The Biblical Concept of Forgiveness - Part 1

I have split this into two parts since it is a little lengthy and hopefully that will make it easier to digest.

Forgiveness is such a simple concept and yet at times so hard to give. It costs us nothing yet we guard it like precious gold. What is at stake that we are so hesitant to forgive others in our lives? I am sure pride plays a role in it and feeling exhausted over repeated offenses plays a role as well. Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to our forgiving others is the hurt they have caused us. We have been hurt and we are not willing to open ourselves up to take a chance that we will be hurt again. We are not willing to allow the offending party to pour salt in an open wound; it seems much better to us that we should let the wound slowly heal for the rest of our lives and never risk injury again. If we are lost men then I suppose this creates no crisis of conscience, or at least it is very seldom that it will. But as saved men we have a litany of issues that assault our conscience if forgiveness is something we are not willing to give, even when it seems impossible to do so.

Matt. 18:21-35, “Then came Peter to Him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

The above passage will form the basis for our study for it tells us all we need to know regarding forgiveness of others, especially offending brothers. There are indeed other appropriate passages worth consideration but we will limit ourselves primarily to this.

Endless Forgiveness

The first concept we are going to deal with here is found in 18:21-22.

¨      Peter… realizes that he must forgive the brother who has sinned against him, that is, that he must take the initiative in bringing about complete reconciliation; but how often must he reveal this merciful attitude, this disposition of sweet reasonableness? Must he forgive “up to seven times?” Peter may have been of the opinion that Jesus would praise him for his bigheartedness. If so, his expectation was not fulfilled. There was something wrong with Peter’s approach. It smacked of rabbinism. It sounded as if the forgiving spirit were a commodity that could be weighed, measured, and counted; as if it could be parceled out little by little up to a certain and well defined limit, when further distribution would have to stop… Jesus, though in manner of expression falling in line with Peter’s quantitively worded question, completely destroys the apostle’s underlying assumption. [Christ shows] that the spirit of genuine forgiveness recognizes no boundaries. It is a state of the heart, not a matter of calculation. One might as well ask, “How often must I love my wife, my husband, my children?” as to ask, “How often shall I forgive?” Everyone immediately senses that when Jesus said, “up to seventy times seven times,” he did not mean, “exactly four hundred ninety times, but not four hundred ninety one.” Clearly what he meant was, “Forgive without ever stopping. Be kind toward your brother… always.” William Hendriksen, Commentary on Matthew, pp 704-705.
¨      […] there are those who think that Peter’s mention of seven times arose from our Savior’s command [in Lu. 17:4], that we should forgive our bother offending us seven times, when our Savior by it intended not a certain and definite number, but a number uncertain and indefinite. Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 3, pg 86
¨      [Peter] thinks it a great matter to forgive till seven times; he means not seven times a day, as Christ said (Lu. 17:4), but seven times in his life; supposing that if a man had any way abused him seven times, thought he were ever so desirous to be reconciled, he might then abandon his society, and have no more to do with him… Christ’s direct answer to Peter’s question; I say not unto thee; until seven times (He never intended to set up any such bounds), but until seventy times seven; a certain number for an indefinite one, but a great one… It does not look well for us to keep count of the offenses done against us by our brethren. There is something of ill-nature in scoring up the injuries we forgive, as if we would allow ourselves to be revenged when the measure is full. God keeps an account (Deut. 32:34) because He is the Judge, and vengeance is His; but we must not, lest we be found stepping into His throne. It is necessary to the preservation of peace, both within and without, to pass by injuries, without reckoning how often; to forgive, and forget. God multiplies His pardons, and so must we, Ps. 77:38, 40. It intimates that we should make it our constant practice to forgive injuries, and should accustom ourselves to it till it becomes habitual. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, pg 1357
¨      Peter made this objection according to the natural feelings of the flesh. It is natural to all men to wish to be forgiven; and, therefore, if any man does not immediately obtain forgiveness, he complains he is treated with sternness and cruelty. But those who demand to be treated gently are far from being equally gentle towards others… [Peter] asks, therefore, if it be proper to frequently forgive offenders; for, since the number seven taken for a large number, the force of the adverb… seven times, is the same as if he had said, “How long, Lord, dost thou wish that offenders be received into favor? For it is unreasonable, and by no means advantageous, that they should, in every case, find us willing to be reconciled.” But Christ is so far from yielding to this objection, that He expressly declares that there ought to be no limit to forgiving; for He did not intend to lay down a fixed number, but rather to enjoin us never to become wearied. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. XVI, pp 363-364

It is abundantly obvious that the expectation of forgiveness from our Lord has no fixed number of times. There will never be a time that we will have forgiven “x” number of times and say that we have fulfilled our duty and thus there is nothing more expected of us. The thrust of Christ’s command to us here is that there should be limitless forgiveness for others. In the next section we see why.

God Has Forgiven Us Much and We Must Forgive Others

Now we take a look at what our motivation is for endless forgiveness. It is not merely obedience to a command, which would be sufficient in and of itself; it is also, and more importantly, because we look at our own lives in relation to the Lord and we see that He has forgiven far more in each of us than we could ever possibly have to even attempt to forgive in others.

