A couple of weeks ago, I noticed in the Grammatical Relationships section of the Bible Word Study report for εὐχαριστέω an interesting pattern regarding the objects of εὐχαριστέω. I wrote this in a blog post at the Logos Bible Software blog:

Of the 23 complements or objects of the verb (i.e., who is being thanked), they are nearly all God. The only human objects are Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3). The rest of the references are God—and arguably, God the Father. (Jesus is the object one time [Lk 17:16].) I realize that God can refer to the Triune God, but the contexts and general pattern suggest that the Father is in view.

Here are the data:

Thanks is given to

• the Father (Col 1:11–12; cf. Jn 11:41)
• God the Father through Jesus (Rom 1:8; Col 3:17)
• God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col 1:3–5)
• God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 5:20)
• God [who is distinguished in the context from Christ] (Rom 14:6; 1 Cor 1:4, 14; Phil 1:3-6; 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Thes 1:3; 2:13; Phm 4-5; Rev 11:17?; cf. Lk 18:11)
• God [who is later identified as the Father] (1 Thes 1:2–4)
• God [undefined in the immediate context] (Acts 27:35; 28:15; 1 Cor 14:18)

This pattern reminded me of a similar pattern that I gave some thought to a couple of months ago.

“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” —Romans 11:36

The final clause or something similar appears in the NT numerous times. Who does the Him refer to? The Triune God? The Father? The Son? The Spirit?

It seems that the general NT pattern is to ascribe glory to the Father through the Son. This pattern is not without exception, though (e.g., 2 Tim 4:17–18; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev 5:13). This issue is of particular interest to me because it has bearing on the proper understanding of God in 1 Corinthians 15:28. Is God the Father or the Triune God?

Here are some of the relevant data:

The Father

Galatians 1:3–5 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 3:20–21 20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Philippians 2:9–11 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 4:19–20 19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 20 To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Hebrews 13:20–21 20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Jude 24–25 24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Revelation 7:11–12 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

The Father and the Son

Revelation 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (It’s worth noting that even here the Father appears first.)

The Son

2 Timothy 4:17–18 17 But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Ambiguous

The Father or the Son?

1 Timothy 1:17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God,¹ be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 4:10–11 10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (This one seems most likely to be referring to the Father, because “that . . . God may be glorified” sheds light on “to him belong glory and dominion.”)

Revelation 1:5–6 5 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (This one seems more likely to be referring to the Son, since he is the subject of discussion.)

The Father or the Triune God?

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (The preceding context seems to favor a reference to the Father, since God in verse 24 and verse 27 is clearly the Father.)

If we follow Calvin—or at least what I think Calvin might be saying—we should be inclined to understand God as a reference to the Truine God if there is no indication in the context that the Father is in view.

Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit.²

Perhaps this is not Calvin’s intent. I’m not quite sure. However, while it seems like a good rule of thumb, I’m more inclined, based on the general pattern above, to see the Father in view unless there is indication otherwise. Although, I admit that I need to study this a good bit more before I’m ready to draw any firm conclusions.

Footnotes

1. Cf. Jn 1:18; 5:44; 17:3; Jude 25 ↩
2. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, xiii, 20. ↩

A few days ago I discussed Titus 2:11 in Context in light of my personal Bible reading and my stumbling across this rather bothersome statement by Donald Bloesch:

The Calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness.¹ Titus 2:11 assures us that “the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.” The Pauline writer of 1 Timothy contends that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself “to win freedom for all mankind” (2:6 NEB).²

In case you skipped over the footnote, Bloesch said, “In this discussion we need to bear in mind that Calvin’s position and that of later Calvinism are not identical.”

