The Hour Of True Worship

First, As for the Samaritans: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, near to this city and this well; there the Samaritan temple was built by Sanballat, in favour of which she insinuates, 1. That whatever the temple was the place was holy; it was mount Gerizim, the mount in which the blessings were pronounced; and some think the same on which Abraham built his altar (Gen. 12:6, 7), and Jacob his, Gen. 33:18-20. 2. That it might plead prescription: Our fathers worshipped here. She thinks they have antiquity, tradition, and succession, on their side. A vain conversation often supports itself with this, that it was received by tradition from our fathers. But she had little reason to boast of their fathers; for, when Antiochus persecuted the Jews, the Samaritans, for fear of sharing with them in their sufferings, not only renounced all relation to the Jews, but surrendered their temple to Antiochus, with a request that it might be dedicated to Jupiter Olympius, and called by his name. Joseph. Antiq. 12.257-264.

Secondly, As to the Jews: You say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. The Samaritans governed themselves by the five books of Moses, and (some think) received only them as canonical. Now, though they found frequent mention there of the place God would choose, yet they did not find it named there; and they saw the temple at Jerusalem stripped of many of its ancient glories, and therefore thought themselves at liberty to set up another place, altar against altar.

(2.) Christ's answer to this case of conscience, v. 21, etc. Those that apply themselves to Christ for instruction shall find him meek, to teach the meek his way. Now here,

[1.] He puts a slight upon the question, as she had proposed it, concerning the place of worship (v. 21): "Woman, believe me as a prophet, and mark what I say. Thou art expecting the hour to come when either by some divine revelation, or some signal providence, this matter shall be decided in favour either of Jerusalem or of Mount Gerizim; but I tell thee the hour is at hand when it shall be no more a question; that which thou has been taught to lay so much weight on shall be set aside as a thing indifferent." Note, It should cool us in our contests to think that those things which now fill us, and which we make such a noise about, shall shortly vanish, and be no more: the very things we are striving about are passing away: The hour comes when you shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. First, The object of worship is supposed to continue still the same—God, as a Father; under this notion the very heathen worshipped God, the Jews did so, and probably the Samaritans. Secondly, But a period shall be put to all niceness and all differences about the place of worship. The approaching dissolution of the Jewish economy, and the erecting of the evangelical state, shall set this matter at large, and lay all in common, so that it shall be a thing perfectly indifferent whether in either of these places or any other men worship God, for they shall not be tied to any place; neither here nor there, but both, and any where, and every where. Note, The worship of God is not now, under the gospel, appropriated to any place, as it was under the law, but it is God's will that men pray every where. 1 Tim. 2:8; Mal. 1:11. Our reason teaches us to consult decency and convenience in the places of our worship: but our religion gives no preference to one place above another, in respect to holiness and acceptableness to God. Those who prefer any worship merely for the sake of the house or building in which it is performed (though it were as magnificent and as solemnly consecrated as ever Solomon's temple was) forget that the hour is come when there shall be no difference put in God's account: no, not between Jerusalem, which had been so famous for sanctity, and the mountain of Samaria, which had been so infamous for impiety.

[2.] He lays a stress upon other things, in the matter of religious worship. When he made so light of the place of worship he did not intend to lessen our concern about the thing itself, of which therefore he takes occasion to discourse more fully.

First, As to the present state of the controversy, he determines against the Samaritan worship, and in favour of the Jews, v. 22. He tells here, 1. That the Samaritans were certainly in the wrong; not merely because they worshipped in this mountain, though, while Jerusalem's choice was in force, that was sinful, but because they were out in the object of their worship. If the worship itself had been as it should have been, its separation from Jerusalem might have been connived at, as the high places were in the best reigns: But you worship you know not what, or that which you do not know. They worshipped the God of Israel, the true God (Ezra 4:2; 2 Ki. 17:32); but they were sunk into gross ignorance; they worshipped him as the God of that land (2 Ki. 17:27, 33), as a local deity, like the gods of the nations, whereas God must be served as God, as the universal cause and Lord. Note, Ignorance is so far from being the mother of devotion that it is the murderer of it. Those that worship God ignorantly offer the blind for sacrifice, and it is the sacrifice of fools. 2. That the Jews were certainly in the right. For, (1.) "We know what we worship. We go upon sure grounds in our worship, for our people are catechised and trained up in the knowledge of God, as he has revealed himself in the scripture." Note, Those who by the scriptures have obtained some knowledge of God (a certain though not a perfect knowledge) may worship him comfortably to themselves, and acceptably to him, for they know what they worship. Christ elsewhere condemns the corruptions of the Jews' worship (Mt. 15:9), and yet here defends the worship itself; the worship may be true where yet it is not pure and entire. Observe, Our Lord Jesus was pleased to reckon himself among the worshippers of God: We worship. Though he was a Son (and then are the children free), yet learned he this obedience, in the days of his humiliation. Let not the greatest of men think the worship of God below them, when the Son of God himself did not. (2.) Salvation is of the Jews; and therefore they know what they worship, and what grounds they go upon in their worship. Not that all the Jews were saved, nor that it was not possible but that many of the Gentiles and Samaritans might be saved, for in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him; but, [1.] The author of eternal salvation comes of the Jews, appears among them (Rom. 9:5), and is sent first to bless them. [2.] The means of eternal salvation are afforded to them. The word of salvation (Acts 13:26) was of the Jews. It was delivered to them, and other nations derived it through them. This was a sure guide to them in their devotions, and they followed it, and therefore knew what they worshipped. To them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), and the service of God, (Rom. 9:4). The Jews therefore being thus privileged and advanced, it was presumption for the Samaritans to vie with them.

Secondly, He describes the evangelical worship which alone God would accept and be well pleased with. Having shown that the place is indifferent, he comes to show what is necessary and essential—that we worship God in spirit and in truth, v. 23, 24. The stress is not to be laid upon the place where we worship God, but upon the state of mind in which we worship him. Note, The most effectual way to take up differences in the minor matters of religion is to be more zealous in the greater. Those who daily make it the matter of their care to worship in the spirit, one would think, should not make it the matter of their strife whether he should be worshipped here or there. Christ had justly preferred the Jewish worship before the Samaritan, yet here he intimates the imperfection of that. The worship was ceremonial, Heb. 9:1, 10. The worshippers were generally carnal, and strangers to the inward part of divine worship. Note, It is possible that we may be better than our neighbours, and yet not so good as we should be. It concerns us to be right, not only in the object of our worship, but in the manner of it; and it is this which Christ here instructs us in. Observe,

a. The great and glorious revolution which should introduce this change: The hour cometh, and now is—the fixed stated time, concerning which it was of old determined when it should come, and how long it should last. The time of its appearance if fixed to an hour, so punctual and exact are the divine counsels; the time of its continuance is limited to an hour, so close and pressing is the opportunity of divine grace, 2 Co. 6:2. This hour cometh, it is coming in its full strength, lustre, and perfection, it now is in the embryo and infancy. The perfect day is coming, and now it dawns.

