Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 1

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

The Oddities of Paul’s Leadership

The Anomalies of Life

My youngest daughter is named Tamin, a Hebrew word that means perfect and complete. We wanted to see her grow to be complete and perfect in Christ. She was born with a number of physical and mental anomalies, none terribly serious. The first thing I noticed was that when she cried, her lips pulled to one side. The nerve that controls the muscle around one side of her mouth was not functioning. I thought that the problem was on the side where her mouth drooped, but later I learned that the problem was just the opposite. The side that seemed normal and did not droop was actually not being pulled by the muscles to balance her smile and her crying.

Tamin’s many anomalies have forced me to rethink what is normal, attractive, and valuable, and to sharpen my judgment about what counts for all eternity. The anomalies of life have a way of making us question what we have always accepted as established human wisdom or convention. They tend to remind us that God prefers to go against the grain. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 1:28, “God has chosen, the things that are not (the anomalies), that He might nullify the things that are (human convention).”

Paul himself is an anomaly. He does not fit the pattern. He is a misfit. He throws things out of kilter. He does not follow convention. And as a result, he forces us to question even the accepted normal Christian wisdom about leadership.

Think about it. Is it not an enigma that the twelve apostles provided little leadership for the extension of Christ’s message into the world? Is it not even more odd that they were not the ones to elaborate on the implications of Christ’s message for the church? Yes, Peter and John did contribute to the New Testament letters concerning church life, but they do not compare to the volume and influence of Paul’s writings. Why would not the Twelve who lived and learned from Christ be the ones to leave the greatest mark on the early beginnings of Christianity?

There had to be some reason for Paul’s going against the norm. The anomalies are meant to intrigue us and to capture our attention. They bait us. They tempt us to think about the small subtleties that often make big differences. Let us consider some of the oddities in Paul’s development as a leader.

Paul’s Abnormal Entrance into Leadership

His Atypical Converson and Call as an Apostle

Paul knew that his entrance into the work of Christ was all backwards and said so in 1 Corinthians 15:8–9. [2] Untimely born. Abnormally born. Literally he was an abortion, or as some say, a stillborn, or miscarriage. [3] Some believe that figuratively it meant that he was a freak. [4] Others say that as a miscarriage, he was a failure, or as a premature child, he was in need of development. [5] It is best to understand Paul as saying that he was abnormally born into his role as an apostle alongside the Twelve who were normal and conventional.

There must be some point to all this. Perhaps there are two reasons for Paul’s rather atypical conversion and induction into leadership for the mission to the Gentiles.

No Self-Importance

The first reason is given in 1 Corinthians 15:9: “I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle.” He would never be allowed to nurture feelings of importance. There was no red carpet treatment for Paul. He came in the back door. He was not a rising star being groomed for great things. If his departure from Damascus was any indication, he often had to go unceremoniously out the back door (Acts 9:25). He would never be an insider in the Jerusalem circle of Who’s Who. Jewish skepticism about his genuineness would hound him to the grave.

As if all that were not enough, he was given a mid-course reminder, a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7), to extinguish any faint possibility of considering himself to be a distinguished, popular first-class spokesman for Christ. A sense of self-importance would never creep in.

The temptation to think that our success is the result of intrinsic ability is tremendous. For example, after leaving most new works in Mexico with a fairly strong group of elders in a relatively short period of time, I would sometimes toy with self-congratulation. I would say to myself, “It is because I am a man of strong conviction. I attract potential leaders because they sense I know where I am going. They feel my confidence and leadership abilities.” It is rather disturbing the pride that effortlessly seeps to the surface. God so worked in Paul that he could never entertain thoughts like mine.

God’s Sovereign Control of His Life

The second reason is found in 1 Corinthians 15:10: “By the grace of God I am what I am.” He would not merely carry a message of God’s grace, but rather, because of the way he was converted to Christ, he himself would be the message of grace. [6] Ultimately, Paul believed because he was chosen to believe. Psychological studies on Paul’s conversion argue that he was already on his way toward believing when Christ confronted him on the Damascus road. [7] They try to explain away God’s apparent seemingly despotic intrusion into the inviolable domain of Paul’s free will. But Paul understood clearly what had happened. He would always carry with him a strong sense of God’s sovereign intervention and imposition over men’s wills. This would encourage him to believe that God moved circumstances, even unpleasant ones, to form him into the leader he was. [8]

I have found that I have a disconcerting ability to reconstruct God’s past sovereign dealings with me. My mind deceives itself into taking credit for the way things turned out. I now tout the benefits of involving sons in men’s meetings rather than in youth meetings. My son Cabe was changed into a spiritually mature young man as he watched men who were new believers discuss passages in the Bible and relate how their lives did not match up. He heard the interactions among numerous growing Christian men as we ate dinner after the meetings. Then as we drove home we would talk about what it meant for a particular man to say what he did in the meeting. All of that is fine. The disturbing part is that I am inclined to state it in such a way to give the idea that it was all a result of my wisdom and parenting skills, when actually, it had nothing to do with me. It was God’s sovereign working of circumstances. In that new work there were no youth. Also, it was not I, but rather my thirteen-year-old son who asked if he could attend the men’s meeting. Furthermore, in the Mexican culture, children are much more freely included in adult situations. The combination and timing were perfect. It was God’s design through and through, and my propensity to reconstruct events to make myself look good is very unlike Paul.

The Time Required to Make a Leader

Now that leads me to a related point. It takes time, substantial time, for us to learn from the circumstances God puts in our lives to produce the right kind of leader. Paul was intelligent and skilled as a leader since he says that he was advancing beyond his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14). Nevertheless, it was another thirteen years before he began to do aggressive pioneer work and altogether fifteen years before he clearly became a leader of leaders. [9] This issue is seldom given proper attention. There is no shortcut to competence. Seminars and D. Min. studies will not speed up the process. We have to pass through various stages in our lives. There is something about growing older that opens a person’s eyes. Time sharpens our perspective as we look back and can see what was human-centered and did not last. With fewer years to live, we become more aware of what will have eternal value and what is faddish.

When I was younger, working on my master’s thesis, I wrote on the private use of speaking in tongues. I wanted something controversial. I wanted to get to the bottom of the issue and solve all the difficulties. I was naive enough to think I could become an expert on the issue. Almost twenty years, later when I worked on my doctor’s dissertation, I was by then a different person. I had seen the inner workings of organized Christianity and was no longer naive about the way popular Christian leaders can lose direction. I was more experienced, having been involved in various stages of starting new works in Mexico. I had held high-level leadership positions within the country and had taught in seminary over twelve years. As a consequence, I purposely avoided a controversial area or a topic that would be narrow and technical. I had less energy and wanted something that would feed me, teach me, change me, something that would give me wisdom and discernment to deal with subtleties. What a difference twenty years can make. We cannot bypass the stages of life in leadership development. We cannot speed things up.

Suffering and Leadership

Sufferings as a Means of Teaching Trust in God

It took time to make Paul a leader and it also took suffering. That is why God makes hardship a part of his commission in Acts 9:15–16. Paul’s commission is most odd: “I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” That is a very strange beginning. He was not told how many healings he would perform or how many books he would write or how many thousands he would convert to Christ. And furthermore, God did not ask him if he would accept His ministry proposal. Paul had no choice in the matter and there was no glorious incentive. Why was this suffering imposed upon Paul as part of his commission to be a leader of the Gentile mission work? For one, hard things are all part of God’s way of developing character for leadership. [10] They test a man’s trust in God to use the terrible things for his good.

About some twenty years ago, something very difficult happened to me that I never expected. For a few years I tolerated the results of that situation, sure that time would correct the problem. Then for about ten years I fought thoughts of “This is unfair, I deserve better than this.” Finally, I realized that I probably would never be able to resolve the thing in my lifetime. The hard part is that I never will know for sure why God determined to bring such a hardship my way. But I have finally decided that I would never have become who I am today without it. It is part of growing up. It is part of submitting to God’s purposes. Leaders have to lead in every area, even in the area of trusting God while in pain.

Sufferings as a Means of Exposing True Motives

There is another reason why suffering was imposed upon Paul in his commission. When his motives or his genuineness were attacked, Paul never referred to his healings, his thousands of converts, or his fame. On the contrary, he referred to his sufferings, noting that he had no choice in the matter of his ministry and that he personally had nothing to gain from his work.

It is normal for us to speak of our accomplishments as the reason we should be given a hearing. When my authority is questioned, I tend to say, “I have two masters and a doctorate. I have helped plant five churches, taught in seminary, and developed leadership at the church level for many years.” I can remember a young man speaking to seminary students years ago. To give greater authority to his message on youth ministry, he informed us of the multitude of conferences he had given at youth gatherings. That is the normal way.

Paul was an anomaly. The three times he was forced to give a defense of his legitimacy and genuineness, he gave what are called catalogues of hardship (1 Cor. 4:9–13; 2 Cor. 6:3–5; 11:23–30). [11] For Paul, true leadership and authority were established by demonstrating that he had absolutely nothing personally to gain from what he was doing. His suffering proved his pure motives and authenticated his commission from Christ. Oddly enough, his claim to leadership was that he was not popular, he enjoyed no perks, and he was not eloquent, not a crowd pleaser.

Authority and Influence

Avoidance of Titles of Position or Office

This very same attitude toward leadership is reflected in his use of titles. He avoided titles of position, preferring titles that pointed to his suffering and hard work. [12] Curiously enough, he never called himself nor any of his colleagues pastor. Best, a liberal scholar, was going to title his series of messages Paul the Pastor, until he realized that Paul never used that title of himself. [13] He called himself a teacher and preacher only twice. [14] He avoided designations that might attribute to himself some intrinsic superior skill or personal accomplishment. Likewise, he avoided titles that might distinguish himself from his fellow workers or imply that he was first in command. Whatever title he used of himself, he used freely with his co-workers.

Influence through Character and Work

His authority and influence as a leader were not tied to titles of position or office but rather to his competence, his experience, and hard work. It is therefore no wonder that his favorite designation was that of a worker or fellow-worker. [15] To describe his gospel work, he used the same two words (ἔργον [ergon] and κόπος [kopos]) that he used for manual labor. [16] He avoided terminology that elicited respect, honor, and privilege such as might be accorded a college professor or the CEO of a business. His terminology was blue-collar.

Paul taught that submission was required of a wife no matter what the character of her husband. Citizens were to submit to a less than honorable government. Employees were to submit to bosses that were unfair. Submission was expected based solely on the other person’s position. But he never asked for submission to leaders in the church because of their position as leaders. Submission was forthcoming because of a leader’s hard work and character (1 Cor. 16:15–16; 1 Thess. 5:12–13; 1 Tim. 5:17). “Be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work (συνεργέω [sunergeō]) and labors (κοπιάω [kopiaō]).” “Appreciate those who diligently labor (κοπιάω [kopiaō]) among you.” They deserve esteem because of their “work” (ἔργον [ergon]). Elders deserve double honor when they “work hard” (κοπιάω [kopiaō]).

Biblically speaking, respect, influence, and power are not based on educational accomplishments nor upon positions gained. They are based upon remaining in work that has no privilege, no perks, and no personal fame.

This is where I learned a hard lesson about influence when taking on leadership roles in an organization. I thought that I would have more influence as I took the role of director over a missionary body in Mexico. And, superficially, I did. I had more direct touch with everyone and my advice and ideas were given a greater hearing. Certain changes were instituted. But quickly I realized that the changes were at best superficial and temporal, the result of accommodation rather than a change in conviction. As long as I was present, I could prop the new system up, but I realized everything would go back to the way it was once I was gone.

The true influence that had lasting effect upon others was based upon my competence and my character. Only those who observed me up close in a new work could see who I really was. Only they saw me at all hours of the night dealing with unbelievers. My influence was most powerful when my example could be observed. By removing myself from that work, I was unwittingly weakening my authority as a leader. That is why we need to fight the temptation to go on the seminar circuit and give conferences to large crowds. Our fame may grow but true powerful influence diminishes. Conferences can tend to entertain and stimulate temporarily. But effective influence in making leaders like ourselves with our convictions can only be accomplished as they observe us working over a good period of time. They must see it in our dealings with all sorts of people in different situations. Teaching with anecdotes is good, but there is nothing like teaching by doing it.

Hands-On Leadership

There is a trend afoot for the church leader to be the CEO who shepherds only the under shepherds and thus is no longer truly involved with the hoi polloi. He maintains some direct contact with the congregation, but usually only with the significant people, those with clout in the church. Some think this is based on Christ’s model, but a closer look shows that when He sent out His disciples, He Himself did the same work as His disciples (Matt 11:1). Likewise, Paul’s model is explicit. His influence was so powerful because he never became simply an administrator over other workers. There is something lost in removing oneself from the dirty work.

The problem here is one I heard my parents often discussing. They were both career schoolteachers. There always seemed to be a struggle between the teachers and the administration. My parents felt that the administrators did not have the heartbeat of the classroom since they were no longer involved directly with the students.

This same complaint arises constantly on the mission field. Those at headquarters attend seminars on how to run mission organizations as a good business. With good intentions, policies are made in a state-side environment. Usually the outcome is that those in the field have more paper work to do. There is a loss of trust. Many complain, “Mission leadership is out of touch with our lives.” So then home office plans more trips to the mission field to improve communication. But the real solution is to have top leadership still involved in the same work as those over whom they serve.

Every time Paul referred to himself as a model to be followed (“imitate me”), without fail he referred to his suffering, humility, or hardships which arose from his continued involvement in pioneer work. [17] There is no good substitute for a living close-up example.

Conclusion

My dear Tamin. I would have chosen that she be perfect and complete in body as well as spirit. But God in His sovereign love chose to put a chink in the image of the “normal” family. She was an anomaly to teach me about what is important in life. She forced me to keep things simple, to remember what things are essential and what are not. As I contemplate that little life with all sorts of defects, I often wonder if we have not lost our way with all of our education and technology. What would Paul think of all the time and money spent on leadership seminars and conferences on world evangelism? Perhaps we have lost the power of simplicity. Perhaps we need to compare what is conventional wisdom with the oddities of Paul’s leadership.