I argued that Bloesch’s statement is grossly inaccurate since a contextual reading of Titus 2:11 readily demonstrates the plausibility and, in my view, the high probability of the Calvinist’s interpretation. What I’d like to do in this post is look at Calvin’s interpretation of this text. One might get the impression from Bloesch’s footnote that Calvin would be in agreement with Bloesch and in disagreement with later Calvinism on how to handle this text.³ Is this so? Here’s what Calvin had to say:

Bringing salvation to all men, That it is common to all is expressly testified by him on account of the slaves of whom he had spoken. Yet he does not mean individual men, but rather describes individual classes, or various ranks of life. And this is not a little emphatic, that the grace of God hath let itself down even to the race of slaves; for, since God does not despise men of the lowest and most degraded condition, it would be highly unreasonable that we should be negligent and slothful to embrace his goodness.⁴

It’s quite clear, then, that Calvin interprets this text the same way I do—as a reference to categories or classes of believing people to whom God’s grace extends.

Perhaps Calvin agrees with Bloesch on 1 Timothy 2:6, which Bloesch also includes in his list of texts that stand in palpable conflict with the Calvinist position as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy. Let’s take a look. Here’s what Calvin had to say:

When the Apostle calls him ἀντίλυτρον, “a ransom,” he overthrows all other satisfactions. Yet I am not ignorant of the injurious devices of the Papists, who pretend that the price of redemption, which Christ paid by his death, is applied to us in baptism, so that original sin is effaced, and that afterwards we are reconciled to God by satisfactions. In this way they limit to a small period of time, and to a single class, that benefit which was universal and perpetual. . . .

The phrase, for all, which the Apostle had used, might have given rise to the question, “Why then had God chosen a peculiar people, if he revealed himself as a reconciled Father to all without distinction, and if the one redemption through Christ was common to all?” He cuts off all ground for that question, by referring to the purpose of God the season for revealing his grace. For if we are not astonished that in winter, the trees are stripped of their foliage, the field are covered with snow, and the meadows are stiff with frost, and that, by the genial warmth of spring, what appeared for a time to be dead, begins to revive, because God appointed the seasons to follow in succession; why should we not allow the same authority to his providence in other matters? Shall we accuse God of instability, because he brings forward, at the proper time, what he had always determined, and settled in his own mind?

Accordingly, although it came upon the world suddenly and was altogether unexpected, that Christ was revealed as a Redeemer to Jews and Gentiles, without distinction; let us not think that it was sudden with respect to God but, on the contrary, let us learn to subject all our sense to his wonderful providence. The consequence will be, that there will be nothing that comes from him which shall not appear to us to be highly seasonable. On that account this admonition frequently occurs in the writings of Paul and especially when he treats of the calling of the Gentiles, by which, at that time, on account of its novelty, many persons were startled and almost confounded. They who are not satisfied with this solution, that God, by his hidden wisdom, arranged the succession of the seasons, will one day feel, that, at the time when they think that he was idle, he was framing a hell for inquisitive persons.⁵

Calvin doesn’t go into a lot of detail on the meaning of “all,” but there are enough hints to realize that Calvin sees Paul as referring to a universal work in terms of class and a perpetual work in terms of time, that is, by “all” Paul means all classes of people from all periods of time. He goes on to speak in terms of “all without distinction” (as opposed to “all without exception”) and “that Christ was revealed as a Redeemer to Jews and Gentiles, without distinction.” His interpretation of “all” in 2:6 becomes even clearer in light of his comments on 2:4, where he says,

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. “If God” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.” They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.

But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations.⁶

It seems clear, then, that it is inappropriate to speak of Calvinism as being in palpable conflict with these texts, where a plausible and contextually sensitive interpretation is readily available and, in my view, to be preferred on exegetical grounds, that is, without bringing systematic theology to bear (in which case the interpretation becomes even stronger). It also seems clear that, at least on these three texts, Calvin sides with Reformed orthodoxy and against Donald G. Bloesch.

More: See also my previous post: Titus 2:11 in Context.

Footnotes

1. In this discussion we need to bear in mind that Calvin’s position and that of later Calvinism are not identical. See Clifford, Atonement and Justification, pp. 69–110. ↩
2. Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 168. ↩
3. I grant that there may be some differences between Calvin’s theology and that of later Calvinists. I also grant that perhaps Bloesch wasn’t intending to suggest that Calvin took the more universal interpretation of all of these texts, but his statement at least seems to suggest that Calvin might be on his side. ↩
4. Calvin’s Commentaries, Tit 2:11. ↩
5. Ibid., 1 Ti 2:6. ↩
6. Ibid., 1 Ti 2:4. ↩

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people (Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις)” (Tit 2:11). This text is a favorite of Arminians and pseudo-Reformed men like Donald G. Bloesch, who asserts, “The Calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness.¹ Titus 2:11 assures us that ‘the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.’”²

I don’t think a contextually sensitive reading of this passage will support such a naïve statement. While the context may not decisively rule out the interpretation Bloesch takes, several factors point in the direction of the following interpretation and demonstrate the gross misrepresentation of Bloesch’s statement.

Preceding Context

First notice the presence of the word “for” (γὰρ) at the beginning of the verse. Why is it there? Clearly it is pointing us back to the immediately preceding context. This isn’t some systematic theological proof text thrown into the letter in isolation. It’s a supporting statement for the argument developed in the preceding paragraph and continuing at least to the end of the chapter. Let’s take a look at it.

In 2:1 Paul establishes a contrast (Σὺ δὲ)³ between the “insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party” (1:10), who are “upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach” (1:11), and Titus, who is to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (2:1). He is to teach

1. older men “to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness” (2:2);
2. older women “to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine,” but “to teach what is good, and so train the young women” (2:3–4);
3. younger women⁴ “to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands” (2:4–5);
4. younger men “to be self-controlled” (2:6);
5. slaves “to be submissive to their own masters in everything,” and “to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (2:9–10).
6. elders (Perhaps we could even include here a sixth category of instruction to leaders in the church to “teach what accords with sound doctrine ” (2:1), and to “show [themselves] in all respects to be a model of good works, and in [their] teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.”)

Notice now the connection with 2:11ff. Paul commands Titus to instruct all these different groups of people to live this way, for the saving grace of God has appeared to all of them, and it teaches them to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives, as they wait for Jesus to come from heaven, who died to make them His own pure and fruitful people. Then verse 15 recaps verse 1: “Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” So the whole chapter has a single message: instructing all groups of believing people on how they are to live and how they can live as they ought (i.e., God’s saving grace that has appeared to all groups of people of which the church is composed).

It’s also worth highlighting at this point that the function of “saving” or “salvation” in 2:11 seems to have more than conversion in view. Rather, it targets progressive sanctification, or perhaps it is being used to focus on God’s saving work from conversion to glorification. In either case, the emphasis on the progressive, life-transforming aspect of salvation is in the fore, which 2:12ff make clear, as does chapter 3.

Following Context

Another indication that this is the proper interpretation comes from a couple points at the beginning of chapter 3.

1. Paul recaps chapter 2 with a statement to remind them to be submissive and obedient, etc. The “them” no doubt refers to all the groups that he has previously mentioned, the people to whom the grace of God has appeared. Part of that instruction includes this statement: “to show perfect courtesy toward all people (πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους).” It is doubtful that Paul intends this instruction to lay an obligation on everyone in the church to search out and show courtesy to ever single individual alive on the planet. The idea is clearly not “all people without exception,” but “all people without distinction,” all those with whom you come in contact, which roughly equates all kinds or groups of people regardless of class, race, gender, etc. This supports the reading of “all people” (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις) offered above.
2. A second consideration comes in 3:4ff, where Paul further explicates the meaning of “appeared” (ἐπεφάνη), the exact word used in 2:11. Paul says that God saved them when the goodness and loving kindness of God appeared, so that the appearing is necessarily accompanied by or entails the saving. The implications that this has for understanding 2:11 are clear. The “all people” (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις) must necessarily refer to the saved, so that the meaning is “all groups or categories of people within the church.”

Conclusion

So rather than being some statement about God’s desire or intent to save all people without exception or an affirmation of an Arminian prevenient grace, Paul’s argument, then, is that all people within the church regardless of age, gender, status, etc. are to pursue their sanctification with diligence because God’s saving grace has come to all of us, and it teaches us to deny ungodliness and pursue to live godly lives as we wait for Jesus, who died to make us His own holy and fruit-bearing people.

Update: See my follow-up post: Titus 2:11 in Calvin.

Footnotes

1. In this discussion we need to bear in mind that Calvin’s position and that of later Calvinism are not identical. See Clifford, Atonement and Justification, pp. 69–110. ↩
2. Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 168. ↩
3. Both δὲ and Σὺ suggest a contrast—δὲ for obvious reasons and Σὺ as an emphatic pronoun. ↩
4. This is the one break in the parallelism where Titus himself is not to instruct the younger women directly, but is to instruct the older women on how they ought to instruct the younger women. Though not significant for the exegesis of v. 11, this is an important distinction that should not be overlooked. It is especially insightful w.r.t. a young elder’s role in relationship to young women in the church. ↩

In anticipation of part two of “When Was Abraham Justified?” and particularly the explication of what exactly Genesis 15:6 means if it does not designate the point at which Abraham was converted and justified, I’d like to bring up the related issue of the frequency of forensic justification before God. Most evangelicals today speak of justification as a one-time act that takes place at the moment when saving faith is first exercised. This declaration is unique, unalterable, and unrepeatable.¹

I was surprised a year or two ago to find out that Luther and Calvin didn’t see it quite that way, or at least didn’t always express it that way. Rather, they acknowledged the necessity of thinking of justification as an ongoing and continual experience and perhaps a repeated occurrence. This is to be carefully distinguished from a process whereby the justified individual becomes progressively more justified than he was before, increasing in his righteous status. Luther and Calvin both affirm that the believing sinner is just as forensically righteous when he first believes as he ever will be. The real issue is whether justification should be considered a one-time, unrepeatable act whereby God imputes Christ’s righteousness once and for all to the believer’s account or whether it should be connected to faith as often as it is exercised so that the believer may be said to be justified repeatedly.²

While we finds hints of the concept of a repeated or continual justification in Luther and Calvin, it is most clearly set forth in Brakel. The italics in the quoted text below is mine and is added for emphasis.

Here are two selections from Luther:

The adversaries do not want to admit this. Therefore they laugh when we say that faith justifies and yet sin remains. For they do not believe that incredible magnitude of God’s power and mercy beyond all mercy. He who is righteous is willing to concede this, but he who is not righteous wants to consider himself righteous. This imputation is not something of no consequence, but is greater than the whole world and all the holy angels. Reason does not see this, for there is a kind of neglect of the Word of God. But we should give thanks to God, I say, because we have such a Savior who is able to cover us and to count our sin as nothing. For God’s mercy is pardoning and love is meanwhile forgiving, and God really takes sin in such a way that it does not remain sin, because he begins materially to purge and to forgive completely. On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. For this is not a game or delusion, that we say, “Sins are forgiven by faith and only cling to us, because that newness of life has miraculously begun.” In short, the term “to be justified” means that a man is considered righteous.³

The imputation of God is greater than pure justification. For justification is the greatest, because it does not impute the sin which remains in human nature, as if it did not exist, but rather it shows that righteousness exists on account of Christ. Faith perceives that the love of God conceals sins. The mercy of God thus makes nothing out of all sin, just as he created all things out of nothing. We are urged by reason and knowledge of philosophy to attain to a knowledge of the gospel. Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured.⁴

Here are two selections from Calvin:

It is certain that David [in Psalm 32] is not speaking of the ungodly but of believers such as he himself was, because he was giving utterance to the feelings of his own mind. Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives.⁵ Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described.⁶

Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God . . . . It therefore follows, that even to the end of life, we are led towards the eternal kingdom of God by the righteousness of faith. On which point many are too grossly deceived. For they grant, indeed, that the righteousness which is freely bestowed upon sinners and offered to the unworthy is received by faith alone; but they restrict this to a moment of time, so that he who at the first obtained justification by faith, may afterwards be justified by good works. By this method, faith is nothing else than the beginning of righteousness, whereas righteousness itself consists in a continual course of works. But they who thus trifle must be altogether insane. For if the angelical uprightness of Abram faithfully cultivated through so many years, in one uniform course, did not prevent him from fleeing to faith, for the sake of obtaining righteousness; where upon earth besides will such perfection be found, as may stand in God’s sight? Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life. For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. I confess, indeed, that after the faithful are born again by the Spirit of God, the method of justifying differs, in some respect, from the former. For God reconciles to himself those who are born only of the flesh, and who are destitute of all good; and since he finds nothing in them except a dreadful mass of evils, he counts them just, by imputation. But those to whom he has imparted the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he embraces with his gifts. Nevertheless, in order that their good works may please God, it is necessary that these works themselves should be justified by gratuitous imputation; but some evil is always inherent in them. Meanwhile, however, this is a settled point, that men are justified before God by believing not by working; while they obtain grace by faith, because they are unable to deserve a reward by works. . . . The righteousness even of the most perfect characters perpetually consists in faith; since Abram, with all the excellency of his virtues, after his daily and even remarkable service of God, was, nevertheless, justified by faith.⁷

This concept is most explicit in Brakel:

God justifies man by faith, and thus justification is God’s judicial pronouncement toward man. This sentence is not only pronounced once upon the first act of faith, but is made as frequently and as often as man exercises faith in Christ unto justification. This is not an assurance that they are justified once and for all, but it constitutes an actual and daily act of forgiveness.⁸

The justification which occurs upon the first act of faith, and which occurs time and again after that, each time includes the forgiveness of sins—sins to be committed subsequently virtualiter, that is, as far as virtue and efficacy are concerned; thus declaring that they would also each time be forgiven actualiter, that is, actually. However, sins cannot be forgiven in actuality prior to being committed.⁹

Thus the basis for all their abominable and carnal propositions is a misconception and abuse of the doctrine of justification. They therefore answer the question presented above by stating that justification does not occur frequently and daily, but that it has occurred once and for all.

Having said this by way of preface, we shall now proceed to prove the following truth: Justification from eternity, at the time of Christ’s death, or upon the first act of faith, did not take place so as to exclude daily justification in reference to committed sins.¹⁰

See esp. Brakel’s extended discussion, “Justification: A Daily Occurrence,” 2:381–9, which I do not quote here because of its length.

If you are aware of others who spoke (or speak) this way about justification, please share in the comments.

Several observations can be made:

1. One could argue that Calvin and Luther have in mind merely the ongoing experience of being righteous before God, which is always connected to faith alone, rather than justification itself being repeated. But it must be admitted that Luther and Calvin are not so careful as modern-day evangelicals to speak of justification only in terms of conversion. In fact, I think it would not be an entirely accurate reflection of the Reformers’ conception of justification to speak of it as we customarily do.
2. What may be implicit in Calvin and Luther is unmistakably explicit in Brakel, who makes it clear that it is not the mere experience of justification that is repeated, but the very act itself.
3. In all three the focus on forgiveness of sins is predominant (i.e., rather than focusing on the corresponding imputation of Christ’s righteousness). The logic is something like this: since forgiveness of sins is an ongoing reality and since justification includes the forgiveness of sins, it is necessary, then, to see justification at least in this sense as being a daily act.

Perhaps this raises more questions than it answers. Good. That was largely my intent. I will try to tie up the loose ends in my part two of “When Was Abraham Justified?”

Footnotes

1. Surely justification by works, about which James speaks, and future justification should also be brought into the discussion at this point, but I must resist heading in that direction—at least for now. ↩
2. At the heart of this question are the meanings of and relationship between justification and imputation, which take shape in these two main issues: (1) whether justification is a declaration of righteousness to be distinguished from imputation or whether imputation is a subset of justification (or perhaps whether they are identical), and (2) whether imputation is best viewed as an accounting term of crediting (which would suggest one-time and unrepeatable) or whether it carries the idea of reckoning or considering (which would lend itself to repeated occurrences. ↩
3. LW, 34:167. ↩
4. LW, 34:191. ↩
5. Editor’s Note: In these days of “crisis evangelism,” and of crisis “decisions for Christ” upon which professing Christians so often rest their lifelong confidence concerning their possession and assurance of eternal life, this point is in great need of being stressed. Calvin most assuredly speaks frequently of conversion and of initial entrance into Christ’s kingdom as a definite act, but he does not (as so many in our day appear to do) stop there! Rather, he stresses that, just as the regenerate man is initially reconciled to God by faith, so he continues throughout his entire lifetime to have imputed to him the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ by faith. This emphasis, then, upon the Christian life as a life of faith (rather than merely one initial step of faith), a life of reconciliation and forgiveness (rather than merely one initial experience of reconciliation), a life of justification (rather than merely one initial act of justification) is very important for a proper understanding of many of Calvin’s terms, concepts, and constructions. ↩
6. ICR, trans. and ed. Beveridge, III, xiv, 11. ↩
7. “Genesis 15:6,” Genesis, Calvin’s Commentaries. ↩
8. The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:358. ↩
9. Ibid., 2:378. ↩
10. Ibid., 2:380. ↩

When was Abraham justified? This might seem like a rather elementary question with an obvious answer: Abraham was justified when he believed the Lord and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness, which is recorded in Genesis 15:6. Certainly Paul’s use of this text in defense of justification by faith apart from works in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 confirms that Genesis 15:6 was the precise point of Abraham’s justification, doesn’t it? This is probably what most people assume. This is what I thought—prior to giving it some careful consideration.

I’m now convinced that Abraham was already justified prior to the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 15. In this post I’d like to give some arguments in favor of this position, and in the next post I will answer objections and respond to potential problems.

As I see it, the main issue hinges on one central point:

Abraham had genuine faith in God prior to Genesis 15.

Here are some arguments that demonstrate this point:

1. The Form of the Hebrew Verb: The Hebrew construction strongly suggests that this was not the first time Abraham believed; rather, faith was Abraham’s characteristic response to God. The verb אמן (“to believe”) is a waw perfect (וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן) rather than a waw consecutive imperfect (ואמן). The waw consecutive imperfect is the normal form for past action. The independent perfect carries basically the same force. Moses had two options available to him to convey the simple past, “he believed.” He chose neither. This is what we would expect if Genesis 15:6 recorded Abraham’s first act of genuine faith. The independent imperfect and the waw perfect are often semantically equivalent and are used to convey modality, frequentativity, or futurity. The frequentative is the most likely meaning in this context. The idea would be something like, “And he kept on believing the Lord.” The grammatical evidence, then, suggests that this was not Abraham’s first act of faith, and consequently not the point of his justification. (See this document (Word | PDF) for supporting sources, esp. Carson, et al., NBC; Ross, BKC; Vickers, JBR; and Wenham, WBC.)
2. Evidence from Abraham’s Life: While it is true that the first mention of the word for faith (the verb אמן) in the Bible is not until Genesis 15:6, the act of faith is clearly present prior to that. From the very beginning of the account of Abraham’s life, the Scripture records his devotion to the Lord and his response of faith to all that the Lord promised him and asked him to do. The continual pattern of Abraham’s life for the first ten years of its recorded history was radical obedience rooted in a deep trust in God.
3. New Testament Confirmation: Removing all doubt, Hebrews 11:8 makes clear that Abraham’s faith in Genesis 12 was genuine faith: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.” The author of Hebrews, in setting forth examples of faith to be followed, intentionally begins the story of Abraham with Genesis 12, when he “by faith” obeyed the Lord, believing His promises to him to be reliable. Had Abraham still been an idolater (cf. Joshua 24:2) and his faith something less than genuine, surely the author of Hebrews would have cited Genesis 15 or some point later in the narrative as the start of Abraham’s exemplary faith.
4. Conclusion: If we conclude, then, that what Abraham had prior to Genesis 15 was genuine faith in God and His promises—which is where all the evidence points, it seems we must also conclude that Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15. To resist this conclusion is to reject Scripture’s teaching that God justifies at the moment genuine faith exists. (One may argue in response that such an interpretation is anachronistic and is guilty of reading NT theology back into the OT. I grant that the OT does not explicitly connect justification to the first act of faith. But I think the burden of proof lies on the one who would suggest that justification does not take place when genuine faith first exists. Furthermore, such a position would seem to make the precise time of justification rather arbitrary.)

