[comments below]

Cunningham:

The most important question, however, connected with this department of the subject, is not whether what Christ suffered was a punishment, or properly penal, but whether it was the penalty which the law had denounced against sin, and to which sinners, therefore, are justly exposed. Now, upon this point, there are three different modes of statement which have been adopted and defended by different classes of divines, who all concur in maintaining the doctrine of the atonement against the Socinians. Some contend that the only accurate and exact way of expressing and embodying the doctrine of Scripture upon the subject, is to say, that Christ suffered the very penalty the same thing viewed legally and judicially which the law had denounced against sin, and which we had incurred by transgression. Others think that the full import of the Scripture doctrine is expressed, and that the general scope and spirit of its statements upon this subject are more accurately conveyed, by maintaining that Christ did not suffer the very penalty, the same penalty which sinners had incurred, but that he suffered what was a full equivalent, or an adequate compensation for it, that His suffering was virtually as much as men deserved, though not the same. While others, again, object to both these statements, and think that the whole of what Scripture teaches upon this point is embodied in the position, that what Christ suffered was a substitute for the penalty which we had incurred.

Dr Owen zealously contends for the first of these positions, and attaches much importance to the distinction between Christ having suffered or paid the same penalty as we had incurred, and His having suffered or paid only an equivalent, or as much as we had deserved; or, as he expresses it, between His suffering or paying the idem and the tantundem. He lays down the doctrine which he maintained upon this point against Grotius and Baxter in this way: “That the punishment which our Savior underwent was the same that the law required of us; God relaxing His law as to the persons suffering, but not as to the penalty suffered.”¹ There are, however, divines of the strictest orthodoxy, and of the highest eminence, who have not attached the same importance to the distinction between the idem and the tantundem, and who have thought that the true import of the Scripture doctrine upon the subject is most correctly brought out by saying, that what Christ suffered was a full equivalent, or an adequate compensation, for the penalty men had incurred. Mastricht, for instance, whose system of theology is eminently distinguished for its ability, clearness, and accuracy, formally argues against the death of Christ being solutio “proprie sic dicta, qua id praieise prsestatur, quod est in obligatione”² and contends that “reatus tollitur satisfactione, qua non idem precise, quod est in obligatione, creditori pnustatur; sed tantundem, seu equivalens.” And Turretine³ seems, upon the whole, to agree with him, or rather, to conjoin the two ideas together, as being both true, though in somewhat different respects, and as not essentially differing from each other. He has not, indeed, so far as I remember, formally discussed the precise question about the idem and the tantundem, on which Owen and Maastricht have taken opposite sides; but in discussing the Socinian argument, that Christ did not make a true and real satisfaction for our sins, because lie did not in fact pay what was due to God by us, and especially because lie suffered only temporal, while we had incurred eternal, death, he meets the major proposition by asserting that there might be a true and proper satisfaction, though the same thing was not paid which was due, provided it was a full equivalent in weight and value, “etsi non idem, modo tantundem habeatur, sufficit;” while lie meets also the minor proposition of the Socinian argument, by asserting that Christ did pay what was due by us; the same, not of course in its adjuncts and circumstances, but in its substance,–His suffering, though temporary in duration, being, because of the infinite dignity of His person, properly infinite in weight or value as a penal infliction, and thus substantially identical, in the eye of justice and law, with the eternal punishment which sinners had deserved.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

Hebrews 12:2

aphorontes eis tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten Iesoun

Owen’s third clear scripture is a reference to “Jesus as the ‘author and finisher of our faith.’” It is not exactly clear how Owen sees this as supporting his case, as he does not enlarge upon the verse. By its placement here we must assume that Owen interprets “author” to mean the one who causally originates faith in believers, and who does so directly by his death on the cross. The correctness of this assumption receives support from Owen’s exegesis of this verse in his later commentary on Hebrews. Here we read that Jesus is proposed as the object of our attentive gaze, a ‘looking’ which Owen says “denotes an act of faith or trust, with hope and expectation,”³² “by his office or work.” Jesus can be said to be ‘author and finisher of our faith’ on account of “procurement and real efficiency.”