Notes

1. Bard Pillette was for many years a missionary in central Mexico. He is presently involved in an assembly in Medford, Oregon in a ministry of evangelism and Bible teaching to Hispanics. This is the first of a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911), 339.
3. J. Munck, “Paulus Tamquam Abortivus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 182.
4. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 733. See also J. Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα,ς in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:465–67.
5. Munck, “Paulus Tamquam Abortivus,” 190. P. von der Osten-Sacken, “Die Apologie des paulinischen Apostolats in 1 Kor 15:1–11, ” Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1973): 252-54.
6. John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 232. “In a sense all that Paul does is a reflection of what the gospel does; all that he is, is a reflection of what the gospel is. As the gospel is the manifestation of God’s acting, so is the apostle.” This concept is similarly touched on in 2 Corinthians 2:15. See Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit. An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 51–54.
7. Adolf Deissmann, Paul: a Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William E. Wilson (New York: Harper & Row, 1912), 132. Deissmann recognizes the dramatic events around Paul’s conversion but still must say, “Yet it was no magic transformation, but had its psychological preparation both negative and positive.” William Barclay, Ambassador for Christ: The Life and Teaching of Paul ( Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1951), 47–49. Barclay also claims to see psychological elements at work in Paul’s conversion: “So then we have Paul still hating Christ and the Christians with all his heart; but in the same heart strange feelings are moving. The sight of the calm heroism of the Christians had left him wondering how they could show it. The death of Stephen had left him wondering what was Stephen’s secret. His devotion to the Law seemed to be making more and more of a tension and a struggle of life. Whatever else the young Paul was, he was a desperately unhappy man.” Günther Bornkamm, Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 23. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 75–76. Both Bornkamm and Bruce reject the psychological explanations for Paul’s conversion. Paul’s change was the result of God’s elective purposes.
8. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1990), 89. Carson asserts that there is a theological tie between suffering and Christian leadership. Sydney H. T. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 197. Paul’s conviction that God controlled all things, including suffering, in order to keep him on course as a leader is captured in Page’s comments on 2 Corinthians 12:7: “Paul could ascribe unpleasant experiences to Satan, while at the same time subsuming them under the overarching sovereignty of God.” “Satan might use Paul’s ailment as an instrument to torment the apostle, but at the same time God was using it as an instrument to keep Paul from being conceited and so to foster his growth in grace.”
9. Harold Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (Th. D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965), 381–382. Paul was converted in the summer of a.d. 35. He began his pioneer work with Barnabas in April 48. Then in April 50 he became the undisputed leader of the Gentile mission work.
10. Carson, How Long, O Lord?, 90. Carson believes that the “best Christian leadership cannot simply be appointed. It is forged by God himself in the fires of suffering, taught in the school of tears. There are no shortcuts.”
11. C. Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” New Testament Studies 32 (January, 1986): 22. “For Paul apostolic authority is the authority of the Gospel itself, mediated through the apostle. Since the Gospel is the message of the ‘foolishness’ and ‘weakness’ of God himself (1 Cor. 1:18–25), the apostle if he is such at all, embodies that foolishness and weakness. That is to say, his life and work bear the marks of the death of Christ: the physical sufferings and the social stigmata which we find enumerated in the ‘catalogues of humiliation.’” Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 64. Hock claims that Paul’s tentmaking was responsible for the toils, thirst, and exhaustion that produced his humiliation. “When the physical exhaustion and the social humiliation that came from Paul’s tentmaking are kept clearly in mind, it is easy to see that his boast of offering the gospel free of charge was true, a boast in his ‘weakness’ as an artisan.” Hock’s proposal depends too much upon similar use of language by the philosophers of Paul’s day and their debate over whether to charge fees, beg, enter households of the rich, or work. Paul’s toils included working with his hands, but his work as an artisan being the major reason for his weakness and humiliation is unconvincing. J. T. Fitzgerald, “Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1984), 395. The catalogues of hardship like that of 2 Corinthians 11 reveal character. “It is axiomatic in the ancient world that a person’s true worth or character is shown most clearly in times of adversity.” See R. Hodgeon, “Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 ( January-February, 1983): 63-65.
12. Fitzgerald, “Cracks in an Earthen Vessel,” 395. In an ironic way, Paul, at times, does commend himself. “In so doing he reflects the tradition of praising oneself when necessary, in terms of one’s hardships.”
13. E. Best, Paul and His Converts (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 22.
14. Paul may be reflecting Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 23:8 as well as the Old Testament concept of teacher. The Old Testament avoids the title teacher in order not to give the idea that one is being trained for a trade rather than for life. The teacher was one who stressed the rational and technical aspects of developing job skills. K. Wegenast, ‘‘διδάσκαλος,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 3:766. Karl H. Rengstorf, διδάσκαλος,” in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:137, 148–51.
15. In fact, the term fellow-worker is for all intents and purposes a uniquely Pauline term. Wolf-Henning Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 67. G. Bertram, “συνεργός,” in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 7:871–76. The noun and verb occur only four times in the Septuagint. Outside of Paul’s letters, the noun is used only once in the New Testament (3 John 8) and the verb only twice (Mark 16:20; James 2:22).
16. κόπος [kopos] and κοπιάω [kopiaō] are used of manual labor (1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Thess. 3:8) and of gospel work (1 Cor. 15:10; 15:58). ἔργον [ergon] is used of gospel work (1 Cor. 15:58) and ἐργάζομαι [ergazomai] is used of manual labor (1 Cor. 4:12). The reason, no doubt, for his use of these words is that proclaiming and teaching constitute hard work. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 75.
17. David M. Stanley, “‘Become Imitators of Me’: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition,” Biblica 40 (1959): 877. “Paul urges ‘imitation’ of himself only to those communities which he has founded.” Best, Paul and His Converts, 68. Only those churches he founded had observed his conduct. See also W. P. de Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962), 206. His calls to imitation all relate to suffering (1 Cor. 4:9–16), deprivation of rights (1 Cor. 9:1–11:1), humility (Phil. 3:14, 17), and hardship (1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7–9). de Boer states that “Paul ranked his example alongside his teaching and instruction. In fact, it constituted a part of his teaching and instruction” (p. 139).

No Other Way, No Other Name

By Kenneth C. Fleming [1]

Introduction

One of the assignments in my course at Emmaus called Introduction to Missions is a class debate about the fate of the heathen. The proposition reads, “Adult, sane people who have not put their faith explicitly in the finished work of Christ are all eternally lost, even though they have never heard the gospel.” Without fail it becomes one of the liveliest classes of the semester. To some of the students it is a “cut and dried” proposition that all people who have not specifically trusted in the atoning work of Christ are doomed to be cast into Hell.

Others will argue that a God of love ought to allow at least some exceptions; especially people who are sincerely seeking for God and are living up to the light they have. Still others will raise the “fairness” issue; is it fair for God to judge people who have never had a chance to hear of the Lord Jesus Christ? Some find it hard to think that God could send a person to a perdition which is everlasting when their sin has only occurred in the short period of his/her life. Occasionally some student finds it difficult to believe the doctrine of eternal punishment under any circumstances. In this article we shall consider these issues in the light of holy Scripture. It alone, not human reason, is our authority.

The Exclusivist Position

The question simplified is this. Is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? Most of my readers will immediately answer, “Definitely yes.” These may be subdivided in to those who say “Yes for people in this age”, and those who say “Yes, for all people in all ages.” All in this group are called exclusivists because they exclude from saving faith all those who have not personally and specifically put their faith in Christ. Among them there is a group on the fringe who believe that unbelievers are given a second chance after death. That position is known as post-mortem evangelism.

The Inclusivist Position

Still others will answer the question, “Yes, but.” They widen the scope of “saving faith” to include those who have faith in God, even though they have not specifically heard of Jesus Christ. They believe that people may be saved by the redemptive work of Christ without ever knowing that God provided a sacrifice for sin, because a “God of love will count their faith as effectual.” Such people are called Inclusivists. They include among the redeemed many who have not actually known of Christ. To them, Jesus is the only Savior, but it is one’s faith in God, not one’s faith specifically in Christ which is crucial.

The Pluralist Position

A third category are called pluralists. They believed that people can be saved through any of the major religions of the world. They hold that no one religion is superior to the others or closer to ultimate reality. I doubt if any of my readers will subscribe to this theory, and I will not deal with it in this article. We ought however, to note that a large and growing number of people in the modern pluralistic world are moving in this direction, including some who call themselves evangelicals.

The necessity of explicit faith in Jesus as Savior is being challenged in evangelical circles today. Though it has been looked upon as solidly biblical and incontrovertible by orthodox Christians down through the ages, there is a growing and vocal group of scholars who lean heavily toward inclusivist theology. Well known evangelical names are associated with it such as Clark Pinnock. Bernard Ramm, D. Bruce Lockerbie, J. Herbert Kane, and J. N. D. Anderson. [2] Ronald Nash says, It would not surprise me if a third or more of non-professionals in evangelical churches expressed support for inclusivistic convictions.” [3]

The whole idea of conversion as being total and radical is being lost. Evangelicals are increasingly accepting ideas which are shallow and sentimental.

The purpose of this article is to state what the Bible says about saving faith and to briefly compare it to what inclusivists are teaching.

The Necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ

The Statements of Scripture

The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Savior. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” is one of the statements in Scripture which explains the way of salvation in terms of faith in Christ (Acts 16:31). The Bible makes it crystal clear that in order for people to be saved, they must individually and personally respond by faith to the good news that Jesus died for their sins and that they will receive everlasting life. Their faith must be directed to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Among the best loved and most used salvation passages is Jesus’ message to Nicodemas in John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Later He told His disciples, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

Peter made it equally clear, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul states that the only basis of salvation for those who have sinned and come short of the glory of God is by “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:21–24). He goes on to say that “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9–10).

Paul speaks of only “one God and one Mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Bible verses such as these have been used by true Christians through the long history of the Church to explain that no one can obtain salvation apart from Christ. People who are saved must understand the content of the gospel message and personally believe it. “But as many as received Him, to them he gave the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” (John 1:12).

Without Christ All People Are Lost

The reason people need to be saved is because they are lost. To be lost is to be without God, separated from Him. The separation, if not reconciled by the blood of Christ through faith during the lifetime of the person, will lead to a lost eternity in hell. It is the doctrine of eternal punishment, however unpleasant it may sound. “They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power” (2 Thess 1:9). The Bible teaches that all people are lost without exception. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). All are “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). All have a rendezvous with death. “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). The Bible teaches that there are only two destinies for people. One is everlasting life in heaven with God and the other is everlasting separation from God. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36).

The Faith Which Saves Has Specific Content

Faith does not exist without an object. To have faith is to believe something, to accept it as being true. It should be obvious that in regard to salvation, it makes a difference what people believe. Theology matters and the content of faith is crucial. So we ask, what is the lowest common denominator of understood information necessary for saving faith?

It includes a knowledge of the true God, Creator of all things; that He has been offended by man’s sin; that He has provided a Savior to be the sacrifice for sin; and that all who believe in Him will be saved. This basic information is what I consider to be necessary as minimum knowledge for saving faith. This is the message we call the Good News and is repeatedly stated in dozens of New Testament passages. Down through the centuries it has been retold millions of times resulting in millions of conversions to Christ.

All of these essential elements are necessary for saving faith. Not only are there multiplied references in the New Testament, but the witness of the first century church recorded in Acts and the epistles consistently emphasizes the same core of truth as being necessary. The implications of this are enormous. It means that millions of people who have never heard the gospel are eternally lost. It means that until someone tells them of Christ they have no hope.

The Inclusivist Answer

Conscious Knowledge of Christ and Explicit Faith in Him Is Not Necessary

Our inclusivist friends will agree that no one can be saved apart from the finished work of Christ which is necessary for salvation. But they will disagree that it is necessary for people to consciously know about Christ and explicitly believe in Him in order to be saved. They say that, “the salvation offered in Jesus Christ is available not only for those who hear his name; saving grace must be universally available in all cultures, without regard to geography or age.” [4] Inclusivists use the phrase “universal faith principle” to describe faith in God without a clear object. So their “requirement for salvation is simply trust in God — under whatever form God is known — and obedience.” [5] They believe that God’s saving grace is operative in every culture, at every time and in every place. John Sanders says, “Salvation for the unevangelized is made available by the redemptive work of Jesus, but God applies that work even to those who are ignorant of the atonement.” [6]

The Example of Cornelius

To substantiate these arguments inclusivists point to examples in the Bible, particularly Cornelius the Roman centurion of whom we read in Acts 10 and 11. Before Peter met him he was described as “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:2). They say this proves he was a believer,

But Acts 11:14 indicates otherwise when the angelic visit to Cornelius is recounted announcing Peter’s coming visit. The angel told him, “And he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved.” His salvation was still future before Peter arrived. In the light of the clear biblical teaching of the necessity of explicit faith in Christ and the lack of any clear biblical teaching or examples to support the inclusivists, we can confidently affirm the truth that Jesus told his disciples, “No one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

The Role of General Revelation in Salvation

The Nature and Limitations of General Revelation

Bible students very carefully distinguish special revelation from general revelation. General revelation refers to what God has disclosed about Himself and His purposes to all people in every age. It includes what may be known of Him through creation, conscience, and history. It provides some “light” by which people may know that God exists as Creator and Judge. Creation, for instance, implies an intelligent and powerful Creator. The existence of an all powerful Creator implies that we as thinking creatures are morally responsible to the Creator.

Regarding general revelation Paul argues strongly in Romans 1 that people have willfully suppressed the evident truth that God exists. Paul states that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:18–20). Instead of seeking after God, man deliberately turned away from this elemental knowledge of God, but claimed that they were wise in rejecting the truth of general revelation. “They exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image” (Rom. 1:22–23). They became idolaters instead of believers.

General revelation, then, leaves man without excuse and demonstrably guilty before God (Rom. 1:18–32). It serves a most needed purpose in that it awakens God-consciousness in people and therefore leaves them morally responsible for the choices they make. General revelation has enough truth to establish man’s guilt before God, but it does not communicate anything about the redemptive purpose of God. It leaves men without excuse before God, but by itself is not sufficient to lead people to salvation from sin. It neither reveals the need for substitutionary atonement, nor can it lead people to faith in Christ. Therefore it is distinctly separate from the Gospel, which is the Good News concerning the redemptive work of Christ and its reception by faith.

Thus though general revelation is given to all mankind it does not contain or communicate man’s personal need of a Savior or God’s provision of Jesus Christ. It takes man no further than to show him that he is “without excuse” and that the wrath of God is revealed against them (Rom. 1:18–20). Like the Law of Moses, it shows man that he needs salvation, but cannot provide it.

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us. 

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:11, 13, 24).

In order for people to be saved they need to know more specific truth about Christ which comes to certain people at certain times. Bible teachers call this kind of truth special revelation. Examples of special revelation include the disclosures God made to selected people like Moses and Isaiah at specified times and in certain places. It was special revelation that unfolded the truth of a coming Saviour who would be a substitutionary sacrifice for sin. Special revelation provided the truth about the way for man to approach a holy God. Much of it has been preserved in Scripture, but some of what God has revealed to certain people at special times was not written down and is therefore no longer available to people today. Special revelation could be passed from one person to another orally, but is subject to distortion and loss much more easily than if it was written. It is only through special revelation that salvation has been made known to us.

Inclusivists and General Revelation

Inclusivists do not agree. They assert that general revelation gives people enough knowledge of God to lead to saving faith. They do this because they insist that salvation must be available to all people everywhere and they know that many people have no access to special revelation. Inclusivist Clark Pinnock says, “The knowledge of God is not limited to places where biblical revelation has penetrated.” [7] In his book, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, he says, “Because of cosmic or general revelation, anyone can find God anywhere at any time, because he has made himself and his revelation accessible to them” [8]

John Sanders, another inclusivist, says that “salvific grace is mediated through general revelation and God’s providential workings in human history.” [9] He finds support for this argument from Romans 10:18 where the people “heard” (the gospel) through the voice of “the heavens” which according to Psalm 19:4 has “gone out into all the earth.”

I do not think this supports any argument for general revelation because the subject of the passage in Romans 10 is quite the opposite. Paul’s subject is the necessity of special revelation so that if people “confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead they will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The inclusivist arguments are in direct contradiction to other clear biblical passages such as Acts 4:12. John 1:12 and 3:16.

Conclusion

My conclusion regarding general revelation is that it does not provide the basis for saving faith either to people who lived before Christ or to those who have lived after Christ. Jesus is the only Savior and knowledge of His substitutionary death on the cross is the only sufficient and biblical basis for faith which saves.

The Faith of Old Testament Believers

The Issue

Was the Way of Salvation Different for Old Testament Believers?

One of the issues surrounding the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ is the question of how Old Testament believers were saved. It is important to our thesis because if they were saved in a different way than New Testament believers, there must be more than one way of salvation. And, if there is more than one way of salvation, then is not that second way still available to man? Their knowledge of the coming Messiah was obviously less than that available to believers today through the completed Scriptures.

Inclusivists and the Faith of Old Testament Saints

Inclusivists make the point that the status of Old Testament believers was premessianic, and that their faith was accepted by God for salvation even though they knew nothing of the coming Savior. They argue that the status of Old Testament believers is the same as people today who “believe in God” though they have never put their faith in Christ. Clark Pinnock writes, “A person who is informationally premessianic, whether living in ancient or modern times, is in exactly the same situation.” [10]

In my view, this position is biblically incorrect.

Special Revelation and the Faith of Old Testament Believers

Special Revelation: The Difference between Old Testament Saints and the Unevangelized Today

Pinnock’s idea that people in Old Testament times were in the same situation as the heathen today is unsound. Unlike the heathen today Old Testament believers had both general revelation and special revelation upon which to base their faith. They knew far more by special revelation than is often assumed. It is not therefore true that they are in the same situation as the unevangelized today who have no access to special revelation from either Scripture or missionary upon which to base their faith. Old Testament believers were saved by explicit faith in a coming Savior, rather than by a general faith in God. We will examine the content of special revelation they did have and the basis of their faith. My conclusion is that they were saved by exercising faith in a coming Savior who would suffer and die a substitutionary death for sin; then rise from the grave to be exalted as the reigning Messiah.

Special Revelation in the Old Testament

Special revelation is God breaking into history to reveal His truth to specific people in specific ways. This happened when He revealed His mind to Adam and Eve after the Fall (Gen. 3:14–19). He spoke to Noah regarding the earth’s wickedness, the coming flood and the building of the ark (Gen. 6:9–8:19). Special revelation came again when the God of glory appeared to Abraham when he was living in Ur. Over and over again in the Bible God continued to reveal Himself and His purposes to certain individuals in certain places. Some of that revealed truth is recorded in the Old Testament and specifically spoke of the coming Christ. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is these that bear witness of Me” (John 5:39). Note the link between eternal life and the witness of Christ in the Old Testament.

The Revelation of a Coming Savior

What truth regarding salvation did God reveal to Adam which he could personally pass on to his descendants during his lifetime (930 years)? Adam heard God promise that the seed (descendant) of the woman would triumph over the serpent (bruise him on the head). He also heard that the seed of the woman would himself be bruised on the heel (wounded) in the process (Gen. 3:15). In this way the first promise was directly related to a coming Savior who would suffer, and yet triumph over Satan. Immediately following this God made garments of skin, which required blood sacrifice, for Adam and his wife (Gen. 3:21). The great elements of the evangel were already in place; a coming, suffering, Savior who would triumph over Satan and the effects of sin.

