The Church: Chosen To Reign (Ephesians 1:4–5)

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Columbia, SC]

I. Introduction

Paul uses two verbs in Eph 1:4–5 which deal directly with the issue of election. In the NKJV, the verbs are “to choose” and “to predestine.” The Apostle writes:

…just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will… (emphasis added)

R. C. Sproul cites these verses, along with eleven others, and concludes that if an exegete is going to be Biblical, the issue is not whether the Bible teaches predestination or not, but what kind of predestination is Biblical.[1] Sproul makes it clear that he strongly believes that God has predestined or chosen certain individuals for eternal life. This choice was made by God before these people were born. Their eternal destinies were settled even before the world was created. Sproul goes on to say that to believe otherwise is to make eternal salvation dependent upon work and makes the person holding that view an Arminian.[2] This, in turn, would deny that eternal salvation is completely by the grace of God.

This article will agree with Sproul that Eph 1:4–5 does teach predestination. However, it will disagree that this predestination involves God’s selecting specific individuals for eternal life. Instead, it involves the corporate Church and the service God has called the Church to do.

It would be helpful to look at how different scholars view the doctrine of election. It will become clear that one could disagree with Sproul’s definition and still hold to salvation by grace through faith alone.[3]

II. Different Views Of Election

Some agree with Sproul that in Eph 1:4–5 Paul is teaching that God has chosen some people for eternal life before they were born. Among those who do agree, there are differences of opinion as to when this choosing took place and whether this choosing by God removes all free will. Others believe that the predestination of Ephesians 1 does not involve the choosing of individuals but the Church.

A. Individual Election Without Free Will

There are many who would agree with Sproul that God has chosen who will spend eternity with Him. This all happened before they were born. God’s will cannot be thwarted; thus, this view involves the removal of any free will on the part of men and women. Since God chose certain people to be eternally saved, they have no choice but to believe. Those not chosen will not believe. Man does not have free will in this matter.

All who hold this view would appeal to Eph 1:4–5. They could be divided into two groups. Some within both groups hold that God also chose who would spend eternity in the lake of fire (double predestination). Others believe that God only chose who would have eternal life and that those He did not chose were not involved in any choosing. They were eternally damned to begin with and simply remain in that state. God left them as they were.

1. Supralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism maintains that God decreed mankind would fall into sin in the Garden of Eden. The election of certain people for eternal salvation logically preceded this decree.[4] It only logically preceded God’s decree that Adam and Eve would sin because God has always known everything and therefore has always decreed everything. Mankind had no free will when they sinned in the Garden, and the elect have no free will when they believe the gospel today.

Reymond argues for a supralapsarian view. He states that God placed at the “forefront” of His plans the salvation by Christ of certain men and women. He did it even before He decreed they would sin. The salvation of these people was done in such a way that God arranged all the means to achieve that salvation. This would include even the fall of man into sin.[5]

Reymond refers to Eph 1:4–5, along with Eph 1:9, 11, to support this view. These verses, he suggests, show that the eternal salvation of specific individuals “proceeds from the pure sovereignty and absolute determination of His [God’s] counsel.” Such election is both “unconditional” and “unconditioned” and dependent solely upon the grace of God. Ephesians 1:4–5 teaches us that “from all eternity” God has chosen a course of action that would result in the eternal salvation of His children.[6]

Reymond believes so strongly in the impossibility of any free will on man’s part in his salvation that he says no Christian can “legitimately doubt” a supralapsarian view of Eph 1:4–5. He points out that other scholars of weight agree with this assessment.[7]

2. Infralapsarianism

Infralapsarianism agrees with advocates of supralapsarianism in that God chose certain people to obtain eternal life and that mankind has no free will in this matter. However, they disagree as to when this decree to save certain people logically occurred. The election of the saved followed the decree of the fall of man in the Garden.[8]

Ware holds to an infralapsarian view and says that all of Paul’s long introduction in Eph 1:3–14 supports it. If man had free will, there would be an element of uncertainty about the eternal salvation of the elect of God. However, in Eph 1:3, Paul begins the introduction with praising God for what He has done for His children in blessing them in every way (vv 6, 12 also mention praise to God). Any uncertainty would undermine the praise that God receives. The whole tenor of Eph 1:3–14 clearly states that all Paul is speaking of is the result of God’s counsel and election. God’s choice of the individuals He saves is His choice, “pure and simple.”[9] God completely controls who is saved and who is not.[10]

Ephesians 1:11 mentions the “inheritance” that those chosen by God receive. This inheritance is the eternal salvation of individuals, the elect sinners.[11] The goal of this election is that the individuals chosen by God would be “holy and blameless.” This refers to what Christ has done through His saving work on the cross for those predestined by God. They were chosen to be conformed to the likeness of Christ in perfect holiness.[12] Both Reymond and Ware maintain this refers to what the elect will be forever in the presence of God.

3. Other Reformed Views

Others who hold that Paul is speaking of election to eternal life of individuals as well as the fact that mankind does not have free will in that salvation do so without specifically taking on a supralapsarian or infralapsarian understanding. Hodge says that Eph 1:4–5 speaks of predestination of individuals for eternal salvation. This is the heavenly “inheritance” of every believer (v 11).[13]

Hodge notes that in Eph 1:12–13, Paul speaks in a corporate sense. “We who first trusted in Christ” (v 12) refers to all Jewish believers. “In Him you also trusted” refers to Gentile believers (v 13). Even though this is the case, Hodge says that Paul is not talking about the election of the Church made up of such Jewish and Gentile believers. There is no corporate election.[14]

Also of interest is Hodge’s view that the holiness mentioned in v 4 does not deal only with the holiness one has as a result of being “in Christ.” That is the emphasis, but the believer is also to walk in holiness. Daily living in holiness is also the evidence of being chosen by God to eternal salvation.[15]

Calvin agrees that God’s predestination in Ephesians 1 concerns His choosing of individuals for eternal life and that to hold any other view is an exercise in changing the gospel. Even though it sounds unfair and paints a picture of God we do not like, we must accept it. In addition, election in this sense takes all glory away from man and gives it to God.[16]

However, like Hodge, Calvin asserts that the holiness in v 4 contains an element of how a Christian lives in this life and not simply the positional holiness the believer has by being in Christ. When Paul says that believers are to be holy and blameless before Christ “in love,” the love does not refer to the love of God that chose certain believers for the kingdom, but the love that is to be manifested between believers. Like Hodge, Calvin says that Christian love is a display of the believer’s election. God’s election to eternal life does not make us holy in daily living, but election and holy living go hand in hand.[17]

Hoehner also takes a Reformed view of election in Eph 1:4–5 but softens possible objections by saying that God’s election of certain individuals is not cruel because He was not obligated to choose anybody. It was gracious that He chose any at all. In addition, Paul does not say that God chose some for an eternal hell.[18]

Those chosen receive eternal life. This is an individual and not a corporate election. Hoehner says that the plural “us” in vv 4–5 simply refers to Paul and every single believer at Ephesus. This is true for every believer because he is in Christ/Him (vv 3–4).[19] God chose the believer before the world was created by Him. One’s eternal destiny is determined before he is born. God chose the believer (v 4) because He predestined (v 5) his destiny. The believer has been predestined for “adoption” (v 5), which means the believer is now a son of God. He is no longer under his old father Satan but in the family of God.[20]

While the holiness of v 4 refers to what the believer will be in the kingdom of God, Hoehner says it also refers to current Christian living. He agrees with Hodge and Calvin that “in love” refers to the love between humans and not God’s love for the elect.[21]

Pink also sees the election and predestination of Eph 1:4–5 in individual terms. To be holy and blameless “before Him” in v 4 refers to our status before God in Christ.[22] This perfect holiness refers to the world to come but it also refers to the believer’s imperfect holiness in this world. Here Pink agrees with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. He states that God does not choose a person for eternal life in eternity past without making him holy in this life as well, even if this present holiness is “imperfect.” If this type of temporary holiness is not present, the professed Christian will not be a part of the kingdom of God since he has a false faith.[23]

Hendriksen takes a view very similar to Pink’s. The election of Eph 1:4 deals with individual believers, even though Paul applies it to the believers at Ephesus. God predestines the individual believer to be His child, and He does it “in love.” However, the inheritance (v 11) of the believer is not simply being a part of the kingdom of God and that “future glory.” It also includes the present blessings involved with being in Christ.[24]

Being holy and without blame, for Hendriksen, also has a future and present component. God begins it in this life but it finds its ultimate reality in the world to come. Even in the present age it is always true, as far as the Christian is concerned, in God’s sight.[25]

Simpson takes up this theme of holy living. Not only are individual believers elected to eternal life and stamped with the image of Christ as adopted sons of God, they are elected to holiness. Eternal life as well as holy living, or sanctification, is guaranteed for all God has chosen. Simpson argues that “in love” in v 4 modifies “holy and without blame.” He seems to indicate that God’s predestination of believers also guarantees that they will love one another.[26]

It should be noted, however, that Simpson acknowledges a corporate aspect in the passage. The “we” and “you” in vv 12–13 refer to Jewish and Gentile believers respectively who make up the church at Ephesus.[27]

B. Individual Election With Free Will

Both Chafer and Ironside are Dispensationalists who believe that Eph 1:4–5 speak of God’s choosing individual people for eternal life. However, they differ from the previously discussed group, for they say that men and women still have the freedom to believe or not to believe.

