye among the nations that the Lord,” etc.

Then Trypho said, “We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ.”

And I answered, “Attend to me, I beseech you, while I speak of the statement which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to in this Psalm; and you shall know that I speak not sinfully, and that we¹ are not really bewitched; for so you shall be enabled of yourselves to understand many other statements made by the Holy Spirit. ‘Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth: sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day, His wonderful works among all people.’ He bids the inhabitants of all the earth, who have known the mystery of this salvation, i.e., the suffering of Christ, by which He saved them, sing and give praises to God the Father of all things, and recognize that He is to be praised and feared, and that He is the Maker of heaven and earth, who effected this salvation in behalf of the human race, who also was crucified and was dead, and who was deemed worthy by Him (God) to reign over all the earth. As [is clearly seen²] also by the land into which [He said] He would bring [your fathers]; [for He thus speaks]:³ ‘This people [shall go a whoring after other gods], and shall forsake Me, and shall break my covenant which I made with them in that day; and I will forsake them, and will turn away My face from them; and they shall be devoured,⁴ and many evils and afflictions shall find them out; and they shall say in that day, Because the Lord my God is not amongst us, these misfortunes have found us out. And I shall certainly turn away My face from them in that day, on account of all the evils which they have committed, in that they have turned to other gods.’ Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), 1:235-236. [Some spelling modernized; footnote content original; footnote values modified; and underlining mine.]

2) Chapter LXXXVIII.—Christ has not received the Holy Spirit on account of poverty.

“Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God; so that it was prophesied that the powers enumerated by Isaiah would come upon Him, not because He needed power, but because these would not continue after Him. And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown. And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire⁵ was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote. Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with free-will, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit. For it was not His entrance into Jerusalem sitting on an ass, which we have showed was prophesied, that empowered Him to be Christ, but it furnished men with a proof that He is the Christ; just as it was necessary in the time of John that men have proof, that they might know who is Christ. For when John remained⁶ by the Jordan, and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and a vesture made of camels’ hair, eating nothing but locusts and wild honey, men supposed him to be Christ; but he cried to them, ‘I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying; for He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.’⁷ And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee;’⁸ [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: ‘Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.’”⁹ Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), 1:243-244. [Some spelling modernized; footnote content original; footnote values modified; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »