John Gill on Revelation 16:5

 John Gill is simply a legendary scholar of the Bible.  His knowledge of the Jewish sources and his willingness to discuss them in relation to the Bible sometimes yields a very different take on a particular text from his contemporaries.

Gill, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shall be: which may be understood either of God the Father, who had power over these plagues, Revelation 16:9 and sent them; or of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, and is righteous in all his ways and works, in all his judgments on antichrist, and is the eternal "I AM", which is, and was, and shall be; see Revelation 1:8. The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

Gill makes an understatement about the manuscript evidence.  However, when Gill seeks to connect hosios, his assumption that it refers to purity (it does not) shows through.

Gill, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

which art, and wast, and art to come: the everlasting, "I am", the unchangeable Jehovah: the phrase is expressive of the eternity and immutability, :-; and it may be observed, whereas in this description of him it is said, "and art to come", this therefore does not belong to his personal, but to his spiritual reign; he will not be as yet come in person, to raise the dead, and judge the world, when these voices shall be in heaven, and these congratulations of the elders be made: the reason of their praise and thanksgiving follows,

Gill does not seem to be aware of the manuscript evidence being so strongly against "to come," but his argument anticipates the discovery and supports the idea that "to come" is an erroneous interpolation.

Gill, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; which some understand of the whole Trinity; the Father by him "which is", being the I am that I am; the Son by him "which was", which was with God the Father, and was God; and the Spirit by him "which is to come", who was promised to come from the Father and the Son, as a Comforter, and the Spirit of truth: others think Christ is here only intended, as he is in Revelation 1:8 by the same expressions; and is he "which is", since before Abraham he was the "I am"; and he "which was", the eternal Logos or Word; and "is to come", as the Judge of quick and dead. But rather this is to be understood of the first Person, of God the Father; and the phrases are expressive both of his eternity, he being God from everlasting to everlasting; and of his immutability, he being now what he always was, and will be what he now is, and ever was, without any variableness, or shadow of turning: they are a periphrasis, and an explanation of the word "Jehovah", which includes all tenses, past, present, and to come. So the Jews explain this name in Exodus 3:14;

"Says R. Isaac k, the holy blessed God said to Moses, Say unto them, I am he that was, and I am he that now is, and I am he that is to come, wherefore אהיה is written three times.''

And such a periphrasis of God is frequent in their writings l.

It's certainly understandable that Gill, with his Jewish-focused research as background, would go in this direction.  However, treating "to come" as a periphrastic future is an error - a common one, but an error nonetheless.

Gill, at Revelation 1:8, writes:

which is, and which was, and which is to come; who is God over all, "was" God from all eternity, and is to come as such; which he will show by: his omniscience and omnipotence, displayed in the judgment of the world: who "is" now a Saviour of all that come to God by him; "was" so under the Old Testament dispensation, being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and "is to come", as such, and shall appear a second time unto salvation to them that look for him: particularly this phrase is expressive of the eternity of Christ, who is, was, and ever will be; and of his immutability, who is the same he was, and will be for ever the same he is, and was, unchangeable in his person, in his love, and in the virtue of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; he is the same today, yesterday, and for ever. This same phrase is used of God the Father in Revelation 1:4; and is a further proof of the deity of Christ; and which is still more confirmed by the following character,

Here, interestingly, Gill seems at least momentarily to focus on Christ's actual future coming as the basis for being called "the Coming one."  

KJV Improvement - Satyrs

 Satyrs in the Bible? (source of image at right)

Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs (וּשְׂעִירִים) shall dance there.

Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr (וְשָׂעִיר) shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

D.A. Waite, Jr.'s "4,114 Definitions from the Defined King James Bible," provides the following definition for satyr:

in mythology: a minor woodland deity (companion of Bacchus) depicted as having the pointed ears, legs, and short horns of a goat, the head and body of a man, and a fondness for unrestrained revelry and lechery.

 By contrast, Philip P. Kapusta's "A King James Dictionary," defines Satyr as "He-goat."

BibleHub and BlueLetterBible offer, as one option, "satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)."

Will Kinney (responding to John Ankerburg) has written (link to source):

SATYRS

The word translated as satyr is the Hebrew word sa’ir #8163. It has several meanings, including “hairy” – “Esau my brother is a HAIRY man” Genesis 27:11; “goat” – “lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT” Leviticus 4:24; “devils” – “they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS” Leviticus 17:7; “satyrs” – “and SATYRS shall dance there” Isaiah 13:21, and “rough” – “the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia” Daniel 8:21.

The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.

Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there.”

Isaiah 34:14 “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”

Not only does the King James Bible use the word satyr in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions. The Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

The satyrs are mentioned four times in the Greek Septuagint version. In Isaiah 13:22; 34:11 and 34:14 we read: “satyrs shall dwell in it…devils shall dance there and satyrs dwell there…and devils shall meet with satyrs…there shall satyrs rest.”

Revised Standard Version 1952

Leviticus 17:7 “So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for SATYRS, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations.”

Not only does the RSV translate this word as Satyrs in Leviticus 17:7, but so also do the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.

2 Chronicles 11:15 “and he appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the SATYRS, and for the calves which he had made.”

Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there SATYRS will dance.”

What about a modern “evangelical” version? Well, surprise! Let’s take a look at the New American Standard Version 1972-1995 Update.

2 Chronicles 11:15 “He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the SATYRS and for the calves which he had made.”

Smith’s Bible Dictionary: Satyr: Isaiah 13:21; 34:14. The Hebrew word signifies “hairy” or “rough,” and is frequently applied to “he-goats.” In the passages cited it probably refers to demons of woods and desert places. Comp. Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15.

Even among the various other modern versions there is little agreement on how to translate this term. What we see in the various versions is a wide variety of translations that include the following: “shaggy creatures (Rotherham), goats, goat-demons (NRSV), goad idols (ESV), demoniacs, hairy ones (Darby), demons (New English Bible 1970), wild goats, and evil spirits (Bible in Basic English 1970).

...

So, regarding the correctness of the translation of SATYR, Mr. Ankerberg can think what he wants, but there are a lot of Bible scholars who differ with his opinion. Again, the Bible versions that sometimes translate this Hebrew word as SATYR include both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Geneva Bible, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Webster’s 1833, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the NASB – New American Standard 1995 Update version. ...

The word in question does come from a root meaning "hairy." (this is from HALOT)  

As a noun, it refers to a goat (same source):

It is true that it has sometimes had a demonic interpretation (same source):

Gesenius has:

Here are the main problems with Will's response/argument:

1) While I appreciate that Will knows what word the King James translators were trying to translate, nevertheless his usage information obscures the distribution of the semantic range, even taking the KJV as a guide (source):

The KJV translates Strong's H8163 in the following manner: kid (28x), goat (24x), devil (2x), satyr (2x), hairy (2x), rough (1x).

Notice that of the 59 uses, three are adjectival ("hairy/rough"), and of the 56 that are nouns, 52 are some form of goat.  That leaves the two places where the word is mistranslated as "satyr" (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14) and the two places where the word is mistranslated as "devils" (Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15):

Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

2 Chronicles 11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.

We can discuss the correct reading of those passages another time.  Nevertheless, for now we turn to the two "satyr" passages.

2) Will's claim about what the satyr "seems to be" is mostly wishful thinking.  Will claims:

The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.

Let's actually examine the Satyr passages in context.

1) Isaiah 13:17-22

Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. 

This is the true (and already fulfilled) prophecy of the Medes' destruction of Babylon.  While I would argue that there are number of mistranslations in this passage (such as "wild beasts of the islands," which should be "hyenas" and "dragons," which should be "jackals"), still even with the mistranslations, it is already abundantly apparent from the context that the word mistranslated as "satyrs" is one of the litany of wild animals. 

There is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon.  The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context.  There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon.  

Let's look at the next verse in context:

2) Isaiah 34:1-17 (the entire chapter)

Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.

Once again, there are multiple mistranslations in the passage, such as "unicorns" for "Reems" (i.e. wild oxen), "dragons" for jackals, and "wild beasts of the island" for hyenas.  Nevertheless, once again from the context we can see that the so-called "satyr" is amongst a list of wild animals that will inhabit the wasteland in the aftermath of the destruction.

Contrary to Will, there is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon.  The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context.  There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon.  

What justification can be there be for throwing in the name of a mythical animal from Roman mythology?  The Hebrew word שָׂעִיר (śāʿîr) does sound a bit like "satyr," particularly with an accent prone toward T-glottalization (i.e. replacing a central "T" sound with a glottal stop).  

This seems to be a false cognate.

Will points out that some other translations have agreed that the word in Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14 should be satyr(s), in one of two ways: some translations used "satyr" in those places (e.g. KJ21, BRG, GNV, JUB, AKJV, NABRE, RSV, and RSVCE) and some translations have used "satyr" either in other places generally or in other places that the same Hebrew word is used.   

The Jewish Bible uses "satyrs" at Isaiah 13:21 and "satyr" at Isaiah 34:14 despite correcting other mistranslations.  Why?  The reason is that there is Jewish tradition that these animals are, in fact, demons (see Rashi's commentary at the links).  

Moreover, the Etymology of "satyr" is an interesting reading (link to source).

satyr (n.)

late 14c., satire, "one of a type of woodland deities part human or animal; demigod or spirit of the air or woods, companion of Bacchus," from Old French satire and directly from Latin satyrus, from Greek satyros, a word of unknown origin. "The etymology of [satyros] is unknown. A number of hypotheses have been proposed, but none of them makes sense ..." [Beekes].

In pre-Roman Greek art, a man-like being with the tail and ears of a horse; the conception of a being part man part goat is due to Roman sculptors, who seem to have assimilated them to the fauns of native mythology. In some English bibles the word is used curiously to translate Hebrew se'irim, a type of hairy monster superstitiously believed to inhabit deserts.

In Middle English the word could mean also a kind of ape supposed to live in Africa or Arabia (late 14c.), after a use of Greek satyros, and the name was later applied by zoologists to the orangutan (1690s). From 1781 as "very lecherous or lascivious person." Related: Satyress.

Perhaps more interesting than this is commentary by a Christian scholar who inherited the King James translation and was also familiar with Jewish tradition.  

John Gill explains (Commentary on Isaiah 13:21):

and satyrs shall dance there; a sort of monstrous creatures with the ancients, painted half men and half goats; the upper part of them like men, except the horns on their heads, and the lower parts like goats, and all over hairy; and the word here used signifies hairy; and is used for goats, and sometimes for devils, either because they have appeared in this form, as Kimchi says, to them that believe them; or because they, by their appearance, inject such horror in men, as cause their hair to stand upright: hence the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, interpret it of devils here; and so the Septuagint version, and those that follow it, the Syriac and Arabic, render it, "and demons shall dance there": with this agrees the account of mystical Babylon, Revelation 18:2.

John Gill again (Commentary on Isaiah 34:14)

and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; or the "hairy" one [FN r]; from which word the goat has its name; and these creatures are described by the ancients as half goats and half men; of which Isaiah 13:21. The Targum renders it demons; and with this well agrees the account of Babylon or Rome as fallen, that it shall be the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, Revelation 18:2:

[FN r: שעיר "pilosus", a שער "capillus."] 

Gill's comments here acknowledge the indebtedness to Jewish tradition.  Gill makes an interesting comparison to Revelation 18:2 (a place where this is an interesting textual issue that we've talked about elsewhere), which mentions fallen Babylon as having become the habitation of devils and foul spirits.  This is, perhaps, the strongest argument one could mount for a demonic interpretation of Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14.  On the other hand, if this argument is accepted, then it at least equally dictates in favor of translating Lilith (a night demon in Jewish tradition) in place of "screech owl" in Isa 34:14.  Gill again:

By the name "Lilith", it appears to be a night bird, which flies and is heard in the night. The Jews call a she demon by this name, which, they say [FN s], has a human face, and has wings, and destroys children as soon as born; and therefore the Jews, especially in Germany, write upon the four corners of the bed of a new mother, Adam, Eve, out Lilith [FN t]; the same with the Lamia of the Romans; and so the Vulgate Latin here renders it.

[FN s: T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 24. 2.]

[FN t: Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. col. 1140.]

But, of course, the woes of "mystical Babylon" to which Gill appeals may be paralleled by the actual animals that inhabited actual Babylon, without appeal to a secondary meaning.

One assumes that the King James translators were likely influenced by Calvin's commentaries.

Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 13 (source):

It will not be amiss to explain what follows about Satyrs or Pans, who are called by the French, according to the various dialects of the provinces, sometimes Luittons, sometimes Follets, and sometimes Loups-garouz. As Satan deludes men by various tricks, so he gives to them various names. It is certain that ציים (tziim) is often used in Scripture for devils; and it is derived from ציה, (tziyah,) which means dryness, or, a desert, as איים (iyim) is derived from אים, (ayam,) which means to terrify. The Devil performs strange tricks by means of Fauns and Satyrs, and on that account their names are given to him.

The design of the Prophet is to show that the solitude will be so great, that not only will the place be deserted by men, but even the devils will there deceive by their tricks; for the devils avail themselves of the tendency of solitary places to produce terror. As enemies and robbers, by sallying forth from concealed lurking-places, frighten men the more, so devils take advantage of the night and the darkness, and of places distant from the view of men, that they may be able to excite greater terror in those who are naturally timorous.

Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 34 (source):

14. And the wild beasts shall meet with the satyrs. These animals are thought by some commentators to mean fauns, by others screechowls or goblins, and by others satyrs; and it is not fully agreed what is the exact meaning of the Hebrew words; but it would serve no good purpose to give ourselves much uneasiness about them, for it is quite enough if we understand the meaning and design of the Prophet. He draws a picture of frightful desolation, as if he had said that Idumea shall be destroyed so as to be without inhabitants, and instead of men it shall be inhabited by frightful beasts. This reward is most justly reaped by the ambition of those who built costly palaces to be, as we have already said, monuments of their name and reputation. Yet this is also a punishment threatened against the cruelty of a wicked nation, which was eagerly bent on the oppression of neighbours and brethren.

Though we cannot absolutely determine whether the Prophet means witches, or goblins, or satyrs and fauns, yet it is universally agreed that these words denote animals which have the shape of men. We see also what various delusions are practiced by Satan, what phantoms and hideous monsters are seen, and what sounds and noises are heard. But of these we have already spoken under the thirteenth chapter. 

Thankfully, the universal agreement about the meaning of the words, thankfully, has long since lapsed, if it ever was universal.  

Major Biblical Commentators on 1 Timothy 4:10

 Matthew Henry (source)

II. The encouragement which we have to proceed in the ways of godliness, and to exercise ourselves to it, notwithstanding the difficulties and discouragements that we meet with in it. He had said (v. 8) that it is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life which now is. But the question is, Will the profit balance the loss? For, if it will not, it is not profit. Yes, we are sure it will. Here is another of Paul's faithful sayings, worthy of all acceptation—that all our labours and losses in the service of God and the work of religion will be abundantly recompensed, so that though we lose for Christ we shall not lose by him. Therefore we labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, v. 10. Observe,

1. Godly people must labour and expect reproach; they must do well, and yet expect at the same time to suffer ill: toil and trouble are to be expected by us in this world, not only as men, but as saints.

2. Those who labour and suffer reproach in the service of God and the work of religion may depend upon the living God that they shall not lose by it. Let this encourage them, We trust in the living God. The consideration of this, that the God who has undertaken to be our pay-master is the living God, who does himself live for ever and is the fountain of life to all who serve him, should encourage us in all our services and in all our sufferings for him, especially considering that he is the Saviour of all men. (1.) By his providences he protects the persons, and prolongs the lives, of the children of men. (2.) He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He desires not the death of sinners; he is thus far the Saviour of all men that none are left in the same desperate condition that fallen angels are in. Now, if he be thus the Saviour of all men, we may hence infer that much more he will be the rewarder of those who seek and serve him; if he has such a good-will for all his creatures, much more will he provide well for those who are new creatures, who are born again. He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe; and the salvation he has in store for those that believe is sufficient to recompense them for all their services and sufferings. Here we see, [1.] The life of a Christian is a life of labour and suffering: We labour and suffer. [2.] The best we can expect to suffer in the present life is reproach for our well-doing, for our work of faith and labour of love. [3.] True Christians trust in the living God; for cursed is the man that trusts in man, or in any but the living God; and those that trust in him shall never be ashamed. Trust in him at all times. [4.] God is the general Saviour of all men, as he has put them into a salvable state; but he is in a particular manner the Saviour of true believers; there is then a general and a special redemption.

John Gill (source)

For therefore we both labour

Not in the word and doctrine, though they did; nor in the exercise of internal godliness, though there is a work in faith, and a labour in love; nor with their own hands, at their trades and business, to support themselves, and others; but by enduring hardships and afflictions, as stripes, imprisonment, weariness, pain, watchings, fastings, hunger, thirst, cold, and nakedness; see ( 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 ) . 

And suffer reproach;

with patience and cheerfulness. The Alexandrian copy, and another manuscript, read, "we strive"; or contend even to an agony, combating with sin, Satan, and the world, with profane men, and with false teachers; and to all this they were animated by the promises made to godliness; and therefore they showed it by their practices, or rather by their sufferings, that they believed it to be a true and faithful saying; and which is further conferred by what follows: 

because we trust in the living God;

for the accomplishment of the said promises, who has power, and therefore can, and is faithful, and therefore will, make good what he has promised; and since it is life he has promised, faith is the more encouraged to trust in him, since he is the living God, in opposition to, and distinction from, lifeless idols; he has life in himself, essentially, originally, and independently, and is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal, unto others. Wherefore there is good reason to trust in him for the fulfilling of the promises of the present and future life, made unto godliness. 

Who is the Saviour of all men;

in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact. 

Specially of those that believe;

whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of ( Psalms 17:7 ) where he is called ([Hebrew text did not copy]) , "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.

John Calvin (source)

10 For in this we both labor and suffer reproaches This is an anticipation by which he solves that question, "Are not believers the most miserable of all men, because they are oppressed by tribulations of every kind?" In order to show, therefore, that their condition must not be judged from outward appearance, he distinguishes them from others, first in the cause, and next in the result. Hence it follows, that they lose nothing of the promises which he has mentioned, when they are tried by adversity. The sum is, that believers are not miserable in afflictions, because a good conscience supports them, and a blessed and joyful end awaits them.

Now, since the happiness of the present life consists chiefly of two parts, honor and conveniences, he contrasts them within two evils, toils and reproach, meaning by the former words, inconveniences and annoyances of every kind, such as poverty, cold, nakedness, hunger, banishments, spoliations, imprisonments, scourgings, and other persecutions.

We have hope fixed on the living God This consolation refers to the cause; for so far are we from being miserable, when we suffer on account of righteousness, that it is rather a just ground of thanksgiving. Besides, our afflictions are accompanied by hope in the living God, and, what is more, hope may be regarded as the foundation; but it never maketh ashamed, (Romans 5:5,) and therefore everything that happens to the godly ought to be reckoned a gain.

Who is the Savior [76] This is the second consolation, though it depends on the former; for the deliverance of which he speaks may be viewed as the fruit of hope. To make this more clear, it ought to be understood that this is an argument drawn from the less to the greater; for the word soter [77] is here a general term, and denotes one who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him? Will he not take peculiar care in them? Will he not more freely pour out his bounty on them? In a word, will he not, in every respect, keep them safe to the end?

[76] "The word Savior is not here taken in what we call its proper and strict meaning, in regard to the eternal salvation which God promises to his elect, but it is taken for one who delivers and protects. Thus we see that even unbelievers are protected by God, as it is said (Matthew 5:46) that "he maketh his sun to shine on the good and the bad;" and we see that all are fed by his goodness, that all are delivered from many dangers. In this sense he is called "the Savior of all men," not in regard to the spiritual salvation of their souls, but because he supports all his creatures. In this way, therefore, our Lord is the Savior of all men, that is, his goodness extends to the most wicked, who are estranged from him, and who do not deserve to have any intercourse with him, who ought to have been struck off from the number of the creatures of God and destroyed; and yet we see how God hitherto extends his grace to them; for the life which he gives to them is a testimony of his goodness. Since, therefore God shows such favor towards those who are strangers to him, how shall it be with us who are members of his household? Not that we are better or more excellent than those whom we see to be cast off by him, but the whole proceeds from his mercy and free grace, that he is reconciled to us through our Lord Jesus Christ, since he hath called us to the knowledge of the gospel, and then confirms us, and seals his bounty toward us, so that we ought to be convinced that he reckons us to be his children. Since, therefore, we see that he nourishes those who are estranged from him, let us go and hide ourselves under his wings; for, having taken us under his protection, he has declared that he will show himself to be a Father toward us." -- Fr. Ser.

[77] "Le mot Grec que nous traduisons Sauveur." -- "The Greek word which we translate Savior."