Chafer says that everyone who believes has all the spiritual blessings of Eph 1:3–14. The believer will appear faultless before God. Being holy and blameless can either refer to the day the believer will see the Lord (1 John 3:3) or what the believer currently is in Christ. God has accomplished this “in love” when He predestined the believer for this glory. The human mind cannot comprehend or reconcile how God can do this and how man can have free will at the same time.[28]

However, Chafer also sees a present-day emphasis in this passage. The “adoption as sons” in v 5 involves a process. The believer is called to spiritual maturity in this life, as he no longer lives under the Law of Moses. Such a believer can walk in holiness and serve God.[29]

Since Ironside also believes in the freedom of the will, he agrees with Chafer that we cannot understand election. God is not pictured as being cruel to the unbeliever in this passage because there is no mention of His choosing people for damnation. Ironside reasons that this passage points to the future. God chooses people for eternal life; they are made holy and blameless in the eyes of God because of the cross of Christ; God adopts the believer to be His sons by giving the believer His life; and He predestines them for their eternal future “in love.”[30]

C. Corporate Election

Thielman takes what can be called a middle of the road position on election in Eph 1:4–5. The emphasis of this election is not God’s choosing individuals. Instead, it finds its parallel in the OT with His choosing the Jewish nation as His people. Even though individuals are involved, the election in Ephesians deals with the people of God.[31] Believers in Christ become the people of God.

In addition, Thielman believes that the idea of being holy and blameless has a corporate emphasis. God called the nation of Israel to be holy and blameless and an example to other nations of how to live and to show by their actions that they were God’s people. Ephesians 1:4 refers to how the Church should live. To do it “in love” also has a corporate emphasis as the ethical injunctions later in Ephesians indicate (Eph 4:1–6:20).[32] Believers are to love one another.

However, Thielman does not think the election is completely corporate. God chooses the Church, but He chooses individuals to be a part of that Church. This is individual election to eternal life. God chose them before they were born, and they have no freedom of will. Their inheritance (Eph 1:11) is their individual bodily resurrection. He chose them, however, so that His people (the Church) would be separate from the other people in the world.[33]

Best takes an even harder stand on the corporate nature of God’s election. He specifically says that God elected the Church. This election focuses on God’s purpose. There is an emphasis throughout Ephesians on the unity of Christians as members of the Church. In Ephesians the elect group consists of a Body that includes both Jews and Gentiles, not the elected nation of Jews in the OT.[34] Holy and blameless is not what believers are as a result of who they are in Christ or the imputed righteousness of Christ; instead, the phrase refers to Christian living. There is a need in the Church for “moral effort.”[35]

Lincoln takes a view similar to that of Best. He says that God’s election involves His choosing a people as He did with Israel (Deut 7:6–8; 14:2). In the case of Israel, it was an election that was for the blessing of the nations, as God told Abraham (Gen 12:1ff). Lincoln calls it a call to service.[36]

In the case of the Church, election emphasizes the gratitude the people of God should have towards God, not the destiny of individuals. The goal of election also involves a call to service as the Church is called to live in a holy and blameless way. Holiness involves living “in love” in service to others.[37]

Even though Lincoln does see individual election, it is not the emphasis. First of all, the eternal destiny of the individual believer is intimately related to the destiny of the Church. The Church has a purpose, which is to further God’s own glory (Eph 1:6). God’s glory is the goal of the Church’s existence and predestination. In addition, the individual salvation of the believer has not yet been fulfilled. It has only been initiated.[38] This indicates that Lincoln does not believe the election of individual believers in eternity past guaranteed the eternal salvation of every individual God chose. He does not say it, but it seems implied that the purpose of the Church will be fulfilled.

Pinnock sees election in Eph 1:4–5 as corporate and vocational. He strongly rejects the idea that God has chosen certain individuals for eternal life in eternity past and specifically states that God wills the salvation of all nations.[39] The elect at the present time is the Church, but election is functional as it focuses on what the Church does for humanity.

God has chosen a corporate group of people with the goal to save all of mankind. Others will be added to the elect body, but we don’t know who will be added to this “eschatological fellowship.”[40]

With others, Pinnock sees a parallel with the Jews of the OT. Their election was communal. It is only the corporate that is unconditional. There is an elect body. However, the individual enjoyment of the privileges of being in that body is conditional. That is the way it was with the Jews.[41]

When Pinnock applies this to the Church, he includes eternal salvation in the privileges the elect Church enjoys. Christ will present His elect people to Himself. This is guaranteed. But in order for individuals within the church to be presented to Christ, they must continue in faith and obedience (Col 1:23).[42] In a type of summary statement, Pinnock says that the election in Eph 1:4–5 is both ecclesiological and missiological as the church implores others to become a part of the elect Church.[43]

D. Summary

While many look at Eph 1:4–5 as a proof text for the election, in eternity past, of individuals for eternal life, there are many others who question whether this is Paul’s point. Those who question individual predestination ask if God has elected a group of people instead. If that is the case, the election may not be election to eternal life.

To understand what Eph 1:4–5 teaches on the topic of election, the exegete must take into consideration the context, as well as the meaning of the terms “in love” and “holy and without blame.” In addition, it would be helpful to consider how Paul in his other writings uses certain words found in Eph 1:4–5.

III. Paul’s Meaning Of Election In Ephesians 1

As discussed above, even some scholars who believe the election cited in Ephesians 1 involves the choosing of specific individuals to eternal life recognize that the corporate Church is a major theme of the book.

A. Election As Corporate

As noted, Paul uses plural nouns throughout Ephesians 1. He refers to the election of “us” and the election of Jews and Gentiles. The Body of Christ is a major theme. He continues this idea in chap. 2. He says that the Gentiles (“you,” plural) were dead in sins (2:1) prior to coming to faith in Christ. The Jews (“we”) were in the same situation (2:3).

In Eph 2:11–14, Paul specifically states that God has made both groups, Jews and Gentiles, into one. God has created a “new man,” which is the Church. The Church is a household and a building. God dwells within that building (2:19–22).

In Ephesians 3, Paul says that the church was a mystery (3:4); it was not revealed in the OT. In this context, he says that Gentiles are fellow “heirs” with Jewish believers, which reminds the reader of the inheritance of 1:11. All of this was in accordance with God’s eternal purposes in Christ. This seems to be a clear reference to the purpose of God in eternity past as discussed in Eph 1:3ff.

In Ephesians 4–6, Paul exhorts the believers at Ephesus to use their spiritual gifts to build up the Body of Christ (4:12). These chapters are then filled with how believers are to treat one another as members of that Body.

In Ephesians, Paul never speaks of the individual believer as chosen or predestinated by God. God’s election is spoken of in plural terms, and the purpose of God is fulfilled in the Church. The purpose of God is fulfilled when Jewish and Gentile believers love one another and build each other up.

At face value, shouldn’t the reader conclude that God has chosen the Church to accomplish His purposes? It would seem that the burden of proof would rest on those who claim Paul is speaking of individual election to eternal life.

B. Holy And Without Blame In Love

While many take the words “holy and without blame” in Eph 1:4 to refer to the believer’s position in Christ, there are good reasons to see them as referring to the Christian’s manner of life. Outside of Ephesians, Paul only uses the word for “without blame” (amōmos) two other times—Phil 2:15 and Col 1:22. In both of these cases Paul is discussing Christian living and a conditional way of life. This is a common way of understanding the word.[44]

The same can be said about the word “holy” (hagios). While often in the NT the word is used to refer to believers as “saints” or is used to describe the “Holy” Spirit, it often carries the idea of a person who is reverent or a loyal follower of Christ.[45] Paul uses it in Eph 3:5 to describe the “holy” apostles and prophets. He uses it in 1 Cor 7:34 and Col 1:22 to describe Christian living.

A key point in this discussion is what the phrase “in love” modifies. Hoehner points out that there are three options. It can modify the verb “chose” in v 4. It can modify “predestinated” in v 5. Or it can modify the phrase “holy and without blame.” Even though Hoehner takes the position that the election in Ephesians 1 deals with election of individuals to eternal life, he says that “in love” modifies “holy and without blame.” It is too far removed from the verb “chose.” As a prepositional phrase, “in love” is used in Ephesians five times. Four of those times it follows the clause it modifies (Eph 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2). Here that clause would be “holy and without blame” and not “predestinated.” The same is true in other places in Paul’s writings (Col 2:2; 1 Thess 5:13; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 1:13). In Ephesians it is a love that is displayed between humans.[46]

In the ethical section of Ephesians, Paul tells the church at Ephesus to love one another, including the idea that they should walk in love and speak the truth to one another in love (4:2, 15, 16; 5:2). In addition, Paul closes the letter with an exhortation that the church at Ephesus should be at peace with and have love towards one another (6:23). The verb “love” is used in 5:25, 28, 33 to describe how believing married couples should treat one another.[47]

The point here is that in Eph 1:4, “holy and without blame” does not refer to what the individual believer is as a result of his faith in Christ. Instead, it refers to how believers should live. Particularly, it refers to how believers within the church should live in their relationship with each other.