This is seen in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matt. 18:23-34. The servant had somehow accumulated an incredible sum of debt which William Hendriksen equates be in our day something like ten million dollars. For the servant, his entire life’s earnings may have only been something like on thousand talents and yet he owed ten times that. Standing before the king he throws himself down and begs for time to pay the debt and the king has pity on him. Not only does he grant him the request but in an incredible act of kindness and generosity he actually forgives the debt altogether. Then that servant who had been forgiven so much goes out and assaults a man that owes him money but is unable to pay. Viciously he grabs the man by throat and demands his money (which was only about 1/600000 of the debt he had just been forgiven himself) and when the man begs for time he has him thrown into prison and forced labor until the debt can be worked off. But the wicked servant didn’t know that word had gotten back to the king, and this is where we jump back in.

“Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?”
¨      Note the vividness of “You wicked servant”… The original is very emphatic. It places the words “all that debt” at they very beginning of what follows after “You wicked servant.” (I could not find a modern translation that did not reverse the word order to a more modern English application of sentence structure.) The immensity of the debt thus stands out, and so do the amazing character of the generosity that had been shown, and the baseness of the first servant’s refusal to allow this noble spirit to govern his actions. “Should you not…?” means, “Was this not your lasting obligation?” It was this man’s duty not only to be filled with unceasing gratitude but also to let his master’s mercy of which he, the servant, had been the recipient, be and remain a pattern or example of his own feeling and conduct toward his fellow men… Prompted by gratitude the forgiven sinner must always yearn to forgive whoever has trespassed against him, and must do all in his power to bring about complete reconciliation. William Hendriksen, Commentary on Matthew, pg 708-709
¨      It is but reasonable, what ought to be, and may be expected, that such who have received mercy, should show mercy; and as the lord had compassion on this man, and had forgiven him such an immense sum, and saved him, his wife and children, from being sold for bondslaves, the least he could have done after this, would have been to have followed such an example, and have had mercy… Such an instance of pity and compassion did not only set him an example, worthy of his imitation, but laid him under an obligation to have acted such a part. John Gill, Commentary on Matthew
¨      This parable instructeth us in these truths: 1) That as men, by the law and nature of God, and the laws of men, may be debtors to us, to our reputation, to our estate; so we are all debtors to the glory, honor, and justice of God. 2) That it is a vast debt that we owe to God’s honor and justice, to which no debt owing by any to us can bear any proportion. 3) That we have nothing to pay to God, in satisfaction for our debt. 4) That God hath a right to demand full satisfaction of us. 5) That God, for Christ’s sake, upon our application to Him for mercy, will forgive us our debts. 6) That we are not so ready to forgive our brethren their little injuries, as God is to forgive us… 8) That we ought to set before us God’s compassion towards us, and free love in forgiving us, potently to move us to forgive those who have done us injury, and to forgive them out of that consideration. Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 3, pg 87
¨      […] unmercifulness is wickedness, it is great wickedness… The greatness of sin magnifies the richness of pardoning mercy: we should think how much has been forgiven us, Lu. 7:47… It is justly expected, that such as have received mercy, should show mercy… The comfortable sense of pardoning mercy tends much to the disposing of our hearts to forgive our brethren…, we must have compassion on our brethren, as God has on us. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, pg 1358

As we see, our primary motivation for forgiving others is the forgiveness we ourselves have been given by God Himself. We must consider how much we each have sinned and then remember that God has forgiven all of those sins as well as the sins we have yet to even commit. When we get to that point we will have a small understanding of what God has done for us. But even then we will have a dramatically insufficient view of our own sin for as David prayed so to should we, “cleanse thou me from secret faults,” Ps. 19:12. We are so sinful that we don’t even recognize a great many of our sins, we don’t even really understand the debt we have owed, yet God has forgiven those sins as well. At least we can count the debt that is owed to us by the offending party and with the example of a gracious God to lead the way we must forgive others.

We will continue and complete the study in Part 2...

Christian Martyrs (a poem)

Christian martyrs:
You press heavy on my mind;
For you have died for our Lord…
A price that few afford.

Christian martyrs:
I wonder if my strength would be as yours,
If wicked men came to my door
To take my life for our dear Lord.

Christian martyrs:
I pray that God will free me from such times;
But if the devil should come and call,
I pray like you I’ll stand strong and tall.

Christian martyrs:
You have traveled a blessed path,
Where to be counted with Jesus Christ
You happily laid down your life.

Christian martyrs:
I know you rest in Jesus’ bosom today;
And would not trade one moment there
To be back with us down here.

Christian martyrs:
Many will be added to your number;
And may they all remember what you know now,
That their reward is a glorious crown.

Christian martyrs:
We will worship our God together;
Never afraid of the hands of men
And never to be threatened by them again.

Christian martyrs:
Thank for your sacrifice;
For like the waves of a crashing flood
Is the enduring witness of your blood.

Christian martyrs:
Rest easy as you should;
Safe, secure, blessed forevermore,
In the hands of our dear Lord.

Numbered With the Martyrs - John Hus

Continuing in our weekly series on martyred saints we now turn our attention to that godly man John Hus. May his story invigorate your resolve to stand boldly both individually and collectively with those being martyred for Christ even in our own day and regardless of what persecution we may face in this life.