b. The blessed change itself. In gospel times the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. As creatures, we worship the Father of all: as Christians, we worship the Father of our Lord Jesus. Now the change shall be, (a.) In the nature of the worship. Christians shall worship God, not in the ceremonial observances of the Mosaic institution, but in spiritual ordinances, consisting less in bodily exercise, and animated and invigorated more with divine power and energy. The way of worship which Christ has instituted is rational and intellectual, and refined from those external rites and ceremonies with which the Old-Testament worship was both clouded and clogged. This is called true worship, in opposition to that which was typical. The legal services were figures of the true, Heb. 9:3, 24. Those that revolted from Christianity to Judaism are said to begin in the spirit, and end in the flesh, Gal. 3:3. Such was the difference between Old-Testament and New-Testament institutions. (b.) In the temper and disposition of the worshippers; and so the true worshippers are good Christians, distinguished from hypocrites; all should, and they will, worship God in spirit and in truth. It is spoken of (v. 23) as their character, and (v. 24) as their duty. Note, It is required of all that worship God that they worship him in spirit and in truth. We must worship God, [a.] In spirit, Phil. 3:3. We must depend upon God's Spirit for strength and assistance, laying our souls under his influences and operations; we must devote our own spirits to, and employ them in, the service of God (Rom. 1:9), must worship him with fixedness of thought and a flame of affection, with all that is within us. Spirit is sometimes put for the new nature, in opposition to the flesh, which is the corrupt nature; and so to worship God with our spirits is to worship him with our graces, Heb. 12:28. [b.] In truth, that is, in sincerity. God requires not only the inward part in our worship, but truth in the inward part, Ps. 51:6. We must mind the power more than the form, must aim at God's glory, and not to be seen of men; draw near with a true heart, Heb. 10:22.

Thirdly, He intimates the reasons why God must be thus worshipped.

a. Because in gospel times they, and they only, are accounted the true worshippers. The gospel erects a spiritual way of worship, so that the professors of the gospel are not true in their profession, do not live up to gospel light and laws, if they do not worship God in spirit and in truth.

b. Because the Father seeketh such worshippers of him. This intimates, (a.) That such worshippers are very rare, and seldom met with, Jer. 30:21. The gate of spiritual worshipping is strait. (b.) That such worship is necessary, and what the God of heaven insists upon. When God comes to enquire for worshippers, the question will not be, "Who worshipped at Jerusalem?" but, "Who worshipped in spirit?" That will be the touchstone. (c.) That God is greatly well pleased with and graciously accepts such worship and such worshippers. I have desired it, Ps. 132:13, 14; Cant. 2:14. (d.) That there has been, and will be to the end, a remnant of such worshippers; his seeking such worshippers implies his making them such. God is in all ages gathering in to himself a generation of spiritual worshippers.

c. Because God is a spirit. Christ came to declare God to us (ch. 1:18), and this he has declared concerning him; he declared it to this poor Samaritan woman, for the meanest are concerned to know God; and with this design, to rectify her mistakes concerning religious worship, to which nothing would contribute more than the right knowledge of God. Note, (a.) God is a spirit, for he is an infinite and eternal mind, an intelligent being, incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and incorruptible. It is easier to say what God is not than what he is; a spirit has not flesh and bones, but who knows the way of a spirit? If God were not a spirit, he could not be perfect, nor infinite, nor eternal, nor independent, nor the Father of spirits. (b.) The spirituality of the divine nature is a very good reason for the spirituality of divine worship. If we do not worship God, who is a spirit, in the spirit, we neither give him the glory due to his name, and so do not perform the act of worship, nor can we hope to obtain his favour and acceptance, and so we miss of the end of worship, Mt. 15:8, 9.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

The Long Obedience Of Love

          “[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7)

          Paul’s crescendo of agape reaches its most resilient expression in verse 7. If the previous verses dismantle ego and expose love’s moral clarity, this verse reveals love’s tenacious heart. It is a litany of spiritual stamina, four declarations that stretch love beyond sentiment into the realm of perseverance. Here, love is not fragile. It is fierce. It is not passive. It is persistent.

          “Love bears all things” is not a call to silent suffering, but to sacred sheltering. The Greek word suggests covering, protecting, shielding. Love does not expose weakness—it covers it. It does not broadcast failure. It absorbs it. In a world quick to shame and slow to shelter, love becomes a refuge. It bears the weight of others’ burdens, the sting of betrayal, the ache of disappointment. It is the roof that does not collapse under pressure, the cloak that does not slip in the storm.

          “Believes all things” is not gullibility. It is spiritual trust. Love chooses to believe the best, even when the worst is easier. It is not naive. It is hopeful. It does not ignore reality, but it refuses to be cynical. In relationships strained by suspicion, love leans toward grace. It believes in redemption, in possibility, in the image of God still flickering in the fallen. Love does not build walls of doubt. It builds bridges of belief.

          “Hopes all things” is love’s refusal to give up. It is the forward gaze of faith, the stubborn insistence that the story is not over. Love hopes when others despair. It hopes when the diagnosis is grim, when the prodigal is far, when the night is long. This hope is not optimism—it is eschatological. It is rooted in the resurrection, in the promise that all things will be made new. Love hopes because it knows who holds the future.

          “Endures all things” is love’s final defiance. It is the grit of grace, the long obedience in the same direction. Love does not quit. It does not flinch. It does not flee. It stays when staying is costly. It endures betrayal, misunderstanding, silence, and sorrow. It is the love that walks to Calvary, that hangs on a cross, that rises again. In this, love is not weak—it is indomitable.

          Together, these four verbs form a spiritual architecture of endurance. They are not sentimental, but sacrificial. They do not describe a feeling, but a force. Love bears, believes, hopes, and endures—not because it is easy, but because it is eternal. This is the love that outlasts gifts, outshines knowledge, and outlives death. It is the cruciform love of Christ, who bore our sin, saw our need, hoped for our return, and endured the cross for our redemption.

          In practicing this love, we do not merely imitate Christ. We participate in His mission. For love, Paul insists, does not collapse under pressure. It carries. It trusts. It dreams. It perseveres. And in doing so, it becomes the most powerful force in the universe, the love that never fails.

Agape’s Delight: Truth Over Transgression

          “[Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6)

          Paul’s anatomy of agapē continues with a moral calibration of the heart. If verse 5 exposes love’s restraint—its refusal to be rude, self-seeking, reactive, or resentful—verse 6 reveals love’s moral compass. Here, love is not merely relational; it is ethical. It is not blind affection, but discerning allegiance. It does not celebrate what wounds, distorts, or deceives. It rejoices in what heals, reveals, and redeems.