C. Adoption As Sons (1:5) And Inheritance (1:11)

Paul also says that God chose the church for “adoption as sons.” In Greek it is only one word (huiothesian). While many believe this is a description of all believers, Paul’s use here, as well as in other places, suggests otherwise. In Rom 8:15 the word refers to those believers who walk by the Spirit. It refers to an adult, or mature, son.[48] The word is used that way by Paul in Gal 4:5 as well.

Hoehner and Lazar both see this word as referring to more than simply being a believer and child of God. Both point out that the term is associated with the Roman practice of adoption. In that system it involved inheriting the estate of the adoptive father. It was the means by which the authority of the father was passed to his adult son.[49]

This fits nicely with the idea of the inheritance mentioned in v 11. The Church has an inheritance from her Father. In Eph 1:18 Paul mentions this inheritance again.[50] In that context Paul says that Christ will be above every power in the age to come. He will rule over all things (vv 21–22). The church is His body and will share in that authority and inheritance with Him.

D. “Before Him” And Colossians 1:22–23

Paul says the purpose of the election of the church is that it would be holy and blameless “before Him” (v 4, katenōpion autou). Again, while many take this to mean that believers will appear sinless before Christ on the day of judgment, there is a better alternative based upon the above discussion.

All believers will appear before Christ at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The goal of the election of the Church is that it would appear before God as those who walked in a holy and blameless way by loving one another. Those who have done so will be rewarded on that day. They will receive the inheritance of ruling with Christ in His kingdom.

This is supported by a parallel passage. Colossians 1:22 is the only other place the phrase “before Him” appears. It also has the exact same words “holy and without blame.” Many have noted the parallels between Eph 1:4 and Col 1:22.[51] It should be noted, in addition, that both Ephesians and Colossians were written by Paul during the same imprisonment. It would not be surprising if similar ideas were present in both letters.

In Col 1:22–23, Paul tells the Colossian believers that they will be presented before Christ holy and without blame only if they continue steadfast in the faith. In Col 1:28, Paul says that his goal is to present them to Christ as mature believers. In this light, the Colossian believers have a “hope of glory.”

Since Paul is talking to believers, he cannot be threatening them with the loss of eternal salvation, which is impossible. Instead, Paul is speaking of the day when they will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10). On that day, faithful believers will be greatly rewarded and share in the “glory” of reigning with Christ (Col 1:27; Rom 8:17; 2 Tim 2:12). Paul wants the believers at Colossae to stand before Christ on that day with those results.

Clearly, this is conditional for the believers at Colossae and for individual Christians. Paul says he teaches them so that this will happen. They must continue in the faith and not be influenced by the false teachers at Colossae (Col 1:23, 28).[52]

This fits nicely with Ephesians 1. The Church has a glorious inheritance. It will rule with Christ in the world to come. God chose the Church to walk in holiness while loving one another. All believers who do so and remain faithful to the Lord will reign with Him. They will be the ones declared mature sons when they stand before the Lord. While Christ and the Church corporate will rule, not every believer will.

IV. Conclusion

In Eph 1:4–5, Paul says that God predestinated the Church in eternity past. He did so in order that it would walk in good works (Eph 2:10). As the Body of Christ, the Church has a glorious future, an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of God. It will rule that kingdom with the Lord (Eph 1:11, 18–23).

When God chose the nation of Israel in the OT for a purpose, not every individual in the nation achieved that purpose. They were called to be a light to other nations. They were called to serve. They had a job to do. The same is true in the Church.[53]

Only those believers who are faithful to the Lord (Col 1:23) do the works God requires of them. They live holy and blameless lives and will be found that way at the Judgment Seat of Christ. While all believers will be in the kingdom, only those who are found this way on that day will be the mature sons who receive the inheritance of their Father.

Believers are not chosen individually for eternal life. Unbelievers have the freedom to believe the gospel. Believers are only chosen “in Christ” and are part of the Church.[54] As members of the Church we are called to serve those in the Church in love.

Notes

1. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 11.
2. Ibid., 13.
3. Of course, Sproul and those who accept his definition of divine election would contend that this very sentence argues against salvation by grace alone. They maintain that faith is itself a work and involves man’s participation in his eternal salvation. However, it is not necessary to see faith as a work. Faith occurs when a person simply believes in the promise of eternal life as a free gift from Christ. Believing the promise of a free gift is not a work and does not mean the believing person is working to obtain that gift. It seems that it is only in the area of theological discussion that it would be suggested that believing the offer of a free gift is a work.
4. Frank Cross and Elizabeth Livingston, eds., “Supralapsarianism,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1563.
5. Robert L. Reymond, “A Consistent Supralapsarian Perspective on Election,” in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brad (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 150.
6. Ibid., 160–61.
7. Ibid., 161. Reymond quotes approvingly from John Murray, “The Plan of Salvation,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:127.
8. Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary, 1563.
9. Bruce A. Ware, “Divine Election to Salvation: Unconditional, Individual, and Infralapsarian” in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 13.
10. Ibid., 23.
11. Ibid., 14.
12. Ibid., 51, 58.
13. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950), 55.
14. Ibid., 30.
15. Ibid., 34–35.
16. John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth, 1973), 25–26.
17. Ibid., 33–37.
18. Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 176.
19. Ibid., 177.
20. Ibid., 178, 192–96.
21. Ibid., 179–84.
22. A. W. Pink, The Doctrines of Election and Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975), 77.
23. Ibid., 78.
24. William Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 75, 78–79, 87.
25. Ibid., 78.
26. E. K. Simpson, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 25–27.
27. Ibid., 34.
28. Lewis Sperry Chafer, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1991), 31–36.
29. Ibid., 37.
30. H. A. Ironside, Ephesians (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 2000), 24–26.
31. Frank Thielman, Ephesians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 48.
32. Ibid., 49–51.
33. Ibid., 45.
34. Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 119–20.
35. Ibid., 123. It is interesting, however, that Best does not think “in love” in Eph 1:4 goes with “holy and without blame.” Instead, He says that God chose, or elected, the Church in love.
36. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 23.
37. Ibid., 24.
38. Ibid., 25, 36.
39. Clark H. Pinnock, “Divine Election as Corporate, Open, and Vocational,” in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 279–81.
40. Ibid., 282.
41. Ibid., 287.
42. Ibid. 291. Pinnock seems to be saying that eternal life can be lost by the individual.
43. Ibid., 315.
44. BDAG, 56.
45. Ibid., 11.
46. Hoehner, Ephesians, 182–84.
47. Lincoln, Ephesians, 17.
48. Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 222. There is a difference in Rom 8:14–16 between being a child of God and a son of God. In Galatians there is a difference between being a child and being a mature son as well.
49. Shawn Lazar, Chosen to Serve: Why Divine Election Is to Service, Not to Eternal Life (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 209; Hoehner, Ephesians, 186. Hoehner, however, does not see this as related to the issues of rewards, as this article argues.
50. In v 11 Paul uses the verb and in v 18 the noun.
51. See, for example Pinnock, “Divine Election,” 291; Lincoln, Ephesians, 24; Norman L. Geisler, “Colossians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 674; and J. B. Bond, “Ephesians,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, vol 2 (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 863.
52. Many commentators recognize that this is conditional even though they mistakenly apply it to eternal salvation and not rewards. See, J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 163; Herbert M. Carson, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 48; David W. Pao, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 109; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 68–72.
53. Lazar, Chosen to Serve, 207; See also, C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation, 3rd ed. (Lynchburg, VA: Global Gospel Publishers, 2002), 336.
54. Lazar, Chosen to Serve, 205.

Repentance And Faith In Acts 20:21

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Columbia, SC]

I. Introduction

On his third missionary journey, Paul spent over two years in the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:8–10). He then went to Macedonia and Greece, before passing back through Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem, as that third journey came to an end.

On his way to Jerusalem, Paul spoke to the elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:18–35), reminding them of a major part of his ministry when he was with them. He said that his ministry involved, “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).

This verse is significant because it combines the words repentance and faith. What is the relationship between the two? First, this article will look at how some scholars understand the relationship, based on this verse. Second, it will evaluate the grammatical issues involved. Third, it will look at the context of the passage. And finally, it will offer a Biblical interpretation of the role of repentance and faith in Paul’s ministry in Ephesus.

II. Different Scholarly Views

When NT scholars look at Paul’s statement concerning repentance and faith in Acts 20:21, they take different views of the relationship between the two terms.

A. A Chiastic Structure

Some scholars see a chiastic structure to this verse.

A chiasm is a “stylistic literary figure which consists of a series of two or more elements followed by a presentation of corresponding elements in reverse order.”[1] An example is ABB’A’. Some see a chiasm in Acts 20:21. The A represents the word Jews, the B represents Greeks, the B’ represents repentance, and the A’ represents faith. If there is a chiastic structure here, Paul is saying he testified to the Jews that they needed to have faith (AA’) and that the Greeks (Gentiles) needed repentance (BB’).

The point here would be that the Jew simply needs to believe in Jesus, while the Gentile would need to repent, either of his idolatry or his pagan lifestyle.

A problem with this view is that it makes unbelieving Gentiles worse sinners than unbelieving Jews. It could even be argued that it demands from different kinds of people different requirements for receiving eternal life.

It is interesting to note that a few scribes recognized this problem and changed some manuscripts to say “repentance and faith towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This would say that repentance and faith are both directed towards God, which is possible through the Lord.

Both I. Howard Marshall and C. K. Barrett discuss this view even though neither adopts it. They maintain that both Jews and Gentiles need to repent and believe.[2]

Richard Pervo says there is a chiastic structure. Instead of declaring that the Jew had one requirement and the Gentile another, he maintains that repentance is directed towards God, and faith is directed towards Christ. However, he also seems to weaken the importance of the chiastic structure when he says that faith and repentance practically form a hendiadys.[3] This would mean that both Jew and Gentile need a repentant faith, whatever that is.

William Larkin does not call it a chiastic structure. However, when it comes to repentance, he does see a difference between the Jew and the Gentile. Larkin believes repentance is necessary for salvation and involves turning to God “with all one’s being.”[4]

B. Faith And Repentance Are Synonymous

Some take the position that repentance and faith mean the same thing. Often the argument is given that the Greek word repentance has as its root two words that mean after and mind. The word would then mean that there is a change of mind. A person who did not have faith in Christ before now does. He has changed his mind about Christ (repented) and now believes in Him (faith). With this understanding, the word repentance does not involve any change in behavior.

Some Free Grace advocates understand Acts 20:21 in this way.[5]

So do F. F. Bruce and Stanley Toussaint.[6] Although Bruce sees repentance and faith as synonymous, he seems to change the meaning of faith to include costly action. With this new definition, faith and repentance are interchangeable. He quotes C. F. D. Moule, who says that faith demands a costly action.[7]

C. Repentance As A Change Of Attitude

It is common to see a difference between believing and repentance in that repentance is seen as a change in attitude. Some hold this because they see Acts 20:21 as describing what is necessary for eternal salvation. Turning from sins would involve works, and it is recognized that such actions would mean that one is eternally saved by works, and this clearly contradicts the teachings of the NT.

William Barclay defines repentance as a new attitude towards the unbeliever’s previous sinful actions. This involves becoming aware of one’s sin and having regret and sorrow for those actions.[8]

Eckhard Schnabel also sees this aspect of repentance: it is necessary for all people because all people have sinned and face God’s wrath. Repentance is directed towards God because the unbeliever must acknowledge his rebellion against God both in his lack of faith and in his life. Repentance is the feeling of regret one has for that rebellion. Schnabel is somewhat unique in that he sees faith, and not repentance, as describing actions. He says that believing in Jesus involves turning away from everything that displeases God.[9]

D. Repentance Demands Actions/Works

It is common to find in the literature the idea that repentance involves changing one’s actions and therefore involves works. This is found even among those who say repentance is necessary to obtain eternal life. Clearly, this contradicts the idea that we are saved by grace apart from works.

John Polhill, for example, holds the view that repentance means to turn from one’s former life to God.[10]

William Larkin says that repentance is different from faith. It denotes a total surrender to God with all one’s being, recognizing that He is God when it comes to the decisions we make. Larkin says that repentance is proved by our deeds, according to Acts 26:20.[11]

Everett Harrison also maintains that faith and repentance are distinct. Both, however, are needed to obtain eternal life. Repentance is needed by unbelievers “because of their sin.” This repentance makes them “candidates” for salvation, which can only be achieved afterward through faith.[12]

Regarding repentance, David Peterson places more emphasis on works. He says repentance is a turning away from every form of rebellion and serving God. There is also a difference between Jews and Gentiles in the area of repentance. For the Jew, it means turning to Christ. For the Gentile, it means a continual turning away from everything that displeases God. Genuine faith demands repentance, and this repentance will continue to flow from saving faith.[13]

E. Two Sides Of The Same Coin

It is also common to find the view that repentance and faith go hand in hand, as intimately connected.

C. K. Barrett asserts that faith and repentance are two elements of conversion, and since they share one article in the original Greek, they are bound together.[14]

Darrell Bock argues they are two sides of the same coin. Paul uses both words to describe conversion, and either can be used: he uses the word repentance/repent in Acts 17:30; 26:20; he uses the word faith/believe for the same purpose in Acts 11:17; 14:23; 16:31; 20:21; 24:24.[15] It is understood that when one word is used, the other is also part of the transaction.

Larkin says that the two go together to tell us what is necessary to become a Christian.[16]

Wallace, as will be discussed below, also contends that faith and repentance go together. One can be used as “shorthand” for the other. Faith includes repentance.[17]

F. For Unbelievers Or Believers?

Perhaps a more basic question is whether the need for repentance and faith is addressed to believers or unbelievers. In other words, are both requirements for obtaining eternal life and becoming a believer, or is one or both of them something that a believer needs to do?

All of the scholars discussed in this paper believe that both are addressed to unbelievers. Faith and repentance are part of the gospel of eternal life. Marshall is a typical example. He acknowledges that repentance is not a word commonly found in the writings of Paul. But Marshall says that the Apostle does use the word in 1 Thess 1:9 as a requirement for Christian conversion—even though the word is not found there.[18]

Luke Johnson also says that Acts 20:21 reminds us of 1 Thess 1:9–10 and that the word repentance in the NT frequently refers to Christian conversion, but that this is found in Luke’s writings (Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 15:7; 16:30; 17:3–4). He acknowledges as well that it is a word rarely found in Paul.[19]

However, some point out that repentance is also enjoined upon believers. Ben Witherington points out that Paul speaks of the need for Christians to repent of their sin (2 Cor 7:9–10).[20] Peterson says that repentance is necessary for the “nurture” of believers.[21] Pervo also acknowledges that repentance is not a word Paul would normally use for Christian conversion, even though it is a favorite word for Luke.[22]

Bruce agrees with this assessment; he says that repentance is not usually used by Paul in soteriological messages and that here in Acts 20 it includes admonitions to believers.[23]

Bock perhaps suggests the same thing when he says that even though he thinks this is a soteriological verse, repentance is part of the “full scope” of the good news and includes all that is beneficial.[24]

Schnabel says that the gospel includes repentance (v 20) and that repentance is also useful for the everyday life of the believer since it gives knowledge of God’s will concerning holy living in an unholy world.[25]

The idea that the message of repentance can be commanded of believers is a very significant observation for understanding Acts 20:21. More on that later.

G. Summary

Paul mentions both faith and repentance in Acts 20:21. There are many different opinions as to how these words are related. There are also disagreements about the meaning of repentance. Does it involve works or does it refer merely to a change of mind about Christ? More basically, the question must be asked whether Paul is talking about his message to believers, unbelievers, or both.

The grammar of Acts 20:21 will provide the key to understanding these issues. It will help us interpret the meaning of repentance and its relationship to the gospel of eternal life.

III. The Grammar Of Acts 20:21

When Paul says that he testified “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” he used a grammatical phrase that is related to what is commonly called the Granville Sharp Rule.[26] Specifically, this rule relates to the words in question: repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

The word repentance and the word faith are nouns in the accusative case. The word and (kai) is a connective that joins the two nouns. Even though it is not translated in English, there is a word that appears in Greek immediately before repentance. It is the article (tēn) which is often translated as the.

It is common to refer to this as a TSKS construction.

The “T” represents the first letter of the article (to). The first “S” represents the first noun (or substantive). The “K” stands for the first letter of the conjunction and (kai). The second “S” stands for the second noun (or substantive).

In Acts 20:21 we see the TSKS construction in the words repentance and faith. There is an article that is not translated (T). Repentance is the first “S.” This is followed by the word and (K), followed by faith, the second “S.”[27]

In Greek, when there is a TSKS construction, the two nouns have a close connection. There is some kind of unity between them. The Granville Sharp rule says that this unity is at its highest level when the two nouns refer to the same person or thing.[28] However, this highest level of unity, when both words refer to the same person or thing, only applies if neither of the nouns is impersonal, neither is plural, and neither is a proper name.[29]

An example of this rule is found in Heb 3:1. It calls Jesus “the Apostle and High Priest” [ton (T) apostolon (S) kai (K) archierea (S)] of the Christian confession. There is only one article (T) and two nouns. The words apostle and high priest refer to the same Person, Jesus Christ.

The problem with Acts 20:21 and the TSKS construction is that both of the nouns (repentance and faith) are impersonal. That means they cannot have the highest level of unity. Therefore, some other option must explain the relationship between the two nouns.

A. TSKS Constructions And Four Options

Wallace says that there are about fifty TSKS constructions that have impersonal substantives, such as occurs here in Acts 20:21.[30]

When they occur, there are basically four options when it comes to the relationship between the two nouns (S). They always are united in some way.

First, the nouns can be completely distinct things. An example would be Luke 21:12, in which the Lord tells of persecution that His followers would face. He says that their enemies would be involved in, “handing you over to the synagogues and prisons.” The nouns are synagogues and prisons. They are different, but they are united in the sense of being places where the disciples will be taken when persecuted. This TSKS option is very common in the NT.

Second, the first noun can be a subset or type of the second. An example of this is Col 2:22: “the commandments and teachings of men.” The first noun (commandments) is a type of the second noun (teachings). There are many types of teachings, such as doctrine, history, encouragement, prophecy, etc. Commandments from God are one type of such teachings.

Third, the relationship can be reversed so that the second noun is a type or subset of the first. Both the second and third options are also very common in the NT.

Fourth, both nouns can be identical and refer to the same thing. This is very rare and only occurs once in the NT. In Acts 1:25, Luke talks about what Judas Iscariot lost when he betrayed the Lord. He lost his ministry and apostleship. Both of these refer to the same thing.

B. Summary

Since the words repentance and faith in Acts 20:21 are in a TSKS construction, and they are impersonal nouns, we can make certain assumptions.

We can assume they are almost certainly not the same thing, since that would be the rarest option (occurring only in Acts 1:25), and hence the least likely possibility. In other words, repentance is likely not a synonym for faith.

The other three TSKS options are common in the NT. Each one is a type/subset of the other, or they are distinct things. Since nobody argues that faith is a type or subset of repentance, there appear to be two options left. Either repentance is a subset of faith, or repentance and faith are distinct. Whatever the case, they are conceptually united in some way.

IV. Repentance Is A Subset Of Faith

After pointing out that repentance and faith almost certainly cannot be synonymous in the TSKS construction in Acts 20:21, Wallace argues that repentance is a subset of faith.[31] He gives two reasons. First, he believes Luke uses repentance in other passages that speak of the requirement for eternal life. Second, this is a common usage of the TSKS construction.

A. Luke’s Use Of Repentance In Evangelistic Verses

Wallace says that Paul did use the verbiage of “turning” to God in his evangelistic presentation to Gentiles. He cites 1 Thess 1:9 in this regard even though the word repentance does not occur in the verse.[32] Wallace admits that the word repentance is fairly rare in Paul’s writings. In fact, the noun only occurs four times (Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9, 10; 2 Tim 2:25) and the verb only once (2 Cor 12:21).

These five occurrences are noteworthy, because none of them deal with what a person must do to be eternally saved. Four of them are addressed to believers. The other (Rom 2:4) deals with what a person must do to avoid the discipline of God in one’s life. This at least raises the question as to whether Paul would use the word in Acts 20:21 to refer to what an unbeliever must do to obtain eternal life.

Turning to the writings of Luke, Wallace says that Paul’s preaching in the Book of Acts includes the idea of repentance in order to receive eternal life. He cites five passages, even though only one of the five contains the word repentance.[33] Acts 19:8–9 is one such passage and is typical of the other four. In these verses Luke records Paul’s teaching in the synagogue in Ephesus:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus (emphasis added).

It is hard to conclude from verses such as this that Paul taught that repentance was necessary to receive eternal life. Not only does the word repentance not occur, but the issue seems to be that they “did not believe” what Paul had told them (i.e., they did not have faith).

The other four verses Wallace cites in Luke-Acts in which he believes Luke includes repentance in the requirements for eternal life are Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; and 5:31.[34]

In Luke 24:47 the Lord says that repentance was to be proclaimed among all the nations. This is intimately connected with Acts 20:21. But is this is a requirement for eternal life, or is this a message for those who have already believed? This will be discussed below.

The three verses Wallace cites in Acts are addressed to the nation of Israel. God was calling Israel to turn from their sins so that He would bring the kingdom of God to the nation. The conditions for Israel to receive the kingdom are not the same as the conditions for an individual to obtain eternal life. In Acts 2:38, for example, we see that the people Peter was addressing believed in 2:37 and already had eternal life. God now required that they repent of their sins and be baptized, but neither of these were necessary to be born again. They already were born again!

When one looks at the writings of Paul and Luke, there is not one clear verse that says that repentance is necessary for eternal life. Is Acts 20:21 an exception? Wallace says that the TSKS construction suggests it is.

B. A Common Use Of The TSKS Construction

After concluding that both Luke and Paul use repentance as a requirement for eternal life, Wallace points out that this is supported by a common use of the TSKS construction in Acts 20:21.[35] The grammatical point made by Wallace needs to be addressed.

He maintains that repentance and faith in Acts 20:21 are an example of the first noun (repentance) being a subset of the second (faith). This means that faith includes repentance. Repentance is the beginning of the entire process that is called faith. Spiritual conversion is not a two-step process, but a one-step process of faith that includes repentance.[36]

This means that when Luke uses only the word faith/believe as a requirement for eternal life, as in Acts 13:48, it is a “theological shorthand.” It is understood that this faith includes repentance. He does not have to make that explicit every single time.

Wallace reminds us that when the TSKS construction occurs with impersonal nouns such as repentance and faith, it is common that the first is a subset of the second. But it appears that Wallace has changed the definition of the terms here. As discussed above, Col 2:22 is an example of this use of the TSKS construction. Commandments are a type of teachings. You can have other types of teachings that are not commandments.

Wallace is not saying that repentance is a type of faith. He is saying that you cannot have faith without repentance. There are no other types of saving faith. In other words, in Wallace’s explanation of the relationship between repentance and faith in Acts 20:21, repentance is not a type of faith; it defines faith. Repentance is part of the definition. That is not the same thing as the first noun (repentance) being a subset of the second (faith).

More importantly, since Wallace says that repentance and faith are not synonymous, this means that simple belief in the promise of eternal life in Christ is not sufficient to receive that gift. Works (repentance) of some kind are also necessary for true faith to exist.[37]

However, there is another option.

V. Repentance And Faith Are Distinct

As mentioned above, another common use of the TSKS construction with impersonal nouns is that the two nouns are completely distinct things but are still united in some way. This makes the most sense here.

Faith does not include repentance. We can define faith without repentance. Faith is the conviction that something is true. Saving faith is thus the conviction that what God has said about eternal life in Jesus Christ is true.[38]

While most agree that this is the meaning of faith in a general sense, many maintain that saving faith is different—it must have other elements involving the will, emotions, or actions such as repentance. But these are artificial additions to the meaning of faith in the NT, as Gordon Clark has effectively pointed out.[39] These additions spring from theological systems, not the Scriptures.

Repentance means to turn from sins (Jonah 3:5–10; Matt 12:41). It involves actions. While attitude and emotions play a part, repentance does not take place unless one actually turns from his sins. That is, the person stops doing what he was doing previously. An example of this is found in 2 Cor 7:10 in which Paul writes to Christians in Corinth and states that, “godly sorrow worketh repentance.” Paul had written to them a hard letter in which he charged them with sin. Not only did they feel sorry for their sin, but they turned from it. That is, they repented of it.

This repentance on the part of the Corinthians did not have anything to do with gaining eternal salvation. They were already believers when they repented of the sin Paul charged them with.

In the letters in Revelation 2–3 to the seven churches (believers) in Asia Minor, Jesus repeatedly tells them that they need to repent (Rev 2:5, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19). In each case, the Lord tells these churches to turn from particular sins that they are committing.

Clearly, then, faith and repentance are different things. But in what way are they united since they occur in a TSKS construction in Acts 20:21? The answer is simple. Repentance and faith were both central to the message that Paul proclaimed while he was in Ephesus. They were both part of what he preached in that city. However, Paul did more than evangelize unbelievers in Ephesus. He also instructed believers.

VI. Paul’s Ministry In Ephesus

When we look at Acts 19:8–10, we see that Paul ministered in Ephesus for well over two years. During that time he had a diverse ministry.

A. Paul Ministered To Believers And To Unbelievers

There is an obvious aspect of Paul’s ministry that is seldom addressed in discussions of Acts 20:21; namely, Paul’s ministry in Ephesus included teaching disciples. In other words, Paul’s ministry was not only evangelistic. A major part of it was directed towards believers.

For example, we see in 19:8–9 that Paul taught the disciples for two years. He did so on a daily basis.

In Acts 19:18–19 we are told that many who had believed came confessing their sins and burning their books of magic. Dr. Charles Ryrie pointed out they had been Christians for some time. (The word translated had believed is a perfect participle, which certainly suggests this.) In other words, believers in Ephesus were repenting of their sins, especially that of engaging in pagan magical practices.[40]

Paul’s ministry to believers is also evident in 19:20. As a result of all that was going on in Ephesus, the word of the Lord “grew mightily.” Believers understood what they needed to do to please the Lord.

These things should be kept in mind when interpreting 20:21. Paul is summarizing his ministry in that city. Bruce calls the whole section of Acts 20:18–35 a “retrospect” of Paul’s ministry there.[41] A major part of that ministry was instructing believers on how to live. In this retrospect, Paul reminds them of this fact. He tells them that he “taught them house to house,” and he told them “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:20, 27). Surely the most natural understanding here is that Paul taught believers in their homes what God required of them.

B. Believers And Unbelievers Can Both Be Called To Repent And To Believe

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus was directed to both believers and unbelievers. However, we should not make the mistake of thinking each category of person requires only one kind of ministry, as if only believers needed to be told to repent, and only unbelievers needed to be called to faith. On the contrary, it is appropriate to call both believers and unbelievers to faith and repentance.

Believers are frequently called to continue to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:2; Col 1:21–23). And if a believer strays from the Lord and lives an immoral lifestyle, he needs to repent of those sins. Hence, it is appropriate to preach repentance to believers.

An unbeliever clearly needs to have faith in the promise of eternal life. And in many cases an unbeliever may be living an obviously depraved lifestyle. He may recognize that even before he comes to faith. While repenting of such things will not bring eternal salvation, it will deliver the unbeliever from the negative effects of sin.

VII. Conclusion

During Paul’s long stay in Ephesus, he spoke of repentance and faith (Acts 20:21). Since these terms occur in a TSKS format, we can safely conclude that faith and repentance are not the same thing. While Wallace maintains that it means Paul preached a faith that included repentance, I have argued that this is a redefinition of what the TSKS construction means.

Since we know that faith and repentance are united in some way, the most obvious conclusion is that Paul is saying that they were united in his preaching in Ephesus.

Acts 20:21 need not be seen as a statement of Paul’s ministry to believers or to his ministry to unbelievers, but as a summary of his ministry to both. If we keep this in mind, a verse like Acts 26:20 becomes clear. Paul said that on his missionary journeys he told both Jews and Gentiles that they needed to repent. He specifically says that this would result in doing good works. Since eternal salvation is not by works, this cannot be what is being addressed. Paul is simply saying that part of his ministry was teaching believers how to live.[42] If unbelievers repented, they would benefit from such repentance as well.

Paul preached both faith and repentance. We should follow his example. However, we must never confuse the offer of eternal life by grace through faith alone with the call to turn from one’s sin. Believers need faith and repentance. So do unbelievers. However, repentance is not a part of faith.

Notes

1. James L. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville, KY: Westminister/John Knox, 1992), 178.
2. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale NT Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 331; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, vol 2, ICC, (New York, NY: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 22.
3. Richard I. Pervo, Acts, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 520–21.
4. William J. Larkin, Jr., Acts, The IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 294.
5. See, for example, Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House, 1974), 126 (cf. 13, 66, 109).
6. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NINCT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 389; Stanley Toussaint, “Acts,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 413.
7. Ibid. Moule, says that “faith involves a response to the finished work of Christ, involving the believer in the cost and pain of repentance.” See C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul,” Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 271–72.
8. William Barclay, Turning to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1964), 18–23.
9. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 840–41.
10. John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman& Holman Publishers, 1992), 425.
11. Larkin, Jr., Acts, 294.
12. Everett F. Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1975), 314.
13. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 564–65.
14. Barrett, Acts, 22.
15. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publisher, 2007), 627.
16. Larkin, Jr., Acts, 294.
17. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 289.
18. Marshall, Acts, 331. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss repentance in 1 Thess 1:9. However, it can be said that in 1 Thess 1:7–8, Paul declares that faith is what made them believers. Their “turning” (v 9) allowed them to “serve” God. It is worth noting, however, that the word “repentance” does not occur in the verse at all. In any event, there is a difference between believing for eternal life and serving God.
19. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 361. As in the previous footnote, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss repentance in Luke’s writings outside of Acts 20:21. However, it would be appropriate to question whether Luke included repentance in the gospel but Paul did not.
20. Ben Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 617.
21. Peterson, Acts, 565.
22. Pervo, Acts, 520.
23. Bruce, Acts, 389.
24. Bock, Acts, 627.
25. Schnabel, Acts, 840–41.
26. Wallace, Grammar, 270–90.
27. The words towards God and towards our Lord Jesus Christ do not affect the construction. In the original it says, tēn(T)…metanoian(S) kai(K) pistin(S).
28. Participles and adjectives can function as nouns in these constructions.
29. Wallace, Grammar, 270–71.
30. Ibid., 286–88. Wallace discusses the different types of these constructions. He includes five options, but one of them is extremely rare (it only occurs once in the NT), and it has no bearing on this article. He calls it “overlapping” nouns.
31. Ibid., 289.
32. Ibid.; Cf. footnote 16 above.
33. The exception is Acts 26:20. This verse says that Paul preached repentance among both the Jews and Gentiles. In the same verse, Paul says that they needed to do works in line with that repentance. This verse will be discussed below. The issue is whether this part of Paul’s message was addressed to believers or unbelievers.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. For a discussion of how others have added the requirement of works to faith by redefining faith, including by adding repentance to that definition, see Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Pub Co., 2006), 273–84. Dillow also points out how the lexicon meaning of the word “faith” in Greek does not include the idea of repentance.
38. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 31.
39. Gordon Clark, Faith and Saving Faith (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1983).
40. Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974), 171–72.
41. Bruce, Hebrews, 389.
42. The same thing could be said about the Lord’s teaching in Luke 24:47 and the need of repentance. See Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 143–63.

Romans 8:16 And Assurance

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Columbia, SC]

I. Introduction

In Rom 8:16, Paul makes the statement that, “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Many feel that this verse is saying that we are able to gain assurance of our eternal salvation from the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit tells our spirit that we are God’s children.

If this is the case, we must conclude that such assurance is very subjective. How do we know if it is the Spirit of God “speaking” to us, or if it is our own spirit? Couldn’t we even wonder if an evil spirit is communicating to us in order to deceive us?

This issue is of extreme importance. If assurance of salvation comes from such a subjective source, can we ever be certain? Maybe one day we feel that the Spirit is telling us we are children of God. But on another day, perhaps a day in which we have failed badly, we do not “hear” this testimony. Or, perhaps, we feel the exact opposite is the case. The Spirit is telling us that we are not children of God. At face value it seems that we could never have assurance of salvation. In this article I will argue that Rom 8:16 is not telling believers that they gain assurance of salvation from a subjective witness of the Holy Spirit within them.

II. Support For The Subjective View

In the writings of many Evangelicals, one can find support for the view that assurance comes through the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit. This is seen in most commentaries. In addition, both grammatical and lexical arguments are used to argue the same thing.

A. The Commentary Tradition

Many conservative Bible scholars take Rom 8:16 to mean that believers find assurance of salvation from an inner testimony of the Spirit of God. Newell says that the Holy Spirit produces, within the believer, a “consciousness” of being born of God and being a part of His family.[1] However, the Spirit does not say this “to” our spirit, since the spirit of the believer already knows that he is a child of God. The Spirit of God joins “with” our spirit in declaring the truth.[2]

Newell, however, recognizes the subjective nature of this testimony of the Spirit and tries to alleviate it. He says that the assurance it brings is not a “feeling.” Instead, it is an unconscious certainty. At the same time, the Holy Spirit bears witness of these realities with the consciousness of the believer. All of this is a “profound mystery.”[3] One wonders how something can be an unconscious certainty and how such an unconscious witness is made to the consciousness of a person.

That Newell recognizes that there is no complete assurance with this testimony of the Spirit is seen in the fact that the believer must test to see if the testimony he thinks he is receiving is true. He says that the book of 1 John gives us tests by which we can assure ourselves that we are children of God.[4] But it is clear that these tests involve works. Some days we will think we have passed the test, and on others we will feel we have not.

Moo also takes the verse in this way. He says that the Spirit of God makes the believer aware that he is the child of God. He tells the believer this in the innermost part of his being. Moo says this is something the Spirit probably does “to” our spirit, not “with.”[5]

Boice explicitly states the subjective nature of this assurance. After saying that the Holy Spirit witnesses to believers that they are sons of God, he calls this an “experience” of the Spirit. Such an experience can be an overwhelming sense of God’s presence. Or, the Holy Spirit gives us a “spiritual whisper” of who we are. At the same time, however, there can be counterfeit experiences. Boice also recognizes that some Evangelicals will feel uncomfortable with finding assurance of salvation in emotional experiences and that such language can lead to excesses.[6]

Those who seek for complete assurance might be encouraged by the fact that Boice says we must go to the Scriptures for our primary source of assurance, and not a subjective experience. But even here he does not offer such confidence. Regarding Romans 8, Boice believes that Paul says we find assurance if we pass the tests. These tests involve the good works of walking by the Spirit.[7]

According to MacArthur, the assurance that the Spirit gives to the believer is a constant inner testimony. But this testimony also involves a work of the Spirit in the life of the believer in which He produces a longing for communion with God and sanctification in the life of the child of God. The Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in such a life and compels the believer to love God, hate sin, reject the world, long for Christ’s return, love other Christians, and long to be more like Christ. This testimony and work of the Spirit is one of His most precious ministries. However, it is subjective.[8] Like others, MacArthur is saying we can test the testimony of the Spirit by our works.

When it comes to the issue of whether the Spirit testifies to our spirit or with our spirit, Cranfield seems to have influenced many others. He says that our spirit cannot testify that we are children of God. Therefore, the Spirit of God testifies to our spirit. The Spirit enables the believer to believe the good news and then testifies to the believer that he is eternally saved.[9]

Morris is an example of those influenced by Cranfield. He quotes from Cranfield and says that the Spirit of God testifies to our spirit, even though the usual meaning of the verb would be to testify “with” our spirit. Morris maintains that without this witness of the Spirit we could not testify that we are children of God.[10]

Finally, Schreiner disagrees with Cranfield and says that the Spirit of God testifies with the spirit of the believer. However, he agrees with Cranfield and others that this is a subjective experience. He calls it a religious one. But this religious and mystical experience is one that is given to all believers, without exception. It begins at the moment of conversion.[11]

While there is disagreement as to whether the Spirit testifies to our spirit or with our spirit, there are areas of agreement between all these writers. This testimony of the Spirit can be described as a mystical experience that is impossible to quantify.[12] As such, it is subjective and therefore it can be said that complete assurance is not possible. The same arguments are sometimes made from both grammatical as well as lexical standpoints.

B. The Greek Grammar Of Romans 8:16

There are two main grammatical/lexical issues in Rom 8:16 when it comes to the role of the Spirit of God in assurance of eternal salvation. One is the meaning of the dative tō pneumati hēmōn (“with our spirit”). The other is the meaning of the verb summarturei (“bears witness”).

