Calvin’s Practical View Of Adoption: Its Privileges And Duties

By Maarten Kuivenhoven And Michael Dewalt

At the heart of John Calvin’s theology and undergirding his development of the ordo salutis is the doctrine of adoption. Many scholars note that Calvin does not treat adoption as a separate locus in his systematic theology and magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. [1] This is due in part to the fact that Calvin weaves the doctrine throughout the tapestry of God’s marvelous salvation of sinners. The doctrine of adoption is not peripheral but rather central to Calvin’s theology as noted by Sinclair Ferguson who states that “students of Calvin’s theology have too rarely recognized how important the concept of sonship was to his understanding of the Christian life.” [2]

While Timothy Trumper’s unpublished dissertation on the doctrine of adoption in the Calvinistic tradition fills a void in the study of Calvin’s theology of adoption, [3] a detailed study of the privileges and duties of adoption is nevertheless useful. This paper seeks to address a gap in the scholarship on Calvin’s development of the doctrine of adoption by examining the Reformer’s teachings on the privileges and duties of adoption.

Calvin’s doctrine of adoption is not restricted to the Institutes per se; the riches of Calvin’s view of adoption can be gleaned from his entire corpus of writings, including his commentaries and sermons. [4] Having done this, we have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of adoption was an experiential reality in Calvin’s life, and that he sought to instill its beauty and riches in those to whom he ministered. Christ’s church today receives the legacy of Calvin’s view of adoption, which speaks doctrinally and experientially to the life of the believer. Let’s turn now to Calvin’s writings on the privileges and duties that accrue to the believer through his adoption into God’s family.

The Privileges Of Adoption

Calvin offers a rich and varied tapestry of the blessing and privileges of adoption woven throughout his theology. It is helpful to organize these privileges of adoption under a trinitarian rubric: paternal privileges given especially by the Father, fraternal privileges given especially by the Son, and spiritual privileges given especially by the Holy Spirit. This framework of adoption in Calvin’s theology is succinctly summarized by Sinclair Ferguson: “But for Calvin, piety meant recognizing that our lives are nourished by God’s Fatherly care; it meant knowing oneself to be a child of God. Similarly, Calvin saw the purpose of the incarnation and atonement to be the adoption of Christians. Consequently, the ‘first title’ of the Spirit is ‘Spirit of adoption.’” [5] There are also other categories which work on a sub-level within the trinitarian rubric: covenantal privileges and eschatological privileges. [6] The privileges that the adopted children of God receive are rich and find their full expression in the redemptive and applicatory work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [7]

In Calvin’s thought, the fountainhead of adoption and its privileges is found in God the Father. The privileges that the adopted child of God receives are the comfort of the Father’s providence and the assurance received through the Father’s electing grace. This electing grace of the Father almost becomes synonymous in Calvin’s writings with the doctrine of adoption. He does not clearly delineate between these two concepts but rather merges them to show how adoption becomes a confirmation of election. Howard Griffith observes:

It is quite clear that Calvin’s intention was to use the biblical teaching on election as Scripture does: in the service of assurance for believers. Election was dangerous and only a snare when considered abstractly. But if for the sake of the analysis of Calvin’s own thinking, we think of it first, it is fascinating to notice that Calvin repeatedly refers to election as God’s adoption of the believer. This is not just the slip of a pen: Calvin repeats it often. [8]

Adoption can be pictured as a rearview mirror, confirming the electing grace of the Father in the life of the believer as the believer traces the redemptive work of God throughout his life. The close relationship of election and adoption serves to assure the believer that he is indeed a child of God.

In his Sermons on Election and Reprobation, Calvin closely links election and adoption. “So, when our Lord engraveth his fear in our hearts by his Holy Spirit, and such an obedience towards him, as his Children ought to perform unto him, this is as if he should set upon us the seal of his election, and as if he should truly testify that he hath adopted us and that he is a Father unto us.” [9] Throughout the Institutes, he makes several references to the close relation between election and adoption where free election by the grace of God becomes the ground of the believer’s adoption. He states, “We were adopted in Christ into the eternal inheritance because in ourselves we were not capable of such great excellence.” [10] Furthermore, man cannot enable himself to merit or receive adoption because “God’s special election towers and rules over all, alone ratifying his adoption.” [11]

This assurance of election is further buttressed in his Sermons on Ephesians. Calvin writes: “When he [Paul] says that God has predestinated us by adoption, it is to show that if we be God’s children it is not through nature but through his pure grace…. For we have no such status by birth or inheritance, neither does it come of flesh and blood.” [12] This assures the believer that only by the grace of God in Jesus Christ is he adopted into the family of God and thus “they whom he calls to salvation ought not to seek the cause of it anywhere else than in this gratuitous adoption.” [13] Calvin continues speaking of the assurance that election and adoption affords the believer:

Whosoever then believes is thereby assured that God has worked in him, and faith is, as it were, the duplicate copy that God gives us of the original of our adoption…. It follows then that if we have faith, we are also adopted. For why does God gives us faith? Even because he elected us before the creation of the world. This therefore is an infallible order, that insofar as the faithful receive God’s grace and embrace his mercy, holding Jesus Christ as their Head, to obtain salvation in this way, they know assuredly that God has adopted them. [14]

Far from declaring God’s election to be cold, calculating, and deterministic, Calvin ties election and adoption together, showing the comfort and warmth that can be derived from doing so. Election becomes the ground of adoption, and the root of adoption is not found in the believer, but in God the Father.

Adoption also comforts the believer with God’s fatherly providence. Upon adoption, the believer is not left to fend for himself, but comes under the fatherly providence of God. This fatherly providence comforts and offers care in the midst of a world that claims it cares but in reality does not, and in the face of governments that claim to protect their citizens but actually do not. While not relating it to adoption specifically, Calvin demonstrates that the providence of God includes both material, or natural, as well as spiritual blessings:

…[t]hat not only does he sustain this universe (as he once founded it) by his boundless might, regulate it by his wisdom, preserve it by his goodness, and especially rule mankind by his righteousness and judgment, bear with it in his mercy, watch over it by his protection; but also that no drop will be found either of wisdom and light, or of righteousness or power or rectitude, or of genuine truth, which does not flow from him and of which he is not the cause. [15]

Furthermore, “though God is merciful to all the world, he is yet more merciful to his children…. He cares for and feeds his children, but not with more bounty than is good for them.” [16] God’s providence includes not only good things, but also the rod of correction. The unbeliever sees these things as negative, but the child of God sees it as the rod of the Father’s correction, bearing the stamp of His love.

Calvin applies the doctrine of adoption by way of contrast, demonstrating both how the doctrine of adoption functions in the life of the believer and how it provokes the unbeliever to jealousy. The wicked are subject to torments, trembling, and a lack of assurance that “God beareth a fatherly affection unto him.” [17] In addressing the believer about the privilege of being under the providence of God, Calvin counsels believers not to be lulled into sleep as a child of God, but “[l]et us learn to keep ourselves in that favor and testimony that we have, that in that he hath adopted us for his children, he will always show himself a father towards us.” [18] It is when the believer learns to keep himself in this frame of soul that “it is certain that we shall overcome all fears…God is with us…we are well assured against all evil.” [19] God’s providence includes “protecting, guiding, confirming, using, supporting, governing, mortifying, keeping, delivering, and increasing his children.” [20] Having been chosen and adopted by the Father, the believer now comes under the Father’s care and providence, receiving the title of heir and the right to a vast spiritual treasury. Calvin notes, “When a man adopts a child he chooses him to be his heir, and all the goods that he has afterwards are passed on under that title. So it is with us who are heirs of the heavenly life because God has adopted and chosen us for his children.” [21]

The greatest privilege that a child of God receives upon adoption is Christ, the Son of the Father. Christ becomes the treasure and focus of an adopted child of God with all the privileges that He gives. He is the apex, the agent, and the achiever of the believer’s adoption. As seen earlier in Calvin’s thought, election played a prominent role in the believer’s adoption, but that election is in Christ. Outside of Christ, election is not possible, nor would the adoption of children be possible.

Adoption makes the believer an heir of salvation through Christ. The adopted child of God becomes the recipient of salvation through Christ, for “the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own.” [22] Christ’s merits, through His obedience, death, and resurrection, are what secure the believer’s adoption. This is clear from Calvin’s writing on the purpose of why God had to become man. He had to take on our flesh to rescue us from our self- made hell, to conquer death, and to procure salvation for His people. [23] This too, serves the believer’s assurance of salvation and being heir to the Kingdom, “for the Son of God, to whom it wholly belongs, has adopted us as his brothers.” [24] This work of salvation was achieved through the Incarnation, when “ungrudgingly he took our nature upon himself to impart to us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us.” [25]

In his application of the doctrine of adoption, it must be noted that Calvin was discriminatory, opening up its comforts to believers but also preserving this doctrine from those who would abuse it in unbelief. This discriminatory note can be detected when he cautions that the Incarnation must not be used to automate adoption. Just because Christ came in human flesh does not mean that all are the children of God. He writes, “When we say that Christ was made man that he might make us children of God, this expression does not extend to all men. For faith intervenes, to engraft us spiritually into the body of Christ.” [26]

The fact that the believer becomes an heir of Christ also has eschatological dimensions. Although this is present in the Pauline doctrine of adoption, Calvin also highlights the Johannine complement to it. He clearly brings out the “now/not yet” tension inherent to believers’ enjoyment of the inheritance they receive through adoption. In his Commentary on 1 John, especially 1 John 3:2, Calvin notes that the believer’s condition as an adopted child of God has not yet reached full fruition; he is subject to death, misery, and all manner of evil. Calvin counsels the believer to consider the privileges that await him in heaven, looking to the coming of Christ which sustains faith, “because the fruit of our adoption is as yet hid, for in heaven is our felicity, and we are now far away travelling on the earth.” [27] This tension is also apparent in his Commentary on Romans, in which he highlights the fact that the believer’s inheritance through adoption will be fully realized in the future. He states that “we shall partake of it in common with the only-begotten Son of God,” which requires patience and endurance in the present Christian life. [28]

Adoption frees the child of God from bondage of the law through Christ. This discussion finds a prominent place in Calvin’s treatment of adoption and the law in his Commentary on Galatians. Christ was subjected to the law for the benefit of His children. He did so freely, choosing “to become liable to keep the law, that exemption from it might be obtained for us.” [29] Calvin clearly cautions, however, that freedom from the law in Christ does not necessitate abrogation of the law as a rule for the life of the believer, an issue that will be discussed under the duties of adoption. [30] Under the Old Covenant, believers did not yet enjoy the full fruit of adoption—freedom from the bondage of the law through its ceremonies and appendages. The New Testament believer under the covenant of grace now enjoys the privilege of freedom from the law because Christ is now His righteousness. Calvin argues within a covenantal framework that “the fathers, under the Old Testament, were certain of their adoption, but did not so fully as yet enjoy their privilege.” [31] The freedom from the law that the believer now enjoys through adoption is different because this fruit of adoption is fully realized in Christ. Calvin is careful not to disown Old Testament believers as children of God when he says, “The ancients were also sons of God, and heirs through Christ, but we hold the same character in a different manner; for we have Christ present with us, and in that manner enjoy his blessings.” [32]

The character of this freedom from the law is clearly seen in his Institutes where Calvin speaks of Christ being made a curse for us (quoting Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 27:26). [33] He goes on to directly connect the adoption of sons and the freedom from the law so that “we should not be borne down by an unending bondage, which would agonize our consciences with the fear of death.” [34] The freedom that the believer enjoys is freedom from conscience because Christ has been made a curse on his behalf. Furthermore, this freedom is realized in the fact that all the ceremonial laws have been abolished in Christ. [35]

Adoption makes the believer part of the “wonderful exchange” through Christ. Westhead lists this wonderful exchange as part and parcel of adoption. The substance of this exchange is best seen in Calvin’s own words in discussing the fruits of the Lord’s Supper:

This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness. [36]

Adoption comprehends the conformity of the believer to the image of Christ. The Apostle Paul speaks of Christ as the prototype of all the sons of God: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Calvin highlights this as one of the greatest privileges the believer enjoys as an adopted son of God: “God had so determined that all whom he has adopted should bear the image of Christ…that he might teach us that there is in Christ a living and conspicuous exemplar, which is exhibited to God’s children for imitation.” [37] Elsewhere he writes that “the final end of our adoption is, that what has in order preceded in Christ, shall at length be completed in us…. We have eyes prepared to see God.” [38] This conforming to Christ’s image will prepare the believer to behold Christ in His glory, removing impurities, weakness, and sin.

