Hi, I'm David Bercot, and today we're going to be looking at part two of the five Bible verses that are misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians today. When we finished yesterday, we were in the middle of discussing John 1:1. We saw that John was not saying that Jesus is the same person as the Father. Nor was he saying that Jesus and the Father are like two brothers.
As I've shared in my recorded message on what the early Christians believed about the Trinity, the early Christians used the analogy of the Sun in the sky when explaining the Trinity. The Father is like the globe of the Sun and the Son is like the rays of light coming from the sun in the sky. Jesus has the same nature as the Father, but He is begotten from the Father just like the rays of light are begotten from the sun. Jesus is not unbegotten. He is not autotheos to use the words of Origen.
The early Christians also explain the Trinity by using the analogy of a spring of water. The Father is like an eternal spring. Jesus is like a stream running forth from that spring of water. Just as a stream has the same nature of water, as does the spring from which it derives, so Jesus has the same nature as the Father. He is fully divine. He is God by nature. But he is not the Father. Of course, Origen is not the only early Christian who explained John 1:1.
He is perhaps the only one who goes into a discussion of the Apostle John's use of the article " the " in that verse. But all of the early Christian writers understood John 1:1 in the same sense. I could read hours and hours of quotations from them on the subject. But I will pick just a representative few. We'll begin with Tertullian. He wrote, " Jesus too is God. For according to John, the Word was God. " So then you have two beings, one who commands that the things be made, and the other who does the creating.
In what sense, however, you ought to understand him to be another, I have already explained. It is in the sense of his being a different person than the Father, not in the sense of being of a different substance. Hippolytus wrote, " The word alone of the Father is from God Himself. For that reason, He is God because He is of the same substance of God the Father. " Justin Martyr wrote, " You must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place.
For the inexpressible Father and Lord of everything neither has come to any place nor walks nor sleeps nor rises up, but remains in his own place. He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for he existed before the world was made. " How then could he talk with anyone, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth? Therefore, neither Abraham nor Isaac nor Jacob nor any other man saw the Father who is the inexpressible Lord of all, including of Christ.
Rather, they saw the one who was the Father's Son, according to the Father's will. The Son is also God and the angel, for He ministered to His Father's will. Irenaeus wrote, " The Father is discovered to be the one, only God who created all things, who alone is omnipotent, and who is the only Father. He founded and formed all things. He is fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom. " And His wisdom there refers to Jesus. " He contains all things, but he himself can be contained by no one.
But there is one only God, the Creator. He is above every principality, power, dominion, and virtue. He is Father. He is God. He is founder. He is maker. He is Creator. He made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word, and through His wisdom. He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through His Word, who is His Son, through Him, He is revealed. And manifested to all whom He is revealed.
For only those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally coexisting with the Father, from of old, yes, from the beginning, always reveals the Father. The Christian has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things. Finally, Clement of Alexandria wrote, " The unoriginated being is one. He is the omnipotent God. " One, too, is the first begotten.
It is sufficient, then, that we understand the unknown being by divine grace and by the Word alone who proceeds from Him. Well, as I said, I could literally read hundreds of quotations from the early Christians that all say essentially the same thing. But if those quotations in any way puzzle you, I would encourage you to listen to the recorded messages I have done on what the early Christians believed on the Trinity and what the early Christians believed on the Father and the Son.
After listening to them, I think those quotations will all make sense to you. So in summary, in John 1:1, when it says that the Word, who is Jesus, was with God, it is saying that He was with the Father. But when it says that the Word was God, it is saying that He is divine by nature, possessing full divinity. He has the same divine nature as the Father. We could perhaps say that when John says " the God, " he is using God as a personal noun, the name of a person, that is, the Father.
But when he says that the word was God, where he doesn't use the article " the, " he is using the word " God " as a descriptive noun. He is describing the fully divine nature of the Son. But John is not saying that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person. Nor is he saying that Jesus is unbegotten like the Father. Jesus ' divinity flows from the Father, who is the source and fountainhead of the Trinity. All right, let's move to our next passage, which is Hebrews 4:12.
It reads, " For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " Now, if you ask just about any Christian today what that verse means, they will tell you that it's talking about the Bible and that it's saying that the Bible is living and can discern our thoughts and intentions of our hearts. I mean, that's exactly what I believed for much of my life.
