The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of several important passages of the Greek New Testament[1] to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit (who inspired the very grammar of the original texts) clearly teaches that our salvation is entirely a work of God, from first to last.
This understanding demanded by the Greek grammar shows that we cannot initiate, earn, contribute to, nor maintain our own salvation, nor can we lose it due to our sin or abandonment. It is God alone who initiates, God who purchases, God who contributes freely, God who maintains, and God who causes us to respond to the Gospel. It is God alone who saves.
Pa/n o] di,dwsi,n moi o` path.r
pro.j evme. h[xei( kai. to.n evrco,menon pro.j evme. ouv mh. evkba,lw e;xw( John 6:37
All
that are given me (by) the Father to me they shall come, and the one who comes
to me not ever (“positively not”, strong double-negation) shall I throw out,[2]
Pa/n o], All that.
“A classic idiom”[3]
in which Vincent states that the emphasis here is on the corporate body of
believers, “All believers are regarded as one complete whole.”[4]
Given
me is a present active, shall come
is in the future. The present tense, active voice indicates that the giving of
believers to Christ by the Father is a present, ongoing activity. Of particular
importance is the fact that it is not the believers who give themselves to
Christ, rather it is the Father who does so. As the Apostle John states in John
1:13, “children born not of natural
descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.” (NIV)
The coming to Christ is viewed as a future
event, h[xei,
“Emphasizing the idea of reaching
or arriving,”[5]
rather than the process of arriving.
The Father gives believers to Christ (present tense, ongoing) and those
believers definitely will arrive at Christ. The idea here is that the Father
actively gives believers to Christ with the determinative
will and unavoidable result that
those given indeed reach Christ in the future.
kai. to.n evrco,menon, and the one who comes. There are two changes in emphasis here. First, Jesus switches from all to the one, emphasizing now the individual believer and his importance. Second, evrco,menon, “A different verb, emphasizing the process of coming.”[6]
ouv mh. evkba,lw e;xw, not ever shall I throw out. Jesus uses a strong double-negative
indicating the impossibility of the following action, as Robertson indicates, “Strong
double negation as in verse 35 with second aorist active subjunctive of ballw. Definite promise of Jesus to welcome the one
who comes.”[7]
Wuest focuses
on the double negation with, “I will positively
not throw out into the outside.”[8]
(emphasis mine)
Of note here is
the fact that it is not the arrival
of the believer at Christ that causes Christ to say that he will not throw him
out. Rather, it is the one on the way
or in process from the Father who is
promised not to be cast out. We see here again that the Father’s will in giving
is determinative in Christ’s decision to not cast out.
o[ti katabe,bhka avpo. tou/ ouvranou/ ouvc i[na poiw/ to. qe,lhma to. evmo.n avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j meÅ John 6:38
Because I have come down from the heaven not in order that I do the will of mine (my own will) but (“rather” major contrast) the will of the one who sent me.
O[ti, because. Here Jesus connects what he will say to what he has just declared about not throwing out any who come to him. He will now give us the reason for his certain declaration.
katabe,bhka avpo. tou/ ouvranou, I have come down from the heaven. The verb tense is the perfect. This could be translated in an expanded form as, “Having begun the process of coming, I have indeed come!” Jesus Christ arrived!
ouvc i[na poiw/ to. qe,lhma to. evmo.n, not in order that I do the will of mine. Here Jesus states that he did not come down to do a will separate from the Father’s. poiw, to do is in the present tense, active subjunctive. As Wuest translates this, “not in order that I might continually be doing my will.” [9] (emphasis mine) Clearly Jesus is not implying that he has a will to do other than his Father’s, rather Jesus is pointing out that his purpose in coming was to do the Father’s will. The will of the Son is that of the Father’s.
avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j meÅ but the will of the one who sent me. Jesus declares in essence, “I will not cast out any that the Father gives me because it is the will of the Father alone that I do, and it is his will which determines who is given to me.” As Robertson states, “But the will (alla to qelhma). Supply i`na poiw after alla, ‘but that I keep on doing.’ This is the fulness of joy for Jesus, to do his Father's will (4:34; 5:30).”
tou/to de, evstin to. qe,lhma
tou/ pe,myanto,j me( i[na pa/n o] de,dwke,n moi mh. avpole,sw evx auvtou/(
avlla. avnasth,sw auvto. ÎevnÐ th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å
John
6:39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that all who are given (to) me nothing I shall lose out of it, but (“rather” major contrast) I shall raise him [in] the last day.