Adoption incorporates the believer into the family of God. When a child of God is adopted, his allegiances change. The devil is no longer his father; God is His Father through Jesus Christ, and he leaves the sinful family behind and joins the family of God. In his Sermons on Micah, Calvin poses the question, “For who are we, that God should honor us by taking us into his own house? For when God decided to adopt us as his children, that already constituted an honor that overshadowed all the possible honors of this world.” [39] This new family or “dwelling place of God’s children is more to be desired than anything else in the world.” [40] The church is part of the family of God and takes a prominent place in Calvin’s theology. If God is the believer’s Father, then the church is the believer’s mother—the arena in which the believer is conceived, given life, and nourished. [41] The church is where God’s children receive God’s fatherly love and the “especial witness of the spiritual life.” [42] Calvin’s doctrine of adoption shows the privilege of belonging to God’s family both on a vertical plane, with God as Father, and a horizontal plane, being joined to the church and the family of God.

The third part of the framework in which Calvin develops the doctrine of adoption is centered on the Spirit and His role in adoption. The Spirit cannot and must not be divorced from the doctrine of adoption, and Calvin develops this third section in a biblical manner, drawing out the beauty and assistance that the Spirit offers to the believer as an adopted child of God.

Adoption is witnessed and sealed by the Spirit. Calvin confirms in his Tracts that the Spirit is the witness, seal, and earnest of the believer’s adoption. [43] Scripture calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of adoption because “he is the witness to us of the free benevolence of the God with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved only-begotten Son to become a Father to us.” [44] This witness of the Spirit of the believer’s adoption is a co-witness which takes place when the Spirit “testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call God our Father.” [45]The ensuing privilege of the child of God is assurance.

Thus adoption obtains assurance for the believer through the work of the Spirit. This fruit is really bound up closely with the preceding privilege of adoption—that the believer has the Spirit as his witness. They are almost inseparable because as the Spirit witnesses to the heart, the believer is assured that he is a child of God. Calvin ties these two concepts together in his comments on Romans 8:16, saying that “the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not convey to us this assurance.” [46] This is corroborated in the statement that this assurance issues forth in a cry to God. [47] While adoption affords assurance of God’s electing grace in the life of the believer, the Spirit works that assurance in the heart of God’s adopted children. [48]

Adoption ensures a life of prayer by the Spirit. The believer’s life of prayer is worked by the Holy Spirit. Calvin argues that it is through Christ and His ministry of reconciliation that the believer may now come boldly before God in prayer because the veil has been torn between sinners and God.49 However, the Spirit works that boldness in the hearts of believers to go to God in prayer through Christ, and Calvin highlights the necessity of enlisting His help in prayer. [50]The Spirit assists the believer despite his weaknesses in prayer, “if we remember that God is still our Father and that we must seek refuge in him.” [51] With the witness and testimony of the Spirit with the believer’s spirit comes true prayer. This is affirmed when Calvin argues that unless the Spirit testifies in our hearts, working confidence regarding the Father’s love, “our tongues would be dumb, so that they could utter no prayers.” [52] Right prayer issues from Spirit-worked assurance. Calvin succeeds in demonstrating that this Spirit of prayer is not only present in the New Testament but also in the Old. That the ministry of the Spirit of adoption is effectual for the Old Testament saints as well is illustrated effectively in the life and prayer of the prophet Habakkuk. The prophet prays in Habakkuk 3:1-2 for God to revive His work. This is nothing else than an appeal using the “favour of adoption.” Calvin stresses that the prophet “thus confesses that there was no reason why God should forgive his people except that he had been pleased freely to adopt them and to choose them as his peculiar people.” [53] Calvin uses Habakkuk as a model for the prayer life of the adopted child of God when he says, “Now we have this in common with the ancient people, that God adopts us…. We may therefore adopt this form of prayer, which is prescribed for us by the Holy Spirit.” [54]

Not only does the Holy Spirit aid in individual prayer for the people of God based upon a particular ethnicity and language, but prayer can be offered by any person of any ethnicity or language. This is illustrated by the Spirit-indicted cry, “Abba, Father.” Calvin argues that this phrase proves that the adoption is for both the Jew and Gentile. The word Abba is Hebrew and the word Father is Greek, demonstrating that “we can call upon God in any language, as with one voice, confident that God will receive us now that we have the liberty to address him.” [55] The Spirit’s witness in prayer is an integral part of the believer’s privilege of praying with boldness since, as Griffith notes, “conviction of God’s holiness and our sin would preclude having the faith to call God ‘Father,’ apart from the witness of the Spirit of adoption in our hearts.” [56]

Adoption ensures a life of sanctification through the Spirit. Adopted believers have the Holy Spirit as their witness and seal, and the Spirit has engraved the promises of God upon their hearts, namely, that “we see and feel by experience that God has adopted us…and tells us that the assurance he has given us and daily gives us by his gospel, namely, that he will be our Father, and especially his engraving of it in our hearts by his Holy Spirit, is no deceitful thing.” [57] In adoption, Calvin sees the Spirit leading the believer onwards and upwards to a life of sanctification. He says that “we have a good and infallible pledge that God will guide us to the end, and that since he had begun to lead us into the way of salvation, he will bring us to perfection to which he calls us, because, in truth, without him we could not continue so much as a single day.” [58]

Through the Spirit’s witness and indwelling the child of God has a paraclete, a strengthener and sustainer for the life of sanctification. Calvin notes:

Wherever the Spirit is, he necessarily manifests his power and efficiency…. It hence appears that we are God’s children, that is, when his Spirit rules and governs our life…. Whatever good works are done by us, proceed from the grace of the Spirit, and that the Spirit is not obtained by our righteousness, but is freely given to us. [59]

The Spirit is freely given for the believer’s sanctification, another high privilege belonging to the child of God. The graces of sanctification are bestowed by the Spirit alone, and “whomever therefore, God receives into grace, he at the same time bestows the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he remakes them to his own image.” [60]

Calvin’s doctrine of adoption is a clear and unmistakable part of his soteriology. Although he does not develop a specific chapter on adoption in his Institutes, he develops the doctrine throughout his writings out of the beautiful experiential realities and privileges of adoption for the child of God as they are found in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The Duties That Flow From Adoption

John Calvin described adoption as “not the cause merely of a partial salvation, but bestow[ing] salvation entire.”61 Calvin saw that adoption was related to all of salvation—including predestination, election, calling, and justification. Adoption was what brought the sinner into the arms of the Father. Wilterdink states, “For Calvin, adoption into the family of God is synonymous with salvation.”62 This meant for Calvin that adoption happens when salvation occurs in the heart of the new believer. He did not separate adoption from the act of what God does in the heart of the sinner. To understand this view, it is vital to see how salvation and adoption go hand in hand. It is not possible to be saved and yet not be adopted; likewise, one cannot be adopted without being saved. Calvin saw this as being an important truth with great impact on how one is to live as a saved, adopted son of his heavenly Father.

In Calvin’s development of adoption he begins by stating that it is motivated by the Father’s electing grace in Christ. This is best seen through Calvin’s own words:

It is not from a perception of anything that we deserve, but because our heavenly Father has introduced us, through the privilege of adoption, into the body of Christ. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy. [63]

Calvin saw that adoption was designed for the glory of God, in that those saved by the gospel are then to live for the glory of God in holiness, purity, and doing every deed in obedience to their heavenly Father. To Calvin, adoption was not just a blessing; he knew that the privileges given to the believer upon the act of adoption came with responsibilities. Adoption is not only a promised inheritance for believers, but also a way in which believers are to think, live, and transform their new life according to the Word of God.

Adoption calls one to live as a child of God. Calvin states at the beginning of his third sermon on the first chapter of Ephesians:

I began to show you earlier that it is not lawful for us to indulge in loose living with the excuse that God has elected us before the creation of the world, as though it were right for us to give ourselves over to all manner of evil, because we cannot perish, seeing that God has taken us for his children. For we must not put things asunder which he has coupled together. Seeing that he has chosen us to be holy and to walk in purity of life, our election must be as root that yields good fruits…. And whence comes this change but only through the grace that we spoke of, namely, that he elected and chose us for his children before we were born into the world. [64]

For Calvin, being an adopted child of God is vital to the Christian life. Becoming a Christian is not to be taken lightly. A child of God is to live like one—representing what his Father did, who his Father is, and how his Father acts. In other words, Calvin saw that believers are to represent the very image of their new heavenly Father. Upon adoption, the fruits of believers’ lives are to be holy in order to properly represent the Father. Believers are to put away the lusts of the flesh, revel in the fact that they are now the sons and daughters of the Almighty God, and, as such, want to portray their Father in whatever they do. [65]

Adoption also calls believers to live a life of suffering. In his commentary on Romans 8:17, he states:

We are co-heirs with Christ, provided, in entering on our inheritance, we follow him in the same way in which he has gone before. And he (Paul) thus made mention of Christ, because we have by his grace been adopted as his children; and that it may not be doubtful, its possession has already been conferred on Christ, whose partners we are become: but Christ came to the cross; then we must come to it in the same manner. [66]

Calvin understood that those adopted are to follow after Christ— their elder Brother—in suffering; it is a duty to suffer like Christ. Calvin’s understanding of the inheritance as adopted sons and daughters of God is that it means being like Christ in every way. The child of God is to be remade into His image and partake of His suffering.

Adoption calls believers to live a prayerful life. While dealing with Romans 8:16, Calvin says the following about the Spirit through whom we cry Abba:

For we must ever hold fast this principle,—that we do not rightly pray to God, unless we are surely persuaded in our hearts, that he is our Father, when we so call him with our lips. To this there is a corresponding part,—that our faith has no true evidence, except we call upon God. It is not then without reason that Paul, bringing us to test, shows that it then only appears how truly any one believes, when they who have embraced the promise of grace, exercise themselves in prayers. [67]

Calvin preached a sermon entitled, “Crying Out to God in the Certainty of Our Adoption,” in which he said, “[W]e know that God demands this (prayer) sacrifice of us all—that we call upon him and take refuge in him—for this is a way of proving he is our Father and the source of all good things.” [68]

It is a blessing that believers can pray and call upon their Father, but Calvin expressed how important it is to recognize that exercising prayer is not merely a blessing, but a responsibility for one living as a child of God.

Adoption calls God’s children to pursue holiness. When preaching on Ephesians 1, Calvin said, “But yet we must always bear in mind that God’s electing of us was in order to call us to holiness of life. For if he should let us alone still as wretched castaways, surely we could do nothing but all manner of wickedness according to the corruption that is in us.” [69] He went on to say:

For we are not elected to give ourselves over to permissiveness, but to show by our deeds that God has adopted us to be children and taken us into his keeping in order to dwell in us by his Holy Spirit and to unite us to himself in all perfection of righteousness. [70]

For Calvin, being adopted was not a “free ticket” into heaven; rather, it was a constant reminder—a constant responsibility—for believers that they are to pursue holiness until the day that they are united with their heavenly Father. Calvin believed that a person acts according to the family he is a part of: if he is Satan’s child and a part of this world, then he acts accordingly; but if one is a child of God, then he is to act like it, living every day in pursuit of the example that Christ has given.

Adoption further calls believers to live an indebted life. When preaching on election and adoption in a sermon on Ephesians 1, Calvin says, “Let us notice that in this place St. Paul exhorts us to acknowledge ourselves indebted to God for the virtue and goodness that is in us.” [71] Calvin proclaimed the importance of knowing that as adopted children of God, believers are always indebted to their Father for the pure grace He has given to them. Adopted children of God are given the rights to a heavenly family and salvation, and as adopted children they are now owned by the Father. Because of the great grace and blessings that this adoption gives the believer, everything— every move, every sound, every accomplishment, every second—is owned by God. This is clearly seen in Calvin’s preaching:

Now if we are so much bound to a mortal man as to maintain his honor when we are kept at his expense, what ought we to do for our God? Are we not in his house as long as we live in this world? Have we so much as one drop of water except by his goodness and generosity? Behold, God has a fatherly care over us, and yet we allow his name to be blasphemed, his majesty to be robbed and spoiled of all reverence, his Word to be torn in pieces, all order (that he has commanded) to be broken, the church (which is his wife) to be corrupted and misused, and his children to be debauched, and in the meanwhile we keep our mouths closed. I ask you, whether such silence does not sufficiently show that we are not worthy to eat one more morsel of bread, nor to be counted in the number of earthworm, lice, bugs, and all the vilest and filthiest things of the world? 

Therefore let us think well upon it, that we shall be found guilty of the despising of God’s majesty (as we see) because we do not rebuke men’s vices. That is a reason why the wicked and profane become bolder and imagine they have won all to their side, and triumph in their despising of God in that way. It comes partly as a result of our silence. [72]

Thus living an indebted life of duty and honor to the Father was living a life for, to, and in the Father’s blessing.

Adoption calls one to praise the Father. Towards the end of his sermon on Ephesians 1, Calvin speaks about faith being a fruit of election, and relates this to adoption and how all praise is due to our heavenly Father:

To be brief, it is not without reason that St. Paul says here that God’s praise shall never be glorified as it ought to be till we acknowledge his election to be the cause of all the benefits he bestows upon us, and that if he had not adopted us by his infinite mercy according to his eternal counsel, we should take part of the praise to ourselves which is due to him. [73]

Calvin truly understood—and wanted others to as well—that adoption is more than blessings and privileges alone. It is also more than duties and responsibilities. Adoption into the family of God causes the hearts of believers to burst with joy and praise for what God has done for them. According to Calvin, seeing God as the perfector of man’s salvation ought to bring forth a life that honors the Trinity constantly for the work that has been done in the believer’s heart.

Still further, adoption calls believers to live an obedient life in cross-bearing. [74] In his Institutes, Calvin writes the following about cross-bearing in the life of the adopted:

Those whom the Lord has chosen and honored with his intercourse must prepare for a hard, laborious, troubled life, a life full of many and various kinds of evils: it being the will of our heavenly Father to exercise his people in this way while putting them to the proof. Having begun this course with Christ the first-born, he continues it towards all his children. [75]

He then ends the section entitled “What the Cross Is” by saying:

How powerfully should it soften the bitterness of the cross, to think that the more we are afflicted with adversity, the surer we are made of our fellowship with Christ; by communion with whom our sufferings are not only blessed to us, but tend greatly to the furtherance of our salvation. [76]

Calvin saw the importance of believers’ suffering in adoption—that is, carrying their own cross and doing so in obedience, imaging their elder brother Jesus.77 Like a toddler looks to his older brother for guidance, God’s adopted focus on Christ, their Elder Brother, for guidance on living as co-heirs with Him. Calvin understood that this involved looking at what Christ had done at the cross. In Christ’s suffering, we are given an example for life.

Adoption calls believers to live a life that desires the third use of the law. It would be unthinkable to write a paper on Calvin’s view of the duties and responsibilities of adoption without making mention of his view on the third use of the law. Timothy Trumper expresses this best as he makes mention of this issue in the section of his dissertation about obedience:

Ever since God revealed himself as father to us,” says Calvin, “we must prove our ungratefulness to him if we did not in turn show ourselves as sons. (Mal. 1:6; Eph. 5:1; 1 John 3:1)78 Gratitude is therefore registered by obedience to the Father’s will. [79]

Calvin saw that the law aids the adopted in the process of sanctification. It is the duty of the sons and daughters of God to live in obedience to the law in order to continually present themselves as His children.

Calvin writes on the third use of the law in the Institutes:

The third use of the Law has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns…. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. [80]

Elsewhere Calvin shows that the law helps develop obedience to the Father. [81]

Finally, adoption calls believers to live a life of humility. A life of humility is fostered by meditating and feasting upon the doctrine of adoption. In the concluding thoughts from his only sermon on adoption from Galatians 4:4-7, Calvin says:

Now let us fall before the presence of our great God, acknowledging our sins, and praying that he would make us aware of them so that we humble ourselves before him. At the same time, let us not lose courage, since he accepts us, and willingly deigns to listen to our petitions when we come to him in complete trust. May he grant us grace to overcome all problems and hindrances, and all the arguments and questions that the devil sets in our hearts, that we may know the truth of that promise, that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Thus, we all say, Almighty God, and our heavenly Father. [82]

Conclusion

The life, theology, and work of John Calvin have impacted the world in an amazing way. Woven through his commentaries, tracts, letters, sermons, and Institutes, the doctrine of adoption takes center stage in describing the beauty of salvation for sinners. The benefits, privileges, and duties of adoption are so central to Calvin’s theology and so real to him that he went to great lengths to impart this treasure of wisdom to his flock. May we receive this legacy and feast upon the gospel that Calvin loved so much, setting our eyes upon the Savior who brought us into God’s family as His adopted children.

Notes

1. Sinclair Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” Pulpit and People, Essays in Honor of William Still, eds. Nigel M. de S. Cameron and Sinclair B. Ferguson (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986); Howard Griffith, “‘The First Title of the Spirit’: Adoption in Calvin’s Soteriology,” Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 135-53; Timothy J. R. Trumper, “An Historical Study of the Doctrine of Adoption in the Calvinistic Tradition” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2001); Timothy J. R. Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption: A plea for Realisation I and II: The Adoption Metaphor in Biblical Usage” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 14 (1996): 129-45; Timothy J. R. Trumper, “The Theological History of Adoption II: A Rationale,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 20 (2002): 177-202; Marijn de Kroon, The Honor of God and Human Salvation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001); Nigel Westhead, “Adoption in the Thought of John Calvin,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 13 (1995); G. A. Wilterdink, “The Fatherhood of God in Calvin’s Thought,” Reformed Review 30 (Autumn 1976): 9-22.
2. Ferguson, The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship, 81-86.
3. Trumper, “An Historical Study of the Doctrine of Adoption.”
4. John Calvin, Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960); John Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation (Audubon: Old Paths Publications, 1996); John Calvin, Sermons on Galatians (Audubon: Old Paths Publications, 1995); John Calvin, Sermons on the Book of Micah, trans. and ed. Benjamin W. Farley (Phillipsburg, Pa.: P&R Publishing, 2003); John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983); John Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1958).
5. Sinclair Ferguson, The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship, 82.
6. For a further delineation of these categories, see Westhead, “Adoption in the Thought of John Calvin,” 102-15, and Griffith, “The First Title of the Spirit: Adoption in Calvin’s Soteriology,” 135-53.
7. This paper speaks strictly of redemptive sonship. Westhead notes that Calvin denies natural sonship and God’s universal fatherhood in the context of creation, but resoundingly affirms redemptive sonship as it finds expression in the electing and redeeming grace of God through Jesus Christ in the context of soteriology. For a further discussion, see Westhead, “Adoption in the Thought of John Calvin,” 103-104.
8. Griffith, “The First Title of the Spirit,” 138.
9. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 98-99.
10. Calvin, Institutes, 3.22.1.
11. Calvin, Institutes, 3.22.4.
12. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 39.
13. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesian, 43.
14. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesian, 47.
15. Calvin, Institutes, 1.2.1.
16. Wallace and Calvin, quoted in Griffith, “The First Title of the Spirit,” 150.
17. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 198.
18. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 199.
19. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 199.
20. Trumper, “An Historical Study of the Doctrine of Adoption,” 180.
21. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 40.
22. Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians, 21:198.
23. Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.2.
24. Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.2.
25. Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.2.
26. Calvin, Institutes, 2.13.2.
27. Calvin, Commentary on 1 John, 22:204-205.
28. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 19:301.
29. Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, 21:119.
30. Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, 21:119.
31. Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, 21:119.
32. Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, 21:122. This discussion takes place in Calvin’s discussion of adoption within the Old and New Covenants. He traces the biblical theological progression of adoption throughout the Old and New Testaments.
33. Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.15.
34. Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.15.
35. Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.16.
36. Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.2.
37. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 19:318
38. Calvin, Commentary on 1 John, 22:205-6.
39. Calvin, Sermons on the Book of Micah, 193.
40. Calvin, Sermons on the Book of Micah, 193.
41. Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.4.
42. Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.4.
43. Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, Part 3, 3:154.
44. Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.3.
45. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 19:299.
46. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 19:299.
47. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 286.
48. Calvin, Sermons on Election and Reprobation, 312.
49. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 374.
50. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 374.
51. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 374.
52. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 19:299.
53. Calvin, Commentary on Habakkuk, 15:138.
54. Calvin, Commentary on Habakkuk, 15:138.
55. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 381.
56. Griffith, “The First Title of the Spirit,” 151.
57. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 48.
58. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 48.
59. Calvin, Commentary on 1 John, 22:227.
60. Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6.
61. Calvin, “The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom, and of the Reforming Church,” in Calvin’s Selected Works: Tracts, 275.
62. Wilterdink, “The Fatherhood of God in Calvin’s Thought,” 185.
63. Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians, 21:198.
64. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 35.
65. Calvin, Institutes, 2.14.5.
66. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 301-2.
67. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 299-300.
68. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 381-82.
69. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 36-37.
70. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 37.
71. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 39.
72. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 525.
73. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 44.
74. Trumper, “An Historic Study of the Doctrine of Adoption in the Calvinistic Tradition,” 199-202.
75. Calvin, Institutes, 3.8.1.
76. Calvin, Institutes, 3.8.1.
77. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 318.
78. Calvin, Institutes, 3.6.3.
79. Trumper, “An Historic Study of the Doctrine of Adoption in the Calvinistic Tradition,” 190.
80. Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.12.
81. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.5; 3.8.9. For John Calvin’s view of obedience and the third use of the law in relation to the doctrine of Adoption, see Timothy Trumper, “An Historic Study of the Doctrine of Adoption in the Calvinistic Tradition,” 190-202.
82. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 384.

Seventeenth-Century Puritans And The Synoptic Problem

By Michael Strickland

The Synoptic Problem (SP) is a classic puzzle of New Testament study which involves the relationship of the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). While many consider the issues of the order of the gospels and whether or not one gospel served as the source for another to be of interest only to modern scholars, Protestants have been debating them practically since the beginning of the Reformation. In the seventeenth century, there were two popular opinions espoused regarding the interrelationships of the gospels. Those opinions are now referred to as the Independence Hypothesis, which maintains that the evangelists wrote without reading or copying other canonical gospels, and the Augustinian Hypothesis, which holds that Mark made use of Matthew’s gospel and that Luke made use of both. The purpose of this article is to consider the opinions of three prominent Puritan leaders in London in the middle 1600s.

The middle of the seventeenth century in Britain was full of political and religious turmoil. In the years before the English civil war began, leaders from the Church of England vied with nonconformist, or Puritan, leaders for control of congregations. The nonconformist ministers found themselves persecuted by the authorities of the church and crown in the 1630s, then later favored by Parliament in the late 1640s and 1650s, and ultimately ejected from their posts after the Restoration of the Crown of 1660. These tumultuous times were clearly evidenced in the lives of three nonconformist ministers of the age, Sidrach Simpson, Benjamin Needler, and Francis Roberts, each of whom, along with their views on the SP, will be considered in this article.