It is said that this godly man insisted on facing his accusers in spite of the fact he had been given ample opportunity to escape. Though Hus was betrayed by many (not the least of which was the Emperor Sigismund himself who had guaranteed him safe passage and return), brought before a kangaroo court, treated poorly and imprisoned in such pitiful conditions that he had become gravely ill while awaiting trial; yet Hus never wavered and with a clear conscience and the word of God on his side he stood strong. After the Cardinal of Cambray demanded that he recant and repent for all he had said Hus replied, "I most humbly desire you all, even for His sake Who is the God of us all, that I be not compelled to do the thing which my conscience doth strive against, or which I cannot do without danger of eternal damnation: that is, that I should make revocation, by oath, to all the articles which are alleged against me. But if there be any man who can teach me contrariwise unto them, I will willingly perform that which you desire."

One of the remarkable things throughout was that there was a genuine sense of humility and a teachable spirit within this pious man. On more than one occasion he openly invited his accusers to teach him by the word of God where he was wrong that he may learn and repent should they be successful in so doing. On one such occasion, as an example, after being exhorted to examine himself and repent if he should find himself in error rather than face punishment it is said that with lamentable tears he said, "Verily, I do take the Most High God for my witness, that I am ready with my heart and mind, if the Council can teach me any better by the holy Scripture, to alter my purpose." With said council unable to oblige his request they turned humility into fault and marked him as an obstinate heretic condemned for death.

After the council had repeatedly refused to allow him to speak or plead his case and forcibly silenced him Hus dropped to his knees and gave a cry that should be ready on the lips of every saint alive should they fall into similar circumstances. He said, "O Lord Jesus Christ! Whose word is openly condemned herein this Council, unto thee again I do appeal, Who when Thou wast evil entreated of Thine enemies, didst appeal unto God Thy Father, committing Thy cause unto a most just judge; that by Thy example, we also being oppressed with manifest wrongs and injuries, should flee unto thee."

Even after these wicked men had sentenced him to death Hus showed a remarkable love for his enemies and a faithfulness to his God saying, "Lord Jesus Christ! forgive mine enemies, by whom Thou knowest that I am falsely accused, and that they have used false witness and slanders against me; forgive them, I say, for Thy great mercy's sake." Yet not even such a pious plea could sway the hearts of the evil men that surrounded him and he was answered with derision and mockery.

After this they began to assault him. First one of the bishops took his chalice away from him proclaiming, "O cursed Judas... We take away from thee this chalice of thy salvation." To which Hus replied, "I trust unto God, the Father omnipotent, and my Lord Jesus Christ, for Whose sake I do suffer these things, that He will not take away the chalice of His redemption, but have a steadfast and firm hope that this day I shall drink thereof in His kingdom."

Next the bishops collectively came and took away his vestments while each of them placed their curse upon him. Still, Hus faithfully replied, "[I do] willingly embrace and bear those blasphemies for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

After much contention over the tool with which they would scalp him with it was finally decided that a pair of shears would be best and they "cut off the skin of the crown of his head..." and placed a "crown of paper, almost a cubit deep, on which were painted three devils of wonderfully ugly shape, and this title set over their heads, 'Heresiarcha' (which is to say "The Chief of Heretics")." Still that godly man John Hus did not give in and give them cause to revile him but only replied, "My Lord Jesus Christ, for my sake, did wear a crown of thorns; why should not I then, for His sake, again wear this light crown, be it ever so ignominious? Truly I will do it, and that willingly." Then as if to twist the dagger just one last time these wicked men pronounced, "Now we commit thy soul unto the devil." "But I," said John Hus, lifting his eyes up towards the heavens, "do commend into Thy hands, O Lord Jesus Christ! my spirit which thou hast redeemed."

Stripped naked, tied and chained to a pillar with wood stacked around him from his feet to his chin some gentlemen approached him and asked him to repent in order to save his life. He simply replied, "What error should I renounce, when I know myself guilty of none? For this was the principal end and purpose of my doctrine, that I might teach all men repentance and remission of sins, according to the verity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: wherefore, with a cheerful mind and courage, I am here ready to suffer death."

Having burned John Hus' books outside of the church wherein he was tried they now used the books of the venerable John Wycliffe and upon this the fire was kindled as John Hus could be heard singing with a loud voice, "Jesu Christ! the Son of the living God! have mercy upon me." Herein John Hus expired and was no more on this earth having happily crossed over to be with our Lord.

John Hus was martyred on July 6, 1415. One of his last comments recorded was, "You are now going to burn a goose, but in a century you will have a swan whom you can neither roast nor boil,” Hus meaning goose in his native language. One hundred two years later on October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Thesis to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg which sparked the Reformation and transformed history from that point on. Later when Martin Luther was brought before the Diet of Worms he was accused of "being just like that heretic John Hus." Shortly thereafter they took a break and Martin Luther rushed to the library to find out who this John Hus was. Upon coming back from the break Luther was asked about the charge presented therein to which Martin Luther stood up and proudly proclaimed, "Ja, ich bin ein Hussiten!" That is to say, "Yes, I am a Hussite!"

May the Lord enliven our faith and embolden us to do battle with the wicked in this world. May we do so with grace and honor and always to the glory of our most holy God.

If you are interested in reading more on John Hus or Martin Luther I would recommend the following books which are linked to places you may buy them (I am not getting anything for linking them, I am only helping others find these valuable resources).

Hus the Heretic by Pogius the Papist; The Book of Martyrs by John Foxe; The History of the Reformation of the 16th Century by J.H. Merle d'Aubigne

Numbered With the Martyrs - Polycarp

Last week I made an initial post concerning the martyrdom of Ignatius. It is my intent to begin a weekly series sharing the story of a martyred Christian for an indefinite period of time. I do so for this reason: In the vast majority of the world martyrdom is a very real possibility and people lay down their lives for God every day. Historically the road to religious freedom, such as the vast majority of the western world enjoys, has been bathed in the blood of the saints. It is wise for us to be reminded of the faithful zeal of these great men and women in order to spur us beyond the apathetic trend of modern Christianity.

As we read from the comfort of our home computers with no challenge to our faith I ask you this simple question: Should God remove the religious liberty we currently enjoy, what price are you willing to pay to serve Him? Would you joyfully give up your life to be openly acknowledged as a Christian? I hope with eyes firmly fixed on heaven the answer is always and easily yes. I pray this series helps to confirm that reality in each of our lives.

Today's martyred saint is Polycarp and is also taken from John Foxe, as many will be, and is dealing with the persecution of the saints under the rule of the Roman Empire. This specific account was taken from the faithful recording of the ordeal by his own church.

In the time of... Marcus [Aurelius] a great number of them which truly professed Christ suffered most cruel torments and punishments, among whom was Polycarp, the worthy Bishop of Smyrna.

Three days before he was apprehended, as he was praying at night, he fell asleep, and saw in a dream the pillow take fire under his head, and presently consumed. Waking thereupon, he forthwith related the vision to those about him, and prophesied that he should be burnt alive for Christ's sake... When the persons who were in search of him... arrived late in the day, [they] found him gone to bed in the top room of the house, whence he might have escaped into another house, if he would; but this he refused to do saying, "The will of the Lord be done."

Hearing that they were come, he came down, and spoke to them with a cheerful and pleasant countenance: so that they were wonder-struck, who, having never known the man before, now beheld his venerable age and the gravity and composure of his manner, and wondered why they should be so earnest for the apprehension of so old a man. He immediately ordered a table to be laid for them, and exhorted them to eat heartily, and begged them to allow him one hour to pray without molestation; which being granted, he rose and began to pray, and was so full of the grace of God, that they who were present and heard his prayers were astonished, and many now felt sorry that so venerable and godly a man should be put to death.

When he had finished his prayers, wherein he made mention of all whom he had ever been connected with, small and great, noble and vulgar, and of the whole catholic Church throughout the world... they... brought him to the city. There met him the irenarch Herod, and his father Nicetes, who taking him up into their chariot, began to exhort him, saying, "What harm is it to say 'Lord Caesar,' and to sacrifice, and save yourself?" At first he was silent: but being pressed to speak he said, "I will not do as you advise me." When they saw that he was not to be persuaded, they gave him rough language, and pushed him hastily down, so that in descending from the chariot he grazed his shin. But he, unmoved as if he had suffered nothing, went on cheerfully, under the conduct of his guards, to the Stadium. There, the noise being so great that few could hear anything, a voice from heaven said to Polycarp as he entered the Stadium, "Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man." No one saw him that spake, but many people heard the voice. When he was brought to the tribunal, there was a great tumult as soon as it was generally understood that Polycarp was apprehended. The proconsul... counselled him to deny Christ, saying, "Consider thyself, and have pity on they own great age"; and many other such like speeches which they are wont to make: - "Swear by the fortune of Caesar" - "Repent" - "Say, 'Away with the Atheists.'"

The proconsul then urged him, saying, "Swear, and I will release thee; - reproach Christ."

Polycarp answered, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, who hath saved me?"

The proconsul again urged him, "Swear by the fortune of Caesar."

Polycarp replied, "Since you still vainly strive to make me swear by the fortune of Caesar, as you express it, affecting ignorance of my real character, hear me frankly declaring what I am - I am a Christian - and if you desire to learn the Christian doctrine, assign me a day, and you shall hear."

Hereupon the proconsul said, "I have wild beasts; and I will expose you to them, unless you repent."

"Call for them," replied Polycarp; "for repentance for us is a wicked thing, if it is to be a change from the better to the worse, but a good thing if it is to be a change from evil to good."

"I will tame thee with fire," said the proconsul, "since you despise the wild beasts, unless you repent."

Then said Polycarp, "You threaten me with fire, which burns for an hour, and is soon extinguished; but the fire of the future judgment, and of eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly, you are ignorant of. But why do you delay? Do whatever you please."

The proconsul sent the herald to proclaim thrice in the middle of the Stadium, "Polycarp has professed himself a Christian." [After failing to release a lion on Polycarp] they then unanimously shouted, that he should be burnt alive... The people immediately gathered wood and other dry matter from the workshops and baths...

When they would have fastened him to the stake, he said, "Leave me as I am; for He who giveth me strength to sustain the fire, will enable me also, without your securing me with nails, to remain without flinching in the pile." Upon which they bound him without nailing him. So he said thus: - "O Father, I bless thee that thou hast counted me worthy to receive my portion among the number of martyrs."