tou/to de, evstin to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me, And this is the will of the one who sent me. Jesus now begins to further define and refine the Father’s will regarding his purpose in sending the Son into the world.
i[na pa/n o] de,dwke,n moi, that all who are given (to) me nothing I shall lose out of it. Vincent points out, “The construction is a peculiar and broken one. All which he hath given, stands alone as an absolute nominative; a very emphatic and impressive mode of statement. Literally it reads, that all which He hath given me I should lose nothing out of it.”[10]
Notice here again the switch in emphasis within one sentence. pa/n o] de,dwke,n moi, all who are given (to) me speaks of the collective body of those given, mh. avpole,sw evx auvtou (singular), nothing I shall lose out of it, whereas here Jesus speaks of each individual.
Jesus makes the certainty of the Father’s will known here. Jesus did not come to do a separate will, but the will of the Father. That will is that Jesus would not lose one out of all that are given. The grammar is certain and clear here. The only way that one could be lost is if Jesus were to fail to do the Father’s will. Can any evangelical Christian make such a claim?
avlla. avnasth,sw auvto. ÎevnÐ th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|, but (“rather” major contrast) I shall raise him [in] the last day. avlla denotes a major contrast. In other words, not losing one, but rather raising all.
avnasth,sw auvto, raising him. The New English Translation renders it in this way, “but raise them all up at the last day.”[11] (emphasis mine) The translation note here says, “Or ‘resurrect them all,’ or ‘make them all live again’; Grk ‘raise it up.’ The word ‘all’ is supplied to bring out the collective nature of the neuter singular pronoun auvto in Greek. The plural pronoun ‘them’ is used rather than neuter singular ‘it’ because this is clearer in English, which does not use neuter collective singulars in the same way Greek does.”[12]
ÎevnÐ th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra, [in] the last day. Of this phrase
Robertson elucidates, “at the last day (th| escath| e`merai). Locative case without en. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54)
‘with the majesty of a solemn refrain.’ In 7:37 it is the last day of the feast
of tabernacles, but in 11:24; 12:48 of the day of judgment as here. Christ is
the Agent of the general resurrection in 5:28 as in 1Co 15:22 while here only
the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.”[13]
tou/to ga,r evstin to. qe,lhma
tou/ patro,j mou( i[na pa/j o` qewrw/n to.n ui`o.n kai. pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n
e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion( kai. avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. ÎevnÐ th/| evsca,th|
h`me,ra|Å John
6:40
For this is the will of the Father of me, that all who are continually looking to the Son and are believing into him should have life aeonic (eternal), and I shall raise him [in] the last day.
In the previous verse Jesus says that the will of the Father is that of all that are given to the Son, none would be lost. Here Jesus says that the will of the Father is that all who look to the Son and are believing in him should have eternal life. Do we have a contradiction here? Are there two separate wills of the Father?
By using the subordinate conjunctive ga,r, for, Jesus seems to be making a connection here between the previous statement of the will of the Father (not losing one), and the will of the Father here (looking and believing). This particular conjunction indicates that what follows is an explanation or clarification of what came before.[14]
Vincent comments, “There is a logical connection between the last sentence and the following. The Father’s will in preserving and raising up that which he has given to the Son, includes in its fulfilment the believing contemplation of the Son and its issue in eternal life.”[15]
Thus we can now see the connection that Jesus makes between the two ideas. God’s will is expressed in the Son begin given believers. God’s will is expressed in the Son neither casting out nor losing one of those given. God’s will is expressed in believers by the fact that they indeed look to and believe in the Son. These are not to be seen as separate wills, but rather the multifaceted radiance of one determinative will and purpose. Our looking to, and believing in, the Son unto eternal life is not a separate process from the Father giving us to the Son. They are one process driven by one will.
o` qewrw/n to.n ui`o.n, all who are continually looking to the Son. Vincent points out a critical difference between “looking” here and “seeing” in verse 36. “The word is designedly used. The saving vision of Christ is not merely seeing but earnest contemplation.”[16] In verse 36 Jesus has the non-believers seeing him with their physical eyes as a one time event (aorist), e`wra,kate, but in verse 40 Jesus has the believers continually gazing at him (present active), qewrw/n, implying more than mere physical sight but an ongoing contemplation involving the mind as well.
e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion, should have life aeonic (eternal). The NET Bible translation notes say, “Notice that here the result (having eternal life and being raised up in the last day) is produced by looking on the Son and believing in him. Compare John 6:54 where the same result is produced by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood. This suggests that the phrase in 6:54 (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood in terms of the phrase here (looks on the Son and believes in him).”[17]
This interpretation makes sense since in 6:39-40 Jesus clearly states what the will of the Father is. Thus the clearer passage interprets the more obscure.
ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j
me eva.n mh. o` path.r o` pe,myaj me e`lku,sh| auvto,n( kavgw. avnasth,sw
auvto.n evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å John
6:44
Not even one is able to come toward me if not the Father who sent me should draw him, and I shall raise him in the last day.
Jesus makes it crystal clear here that not one individual, ouvdei.j, not even one, is able to come towards Christ on his own. It is the Father who draws him. Of this e`lku,sh, drawing, Vincent remarks extensively, “Two words for drawing are found in the New Testament, su,rw and ~elku,w. The distinction is not habitually observed, and the meanings often overlap. Su,rw is originally to drag or trail along, as a garment or torn slippers. Both words are used of haling to justice… One distinction is observed: su,rw is never used of Christ’s attraction of men… Luther says on this passage: ‘The drawing is not like that of the executioner, who draws the thief up the ladder to the gallows; but it is a gracious allurement, such as that of the man whom everybody loves, and to whom everybody willingly goes.”[18]
The drawing of the Father is a prerequisite, a necessary condition, for a person to move toward Christ. The NET Bible translation note indicates, “Or ‘attracts him,’ or ‘pulls him,’ The word is used of pulling or dragging, often by force. It is even used once of magnetic attraction.”[19]
kavgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra, and I shall raise him in the last day. This is now the third time that Jesus has associated being raised up (resurrected) with the will of the Father. This verb, avnasth,sw, is a future active indicative which denotes action which will take place in the future. It is not a hoped for incident. It will take place. It is predicated on the will of the Father, vouchsafed by the giving of the Son by the Father. The Son is the visible guarantor that those given to the Son will indeed be resurrected
Kai. u`ma/j o;ntaj nekrou.j
toi/j paraptw,masin kai. tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n( Eph 2:1
And you all were dead in the
transgressions and the sins of you.
Kai. u`ma/j, and you all. Paul continues
his thought from the end of the previous chapter. Vincent comments on this.
“Taking up the closing thought of the preceding chapter, the magnitude of God’s
power toward believers as exhibited in Christ’s resurrection. He now shows that
the same power is applied to his readers.”[20]
o;ntaj nekrou.j, were dead. The idea here is one of the then unbelievers existing in a state of ongoing deadness in the past (being dead).
toi/j paraptw,masin kai. tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n, in the transgressions and the sins of you. Vincent
says that trespasses are “special acts” of violation of God’s will or
commandments, whereas sins are “more general.”[21]
Lowe-Nida concurs that a trespass, para,ptwma, is, “what a person has done in transgressing the will
and law of God by some false step or failure.”[22]
Paul here is conveying the idea that
previously the believers had been existing in an ongoing state of complete
deadness. They were unable to help themselves or save themselves.
evn ai-j pote periepath,sate
kata. to.n aivw/na tou/ ko,smou tou,tou( kata. to.n a;rconta th/j evxousi,aj
tou/ ave,roj( tou/ pneu,matoj tou/ nu/n evnergou/ntoj evn toi/j ui`oi/j th/j
avpeiqei,aj\ Eph
2:2
in which once you walked about
according to the present order of nature of this culture, according to the
ruler of the dominion of the air, of the spirit who is now energizing in the
sons of the disobedience.
evn ai-j pote, in which once. ai-j, which, is feminine of gender, the same gender as tai/j a`marti,aij, sins, indicating that sins is the antecedent.[23] This indicates a continued state of existence outside the approval of God.
periepath,sate
kata. to.n aivw/na tou/ ko,smou tou,tou, you walked according to the present
order of nature of this culture.