Sidrach Simpson (1600-1655)

William Laud, royalist ally of Charles I, was named Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, and immediately set out to restrict the influence of the nonconformists in the Church of England. Laud exerted pressure by making it increasingly difficult for nonconformist ministers to offer lectures to congregations. These lecturers, who offered their sermons in the afternoons after official services, were paid by the congregation independently from the Church of England and were viewed by Laud as dangerous. During Laud’s tenure as Archbishop, many nonconformist ministers fled to the Netherlands where their views were more welcomed. One such minister was Sidrach Simpson, who had lectured at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, London, beginning in 1629, but resigned his post in late 1637 or early 1638 and went to Holland where he began his association with the Independents, or Congregationalists. By 1641, just before the outbreak of the civil war, London became a safe place for Simpson to return, and he resumed his position at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, as well as taking a new place lecturing at Blackfriars. Indicative of the religious change of fate the Puritans were experiencing at the time, in 1643, Simpson was chosen to participate in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, a select group of clergy chosen to help Parliament restructure the Church of England. While in Westminster, Simpson associated with Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, and Jeremiah Burroughes, and together the five voiced the Independent view of church hierarchy. These five were known as “The Five Dissenting Brethren,” because their views dissented from the majority Presbyterian voice in the Westminster Assembly of Divines. In 1650, Simpson was named Master of Pembroke Hall at Cambridge, though he continued preaching in London at St. Mary Abchurch.

In a sermon delivered in London, Simpson revealed some of his opinions concerning the origins of the synoptic gospels. The sermon was entitled “A Short and Excellent Treatise of Covetousness,” and in one section Simpson defended Paul’s assertion—“Covetousness which is Idolatry” (1 Cor. 6:10). As proof that Paul was not “in a heat or (sic) passion” when he made the statement, Simpson asked the congregation to consider the words of Jesus in Mark 7:22, “From the hearts of men arise Theft, Adultery, Covetousness, etc.” Simpson continued with this suggestion: “And it’s worth observation, That when the Evangelist Matthew doth repeat those words, he leaves out Covetousness: But when Mark came to add unto that which Matthew [15:19] wrote (which was the manner of the Evangelists to add unto others) he puts in Covetousness.”

Several conclusions can be reached from this paragraph. First, Simpson appeared to assume the priority of Matthew. Second, Simpson appears to have attributed Matthew with the choice of “leaving out Covetousness” when he was repeating Jesus. Third, Simpson considered Mark to be aware of Matthew’s written gospel by his statement that “Mark came to add unto that which Matthew wrote.” Fourth, Simpson implied his belief that such alterations were common in the Gospels, as evidenced by his statement that it “was the manner of the Evangelists to add unto others.” And fifth, Simpson did not refrain from mentioning his opinions out of concern that his congregation would be bothered by his conclusions. In fact, the statement appears to have been included in the sermon almost in passing while the preacher focused on a more important point about covetousness.

Benjamin Needler (1620-1682)

Of course, Simpson’s view was not the unanimous opinion of the clergy in London at that time. Benjamin Needler was also a nonconformist Puritan minister active in London before, during, and after the English Civil War, though, unlike Simpson, Needler advocated the Presbyterian system of church government. Like Simpson, his ministry was impeded by the political situation in England of the time. In 1641, Needler went up to St. John’s College, Oxford, but his education was interrupted when, in 1645, he was forced to leave due to the fact that Oxford had become the royalist capital. He eventually returned to Oxford and received a Bachelor of Civil Law degree in 1648. In that same year, Needler was chosen as rector of St. Margaret Moses in London, a position he occupied for the next fourteen years. It was during that time that Needler wrote Expository Notes with Practical Observations towards the opening of the five first Chapters of the first book of Moses called Genesis (London, 1654). Needler dedicated his “small manuall” to “the Parishioners of Margaret Moses, Friday Street, London” and listed his reasons for composition 1-4, which were: 1) That he, their pastor, “might be instrumentall to establish [them] in some of the truths of Christ in [those] erroneous dayes”; 2) That they “might be confirmed concerning the sweet harmony of the Scriptures, how one Scripture embraces and kisses each other,” though there were an unspecified many “who would make them to fall out, and mutiny”; 3) That they “might take notice of the obscurity of some texts”; and 4) That as long as he was allowed to live, he “might leave something in [their] hands which might be for [their] spiritual advantage.”

After concluding his notes on Genesis, Needler attached a list of thirty-six rules in “Directions for the understanding of the scriptures,” often with scriptural examples. His twenty-third rule, of particular interest to this study, states, “Althoughe we should find the holy Penmen of God differ from each other in things of a lesser import, or consideration, we should not from hence in the least scruple the divine authority of the Scripture.” In his explanation of this rule, Needler used the example of the different ordering of the temptations of Christ in Matthew and Luke. He first noted that, in a modern (seventeenth century) court of law, a man would not be accused of falsehood if he failed to give the chronological order of events unless he had specifically promised to do so. Likewise, though the order of the temptations differs in Matthew and Luke, “there is still an harmony” between them. At the conclusion of the section, Needler clearly revealed his opinion on the origins of the synoptic gospels: “Yea, some think that it is a good argument to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, viz. that the Holy Penmen did not lay their heads together, about the framing of the Gospels, nor did they transcribe one anothers coppies; they agreeing in the maine and yet differing in things of lesser consideration.”

Like Simpson’s comment before, Needler’s statement reveals several components of his belief about the evangelists. First, just as Chrysostom had argued centuries before, Needler acknowledged that some interpreters consider the lack of collaboration, or “laying their heads together,” of the evangelists a good argument for scriptural authority. Second, this authority was displayed in the fact that the evangelists agreed on the important matters but not on the lesser details, which from the context appears to mean chronological order. Third, and taking the argument one step further than Chrysostom, Needler suggested that not only did the evangelists fail to collaborate, but that they also did not “transcribe one anothers coppies,” ruling out a dependency hypothesis. It may be that Needler included this clause because it was becoming more common for scholars to consider one gospel dependent upon another. Fourth, much as Simpson had done, Needler considered this subject an appropriate topic of consideration for his congregation. Needler’s and Simpson’s mention of synoptic issues in sermons opens up the possibility that the SP was being discussed by churchgoers in London during the turbulent years of the mid-seventeenth century, and that their pastors sought to influence their opinions.

Francis Roberts (1609-1675)

One of Needler’s older brethren in Presbyterian nonconformism was Francis Roberts, a graduate of Trinity College, Oxford, who first ministered in Birmingham until the Battle of Birmingham in 1643 (in the midst of the English Civil War), at which point Roberts narrowly escaped to London. In that year, Roberts was made rector of St. Augustine Watling Street, where he remained until 1650 when he took a position in Somerset. In London, Roberts joined Needler and other nonconformist signatories to the pamphlet A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel, in and about London (London, 1648), a document signed by Presbyterian ministers denying their role in the execution of Charles I.

It was during his seven years at St. Augustine that Roberts composed his seminal work, Clavis Bibliorum, The Key of the Bible in 1648. In the Epistle Dedicatory of Clavis, his stated purpose was to aid Christians in their duty to:

1) Know and understand the Holy Scriptures sufficiently. 2) To prize and esteem them highly. 3) To love them and delight in them exceedingly. 4) To study and search them accurately. 5) To believe them stedfastly. 6) To apply them to their own particular Cases and Conditions impartially. 7) To obey and practice them sincerely, entirely, and continually.

In this massive volume, Roberts detailed his views on the origins of the synoptic gospels, citing Chemnitz’s “learned observations” that the Apostle Matthew wrote first, nine years after the Ascension. Mark epitomized Matthew’s work a year or two later, though Mark insisted “more on the ordering and timing of things done.” Of the other synoptic evangelist, Roberts wrote:

Luke who wrote in the fifteenth year after Christ’s Ascension, having seen others writings, propounds to himself to write of things and that methodically…but in many things he shews the order of things in circumstances, and in most agrees with Mark (Whence Tertullian calls Luke’s gospel an orderly digesting of the Evangelical story) but sometimes things manifest in Matthew and Mark he puts not in their own place.

Roberts appears to have been a proponent of the AH, as Simpson was, making him the second Puritan minister to advocate the AH in London in the mid-seventeenth century, and the third (along with Simpson and Needler) to address the subject for the benefit of the layman.

The Synoptic Problem: A Matter Of Debate In Puritan London?

An intriguing question about this time is whether clergy were debating the issue of the SP in London, even at the time of great tumult in the church. That Roberts and Needler knew each other is almost certain, given that they were co-signers to the pamphlet A Vindication. Considering the proximity of their ministries, there is also the strong possibility that either or both of the men were familiar with Simpson, though there is no direct evidence. From 1641-1650, Simpson was preaching again at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, and Needler began at St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street in 1648. Besides being the only “St. Margaret” churches in London, these buildings were very close to one another, as seen in the map below (Figure 2a). When Simpson began preaching at St. Mary Abchurch in 1648, his church was even closer to Needler’s, and all three of those churches were situated very near Roberts’s church, St. Augustine Wadley Street. The close proximity of all of these churches can be seen in the map below (Figure 2b).

Though St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street was destroyed in the Great Fire of London,1 and St. Augustine on Watling Street was destroyed in the Second World War,2 they were located practically around the corner from one another. The closeness of their proximity is easily seen on modern maps of London (see figure 2c), as well as the short distance (less than a quarter mile) from the church to St. Mary Abchurch, which still stands.


Figure 2a: Newcourt’s Map of London, drawn in 1658, facsimile by Edward Stanford 1863. The four dots near the center indicate the location of the churches under consideration. See Figure 2b below. The digital version is copyright © Sara Douglass Enterprises Pty Ltd 2006, and used by permission.


Figure 2b: Close-Up of the area near London Bridge with a key to churches. Indicated churches are underlined in the key. Adapted from Newcourt's map by permission.


Figure 2c: Map of modern London showing the proximity of St. Augustine on Watling Street, St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street, and St. Mary Abchurch on Abchurch Lane. Map made using Open Street Map, an open source mapping effort: http://www.openstreetmap.org

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Simpson and Needler and/ or Simpson and Roberts would have at least been acquaintances, considering the proximity of their ministries for several years and their similar Puritan beliefs. Further, combining the almost certain acquaintance of Needler and Roberts with the fact that their churches were within earshot, it seems likely that they had occasional discussions. Whether they ever discussed their views of gospel origins is a matter of intrigue. Regardless, it is evident some Puritan ministers and churchgoers in mid-seventeenth-century London were aware of the SP and its related issues, with some advocating the AH and others the IH. It is also clear that Chemnitz’s Harmonia, though written in Latin and composed by a Lutheran on the continent, played a role in the shaping of the Puritan Roberts’s views on the SP. Though it appears that neither Needler nor Simpson produced any great theological works, Roberts’s Clavis was an influential work that continued to be used by ministers and scholars long after its publication, as seen by citations in 1790,3 1827,4 1836,5 and 1884,6 over 230 years after its initial publication.

Notes

1. Simon Bradley and Nikolaus Pevsner, London: The City Churches (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998), 143.
2. Bradley and Pevsner, London: The City Churches, 61.
3. Thomas Oliver, A Full Refutation of the Doctrine of Unconditional Perseverance (London, 1790), 156.
4. The Christian Remembrancer, Vol. IX (Jan–Dec 1827), 14. No author cited.
5. Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1836). Multiple citations.
6. Charles Augustus Briggs, Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods and History (New York, 1883), 430.

Life Under God’s Knife: Philippians 3:3 As Strategy

By Gerald M. Bilkes

Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones was fond of saying that “every institution tends to produce its opposite.” [1] What he meant by this is that regardless of how someone or something begins, it often ends promoting ideals that it never originally intended.