He by his obedience and death procured this grace for us. It is “given unto us on his account,” Phil. 1: 29. … And he works it in us, or bestows it on us, by his Spirit, in the beginning and all the increases of it from first to last… So he is the “author” or beginner of our faith, in the efficacious working of it in our hearts by his Spirit; and lithe finisher” of it in all its effects, in liberty, peace, and joy, and all the fruits of it in obedience; for “without him we can do nothing.”³³

Owen mentions three other senses in which Christ as ‘author and finisher of our faith’ may be considered as the object of our ‘looking,’ as the revelation of the object of our faith, as the example of the obedience of our faith, and as the guide, helper and director of our faith, but he concludes his discussion of the phrase by emphasizing that it has primary reference to Jesus as the efficient worker of our faith.

It is true, that in all these senses our faith from first to last is from Jesus Christ. But that (mentioned) in the first place is the proper meaning of the words; for they both of them express an efficiency, a real power and efficacy, with respect unto our faith. Nor is it faith objectively that the apostle treats of, the faith that is revealed, but that which is in the hearts of believers.³⁴

Thus for Owen the primary sense of archegos is that of efficacious worker of faith in our hearts. Is this correct?

The Context: The author is seeking to encourage his readers to persevere in faith even in the face of hardship, alluded to as a past reality (10:32-34) and a present possibility (12 :4-11). He has expressed his conviction that they are those who do not shrink back but have faith (10: 39) and presented them with the example of the Old Testament saints who persevered in faith. In the light of their example they too are to ‘run with patience the race that is set before’ them. As a further resource for this perseverance they must keep on looking to Jesus who faithfully persevered in doing the Father’s will and through the hardship thus experienced triumphed. They must consider Him that they might not grow weary. Jesus is thus being presented as ton tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten as an encouragement to faith, whose triumphant example of faith they must heed.

“Our faith” or “faith”? The personal possessive pronoun ‘our’ is absent from the Greek text. Many translations have introduced ‘our,’³⁵ but is this either necessary or desirable? Ellingworth, who supports this translation, writes

writes no stress can be laid on the use of the article as such, but pistis is usually anarthrous in Hebrews, and where the article is used (4:2, 13:7) it refers to the faith of specified groups.³⁶

Thus he finds here a reference to the faith of the author and his readers, and indirectly to that of Old Testament believers. Ellingworth is correct in his first two observations but his suggestion that the article “refers to the faith of specified groups” is an unhappy turn of phrase. Robertson, considering the article under the heading “As the equivalent of a possessive pronoun,” states “the article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person mentioned.”³⁷ It is the context of each individual reference which determines whether the specificity that the article gives is best translated by an English possessive pronoun or otherwise, and three occurrences of the article with pistis are insufficient to claim to establish a pattern of use, especially where alternate explanations for the use of the article in those contexts is available.³⁸ In Heb. 4: 2 whose faith is being spoken of is indicated by the participle ten pistin, and the article is more likely to be present as a generic article, emphasising that the word met with no faith at all. In Heb. 13: 7 English legitimately translates ten pistin as ‘their faith’ not because the article refers to a group of people but because the definiteness imparted to ‘faith’ makes it plain that it could be the faith of no others but ‘your leaders.’ It is this definiteness that also accounts for the use of the possessive in the English translation of 11:39, not mentioned by Ellingworth. How then to consider the use of the article in 12:2? While it may be a generic use, faith abstractly considered, it is better with Peterson to see an anaphoric sense, picking up on the presentation of ‘faith’ in the preceding chapter.³⁹ Understood in this way

the ‘faith’ of which the Apostle speaks is faith in its absolute type, of which he has traced the action under the Old Covenant.

Westcott continues, in the light of his whole understanding of the passage, to reject the idea that it is our subjective believing that is in view here:

The particular interpretations, by which it is referred to the faith of each individual Christian, as finding its beginning and final development in Christ; or to the substance of the Christian Creed; are foreign to the whole scope of the passage, which is to shew that in Jesus Christ Himself we have the perfect example – perfect in realisation and effect – of that faith which we are to imitate, trusting in Him.⁴⁰