periepath,sate, walked is in the New Testament refers to the conduct of
one’s life, not to physical walking.[24]
to.n aivw/na tou/ ko,smou tou,tou,, the present order of nature of this culture. This is an interesting use of aivw/na, usually a period of time, and tou/ ko,smou, the world or culture in that time.[25] The combination of these words indicates an order or system of culture based in time.[26]
kata. to.n a;rconta th/j evxousi,aj tou/ ave,roj, according to the ruler of the dominion of the air. This present order, or world system, is according to the ruler of the dominion of the air. Robertson says, “The prince of the power of the air (ton arconta thj exousiaj tou aeroj). Ahr was used by the ancients for the lower and denser atmosphere and aiqhr for the higher and rarer. Satan is here pictured as ruler of the demons and other agencies of evil. Jesus called him ‘the prince of this world’ (o` arcwn tou kosmou toutou, Joh 16:11).”
tou/ pneu,matoj tou/ nu/n evnergou/ntoj evn toi/j
ui`oi/j th/j avpeiqei,aj\, of the
spirit who is now energizing in the sons of the disobedience. We now face a question: Is the ruler of the dominion of the air the same entity as the spirit who is now energizing in the sons
of the disobedience? Some think that these two are one and the same,
however, the NET Bible has an interesting and enlightening study note,
“Although several translations regard the ruler
to be the same as the spirit, this is
unlikely since the cases in Greek are different (ruler is accusative and spirit is genitive). To get around this,
some have suggested that the genitive for spirit
is a genitive of apposition. However, the semantics of the genitive of
apposition are against such and interpretation (cf, Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 100).”[27]
Vincent seems to concur that these are not one entity, but rather two. “The term designates the power over which Satan rules, on the side of it’s operation on men’s hearts.”[28] (emphasis mine)
evn oi-j kai. h`mei/j pa,ntej
avnestra,fhme,n pote evn tai/j evpiqumi,aij th/j sarko.j h`mw/n poiou/ntej ta.
qelh,mata th/j sarko.j kai. tw/n dianoiw/n( kai. h;meqa te,kna fu,sei ovrgh/j
w`j kai. oi` loipoi,\ Eph 2:3
Among which even we all were living once in the burnings (lusts) of the flesh of us doing the will of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were children by nature of wrath as even the rest.
Evn oi-j, among which, is masculine plural, which links it to the sons of disobedience. The NET Bible translation notes say, “The relative pronoun phrase that begins v. 3 is identical except for gender, to the one that begins v. 2… By the structure Paul is building an argument for our hopeless condition: we lived in sin and we lived among sinful people.”[29]
kai. h`mei/j pa,ntej avnestra,fhme,n pote evn tai/j evpiqumi,aij th/j sarko.j h`mw/n poiou/ntej ta. qelh,mata th/j sarko.j kai. tw/n dianoiw/n, even we all were living once in the burnings (lusts) of the flesh of us doing the will of the flesh and of the thoughts. Each one of us was once continually living in the burnings of the flesh with our will consumed by it’s desires and thoughts.
kai. h;meqa te,kna fu,sei ovrgh/j w`j kai. oi` loipoi,\, and we were children by nature of wrath as even the rest. Vincent points out, “Children (te,kna) emphasizes the connection by birth; … Wrath (ovrgh/j) is God’s holy hatred of sin; His essential, necessary antagonism to everything evil.”[30] Man is steeped in sin by nature of his birth, and without doing anything at all, he is opposed to and antagonistic towards God. Man sins because he is a sinner, he is not a sinner just because he sins. In other words, the quiescent state of man’s nature is outside of God’s approval.
o` de. qeo.j plou,sioj w'n evn evle,ei( dia. th.n pollh.n avga,phn auvtou/ h]n hvga,phsen h`ma/j( Eph 2:4
But the God who is rich in mercy, because of the great love of Him was loving us,
O` de. qeo.j, but the
God. What a beautiful phrase after that condemning run on us!
plou,sioj w'n evn evle,ei, who is rich in mercy. Mercy is that attribute of God’s character which causes Him to not give us what we deserve.
dia. th.n pollh.n avga,phn auvtou/ h]n hvga,phsen h`ma/j, because of the great love of Him was loving us. Vincent says, “For the sake of, in order to satisfy His love.”[31] It is the magnitude and purity of God’s love which motivates Him to love us. Our being loved by God is not due to value or worth or goodness inherent in us. This Paul wants to make perfectly clear to his readers. It is God’s love alone which motivates the expression of that love towards us.
kai.
o;ntaj h`ma/j nekrou.j toi/j paraptw,masin sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/|(
ca,riti, evste sesw|sme,noi Eph 2:5
Even we being dead in the
transgressions were quickened together in Christ,
-grace
it is has saved you all
Even
we being dead in the transgressions. Paul wants for us to understand the
utter hopelessness of our situation outside of Christ. We were utterly dead
(necrosed) in our transgressions. Do dead men walk? Do dead men do good? Do
dead men raise themselves? Do dead men save themselves? Of course they do not.
sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/|, were quickened together in Christ. At the very time that we existed in spiritual
death, we were raised to life in Christ. As Vincent quotes Ellicott, “ ‘What
God wrought in Christ He wrought, ipso
facto in all who are united with Him.’”[32]
ca,riti, evste sesw|sme,noi, -grace
it is has saved you all.