When you look at the history of denominations and seminaries, there are an alarming number of instances in which this proves true. Many a seminary or mission institution is started with the purpose of studying, teaching, and adhering to the Bible. Yet, after several decades, these seminaries and institutions militate against the Bible and advance a syncretism with culture and society. Likewise, many of the great philosophical movements throughout history did not set out intentionally to undermine the Christian faith. But loosening themselves from the moorings of Scripture, these schools of thought soon paved the way for secular thinking and the development of a system that is militantly anti-Christian.

This trend is also seen on a personal level. Some start out seeming to follow Christ. Over time, however, they transgress into unbiblical thinking and teaching. These are serious issues that churches, worldviews, and individuals are prone to fall prey to in our day and age.

These scenarios are not unique to contemporary society; they were true of many of the Jews during the time of Christ and Paul. Claiming to be sons of Abraham and priding themselves in it, they did not follow in the faith of Abraham; rather, they followed the way of Ishmael, enslaving themselves and others to unbiblical institutions and thoughts (see Gal. 4:21-31). Wherever Paul took the gospel in his mission to the Gentiles, these Judaizers seemed always to follow close behind, bringing another gospel, which was no gospel (Gal. 1:7). [2] As Paul made his missionary journeys throughout the world, the Judaizers were traveling land and sea just to make one convert (cf. Matt. 23:15). [3] Upon arriving at the churches Paul established, these zealots attempted to undo the message of the free offer of the gospel received by faith alone, exhorting their hearers to keep the law in order to receive the righteousness that comes by the law. And this message was having success in drawing away the young converts from the simplicity in which they had been established in Christ.

Much of Paul’s polemical ministry, then, was aimed at striking a death knell against these Judaizers who would have people rely on their own righteousness as the means of salvation. In Philippians 3:1-3, Paul shows how he armed himself against this threat. First, there is a command: “Rejoice in the Lord” (v. 1). It seems counterintuitive to direct people who are suffering and in danger of making a shipwreck of their faith to have joy and rejoice. However, this is the pattern throughout Scripture. Christ admonished His disciples to rejoice when persecuted (Matt. 5:12). Centuries earlier, Nehemiah encouraged the struggling Jews, saying, “The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh. 8:10). The Scriptures teach that one of the best ways to fight the temptations that accompany suffering is to find our joy in Christ.

The joy Paul—and the rest of Scripture— commends is not a shallow optimism that many are prone to paste on their faces. [4] Neither is it a joy that only blossoms in prosperity and comfort. Rather, it is a joy that is deeply tethered to the Person and work of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 12:2). It is firmly established in following the commandments of God (cf. Ps. 19:11), and it can only be divinely given (cf. Acts 5:41). Paul understands that the enemy of believers seeks above all to rob them of their source of strength, namely, joy in Christ. Jonathan Edwards once preached: “The common argument is the profitableness of religion, but alas, the wicked man is not in pursuit of profit; ‘tis pleasure he seeks. Now, then, we will fight with them with their own weapons…. What pure delights have the godly in this life.” [5] The Christian’s great defense against such false gospels is to rejoice in the Lord.

Second, there is a caution: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision” (v. 2). [6] This verse serves as a large triple “beware” sign that potently warns unsuspecting people of the danger of the Judaizers. [7] The words “dogs,” “evil workers,” and “concision” all refer to the same group of people attempting to dissuade believers from the gospel of Christ. [8] These three words are very potent. In Paul’s day, the Gentiles were largely known as “dogs” (cf. Mark 7:27). [9] Paul succinctly turns the tables on these Jewish false teachers and calls them unclean, ferocious, hungry dogs. In this way, he desecrates the teaching of the Judaizers as nothing more than defiled false teaching. That Paul uses the term “workers” to refer to the Judaizers is not surprising; they were known for their rigorous works and practices. Notice how Paul labels them as “evil workers.” The Judaizers prided themselves in their works: their strivings after God and their fidelity to the ceremonial law. Rather than commending them to God, though, these works were the source of their condemnation and judgment.

The Greek word translated “concision” in this verse means “mutilation group.” [10] The Greek word is used nowhere else in the New Testament but is closely related to the word “circumcision” (katatome instead of peritome). These Judaizers saw their circumcision as a badge that set them apart from the “uncircumcision,” and it was a source of pride and superiority on their part, assuming standing with God that was elevated, righteous, and without which you were nothing. Paul shows their view of circumcision to be nothing more than a mangling of one’s flesh rather than serving their standing with God.

Third, there is a characterization: “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (v. 3). For the Judaizers who were attempting to divide themselves and Christians asunder, this verse would read as a sharp criticism. Here Paul masterfully divides his readers from the false and pretentious Jews who had nothing in common with true believers (i.e., “we”). True believers, Paul argues, are marked by the true, trinitarian, practical, and experiential religion that avoids the pitfall of becoming its opposite.

What Paul is promoting can be characterized as “life under the knife of God.” Such a life is not simply a fleshly incision or external separation from Gentiles. Rather, it is a separation from anything that would keep one from Christ; it means continuing on the knife edge of true religion without straying from God’s will. We will unpack what this means and how this operates in the life of grace.

Sharpness Felt

Paul makes a remarkable claim: “We are the circumcision” (v. 3). Circumcision was a holy ordinance that God gave to Abraham and his seed in order to signify and seal the covenant of grace (see Gen. 17:1-14). [11] Outwardly, circumcision rendered Abraham and his descendants a separate people in three ways: they were dedicated to the service of the Lord, they were marked by the promise of the Lord, and they were called to live out of the grace of the Lord.

Both the Old and New Testament, however, speak of the true nature of physical circumcision as symbolic of the circumcision of the heart (see Deut. 10:6, 30:6; Jer. 4:4). That is to say, outward circumcision was meant to point to the inward change by grace that would expose and abolish sin and death, and bring life to light in the gospel through the work of the Spirit. Outward circumcision alone signifies nothing if the inward faith and repentance does not accompany it. True people of God are those who are internally circumcised by the Spirit of God (cf. Rom. 2:18-19; Col. 2:11).

By the time of Christ’s coming to earth, sadly, most of Abraham’s physical seed had altogether lost this spiritual significance. Exchanging the command for inner transformation, their hope rested only in their outward separation. They failed to follow Abraham in his works because they failed to follow him in his faith (see Rom. 4:12; 10:3). This, Paul makes clear, does not deserve to be called “circumcision,” which is why he uses the pejorative term “concision.” Their precious hope rested in nothing more than mangled, bloody, and mutilated flesh— certainly no hope and no “badge of honor.” [12]

This externalism should be a chief concern for every institution, philosophy, or individual. There is a real need to distinguish carefully between a mere outward performance and inward commitment through faith by the Spirit. We must seek, like Paul, precisely to discern whether we are of the “concision” or “circumcision.”

To live a life united to Christ, we must feel the sharpness of this knife. Our hearts must come under God’s knife. The Spirit cuts His people off of the old tree, Adam, and engrafts them into Christ, the second Adam. [13] To be a true Christian is to be living under the knife of His gospel. [14]

Spiritually Fostered

The three participial phrases in verse 3 —”which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh”—is a list that shows what type of spirituality evidences itself in those who have felt the sharpness of God’s knife. These three descriptions characterize those who are of the true circumcision.

They Worship (Gk. Latreuo) God In The Spirit

Worship, broadly conceived, is revering someone or something with our cognitive faculties, affections, and wills, and giving our loyalty to that someone or something. Worshipping is an act of emulating.15 Those who worship God in the Spirit render to Him the honor, praise, glory, and commitment that is due to Him. Sadly, many who profess to worship God fail to do so in Spirit and truth (cf. John 4:24).16 Without the Spirit, there can be no true worship of God; He redeems His people to be priests unto Him through the Spirit (cf. Ex. 7:16).17 A Christian’s life ought to be one of continual and constant worship of God, of walking by the Spirit so as to squelch the desires of the flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; Gal. 5:16).

Such worship, however, does not naturally surface in the depraved hearts of men; worship of this caliber is only given and worked by the Spirit of God. As soon as the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, there will be the beginning of true, inward, heartfelt worship. Every song, every prayer, every Bible reading or meditation, every act done to the praise of God, has its rise, strength, aim, and end through the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Anything less is false worship. Any worship centered on anything else—accouterments, fanfare, emotionalism, or anything not appointed in God’s Word—is not true worship or service. Such false worship is the worship of the concision.18

They Rejoice In Christ Jesus

The word “rejoice” here is literally “to boast” or “to glory.”19 The natural man boasts in himself, his actions, his zeal, his forbears, his badges, his attainments (cf. Isa. 10:13). But true circumcision of the heart causes one to glory “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31). This boasting or glorying in Christ Jesus is what Paul learned himself and urgently impressed upon his readers (Gal. 6:14). Christ was the most excellent one in all the earth, especially through His work on the cross and His resurrection (Phil. 3:7ff). Paul says that those of the circumcision rejoice in Christ Jesus—that is, in Messiah Jesus, the anointed Savior. They worship Christ as the Savior of their worship, and this is the cause of great rejoicing. They are fixed on Christ, they esteem Him highly, they praise His glorious covenantal work. The hearts of the circumcised are to be taken by Christ and overflow with joy for what He has done on their behalf (Phil. 4:4).

They Have No Confidence In The Flesh [20]

Paul knew what it was to have confidence in the flesh. He was the epitome of someone who had all the reasons and benefits of the flesh (Phil. 3:2-6) and even of his own spiritual life (2 Cor. 12:1-6). But when Paul was truly circumcised, all this fleshly confidence was cut away. “Flesh” here refers to all those things, privileges, actions that, though legitimate in and of themselves, have no ground for acceptance before God. [21] When God deals with the soul by the knife of His law, He takes away anything and everything that would detract from His grace and Jesus Christ, the only resting ground (cf. 2 Cor. 11:30). Confidence in the Person and work of Christ dashes all other confidence a sinner may have.

Later in Philippians, Paul clarifies how his own confidence is dashed in light of the confidence of Christ. He was so established in Christ that he could boldly declare that any gain was considered nothing less than dung compared to the righteousness of Christ imputed to those who by faith receive Him (see Phil. 3:7-9).

If there is such a great spiritual divide between those who worship as the concision and those who worship as the circumcision, the question is: how does the church avoid becoming its opposite?

Strategy Pursued

Paul is not simply stating a truth in these verses; rather, like a great surgeon, he is making a careful, and preventative, sharp incision into the ploys of the enemies of the gospel. He is preparing his readers with a strategy to withstand the anti-gospel cancer (cf. 1 Cor. 16:13).

Since the original fall into sin, the serpent has remained the subtle and sly deceiver he showed himself to be in the Garden. Throughout history, he has been the great deceiver and tempter who has diverted the allegiance of human beings to do his will (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

A comparison of Revelation 12 and 17 manifests the serpentine subtlety by which Satan has assailed the church throughout history. Revelation 12 leaves the woman in the desert as she is being pursued by the dragon; but when we read of a woman again in Revelation 17, we find her a harlot, sitting upon the beast—the apostate church, people who have abandoned the simplicity of the gospel because of persecution and have embraced harlotry with honor. [22] Paul is aware of this danger, and aims to forever warn, prevent, and secure God’s elect from this deadly digression. How does this sharpened incision surgically help us to withstand such a temptation?