There is extra-biblical evidence that this knowledge was universally known in the meanings of the names of the constellations and stars. These names and meanings have been preserved in many ancient languages and have the same meanings in them all. The Bible declares that the stars were to be “for signs” (Gen. 1:14). I believe that the evidence shows that the constellations were a symbol system to keep the special revelation of a coming Savior universally available until the time of written revelation in the Moses era. It gave greater permanence to the special revelation than word of mouth alone. Three times in the signs of the constellations there is a mighty prince with his foot on the head of a snake and at the same time being wounded (Orion and Lepus, Ophiuchus and Scorpio, and Leo and Hydra). [11] It is no accident that they reflect the first edition of the Good News given in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15).

The basic elements of the truth were that people could be saved by faith in a coming Savior who would suffer and shed his blood in his defeat of Satan and emerge triumphant. Their faith was demonstrated by offering an animal sacrifice which foreshadowed the coming sacrificial Lamb. When the fullness of the time was come, John introduced Him to the world with the words, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). The faith that saved them was faith in the saving work of the coming redeemer; more elemental, but no less real than faith in the finished work of Christ revealed to New Testament writers.

Examples of Old Testament Believers

Abraham

As the story of the Old Testament unfolds God revealed Himself to one distinct people, Israel. He called Abraham to be their progenitor and entered into a special covenant relationship with him. In him all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:1–9). Abraham’s response to revelation was that he “believed in the Lord” and God declared him to be righteous (Gen. 15:6). Abraham’s faith included some knowledge of the coming Savior for Jesus said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). The New Testament refers to Abraham’s justification by faith in three places (Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6, Jas. 2:21–23).

Israel, the nation made up of his descendants became the special recipient of continuing revelation and was to be a witness to the other nations so that they too might believe. Jewish prophets predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow, though they did not fully understand it (1 Pet. 1:11). The Israelites, however, largely failed in both their personal faith in a promised Savior and in their communication of the good news to other nations.

Job

The nation Israel became the chief means by which people could know the truth from the time of Abraham until Jesus Christ. But there was certainly still enough truth which had been passed on from generation to generation so that some might believe. Job is an example of a man who exercised saving faith from the residual truth passed down to him. He may have lived before Abraham. He was “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:1). When confronted with extreme adversity he responded with true worship, saying, “Blessed be the name of the Lord” (Jehovah) (Job 1:20–21). Interestingly, he looked for a personal Redeemer (Job 19:25). I conclude he knew this by special revelation.

Melchizedek

Another of these believers whose faith seems to have come from residual truth was Melchizedek. He was the priest-king of Salem and met Abraham returning from his victory over the five kings. He knew God by the same name as did Abraham — El Elyon, the Most High God. Abraham had such respect for him that he gave tithes of the captured spoils to him (Gen. 14:18–20).

Jethro

We might also mention Jethro the Midianite priest and father-in-law of Moses who had his faith in Jehovah confirmed when the Children of Israel arrived in Midian across the Red Sea. He said “Now I know that the Lord (Jehovah) is greater than all the gods.… Then Jethro … took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God” (Ex. 18:11–12). We can assume that he knew the reason for the sacrifices. There were, no doubt, many others of whom the Bible does not speak. And it seems reasonable to assume that the further away in both time and space from the source of special revelation, the less likely it is that the basic elements of truth were preserved so that people might respond in salvation. The possibility always remained that God by special revelation could announce the good news to whomever and whenever He desired.

Conclusion

Inclusivists believe that people may be saved by belief in God based on the light they have. They do not think that faith must necessarily be directed specifically toward Jesus Christ, but that sincere faith in “God” will be accepted on the merits of Jesus’ atoning work. They distinguish between “believers” in Old Testament times and “Christians” in New Testament times. They argue that in Old Testament times there were “believers” who could not and did not believe specifically in a coming Savior. Informationally, they were premessianic. The argument then states that there are many pagan people today who are premessianic and can be saved by believing in the light they have, even though they have never heard of Jesus. This makes the preaching of the gospel and personal faith in Jesus unnecessary for salvation. I can only conclude that this amounts to a second way of salvation. One by faith in the finished work of Christ and the second by a general belief in the God they know. That is unbiblical.

In summary, I believe it is consistent with the Bible that Old Testament believers were given special revelation concerning the basic truth of a coming Redeemer and they responded by faith in the sacrifice yet to be accomplished. This revelation from God was to be communicated to others who had opportunity to believe it. They were saved by believing the truth about the coming Savior, just as people are saved today through hearing and believing the truth about Jesus who finished His work on the cross. Believers who have responded to the gospel are responsible to communicate it to others who have not heard it.

The Fate of the Unevangelized

The Issue

An age old question which comes up in virtually every discussion about the world’s unreached people concerns the fate of those who have never heard the gospel. The question takes many forms. Is there any opportunity for them to get to heaven if they have not heard of Jesus? If they are lost forever, isn’t God being unfair to them because they have had no opportunity to reject him? Does not the whole issue raise questions about God’s goodness? How can a loving God let people go to hell if they cannot consciously turn to Him?

The Fate of the Lost

These are hard questions, but there is considerable light in Scripture about the destiny of lost people. When Jesus said that He came “to seek and to save that which was lost,” what did He mean when He spoke of the lost? (Luke 19:10). We can speak of lostness in different ways. A person may be lost geographically, intellectually, or even emotionally. However, biblical lostness has to do with our relationship to God. All people are said to be lost because their relationship with God is broken by sin which separates man from God. It was pointed out in the section, “Without Christ All People are Lost,” that not only are they lost, but they are doomed to everlasting separation from God (2 Thess. 1:8–9). Following death there is no second chance (Luke 16:19–31). So all who are outside Christ are lost and lost forever.

The Bible teaches that people of every description in every age need to be saved, because all are under condemnation. Good and devout people like Nicodemas need to be saved (John 3:5). Pagan seekers like the Roman centurion need to be saved (Acts. 11:14). Intellectual people like the Greek philosophers in Athens need to be saved (Acts 17:30–31). Blue collar unbelievers like the jailer in Philippi need to be saved (Acts 16:31). So what about the heathen in the remote places of earth who have never heard the Good News?

The words of the risen Christ to Saul when he was on the Damascus road have a clear answer. Saul heard the Lord tell him that he was appointed to witness to the Gentiles:

To open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me (Acts 26:18).

Note that in the words of Christ Himself, the Gentiles to whom Saul was to preach were (1) spiritually blind; (2) in spiritual darkness; (3) under the power of Satan; (4) without forgiveness; and (5); without any spiritual inheritance. They are all lost and all on their way to Hell. Thus Saul was called to the ministry of evangelizing the Gentiles. They were the unevangelized and the Lord Jesus Christ offered only one hope to them. Their one hope was that they hear the gospel of salvation and respond by faith in Christ The answer to the problem of the unevangelized problem did not come through “living up to the light they had,” but only through “faith in Me” (Christ). They all needed to be saved because they were all lost. All are on their way to hell.

The Necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ

The lost can only be saved through explicit faith in Christ. The section on The Necessity of Faith in Christ highlights the clear biblical teaching that personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation for any person in any age. The other side of that truth is that without faith in Christ people are lost, even though they have never heard the gospel. This is hard for many Christians to accept.

Inclusivists believe that this is far too restrictive an approach and is not consistent with a loving God. “For inclusivists, God’s saving grace has pervaded the cosmos from the beginning, always offering love.” [12] In rejecting explicit faith in Christ Clark Pinnock says, “Fewer and fewer are willing to tolerate a doctrine of salvation that favors a few over all the others.” [13] John Sanders, another inclusivist, says, “If people moved by the Spirit of God exercise faith in God, no matter what revelation of God they have, they are saved by the merits of Christ.” [14] Or as Pinnock quotes from C. S. Lewis, “There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.” [15] Sanders makes this claim, “Everyone must eventually pass through Jesus to reach the Father, but there is more than one path for arriving at this place.” [16]

To me, all these statements lead to another way of salvation, which is less than explicit faith in Christ. Thus I must reject them. The unevangelized are lost until they respond in faith to the Good News of Jesus Christ. “There is not the remotest hint in the New Testament of any way that people are saved without personally putting their trust in Jesus and Him alone.” [17]

Yenner Karto, a current student at Emmaus Bible College from Liberia where his own grandfather died without hearing the Gospel says, “The Africans who died before the missionaries reached Africa are without excuse, because according to Romans 1:20, they saw God’s invisible attribute in His creation and still went ahead to do their own thing. They are damned and lost forever because they rejected God’s revelation.” [18]

My favorite story regarding the unevangelized in the position of Yenner’s grandparents is the story of an African man who lived in Chad, Africa. The story was told by a pioneer missionary in that area, F. W. Rogers. His name was Dubari and he had broken his wooden idol. He was busy carving another when the thought occurred to him, “If my hands are carving this idol, my hands must be greater than the idol.” His reasoning continued, “If my head is telling my hands what to do, then my head is greater than my hands.” He continued, “If my head is able to think in this way, then there must be a god who made me. If there is such a god then I should know who He is so that I can worship him.” Dubari then made a daily habit of climbing a tree on the edge of his village and calling out asking the God who made him to reveal Himself. At that point Pinnock and other inclusivists would probably say that Dubari was saved. But that is not the end of the story. After some time Mr. F. W. Rogers, an assembly missionary arrived in the village to bring the Gospel. He was soon told about Dubari who came down from his tree, listened to the Gospel, and put his faith for salvation in Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal God. Dubari subsequently grew in his faith and eventually there was a church in his village and he became an active elder for many years. The point of the story is that when Dubari sought the truth, God orchestrated the circumstances for him to hear the truth so that he could put his trust in the Savior.