          “Love does not rejoice in iniquity” is a sobering indictment of spiritual complicity. Iniquity—unrighteousness, injustice, moral failure—is not entertainment for love. It is grief. Love does not gloat over another’s fall, nor does it find satisfaction in scandal, cruelty, or sin. In a culture of voyeurism and vengeance, where failure is monetized and pain is politicized, Paul insists that love refuses to cheer for brokenness. It does not delight in the downfall of enemies or the exposure of flaws. It does not weaponize truth to shame, nor does it twist grace to excuse. Love is not a spectator of suffering—it is a healer of it.

          “But rejoices in the truth” is love’s moral joy. Truth here is not mere factuality—it is reality as God sees it. It is the unveiling of what is good, right, and holy. Love celebrates integrity, not image. It delights in repentance, not reputation. It rejoices when justice rolls down like waters, when mercy triumphs over judgment, when the light pierces the shadows. In this way, love is not neutral—it is fiercely loyal to the truth that liberates. It does not bend to sentimentality or tribalism. It rejoices when the truth is spoken, even when it costs. It rejoices when the truth is lived, even when it hurts.

          Together, these twin postures, grief over iniquity and joy in truth, form the moral rhythm of agapē. Love is not passive. It is not permissive. It is not indifferent. It is morally awake, emotionally honest, spiritually courageous. It weeps with those who weep and rejoices with those who rejoice, but only when the rejoicing is righteous. In verse 6, love is not a mood—it is a moral movement. It is the ethic of Christ, who wept over Jerusalem’s sin and rejoiced in the faith of a centurion. Who confronted hypocrisy and celebrated humility. Who bore the weight of iniquity to unleash the joy of truth.

          In the divine economy, this kind of love is not sentimental—it is sanctifying. It does not merely feel—it forms. It does not merely comfort—it convicts. It is the love that exposes and embraces, that wounds and heals, that judges and justifies. It is the love that hung on a cross, not to rejoice in iniquity, but to rejoice in the truth that sets us free.

          And in practicing it, we do not merely echo heaven—we embody it. For love, Paul insists, does not rejoice in iniquity. It rejoices in truth. And in doing so, it becomes the truth that rejoices over us.

The Ethics Of Love’s Restraint

          “[Love] does not behave rudely, it does not seek its own, it is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs.” (1 Corinthians 13:5)

          This text continues Paul’s dismantling of spiritual pretense by deepening the anatomy of agapē. If verse 4 sketches love’s posture—patient, kind, unpretentious—verse 5 explores its restraint. Here, love is defined not by what it does, but by what it refuses to do. It is a portrait of self-governed grace, a love that resists the gravitational pull of ego, offense, and scorekeeping.

          The phrase “does not behave rudely” confronts the moral imagination with a subtle but radical ethic. Rudeness is not merely bad manners. It is the failure to recognize the dignity of the other. In a culture of spiritual performance, where giftedness can eclipse gentleness, Paul reminds us that love never bulldozes. It does not interrupt, dominate, or humiliate. It moves with reverence, not force.

          “Love does not seek its own” is a direct challenge to the self-centric spirituality that often masquerades as devotion. This is not a call to self-erasure, but to self-giving. Love does not orbit around personal gain, recognition, or control. It is centrifugal, always moving outward, always making space. In this way, Paul redefines greatness—not as accumulation, but as relinquishment.

          “It is not provoked” speaks to emotional discipline. Love is not reactive. It does not flare up at insult or injury. It absorbs without exploding, listens without lashing out. This is not weakness, but strength under control, a spiritual poise that refuses to be hijacked by offense. In a world addicted to outrage, love is a quiet refusal to be mastered by anger.

          Finally, “it keeps no record of wrongs” is perhaps the most scandalous of all. Love does not archive offenses. It does not weaponize memory. It does not build a case. This is not forgetfulness—it is forgiveness. It is the radical decision to release rather than retain, to heal rather than tally. In this, love mirrors the divine: the God who casts sins into the depths of the sea, who remembers them no more.

          Together, these negations form a spiritual counterculture. They resist the impulse to dominate, to demand, to retaliate, to remember. They invite us into a love that is spacious, selfless, serene, and merciful. Paul’s vision is not sentimental—it is sacrificial. It is not soft—it is sanctifying. In verse 5, love is not a feeling to be indulged, but a discipline to be embodied. It is the cruciform ethic of Christ Himself, who bore insult without retaliation, who gave without grasping, who forgave without ledger.

          In the divine economy, this kind of love is not optional. It is eternal. It will outlast prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It is the ethic of heaven breaking into earth. And in practicing it, we do not merely imitate God—we participate in His nature. For love, Paul insists, is not provoked. It provokes transformation.

How King David Shatters The Catholic Confessional

          “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (Psalm 51:16–17, ESV)

         King David’s moral collapse is one of the most infamous episodes in biblical history. His adultery with Bathsheba and orchestration of Uriah’s death were not mere lapses. They were deliberate, calculated violations of divine law. According to Roman Catholic theology, these acts meet every criterion for mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Yet the biblical narrative offers no priestly absolution, no sacramental confession, and no ritual penance. Instead, it presents a direct encounter between sinner and God, mediated only by contrition and prayer.

          The account in 2 Samuel 12 is stark. After Nathan confronts David with a parable exposing his guilt, David responds simply: “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replies, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.” This exchange is brief, unadorned, and profoundly theological. There is no temple ritual, no priestly mediation, no sacramental framework. The forgiveness is complete and occurs in an instant. The gravity of David’s sin is not at all minimized, but the mechanism of restoration is radically personal.

          Psalm 51, traditionally attributed to David in the aftermath of this confrontation, deepens the theological implications. It is not a liturgical formula or a priestly rite. It is a raw, unfiltered cry for mercy. David pleads directly with God: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love.” He does not appeal to a priest, nor does he offer a sacrifice. In fact, he explicitly rejects sacrificial mediation: “You will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it.” Instead, he declares that the true offering is “a broken and contrite heart.”

          This passage is deeply problematic for Catholic theology. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mortal sin requires sacramental confession to a priest, followed by absolution and often penance. Yet David’s restoration bypasses all of this. His forgiveness is not delayed, conditional, or institutionally managed. It is fully done at a moment's notice, without intermediaries. God responds directly to the contrite heart, without temple, priest, or ritual.

          Roman Catholic apologists often respond by noting that David lived under the Old Covenant, before the institution of the sacrament of reconciliation. But this response overlooks the continuity of God’s character across covenants. If divine mercy is truly unchanging, then the mechanism of forgiveness should reflect that constancy. The New Covenant, heralded as a fulfillment, ought to preserve the immediacy of God’s grace, not complicate it with ecclesiastical procedures. King David’s heartfelt repentance and God’s direct pardon suggest that contrition, not clerical mediation, is the true catalyst for divine forgiveness.

          Another Catholic response is the appeal to “perfect contrition,” which allows for forgiveness outside of confession if the sorrow is motivated by love of God above all else and includes the intent to confess sacramentally. But Psalm 51 undermines this claim. David’s repentance is driven by guilt, shame, and the weight of his sin, not by pure love of God. Moreover, there is no indication that David intends to seek priestly mediation. His appeal is entirely personal and vertical, not institutional or ecclesial.