But then when I read the early Christians, I noticed that all the writers who quote this verse apply it to Jesus, the Word of God. And of course, this makes perfect sense. He is living and powerful. He is the one who can discern thoughts and intents of the heart. I mean, the Bible truly is a wonderful book inspired of God inerrant, but it isn't alive, at least not in the normal sense of the Word. So to the early Christians, the meaning of Hebrews 4:12 was fairly obvious.
And it should be obvious to modern Christians as well, because verse 13 goes on to say, " And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. " Now, that should make it so apparent that Paul is not talking about the Bible, but about Jesus Christ. He doesn't suddenly switch his subject matter between verse 12 and verse 13. Incidentally, I'm well aware that modern so-called scholars say that Paul didn't write Hebrews.
Now, that would have been quite a surprise to the early Christians since they universally recognized Paul as the author of Hebrews. Now, some of the more learned early Christians like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, they recognize that the Greek used in Hebrews is not the Greek of Paul. They nevertheless believed that Paul was the author, but they theorized that someone else penned the letter on behalf of Paul. But back to our subject matter.
I realize it doesn't help that most English translations use a lowercase W on Word in this verse. So it's natural that someone reading an English Bible wouldn't think of Jesus when they see the term " word " in Hebrews 4: 12, since it's not capitalized in our Bibles. Now, as most of you are aware, the Greek of the New Testament was written in all capital letters. So it's up to the English translator to judge when to capitalize a word or not.
And here it should be obvious to the translators that they should put a capital W on the term word. So, Bible translators are misleading their readers by using a lowercase W on Word in this passage. When we read verse 13 of Hebrews 4, it should be obvious that Paul is talking about a person. And it should be just as obvious that he is talking about a person in verse 12 as well because he says the Word is living and that it can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.
It can pierce to the division of soul and spirit. That's not something a book can do. So why do we modern Christians not get it? Of course, like I say, probably the main reason is the way our Bible translators render that verse. But it largely goes back to John 1:1, the verse we just discussed a few minutes ago. Now, when we're talking about John 1:1, everyone will say that Jesus is the Word of God. But as soon as we leave the first chapter of John, that's the end of it.
Beyond that, most Christians today don't think of Jesus as the Word of God in any real sense. As I said, when we read Hebrews 4:12, what it says there, it should be obvious that Paul is talking about a person. Yet when we modern Christians see the phrase " word of God, " we immediately think of the Bible. We don't think about Jesus being the Word of God. Now, of course, the Bible is the Word of God as well, but so is Jesus. And Jesus is preeminently the Word of God.
But when it comes to thinking about Jesus as the Word of God, modern Christians differ markedly from the early Christians. Christians today rarely talk about Jesus as the Word of God outside of John 1:1. In contrast, the early Christians constantly refer to Jesus as the Word. To be more precise, I should say that they constantly refer to Him as the Logos.
One of the reasons why we modern Christians don't think of Jesus as the Word of God, in our everyday thoughts, is that the term " word " is an inadequate translation of the Greek word Logos, which is the term used both in John 1: 1 and Hebrews 4:12. Now to be sure, one of the meanings of the term Logos is word, but Logos had other meanings. For example, it also meant the reasoning faculty in man, in angels, and in higher beings. This corresponds to Jesus being referred to as the wisdom of God in Scripture.
So when the early Christians speak of Jesus as the logos of God, they have in mind more than the single term word. They thought of him as the fountain of all reason, of all wisdom. He is the all-seeing discerner of our inmost thoughts and reasonings, just as his father is. Now, unfortunately, there is no single word in English that embraces all of the meanings of the Greek word Logos.
So when the word Logos is referring to Jesus in Scripture, our Bible translators should simply render it as Logos, since there is not an equivalent English word that adequately translates it. And I think if we Christians today familiarize ourselves with the term Logos and its multiple meanings, we would tend to think of Jesus as the Logos in our everyday thoughts and speech, just as did the early Christians.
Okay, now I want to read to you some quotations from the early Christians in which they discuss or cite Hebrews 4:12. I'm going to start with Origen. He discusses Hebrews 4:12 quite a number of times in various writings of his. I am going to just read one of them. This is from his exhortation to martyrdom.