The Implications for Mission

Missions is deeply affected by the view we take regarding explicit faith in Christ. If inclusivists are correct that the “faith principle” is all that is necessary for salvation, then perhaps we are wiser to leave the unevangelized without ever hearing the message so that God will not hold them accountable for rejecting it. However if all people are eternally lost without Christ, as I believe the Bible clearly teaches, then we have a very strong motive for missions to “rescue the perishing.” The founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance wrote correctly,

A hundred thousand souls a day,
Are passing one by one away,
In Christless guilt and gloom,
Without one ray of hope or light,
With future dark as endless night,
They’re passing to their doom.

—A. B. Simpson

Books for Further Reading

• Crockett, William V and Sigountos, James G. Through No Fault of Their Own. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. Twenty-one chapters by as many authors speak to various issues and biblical passages surrounding the fate of those who die without hearing the gospel. The contributors range from universalists to restrictivists.
• Hick, John. Problems of Religious Pluralism. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Hick presents his pluralist view that there is salvation to be found in other religions.
• Lindsell, Harold. A Christian Philosophy of Missions. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1949. Lindsell argues for the historic biblical view that there is no salvation apart from personal faith in Christ — the particularist view.
• Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. The author explores the pluralist and inclusivist views and then makes a strong case for his particularist view.
• Okholm, Dennis L and Phillips, Timothy R., eds. More Than One Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995. Four views on religious pluralism are set out side by side, each presented and defended by its proponent.
• Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God’s Mercy. Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. Well-known evangelical theologian Pinnock explains his inclusivist view on salvation which includes all who seriously seek after God.
• Sanders, John. No Other Name. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Sanders argues that God must make salvation universally available and offers hope for those who have never heard.
• Sanders, John, ed. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995. Its subtitle is Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Sanders, Nash, and Gabriel Fackre each present and defend their views on evangelism.

Notes

1. Ken Fleming has taught missions at Emmaus Bible College since 1977 after serving as a missionary among the Zulu people in South Africa for twenty-five years.
2. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 107–108.
3. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? 107.
4. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., More than One Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 24.
5. Okholm and Phillips, More than One Way, 25.
6. John Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press: 1995), 36.
7. Clark H. Pinnock, “The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions,” in Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, ed. Mark A. Noll and David F. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 159.
8. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 182.
9. John Sanders, No Other Name (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 131.
10. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 161.
11. Some readers may care to consult the author’s book, God’s Voice in the Stars (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1981).
12. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, More than One Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 25.
13. Okholm and Phillips, More than One Way, 101.
14. Gabriel Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, What about Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 48.
15. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 176.
16. Okholm and Phillips, More than One Way, 119.
17. James Borland, “A Theologian Looks at the Gospel and World Religion,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (March 1990): 9.
18. Yenner wrote this in a letter dated Feb. 21, 1996 to a young person who had asked about the state of his grandparents who never heard of Christ.”

The Commission of Isaiah

By John H. Fish III [1]

An Exposition of Isaiah 6:1–13

Introduction

Preachers often speak on Isaiah, chapter six because of the vision of the awesome majesty and holiness of God presented there. They also speak on the call of Isaiah and his response to God. “Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’” (6:8). But not many continue in the chapter to dwell on the specific message Isaiah is told to preach because this message shocks us. Isaiah is told,

“Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed” (6:9–10).

This sounds harsh and startles us. It seems incompatible with the love and grace of God. Isaiah is told to render them insensitive to the truth so that they might not understand, return to the Lord, and be healed. How could this be the message of “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3–4)? Could the Lord who is “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) keep men and women from salvation by preventing them from understanding the message of the Gospel?

To understand the commission of Isaiah we must first understand the context of his call, both in terms of the times in which he lived (6:1) and in terms of the revelation of the majesty and holiness of God which is seen in verses 1–6. Isaiah, chapter six consists of two parts. Verses 1–7 describe Isaiah’s vision and cleansing while verses 8–13 describe his call and commission. The first part is the preparation for the second.

The Vision of the Lord

In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple (6:1).

The Time of Isaiah’s Call

What is unexpected first of all in this chapter of the vision of the Lord and the call of Isaiah is its position in the book. We would think that the call of the prophet and his commission of the Lord would come in the first chapter rather than the sixth. Its position after chapters 1–5 is an important part of the plan of the prophet. [2]

Chapters 1–5 describe the condition of the nation and the people to whom Isaiah is called to preach. It is a people immersed in sin.

Religious Corruption

During the reign of Uzziah, Judah was politically and militarily at her height, but chapters 1–5 show that her spiritual, moral, and social ills had reached the crisis state. There was an advanced religious corruption. In Isaiah 1:1–6 Yahweh charges the nation with rebelling against Him and not knowing Him. They are corrupt, having forsaken Him (1:4), and are spiritually sick (1:5–6). Israel was Yahweh’s vineyard which had unparalleled privileges, but she yielded no fruit (chapter 5). Religious ritual had become a substitute for genuine worship. The cultic worship was punctiliously observed but without any spiritual heart, and all of the sacrifices and keeping of days were utterly rejected by Yahweh (1:10–17). Judah had even gone so far as to allow idolatrous practices. This may be implied in 1:3 where it is said that Israel does not know God. In 1:29 it becomes clearer when it is said, “Surely, you will be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired, and you will be embarrassed at the gardens which you have chosen.” [3] In 2:6–8 the charge becomes explicit, for not only was Judah full of diviners and soothsayers, but it is said, “Their land has also been filled with idols; they worship the work of their hands, that which their fingers have made” (2:8). Chapter 2:18, 20 speak of the day of the Lord as a day which would bring to an end the present idolatrous practices. Thus Judah had not stopped at the most serious form of religious departure.

Moral and Social Corruption

Departure from God inevitably results in moral and social corruption, and these are apparent. Widows and orphans were oppressed and unjustly treated (1:17). Jerusalem was corrupt, and this was particularly seen in its leaders who were rebellious, companions of thieves, acceptors of bribes, and unjust toward orphans and widows (1:21–23). They misled the people (3:12), took spoil of the poor (3:14), and crushed and afflicted the Lord’s people (3:15). The sins of luxury and vanity are seen in 3:16–26, and this is reiterated in 5:8 where the rich are gathering all of the wealth to themselves. Other sins mentioned are pride and conceit (2:12–16), drunkenness (5:11), and corruption like that of Sodom and Gomorrah (1:10; 3:9). Their pleasure-filled living had made them blind to God (5:12).

It was to this people that Isaiah was commissioned to preach, and while Judah was not as far degenerate as the northern kingdom of Israel, it was a people so immersed in sin as to be incapable of repentance and correction. Isaiah’s preaching was therefore to be a part of the judgment of God resulting in judicial blindness upon the nation.

Isaiah Saw the Lord (6:1)

In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple (6:1).

The first three verses describe Isaiah’s vision, a revelation of God to the prophet which is essential to an understanding of his call and commission. Before Isaiah is sent to preach to the sinful and rebellious nation, he is given a vision of the majesty, greatness, and holiness of God.

Verse 1 says that Isaiah saw the Lord. How this could be is not indicated. There are many verses in the Bible which teach that God is invisible and cannot be seen. “No man can see Me and live!” (Exod. 33:20). “No man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). In fact Paul says that God “dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16). “God is spirit” (John 4:24).

Yet Isaiah saw the Lord and many others in the Bible are said to have seen God. Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30). The Lord Jesus even said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8).