Matthew Poole (source)

1 Timothy 4:10

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

If we did not believe this as a faithful saying, that godliness is profitable for all things, and trust in God, who liveth for ever, to see to the fulfilling of it, to what purpose should

we labour and suffer reproach as we do; labouring in the work of God, suffering reproach in the cause of God, and for living godly lives, worshipping God according to his will, and denying ourselves in sensual satisfactions and sensible enjoyments, that we might fulfil the law of Christ?

Objection. But, will some say: how then is godliness profitable for all things, how doth the faithfulness of the promises for this life annexed to godliness appear, if those that profess it must labour and suffer reproach?

Solution. Labour for God is a reward to itself, our honour, not our burden, his service is perfect freedom: the promises of this life, annexed to godliness, are not promises of sensual rest and ease, but of inward peace, satisfaction, and support of other things, only with a reserve to the Divine wisdom and judgment, so far forth as our heavenly Father shall see it fit for his glory and our good; yet they are not vain, for God,

who is the Saviour, that is, the Preserver,

of all men, the Preserver of man and beast, as the psalmist speaketh, is in a more especial manner the Saviour

of those that believe, Psalm 33:18,19. This seemeth rather to be the sense of the text, than to understand it of eternal salvation, for so God is not the actual Saviour of all; besides that the text seemeth to speak of a work proper to the Father, rather than to the Son.

Other interesting commentary:

John Samson at Monergism.com (source)

It's all about the Exegesis - Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32)

Too much digital ink has been spilled over the recent call by my friend, James White, to people to learn and apply the skills of exegesis to the text of Scripture, instead of rushing to glib answers without carefully studying the text.  James is right - adherence to Scripture is of the first importance.  Our answers to the outsiders claiming that Christ is not fully divine must be answered from the text, not simply from the creeds.

This is not to say that the creeds are wrong.  This is not to say that the creeds are unhelpful.  This is not to say that we must sit under a tree with our Bible and wear noise-cancelling headphones to ignore the work of our fellow believers.

Rather, this is to say that our answer must be rooted in God's Word.  Look at the exegetical work of several Reformed exegetes on the challenging text of Matthew 24:36.

1. Calvin (link to commentary)

Calvin argues that the day referred to is the final judgment.  Amongst the lessons Calvin draws from the text, here is one that seems very fitting today: "We ought therefore to be on our guard, lest our anxiety about the time be carried farther than the Lord allows; for the chief part of our wisdom lies in confining ourselves soberly within the limits of God’s word."  This is something that my friend, James, has been promoting for decades.

Calvin starts out rather provocatively: "Mark adds, nor the Son himself. And surely that man must be singularly mad, who would hesitate to submit to the ignorance which even the Son of God himself did not hesitate to endure on our account."  You can only imagine the flurry of tweets this line might cause today.

After addressing various objections, Calvin settles on this explanation with reference to the text of Matthew and Mark:

I have no doubt that he refers to the office appointed to him by the Father as in a former instance, when he said that it did not belong to him to place this or that person at his right or left hand, (Matthew 20:23; Mark 5:40.) For (as I explained under that passage (159)) he did not absolutely say that this was not in his power, but the meaning was, that he had not been sent by the Father with this commission, so long as he lived among mortals. So now I understand that, so far as he had come down to us to be Mediator, until he had fully discharged his office that information was not given to him which he received after his resurrection; for then he expressly declared that power over all things had been given to him, (Matthew 28:18.)

Calvin does make reference to Christ's human nature, and does so in a way that could probably be improved:

As to the first objection, that nothing is unknown to God, the answer is easy. For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, (158) whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. 

(158:  “La Divinité s’est tenue comme cachee; c’est à dire, n’a point demonstré sa vertu;” — “the Divine nature was kept, as it were, concealed; that is, did not display its power.”)

2. John Gill (link to commentary)

Gill argues that the day referred to is the destruction of Jerusalem. Gill makes an interesting connection to Isaiah 63:4, where it is written: "For the day of vengeance is in mine heart ... " which Gill explains means that God had kept this day to himself, not even revealing it to the angels.

Gill wraps up his explanation of the text this way:

The Ethiopic version adds here, "nor the son", and so the Cambridge copy of Beza's; which seems to be transcribed from Mark 13:32 where that phrase stands; and must be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God; for as such, he lay in the bosom of the Father, and knew all his purposes and designs; for these were purposed in him: he knew from the beginning who would betray him, and who would believe in him; he knew what would befall the rejecters of him, and when that would come to pass; as he must know also the day of the last judgment, since it is appointed by God, and he is ordained to execute it: but the sense is, that as he, as man and mediator, came not to destroy, but to save; so it was not any part of his work, as such, to know, nor had he it in commission to make known the time of Jerusalem's ruin:

but my Father only; to the exclusion of all creatures, angels and men; but not to the exclusion of Christ as God, who, as such, is omniscient; nor of the Holy Spirit, who is acquainted with the deep things of God, the secrets of his heart, and this among others,

Notice that Gill does not have to explicitly discuss the text in terms of the "two natures one person" distinction, but Gill instead relies on the Matthean category of "Son of Man."  Nevertheless, Gill ultimately, and correctly affirms that Christ as God and the Holy Spirit also know.  The "two natures in one person" understanding fits with and flows from this kind of exegesis, but an explanation of the text is more than just a glib appeal to the two natures.

3. Matthew Henry (link to commentary)(link to Mark commentary)

Henry, who also takes this as a reference to the final judgment, does not address the objection about "nor the Son" in the Matthew commentary, following the TR text.  However, in his commentary on the synoptic account in Mark (which has the phrase), Henry offers multiple explanations, without clearly settling on one:

II. "As to the end of the world, do not enquire when it will come, for it is not a question fit to be asked, for of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man; it is a thing at a great distance; the exact time is fixed in the counsel of God, but is not revealed by any word of God, either to men on earth, or to angels in heaven; the angels shall have timely notice to prepare to attend in that day, and it shall be published, when it comes to the children of men, with sound of trumpet; but, at present, men and angels are kept in the dark concerning the precise time of it, that they may both attend to their proper services in the present day." But it follows, neither the Son; but is there any thing which the Son is ignorant of? We read indeed of a book which was sealed, till the Lamb opened the seals; but did not he know what was in it, before the seals were opened? Was not he privy to the writing of it? There were those in the primitive times, who taught from this text, that there were some things that Christ, as man, was ignorant of; and from these were called Agnoetae; they said, "It was no more absurd to say so, than to say that his human soul suffered grief and fear;" and many of the orthodox fathers approved of this. Some would evade it, by saying that Christ spoke this in a way of prudential economy, to divert the disciples from further enquiry: but to this one of the ancients answers, It is not fit to speak too nicely in this matter—ou dei pany akribologein, so Leontius in Dr. Hammond, "It is certain (says Archbishop Tillotson) that Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of any thing; but the divine wisdom which dwelt in our Saviour, did communicate itself to his human soul, according to the divine pleasure, so that his human nature might sometimes not know some things; therefore Christ is said to grow in wisdom (Lu. 2:52), which he could not be said to do, if the human nature of Christ did necessarily know all things by virtue of its union with the divinity." Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father's servant (Isa. 42:1), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father's will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (Jn. 5:19); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. The revelation of Jesus Christ was what God gave unto him, Rev. 1:1. He thinks, therefore, that we are to distinguish between those excellencies and perfections of his, which resulted from the personal union between the divine and human nature, and those which flowed from the anointing of the Spirit; from the former flowed the infinite dignity of his perfect freedom from all sin; but from the latter flowed his power of working miracles, and his foreknowledge of things to come. What therefore (saith he) was to be revealed by him to his church, he was pleased to take, not from the union of the human nature with the divine, but from the revelation of the Spirit, by which he yet knew not this, but the Father only knows it; that is, God only, the Deity; for (as Archbishop Tillotson explains it) it is not used here personally, in distinction from the Son and the Holy Ghost, but as the Father is, Fons et Principium Deitatis—The Fountain of Deity.