As soon as he uttered the word "Amen," the officers lighted the fire. The flame, forming the appearance of an arch, as the sail of a vessel filled with wind, surrounded as with a wall, the body of the martyr; which was in the midst, not as burning flesh, but as gold and silver refining in the furnace. We received also in our nostrils such a fragrance as proceeds from frankincense or some other precious perfume. At length the wicked people, observing that his body could not be consumed with the fire, ordered the confector to approach, and to plunge his sword into his body. Upon this such a quantity of blood gushed out, that the fire was extinguished.

Therein Polycarp expired with no regret and eagerly met his Lord that day. Notice, he never lost his ability to be both gracious and pious. He was willing to fulfill the Great Commission up to his dying breath and yet was bluntly insistent on defending the Gospel and serving his God with all sincerity of heart. May we never be faced with such a persecution; yet, if the Lord wills it to be so may He grant us the grace of Polycarp and the innumerable number of martyrs that are with Him in heaven today. Laus Deo!

Numbered With the Martyrs - Ignatius

John Foxe in recounting the atrocities of the Romans against the early Christians shares with us the case of Ignatius. He says,

In this persecution, suffered the blessed martyr, Ignatius, who is had in famous reverence by very many. This Ignatius was appointed to the bishopric of Antioch next after Peter in succession. Some do say, that he, being sent from Syria to Rome, because he professed Christ, was given to the wild beasts to be devoured. It is also said of him, that when he passed through Asia, being under the most strict custody of his keepers, he strengthened and confirmed the churches through all the cities as he went, both with his exhortations and his preaching of the Word of God. Accordingly, having come to Smyrna, he wrote to the church at Rome, exhorting them not to use means for his deliverance, from martyrdom, lest they should deprive him of that which he most longed and hoped for. "Now I begin to be a disciple. I care for nothing, of visible or invisible things, so that I may but win Christ. Let fire and the cross, let the companies of wild beasts, let breaking of bones and tearing of limbs, let the grinding of the whole body, and all the malice of the devil, come upon me; be it so, may I only win Christ Jesus!" And even when he was sentenced to be thrown to the beasts, such was the burning desire that he had to suffer, that he spake, what time he heard the lions roaring, saying, "I am the wheat of Christ: I am going to be ground with the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread."

If death stood on your doorstep and spurred on by that wicked foe the devil insisted that you recant your faith or die, which would you choose? What price are you willing to pay to be counted among the people of God?  Surely it is true that this saint rests in heaven and has never for even one second regretted being killed for his faith. No, I think he is very happy to have been, for Christ's sake, killed all the day long and accounted as a sheep for the slaughter. God grant us all to have the blessed hope that Ignatius had when faced with such a predicament and may God be forever glorified in all that we do.

Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani

There is not a lot that needs to be said here as Iranian Muslims are about to execute a Christian pastor for sharing the Gospel in their land; or perhaps there is, but the words are not necessary to reveal the wickedness that is being perpetrated against this man. Please be praying for this brother that the Lord might see fit to spare his life and protect him from the hands of evil.

John 7:7, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."

Ps. 2:1-4, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

The History of Reformed Eschatology

I am writing this paper because it has become all too apparent to me that there is a great deal of confusion within the ranks of Calvinist churches as to the history of the various eschatological view points and where the church has historically been found. For instance, it was John Macarthur who declared at his Shepherd’s Conference in March 2007 that only Dispensationalists were truly Reformed and "while it is too late for Calvin, it is not too late for us." (You can listen to his accusations against A- and Postmillennialists here at Grace Church.) Then I have heard repeatedly in the midst of eschatological debate from advocates of Post-millennialism that the only Reformed view is the one they hold. In fact recently the suggestion was put to me that the adherents of Post-millennialism were, “ALMOST ALL THE PURITANS, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Thornwell, and Dabney… the Westminster Assembly, to a degree, have held to it (or significant variations of it). So, say it ain't so, but it's so. "Reconstructionism" has a long and healthy pedigree in the Reformed churches! Amillennialism is NOT Reformed orthodoxy... it's part of Reformed orthodoxy.” With such proud declarations being made I think it necessary to look at whether or not this is indeed the case. With that said, I want to make it clear this is a not a paper dealing with the merits of each point of view, only the history of those points of view.

Princeton and Dutch Reformed Eschatology

I would like to start with an excerpt from Louis Berkhof that sets the tone for this consideration. He says, “Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which is is applied is as old as Christianity. It had at least as many advocates as Chiliasm among the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, [which is] supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles.” (Systematic Theology, 4th Edition, Eerdman’s Publishing, 1968, pg. 708) In the same section dealing with the various millennial views he clearly lays out that the vast majority of the Dutch Reformed crowd were Amillennial and cites specifically Abraham Kuyper, William Hendriksen, and Herman Bavinck (see “Reformed Dogmatics” or “The Last Things” which is taken from those volumes and clearly espouses an Amillennial view) as well as the Princetonian Geerhardus Vos. Berkhof lays the whole thing out in such a manner that it seems inconceivable to him that a view other than Amillennialism would even be considered as substantially the Reformed view and says, “There are some who connect with the advent of Christ the idea of a millennium, either immediately before or immediately following the second coming. While the idea is not an integral part of Reformed theology, it nevertheless deserves consideration here, since it has become rather popular in many circles.” So well beyond the merits of each point of view it is obvious that he finds no overwhelming historical evidence or authority for either the Post or Premillennial view as being Reformed.