It is obvious that the phrase “to see God” is used in two different senses. Man cannot see God in His essence. Man can only see God as He has revealed Himself. Any time a person sees God, it is an indication that God has adapted Himself to the limited capacity of the creature. We do not know God as He really is. We only know God as He has revealed Himself. Our knowledge of God is never exhaustive and perfect, but it is nevertheless true. It is not exhaustive because no one can see God and live. It is true because God has accommodated Himself to the weakness of man so that there was a sense in which Isaiah was able to “see” God.

The Imposing Majesty of God

The vision displays the imposing and incomparable majesty of the Lord. His throne is exalted and so insignificant a matter as His sweeping robe filled all of the space in the temple.

The one who is seen is Adonai (אֲדֹנָי), the Lord or master. The word itself can be used of God or man. It is used of the slave owner who was the master of that slave (Ex. 21:4). Abraham’s servant referred to Abraham as his Adonai, his master (Gen. 24:9, 10). Joseph was called the lord of Egypt (Gen. 42:3). He had great authority and power and was in effect the sovereign over Egypt, not in himself, but because he was acting in the place of the king. Pharaoh himself was called Adonai because he was the sovereign over Egypt (Gen. 40:1). God is Adonai because He is the sovereign Lord of the universe.

He is the exalted and majestic sovereign, and it is particularly significant that Isaiah will be called to a ministry in which the sovereign power of God will be displayed and in which His judgment will be prominent. [4]

The Response of the Seraphim

Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, 

“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory” (6:2–3).

Above and around the throne are a number of seraphim worshipping the Lord (6:2–3). They acknowledge the person of the Lord by their actions in verse 2. Two wings cover their face from the overwhelming impact of the divine glory. These are holy angels, not tainted by sin, yet the divine glory is so overwhelming and His brightness so dazzling that they are not able to gaze directly at God any more than man can gaze directly at the sun. Two wings cover their feet (i.e. their nakedness) from the divine eye, [5] and two wings are used for flying as they are ready to carry out the will of the Lord.

In verse 3 the seraphim acknowledge the person of the Lord by their words. They worship Him for His utter holiness and for His glory displayed in all the earth. “As used here, qadosh [holy] signifies the entirety of the divine perfection which separates God from His creation.” [6] There is an incomprehensible contrast between what is divine and what is human. Also the holiness of God consists of His positive attributes which constitute His deity. [7] The holiness of God involving His inner essence is largely hidden, but His glory is manifest, being declared by the whole creation. [8]

The Reaction to the Vision

And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. Then I said, 

“Woe is me, for I am ruined!  Because I am a man of unclean lips,  And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (6:4–5).

The Reaction in the Temple

The reaction to the vision in verses 4–5 heightens the awesomeness of the divine majesty. The foundation of the threshold shook at the voice of the seraphim and the temple was filled with smoke (6:4). The meaning of the smoke is uncertain. It may signify 1) the presence of God (cf. Ex. 40:30; Ezek. 10:4); or it may be 2) an indication of the sanctuary scene with the smoke rising from the altar of incense; or 3) the smoke may be an indication of the wrath of Yahweh (cf. Psalm 18:8). [9] With the latter interpretation smoke would add to the awesomeness of the scene and picture the wrath and judgment of the Lord about to be announced in Isaiah’s commission.

The Reaction of the Prophet

The reaction of the prophet to the vision in verse 5 is one of alarm and despair as he cries out, “Woe is me.” Four causal clauses give the reason why he so despairs. The last clause says that he has seen the Lord of hosts and it is for this reason that he says, “I am ruined!” (נִדְיתִי, niḏmêṯî, I am made to cease, cut off, undone, doomed to die). [10] He does not merely say that he is doomed because of the belief that no man can see God and live (Exod. 33:20), but because the vision has revealed the infinite moral contrast between the One on the throne and Isaiah himself. “Isaiah saw himself in the light of Jehovah’s infinite holiness. It is ever thus when man is brought consciously into the presence of God.” [11]

He is a man with unclean lips. The lips are specified because of the fact that he had just seen choirs of holy creatures worshipping with pure lips. Notice the extent of his sense of sinfulness. Even if he uses his lips to praise and worship God, they are still unclean lips because he is unclean. In the presence of the thrice-holy God he is not even fit to worship properly. Sin so pervades our nature that it taints all of our thoughts and actions, not just those which we can specify as disobedient to God. Even with our best intentions and desires, our worship of God is imperfect. Perhaps it is because we never do anything 100% to the glory of God that no work is untainted with sin. Furthermore not only was Isaiah himself a man of unclean lips, he was a member of a nation with unclean lips. How could such a one as he live in the presence of the almighty and holy God?

The Cleansing of Isaiah

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven” (6:6–7).

In verses 6 and 7 following his confession, one of the seraphim performed a symbolical act in cleansing the prophet. He then explained the significance of that act. From the altar of incense he took a hot stone on which incense was burned and he touched it to Isaiah’s lips. Symbolically the fire had a purifying effect, but the cleansing came not from the fire, but from the initiative of the Lord and the fact that a sacrifice for sin had been offered. Young comments, “The action of the seraph in touching the coal to the lips of Isaiah symbolized the fact that, the necessary propitiatory sacrifice having been made, his sins were forgiven.” [12] Isaiah’s woeful cry is silenced. By the gracious work of the Majestic and Holy One upon the throne through atonement his sins are taken care of along with the resultant guilt.

The Call and Commission of Isaiah

The Call of Isaiah

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (6:8).

All that had taken place, the vision and the reaction to it, has been preparatory to the commission of the prophet in verses 8–13. Having seen the Lord and having been cleansed, Isaiah is no longer the same individual, and he now possesses a fitness for service which he never had before. Adonai, the Sovereign One who was revealed in verse 1, speaks and calls for one to do His bidding. [13] Acutely conscious of just being cleansed, Isaiah eagerly responds that he desires to carry out the divine will. Grace gives confidence to do God’s bidding. [14] He will be the messenger of this awesome and holy God in speaking to His sinful and rebellious people.

The Commission of Isaiah

And He said, “Go, and tell this people: 

‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed” (6:9–10).

The Nature of Isaiah’s Ministry

The message of Isaiah given in verse 9 was startling and quite different from what he expected. He is told to go and speak to “this people.” The phrase, “this people,” as found in Isaiah 8:6, 12; 9:15; 28:11, 14; 29:13, 14 is used in a contemptuous sense and denotes the superstitions or unbelief of the people. [15]

Grammatically the imperatives of verse 9, “Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand” are to be Isaiah’s commands to the people. They should not be translated “hear carefully or clearly” but rather “hear and see continually, [16] (cf. the NASB “keep on listening, keep on looking”) or “hear indeed.” [17] What is to be heard is the message of God through Isaiah, and what is to be seen are the works of God which prominently display His providence. [18] The message and the revelation are to be repeatedly before the nation, yet she is forbidden to perceive and understand.

Although on the face of it these negative commands are to be preached to the people, the book of Isaiah fails to show that these were the terms or the substance of Isaiah’s message. Instead of expressing the very words Isaiah was to use, these seem to be ironic commands used as a rhetorical device to vividly express the result Isaiah was to expect. [19] More, however, is signified than a prediction of the effects of Isaiah’s ministry according to the foreknowledge of God. The spiritual blindness and insensitivity of the nation are the result of the judicial will of God in judgment for their rebellion and sin.

The Hardening of the People

Verse 10, then, consists of commands to the prophet directly instead of to the people and indicates what will be the effects of his message. Verse 9 indicates that the revelation of God is going to be continually before the nation through Isaiah’s ministry and yet as punishment for her sins she is forbidden to perceive it. Verse 10 indicates that Isaiah himself in his preaching is going to be the very instrument God uses to achieve this blindness.

As the foregoing verse contains a prediction of the people’s insensibility, but under the form of a command or exhortation to themselves, so this predicts the same event, as the result of Isaiah’s labours, under the form of a command to him. … The thing predicted is judicial blindness, as the natural result and righteous retribution of the national depravity. This end would be promoted by the very preaching of the truth, and therefore a command to preach was in effect a command to blind and harden them. [20]

Three figurative expressions are used to express this hardening. Isaiah is commanded to make their heart fat, dull and insensitive to the working of God’s grace. He is to make their ears heavy or dull of hearing so that the message of God’s revelation falls on deaf ears. Thirdly, he is to blind their eyes so that they cannot see the divine truth. The word “lest” (פֶּן,pen) indicates a negative purpose. The purpose of Isaiah’s blinding them is clearly said to be to prevent them from perceiving the truth and turning from their sins and being saved. The verse cannot mean anything less than the fact that Yahweh wills their judgment and not their salvation and therefore through this judicial blindness seals their fate.