He says, " Since the Logos of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart, this Logos, especially now awards our souls the prize of that peace which passes understanding, which he left to his apostles.
And he draws a sword between the image of the man of dust and the image of the man of heaven, so that by taking our heavenly part at this time, he may later make us entirely heavenly, if we are worthy of not remaining cut in two. And he came to bring on earth not only a sword, but also fire. In discussing this passage in Hebrews, John Chrysostom writes, " In these words, he shows that he, the Logos of God, brought about the former things also, and he lives and has not been quenched.
Do not then, when hearing of the Logos, think of him lightly, for he is sharper, " he says, than a sword. Observe his humility, and hence, consider why the prophets also needed to speak of saber and bow and sword. If you do not change, it is said he will whet his sword. He has bent his bow and made it ready. He's quoting there from Psalm 7:12 at the end of his discussion. Clement of Alexandria writes, " The vine that is not pruned grows to wood. So does man.
" The word, the sword, clears away the excessive shoots, compelling the impulses of the soul to bear fruit rather than indulging in its desires. Now, reproof addressed to sinners has their salvation for its aim, the logos being harmoniously adjusted to each one's conduct. Tertullian writes, " We then see another sword, that is the divine Logos of God, doubly sharpened with the two covenants of the ancient law and the new law.
This sword is sharpened by the equity of his own wisdom, who renders to each one according to his works. " Athanasius writes, " The Son of God is living and active and works day by day and brings about the salvation of all. But death is daily proved to have lost all his power and idols and spirits, having been proved to be dead rather than Christ, so that henceforth, no man can any longer doubt of the resurrection of his body.
" Ambrose writes, " The fear of divine power returns to the soul when we are eager to hide ourselves, then placed as we are by the thought of our sins, so to speak, in the midst of the trees of paradise, where we committed sin, we are desirous of concealing ourselves and thinking hidden things. But God, who is the discerner of our thoughts and intentions of our hearts, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, says, " Adam, where are you? " I'll read one more, Caesarius of Arles.
He begins by quoting the passage from the Old Testament that says, " Your foes will be cut down by your sword. " He then continues, " Who they are we mentioned above, but let us find out by what sword they are said to fall. " The Apostle Paul teaches us what this sword is when he says, " For the Logos of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This is the sword at whose edge our enemies will fall. For it is the logos of God who casts down all enemies and puts them under his feet so that the whole world becomes subject to God. " End quote. Well, in searching through the early Christian writings, I was unable to find any early Christians who thought that Paul was talking about the Bible in Hebrews 4:12. They all understood him to be talking about a person, Jesus, the Logos of God.
He is a living being, and He can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. Now we come to our last verse, which is 2 Peter 1:10. It says, " Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble. " I still well remember hearing a sermon preached from this verse a number of years ago.
The speaker was someone who grew up believing in free will, and he was preaching to a congregation where everyone would have traditionally believed in free will. But to my great surprise, the speaker told us that although he had believed in free will all of his life, after reading this verse and several others in the New Testament that talk about election, he had come to the conclusion that the Bible does teach predestination after all, not free will. I mean, I was sitting there and I was absolutely stunned.
And I remember the speaker saying, " Look, there's just no way around it. The Bible clearly teaches election. " Well, as to that last statement, he was absolutely right. The Bible clearly teaches election. I'll give you just a few examples. 1 Thessalonians 1 verses 2 through 4.
It says, " We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of our God and Father, knowing beloved brethren, your election by God. " Titus 1:1 Paul begins by saying, " Paul, a bond servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness.
" Colossians 3:12 says, " Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, and long-suffering. " And I could read quite a few more. The scriptures clearly teach election. The misconception is that the word " election " has anything to do with predestination.
Now, I'm not about to go into an extended discussion on free will and predestination, because a number of years ago, I recorded a message on what the early Christians believed about free will and predestination, and it discusses that subject in more detail. And so, I'm going to refer you to that for a deeper discussion of this subject. Instead, today, I only want to address the misconception about the word election.
It not only affects our understanding of 2 Peter 1:10, the subject verse, but many other verses as well. Now, what is so strange is that we all use the words " election " and " elect " in everyday secular life. And when we do, we don't in any way connect those words with predestination. For example, at least every two years, people go to the polls and elect various public officials. When the people elect officials, what does that mean? Does it mean they predestined them? No, of course not.