Robertson says of this, “By grace have ye been saved (cariti este seswsmenoi). Instrumental case of cariti and perfect passive periphrastic indicative of swzw.
Parenthetical clause interjected in the sentence. All of grace because we were
dead.”[33]
There is no room for personal pride or self effort regarding salvation.
kai.
sunh,geiren kai. suneka,qisen evn toi/j evpourani,oij evn Cristw/| VIhsou/, Eph
2:6
and he raised (us) and he seated
(us) in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,
The Bible Knowledge Commentary points out
the following amazing truth about those he raised and seated in the heavenlies.
“Believers are positioned spiritually in heaven, where Christ is. They are no
longer mere earthlings; their citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). He is the
exalted Son of God, and they are exalted sons on daughters of God. These
actions of God toward unbelievers are similar to what God did for Christ.”[34]
i[na evndei,xhtai evn toi/j aivw/sin toi/j evpercome,noij to. u`perba,llon plou/toj th/j ca,ritoj auvtou/ evn crhsto,thti evfV h`ma/j evn Cristw/| VIhsou/Å
in order that he might make manifest in the coming ages the surpassing richness of the grace of Him in goodness upon us in Christ Jesus.
i[na evndei,xhtai, in order that he might make manifest. Vincent says of evndei,xhtai, “The middle voice denotes for His own glory.”[35] This adds weight to the idea that the purpose of God in creation is for His own glory.
to. u`perba,llon plou/toj th/j ca,ritoj auvtou, the surpassing richness of the grace of Him. to. u`perba,llon, literally, the overthrowing richness or fulness of God’s grace. This is all made available to us in Christ Jesus.
th/| ga.r ca,riti, evste
sesw|sme,noi dia. pi,stewj\ kai. tou/to ouvk evx u`mw/n( qeou/ to. dw/ron\ Eph 2:8
“For by the grace it is you have
been saved and now stand saved through faith” and this not out of you all, (it
is) the gift of God.
Paul now connects the grace of the previous verse (which is utterly out of the overflowing well of His own richness) to it’s effect on us.
sesw|sme,noi, you have been saved and now stand saved. The NET Bible translation notes say, “The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (‘you have been saved’) and continuing results (‘you are saved’).”[36] This is so simple and so powerful. God gives us his superabounding grace because of his great love and utterly saves us such that we stand saved.
Wuest translates this beautifully, “For by the grace have you been saved in time past completely, through faith, with the result that your salvation persists through present time;”[37] This rendering of the perfect tense captures the certainty of our salvation.
dia. pi,stewj, through faith. Robertson
comments, “(dia pistewj). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said
in verse 5 to make it plainer. ‘Grace’ is God's part, ‘faith’ ours.”
Salvation is the gift of God which comes
to us through our faith. But let us not think that we generate this faith ex nihilo. As we saw in the earlier
passage of John, “Not even one is able to come toward me if not the
Father who sent me should draw him” John 6:44 Thus, our faith must be the
product of the operation of God’s
kai.
tou/to ouvk evx u`mw/n, and this
not out of you. Vincent says that “and this”, refers to our salvation, not
our faith.[38] Robertson
agrees, “And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistij (feminine) or to carij (feminine
also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.
Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex u`mwn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it
is God's gift (dwron) and not the result of our work.”[39]
ouvk evx e;rgwn( i[na mh, tij
kauch,shtaiÅ Eph 2:9
not out of works, in order that not anyone should boast.