We should, firstly, not be surprised that the work of Satan follows on the heels of a true gospel work. We should prepare and expect that his infectious work will follow closely on the heels of the true circumcision of God’s people (cf. Matt. 13:25). This expectation ought to direct, warn, and teach us— even as Paul gives us these balmy words. Next, we need to be cautious not to get distracted by impressive labels or energetic works. Our hearts are easily led astray by the works of men. We must hold fast to the work of God in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:12-17). And we need to exercise discernment and discretion in taking upon ourselves anything but the name of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the only way to continue progressing further is to submit to the knife of God in our worship, our churches, and our lives. Instead of worshipping through fleshly means, we need to worship in the Spirit (Heb. 9:14). Instead of building churches on manmade ideologies, we need to be built up in the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). Instead of relying upon the flesh, we need to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). Everything about our life and conduct must be rooted in the Spirit of Christ (Eph. 4:1-8).

This is not simply the way that Paul makes his incision; it is also the way Christ saves His people. The living Christ appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and converted him. This former chief representative of the legalistic perversion of the covenant who rested in his mutilated flesh finally experienced spiritual circumcision. Thus he was “graced” to preach and teach and write: “We are the circumcision.” As Christ redeems and circumcises His people, He leads them to say, “We worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.”

So what does life under God’s knife look like? How do we live this all out practically in our lives? Robert Wodrow tells the story of an English merchant who visited Scotland around 1650: “On his return home his friends asked him what news he had brought with him from the north. ‘Good news,’ he said; ‘for when I went to St. Andrews I heard a sweet, majestic-looking man, and he showed me the majesty of God [Robert Blair]. After him I heard a little fair man, and he showed me the loveliness of Christ [Samuel Rutherford]. I then went to Irvine, where I heard a well-favored, proper old man with a long beard, and that man showed me all my own heart [David Dickson].’” [23]

These three things—the majesty of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the sinfulness of sin—are the exact things that Paul is speaking of in Philippians 3. And these three ideas serve to show how Christ’s sharpened incision is applied to the church, or any institution, to avoid it from becoming its opposite. This is essentially what is meant by life under the knife—an apprehension of the glory and beauty of Christ as it applies to our sinful hearts. We need to be always characterized by these three aspects:

First, true reverence of God’s majesty. As the psalmist contemplated the majesty of God, he was led to question his own humble estate (cf. Ps. 8). When the majesty of God, His righteous demands, and the glorious perfection of God’s exalted Son are applied to our hearts, we begin to understand how we need the Spirit of God in order to worship the great and glorious Christ. Charles Spurgeon once preached: “Labor, O soul, to know your nothingness, and learn it by contemplating God’s greatness.” [24] A glimpse at the majesty of Christ humbles us to worship Him by the Spirit, which alone is acceptable to God.

Second, relishing Christ’s beauty. Seeing the majesty of God is not the end all of the Christian life anymore than a peasant who simply acknowledges the king’s majesty. Rather, our King not only calls us to recognize but to love the beauty of Christ. Samuel Rutherford once wrote: “I have a lovely and desirable Lord, who is love-worthy, and who beggeth my love and heart, and I have nothing to give him. Dear brother, come further in on Christ, and see a new treasure in him: come in, and look down and see angel’s wonder, and heaven and earth’s wonder of love, sweetness, majesty, and excellency in him.” [25] Our hearts should find no contentment in lesser forms of beauty, but rest in the One who is the fairest of the sons of men (Ps. 45:2).

Third, utter renunciation of human confidence. In light of the majesty and beauty of God and Christ, we need the Spirit’s work of robbing us of all confidence in self, fleshly reliance, and human pride. Robert Murray M’Cheyne once said: “‘Ah! there is nothing like a calm look into the eternal world to teach us the emptiness of human praise, the sinfulness of self-seeking, the preciousness of Christ.’” [26]

This is what the true people of God have stood for from the beginning—the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). This is how we will stay standing and it is the only way forward. Anything else will start cutting away at the gospel and the church, and we will become mutilated and mangled— our opposite. If we are not the true circumcision, we are the concision—it is one or the other. May Christ make it that we would join Paul and say, “We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.”

Notes

1. Quoting Dean Inge in Setting Our Affections Upon Glory: Nine Sermons on the Gospel and the Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013), 51.
2. Silva argues that the agitators were Judaizers, that is “Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentile Christians submit to the Mosaic law, including circumcision” in Moises Silva, Philippians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 147.
3. See also G. F. Hawthorne, Word Biblical Themes: Philippians, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 125. See also John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. William Pringle, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. XXI (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 88.
4. Cf. Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 349.
5. Jonathan Edwards, “The Pleasantness of Religion,” in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 23-24.
6. Some commentators argue that v. 2 is grammatically disconnected from v. 1 and that Paul interrupts his thought with this imperative; see O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 353.
7. See O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 347.
8. See O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 353-54.
9. Silva, Philippians, 147.
10. Cf. G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters From Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 134.
11. This is an important definition for Paul as it regards his understanding of the covenant promises of the Old Testament. See Silva, Philippians, 148.
12. See also B. S. Mackay, “Further Thoughts on Philippians,” New Testament Studies 7 (1961), 163.
13. Thomas Boston writes: “The cutting off of the branch from the natural stock is performed by the pruning-knife of the law, in the hand of the Spirit of God, Gal. ii. 19. ‘for I through the law am dead to the law’” (Human Nature in its Four-fold State [Bungay: C. Brightly, 1812], 237).
14. See also Andrew V. Snider, “Christian Identity and Christian Worship in Philippians 3:3, ” MSJ 22 (2011), 204 where he writes that the significance of v. 3 is that Paul characterizes “the true people of God as worshipers.”
15. Cf. G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 16.
16. Silva argues that Philippians 3:3 is the conceptual equivalent to John 4:23-24. Philippians, 148.
17. See O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 361.
18. See also Calvin, Philippians, 87-88.
19. BDAG, 536. See also H-C, Hahn, “καυχημα,” in NIDNTT, 1:228.
20. Some believe this third designation is a restatement of the second; however, see Calvin, Philippians, 89.
21. Cf. Calvin, Philippians, 86-87. Cf. also to Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 140-46.
22. Cf. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1967), 200-202.
23. Alexander Whyte, Samuel Rutherford and Some of His Correspondents: Lectures Delivered in St. George’s Free Church Edinburgh (Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger Publishing, 2006), 10.
24. C. H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit (repr., Pasadena Tex.: Pilgrim Publications, 1975), 3:392.
25. Samuel Rutherford, letter to Alexander Gordon, 1637, in Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed. Andrew A. Bonar (Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson, 1891), 426.
26. Robert Murray M‘Cheyne, Memoir and Remains, ed. Andrew A. Bonar (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1973), 85.

What’s In A Name: Illustrations Of Old Testament Name Theology

By Michael Barrett [1]

In our culture, names are usually nothing more than labels for identification. The name we use to address a person, for instance, often indicates our relationship to him. According to my upbringing, we tend to call only good acquaintances by their first names. Further, we may address by first name someone whom we consider beneath our station in life, such as an employee, but we would not presume to call a superior by his first name. Nevertheless, we tend to be thrilled when a boss addresses us by our first name, inferring correctly or incorrectly that he really knows and cares about us. I suppose I will never forget the day my principal Old Testament professor and mentor called me “Mike” for the first time. I took that as a sign that I was worthy and capable in his estimation of pursuing my degree. I was such an impressionable kid. We served as colleagues for years and have been friends, but to this day I find it awkward to address him by his first name. I’ll call him by his last name without using his degree title, but that irreverent circumlocution is as far as I can go.

Although our first names are in some way special, their use or nonuse does not depend on what the names may mean etymologically or historically. They’re just labels. They can identify us, but they do not describe us.

Nicknames are something else. Not only do they identify an individual, but they also describe something about him. We assign nicknames to public figures as well as those who are close to us. Husbands and wives often refer to each other with particular and sometimes peculiar names. Terms of endearment like “honey” and “sweetheart” are well-worn and may show little imagination, but they are nonetheless special, communicating something only to each other. Nicknames communicate something about a person. We sometimes refer to people by the position they hold or occupation they perform: Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, Pastor. These are not exactly nicknames, but the titles effectively reveal something about the person.

There is a point to all this. The names of God are more than simply labels: they are means by which God reveals something about His person, His perfections, and His work. They both identify and describe. What is true about the names of God generally is true about the names of Christ specifically. The Old Testament contains many names or titles of Christ that draw attention to some particular aspect of His person or His work. The use of these special titles for Messiah was an effective way for advancing knowledge about Him in the Old Testament dispensation and an effective way for teaching us about Christ in this dispensation, because He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I call them special titles because they are not proper names in the technical sense. Many of them are just common nouns or expressions that are used for personal designation. The technical term for this is an appellative, a common noun used as a descriptive name. Because many of these messianic titles are common nouns, they are not always immediately recognizable. The Authorized Version helps at times by capitalizing the expressions, but it does not do so consistently. For instance, one of the key titles is “branch.” Twice in Zechariah, the Authorized Version has “BRANCH,” twice in Jeremiah it has “Branch,” and yet in Isaiah it simply has “branch.” In each instance it is the same word in the original, referring each time to the same Messiah. Recognizing it as a title for Christ is easy enough when we come across it in Jeremiah and especially easy in Zechariah, but it requires a bit more attention in Isaiah because the translation does not give us any obvious clue. That’s fine, because the Hebrew text never distinguishes words in that way. It does not use what we would call capital or lowercase letters; all the letters are the same size.

We need to be able, then, to identify these descriptive “names” even when the words do not appear to be names. When we see personality or personal traits or activity associated with what seems to be a common noun or expression, we should pause to consider whether this could actually be a title for Christ. So when I see “wisdom” in Proverbs speaking and acting, I need to compare what wisdom says and does with what I know Messiah says and does to see if there may be some connection. This analogical method— or “analogy of Scripture” principle of interpretation—will often suggest and justify identifying certain common nouns as titles for Messiah.

Although there are many specific titles, I want to focus on the two I’ve mentioned: Christ as the Branch and Christ as Wisdom. Both of these are rich and instructive.

Branch

This is one of the most significant of messianic titles, occurring in five passages: Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12. Its import is augmented not only by the imagery suggested by the word itself, but also by the specific contexts that heap up important information about the identity and mission of the Branch. At first consideration, this does not appear to be a particularly flattering expression. This common noun is based on a root verb that means to sprout or bud. It refers to a new shoot that buds on a stump or in unexpected and unwanted places.

Although Ezekiel does not use the word with messianic significance, he illustrates the basic sense of the term in his allegory of the two eagles and the transplanted cedar branches (Ezek. 17). The verb form occurs at the beginning of verse 6. Not long after the cut-off branch was planted, it “sprouted,” showing signs of new life. The noun form occurs in the middle of verse 9, where the Lord asks whether the leaves on this new sprout will wither. There was a sign of new life, but it was so fragile that survival seemed unlikely. It is not referring to the large, strong boughs that extend majestically from a well-rooted tree; it refers to something that is tender and fragile yet full of promising life in an unlikely place.

General Significance

This imagery underscores each of the messianic references in two ways. First, that the Messiah is a “Branch” vividly pictures His humiliation. The Messiah would not and did not appear with all the pomp, circumstance, and manifest glory that He deserved and that inherently and eternally was His. On the contrary, He humbled Himself, becoming man and becoming obedient as a humble servant unto the death of the cross (Phil. 2:6-8). There was nothing about Christ that to natural sight would identify Him as the eternal Son of God; He appeared as an ordinary man. Using different words but the same imagery, Isaiah prophesied, “He shall grow up before him as tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2). So many who saw Christ with their natural eyes during the years of His earthly life saw nothing that convinced them that He was the Messiah. He was despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:3); He came unto His own and they did not receive Him ( John 1:11). What condescension it was for God to become manifest in flesh!