What the hardening is not. It seems at first that this verse is shocking and irreconcilable with the goodness of God. Two views, however, are to be avoided if these verses are to be properly interpreted.

1) The view that this blindness is an unintended effect foreseen by God, but not directly willed by Him, does not do justice to the text or the context. First, the “lest” of verse 10 alone should be enough to refute this. God is willing something in order to prevent the future possibility of salvation. Second, this view does not do justice to the imperatives in that it simply understands them as futures. But as it is apparent that God foreknows that the preaching of Isaiah will result in rejection and blindness, and as Isaiah is commanded to preach in such a way that this result will be the consequence, then it must be concluded that the result is inevitable and determined by God. [21] Third, it is entirely in keeping with the character of God and it is the repeated teaching of Scripture that those who are depraved and have continually hardened themselves to the light of God may justly be cut off by God and excluded from further light.

2) It must also be noted that this chapter does not refer to a decree of reprobation in the same sense as the decree of election in Romans 9. The latter in reference to Jacob took place before his birth and before he had done good or evil (Rom. 9:11), whereas Isaiah 6 has to do with God’s decree for a sinful and rebellious nation who had continually rejected Him. It has been shown how chapters 1–5 reveal the depravity of the people and their refusal to obey God. This is a judgment of God for those who are already depraved.

What the hardening is. Sin carries with it its own consequences so that rejection of God itself produces insensitivity to God. It becomes clear that the nation has hardened itself so that they have passed the point of repentance and response to God. Their choice of sin and disobedience was settled and therefore “God gave them up” (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). This generation is being confirmed in its rebellion and will not be given another chance. God will destroy it (Isa. 6:11–12) and therefore judicially blinds them to further light. The thought of verses 9–10 is complex and must be viewed from different aspects. The main thought is that of the hardness and blindness of the nation. On the one hand this is the fruit of their own depravity. On the other it is the execution of God’s righteous judgment. In addition Isaiah is the agent in achieving this effect. [22]

The Preaching of Repentance to a Hardened Nation

A final question which needs to be answered is why Isaiah was to preach and call the nation to repentance which was already judicially blind. At least two reasons may be given. One is that the judgment of blindness over the nation as a whole did not preclude the salvation of individuals. Even today while Israel as a nation is blinded (2 Cor. 3:15), God is still saving individuals (Rom. 11:1). These individuals who would be saved through Isaiah’s ministry are the basis for the remnant of verse 13.

Secondly, if the theocracy was to come to an end, then it must be evident that it no longer had a concern for God. Isaiah was to preach to stony soil in order that it might be apparent that the nation no longer was responsive to God and was ripe for banishment. [23]

The Length of the Hardening Judgment

Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, 

“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people, And the land is utterly desolate, The Lord has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land” (6:11–12).

The commission of the Lord was difficult, yet Isaiah accepted it obediently. However, one question based on the fact that Yahweh had chosen Israel and had given her an unconditional promise came to the mind of the prophet. Since God could not cast off His people forever, Isaiah asked how long the hardening judgment would continue (Isa. 6:11). The answer in verse 11 is that it would continue until the utter destruction and desolation of the land.

Verse 12 develops this concept of desolation with the strange statement until “the Lord has removed men far away.” “That can hardly be intended to mean anything other than a captivity and a deportation.” [24] As a result of this there would be many forsaken places, abandoned towns and cities, in the land.

The Promise of a Remnant

Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak, Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump (6:13).

Verse 13 refers to a second judgment and magnifies the extent of the ruin. From the destruction and exile of verses 11–12 only a tenth will remain. Yet that remnant will itself be purged. The text says “it will again be subject to burning.” This tenth which survives the exile is compared to an oak or terebinth tree. The tree will be cut down so that only the stump remains. Yet in the last words of the verse the tone switches to an optimistic note, for from this stump comes the irreducible remnant which Isaiah indicates will be left when he names his son Shear-jashub (a remnant will return) in chapter 7. Skinner indicates that the usual interpretation of 6:13b, which there is no reason to abandon, is as follows:

As the terebinth and oak when cut down retain the principle of vitality in their roots, which will again spring up into a great tree (cf. Job xiv. 7ff.), so the ruined Israel contains the indestructible germ of the future kingdom of God, the “holy seed” is wrapped up in it. [25]

Conclusion

The preaching of Isaiah in Isaiah, chapter six calls us to remember a solemn and important message of Scripture. The God of grace and mercy is also a God of judgment. Even though God is longsuffering and a God of love, His love and patience cannot be assumed presumptuously. There will come a day when He will come and deal out “retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thes. 1:8–9). The day of grace will end and there will be no more opportunity for salvation for those who have rejected the Lord Jesus.

Isaiah, chapter six teaches us that even in this age the day of grace may come to an end for certain individuals. That happened to Israel in Isaiah’s day and to many of the individuals in it. Because of their sin which is presented in the first five chapters, they are judged by God. God “gave them up.” He cut them off from further light. The effect of this was to confirm them in their sin, and therefore confirm them in their lost estate.

Are we offended by this? We should only be offended if we are offended by the fact that God is a God who judges sin. This has nothing to do with innocent people being kept from salvation. “We may safely say at once that God never harden [sic] hearts that would otherwise be soft, and that owe their hardness to His interposition. He does not blind the eyes of those that would fain see, and apart from His interposition, would see.” [26] Rather this hardening is the outworking of the message of Proverbs 29:1, “He, that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” God will not forever offer the pearls of His grace and salvation to those spiritual swine who continually trample them in the dust.

This is a solemn warning for all who are outside of Christ to take heed and to come to Him in faith. But it is never meant to be a message of despair to any lost sinner who desires salvation and would like to come to the Savior. There is no sin which is too great for the grace of God, and anyone who wants salvation can rest in the promise that “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). Those who are hardened by God are simply confirmed in their own sinful thoughts and desires. They are already rebellious and hostile to God. The judgment of God means that they will continue this way.

This message is also a message that grace really is grace. God is under no obligation to forgive all sinners. Nor is He obligated to offer salvation to everyone forever. When He judges sin, He is still perfectly just and righteous. Isaiah, chapter six is a message that the judgment of God is not only in the future, it may also be now.

Notes

1. Jack Fish is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and the editor of The Emmaus Journal.
2. Some have suggested that its place in chapter 6 rather than in chapter 1 is accidental. They say it originally began a collection of oracles which circulated separately and which concerned Isaiah’s experiences relating to the Syro-Ephraimitic war (Isa. 6:1–8:18). This would mean that chapter 6 has no real connection with the previous context. There is of course no evidence for this view. It has also been suggested that this is a renewal of his prophetic call or a recommission after a number of years in his ministry. This supposition is nowhere supported in the chapter and is derived from the erroneous assumption that the book is chronologically arranged. The normal reading of this chapter gives the impression that it describes Isaiah’s first vision and his inauguration into the prophetic ministry (J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters I-XXXIX, CBSC [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1897], 42). John D. W. Watts, however, questions this, The Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 24, Isaiah 1–33 (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 70.
3. Cf. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965–1969), 1:91.
4. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:238.
5. George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I-XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 104.
6. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:242.
7. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 45.
8. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 1:131.
9. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, 1:132–133.
10. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:247.
11. H. A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1952), 39.
12. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:251.
13. The plural in לָנוּ, lānû, “for us,” imay be explained as inclusive of the seraphim and other heavenly attendants who are graciously allowed to manifest their interest in the divine call (Leupold, 136), or else it is a foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Trinity (Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols. in 1 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953 {= 1846–47}], 1:151; Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:234).
14. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Book of Isaiah, 4th ed. (London: C. A. Hammond, 1947 [= 1896]), 117.
15. Gray, ICC, 109.
16. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. and rev. A. E. Cowley, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), § 113r.
17. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 586.
18. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, 1:139.
19. Motyer points out that in 28:9–10 the criticism leveled against Isaiah is that he taught with such simplicity and clarity that the sophisticates of his day scorned him as fit ony to conduct a kindergarten. “Isaiah did not understand his commission as one to blind people by obscurity of expression or complexity of message. He, in fact, faced the preacher’s dilemma: if hearers are resistant to the truth, the only recourse is to tell them the truth yet again, more clearly than before. But to do this is to expose them to the risk of rejecting the truth yet again and, therefore, of increased hardness of heart.” J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 79.
20. Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 1:153.
21. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:259.
22. Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 1:152.
23. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:258–259.
24. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, 1:140.
25. Skinner, CBSC, 48.
26. F. C. Jennings, Studies in Isaiah (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1935), 68.