1. Dative Of Association?

The word spirit in the phrase with our spirit is in the dative. A common use of the dative in Greek is one of association. The word in the dative indicates a person or thing associated with another person or thing. It is often translated by the English word “with.” An example of this use is 2 Cor 6:14, in which Paul says that believers are not to be unequally yoked “with” unbelievers. He is saying that believers should not be in close association with unbelievers.

Another common use of the dative is the indirect object of a verb. This is most often translated by the word “to.” The question in Rom 8:16 is whether the word “spirit” is one of association, or whether it is an indirect object. If the former, the Holy Spirit testifies “with” our spirit that we are children of God. If the latter, He testifies “to” us. If it is a dative of indirect object, Wallace maintains that the believer receives the testimony of the Holy Spirit that he is a child of God and is in this way assured of eternal salvation.[13]

An important part of this discussion is the verb “bears witness” (summartureō). It has a Greek prefix sun. This prefix has the basic meaning of “with” and suggests that the dative that follows it has an associative idea. This is certainly the way that the NKJV, as well as most other versions of the Bible, translate it (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, ASV, CEB, ESV, RSV, NRSV, GNV, MEV).[14]

But Wallace points out that a verb with this prefix does not have to carry with it an associative idea. He recognizes that most of the time when such verbs are followed by an indirect object, the indirect object is an impersonal noun, but there are a few examples where the indirect object is a personal noun.[15] Here in Rom 8:16, the word spirit is a personal noun.

Following the view of Cranfield, Wallace says that the context does not favor the idea of association. Such a context does not support the idea that the spirit of the believer testifies that he is a child of God. Quoting Cranfield, Wallace says, that the spirit of the believer “has no right at all to testify to our being sons of God.”[16] The Holy Spirit alone testifies to these spiritual realities.

2. Lexical Argument

Wallace maintains that while sumartureō once did signify association, through time it came to mean simply “to testify.” The prefix only adds emphasis to the basic verb. The loss of an associative idea with the verb happened as early as the sixth century BC.[17]

The verb only occurs one other place in the NT with the dative. It is in the form of a genitive participle. It is found in Rom 9:1 in which Paul says, “I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.” The dative in this case is the word “me.” Wallace says that the verb simply means “to testify” and there is no associative force present.[18] Paul testifies in his conscience that he is not lying. He testifies “to” himself (“me”), which does not require association with somebody else.

3. Summary

Based upon these two arguments, Wallace states that Rom 8:16 seems to be “secure” as a text that teaches us that the assurance of eternal salvation comes from the inner witness of the Spirit.

He takes this a step further. The objective data, by which he means the Scriptures, are helpful, but they cannot by themselves give assurance of salvation. The Christian, if he wants such assurance, also needs an “existential and ongoing encounter with the Holy Spirit.”[19] In other words, assurance is also an ongoing process. It is easy to see that, as Wallace states, this has profound implications on the doctrine of soteriology.[20] On that point, it seems all would agree.

C. Conclusion

If the assurance of salvation is based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, there are indeed many profound implications. As the writers in this section indicate, such assurance is subjective. The promises of the Lord in such verses as John 3:16 and 5:24 are not sufficient. We need to look elsewhere.

These writers recognize such implications. For them, assurance is based upon some mystical experience. It is mysterious, an ongoing process, and is built upon emotions. Not surprisingly, they recognize that such statements will make many conservative Evangelicals uncomfortable. It certainly would be uncomfortable to somebody looking for assurance!

Anybody considering these things will conclude that assurance is impossible. Even if we test the supposed testimony of the Spirit by doing good works, complete assurance will always be out of the believer’s grasp because we all fail these tests on occasion.

The subjective nature of such testimony is easily seen in the fact that even cult members will claim to have the same testimony. Mormons repeatedly appeal to the “burning in the bosom” which confirms that Joseph Smith has given them the truth about what it means to be children of God. Catholics will proclaim similar feelings when they take communion or go through Catechism as a means of salvation. So will almost all believers who are trying to earn eternal salvation through works such as baptism. We often hear of testimonies about how God has revealed to them that they are doing the work of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses also claim that God has told them they are on the right path. Clearly, many people are misinterpreting the “whisper” of the Holy Spirit.

Fortunately, assurance is not based upon such subjective evidence. Paul is not teaching such subjectivity in Rom 8:16.

III. Answering The Grammatical Arguments

The grammatical and lexical arguments, on closer inspection, do not support the view that the Holy Spirit testifies to the inner spirit of the believer that he is a child of God. This is seen by looking at the meaning of the verb, the dative that goes with it, as well as the use of words with the prefix sun in Romans 8.

A. The Meaning Of “Bears Witness”

Wallace argues that the verb simply means to testify and does not have an associative aspect to it, even though the prefix sun (with in Greek) is attached to the verb. He points out that this is seen in Rom 9:1, the only other occurrence of the verb with the dative in the NT. Paul’s conscience testifies to himself that he is not lying.

However, a closer look at Romans 9 argues for the exact opposite conclusion. In Rom 9:1 Paul says that he is not lying. Then he says that his conscience also “bears witness.” This bearing witness makes more sense if taken in an associative way.

Paul is saying that he is not lying to the Christians in Rome. He has a great sorrow in his heart for Israel (9:2). Then he says that his conscience bears witness of the same thing. In the Greek, the word me is in the dative. What Paul is saying is that he bears witness that he is not lying and that his conscience bears witness “with” him of the same fact.

The indirect object here is not the word me. The indirect object is implied. It is the Christians in Rome. Paul, and his conscience with him, bear witness to the Roman Christians of the truth of his statement. If we conclude that Rom 8:16 follows the same pattern, it would mean that the spirit of the believer testifies with the Holy Spirit to someone (God) that the believer is a child of God.

Wilkin points out that Paul uses the verb with the word conscience only one other time. This other occurrence is also in Romans (Rom 2:15). In that verse as well, the conscience bears witness with the person involved.[21] The conscience, along with the discussions that people have had with others, shows that they knew the works of the Law. The important thing to see is that in Romans 2 the verb has a strong associative idea.

There are many similarities between Rom 2:15 and Rom 9:1. The verb is the same. Both are genitive participles. Both use the same word “conscience.” And, it may be concluded, both have an associative idea. The prefix on the verb carries with it its most common connotation.

B. Dative Personal Nouns And Sun Verbs

Wallace argues that the dative in Rom 8:16 can be an indirect object because there are examples of non-associative datives with sun verbs in the NT. The two examples he gives are 1 Cor 4:4 and Acts 6:9. He admits that usually such verbs are associative.[22]

It appears, however, that these are not good examples. In the case of 1 Cor 4:4, the sun verb is sunoida. The word can mean to be aware of something.[23] The dative noun here is “myself.” But the noun is not an indirect object. It is probably a dative incommodi, or a dative of disadvantage.[24] Paul is not aware of anything against himself.

However, one could argue that the verb sunoida is also associative in nature by its very meaning. The only other time it occurs is Acts 5:2, in the account of Ananias and Sapphira. Sapphira is aware (or conscious) of the price of the field, But implied in the statement is the fact that she has this knowledge with her husband. They were both conscious of the price. BDAG also sees an implied associative idea.[25]

Even in the case of 1 Cor 4:4 there can be an implied associative idea. Paul knows with himself. He is conscious of nothing against himself because there is a self sharing! Moulton and Milligan take the verb to mean to be conscious of something, which means to “share knowledge with.”[26]

In Acts 6:9 the sun verb is sudzēteō (“to argue”).[27] The dative is the word “Stephen.” It seems that this is a strange example for Wallace to use. The word “Stephen” is not an indirect object. It is an associative noun. The Jews of the synagogues were arguing with Stephen.

It appears, then, that Wallace does not give a single example in which a personal noun in the dative acts as an indirect object of a sun verb. This should give us pause when suggesting that Rom 8:16 does use the dative in this way.

IV. Answering The Commentary Tradition

As mentioned above, many Evangelical writers appeal to Rom 8:16 to argue that assurance of eternal salvation is subjective. In addressing this issue, the grammatical and lexical arguments of the verb and the dative noun are enough to refute that notion. However, we can look at the context as well.

A. What Is The Indirect Object?

Even those writers who take the verb and dative noun in an associative sense usually do not address who the indirect object is. To whom do the spirit of the believer and the Spirit of God testify that the believer is a child of God? Most seem to indicate that there is not an indirect object. Wallace points this out. He says that if the verb is associative, the one that receives the testimony is unstated. It could be God or it could be other believers.[28] Perhaps this is another reason Wallace rejects the associative idea. In his opinion, if we do not know to whom the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the believer are testifying, the meaning of the verse is very vague.

However, the context of Romans 8 makes it clear that God is the indirect object of the testimony of the believer and the Holy Spirit. Both testify to God that the believer is a child of God.

Even the writers mentioned above recognize in the context that the Spirit of God is speaking to God the Father. This is seen in Rom 8:26–27. Newell says that the context speaks of the Holy Spirit’s interceding to God on behalf of the believer. The Father “searches” to see what the Holy Spirit in the believer is saying.[29]

Moo agrees and says that the Holy Spirit prays to the Father on behalf of the believer because the believer often does not know what to pray for.[30] Boice says the Spirit pleads the case of the believer to the Father.[31]

MacArthur says that the Spirit takes the needs of the believer to the Father. He adds that if this ministry of the Spirit were to cease, the believer would be eternally lost.[32] Of course, for MacArthur, this is an impossibility, and a “true” believer cannot lose eternal salvation. However, it is another indication that the believer’s assurance is based upon an ongoing work of the Spirit in the life of the believer.[33]

Schreiner and Morris also believe that Rom 8:26–27 refers to the Holy Spirit’s speaking to God the Father for the believer. The Holy Spirit is in the believer and has an ongoing ministry of interceding for the believer.[34]

Even though all these writers recognize that in the context Paul says the Holy Spirit speaks to God, they do not see that as occurring in Rom 8:16. Instead, in that verse, the Holy Spirit is involved in telling the believer that he is a child of God. This leads to a subjective view of assurance. However, if we look at Romans 8 more closely we will come to another conclusion.