While this is not the most satisfying example of exegesis, it certainly does illustrate something more than just offering a glib response.  Moreover, Henry's list of explanations show the diversity of explanations that have been offered.  Finally, the reference to Luke 2:52 helps point us to a more general explanation.

4. Matthew Poole (link to commentary)

Poole, in his concise commentary, offers this:

Mark addeth, Mark 13:32, neither the Son, but the Father. Of that day and hour, that is, the particular time when the heavens and the earth shall pass away, as he had before said, or when the end of the world shall be, which was one of the questions propounded to him by his disciples, Matthew 24:3.

Knoweth no man, no mere man, nor have men any reason to be troubled at it; for it is a piece of knowledge which the Father hath reserved in his own power, and his own pleasure, from the angels, who continually behold his face. Nay, I myself, as man, know it not. Nor is it more absurd, or derogating from the perfection of Christ, than for to say, that Christ, as man, was not omnipotent, or omniscient, &c. By the way, this gives a great check to the curiosity of men’s inquiries after the particular time or year when the world shall have an end, or the day of judgment begin, or be.

Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to Poole's more detailed work on this, but you can see that Poole concludes that Jesus is speaking "as man." 

Ultimately, the lesson we can learn from this exercise of reviewing some older commentaries on the text is that there are exegetical answers to the questions that people raise.  In this case, if one simply goes to the creedal formulations and applies them to the text, one will get the right result (of course), but without understanding how it is that the text teaches it, one is left without an answer to the next question.

Note how the different expositors bring out different facets of understanding.  Henry (following Tilllotson) mentions that the "Father" can be referenced not as the person of the Trinity distinct from the Son, but as the fountain of deity.  Recall the use in the Old Testament of Father in this way both about God as Creator and even about the person of Jesus Christ: 

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 

Psalm 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 

Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

It is without doubt that Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus, not as the first person of the Trinity, but nevertheless as having that same title of deity.  Furthermore, it is right to speak of Christ as our redeemer.

So also we see the Jewish understanding God as father, presumably formed by Malachi 2 and Isaiah 63:

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Obviously, the Jews did not mean that as a reference to the person of the Father as distinct from the Son, since they did not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.  

Likewise, it is right to speak of Jesus in his economic relationship to the Father in the economy of redemption, because Matthew had previously quoted Jesus thus: 

Matthew 11:25-27

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

I don't want to belabor the point, but the bottom line is that Jesus, in Matthew (and Mark) is speaking of the Father in contradistinction to the created order.  So, whether Jesus means the person of the Father or the Triune Godhead (through something akin to federal headship or synecdoche or simply by reference to the relation of all three persons to us), the bottom line is that this statement is not a denial that Jesus according to his divine nature knew it nor is it a denial that the Holy Spirit knew it.

As to the latter point, the text is not speaking of the Holy Spirit, as a distinct person from the Father and the Son.  As to the former point, Jesus is speaking of himself as the Son of Man.  Jesus uses that description of himself numerous times in Matthew and most relevant to our consideration in the immediate context of the text:

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

(our text)

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

The same is true, though to a lesser extent, in the context in Mark 13:

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

So, Jesus is not speaking of the Son as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man.  He is speaking of the Son in the role given to him by the Father, not in absolute terms.

Ultimately, I find Gill's explanation the best, but I will admit that I'm drawn to it because it seems to me to be the one that is most exegetically grounded in the text of Scripture.

Likewise, while I agree with Calvin that Jesus' deity was "covered" ("veiled" to use the term my friend James has used a few times recently), such that Jesus did not always exercise the powers that he has as God (particularly during his humiliation), such an explanation should not stand alone, but should be connected to the Scripture from which it is derived.

Thus, Paul writes:

Philippians  2:7-8

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

This was the condition of Jesus when he spoke the words of Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32.  So, we should not come to any wrong conclusions regarding the Son, nor regarding the Holy Spirit from this text.  Furthermore, while the creeds and confessions are right, we do not have to appeal to their authority to establish the right understanding of this text.

Curt Daniel's Thesis: Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill

Fred Butler had asked for my opinion of Dr. Daniel's doctoral thesis (March, 1983) on the topic of John Gill and Hyper-Calvinism (the title simply reads: "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill"). As I mentioned to him immediately, I have a copy of the thesis, but I'm not read to give my full opinion of it. Nevertheless, I may be able to provide a few thoughts on it. The thoughts relate to the use of Dr. Daniel's thesis in two ways: (1) as an alleged demonstration that John Gill is Hyper-Calvinist and (2) as a standard for "Hyper-Calvinism" in discussions of that label.

I. Was Dr. Daniel's treatise aimed at addressing the issue of whether Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist?

The key question to the dissertation is the question of the definition of Hyper-Calvinism. The preface of the treatise explains, "The immediate aim of this work will be seen to be the definition of what has come to be known as Hyper-Calvinism." (p. vi) The careful reader will note the odd result of this methodology. "Hyper-Calvinism" is to be treated as a label that is already applied to a nebulous thing, and the aim is simply to help determine the boundaries of that nebulous thing. The aim is not, evidently, to determine whether Gill is a Hyper-Calvinist. Instead, the aim is to determine what "Hyper-Calvinism" must include, given its existing usage against Gill.

We see this same principle of approach explained more clearly in the "Summary" section:

Since the Reformation, there have arisen several varieties of theology associated with John Calvin. One of the most extreme has come to be known as Hyper-Calvinism, but scholars have not been agreed as to what exactly constitutes this school. By a thorough examination of the works of those usually cited as Hyper-Calvinists in the context of the on-going progress of Calvinism in general, a definite pattern can be detected and through an investigation of the pertinent doctrines a definition of the term 'Hyper-Calvinism' can be attained.

(p. x)

Notice then that Daniel does not propose to examine whether Gill is a Hyper-Calvinist, but rather proceeds based on the assumption that Gill has been properly labeled a Hyper-Calvinist and seeks to define Hyper-Calvinism based on Gill's theology.

