Category Archives: Justification

The danger of preaching salvation by grace (MLJ)

14 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Grace, Justification, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

There is a sense in which the doctrine of justification by faith only is a very dangerous doctrine; dangerous, I mean, in the sense that it can be misunderstood. It exposes a man to this particular charge. People listening to it may say, ‘Ah, there isa  man who does not encourage us to live a good life, he seems to say that there is no value inner works, he says that “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” Therefore what he is saying is, that it does not matter what you do, sin as much as you like.’ There is thus clearly a sense in which the message of ‘justification by faith only’ can be dangerous, and likewise with the message that salvation is entirely of grace. I say therefore that if our preaching does not expose us to that charge and to that misunderstanding it is because we are not really preaching the gospel.

Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans 6, The New Man (Sermon One, Romans 6:1,2), p. 9. But it is precisely that “misunderstanding” which leads to the question and answer of Romans 6:1-2 “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead in sin live any longer in it.”

What is the business of grace? Is it to allow us to continue in sin? No! It is to deliver us from the bondage and the reign of sin, and to put us under the reign of grace. So when a man asks, “Shall we therefore continue in sin that grace may abound?” hr id merely showing that he has failed to understand either the tyranny or the reign of sin, or the whole object and purpose of grace and its marvelous reign over those who are saved.

What is man that you ….

12 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Christology, Hebrews, Image of God, imago dei, Job, Justification, Psalms, Romans, Soteriology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Job 7 and Psalm 8 present a paradoxical contrast in the meaning of man before God: Why does God care for man.  Job asks why God cares so deeply as to even be concerned with men’s sin:

17 What is man, that you make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him,
18 visit him every morning and test him every moment?
19 How long will you not look away from me, nor leave me alone till I swallow my spit?
20 If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of mankind? Why have you made me your mark? Why have I become a burden to you?
21 Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I shall lie in the earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be.

Job 7:17-21

This sort of question, in the minds of some, has led to a religious impulse which creates a god who simply forgives because this god is merciful — God may be concerned about extremely wicked men (typically this requires genocide or at least extreme viciousness), but God does not care about my “small” sins.

And while this sort of religion appears to be very comforting it comes it at a very high cost. First, it comes at the cost of God: God must give up justice to simply overlook sin without redress: Imagine a judge hearing the case of someone who without question committed a gross injustice against you. The criminal is guilty, you sense your need for justice and the judge simply shows “mercy” and less the bad-guy go. Your anger would rightly rise against this situation, because “mercy” comes at the cost of justice.

What sort of a god could sacrifice justice and still be a just God?

Second, as Job notes, to simply overlook sin without more, comes at the expense of humanity. Job asks, why concern yourself with my sin? I’m not that important.

And so you see, that a merely “merciful” god regards a degradation of God and of humanity. God must be unjust and we must be without value to pull off such a “forgiveness”. It is not surprising then that our civic religion of an avuncular god who simply forgives comes at the cost of human dignity.

Scripture however presents a perfectly holy God. It also places human beings as alone bearing the image of God. For humans to be of such worth requires that God have concern for our sin: because human beings are representing God (whether good or ill).

A high view of God and leads to a high view of the value of human beings — at the very same moment, producing the humility of wonder and love:

4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:4-5  This resolution of the conflict takes place in Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews specifically brings these strands together, God, man, sin as follows;

6 It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Hebrews 2:6-9. There in the place of Jesus, God greatness and justice gather up the sinfulness of humanity and restore human beings to a place of honor.

This is how Paul makes the same argument, from a slightly different vantage:

 

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21–26.