        Some may argue that David’s restoration is exceptional, a unique moment in salvation history. But the text itself refutes this. Psalm 51 is canonized as a model of repentance. It is recited in liturgies, memorized in devotionals, and quoted in sermons across traditions. Its message is clear: the broken and contrite heart is the true sacrifice God desires. This is not a footnote. It is a theological foundation.

          David’s story collapses the Catholic taxonomy of sin. His offenses are grave, deliberate, and destructive, yet his forgiveness is immediate and unmediated. If such sins can be forgiven without priestly absolution, then the sacramental system built on distinguishing mortal from venial sin is rendered theologically superfluous. Divine mercy is not distributed according to human classifications, but according to the sincerity of repentance.

          In this light, 2 Samuel 12 and Psalm 51 stand as a case study in grace unmediated. They affirm that God’s mercy is not channeled through the church, but the prerogative of God alone. They reveal that forgiveness is not institutionally managed, but divinely initiated. And they challenge the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution, not with polemic, but with Scripture.

        David’s contrition is a theological earthquake. It shakes the foundations of sacramental absolutism and affirms a radical truth: that the broken and contrite heart is the true altar of grace.

No Temple, No Priest, No Problem: Manasseh’s Repentance And The Collapse Of Catholic Absolutism

          "And when he was in distress, he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.” (2 Chronicles 33:12–13, ESV)

          In the biblical narrative, King Manasseh of Judah stands as one of the most infamous monarchs of the southern kingdom. His reign was marked by extreme apostasy. According to 2 Chronicles 33 and its parallel in 2 Kings 21, Manasseh reversed the reforms of his father Hezekiah, reintroducing idolatry, erecting altars to Baal, worshiping celestial bodies, practicing divination, and even sacrificing his own children in fire. These acts were not merely personal failings. They represented a national betrayal of the covenant with Yahweh and were seen as contributing to Judah’s eventual exile.

          The Chronicler offers a unique theological lens on Manasseh’s story. Unlike the account in 2 Kings, which omits any mention of repentance, this version introduces a dramatic reversal: Manasseh, imprisoned in Babylon, humbles himself and prays to God. This moment of contrition leads to divine forgiveness and restoration. The Chronicler’s inclusion of this episode reflects a broader theological emphasis, which is the possibility of repentance and restoration, even for the worst offenders. It is a message of hope aimed at a post-exilic community grappling with its own history of failure and exile.

          The phrase “he entreated the favor of the Lord his God” marks a turning point in Manasseh’s relationship with God—once defied, now reclaimed. His deep humility, expressed through the Hebrew verb kana, signals true inner transformation and surrender. God’s response is immediate and personal, restoring Manasseh not only to his throne but to divine favor, showing that forgiveness is full and unmediated. The final line, “Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God,” is the theological climax. Knowledge here is experiential, not intellectual. Manasseh does not merely acknowledge God. He knows Him through mercy. This echoes the biblical theme that true knowledge of God comes through encounter, especially in moments of grace.

          This passage, when interpreted in its full theological and historical weight, presents a profound challenge to core tenets of Roman Catholic theology, particularly its doctrines surrounding mortal sin, sacramental confession, and ecclesial mediation. Manasseh’s sins were not minor. They were grave violations of the covenant, including idolatry, sorcery, and child sacrifice. According to Catholic teaching, such acts constitute mortal sin, which severs the soul from grace and requires sacramental confession through a priest for restoration. Yet 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 offers no such mechanism. Manasseh, in exile and distress, prays directly to God, and God responds, not with delay, not through a priest, but immediately and personally.

          This direct divine response undermines the Roman Catholic claim that forgiveness of mortal sin is contingent upon sacramental confession and absolution. Manasseh’s restoration is not partial or probationary. It is complete. He is returned to his throne and to covenantal favor, with no mention of penance, priestly mediation, or temple ritual. The phrase “he entreated the favor of the Lord his God” signals a reclaimed relationship, and the Hebrew verb kana (humbled) reflects deep internal transformation. God’s mercy flows not through institutional channels, but through the contrite heart of a repentant sinner.

          This experiential knowing stands in radical opposition to the Catholic system, which insists that restored grace flows only through the sacrament of confession administered by a priest. In Catholic theology, mortal sin demands ecclesiastical mediation, formal absolution, and often penance before reconciliation with God is possible. Yet Manasseh’s story dismantles that framework entirely. His forgiveness is not delayed, conditional, or institutionally managed. It is immediate, personal, and complete. God responds directly to the contrite heart, without temple, priest, or ritual. This passage is not merely a theological anomaly. It is a biblical refutation of sacramental exclusivity. It affirms that divine mercy is not the property of the church, but the prerogative of God alone. In this light, 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 stands as a case study in grace unmediated, a direct and undeniable contradiction to the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution.

          2 Chronicles 33:12–13 throws a wrench into the Catholic framework of mortal and venial sin by collapsing the very categories that define it. Manasseh’s sins, idolatry, sorcery, and child sacrifice, are undeniably grave, meeting every criterion for mortal sin under Catholic teaching. Yet his forgiveness comes not through sacramental confession, priestly absolution, or ecclesial mediation, but through personal prayer and humility. This undermines the claim that mortal sin requires institutional channels for restoration, while also blurring the line between mortal and venial sin itself. If the most heinous offenses can be forgiven directly by God, then the Roman Catholic taxonomy of sin appears not only unnecessary but theologically artificial. Manasseh’s story reveals that divine mercy is not distributed according to human classifications, but according to the sincerity of repentance, a truth that destabilizes the entire sacramental system built on distinguishing degrees of sin.

          Roman Catholic objections to the theological implications of 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 often hinge on the idea that Manasseh lived under the Old Covenant, before the institution of sacramental confession. While technically true, this defense avoids the deeper issue: the nature of divine mercy itself. If God’s forgiveness was once granted directly to even the most egregious sinner, without priest, ritual, or sacrifice, it raises a serious question about why such access would later be restricted. The passage does not merely reflect an outdated system. It reveals a timeless truth about God’s responsiveness to repentance. The burden falls on Catholic theology to explain why the coming of Christ would narrow, rather than expand, the immediacy of grace.

          Another potential response is the appeal to perfect contrition, suggesting that Manasseh’s repentance may have met the criteria for forgiveness outside of confession. But the text itself undermines this claim. Manasseh repents “in distress,” after being humiliated and imprisoned, hardly the portrait of love-driven sorrow. Catholic doctrine requires that perfect contrition be motivated by love of God above all else, not fear or desperation. Moreover, it demands a firm intention to seek sacramental confession as soon as possible, which Manasseh neither expresses nor has access to. This objection relies on speculative reinterpretation rather than textual evidence, and ultimately serves to preserve a theological system that the passage itself does not support.