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, Daniel is remarkably vague in terms of what constitutes hyper-calvinism for him. In the "Summary" section, Daniel states:

Specifically this means that the most tangible tenet of Hyper-Calvinism has been the rejection of the theology of the Free Offer (with special reference to the word offer'), Duty-Faith (that saving faith in Christ is required by the Moral Law of all who hear the Gospel), and indiscriminate invitations to redemptive privileges and responsibilities.

(p. x)

One wonders whether Daniel means to suggest that Hyper-Calvinism has some intangible tenets in addition to the tangible ones. Nevertheless, let me provide a few comments on this pseudo-definition of "Hyper-Calvinism" as applied to Gill.

It does seem that Gill did not like to use the term "offer" in reference to the gospel and that Gill distinguished carefully between the moral law and the gospel. These points seem (at least on their face) to agree with Daniel's description of Gill. Finally, it would be hard to imagine that Gill (as a Calvinist) could fail to reject indiscriminate invitations to redemptive privileges and responsibilities, since those privileges and responsibilities belong to the redeemed (and Calvinists reject universal redemption). Gill, however, did teach that the gospel is to be preached to men indiscriminately. Thus, if one were to consider "redemptive privileges and responsibilities" to simply mean the gospel, then Daniel's description would not appear to be accurate.

My point in this post, however, is not to argue with Daniel's characterization of Gill (that would require me to do more than state my facial agreement or disagreement with him). Instead, my point is to note that Daniel's thesis proceeds from the assumption that there is a nebulous thing referred to by the time of Daniel's writing (1983) as "Hyper-Calvinism" and the assumption that John Gill's theology is within the boundaries of that theological label.

Thus, in debates over the proper use of the label "Hyper-Calvinism" it would not be appropriate to claim that Dr. Daniel's lengthy thesis is proof that Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist. It did not aim to provide that proof, and the methodology employed by Curt Daniel guaranteed that Gill would fall within the boundaries of "Hyper-Calvinism" regardless of the details of Gill's theology.

We have, sadly, seen quite a number of people attempt to argue that Gill must be a Hyper-Calvinist on Dr. Daniel's authority. As noted above, however, the bulk of Daniel's thesis is concerned simply with defining "Hyper-Calvinism" on the basis of Gill, not determining whether Gill should be included in the label. There is a brief section (pp. 746-67) that interacts a little with Englesma over whether the label is correct, but that is hardly the focus of Dr. Daniel's work.

II. If we use Dr. Daniel's thesis to define Hyper-Calvinism, what is the result?

One obvious result of using Dr. Daniel's thesis to define "Hyper-Calvinism" is that my beloved brethren in the Protestant Reformed Church (PRC) will end up getting labeled. Dr. Daniel explains:

This could be summarized even further: it is the rejection of the word 'offer' in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons. In all our researches, the only real tangible thing which differentiates the Hyper from the High Calvinists is the word 'offer'. The Supralapsarians were brought to the very door of Hyper-Calvinism but those who accepted free offers failed to enter into the realm of the most extreme variety of Calvinism that the history of Reformed theology has yet seen.

(p. 767)

The PRC has historically opposed the use of the term "offer" in connection with the gospel, because of the connotations associated with that word. They have rightly noted that in relatively modern times the term has become associated with a synergistic soteriology. There was an older Reformed usage, however, and that usage is reflected in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. For example:

Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

(London Baptist Confession of Faith 7:2)

Also see:

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

(Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3)

Even see:

The olde Testament is not contrary to the newe, for both in the olde and newe Testament euerlastyng lyfe is offered to mankynde by Christe, who is the onlye mediatour betweene God and man, being both God and man.

---

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man.

(Thirty Nine Articles, 7)

Thus, those Presbyterians of the Scottish tradition (such as myself) and Reformed Baptists (such as my friend, Dr. James White) have confessional grounds for using the term in a specific way that predates the modern times. In contrast, the three forms of unity (Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism), which reflect the Dutch heritage of the PRC, do not include a similar usage of "offer."

There is also some Continental precedent for "offer" usage:

What Is the Church? The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and Holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ.

(Second Helvetic Confession, 17)

See also:

Likewise the external call itself, which is made by the preaching of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who earnestly and sincerely calls. For in his Word he most earnestly and truly reveals, not, indeed, his secret will respecting the salvation or destruction of each individual, but our responsibility, and what will happen to us if we do or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they who are called come to him and not neglect so great a salvation, and so he earnestly promises eternal life to those who come to him by faith; for, as the Apostle declares, "It is a trustworthy saying: For if we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we disown Him, He will also disown us; if we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot disown Himself (2 Tim 2:12Ä13). Neither is this call without result for those who disobey; for God always accomplishes his will, even the demonstration of duty, and following this, either the salvation of the elect who fulfill their responsibility, or the inexcusableness of the rest who neglect the duty set before them. Certainly the spiritual man in no way determined the eternal purpose of God to produce faith along with the externally offered, or written Word of God. Moreover, because God approved every truth which flows from his counsel, it is correctly said to be his will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life (John 6:40). Although these "all" are the elect alone, and God formed no plan of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ therefore died not for everyone but only for the elect who were given to him; yet he intends this in any case to be universally true, which follows from his special and definite purpose. But that, by God's will, the elect alone believe in the external call which is universally offered, while the reprobate are hardened. This proceeds solely from the discriminating grace of God; election by the same grace to those who believe, but their own native wickedness to the reprobate who remain in sin, who after their hardened and impenitent heart build up for themselves wrath for the Day of Judgment, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

(Formula Consensus Helvetica, Canon 19)

This precedent, however, is Swiss - not Dutch - and consequently not so persuasive to our Dutch Reformed brethren. Thus, some of the most conservative of them (particularly those in PRC) continue to oppose the use of the term "offer" in connection with evangelism, even while taking the position that this is simply consistent Calvinism, not "hyper-Calvinism." They continue to oppose that term, even while maintaining the duty of all sinners to repent - and even while continuing to evangelize the lost indiscriminately.

Conclusion

The main point above has been to demonstrate that it is inappropriate to argue that Dr. Daniel's doctoral thesis is a 900 page demonstration of Gill's alleged Hyper-Calvinism. Instead, it is a 900 page work that takes Gill's identity as a Hyper-Calvinist largely as an unproven premise. Pointing that fact out is not the same as providing a demonstration that the premise was wrong.

Secondarily, we have noted that those who are confessional Presbyterians (aside from the Dutch) or Reformed Baptists tend to avoid Dr. Daniel's definition of Hyper-Calvinism, even if only narrowly. Whether or not we reject his definition as grouping those who truly deny man's responsibility with those who truly hold to man's responsibility, we may note that Dr. Daniel's definition is not broad enough for the purposes of those who have, in recent times, attempted to rely upon him.

One final note before closing. Dr. Daniel seems to vacillate a little over the issue of what constitutes "Calvinism." At certain times he seems to attempt to use Calvin's theology to define Calvinism. However, towards the conclusion of the thesis we find an interesting acknowledgment:

In a similar way, it has long been popular to define 'Calvinism' in terms of the 'Five Points of Calvinism'. Without arguing the point that Calvin himself does not speak of 'Five Points', it must be acknowledged that these Points were formulated at Dort and are historically and technically more appropriate to defining 'Calvinism' than 'Calvin's theology'. Whether there is a difference between the two is another matter.