I will also say that it is odd to me to hear over and over again that all of the Princeton giants were Postmillennialists. To be certain there were some Postmillennial views espoused by these men, but it would probably be more accurate to call them optimistic Amillennialists than to call them Postmillennialists (at least when compared to the current manifestation of that view). To hear men such as B.B. Warfield cited as such is especially odd to me. If we look at Warfield’s treatment of millennialism he cites the Amillennial position precisely. For instance he says repeatedly that the thousand years “is the whole of this present dispensation” and says that the thousand years in The Revelation is purely symbolical, in fact if anyone has read William Hendriksen’s Amillennial masterpiece “More Than Conquerors” they may notice the language is almost identical. (See “The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 2, pg. 643-650 which is taken from an article which appeared in The Princeton Theological Review, vol. 2, 1904 and can be viewed here: Princeton Theological Review.) The reason this is important is twofold in our look at historical evidence for what was supported by these men.

1) If we are to interpret Princeton then we must look at the few places where they are explicitly clear on whether they were Post- or Amillennial. The reality is that there is not a great deal of distinction leveled in their writing between the two with only brief moments of clarity. The cause for that is, I believe, that in their day there was no reason to be distinguishing between one view or the other for the assumed position was in fact, at the very least, optimistic Amillennialism and the real distinction to be sought was in dealing with the assault being waged on the Church by the Premillenarians. For instance Charles Hodge lays out the case that 2 Pet. 3:6-11 is to be understood as a regeneration the result of which is the “introduction of a new heavens and a new earth,” not a Post-mill point of view. He then goes on to say, “[…] in the interval between the first and second advents of Christ, is said to be like a field in which the wheat and the tares are to grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the world.” So with clear examples of his belief in the matter it is impossible to interpret a statement such as “The common doctrine of the Church… is that the conversion of the world… [is] to precede the second coming of Christ” as being expressly Postmillennial without divorcing it from everything he has said to get to that point. (C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pg 851-855, 857-858, 861) No, it is more appropriate to view it through a statement like his son’s which explains, “The Scriptures… clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly transforming than it has ever realized in time past.” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 568) So, if we are to claim that these men were avid Postmillennialists then we must ignore a great deal they have said, believe that there was a radical shift in eschatological opinion, even in the orthodox Reformed professors, after the very late 1800s. For it is sure that Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller held great influence over the belief of Charles Hodge, which we have seen, who in turn held great influence over his son, and men like B.B. Warfield who held particular influence on others such as his dear friend Geerhardus Vos, and others such as Machen that came after. So if we are to assume a radical shift I would be interested to know which of these men are to be considered the culprit? For as Geerhardus Vos proclaimed it was the burning question of the time, “[…] which of the two, pre-millennarianism or post-millennarianism, has done or bids to do more good to practical Christianity, or which of the twain can be trusted to do less injury to the cause of religion..” (Pauline Eschatology, pg. 226-227) Notice the understood qualification is not concerning the cause of Amillennialism, only its counterparts. Now, I am not proposing that some of the men mentioned here (particularly the Hodges and Warfield) can be called specifically Amillennial for they seem to have been a hybrid of the two, but they were definitively not specifically Postmillennial either; in fact, Warfield himself detested being called Postmillennial.

2) Now, lest the Premillennialists think the fight within Princeton was between Post- and Amillennialists, I hope I have made it clear that all of these men directly address the historical fact that the Reformed Church has never been Premillennial since the second or third century; though with little or no exception they do not address the other two views. Just as we have seen before, it is said, “The Apostolical Fathers of the Jewish Christian branch of the church, such as Barnabas, Hermes, and Papias, adopted [Chilianism]. It prevailed generally throughout the church from A.D. 150, to A.D. 250, being advocated by Irenǽus and Tertullian. Since that time the doctrine [just presented] has been the one generally recognized by the whole church, while Millenarianism or Chilianism has been confined to individuals and transient parties.” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 569) Furthermore, the historical evidence against this point of view cited by a number of these men as being “Jewish in its origin” and “pre-Christian.” This shows abundantly that the view of the Church has not been Premillenarian regardless of the claims of its adherents today. Many Reformed men have found cause to disagree; but, they are all unified in citing no historical evidence that this is a legitimate view of the Reformed faith.

Puritan Eschatology

Then there is the charge that the entirety of the Puritans, not the least of which were the Westminster Divines themselves, were all Postmillennial. In that masterful series of books entitled the “Puritan Papers” this exact subject is dealt with. But the findings don’t match the aforementioned conclusion in the least; it’s quite the opposite in fact.

Following the roots of eschatological doctrine back to the early church fathers the author of the article “Puritan Eschatology,” Peter Toon, begins by differentiating between Chiliasm and Augustinian eschatology. He explains Augustine’s view as what we would now call Amillennial in this way, as taken from book 20 of the City of God, “He understood the 1000 years as a perfect number representing the whole period of years from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of His second coming when the Last Judgment would occur.” He adds, “This Augustinian eschatology which taught that the present age is the millennium and that it is to come to an end with a brief period of persecution, the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment, reigned supreme in the Church from 431 to the time of the Reformation.” The author admits that while Calvin followed Augustinian eschatology “there was a distinct tendency after Calvin’s death to think of the 1000 years of Revelation 20 as the literal 1000 years stretching form about the year A.D. 300 to about the year A.D. 1300… Thus the loosing of Satan ‘for a little season’ was being experienced in Europe from about 1300.” This would certainly be representative of a Postmillennial eschatology.