Not out of works. Paul doubly emphasizes “not out of you” from verse 8 by adding this negation. In essence he says, “Salvation is not from you, certainly not out of your works.” The result of this is that boasting is impossible. The only one justified in boasting is God.
auvtou/ ga,r evsmen poi,hma( ktisqe,ntej evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ evpi. e;rgoij avgaqoi/j oi-j prohtoi,masen o` qeo.j( i[na evn auvtoi/j peripath,swmenÅ
Eph
2:10
For we are his workmanship,
having been created in Christ Jesus unto good works which the God prepared
beforehand, in order that in them we should walk.
auvtou/
ga,r evsmen poi,hma, for we are his workmanship. What an exciting statement of fact! This is
God’s business, this salvation. It is
none of us and all of Him. Vincent elucidates, “A reason why no man should glory.
If we are God’s workmanship, our salvation cannot be of ourselves. His is emphatic. His workmanship are we.”[40]
ktisqe,ntej evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ evpi. e;rgoij avgaqoi/j,
having been created in Christ Jesus unto
good works. The change in the verb tense from we are his workmanship (present active) to having been created (aorist) is fascinating. We are currently,
actively being worked on in salvation, yet we already have been created in a
new spiritual and moral birth in Christ,[41]
unto good works.
oi-j prohtoi,masen o` qeo.j, which the God prepared beforehand. While we were still subject to the death of sin, dominated by the ruler of this culture, God was preparing works for us to do.
i[na evn auvtoi/j peripath,swmenÅ, in order that in them we should walk. Robertson points out that not only is our salvation of divine election, but also the good works that we are to do once we are saved.[42]
The passages from John chapter 6 reveal the will of God in sending the Son to earth. We may observe the following points proven out by Jesus Himself:
1. The Father gives sinners to the Son. (John 6:37)
2. Those given must come to the Son. (6:37)
3. Those who come absolutely shall not be thrown out by Jesus. (6:37)
4. Jesus emphatically denies coming to do any other will but the Father’s. (6:38)
5. The will of the Father is that of those given, not one should be lost by the Son. (6:39)
6. Note that so far the entire plan of salvation, from initiation to execution to completion, has not involved the decision of people at all.
7. The will of the Father is that those who look to the Son, believing in Him, have eternal life and will be resurrected. (6:40) Here we finally see man’s participation (looking and believing), but it is viewed by Jesus as the result of God’s will.
8. Finally, not even one person comes to the Son except those sent by the Father. These will be resurrected. (6:44)
From the Ephesian passages Paul proves out the following:
1. We all were dead in both specific errors and general sinfulness. (Eph 2:1)
2. We walked in sin, subject to the culture, which is subject to the ruler of the air dominion, who controls the spirit who energizes sinners. (2:2)
3. We satisifed our baser desires and nature. We were by birth objects of God’s wrath. (2:3) Paul’s point is that as to the ability to help ourselves, we were totally incapacitated.
4. But God! (2:4)
5. We were made alive in Christ because of God’s grace. (2:5)
6. We were seated spiritually in the heavenlies. (2:6)
7. So that God would be glorified. (2:7)
8. We are saved totally by grace, obtained by faith. See John 6:44. (2:8)
9. We are God’s workmanship. (2:10)
What is particularly to be noted for the fact that it is missing, is any initiative on our part. We respond to God’s irresistible draw. It is God alone who saves, to the eternal praise of His glory.
[1] The Greek New Testament referred to herein is the Nestle-Aland, 27th edition.
[2] Unless otherwise identified, all translations are by the author and are rough-literal.
[3] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[4] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 150.
[5] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 150.
[6] ibid
[7] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[8] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament An Expanded Translation, Eerdmans 1995, pg 225.
[9] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament An Expanded Translation, Eerdmans 1995, pg 225.
[10] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 150.
[11] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 228.
[12] Ibid, translation note 3
[13] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[14] BAGD, 2nd edition, pg 151.
[15] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 150.
[16] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 151.
[17] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 228.
[18] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg 151.
[19] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 228.
[20] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 374.
[21] Ibid.
[22]Lowe-Nida Lexicon, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[23] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 471.
[24] Ibid.
[25] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[26] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament An Expanded Translation, Eerdmans 1995, pg 450
[27] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 471.
[28] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 374.
[29] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 471.
[30] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 375.
[31] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 375.
[32] Ibid, pg 376.
[33] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[34] Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary,New Testament, pg 623-624.
[35] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 376.
[36] NET Bible, New English Translation, 3rd beta printing 6/30/98, pg 471.
[37] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament An Expanded Translation, Eerdmans 1995, pg 451.
[38] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 376.
[39] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[40] Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, pg 376.
[41] A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, from BibleWorks for Windows 95, v3.5.052d
[42] ibid