To err in either of these respects will be fatal:

01 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by in 1 John, Confession, Humility, Justification

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,


Never for a moment entertain a thought of any worthiness in yourself, or suffer any thing to be blended with your faith in Christ. Rely on him as entirely as if your whole life had been a scene of the most enormous wickedness. Renounce entirely every thing of your own in point of dependence; and seek to “be found in Christ, not having your own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God through faith in him.” And let this abide with you to your latest hour. Let neither a relapse into sin deter you from coming thus to Christ; nor the most spotless continuance in holiness render such a mode of coming to him unnecesary in your eyes. This is the way in which you may come, however aggravated may have been your guilt; and this is the way in which you must come, however eminent your attainments. It is not possible for you to be too much on your guard against either doubting the sufficiency of Christ to save you, or attempting to unite any thing with him as a joint ground of your hope. To err in either of these respects will be fatal: it will arm both justice and truth against you, and will make void all that the Lord Jesus has done and suffered for you. But rely simply and altogether upon him, and “you shall not be ashamed or confounded world without end.”

Charles Simeon on 1 John 1:8-9

The Fountain of all Theology: The Father’s Love for His Son

31 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Christology, Ephesians, Glory, God the Father, Image of God, Justification, Revelation, Romans, Soteriology, Trinity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An August 2012 conference at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary resulted in a book of essays entitled The Beauty and Glory of the Father. The first essay in the collection, “The Father’s Love for His Son” by Bartel Elshout contends:

The Holy Spirit gives us a glimpse into the infinite depth of the Father’s heart — a heart that is eternally moved in love for His eternally begotten and beloved Son. This is the fountain from which all theology flows. Nothing so precisely defines who the Father is as the fact that He loves His Son with the totality and fullness of His divine person. (3)

The remainder of the essay sets out to demonstrate and develop that thesis. He sets out a series of minor theses respecting the Trinity in eternity, creation, fall, redemption, and the eschaton.

The presentation is precise and scholarly without being pedantic. While the work entails rigor of thought, it does not present any difficulties which an attentive adult could not master. While never quite poetic, it is beautiful in its clarity and object.

Elshout presents his case with careful logic, drawing out implications which are not immediately obvious — but which once demonstrated can be affirmed. This is the primary strength of the essay.

For example, as he works through the manner in which creation demonstrates the Father’s love for His Son, Elshout contends:

The Father’s love for His Son, the love that moved Him to create the entire univere for His Son, also moved Him to create Adam in the image of His Son. (7).

I was not immediately sure that one could say that Adam, who was certainly created in the image and likeness of God was particularly created in the image of the Son. Elshout recognized the difficulty and so presents a careful case.

First, he looks to Romans 8:28-29. The first verse is the much abused text that all things work together for good — which fails to recognize that “good” is defined in verse 29:

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

“In other words, the ultimate goal of redemption is the conformity of fallen human beings to the image of the Father’s well-beloved Son” (7). He confirms the proposition by referencing 1 John 3:1-2:

1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

From this proposition, Elshout draws an inference: “If the goal of the Father’s redemptive work is to conform men and women to the image of His Son, this must have been His original goal in creating man” (7). This is the greatest leap of the argument.

To support this jump, he argues that the goals of creation & redemption are the same. First, he looks to the purpose of creation. He reasons, “If the goal of the Father’s redemptive work is to conform men and women to the image of His Son, this must have been His original goal in creating man.” (7)

What is the purpose of creation: “thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11, KJV). [The Greek text has “καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν”; thelema, will/decision. Here is an example of how English words have shifted meaning over the past 400 years. In 1611, “pleasure” would be something in accordance with one’s will.]

All things exist according to the pleasure, the will of God and continue so. At this point, I believe Elshout would have strengthened his argument by a reference to Ephesians 1:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

The fact of redemption in the Son is solely a matter of the Father’s will [Greek: κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, according to the pleasure of his will, thelematos.] Elshout certainly seems to presume this passage in his argument.

We know that the purpose of redemption is conforming rebellious, straying human beings to the image of the Son. This is done according to the good pleasure of God’s will. Moreover, creation itself is an act of the very same will. Indeed, the process of redemption and sanction is conformity to the Creator:

9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices
10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3:9-10

At this point, Elshout’s observes something which I found fascinating. Skipping a portion of his argument, Elshout draws out an implication of Adam being created in the image of the Son. First, the Son himself discloses the Father (John 1:18). Thus, to look upon the Son is to know the disclosure of the Father.