It means they choose them. Our English word " elect " comes from the Greek word " eklego. " And this Greek word was likewise not a theological term. It was an ordinary, everyday word that simply meant to choose. The same as our English word. To demonstrate this fact, I want to read to you some representative passages from Scripture that contain this word eklego. I'm going to begin with Deuteronomy 30:19, reading from the Greek Septuagint.
It says, " I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life. " And the Greek word there is eklego that both you and your descendants may live. And when you read the Hebrew Masoretic text, a translation of it, which is in most Bibles, you're going to find that the translators rendered the equivalent Hebrew word with the word " choose " as well. So this is the incredible irony.
Instead of eklego being connected with predestination, it's the exact opposite. It is intrinsically connected with free will. In fact, Deuteronomy 30:19 is one of the key verses the early Christians quoted to demonstrate that we do have freedom of the will. God told the Israelites to choose eklego between the path of life and the path of death. Obviously, they had the power to make that choice, or God would not have told them to choose. Okay, going to the New Testament, Luke 10:42.
Jesus said, " But one thing is needful, and Mary has chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. " Again, here we have a form of the same Greek word eklego, and it is translated as " chosen. " Here, Jesus said that Mary had chosen the good part. This wasn't something predestined. It was a choice made by her because she had the freedom of will to make that choice.
Acts 6: 5 says, " And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose the word there being eklego, Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. I'll read to you just one more, although there are many examples. Acts 15:22, it says, " Then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
" And once again, we have a form of the Greek word eklego, which is translated chosen. Now, why didn't the Bible translators say that they sent the elect men of their own company to Antioch? Well, I can tell you why. It's because there is a double standard. When there is no theological implication in a biblical statement, the translators use the natural meaning of eklego by translating it as " choose " or " chosen ", depending on the tense of the word there.
But when there is a potential theological implication, then they switch and translate it as " elect " or " election, " depending on the tense of the verb. Now, to me, that is incredibly dishonest, both linguistically and spiritually. And it makes a big difference because when most people today hear the word " elect " in the Bible, they right away associate it with the doctrine of predestination.
That's because it has been embedded in all of our brains, thanks to the intense theological campaign of Luther, Calvin, and others. And this misconception exists even though the English word " elect " and the Greek word " eklego " have absolutely no connection in themselves with the doctrine of predestination. As I've said, they simply mean to choose.
As we've seen, the term Elect actually has an intrinsic connection with free will, since it is used so often in Scripture in connection with man's ability to choose whether or not to listen to the gospel and to serve God. It's also used in the sense of God choosing us based on our response to the gospel that is preached to us. Interestingly, the first English Bible, the Wycliffe Translation, did not practice this double standard.
It consistently translated the Latin equivalent of eklego as " choose " or " chosen " depending on the verb tense. For example, our subject verse, 2 Peter 1:10. In the Wycliffe, it says, " Wherefore, brethren, be ye more busy that is more diligent. That by good works you make your calling and choosing certain. " So if the first English Bible consistently translated the Latin equivalent of eklego as choose when did the double standard begin? And who started it?
Well, I hate to say it, but this double practice was started in 1525 by no other than William Tyndale. And the reason I said I hate to say it is that I have a lot of appreciation for William Tyndale, but he was not infallible, and he did a few things in his translation that are definite errors.
Now, I can't state for certain what Tyndale's motive was for this double practice of translating eklego as choose when there were no theological implications and translating it as elect when there were theological implications. But I do know that Tyndale was heavily influenced by Luther's teachings and Luther strongly taught predestination. So in Tyndale's translation, he translated our subject verse, 2 Peter 1:10, as follows: " Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure.
" So there he translates a form of the word eklego as election. Yet when he was translating Acts 6:5, concerning the selection of the seven men to serve on tables, he translated eklego with the word " choose. " Unfortunately, nearly all subsequent English Bibles have been heavily influenced by Tyndale, from the Coverdale Bible to the King James Version, to the many modern translations today.
So, the vast majority of English Bibles today still follow this double practice, even though there is absolutely no linguistic or spiritual justification for it. Now, I've mentioned that the word " election " has no inherent connection with predestination in either English or Greek. However, John Calvin did a marvelous job of convincing millions of Christians and professing Christians that it does.