          Some may argue that God simply prefers to work through priests and sacraments, and that Manasseh’s case is an exception. But the narrative does not present his restoration as exceptional. It presents it as revelatory. God hears, responds, and restores without intermediaries, suggesting that mercy is not institutionally managed but divinely initiated. To dismiss this as a one-off is to ignore the theological weight the Chronicler gives it. The story is framed as a turning point, not a footnote. It affirms that God’s grace is accessible to the contrite heart, regardless of ritual or mediation—a truth that stands in quiet but firm contradiction to the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution.

When Service Flows From Faith: Reframing Matthew 25

          Some replies do not deserve silence, especially when they confuse theological rigor with theatrical disdain:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/jesus-ignores-sola-fide.html

          "Jesse is making heavy weather of 16th century theological notions that contributed to the formation of Protestantism."

          Calling serious engagement with 16th-century theology ‘making heavy weather’ is a lazy dismissal of one of the most transformative periods in Christian thought. The Protestant Reformation did not just tweak doctrine. It reshaped the entire religious, political, and cultural landscape of the West. To trivialize its ideas is to ignore the foundations of modern Christianity. And if we follow that logic, we would have to abandon theological inquiry altogether, since every century builds on the last.

          "Especially, lately, the principle known as sola fide, coined by Martin Luther."

          Sola Fide (“faith alone”) was not simply “coined” by Luther. It was a crystallization of Pauline theology, especially Romans and Galatians. Luther’s articulation was radical, yes, but it was deeply rooted in Scripture and centuries of theological tension over grace, merit, and salvation. To treat it as a recent invention is historically inaccurate.

          "There are a few serious misreadings that Jesse has inherited but remains ignorant of: he’s not an educated scholar."

          If the views presented here are inherited misreadings, then this guy's are the family heirlooms of smugness—polished over generations of armchair theologians who skimmed one commentary, mispronounced "soteriology," and declared war on nuance. Scholarship is not measured by how many syllables that one can stack in a sentence, but by how well one understands what he is talking about. And judging by this comment, this guy is still waiting for the footnotes to show up, probably hoping they will arrive with a certificate of relevance.

          "Principally that Paul’s totalizing concern in the 1st century church was the escalating tension between the increasingly dominant gentile Christian community and the original Jerusalem church of Jews."

          While Paul did address Jew-Gentile tensions, his “totalizing concern” was broader: the nature of salvation, the role of grace, and the universality of Christ’s redemptive work. Reducing his theology to sociological conflict misses the depth of his soteriological and eschatological vision.

          "Paul was adamant that Christian gentiles not be made to observe Jewish law as necessary for redemption."

          This is true, but it supports Sola Fide, not undermines it. Paul’s rejection of the Law as salvific aligns with Luther’s emphasis on faith over works. Galatians 2:16 is explicit: “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.”

          "16th century Protestant Reformation used this discourse of St Paul’s to critique the Roman emphasis on the call of faith to all Christians to be actively willing disciples and join in the caring for community that is at the heart of Christian practice."

          The Reformers did not reject discipleship or community care—they rejected the idea that such works were necessary for justification before God. Luther and Calvin critiqued merit-based salvation, not Christian ethics.

          "Luther began the effort to elasticize St Paul’s dialectic of Law into an attack on 16th century Catholic moral systems of casuistry."

          Luther’s critique was not a distortion, for it was a response to real abuses. Casuistry had become a tool for moral loopholes and indulgence-based salvation. Luther’s theology sought to restore the primacy of conscience and grace, not to undermine moral reasoning.

          "Since Vatican II, however, consensus on theological work in the 60 years leading up to the council, principally by the figures of what is called the nouvelle théologie, described 'actual grace' as the unmerited saving act of God and 'sanctifying grace' as the continuing effort of the Holy Spirit to lead us into living good lives."

          This is a fair summary of post-Vatican II Catholic theology, but it does not contradict Protestant views. The difference lies in how justification and sanctification are related—not whether both exist.

          "These moments of choosing to do good necessarily involve our own agreeing will, our co-participation in the deity’s work."

          For the record, the author of this site is not a Calvinist. But it is telling that Feodor assumes any rejection of co-participation must be Calvinist—as if theology were a two-lane highway and nuance got left at the toll booth.

          “But actually it is Jesus who presents the biggest problem to sola fide…”

          Jesus does not contradict Sola Fide, but embodies it. He consistently affirms that justification before God is grounded in divine mercy, not personal merit. In Luke 18:9–14, the tax collector is justified not by his moral record but by his humble plea for mercy, while the self-righteous Pharisee is rejected despite his impressive religious résumé. In Luke 15:11–32, the prodigal son is welcomed home with full restoration—not because he earned it, but because the father’s grace overflows in response to repentance. And in Matthew 9:2, Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins before any healing or action takes place, showing that forgiveness is a gift, not a reward. These moments reveal a consistent theme: salvation is initiated by grace and received through faith, not achieved by human effort.

          “NOTE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO BE SAVED! Much less faith.”

          This is a significant theological leap. Matthew 25 does not state that the "sheep" were entirely unaware of Christ. Their surprise at serving Him may reflect a lack of full understanding, not of Christ’s existence, but of the deeper spiritual weight of their compassion. They may not have realized that in serving “the least of these,” they were serving Christ Himself. Moreover, the broader New Testament witness, from John 3:16 to Romans 10:9, clearly affirms that faith in Christ is the means of salvation. Matthew 25 must be read in harmony with these texts, not in isolation. To claim that faith is unnecessary based on one parable is to disregard the unified message of the gospel and the consistent call to believe in Christ for eternal life.

          Feodor’s credibility collapses under the weight of his own pretension. His writing is a masterclass in theological bluff—loquacious, self-congratulatory, and allergic to precision. He postures as a scholar while flattening centuries of doctrinal development into caricature and wielding Matthew 25 like a cudgel without context. His grasp of Protestant theology is as shallow as his tone is smug, and his confidence far outclasses his competence. What he offers is not insight, but performance dressed up as argument, a parade of half-read ideas masquerading as revelation.

Misreading Matthew: When Moralism Masks Theology

          It has been deemed proper to take some time to respond to a certain individual, who confuses verbosity with insight and volume with virtue:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/jesse-balks-sad.html

          “Sad. The fragility, the fear and anxiety - and the existential rage that is the repressed defense against being conscious of one’s fear and anxiety - is so deep with these guys, that they don’t want to reach across.”

          This is the classic armchair diagnosis—Freud meets Twitter. If "Feodor" is going to psychoanalyze someone, at least he should try not to sound like he is plagiarizing a freshman philosophy paper. Maybe the reason “these guys” do not "reach across" is that they have already seen what is waiting for them on the other side: condescension disguised as compassion. That is not fragility, but good decision making and time management. You do not get to light the match and then complain about the smoke.

          “It would weaken their identity as militarized crusaders. Even if they only arm themselves with dusty, dead world concerns.”