Second, that the Messiah is a “Branch” vividly testifies to God’s faithful fulfilling of the covenant promise. This title has a special link to the Seed promise that reached its Old Testament climax in the covenant promise to David. Remember that in the Davidic covenant, God promised that David’s Seed would sit forever on the throne, ruling a universal and everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). King after king sat on David’s throne, each one disqualified to be the ultimate and unconditional fulfillment of the promise. When the Seed finally came, there was no king at all from David’s family, and there had not been for hundreds of years. From every natural perspective, it appeared that David’s dynasty was defunct and the promise passé. But from the stump of David’s fallen kingdom, there appeared a new green shoot of life. There was life in the promise; the Ideal King had arrived. Summed up in the title “Branch” is Paul’s declaration, “For all the promises of God in him (that is in Christ) are yea, and in him Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20). The title “Branch” discloses the real humanity of Messiah by linking His lineage to David’s. As we look briefly at the specific Branch passages, keep in mind that in addition to the particular focus of the text, each reference declares the humble humanity of Christ as the fulfillment of the covenant promise.

The Branch As God

Isaiah 4:2 is the first messianic reference: “In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious.” Although the Authorized Version does not capitalize the word, I believe that it is used here as a title of Messiah. The temporal statement “in that day” that begins the verse marks this as a Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord designates those special, epochal times when God interrupts the affairs of history to directly accomplish His purpose, either in judging the wicked or in blessing the righteous. The Day of the Lord is eternity breaking into time. The Old Testament speaks of many different days, some now past (e.g., the destruction of Edom, Babylon, and Jerusalem; the blessing of Pentecost) and one climactic day still to come in the eschatological future. The essence of the blessing of that day is the beautiful and glorious presence of the Branch of the Lord. The special contribution this text makes to Branch theology is the association between the Branch and Jehovah. There is always an interpretation challenge presented by this “X of Y” relationship between words. I suggest an appositional relationship here: the Branch who is Jehovah. Given that the humanity of Messiah is declared by the term “branch,” and that Jehovah is the unique name of the one true and living God, the full expression “Branch of the Lord” declares the Messiah to be the God/ Man. He is one person with two distinct natures. This is singularly true of Christ. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Isaiah’s affirmation of the deity of the Branch to John’s particular emphasis in his Gospel of Christ as the Son of God.

The Branch As King

Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15 constitute a single context; these texts say virtually the same thing. Like Isaiah, Jeremiah sets this text within the framework of the Day of the Lord. But the Scripture in one way or another weds blessings—whether spiritual, historical, or eschatological —to Christ. The saving of Judah and safety of Israel that Jeremiah foresees are possible only because of the Branch. Jeremiah, more explicitly than Isaiah or Zechariah, links the Branch title directly to David: “I will raise unto David a righteous Branch” (23:5); “will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David” (33:15). Two features about the Branch stand out in Jeremiah’s description: the Branch will be righteous, and the Branch will be King. His kingship is expected as the natural descendant (Seed) of David. His righteousness marks Him as the fulfillment of the Ideal Kingship promised to appear in the tribe of Judah and perpetuate in the family of David.

David himself understood this. In his last words, the sweet psalmist repeated God’s word to him: “He that ruleth over men must be just [i.e., righteous], ruling in the fear of God.” He then confessed, “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow” (2 Sam. 23:3, 5). The delay in the coming of that King did not dissuade David from seeing in Him the fulfillment of God’s requirements for Kingship and God’s promise of that King who would be both the salvation and the desire of His people. What David anticipated, Jeremiah in this context describes. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Jeremiah’s Branch to Matthew’s presentation of Christ as King.

To understand the full beauty of the text, we have to know what righteousness means. I am going to use a couple of words that may be unfamiliar, but I will define what I mean. The concept of righteousness can be either stative or fientive. Stative refers to a condition of existence; fientive refers to activity. In other words, righteousness refers either to what someone is or to what someone does. The essential idea of righteousness is straightness or conformity to a standard. It is an absolute term. There is no such thing as “almost righteous.” The slightest deviation from the standard renders someone unrighteous. Further, the standard determines the significance of righteousness. Although the righteousness of Christ extends to every single aspect and element of God’s perfect law, in this context the standard is the requirements of God for the King. Jeremiah draws particular attention to the active sense of the word; the Branch always does the right thing (“He does justice and righteousness in the earth”). The Branch actively behaves according to the demands of God, accomplishing everything God has promised and purposed in the Davidic covenant. He is the ideal, messianic King. No other son of David ever came close or ever could come close to doing everything demanded by the law of God. Such statements that transcend mere human application are clues to messianic identification.

Jeremiah removed all doubt concerning the identity of the Branch when he said, “This is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (23:6). It is little wonder that the translators capitalized that whole title. What a name! I can only be suggestive here, but I want you to think about two great truths in this name. First, the Branch is Jehovah, an explicit declaration of His deity. Second, the Branch is the justification of His people. Encapsulated in this statement is the doctrine of justification. The stative sense of righteousness is in view here: God regards us to be in a state or condition of perfect conformity to His standard not on the basis of our acts, but on the basis of Christ’s acts. Christ’s acts of righteousness result in our state of righteousness. Jeremiah’s subtle variation of the statement in 33:16 suggests this: “This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.” Notice that the word “name” is italicized in the Authorized Version, and it says “she” instead of “he.” The “she” refers to the nation of Israel representing God’s people that will be gloriously saved. What the text says about her is true for believers in every age. Whereas Jeremiah named the Branch in chapter 23, in chapter 33 he declared that name as having reference to and benefit for His people. The literal translation is “and this will be called for her—The Lord our righteousness.” Rather than being the name of the people, it is the message of the gospel that will be preached to them whereby they will be saved. That Christ is our righteousness is the everlasting gospel. How much Jeremiah declared in that name!

The Branch As Servant

Zechariah 3:8 identifies the Branch as the servant of the Lord. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Zechariah’s naming of the Branch as servant with Mark’s presentation of Christ as the Servant of the Lord. The significance of the title “servant” is itself far-reaching, warranting its own discussion. But for now, let’s focus on how Zechariah uses the title “Branch.” It is important to note that Zechariah did not employ the title without factoring in all the preceding revelation. We must keep this in mind when we interpret what Zechariah says. It is also a good example for us to follow when doing our Bible study: we must factor in what God has already said about a matter when considering the topic in the context being studied. By Zechariah’s time (sixth century BC), the “Branch” was part of official and inspired messianic vocabulary. No doubt Zechariah knew well the prophecies of Isaiah (eighth century BC) and Jeremiah (seventh–sixth centuries BC). He knew that the Branch was the God/Man who is the ground of the justification of all believers. It is particularly Jeremiah’s special name of the Branch as “the Lord our Righteousness” that Zechariah builds upon in this text. I regard Zechariah’s vision in this chapter to be one of the most vivid pictures anywhere of God’s gracious act of justifying sinners.

Four things stand out in this text. First is the need for justification. The passage begins with a judicial scene in which Joshua, the high priest, is standing before the Angel of the Lord and is being accused by Satan. As the high priest, he is serving as man’s representative, an accurate picture of how every man on his own stands before God. He stands silently, dressed in detestably filthy garments with no self- defense before the Judge. This scene vividly and graphically pictures how man appears before God in all the filthy rags of his own righteousness. Because of unrighteousness, all men are guilty before the just God.

Second is the act of justification. Seemingly out of the blue, God rebukes Satan and rescues Joshua as a brand plucked from the burning. Joshua was accepted before the Lord and allowed to stand in His presence. The text highlights two essential elements of that acceptance. First, the Lord graciously pardoned sin. This is pictured by the removal of the filthy garments and explained directly: “I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee” (3:4). The guilt and, therefore, the liability for punishment and penalty were removed. Second, the Lord provided righteousness. Not only were the filthy garments removed, but they were replaced with costly and glorious clothes. This represents that robe of righteousness, the garment of salvation, that renders the wearer presentable before the Lord. In justification, God both pardons sin and imputes the righteousness of Christ.

Third is the grounds of justification. God’s pardoning sinners is gracious, but it is not capricious. This brings us to the Branch. It is the Lord’s sending the Branch that would be the meritorious grounds by which He justifies sinners. That the Branch is called the servant, charged with all Isaiah’s theology, speaks of His humble obedience both in life and to death. I would suggest the reference to iniquity’s being removed in one day (3:9) points to His cross, the only place where iniquity was effectively removed.

Fourth is the demand of justification. Zechariah makes it clear that a change in legal standing demands a change in moral behavior. Justification always issues in sanctification; position always effects experience. Grace never leaves a man where it finds him. Those justified are to persevere in godliness by walking in God’s ways, keeping His charge, and maintaining justice (3:7). Those justified are to be like Christ; they are to imitate and represent Him. Zechariah described Joshua and his fellows as “men wondered at” (3:8). Literally, they were “men of a sign,” men who were to be types of something else; they were to signify the Branch.

The Branch As Man

Zechariah 6:12 is the last reference to the messianic Branch: “Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH.” Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Zechariah’s identification of the Branch as man with Luke’s presentation of Christ as the Son of Man. The particular focus of this text is the uniting of the offices of priest and king in the person of the Branch. Remember the important dichotomy between these two mediatorial offices. It is an inviolable messianic clue that whenever these two offices are united in a single person, it must be referring to Christ. As an object lesson of the coming Priest/ King, Joshua the high priest is crowned with a splendid royal crown (6:11). That visible picture prophecy of a priest wearing a crown led to the declaration that the man named Branch would come, build the temple of the Lord, and “sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon this throne” (6:12-13). The significance is obvious. Inherent in the term “Branch” is the identification with the royal line of David. That the Branch is identified as man helps establish the priestly connection with Joshua because a priest had to be one of those he represented. Humanity is an essential qualification for messianic priesthood. The evidence is overwhelming in this context: the Branch is the Ideal Messiah.

One More

Although translating a different Hebrew word from the one we have been considering, the Authorized Version uses the word “Branch” one other time to designate the Messiah. Although it is a different word, the imagery and theology are the same. In fact, the text contains several words that suggest the Messiah’s unpretentious lineage to the line of David. Isaiah 11:1 says, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.” The word translated “rod” designates either a switch or a shoot, neither of which would seem to have much substance. Since the word “stem” is actually the stump of a tree, the rod most likely pictures that new sprout that shoots from what is left of the tree. Similarly, the “branch” is just a tender shoot that springs forth from the rootstock. Both lines of this text emphasize the humanity and humble origin of the Messiah. Bypassing the connection to royal David by linking the Branch to pre-royal Jesse intensifies the lowly, unassuming, unobtrusive life of the messianic descendant.

Matthew plays on both the significance and the sound of this word “Branch” in his explanation of Christ’s dwelling in Nazareth (Matt. 2:23). That Nazareth was regarded as the “boondocks” of Israel is suggested by Nathaniel’s telling question to Philip when he was introduced to Jesus of Nazareth: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). Apparently, no one of any reputation would ever live in Nazareth; it was a village without honor. Consequently, Matthew said Jesus’ living there fulfilled the prophecy, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” You will look a long time to find any prophecy in the Old Testament that identifies Nazareth as the home of Messiah. In fact, the Old Testament makes no reference to Nazareth at all. However, the word “Branch” in Isaiah 11:1 is netser. With theological and linguistic insight, Matthew puns, playing on the sound of words. (The more narrow, technical word for this device is “paronomasia.”) Nazareth was an insignificant, unlikely place for the Messiah; the netser was an insignificant sprout growing on a stump, an unlikely place. Matthew saw in Christ’s living in Nazareth a fulfillment of the prophet’s description of the Messiah’s humiliation in terms of the Branch. Translating rather than transliterating the word in Matthew 2:23 would transmit this idea. Christ dwelt in Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Branch.” Matthew certainly knew the significance of names.

Wisdom

This title occurs in the book of Proverbs and highlights one of the essential divine perfections that characterize the person of Christ. Remember that God is a spirit: infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Wisdom is one of the communicable attributes, but it is nonetheless an essential attribute of God. That Proverbs calls the Messiah “Wisdom” is not much different from Isaiah’s calling God “the Holy One of Israel.” Both titles use one of the Lord’s perfections to designate Him. Not all agree, however, that Wisdom is a messianic title; therefore, I must provide some explanation and defense of my interpretation.