(pp. 760-61)

- TurretinFan

Response to Tony Byrne's Challenge

Tony Byrne (aka Ynottony) is one of the culprits behind the defamation of my friend Dr. White as supposedly being a "hyper-Calvinst." Tony has suggested, in his own defense, that one could use the following approach:

Step 1: Ask White for specific biblical proof that God desires the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

Step 2: Follow Robert Reymond's advice and consult John Gill's explanation of the given passage.

Step 3: Use John Gill's explanation against White's proof-text.

Step 4: Repeat step 1, 2 then 3 ad infinitum :-)

Will David [Hewitt] do it? No. He wouldn't last 5 minutes in White's chat channel. Frankly, I don't think he will get past step 1.

(source)

Let's be clear about a few things up front: none of the folks that Tony has accused are hyper-Calvinists. John Gill is one of the most eminent Baptist theologians that has ever lived. He was already proficient in Latin and Greek at age 11. There are few equals to him for scholarship and acumen. Dr. Robert Reymond is also a scholar, and has taught at Covenant Seminary for over twenty years. Both Gill and Reymond have written systematic theologies, and Gill has written a commentary on the entire Bible. Dr. White teaches at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (for nearly 15 years) and is one of the leading Reformed apologists (he hasn't written a systematic theology, although he has written a number of books).

We must also acknowledge that folks sometimes accuse Gill of either being a hyper-calvinist or having "hyper tendencies." These accusations are unfounded, and folks who make such accusations (even if they are themselves scholars) should be called to task for this. The like accusations against Drs. White and Reymond are similarly unfounded.

But let's get to Tony's strategy. Tony's shibboleth for hyper-calvinism is the erroneous touchstone of whether a person is willing to say that God desires, in any sense, the salvation of the reprobate. This is the wrong touchstone. The serious error of hyper-calvinism lies not in that, but in other areas, as I've previously demonstrated.

Nevertheless, even if one were to use that as the touchstone, Dr. White does and would agree that if one uses the term "desire" in the sense of something being God's revealed will, then God desires the salvation of all men, in that he commands that all men everywhere repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He might cite as support for this:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

We should note, of course, that "all men" here refers (in context) to both Jews and Greeks, but the point is nevertheless the case that the gospel is presented indiscriminately to Jews and Greeks.

John Gill, in his commentary on the entire Bible, comments thus:

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given: the Jews (a) call repentance מצות התשובה, "the command of repentance", though they do not think it obligatory on men, as the other commands of the law. The law gives no encouragement to repentance, and shows no mercy on account of it; it is a branch of the Gospel ministry, and goes along with the doctrine of the remission of sins; and though in the Gospel, strictly taken, there is no command, yet being largely taken for the whole ministry of the word, it includes this, and everything else which Christ has commanded, and was taught by him and his apostles; Matthew 28:20.

Now, nothing that Gill has said there would create any problem for what someone like Dr. White might say. Yet, perhaps Mr. Byrne would wish to insist that Gill has artfully avoided saying that anyone is commanded to believe. However, Gill was not afraid to use such terminology. Commenting on John 12:39-40 (The Cause of God and Truth, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 2), Gill wrote:

It is certain, that the impossibility of their after believing, is to be resolved into the judicial blindness and hardness of their hearts, to which they were justly left, having contemned both the doctrines and miracles of Christ. It is of no great moment whether the he, who is said to blind and harden, be God or Christ, or whether the words be rendered, it hath blinded, etc. that is, malice or wickedness hath blinded, or be read impersonally, their eyes are blinded, etc. Since God, or Christ, blind and harden, not by any positive act, or putting in blindness or hardness, but by leaving and giving men up to the blindness and hardness of their hearts, and denying them grace; which was the cause of these Jews; so as never to be converted, or turned even by external repentance and reformation, that they might be healed in a national way, or be preserved front national ruin. All which is consistent with God’s command, and Christ’s exhortations to them to believe, which were antecedent to the judicial blindness and hardness of their hearts, and were, with the miracles and doctrines of Christ, aggravations of their unbelief; and therefore, they might he justly objected to them by the evangelist as their great crime, as it certainly was; being owing to the perverseness of their wills, and the evil dispositions of their hearts.

And Gill gets even more explicit regarding the two wills distinction in the same work, at part 3, section 2:

This argument proceeds upon God’s will of command, which does not thwart his will of purpose. These two wills, though they differ, are not contradictory; the purpose of God is from eternity: his command is in time; the one is within himself, the other put forth from himself; the one is always fulfilled, the other seldom; the one cannot be resisted, the other may; the will of command only signifies, what is the pleasure of God should be the duty of man, or what he should do, but not what he shall do. Now admitting that it is God’s will of command, that not only all to whom the Gospel is vouchsafed, but even all mankind, should repent, believe, and obey; it does not follow, that it is the determining will of God to give grace to all men to repent, believe, and obey; nor does it contradict such a will in God, determining to give grace to some, to enable them to repent, believe, and obey, and to deny it to others. Could it be proved, that either God has willed to give this grace to all men, or that there is no such will in God to give it to some, and deny it to others, the controversy would be shut up, and we should have no more to say.

Notice how Gill even uses the word "duty" in relation to the revealed will of God and the connection between the revealed law and the gospel offer. It is the will of command that all men should repent, believe, and obey. It is not the determining will of God that they shall.

And again Gill writes (same book, Part 3, Section 2, VI:2):

It is man’s duty to believe the word of the Lord, and obey his will, though he has not a power, yea, even though God has decreed to withhold that grace without which he cannot believe and obey. So it was Pharaoh’s duty to believe and obey the Lord, and let Israel go; though God had determined to harden his heart, that he should not let them go. However there are many things which may be believed and done by reprobates, and therefore they may be justly required to believe and obey; it is true, they are not able to believe in Christ to the saving of their souls, or to perform spiritual and evangelical obedience, but then it will be difficult to prove that God requires these things of them, and should that appear, yet the impossibility of doing them, arises from the corruption of their hearts, being destitute of the grace of God, and not from the decree of reprobation, which though it denies them that grace and strength, without which they cannot believe and obey in this sense, yet it takes none from them, and therefore does them no injustice.

Notice how Gill explicitly affirms that it is the duty of men generally to believe the word of the Lord and to obey his will.

Still further in the same book, discussing Acts 3:19 (Part 1, Section 32, 2):

Besides, as has been observed, the exhortation to repent here made, is not made unto all men, but to the Jews, on a very remarkable occasion, and was blessed to many of them, to the turning them away from their iniquities; for many of them which heard the word, believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand (Acts 4:4). If it should be replied, that though the exhortation to repentance is not here made to all men; yet it is elsewhere expressly said, that God commandeth all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Let it be observed, that as this command to repentance does not suppose it to be in the power of man; nor contradicts its being a free-grace gift of God; nor its being a blessing in the covenant of grace, and in the hands of Christ to bestow; so neither does it extend, as here expressed, to every individual of mankind; but only regards the men of the then present age, in distinction from those who lived in the former times of ignorance: for so the words are expressed: and the times of this ignorance God winked at; overlooked, took no notice of, sent them no messages, enjoined them no commands of faith in Christ, or repentance towards God; but now, since the coming and death of Christ, commandeth all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, everywhere to repent; it being his will, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached among all nations (Luke 24:47): but admitting that it has been God’s command in all ages, and to all men that they repent; as all men are indeed bound, by the law of nature, to a natural repentance, though all men are not called by the gospel to an evangelical one; yet I see not what conclusions can be formed from hence against either absolute election or particular redemption.