          Calling someone a “militarized crusader” while launching rhetorical grenades from one's own ideological trench is rich. And those “dusty, dead world concerns?” Is that in reference to things like like tradition, history, and moral conviction? It is funny how those things only become “dead” when they do not align with one's worldview. If anything is dusty at all, then it is this recycled caricature of religious believers as mindless zealots.

          “If he had responded the tenor of the following would undoubtedly be quite different. We could have had a gracious back and forth. But it seems to me that Jesse prefers a bunker war.”

          Translation: “He did not respond the way that I wanted him to, so now I will paint him as hostile and barbaric.” That is not an objective assessment, but a projection of personal frustration onto another’s character. The mode in which one prefers to exchange ideas, the perceived tone in which they are expressed, or even whether he chooses to engage in debate at all, is simply not by itself evidence of bad character.

          “Again I find that, in this instance with Jesse, a committed and micro-focused obsessive worshipper of ‘the Bible’ doesn’t read it well.”

          Ah, the old “he reads the Bible too much but not the way I like” critique. Obsessiveness has been conflated with thoroughness. And if one is going to critique someone else's interpretations, he should try doing it with actual exegesis instead of vague hand-waving.

          “In fact, with Matthew 25 he reads into it stuff that simply isn’t there, and cannot be there until the Protestant Reformation starts to read scripture slant-wise with pre-determined concerns.”

          Irony alert: Feodor accusing somebody of reading Scripture with “pre-determined concerns” while doing exactly that himself. Further, the Protestant Reformation did not invent interpretive bias but exposed centuries of it.

          “Jesse intuits right things - being smart and being affected for years by christian scripture - but is not fully conscious of what he intuits.”

          So I am smart, but not smart enough to be aware of my own insights? That is not a compliment, but a backhanded pat on the head. If I intuit truth, then give credit where it is due instead of playing spiritual gatekeeper. This guy does not get to be the arbiter of someone else’s consciousness just because he has supposedly mastered the art of sounding profound.

          "My contention is that this text absolutely ignores the protestant clamor about sola fide."

          This critic ignores contextual and theological nuances so that he can continue to spew forth his beliefs. He can then declare himself a "winner" when no one else responds to him.

          "It offers no support, or rather, presents judgment as considering only the position of anti-sola fide when the last judgment comes."

          Feodor has framed issues in a way that conveniently align with his predetermined conclusions about Matthew 25:31-46 and its implications on Sola Fide, which is a circular appeal.

          "Also absolutely absent are Jews. Really odd since the near entirety of Jesus’ message is to the Jews in the Roman province of Judea."

          The Jews would not need to be mentioned specifically, since the text already addresses all different people groups. There is no locality which would be exempted from this judgment.

          "The term, “nations,” in the original Greek of the NT is ta ethnē. This term is used exclusively for all the rest of the known world, the Gentile world..."

          One would be correct if he suspects that a word-concept fallacy is in play here.

          "For Jesus to speak only of ta ethnē, the Gentile nations as being possible figures of salvation is blasphemy to all Jews of his time."

          The distinction being made is not Jew versus Gentile, but believer versus unbeliever. There are only two categories of people mentioned, which correspond to the two eternal destinies that they enter.

          "Therefore what we have here is Jesus, ascended as the King of heaven, and passing judgment on all the non-Jewish peoples of the world."

          Jesus will pass judgment on all the unfaithful and unbelieving, regardless of who they are.

          "Where is their faith? No where mentioned, no where intimated, no where inferred. Simply, clearly, singly their loving care for all in need."

          This is a false dilemma. The existence of works pleasing to Christ presupposes that such people already had living faith in Him.

          "Both acknowledge the Lord because they are being actively confronted by the King of heaven in the judgment room. Duh."

          One category acknowledges the Lord because it has reverence for Him. The latter only states the facts of the case due to being powerfully confronted with that reality, which is no different than how the demons acknowledge Him.

          "As if faith itself is not an act by the human person; but that’s another post."

          Faith is certainly a response on our part, an act of trust and assent, but attributing merit to it misunderstands its nature. It is not like a currency that we offer to earn divine favor, but a posture of dependence that acknowledges grace.

          "He has to import christian faith into the sheep so that their salvation is justified."

          The "sheep" would have never been recipients of everlasting life, if they did not have the kind of faith that surrenders to God. In fact, the "goats" mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46 are akin to the rich man of Luke 16:19-31, wilfully blind to less fortunate people than themselves. They ended up facing eternal condemnation because of their subtle neglect, being heartless.

          "He has to move aside their acts of love for the suffering in order to centralize the sheep’s faith."

          That is a misstep. The acts of love toward the suffering are not sidelined. They are the visible fruit of genuine faith. Scripture consistently affirms that true faith expresses itself through love, and this outworking is inseparable from the reality of salvation.

          "In centralizing the faith of the sheep, he has to position the good deeds as secondary and natural consequence to right faith. Thereby erasing he the plight of the suffering from the occasion of judgment altogether."

          The order of works to faith is not in itself a causation of anything, but an observation about the nature of trust in God. In fact, it is because of a heart changed by divine grace that a person acts in a way pleasing to Him. That suggests a consequential order of works to faith upholds the reality of earthly suffering rather than denies it.

          "In order to put faith as central to what’s happening, he has to consider all the Gentile world as having been able to hear the gospel message of Jesus Christ AND giving a thumbs up or down on believing in Jesus Christ AND, if time was available having been baptized."

          False. Certain conditions do not need to be in play for the position being rejected to be true. The simple reality is that unbelievers are destined for eternal condemnation without repentance, and we have a gospel message to preach to the lost world.

          "He shares that anxiety with Mormons who were motivated to write an additional testament in which the risen Jesus visits the Americas."

          Ah yes, the unmistakable cadence of someone who skimmed a Wikipedia article and now thinks that he is qualified to deliver a keynote at a comparative religion symposium. It is almost charming—until it is realized that the mockery is not rooted in insight but in discomfort. That is not intellectual critique, but projection dressed up in academic cosplay.

          "What Jesse has done is, as a matter of theological history, taken the position of 20th century Catholic theology."

          This claim is absurd on the surface of it, as no such thing has actually taken place.

          "Specifically that of Karl Rahner, who, conscious that he is moving outside the referenced Jesus in Matthew 25, conscious that he is building on 2,000 years of biblical and systematic theology, and 400 years of Enlightenment philosophy..."

          I do not subscribe to the theory that a connection to God exists through people's love-driven lives, even if they are unaware of it. The actual point made was that true Christians serve God without thoughts of meriting for themselves a righteous standing before Him. In other words, service is to be done without reservations of personal gain or glory.

          Feodor often emphasizes good deeds and compassion as central to judgment, suggesting that love for the suffering is the decisive factor. This assumes that ethical behavior is salvific, which contradicts both Protestant Sola Fide and Roman Catholic teaching that grace precedes merit. It is a moralistic lens that downplays the necessity of divine grace and faith, which makes Feodor's appeal to Rahner inconsistent with itself.