When it comes to our subject verse, he said that making our calling and election sure means that we demonstrate to ourselves and to others that we are of the predestined elect by living out a godly life. For if we are living in sin, it indicates that we are not of the elect. Now, Calvin made it clear that living a godly life in no way affects your salvation. God does not predestine you because you live a godly life. Rather, a godly life is evidence that you are one of the predestined elect.
Of course, the fallacy in Calvin's explanation is that if his doctrine were true, what difference would it make? How can you make your calling and election sure if there's not a thing you can do about that election? Because Calvin taught that God's predestination concerning your destiny was done before you were born. And if he chose you as one of the elect, it was not based on his foreknowledge of the faith that you would later have, or on the godly life you would live.
No, under Calvin's teaching, if you are of the predestined elect, you cannot be lost. If you're not of the elect, you cannot be saved. It is all God's doing. It was done long before you were born. And you cannot change your destiny. Well, needless to say, that is not the historic faith. Rather, it's what many of the Gnostic groups, like the Valentinians, taught.
Well, moving through history, after the revival movements of the 1700s and beyond, Protestant commentators began giving a slightly different explanation of this verse in 2 Peter. They began saying that what Peter means by making your calling and election sure is that each Christian needs to do a sober self-analysis to make sure that he really was converted, that he really has been saved.
And I discuss this teaching in more detail in the recent message I recorded on what the early Christians believed on assurance of salvation. And I'm going to refer you to that message for more details. But I will say this, that sadly, this revised Protestant explanation is not the historic faith either. It's just another man-made invention. So what is the historic faith concerning election or choosing and concerning this specific verse, 2 Peter 1:10?
It begins with understanding these two terms, calling and choosing or election. When they're used side by side, as in this verse and in several others, calling refers to the invitation to become a disciple of Christ. This invitation is open to everyone on earth. However, in a more restricted sense, calling means that we have accepted the invitation and have become obedient followers of Jesus. Clement of Alexandria explains this.
He says, " Therefore, all having been called, those who are willing to obey have been named the called, for there is no unrighteousness with God. To these prophecy says, " If you are willing and hear me, you will eat the good things of the land, " proving that the choice or refusal depends on ourselves. So in this setting, calling refers to the first stage of salvation, whereby we become born again, and also to the present stage of walking obediently with Christ.
In contrast, again, in this setting where the two are used side by side, being chosen refers to the future stage of salvation. We must endure faithfully to the end to ultimately be chosen by God to inherit eternal life in His kingdom. So Peter combines both stages of salvation, our calling, and our choosing, or our election, saying we need to be diligent to make them sure. Well, how do we do this? Well, Peter explains in the verses that immediately precede verse 10. Let's look at the context of verse 10.
If we go back to, say, verse 3 of 2 Peter 1, we read this: " His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
But also, for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue, knowledge, to knowledge, self-control, to self-control, perseverance, to perseverance, godliness, to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble. For so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. So, Peter doesn't leave us guessing as to how we can make our calling and election sure. He goes into quite a bit of detail as to what we need to do to be fruitful. Now, he points out that God has already made all the provisions for us.
And as Jesus explains, he and his father will give us the needed power if only we show ourselves willing and diligent. But if we are shortsighted and have forgotten that we have been cleansed from our old sins and go back to them, then we will not be ultimately elected or chosen by God. And the fault will lie with us alone. In discussing the ministries to which various Christians are called, Origen explains the difference between being called and being chosen.
He writes this, " One should recognize that it is possible for someone to be called as an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. " Yet should he neglect the gift of his calling, he may fall away from it. This is precisely what happened in the case of Judas, who had been called to be an apostle. Yet by neglecting the gift of his calling, he changed from being an apostle to being a traitor. He was indeed called to be an apostle, but in the end, he was not ultimately chosen as an apostle. End quote.
Well, the same principle applies with regards to salvation. Calling refers to the start of the Christian walk, and choosing or election refers to the end of it, at least when these two terms are used side by side in the same sentence. The classic example of this usage is in Jesus ' parable of the wedding feast. When the first group of people who were invited to the feast rejected the invitation, then the king sent his servants out to invite others.