B. Considering The Other Words That Begin With Sun In The Context Of Romans 8

If one looks at the context of Rom 8:16, he finds that there are a number of Greek words that have the prefix sun. Counting the verb “bears witness” in 8:16, there are nine such words in 8:16–29! All of the others carry an associative meaning. Of the nine words, seven are verbs and two are nouns.

1. “Joint Heirs” With Christ; “Suffer With Him;” “Be Glorified Together” (V 17)

The words “joint heirs” are all one noun in the Greek. The NKJV adds the word “with” with the word “Christ” which is in the genitive case. This clearly has an associative idea. Paul is speaking of believers who will reign with Christ.

In this verse there are also two verbs with the sun prefix. The first is the verb “suffer with.” The believers who suffer with Christ are the ones that will reign with Christ. When they do so, they will “be glorified together.” The associative idea is clear here as well. The suffering believer will share in the glory of Christ’s reign with Him. The reason is that they suffered together as well.

What we see is that in the verse immediately after v 16 there are three words with a sun prefix that clearly have an associative idea. Since this is the usual meaning of such words, and if it makes sense in v 16, one should be hesitant to deny an associative idea in v 16.

2. “Groans Together;” “Labors With Birth Pangs Together” (V 22)

In v 22 there are two more sun verbs. Both speak of the fact that all the parts of God’s creation are longing for the day when the consequences of man’s sin are taken away. Together, they all are “groaning” for that day to come and are going through the “labor” that the birth of the Kingdom of God requires. Both these verbs also are associative. The NJKV adds the word “together” to bring this out.

3. “Helps” (V 26)

This verb is also associative. In the midst of our weaknesses, the Holy Spirit helps us when we pray. When we pray, He prays with us. The believer and the Spirit both pray.

4. All Things “Work Together” (V 28)

The strong associative idea of this verb is brought out once again by the addition of the word “together,” even though no such separate word appears in the Greek, it is implied by the prefix sun. The verb “work together” appears five times in the NT. It always involves more than one party working together. BDAG defines the verb as “to engage in cooperative endeavor.”[35]

All of creation works together with the believer who is suffering. When the Christian suffers for Christ, he is working together with all of creation (which is also suffering) to produce the good of the coming reign of Christ.[36]

5. “Conformed” (V 29)

This word in v 29 is another noun with the sun prefix. The suffering believer will be conformed to the image of Christ. As with the other words looked at in the context, this too has a strong associative meaning. BDAG lists the definition as having “a similar form” with something or someone else.[37]

The believer who suffers with Christ will share the image of Christ in the sense that he will reign with Him (Rom 8:17). Christ will be the “firstborn” in the Kingdom. He will rule over it. However, many brethren will as well. These are the ones who suffer with Him.

C. Conclusion

There are a number of verbs in the immediate context of Rom 8:16 that also have a sun prefix. All of them have a clear associative meaning. In other words, the whole context speaks of different groups doing or experiencing things together. The different groups can be believers and creation, believers and Christ, or believers and the Holy Spirit. It should not surprise us if the verb with the sun prefix in v 16 also carries with it an associative idea. If so, the Holy Spirit does not testify to the believer; He testifies with the believer. This, in turn, impacts assurance of eternal salvation.

V. An Associative Meaning Of Romans 8:16

If the verb “bears witness” in Rom 8:16 has an associative meaning, Paul’s point is fairly straightforward. The NKJV takes it this way by adding the word “with” after the verb. The verse is saying that both the Spirit of God and the spirit of the believer testify to God. This certainly fits the context, as both the believer and the Holy Spirit are seen in vv 26–27 as speaking to God through prayer and intercession.

Others have seen this to be the case. Fitzmyer points out the obvious. He says that the believer calls God “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:15). He does this in prayer, and the reason he does so is because he knows that he is a child of God. The Spirit of God does the same thing when the believer prays. He joins with the believer in proclaiming that the believer is a child of God. The cries of the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the believer are the same.[38]

When the believer prays to God and calls Him Father, by these words he is saying that he is part of God’s family. Only a person who knows he is a child of God would call God his Father. When the Holy Spirit intercedes for the believer, He says that same thing: “This is your child.”[39] The Spirit says it with the believer.

This is the opposite of a subjective assurance of eternal salvation. As seen above, the context of Romans 8 is one of suffering. Paul is encouraging believers who go through difficulties. Part of that encouragement is that the believer has complete assurance of his standing before God. When he prays, not only he bears witness that he is a child of God, so does the Spirit of God within him. He knows that God will hear his prayers, even when he doesn’t know what to pray (vv 26–27).[40] In that case as well, the Spirit of God is praying with the believer.

In the midst of suffering, the last thing Paul would want to say is that the believer is left with a subjective view of his relationship with God. In fact, Paul is saying that the believer can endure such suffering because he knows he is a child of God. The believer is not left to a mystical feeling of assurance, or trying to hear the whisper of the Spirit of God. Nor does he have to pass a series of tests to see if he is a believer. If we take the promise of Christ at face value—that all who believe in Him have eternal life—we already know it. That is why we call God Father when we pray.

VI. Conclusion

Many find a subjective view of assurance in Rom 8:16. In today’s Evangelical climate that is not surprising. Most Evangelicals do not have assurance of eternal salvation. It is common to hear them say that believers must test themselves to see if they are believers or not. These tests usually involve obeying certain commandments found in the Bible. In Rom 8:16 there is supposedly another test. The believer can listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in him to see if he is a child of God.

With all of these tests, it is clear that assurance of salvation will always be elusive. We will pass the tests some days and fail them on others. On some days we will feel confident the Spirit is giving us assurance, and on other days we will be convinced that He is not. This lack of assurance is exactly what we find among many churchgoers today.

It is somewhat ironic that Fitzmyer, as discussed above, did not see Rom 8:16 that way. It is ironic because he was a Catholic priest (1920–2016). In Rom 8:16, at least, he offers more assurance than many Protestant writers. That is a sad commentary on the doctrine of assurance among Evangelicals.

Jesus offers the believer eternal life at the moment of faith (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25–26). He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). We have His word that at the moment of faith we become the children of God. As a result, we can boldly call God our Father, just as He did (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15). We also know that when we pray, the Holy Spirit says the same thing about us. These words from the Word of God are better than the shifting sand of any mystical experience we might try to find.

Notes

1. William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, Reprint, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994), 313.
2. Ibid., 314.
3. Ibid., 313-14.
4. Ibid., 314.
5. Douglas J. Moo, Romans 1-8, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1991), 539-40.
6. James Montgomery Boice, Romans: The Reign of Grace, Vol 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 843-44.
7. Ibid., 844.
8. John F. MacArthur, Romans 1-8, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1991), 438-39.
9. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1:402-403.
10. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 316-17.
11. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 426-27.
12. Editor’s Note: Mormons also use Rom 8:16 and Luke 24:32, along with Doctrine and Covenants 9:8, to support their teaching that the Spirit “will cause your bosom [to] burn within you” as a means of assurance. See https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/romans/chapter-36-romans-4-8?/ang=eng.
13. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 159.
14. The two that translate summarturei as “bears witness to” are NET and LEB.
15. Ibid., 160. He cites 1 Cor 4:4 and Acts 6:9 as examples.
16. Ibid. See Cranfield, Romans, 1:403.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 161
20. Ibid.
21. Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 223. Wilkin, who edited the book, makes this observation in footnote 13.
22. Wallace, Grammar, 160.
23. BDAG, 973.
24. Wallace, Grammar, 142-43.
25. BDAG, 973. In the case of 1 Cor 4:4, it says that Paul shares the information with himself.
26. James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 611.
27. This is indeed a sun verb. The final “n” of the prefix is dropped when it is added to the verb for ease of pronunciation.
28. Wallace, Grammar, 160.
29. Newell, Romans, 326-27.
30. Moo, Romans, 561-62.
31. Boice, Romans, 889.
32. MacArthur, Romans, 467-69.
33. Of course, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is wonderful beyond description. We can also agree with Wallace that this ministry is neglected in evangelical studies (see Wallace, Grammar, 161, footnote 57). But both MacArthur and Wallace make this ongoing “process” of the work of the Spirit either part of obtaining eternal life or any assurance that goes with it. Once again, in this view, assurance of eternal salvation is not found once for all by simply believing in the promises found in Scripture. Clearly they are mixing up obtaining eternal life and the role of the Spirit in sanctification.
34. Schreiner, Romans, 444; Morris, Romans, 328-29.
35. BDAG, 969.
36. Hodges, Romans, 237.
37. BDAG, 958.
38. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York, Doubleday, 1992), 501.
39. Hodges, Romans, 223.
40. Ibid., 224.