This leads to the realization:

We may therefore conclude that, before the Fall, Adam and Eve delighted themselves in the very same Son of God in whom the Father eternally delights Himself. Being the bearers of the image of His Son, loving and worshipping Him, Adam adn Eve were the recipients of the love the Father has for His Son. The Father beheld the reflection of His eternal Son, and loved them with the same love with which He loved His Son. …In summary, the Father created man for His Son and in His image in order that man might know and love his Son and live for His glory. (8)

This brief notice concerns only two pages of the 16 page essay. The entire piece is well worth one’s consideration.

How shall I go to God?

27 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Evangelism, Horatius Bonar, Justification, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Horatius Bonar asks the question, “How Shall I go to God?” He answers:

It is with our sins that we go to God, for we have nothing else to go with that we can call our own. This is one of the lessons that we are so slow to learn; yet without learning this we cannot take one right step in that which we call a religious life.

He then develops this concept over the remainder of the chapter.He works out the development in the form of a conversation, question-answer, explanation. Working through questions and objections he finally ends with this statement of the ultimate marrow of Christianity:

Yes; pardon, peace, life, are all of them gifts, Divine gifts, brought down from heaven by the Son of God, presented personally to each needy sinner by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are not to be bought, but received; as men receive the sunshine, complete and sure and free. They are not to be earned or deserved by exertions or sufferings, or prayers or tears; but accepted at once as the purchase of the labours and sufferings of the great Substitute. They are not to be waited for, but taken on the spot without hesitation or distrust, as men take the loving gift of a generous friend. They are not to be claimed on the ground of fitness or goodness, but of need and unworthiness, of poverty and emptiness

How Shall I Go to God? and other readings, by Horatius Bonar, D.D., The Religious Tract Society, 56 Paternoster Row, 1883.

John Flavel, The Method of Grace.6

23 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by in 2 Corinthians, Adoption, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Ephesians, Glorification, John Flavel, Justification, Sanctification, Union With Christ

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous entry will be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/john-flavel-the-method-of-grace-5/

Prop. 8. Lastly, Although the several privileges and benefits before mentioned are all true and really bestowed with Christ upon believers, yet they are not communicated to them in one and the same day and manner; but differently and divers, as their respective natures do require.

Christians have often been perplexed by the relationship between grace and holiness: other making the relationship with God solely a one paying a mountainous, unpayable debt; or one of a God who forgives and forgets.  One person strives for perfection and thinks all others vicious scoff-laws. Another thinks any effort at all makes one a “legalist”. Flavel shows that both are dangerously wrong.

Flavel explains that in union with Christ we gain a whole – not a partial Christ:

That the lord Jesus Christ, with all his precious benefits, becomes ours, by God’s special and effectual application.

Thus, the believer – in Union with Christ – does receive the righteousness of Christ, but also receives wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.  However, one does not receive wisdom in the same way on receives righteousness:

These four illustrious benefits are conveyed from Christ to us in three different ways and methods:

his righteousness is made ours by imputation;

his wisdom and sanctification by renovation;

 his redemption by our glorification.

Flavel’s explanation helps to make sense of the seemingly difficult balance between grace and good works, between faith and perseverance.  The difficulty comes from the seeming contradiction of

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 (ESV)

And

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:5 (ESV)

How can we counted righteous in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and be called onto holiness (Hebrews 12:14).

Flavel explains that we are brought into a relationship with Christ by means of imputed righteous; however, that righteousness is not the end but rather the beginning of the renovation. God does not merely impute righteous, but he also imparts a transforming holiness.

An analogy may help:  Imagine two children in a household, an adopted son and a neighboring child. Now, the son does not gain or lose his status as a son on the basis of his immediate behavior.  The father’s act of adoption created the relationship with the child: it was an initial, gracious act of love to bring the child into a household.