He then goes on to discuss the Westminster Divines and says, “[…] the remarkable fact is that in 1643, when the Westminster Assembly first met, and even more so from 1648 to 1660, millennial teaching (Chiliasm) was both common and respectable in England even though a good number of learned divines continued to teach the traditional Augustinian doctrine (Amillennialism).” We will pause here for a moment to recognize that this in an of itself shows that the only real view missing from the whole equation was that of the Postmillennial view, at least in any significant number. In fact the author shows that the prolucator of the first two sessions of the Assembly as well as most of the Independents there gathered were indeed Millennialists. He says in the end, “The influence of these millenarians was, however, insufficient to affect the final wording of the Confession of Faith, which gives the impression of following the Augustinian teaching.” Now none of this means that there didn’t exist in this time frame adherents of what is now called Postmillennial, but it does mean that it was not the prevailing view. In fact, while there were some men in the 1500s and 1600s within the Dutch Reformed Church (such as Witsius and some others) that were advocates of a form of this doctrine, it doesn’t make much of an impact until the mid 1600’s when a “conservative millenarianism” (later Postmillenarianism) appears through men such as Joseph Mede and John Henry Alsted. Now in all honesty these men didn’t represent precisely the modern view in question, that is certain, but were widely embraced in the Netherlands who had already had a penchant for this school of thought. Yet it was Mede himself who admits, “[the] dogma of the thousand year Regnum was the general opinion of all orthodox Christians in the age immediately following the Apostles.” The author wraps up his paper by saying, “We find that the Westminster Confession of Faith… clearly follows Augustinian teaching while the Larger Catechism… calls upon the people to pray for the conversion of Jews. Yet the call for prayer for the Jews is followed by the prayer that Christ would hasten the time of His Second Coming. This fact, and the actual Scriptural references given, lead us to state that there is no suggestion of a period of latter-day glory or of a millennium connected with the conversion of the Jews. The idea seems to be that, though their conversion will certainly enrich the Church, the Church will remain in a world which hates Christ and His gospel.” (Puritan Papers, vol. 5, Peter Toon, “Puritan Eschatology”, pg. 63-79.)

To be sure, all of the eschatological points of view were well represented within the ranks of the Puritans; that cannot be denied. To try and say that there was only one predominant view just ignores the clear facts of history. But it does seem to me that the more prevalent views espoused during the time were Augustinian eschatology (Amillennial) and Chiliasm (Premillennial). This is not to say that there were not other views, only that they did not hold sway on as many men as the other two views did. The exception seems to be that in the 1640s there was a surge in Postmillennialism that seemed to lose its vigor by the end of the decade. But that is not quite the same thing as domination of thought over the course of Puritan history either.

The Eschatology of the Reformers

As we continue to work our way backwards through Church history we come now to the time of the Reformers. It is important to note that while the terms Postmillennial and Amillennial had yet to make their way on to the scene they certainly existed. As this topic is studied, especially in the time of the Puritans and before, it is important to note that Postmillennialism was viewed as an altered form of Chilianism and thus it is referred to as such repeatedly. Going back to Louis Berkhof he says of the Postmillennial view, “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries several Reformed theologians in the Netherlands taught a form of Chiliasm, which would now be called Postmillennialism.” (Systematic Theology, pg. 716) I bring this up not only because it is a necessary recognition of fact in order to study the history of this topic, but also because the next man I wish to address is Francis Turretin and he procedes along those terms. I know that technically he post-dates the Reformation, but I have heard him referred to as the last of the great Swiss Reformers in Geneva. So granting me some license I will treat him as such.

In his masterpiece the “Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” Turretin lays out his case against Chiliasm in all its forms. In order to establish that he was an advocate of Augustinian eschatology rather than the other two forms under consideration here I will provide some of what he says. To start with he addresses the issue of a period of glory on this earth, a tenant of both forms of Chiliasm, “The condition of the pious in this life (most afflicted, exposed to persecutions and calamities) cannot agree with a most peaceful and happy kingdom. God calls them to the cross as the standard of Christ (under which the church militant ought to be on earth) and believers can promise themselves no constant rest. […] how do Christ and His apostles in consoling believers against such trials always use the hope of eternal glory and happiness in heaven and never the consideration of peace and felicity to exist on earth, which would have contributed greatly to relieve their minds? Why do they say nothing of that long interval in which the church of Christ is to be free from such calamity… why does [Paul] not say that that rest would begin and continue through a memorable interval even from this life, if he believed there would be any such interval?”