          "Earlier in the chapter, Jesus honors those who are prepared and not actually surprised. Their preparation is to honor..."

          There is so much bloviating going on here, that the point of everything said has been missed.

          "The war of “faith alone saves” vs being “saved by works” is an old, dead, misinformation rife, sectarian war that cost 40 million lives."

          This claim is as inaccurate as John Foxe's estimate that the crusades killed 70 million people. It ignores broader realities, such as that era being characterized by tribalism rather than a marketplace of ideas. It also reflects poorly on Roman Catholicism, since the Reformers were undoubtedly influenced by the culture in which they lived and failed to completely escape Rome's sway.

          "Fide is the cause of, the mover of behavior, and therefore primary to behavior. He cannot ascribe fide itself as a human person doing something. And so, doing things, loving things are secondary. Well, not even that. Jesse infers that doing loving things only count when there is at least an “unconscious” awareness of Christ. This makes the suffering ones tertiary or, in fact, erased."

          This criticism misunderstands both the theological intent and the anthropological implications of Sola Fide. To say that “it is not ‘fide’ where I go wrong, it is ‘sola’ where I fail” presumes that I isolate faith (fide) from love, action, and personhood. But this is a misreading. Sola fide—faith alone—is not a denial of love or works, but a clarification of their source and order. It does not assert that fide replaces the human person, nor that it acts independently of him. Rather, faith is the animating principle of the Christian’s loving actions. Faith is not a disembodied abstraction. It is the living trust in Christ that transforms the person and expresses itself through love.

          "Feodor" seems unaware of what a Semitic Totality is, which refers to a worldview, particularly within Hebrew thought, that views reality and human beings as a unified whole, where the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects are inseparable. This concept emphasizes the interconnectedness of thought and action, emphasizing that a person is a complete entity, not merely a composite of separate mind and body.

          "This is messed up. It contradicts what Jesus commands: “as I have loved you, love one another.” A (Jesus) loves B (me) who loves C (the other) who loves B back."

          This relational chain—A (Christ) moves B (the believer), who then does good to C (the other), who loves B back—falsely assumes that C becomes a passive object in a theological transaction. But faith is not mere awareness; it is union with Christ that transforms B into one who sees and loves C as a subject of divine affection. The love B shows to C is not a work to earn salvation but the natural outflow of grace already received. C is not erased but exalted—not instrumental, but essential. A better framework is: A (Christ’s love) transforms B (the believer) into one who honors C (the other) as beloved. This movement—A to B to C—is not salvation by works, but salvation that works through love.

          "Oh, man! Jettisoned sola scriptura for sola fide and now lost both!"

          Lost both? That is desperate, like blaming the compass for getting lost while refusing to read the map.

William F. Beck On Biblical Preservation And Translation

The preservation of our NT is a marvel of God's wisdom. It came through fire and sword.

In the persecution of A.D. 303 Emperor Diocletian ordered a systematic search that swept away the Biblical manuscripts from Asia Minor and Syria. The sacred writings were shoveled into carts and hauled to the market places to be burned. The goal was to wipe out Christianity. Later the Goths, Vandals, Moslems, and Mongols did their worst to destroy the Christian faith.But Jesus had promised. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but what I say will not pass away" (Luke 21:33). How was it done? Not by keeping one original copy in an ark of the covenant which men could destroy but by sending out thousands of manuscripts all over the earth. We have almost 5.000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of it plus many thousands of the Latin, Syriac, and other translations. Every manuscript and fragment is a flame of the Spirit's fire appearing in such an inextinguishable quantity everywhere in the world no organized hostility of men can ever put it out.

To match this vast evidence for the truth, God wants us to have a passion for it, to use all the best evidence from the manuscripts, dictionaries, and grammars as light on the text, and to search with burning hearts for its exact meaning.

In recent years two very important papyri, called P and Ps, both from about A.D. 200, have been published. These papyri now provide us with the finest evidence for the following readings:

Luke 22:19-20: "Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying. This is My body, which is given for you. Do this to remember Me. He did the same with the cup when the supper was over, saying. This cup is the new covenant in My blood, poured out for you.""
24:6: "He is not here. He has risen."
40: "He showed them His hands and His feet."
51: "While He was blessing them. He parted from them and was taken up to heaven."
John 1:18: "the only Son who is God"

Every word in these and other fine manuscripts was carefully checked to make this an accurate New Testament. And what is the language of the papyri? When Matthew, John, Paul, and the others wrote the New Testament, which language did they use?

Not the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Not the classical Greek of Aristotle and Plato. 

Not even the literary Greek of the first century.

But the everyday Greek of the people of Jesus' day.

The many papyri that were found are like a tape recording of what people said off guard, at their "coffee and doughnuts." This is the language of the New Testament.

If Jesus came into our home today, how would He talk? Just as we talk to one another. He would take the words out of our lives and put heaven's meaning into them.

This is the most winning way. We see it on Pentecost. Watch the people from many different countries, talking their own dialects, and see the sparkle in their eyes as they are stirred to say. "How does everyone of us hear his own language in which he was born?... We hear them tell in our languages the wonderful things of God" (Acts 2:8, 11). This is Paul's way-"I would rather say five words that can be understood. in order to teach others, than ten thousand words in a language nobody understands" (1 Cor. 14:19).

Today our language carries a world responsibility. It is written, spoken, broadcast, and understood on every continent. 250 million people use English as their primary language, and 600 million people understand it. It is spreading at an accelerating speed. Radio and television are bringing the world together, and the closer the world lives the more it will talk our language.

God wants to use our language to talk to the world-before the end! He means to reach every man, woman, and child everywhere. We hold in our hands the doorknob to millions of hearts.

And so this New Testament is in the living language of today and tomorrow. It uses "you" and "don't" and "12 o'clock" and "hurry" and "worry." It says. "Jesus looked at him and loved him" (Mark 10:21).

Let's not feel ashamed of our language. The Father's only Son CAME DOWN to be our flesh, was counted among criminals and considered too shameful to be crucified in the holy city. He did this to take away our sins and give us His glory. And just as He became flesh like ours, so He talked to people in a language that was flesh of their flesh. Today He would talk a language that is direct and forceful-like the prophets; that is fresh and simple-like His telling the lame man. "Get up and walk."

In His Word the Spirit of the living God is talking to us, and His book is the book of life. His vital touch is on every page, in every word. And when we let God speak the living language of today, a reader can instantly get into the spirit of the words to the point where the printed book seems to vanish and he hears the truth fresh from the lips of his God. He reads on and on, delighted with the meaning that shines to light up his way.