It is only by such adoption that we are brought in to relationship with God in Jesus Christ, “In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:4b-5a). No amount of effort in the child can ever create the initial bond of adoption. Just like the neighbor’s child can never become a son merely by being quick to obey; nor will the adopted son’s disobedience undo that relationship.

However, a loving father will not leave adopted child without attention, care, concern or love. The father will train, correct and raise up his child. For instance, let us pretend a child is adopted from a country where English is not spoken, but lives in a family in the United States. Loving parents will teach the child English. The parents will impart knowledge to the child to be able to live in his new surroundings.

Likewise, God having adopted us does not leave us as we were, but rather imparts wisdom and sanctification – change – to us:

But in conveying, and communicating his wisdom and sanctification, he takes another method, for this is not imputed, but really imparted to us by the illuminating and regenerating work of the Spirit: these are graces really inherent in us: our righteousness comes from Christ as a surety but our holiness comes from him as a quickening head, sending vital influences unto all his members.

Now these gracious habits being subjected and seated in the souls of poor imperfect creatures, whose corruptions abide and work in the very same faculties where grace has its residence; it cannot be, that our sanctification should be so perfect and complete, as our justification is, which inheres only in Christ. See Gal. 5: 17

In Union with Christ, the Holy Spirit transforms the human being who has been brought into relationship with God in Jesus Christ:

16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:16–18 (ESV)

The one for whom the veil is removed is the one who has been brought into relationship with Jesus Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit’s work does not end with merely removing the veil. The veil is removed so that the change will begin.

Now, the one who does not change gives every appearance of being one who still wears the veil. While change takes place in a combustible heart which has not been freed of all corruption, the change must take place. A child who has neither breath nor heartbeat is not alive.

Finally, one receives redemption as the capstone of adoption (Romans 8:16-22):

For redemption, that is to say, absolute and plenary deliverance from all the sad remains, effects, and consequences of sin, both upon soul and body; this is made ours, (or, to keep to the terms) Christ is made redemption to us by glorification; then, and not before, are these miserable effects removed; we put off these together with the body.

Not until our bodies are redeemed (Romans 8:22) will we receive glorification – but glorification is the end which beings with justification:

So that look, as justification cures the guilt of sin, and sanctification the dominion of sin, so glorification removes, together with its existence and being, all those miseries which it let in (as at a flood-gate) upon our whole man, Eph. 5: 26, 27.

 And thus of God, Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption; namely, by imputation, regeneration, and glorification.

1 Clement 12: Commentary and Translation

05 Wednesday Jun 2013

Posted by in 1 Clement, Ante-Nicene, Greek, Historical Theology, Justification

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 Through faith and kindness, Rahab the prostitute was saved. 

When Joshua the son of Nun had sent spies into Jericho, the king of that land knew they had come to spy out the land.  So the king sent men to seize the spies so they could kill them.   It was then that kind Rahab welcomed the spies: she hid them beneath the flax on the roof.

The king’s men appeared and said, “The spies who came into this land came in here.  The King orders you to turn them over to us.”

She answered, “The men you are seeking did come in here; but immediately they went out and on their way.” With that she motioned  with her hand pointing them in the wrong direction.

Later she said to the spies, “I, I know that the Lord, your God, has already turned this city right here into your hands.  I know this because great fear and trembling for you has fallen on everyone who lives here. So, when you come and take this city, recuse me and all my father’s house.”

They said to her, “It will be as you have said: When you know that we are here, bring everyone under your roof – there they will be saved. Now, if we find someone outside of your house, they will be destroyed.”

Then granted to give her a token, some scarlet she should hang from her house.

Doing this made clear that redemption is through the blood of Christ, for all those who believe and hope in God.

You see beloved, not only faith – but prophecy is in this woman.