We read, " So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together, all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, " Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment? " And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, " Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. " End quote. So Jesus contrasts the many who are called with the few who are chosen. Starting the race is easy, but enduring faithfully to the end requires diligence. Jerome writes, quoting Jesus, " For many are called, but few are chosen. " He then continues, " Jesus summarizes three of his parables with this brief little maxim.
For in the laboring in the vineyard, and the building of the house, and in the wedding feast, it is not the beginning that is sought after, but the completion. " End quote. Irenaeus explains the parable of the wedding feast as follows. He says, " Still further, did God make it clear that we ought, after our calling, to also be adorned with works of righteousness, so that the Spirit of God may rest upon us.
But those who have indeed been called to God's supper, yet have not received the Holy Spirit because of their wicked conduct, shall be Jesus declares cast into outer darkness. " Jesus thus clearly shows that the very same king who gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of his son and who grants them the incorruptible banquet also orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who does not have on a wedding garment. That is one who despises it.
For just as in the former covenant, where it says with many of them he was not well pleased, so also it is the case here that many are called, but few chosen. And Irenaeus continues, " The Father of our Lord, through His infinite kindness, calls even the unworthy. " But He examines those who are called to ascertain if they have on the garment that is fit and proper for the marriage of his son, because nothing unbecoming or evil can please him.
For God who is good and righteous and pure and spotless will endure nothing evil, nor unjust, nor detestable in his wedding chamber. He confers his gifts upon those who deserve to receive them. But this most righteous judge metes out punishment according to their deserts, most deservedly, to the ungrateful and to those who are insensible to his kindness. " End quote.
Origen adds, " But those who do not have a good and fixed persistence, either toward spiritual worship or toward good works, are to be sure also called. " Yes, they, too, are certainly called, but they are like the seeds sown on rocky places. There is indeed a quick sprouting. But when the heat of affliction rises, they immediately wither and perish. For they do not possess the deep root of a good resolve. And these are the ones of whom the apostle says, " They have made a shipwreck of the faith. " End quote.
So what Peter says in his letter is in harmony with the gospel preached by Jesus. We have to make our calling and our choosing or election certain through being diligent to maintain an obedient love faith relationship with Jesus Christ. So rather than pertaining to predestination, election actually pertains to free will. Because Peter says it is we who must be diligent to make our election or choosing sure. If it was totally of God, there would be nothing we would have to do.
Interestingly, there in the parable of the wedding feast, Matthew uses these same two Greek words that Peter uses in 2 Peter 1:10. However, our English Bibles are once again inconsistent. I told you that when it is dealing with a theological issue, our English Bibles translate eklego with the word elect. Yet here in the parable of the wedding feast, it is a theological passage, but our Bibles do not translate it. Many are called, but few are elected.
No, because to translate it that way would demonstrate that election is not connected to predestination. It would show that election is connected to our own free will and conduct. So, reversing their normal inconsistency, they go back to a second inconsistency by translating it, " Many are called, but few are chosen, " even though, again, the word is eklego. And it is because election is tied to our free will and to our conduct that Paul told Timothy.
He said, " I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. " This is a faithful saying, " For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. " Paul would not have needed to endure all sorts of suffering on behalf of the Elect if their destiny were already predetermined.
Rather, he labored hard, for he did not want them to be ultimately rejected because they had neglected so great a salvation. That's why Paul said there to Timothy, " If we endure, we shall reign with him. " Our calling lies behind us. Our being chosen by Christ in the end to reign with Him still lies ahead. Now, a person may ask, " Well, David, if our election or choosing applies only to the future stage of salvation, why do so many Scripture passages speak of the elect as existing right now?
" And that's a very good question. Well, first of all, for the sake of clarification, let me repeat myself that what I said is that where those two terms, calling and choosing or calling an election, are used in the same sentence, then calling normally refers to our entering into a saved condition, and choosing or election refers to the final stage of our salvation. But that distinction doesn't necessarily hold true when the word " elect " is used by itself.
Also, as I discuss in more detail in my message on assurance of salvation, once we are saved, we are grafted onto the vine of Christ. Right then and there. Right then and there, our names are written in the book of life. We pass from death to life at that point. So we don't just sit here hoping that perhaps we will ultimately inherit the kingdom of God.