The Meaning Of Wisdom

Essential to understanding the significance of this title is an understanding of the meaning of the word “wisdom.” The word simply refers to skill or ability. The sphere of application of that skill or ability is defined by the context in which the word occurs. For instance, God called Bezaleel to be the foreman in the construction of the Tabernacle, filling him with His Spirit and thereby giving him the necessary wisdom or skill to do the work (Ex. 31:3). Similarly, Solomon hired Hiram as his chief craftsman because “he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass” (1 Kings 7:14). Joseph instructed Pharaoh to look for a wise man who had the necessary administrative skills to govern; he chose Joseph (Gen. 41:33). The point is simply that whatever someone was good at was considered his wisdom. So when Jeremiah said that Israel was “wise to do evil” (Jer. 4:22), he claimed that they were skillful at sinning—that they were really good at it. Wisdom, as a divine perfection, highlights God’s infinite ability to do whatever is appropriate for God to do. It is obviously related to His infinite knowledge, omniscience, in that He knows all things. In His infinite wisdom, God uses the best possible means to achieve the best possible ends; He is all-wise. To put it plainly but reverently, God is good at everything He does.

Essential to understanding how Solomon uses “Wisdom” as a messianic title is a knowledge of how wisdom functions in the book of Proverbs. The book defines wisdom in terms of morality and ethical behavior. In Proverbs, wisdom is the skill of behaving properly according to the will of God; it is the ability to do those things that are pleasing to the Lord. It is safe to say that in Proverbs a wise man is a saved man because only believers have any heart or any ability to do those things that are pleasing to God. Proverbs is a thorough “how to” book in explaining how to apply religion to every sphere of life. It teaches that there is no part of life unaffected by one’s relationship with God.

Although most of the uses of “wisdom” in Proverbs define the proper conduct for believers, in three chapters Wisdom appears as a person rather than an experience: Proverbs 1, 8, and 9. This brings us to the interpretation problem: whether or not this person Wisdom is Christ. Some contend that it is a personification of the divine attribute. Personification is a literary device whereby something abstract or impersonal is described in personal terms. Others interpret this not as a literary device but as a designation of the Second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. I want to take you through some of the reasons for the “name” interpretation in order to show you Solomon’s gospel logic and theology in Proverbs and to illustrate how to employ some of messianic clues in finding Christ in the Old Testament revelation. Before going any further, let me take care of the surface problem of Wisdom’s representation in the feminine gender. This is a grammatical, not theological, issue. The word “wisdom” in Hebrew is a feminine word, as abstract words tend to be. Consequently, any pronouns associated with the word are going to be feminine as well. That the Authorized Version translates all these pronouns as feminine is grammatically correct and does not militate against the messianic interpretation, nor does it suggest any feminine characteristics about the Messiah. Grammar and reality often have little to do with each other.

Part of finding Christ in the Old Testament is knowing what we are looking for. When we use our checklist of who Christ is, what He does, and what He is like to ascertain what Wisdom stands for, we find ample support for interpreting this title as a reference to Christ. In addition, the analogy of Scripture (comparing Scripture with Scripture) justifies our seeing Christ in this title. Other passages in the Old Testament that are indisputably messianic say about Christ what Solomon says about Wisdom. In addition, New Testament evidence sanctions the identification of Wisdom with Christ. Consider these New Testament texts that identify Christ as Wisdom: Matthew 11:19, 25-30; Matthew 23:34; Luke 11:49; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; and Colossians 2:3. Three strands of evidence in Proverbs 8 point to Wisdom as a title of Christ.

Wisdom As God

First is the fact that Wisdom, although distinct from God, yet possesses divine perfections and performs divine operations. For instance, in verses 27-30, Wisdom speaks of God in the third person. Read these verses and note the contrast between “he” and “I.” It is clear that a distinction exists. Yet there are statements that demand that Wisdom be God. At least ten statements in the chapter suggest that Wisdom existed prior to creation (vv. 22-30). To be prior to creation is to be prior to time and therefore eternal. Eternity is one of those incommunicable perfections of Deity. Three verbs, however, seem to suggest a beginning to Wisdom’s existence. Before rejecting the messianic interpretation on the basis of these statements, note that whether Wisdom is here the Messiah or just the personification of a divine attribute, it is theologically impossible to say either had a beginning. All the perfections of God, including wisdom, are infinite, eternal, and immutable. Certainly, if the term designates the Son of God, He is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Let me give a brief explanation of the problem words.

The first problem is verse 22: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way.” The word translated “possess” is the difficulty. The Hebrew root word is qanah. There is a question whether it is a general word that is used in a wide range of contexts or whether there are two different words, homonyms, between which the interpreter must choose. Homonyms are words that sound the same but have different meanings. The general word qanah has the idea of possessing something, regardless of the means of or reason for the possession (get, acquire, purchase, etc.). The other root (spelled the same) means to create. It is beyond our scope at this point to do a thorough word study or to enter into the argument as to whether two different roots even exist. Personally, I am not particularly convinced that the root “create” occurs in the Hebrew Scripture. In all the texts where the supposed root occurs, the more general term fits equally well. In other words, no context in which this word occurs demands the meaning “create.”(If you are interested, the standard references for the word “create” are Genesis 14:19, 22; Exodus 15:16; Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 78:54; and Psalm 139:13. The Authorized Version translates the word as “possess,” “purchase,” or “buy,” all of which make perfectly good sense in the respective contexts). I believe the translation of the Authorized Version conveys the proper idea. The word emphasizes a relationship of some sort between the subject and object; “possess” conveys something of that relationship idea. Admittedly vague in this statement, Wisdom simply declares that there has been an eternal relationship between Him and God.

The historic problem with Proverbs 8:22 really comes from the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This version dates from between 250-150 BC; it was the principal version of both New Testament times and the early church. It translated the word “possess” as “create.” Your guess is as good as anyone’s whether this represents the ancient translator’s knowledge of a root meaning “create” or whether it reflects a mistake in either interpretation or translation. My guess is that it is a mistake. What is interesting is that the early church recognized Proverbs 8 to have messianic reference. In one of the early theological controversies attempting to “define” Christ, the Arians appealed to this verse as evidence that Christ was not eternal and therefore not God. They based their argument on a mistranslation. The Arians were rightly condemned as heretics.

The second problem is verse 23: “I was set up from everlasting.” On the surface, this sounds again like wisdom’s confession of an inception of its being. However, a proper definition of the word “set up” strengthens the messianic interpretation. The verb literally means “to pour out” and has the idea of being consecrated, exalted, or anointed. It is the same word that occurs in the undeniably messianic Psalm 2 when the Lord declares, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (v. 6). I would suggest that Wisdom’s being poured out from eternity refers to that “time” in eternity when the eternal Son of God was chosen to be the Mediator (cf. Isa. 42:1). Wisdom was ordained to be the Messiah. Interestingly, in Isaiah 42:1, the Lord declares concerning the chosen Servant that He is the one “in whom my soul delighteth.” Compare that with verse 30 of this passage when Wisdom declares, “I was daily his delight.” The analogy of Scripture points to Wisdom as Christ.

The third problem concerns the statement in verses 24 and 25: “I was brought forth.” Since this word describes the giving of birth, it, too, suggests the beginning of existence. However, that this word typically refers to the mother’s role in giving birth prohibits this from being a literal statement of birth. It would be ludicrous, indeed blasphemous, to attribute to the Heavenly Father such activity, regardless of the object of the birth. Part of the interpretive process is ruling out what a text cannot mean when seeking to determine what it does mean. This cannot mean that Wisdom was literally born of God. Rather than focusing on the inception or establishing of a parent/child relationship, the word stresses the existence of such a relationship. Wisdom says that before anything was created, He existed in an eternal relationship with God as parent and child, theologically and specifically as Father and Son. I believe we see in this statement at least a hint of the eternal Sonship of the Second person of the Trinity. These problem verses are not really problems at all but rather further confirmations of Wisdom’s identity as the Christ of God.

We have been necessarily digressing, but let me at this point return to the second part of the first strand of evidence. Not only does Wisdom possess a divine perfection (eternity), but He also performs uniquely divine works. Specifically, Wisdom creates. One of the search criteria for Messiah in the Old Testament is that we can tell who someone is by what he does. Creation is something only God does. Therefore, if someone creates, He is God. Verse 30 is a key text. Let me give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text: “And I was beside Him, an Artisan.” This is the climax of a series of verses that detail aspects of creation. In verse 27, Wisdom said simply, “When he prepared the heavens, I was there.” Verse 30 suggests that it was not a passive presence; He was a craftsman participating in the whole creative process. There was a joint participation in creation between Wisdom and the Lord. Theologically, we know that creation is the work of the Godhead; now it all fits together. The parallel between Wisdom’s presence with God and Wisdom’s participating in creation and the Word’s presence with God and the Word’s participating in creation is too close to ignore or regard as coincidental. John opens his Gospel with the explicitly clear statement, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1, 3). It seems that the only difference between Solomon and John is that Solomon uses the word “Wisdom” and John uses the word “Word.” If we can understand John as declaring the deity of Christ, the Word of God, it would seem that we ought to be able to understand Solomon as declaring the deity of Christ, the Wisdom of God.

Wisdom As Messiah

The second strand of evidence for identifying Wisdom as a messianic title is the fact that messianic descriptions and operations are assigned to Wisdom. In other words, what is said about Messiah in other contexts is said about Wisdom in Proverbs 8. This is particularly true in verses 1-21. If Wisdom performs messianic activity, we have good reason to identify Wisdom as Messiah. One of the mediatorial operations of the Messiah is the execution of the office of prophet. As Prophet, He represents God to man and reveals God’s Word and will to man. Proverbs 8 begins with Wisdom’s preaching. The words of Wisdom are described as excellent, right, true, righteous, without perverseness, and plain to him who understands (vv. 6-8). That sounds like prophetic activity. Kingship is another function of the messianic office. Wisdom expresses absolute authority over lesser sovereigns: “By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (v. 16). The credentials attributed to Wisdom correspond remarkably to the credentials of the Messiah. Compare Wisdom’s claim to have wisdom, counsel, understanding, knowledge, and strength (vv. 12-14) with Isaiah’s description of the messianic Branch’s having “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2). It follows that if these are descriptions of Messiah in Isaiah, they could be describing the same Messiah in Proverbs.

Wisdom As The Object Of Faith

The third strand of evidence is the fact that man’s eternal destiny is linked to his relationship with Wisdom. Proverbs 8 ends with Wisdom’s admonition: “Whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death” (vv. 35-36). This sounds similar to John’s declaration: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12). The invitation of Wisdom in Proverbs 1 makes the same promise: “Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil” (v. 33). Throughout Proverbs 8 it is clear that those who love and choose Wisdom share in His riches and receive the benefits of salvation (particularly verses 17-21). Just as Christ promised that He would not cast out any who came to Him, so Wisdom declares, “I love them that love me,” and promises, “Those that seek me early shall find me” (compare John 6:37 with Proverbs 8:17). “Seeking early” means to seek diligently; it is an exercise of faith. Saving faith always and only has Christ as its object.

That this book of practical wisdom begins with an invitation to believe Wisdom is good gospel preaching. There is no way a man can do anything that is pleasing to God (the practice of wisdom) without first having a saving relationship to Christ who pleased God in every way (the person of Wisdom). Theologically, sanctification follows regeneration and justification. That is the order of Proverbs. In this way, Solomon’s theology sounds Pauline. Paul said, “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). It is only in union with Christ, who is Wisdom, that all the benefits of salvation flow. Perhaps we could say that Paul’s theology was Solomonic. Better yet, let’s admit that they were preaching the same Christ and the same gospel.

Notes

1. This article is adapted from Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament, and retains its popular style.