 

Comment:

Clement sets before the Corinthians the example of Rahab who was saved by faith and hospitality (of a rather extreme sort). Her physical salvation from the destruction of Jericho is used as an example of the ultimate salvation available in Christ:

πρόδηλον ποιοῦντες ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν

Making plain beforehand that redemption is through the blood of Christ for all those who believe and hope in God.

By drawing this connection, Clement is making a veiled accusation that the Corinthians are demonstrating no true faith – and thus are not saved (very much in the model of James 2).

Translation Notes:

 

Διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν

            By means of –through – faith and hospitality

 

ἐσώθη Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη

            [she]was saved Rahab the prostitute

Was saved: aorist passive.  She was saved by the actions of the spies and Israel. Yet, she was ultimately saved – as is the point of Clement’s account – by the blood of Christ by means of her faith.

 

ἐκπεμφθέντων γὰρ ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ

            For being sent out by Joshua of Nun (the son of Nun)

In Greek “Joshua” and “Jesus” are the same name. The specification of Joshua the son of Nu.

Sent out: an aorist passive participle: the sending occurred prior to the salvation.

 

κατασκόπων εἰς τὴν Ἰεριχώ

spies into Jericho

The spies actually came into the city.  Jericho is an indeclinable proper noun.

 

ἔγνω ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς γῆς

[he] learned the king of the land

The: that particular land (there many kings in Canaan).

 

ὅτι ἥκασιν κατασκοπεῦσαι τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν

that they had entered to spy out their country

Had entered/were present. The infinitive gives the purpose of their presence: to spy out the land.

 

καὶ ἐξέπεμψεν ἄνδρας τοὺς συλλημψομένους αὐτούς

and he sent men to apprehend them

To apprehend is a future middle participle:  logically and grammatically, it is subsequent to the action of the main verb – the king sent out  men.  The participle indicates purpose. Wallace notes that the future participle is “always” telic (636). The king sent the men for the purpose of  arresting the spies.

 

ὅπως συλλημφθέντες θανατωθῶσιν

in order that being apprehended they should be killed

Being apprehended – when they will be apprehended: aorist passive participle. The aorist does not indicate that the apprehension has already occurred; but rather establishes the logical connection: when the arrest has been complete, they will be killed.

Should be killed: a future, passive subjunctive.

 

ἡ οὖν φιλόξενος Ῥαὰβ εἰσδεξαμένη αὐτοὺς

Therefore the hospitable Rahab to welcome them

Therefore: Rahab knew the spies would be killed. Her actions were for the purpose of protecting the spies.

 

ἔκρυψεν εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον ὑπὸ τὴν λινοκαλάμην

hid  [them] upstairs under the flax

 

ἐπισταθέντων δὲ τῶν παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ λεγόντων·

But approaching/while standing [some men] from the king and saying

Approaching/standing by: this is subordinate to the action of speaking: a temporal participle, contemporaneous with the action of speaking.

Speaking/saying: a present active participle: it introduces the action of the main verb.

 

Πρὸς σὲ εἰσῆλθον οἱ κατάσκοποι τῆς γῆς ἡμῶν·

They came to you the spies of our land [the one’s spying].

Individualizing and particularizing – note the article & “our” land. Rahab, we’re all in this together.

 

ἐξάγαγε αὐτούς, ὁ γὰρ βασιλεὺς οὕτως κελεύει·

send them out, for thus the King commands

 

ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη

 But she answered

 

Εἰσῆλθον μὲν οἱ ἄνδρες,

First the men entered

The “men” is answered with the alla – not de, as most common. On one hand they came in, on the other, they went out.

 

οὕς ζητεῖτε, πρός με,

those you seek [came] to me

 

ἀλλὰ εὐθέως ἀπῆλθον

But immediately they went out

 

καὶ πορεύονται τῇ ὁδῷ·

and they went in the way

 

ὑποδεικνύουσα αὐτοῖς ἐναλλάξ

making plain to them crosswise

Making plain/indicating: present participle: the participle shows the outcome of the main verb: she answered.