No, so long as we are abiding with Christ and walking faithfully and obediently with Him, then we can have a confident expectation that we will inherit the Kingdom of God. So, if we are obediently walking with Christ, we can properly be called the Chosen or the Elect. Now, we should never be presumptuous about it, but we can have a confident expectation of our final salvation. In conclusion, over the last two days, we've talked about a lot of things. So, let's briefly review them.
We've looked at five verses that are nearly universally misunderstood by Christians today. The first verse is Romans 8:35, which says, " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? " Now, nearly all Christians today think this verse is saying that nothing can cause Christ to reject us, no matter what we do, that His love will cover any type of sinful or wicked conduct on our part.
Now, some Christians would reject that interpretation, but they still think Paul is talking in this passage about Christ's love for us. However, as we've seen, up until the Reformation, all Christians understood Paul to be talking about a faithful Christian's love for Christ. That's because Paul talks about the trials and tribulations that devout Christians were undergoing in his day for Christ because of their love for him. Paul is not making a theological statement in this passage.
Rather, he's raising a bold, defiant battle cry against Satan and his agents, saying that no matter what they bring against us, the Church as a whole will not deny Christ. Next, we looked at 1 Corinthians 6:12, which says, " All things are lawful for me, but all things are not profitable. " Evangelical Protestants use this verse to say that there are no laws for Christians. However, just two verses before this passage, Paul listed various sins that will disqualify a Christian from inheriting the kingdom of God.
So there are laws for Christians. Obviously then, Paul did not intend for his words to be taken in an absolutely literal sense, and certainly the Corinthians didn't take them that way. Instead, as we saw, the early Christians understood Paul to mean one of two things. Either he meant that all things are lawful in the sense that God nowadays does not immediately enforce His commandments on mankind.
Nevertheless, not all things are profitable, even though we can get by in this life with doing them, because sinful conduct will cost us our eternal life. But we talked about the fact that other early Christians understood Paul to only be addressing the many, many things that are not forbidden to Christians that Paul was saying that even though many things are technically lawful for us, they may still not be profitable to us spiritually, and they may not edify our brother.
Next, we looked at John 1:1, one of the most misunderstood verses in the history of Christianity. It says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " We learned that in the Greek, John makes a distinction in this verse between the Father whom He designates as the God and Jesus, the Word, who possesses a fully divine nature.
When John says that Jesus is God, He purposefully does not place the article before the Word God to demonstrate that in this context, He is describing the divine nature of Jesus. In short, Jesus and the Father are not one and the same person as so many Christians think today. Furthermore, the Father is not only the head of Christ, but He is also the begetter of Christ. In other words, the Father is the source of the Trinity.
Now, this in no way diminishes the deity of Christ, but it does reveal that there is a headship of authority in the Trinity, and there is also an origin to the Trinity in the Father. Well then after looking at that, we examined the passage in Hebrews 4:12, which says, " The Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " We saw how most Christians today imagine that Paul is talking here about the Bible.
Yet the Bible is not living, not in the natural sense of the Word. Furthermore, by itself, the Bible can't read a person's thoughts, nor discern the intentions of his heart. No wonder then that the early Christians universally understood this verse to be talking about Jesus, the Word or logos of God. Jesus is truly alive, and he can read our minds and discern the intent of our hearts. Finally, we looked at 2 Peter 1:10, which says, " Brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure.
" We discussed the fact that millions of Christians today think that the word " election " means " predestination. " However, as we saw, both the English word " election " and its Greek equivalent simply mean choosing. The Greek word " eklego, " which means to choose, actually demonstrates our free will. For the Scriptures teach that we do have the power and the free will to choose to follow Christ. At the same time, Christ elects or chooses us to inherit His kingdom.
But He does not do this on the basis of some arbitrary predestination. Rather, as Peter shows in this very passage, Christ chooses us if, through His power, we show ourselves diligent by walking faithfully with Him until the end of our earthly lives. Now, as I said at the beginning of this message, these five verses are all passages that I myself misunderstood at one point or another in my life. Studying the historic faith helped me to grasp the true meaning of these verses.
And I hope that this discussion has done the same for you. And more than that, I also hope that this discussion has blessed you and increased your appreciation for God's Word.