The sense of archegon kai teleioten: archegos appears in the New Testament at Acts 3: 15, 5:31 and Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2. According to Bauer it is capable of a number of somewhat overlapping senses – leader, ruler, prince; one who begins; or originator, founder.⁴¹ Because of what Coenen calls the ” relatively unambiguous use” of archegos in the LXX for ‘leader’ this sense has been argued by a number of commentators for its use in Heb. 2: 10 and 12: 2. Thus Peterson, having found that the primary sense of archegos in 2:10 was that of leader or pathfinder, sees that emphasis also in 12: 2, as the intent of the passage concerns the comparison of Jesus’ experience with that of believers. “Christ is ‘forerunner’ and ‘example’ for his people in the life of faith.”⁴² However, Jesus is not just an example of a greater faith than the Old Testament saints. While judging

those commentators correct who see the primary reference here to the exercise of faith by Christ himself, . . . the preceding emphasis on the uniqueness of his personal achievement is not forgotten. Indeed, because Christ has given faith ‘a perfect basis by his high-priestly work,’ his faith, and what it achieved both for himself and for others, becomes a greater incentive for faith on our part than the faith of OT saints. His faith is thus ‘qualitatively’ and not just ‘quantitatively’ greater than theirs.⁴³

Even where the sense of ‘beginner’ is preferred because of its contrast with teleiotes the emphasis continues to be on the example of Jesus, the one who starts and completes the road we all must run, and in doing so makes our following possible.⁴⁴ Teleiotes, found only here in the New Testament and related to the significant perfection terminology of Hebrews, heightens this emphasis on Christ as our example, presenting him as the One in whom “faith has reached its perfection.”⁴⁵

Thus we see that in the eyes of many modern commentators neither context, syntax nor semantics support Owen’s contention that the primary reference of the phrase is to Christ as the efficacious worker of faith in our hearts, and their arguments seem convincing. Owen’s ‘purchase of faith’ still awaits a text….

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), 211-217. [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:

Ephesians 1:3

Eulogetos ho theos…. ho eulogesas humas en pase eulogia pneymatike en tois epouranious en Christou

Owen’s point in reference to this verse is that “If faith be a spiritual blessing, it is bestowed on us “in him”, and so also for his sake.”²⁴

Owen thus reads this reference to “in Christ” as supporting his foundational reconstruction of the relationship between the Father and the Son, where whatever is given us by God is for Jesus’ sake, in discharge of His promise to the Son in the covenant of redemption. There are two issues in assessing Owen’s interpretation. Is faith what Paul had in mind when he was speaking of spiritual blessings, and even if it is, what support does it being bestowed ‘in Christ’ give to Owen’s claim that faith is purchased by Christ? Why should ‘in him’ be the equivalent of ‘for His sake,’ especially when there are very adequate ways of expressing this idea in Greek by using dia with the Accusative or eneken?²⁵

While an older commentator such as Abbott suggests that ‘spiritual blessings’ are “what St. Paul enumerates as the

fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22”²⁶ more recent commentators have specified their content contextually. Lincoln, Barth and Bruce concur in seeing v. 3 as a general introductory summary statement which is then “elaborated in the rest of the eulogy”²⁷ which Barth stresses is an ” indivisible and perfect whole.”²⁸ Thus

the nature of the spiritual blessings here referred to is not in doubt: they are detailed in the following words of the berakhah. They include election to holiness, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, the gift of the Spirit, and the hope of glory.²⁹

Arnold, conscious both of the context of spiritual struggle in which the Ephesians were being encouraged to live out their faith and of the local sense of epouraniois in the epistle, sees vv. 4-10 as not exhausting ‘spiritual blessing’ but giving the ground for the Ephesian confidence in their reception of the fullness of blessing in Christ, including “access to divine power and position of authority.”³⁰ The focus is on the objective blessings which belong to believers ‘in Christ’ for the purpose of encouraging the persevering faith of the Ephesians. Faith is neither explicitly mentioned nor what Paul primarily had in mind.

What of the phrase ‘in Christ’? Can it sustain Owen’s interpretation as meaning ‘for Christ’s sake’? Noting the above observation that there were available in Greek ways for Paul to say what Owen would have him say, and the opinion of many commentators that en has either an instrumental or locative sense [or a combination of the two] here,³¹ it seems safe to conclude that while Paul saw all the blessings of salvation bestowed upon us ‘in Christ’, both through his agency and in virtue of our union with Him by faith, he does not say here that faith was either purchased for us, nor that God has blessed us in fulfillment of the promise made to Christ on the completion of His work. Support for such a notion can only be found if the structure and consequences of the covenant of redemption are already assumed. That is, the claim that Eph. 1: 3 supports the purchase of faith is eisegesis which ignores and has the potential to obscure the particularity of the passage.

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), 207-210. [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 »

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 »