ἐναλλάξ:  crosswise, in the opposite direction. ἀλλαχοῦ: go in the other direction.

 

 

Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς τοὺς ἄνδρας·

And she said to the men

Knowing I know

 

γινώσκουσα γινώσκωἐγὼ

 knowing I personally know

This sort of complementary participle plus finite verb is similar to the emphatic construction in Hebrew: e.g., “You shall surely die” (מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת the infinite absolute following by finite verb).  The emphatic nature of the construction is increased by the unnecessary pronoun: knowing, I know – I.

ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν

that the Lord your God

Hoti introduces the content of her knowledge.

 

παραδὶδωσιν ὑμῖν τήν πόλιν ταύτην,

delivers to you this city

The present for the future: “when an action still future is to be designed as good as already present, either because it is already firmly resolved upon or because it follows according to some unalterable law” (Winer, 265). The accusative is the direct object, God is delivering the city ….

Tauten: This city. No ambiguity would result without the demonstrative pronoun – however, Rahab’s language throughout shows extreme emotional agitation:  I, I know that the Lord your God is giving you this very city!

 

ὁ γὰρ φόβος καὶ ὁ τρόμος ὑμῶν ἐπέπεσεν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν αὐτήν.

For the fear and trembling of you fell upon those dwelling in her

For gives the reason for the certainty of Rahab’s conclusion.

 

ὡς ἐὰν οὖν γένηται λαβεῖν αὐτὴν ὑμᾶς,

as it will be therefore that you take her [the city]

ⓒ ὡς ἄν or ὡς ἐάν w. subjunctive of the time of an event in the future when, as soon as.

 

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1106.

διασώσατέ με καὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου

absolutely save me and my father’s house

Rahab’s intensity of language continues: an aorist imperative and an emphatic version save: rescue.

καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῇ

and they said to her

Dative of indirect object.

Ἔσται οὕτως ὡς ἐλάλησας ἡμῖν.

It shall be thus as you spoke to us

 

ὡς ἐὰν οὖν γνῷς παραγινομένους ἡμᾶς,

When you know of our coming to here (appearing)

Our coming here/our presence:  In the future, when you know (aorist – the event has taken place) and simultaneously we are present.

 

συνάξεις πάντας τοὺς σοὺς ὑπὸ τὸ τέγος σου,

 gather together all those under your roof

You will gather: the indicative is being used as a substitute for the imperative: gather: “The future indicative is sometimes used for a command, almost always in OT quotations (due to a literal translation of the Hebrew)” (Wallace, 452)

καὶ διασωθήσονται·

and they will be rescued

The rescue will come: indicative not subjunctive.

ὅσοι γὰρ ἐὰν εὑρεθῶσιν ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας, ἀπολοῦνται 7

But as many as may be found outside your house, they will be destroyed

A third class condition: ean + subjunctive: there is a logical connection: If they are found outside, they will be destroyed.

καὶ προσέθεντο αὐτῇ δοῦναι σημεῖον,

and they granted to gave her a sign

προστίθημι: to set before, therefore (here) togrant.

To give: a complementary infinitive.

ὅπως κρεμάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς κόκκινον,

thus she should hang from out of her house a scarlet []

It does not specify exactly what was scarlet: they just gave her a “scarlet” for her to hang.

πρόδηλον ποιοῦντες

making clear beforehand

 

ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις

that through the blood of Christ redemption/ransom

For lutrosis, see Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

 

ἔσται πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν.  

is to all those who believe and hope upon God

This is as emphatic a statement of justification by faith as could be found in Luther or Calvin.

Ὁρᾶτε, ἀγαπητοί,

You see, beloved

οὐ μόνον πίστις ἀλλὰ προφητεία ἐν τῇ γυναικὶ γέγονεν.

Not only faith but prophecy in the woman is found/has been found.