Here are a couple of additional considerations:

1. The Gospel in Genesis 12: Paul quotes (with slight modification) Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8 and says that Abraham had the good news preached to him, which—I have sought to demonstrate—he believed. This calls into question the notion that Abraham had substantially different revelatory content—which would have been insufficient for Abraham to have been saved—prior to Genesis 15.
2. Post-Conversion Reckoning as Righteousness: The language of God’s reckoning as righteousness is perhaps used as non-conversion language. Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:22, where he says, “Wherefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness (διὸ [καὶ] ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην),” is connected to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 18, which is post-conversion for both the Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 views. Some argue on this basis that God reckoned Abraham’s subsequent faith as righteousness as well. This would mean that God’s reckoning righteousness need not be connected merely to conversion, but to faith as often as it is exercised throughout the Christian life. This is essentially the point Calvin makes (see this document [Word | PDF]). We are always considered or reckoned righteous through faith—from start to finish.

Sources Supporting the Genesis 12 View

As confirmation to the above conclusion, it is nice to know that virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers. (See this document [Word | PDF].)

Here are a few selections:

Luther:

Therefore if you should ask whether Abraham was righteous before this time, my answer is: He was righteous because he believed God. But here the Holy Spirit wanted to attest this expressly, since the promise deals with a spiritual Seed. He did so in order that you might conclude on the basis of a correct inference that those who accept this Seed, or those who believe in Christ, are righteous. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Calvin:

Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. . . . But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Brakel:

Since justification is the fruit of faith when first exercised, justification is also the fruit when faith is exercised by renewal. This we observe for example in Abraham. Abraham was already a believer and had long before been justified prior to the promise in Genesis 15 being given to him, namely, “So shall thy seed be” (vs. 5). It is nevertheless stated in verse 6, “And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” . . . Abraham was already justified prior to this; nevertheless, when subsequently he believed again, he was again justified. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Spurgeon:

I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay. The moment a man truly trusts his God he is justified. Yet many are justified who do not know their happy condition; to whom as yet the blessing of justification has not been opened up in its excellency and abundance of privilege. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Robertson:

The fact that this declaration concerning the faith and resulting righteousness of Abraham comes at this particular juncture does not imply that now for the first time he believes and his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. To the contrary, he continues in a state of faith and its resulting righteousness. But the placing of this declaration of righteousness at this juncture of the patriarch’s life underscores the fact that nothing has been added to faith as the way to righteousness. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Vickers:

When Paul chooses to include Abraham in Romans, he is not simply using a handy example that just happens to support his argument, nor does he merely use Genesis 15:6 as a proof text. While Genesis 15:6 is not, as we will see, the first time Abraham believed, and subsequently not the time of his, so to speak, conversion, it is a pivotal moment in the biblical narrative. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Sources Supporting the Genesis 15 View

The view that holds that Abraham was not saved until Genesis 15 finds virtually no support at all throughout church history (at least not that I have been able to find in hours of research in scores of commentaries and hundreds of journals) and puts one in the company of Origen and Walter Eichrodt. (See this document [Word | PDF].) I welcome other supporting sources.

Here are two selections:

Origen:

Was Abraham justified just because he had the faith to believe that he would be given a son? Or was it also because of all the other things which he had believed previously? . . . Before this point, Abraham had believed in part but not perfectly. Now, however, all the parts of his earlier faith are gathered together to make a perfect whole, by which he is justified. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

Eichrodt:

To see in this impressive picture of the decision of faith, as it lays hold of the promise of God, and thus becomes assured of a new way into an unknown land, only adherence to and perseverance in an essential relationship of trust already existing is manifestly to underrate its importance. . . . Here a new understanding of God’s activity and of his own position is opened up to him. To speak in this context of nothing more than the reinforcement of an earlier faith of Abraham is clearly to mistake the significance of this element in the thematic structure of the historian’s work. Abraham makes his decision for affirming the new condition offered him in the promise, and for basing his whole future life on this foundation. (See this document [Word | PDF] for citation information and fuller context).

In the next post, I’ll try to deal with objections to this view and potential problems or questions that it may raise.