We see it yet again, in the same book, discussing Acts 9:18:

These scriptures prove that faith and repentance are the gifts of God, and owing to the powerful operation of his grace. Now

1. To confront this, it is said, "What God commands we must do; and therefore must be active in it: but God commands all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30), and to believe in the name of Christ (1 John 3:23), therefore we must be active in the works of faith and repentance." To which I reply, that though what God commands is the rule of man’s duty, yet not the measure of his strength. It is no good arguing from God’s commands, to man’s power in his present state. God requires men to keep the whole law; it does not follow from thence, that they are able to do it. So, though it is his commandment, that we should believe in his Son Jesus Christ, and repent; yet it is certain, that faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift of grace, and of the operation of God; and the same may be said of repentance. Moreover, though believers are active in the exercise of the graces of faith and repentance; for it is the convinced sinner, and not God or Christ, or the Spirit, who repents and believes; yet in both men are purely passive in the first production and implantation of them in their hearts. But we are told, that; it by this way of arguing, the Jews must have been purely passive in all their hardness of heart, Ahab’s false prophets in lying, the enemies of God’s church in all the evils they do to her, and in the blasphemies they utter against him; because God is said (Rom. 11:8; 1 Kings 22:23; Rev. 6:4, 8; 13:5, 7), to give a spirit of slumbering, a lying spirit, power to take peace from the earth, and a mouth speaking blasphemies. To which I answer, that these judicial acts of God, and as such the persons to whom they relate, were indeed passive in them, these being purely God’s acts, and not man’s; and yet the Jews were active in hardening their own hearts, Ahab’s prophets in following the suggestions of the lying spirit, and the enemies of God’s church in using their power to make war with the saints, and in opening their mouths in blasphemy against him.

And again, in Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 4, Chapter 7, 5b:

Whether repentance is a doctrine of the law or of the gospel? the answer to which is, that such who sin ought to repent of sin; this God has commanded, the law of nature teaches; and so far as this is to be considered as a duty incumbent on men, it belongs to the law, as all duty does; but then the law makes no account of repentance for sin; nor does it admit of it as a satisfaction for it; nor gives any encouragement to expect that God will receive repenting sinners into his grace and favor upon it; this is what the gospel does, and not the law; the law says not, repent and live, but do and live.

Notice that Gill here is quite explicit that those who sin are commanded to repent of sin. It is a command of the gospel, not the law, but it is a command.

We see this again in the same book, Book 6, Chapter 12, 1a:

Nor is the gospel ministry an offer of Christ, and of his grace and salvation by him, which are not in the power of the ministers of it to give, nor of carnal men to receive; the gospel is not an offer, but a preaching of Christ crucified, a proclamation of the unsearchable riches of his grace, of peace, pardon, righteousness, and life, and salvation by him. Yet there is something in which the ministry of the word, and the call by it, have to do with unregenerate sinners: they may be, and should be called upon, to perform the natural duties of religion; to a natural faith, to give credit to divine revelation, to believe the external report of the gospel, which not to do, is the sin of the deists; to repent of sin committed, which even the light of nature dictates; and God, in his word, commands all men everywhere to repent: to pray to God for forgiveness, as Simon Magus was directed by the apostle: and to pray to God for daily mercies that are needed, is a natural and moral duty; as well as to give him praise, and return thanks for mercies received, which all men that have breath are under obligation to do. They may, and should be called upon to attend the outward means of grace, and to make use of them; to read the Holy Scriptures, which have been the means of the conversion of some; to hear the word, and wait on the ministry of it, which may be blessed unto them, for the effectual calling of them. And it is a part of the ministry of the word to lay before men their fallen, miserable, lost, and undone estate by nature; to open to them the nature of sin, its pollution and guilt, and the sad consequences of it; to inform them of their incapacity to make atonement for it; and of their impotence and inability to do what is spiritually good; and of the insufficiency of their own righteousness to justify them in the sight of God: and they are to be made acquainted, that salvation is alone by Christ, and not other ways; and the fullness, freeness, and suitableness of this salvation, are to be preached before them; and the whole to be left to the Spirit of God, to make application of it as he shall think fit.

We should note that Dr. White does not refuse to use the term "offer" in connection with the gospel (link to example). Consequently Dr. White would not fall prey, as Gill might appear to here, to the "offer" shibboleth that some use who wish to use the label "hyper-calvinist" liberally.

And Gill says the same thing again, with respect to the command to repent, in the same book, Book 1, Chapter 4, 3b2:

Men of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, are the subjects of repentance; for all are under sin, under the power of it, involved in the guilt of it, and liable to punishment for it, and God has commanded "all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). During the time of John the Baptist, and of our Lord’s being on earth, the doctrine of repentance was only preached to the Jews; but after the resurrection of Christ he gave his apostles an instruction and order "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47), in consequence of which the apostles first exhorted the Jews and then the Gentiles to repent, and particularly the apostle Paul "testified both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God", as well as "faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21).

Now, allow me to make one final important distinction. If Tony means to insist that God's general desire with respect to salvation should be understood not as to man's duty, but rather as to God's desire for his own action, we must insist that it is blasphemy to assert that God desires to save the reprobate and cannot do so. It is the pleasure of God that it is the duty of men who hear the gospel to believe it.

As Gill explains, The Cause of God and Truth, Part 3, Section 3, II (second II):

It should be proved that there is in God a general will that all men should be saved, or that he anywhere wishes for and desires the salvation of all the individuals of mankind. For God to will or wish the salvation of all men, and intend the death of Christ for that purpose, and yet not save all men, is inconsistent with the perfection of his nature and the immutability of his counsel. Nor is this argument, that God wills not what he sees not fit to execute, attended with those dreadful consequences as are suggested; as "that God is not willing any should obey his will who doth not obey it; and that he is not unwilling any one should sin whom he restrains not from it; and that he is not willing any one should repent who doth not repent." Since God commanding and approving will is one thing, and his determining will another, in the former sense God wills what he does not see fit to execute; it is what he commands and approves of, that men should obey his will, abstain from sin, and repent of it, when he does not see fit to give them grace to enable them to do these things; but God never wills, that is determines, any thing but he sees fit to execute, and does execute, it. Besides, it is one thing for God to will and wish, that is, command and approve, what is entirely man’s duty to do, though he does not see fit to give him grace to execute it, which he is not obliged to do; and another thing to will and wish the salvation of all men, which entirely depends upon himself, and which, if he did wish, he would surely see fit to execute.

-TurretinFan