Let it be understood that Turretin readily admits that between the two forms of Chiliasm, what we would now call Premillennial and Postmillennial, the former is a far greater error than the latter. But he certainly views both as being in error and thus confirms the Augustinian position. In fact, he certifies himself that the larger Reformed church does as well when he says, “Now although there is a great difference in this twofold opinion (Pre- and Post-), and the former is far more dangerous then the latter and deserves to be called heretical; still the latter, which was the dominant opinion of certain divines, has been rejected thus far by the church as an error and blemish, not without weighty reasons.” It is clear that Turretin is affirming the historical fact that within the Reformed church the Augustinian position was the official position of the church (Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” vol. 3, pp 575-577)

And of course John Calvin expressed the Augustinian eschatological opinion in the Institutes. He says in refuting the errors of Chiliasm and in regard to the 1000 years spoken of in Rev. 20:4, “[…] the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world.” In such a statement he clearly refutes the aforementioned schools of Chiliastic thought. He is especially against the error of Premillennialism, so dismissive of it in fact that he says of them, “[…] let us have done with these triflers, that we may not seem… to think their dreams deserving of refutation.”

He clearly lays out some principles that would show that he is solidly to be found in the Augustinian camp when he says, “[…] the reason why faith is so rare in this world; nothing being more difficult for our sluggishness than to surmount innumerable obstacles in striving for the prize of our high calling. To the immense load of miseries which almost overwhelm us, are added the jeers of profane men, who assail us for our simplicity, when spontaneously renouncing the allurements of the present life we seem, in seeking a happiness which lies hid from us, to catch at a fleeting shadow. In short, we are beset above and below, behind and before, with violent temptations, which our minds would be altogether unable to withstand, were they not set free from earthly objects, and devoted to a heavenly life, though apparently remote from us. Wherefore, he alone has made solid progress in the gospel who has acquired the habit of meditating continually on a blessed resurrection.” Here it is clear that Calvin sees no relief in this life, that the focus of believers and hope lies in the second coming itself and that we will have no reprieve from the assaults of this life before that. If in one of the preceding quotes Calvin took on a definitively anti-Premillennial stance, here he clearly does so with Postmillennialism. (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1972, vol. 2, pp 260-266 or 3.25)

Calvin continues such unity of thought in his commentary on 1 Thess. 5. Here he clearly states that the wicked will still be wicked and the Lord will come upon them unexpectedly lest in seeing His coming they should reach the summit of felicity. Calvin drives home the point that he believes there will be no period of peace on this earth and that bliss will only be found at heaven’s doors when he says in commenting on Lu 14:27, “[…] Christ’s meaning is, that there will be no end to our warfare till we leave the world.” Calvin was indeed an adherent of Augustinian eschatology.

Augustinian Eschatology

We will take a moment now to review what Augustine had to say regarding eschatology. It is important to see how Augustine saw the Millennia of Rev. 20 since I have cited, as some of the referenced authors have, him as one of the chief influences of thought in the Reformers and the Puritans.

In the following passage Augustine shares his understanding and conviction on this matter. He says, “Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world—a thousand years.” We will pause here because it is important to note here that he views the six thousand years as encompassing all of time and culminating in a seventh symbolical thousand years which is eternal rest in heaven. But in no way does he here advocate either the Pre- or Postmillennial point of view. He goes on to say, “[…] or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time.” Here he ends with the definitive opinion of the current day Amillennialists. He explains the view further by saying, “[…]we cannot better interpret the words of [Ps. 105:8], ‘He hath been mindful of His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,’ than by understanding it to mean“to all generations.” (Augustine, “City of God,” 20.7)

In 20.9 he goes on to describe that the saints reign even now with Christ and that the mark of this thousand years covers the entirety of this time beginning at the first coming of Christ. All of this said I think it is clear that Augustine represented what is now known as Amillennialism and the influence he exerted on the Reformers and beyond was in that school of thought, to greater and lesser degrees depending on where it be found.

Summary

As I said at the beginning, I am not attempting to argue the validity of any one of the positions presented herein. But I am showing the historical existence of those positions and the Reformed perspective within each school of thought. I think considered from that view it is clear that Premillennialism and Augustinianism, or Amillennialism, can reasonably lay claim to longevity. The new kid on the block, so to speak, is Postmillennialism.

I also think it is safe to say that while slightly more ambiguous in its various forms throughout history the Amillennial thought has had the luxury of majority opinion within the Reformed church and that is followed, in the last 500 years or so, by Postmillennialism, though as was previously expressed there was a brief time for a decade or so in the mid 1600s when Postmillennialism found itself growing in a popularity that eventually subsided. It is also safe to say that the one unanimous opinion of the Reformed church, regardless of where else they may differ, is that Premillennialism is not Biblical and has routinely been denounced as such; even being called heretical by men such as Turretin.

I don’t try to persude anyone with this paper to believe what I believe, that is another discussion for another time. But the claims of the Pre- and Postmillennialists that the Reformed church has been in agreement with them throughout history is hopefully rectified here. It is true that at various times some men have agreed with either or both positions, but then that is not the same as saying that the Church as a majority did so. Nor do I think it is particularly productive to try and validate our beliefs by trying to retroactively apply them to men in the past unless, and only if, those man have actually believed as we believe.

Perhaps debate in this area can be productive. Certainly I sense a growing segment of the Reformed church that is becoming ever more inclined to Postmillennial thought. This means that at some point we will have to discuss this yet again and hoepfully do so with historical accuracy and a great deal of charity for it is sure that each camp’s belief runs deep. Yet this I know, if we are to start excluding the title of Reformed from each other based simply on our eschatological opinions then nothing productive will come of it and nothing productive ever will. Explain your position and defend it but let us be gracious along the way.