The Holy Bible: An American Translation, preface to the first edition, p. v-vi

On The Nature Of God

The English word “God” is derived from a root meaning “to call,” and indicates simply the object of worship, one whom men call upon or invoke. The Greek word which it translates in the pages of the New Testament, however, describes this object of worship as Spirit; and the Old Testament Hebrew word, which this word in turn represents, conveys, as its primary meaning, the idea of power. On Christian lips, therefore, the word “God” designates fundamentally the almighty Spirit who is worshiped and whose aid is invoked by men. This primary idea of God, in which is summed up what is known as theism, is the product of that general revelation which God makes of Himself to all men, on the plane of nature. The truths involved in it are continually reiterated, enriched, and deepened in the Scriptures; but they are not so much revealed by them as presupposed at the foundation of the special revelation with which the Scriptures busy themselves—the great revelation of the grace of God to sinners. On the plane of nature men can learn only what God necessarily is, and what, by virtue of His essential attributes, He must do; a special communication from Him is requisite to assure us what, in His infinite love, He will do for the recovery of sinners from their guilt and misery to the bliss of communion with Him. And for the full revelation of this, His grace in the redemption of sinners, there was requisite an even more profound unveiling of the mode of His existence, by which He has been ultimately disclosed as including in the unity of His being a distinction of persons, by virtue of which it is the same God from whom, through whom, and by whom are all things, who is at once the Father who provides, the Son who accomplishes, and the Spirit who applies, redemption. Only in the uncovering of this supernal mystery of the Trinity is the revelation of what God is completed. That there is no hint of the Trinity in the general revelation made on the plane of nature is due to the fact that nature has nothing to say of redemption, in the process of which alone are the depths of the divine nature made known. That it is explicitly revealed only in the New Testament is due to the fact that not until the New Testament stage of revelation was reached was the redemption, which was being prepared throughout the whole Old Testament economy, actually accomplished. That so ineffable a mystery was placed before the darkened mind of man at all is due to the necessities of the plan of redemption itself, which is rooted in the trinal distinction in the Godhead, and can be apprehended only on the basis of the Trinity in Unity.

The nature of God has been made known to men, therefore, in three stages, corresponding to the three planes of revelation, and we will naturally come to know Him, first, as the infinite Spirit or the God of nature; then, as the Redeemer of sinners, or the God of grace; and lastly as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the Triune God.

I. GOD, THE INFINITE SPIRIT

The conviction of the existence of God bears the marks of an intuitive truth in so far as it is the universal and unavoidable belief of men, and is given in the very same act with the idea of self, which is known at once as dependent and responsible and thus implies one on whom it depends and to whom it is responsible. This immediate perception of God is confirmed and the contents of the idea developed by a series of arguments known as the “theistic proofs.” These are derived from the necessity we are under of believing in the real existence of the infinitely perfect Being, of a sufficient cause for the contingent universe, of an intelligent author of the order and of the manifold contrivances observable in nature, and of a lawgiver and judge for dependent moral beings, endowed with the sense of duty and an ineradicable feeling of responsibility, conscious of the moral contradictions of the world and craving a solution for them, and living under an intuitive perception of right which they do not see realized. The cogency of these proofs is currently recognized in the Scriptures, while they add to them the supernatural manifestations of God in a redemptive process, accompanied at every stage by miraculous attestation. From the theistic proofs, however, we learn not only that a God exists, but also necessarily, on the principle of a sufficient cause, very much of the nature of the God which they prove to exist. The idea is still further developed, on the principle of interpreting by the highest category within our reach, by our instinctive attribution to Him, in an eminent degree, of all that is the source of dignity and excellence in ourselves. Thus we come to know God as a personal Spirit, infinite, eternal, and illimitable alike in His being and in the intelligence, sensibility, and will which belong to Him as personal spirit. The attributes which are thus ascribed to Him, including self-existence, independence, unity, uniqueness, unchangeableness, omnipresence, infinite knowledge and wisdom, infinite freedom and power, infinite truth, righteousness, holiness and goodness, are not only recognized but richly illustrated in Scripture, which thus puts the seal of its special revelation upon all the details of the natural idea of God.

II. GOD, THE REDEEMER OF SINNERS

While reiterating the teaching of nature as to the existence and character of the personal Creator and Lord of all, the Scriptures lay their stress upon the grace or the undeserved love of God, as exhibited in His dealings with His sinful and wrath-deserving creatures. So little, however, is the consummate divine attribute of love advanced, in the Scriptural revelation, at the expense of the other moral attributes of God, that it is thrown into prominence only upon a background of the strongest assertion and fullest manifestation of its companion attributes, especially of the divine righteousness and holiness, and is exhibited as acting only along with and in entire harmony with them. God is not represented in the Scriptures as forgiving sin because He really cares very little about sin; nor yet because He is so exclusively or predominatingly the God of love, that all other attributes shrink into desuetude in the presence of His illimitable benevolence. He is rather represented as moved to deliver sinful man from his guilt and pollution because He pities the creatures of His hand, immeshed in sin, with an intensity which is born of the vehemence of His holy, abhorrence of sin and His righteous determination to visit it with intolerable retribution; and by a mode which brings as complete satisfaction to His infinite justice and holiness as to His unbounded love itself. The Biblical presentation of the God of grace includes thus the richest development of all His moral attributes, and the God of the Bible is consequently set forth, in the completeness of that idea, as above everything else the ethical God. And that is as much as to say that there is ascribed to Him a moral sense so sensitive and true that it estimates with unfailing accuracy the exact moral character of every person or deed presented for its contemplation, and responds to it with the precisely appropriate degree of satisfaction or reprobation. The infinitude of His love is exhibited to us precisely in that while we were yet sinners He loved us, though with all the force of His infinite nature he reacted against our sin with illimitable abhorrence and indignation. The mystery of grace resides just in the impulse of a sin-hating God to show mercy to such guilty wretches; and the supreme revelation of God as the God of holy love is made in the disclosure of the mode of His procedure in redemption, by which alone He might remain just while justifying the ungodly. For in this procedure there was involved the mighty paradox of the infinitely just Judge Himself becoming the sinner’s substitute before His own law and the infinitely blessed God receiving in His own person the penalty of sin.

III. GOD, THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST

The elements of the plan of salvation are rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead, in which there coexists a trinal distinction of persons with absolute unity of essence; and the revelation of the Trinity was accordingly incidental to the execution of this plan of salvation, in which the Father sent the Son to be the propitiation for sin, and the Son, when He returned to the glory which He had with the Father before the world was, sent the Spirit to apply His redemption to men. The disclosure of this fundamental fact of the divine nature, therefore, lagged until the time had arrived for the actual working out of the long-promised redemption; and it was accomplished first of all in fact rather than in word, by the actual appearance of God the Son on earth and the subsequent manifestations of the Spirit, who was sent forth to act as His representative in His absence. At the very beginning of Christ’s ministry the three persons are dramatically exhibited to our sight in the act of His baptism. And though there is no single passage in Scripture in which all the details of this great mystery are gathered up and expounded, there do not lack passages in which the three persons are brought together in a manner which exhibits at once their unity and distinctness. The most prominent of these are perhaps the formula of baptism in the triune name, put into the mouths of His followers by the resurrected Lord (Matt. xxviii. 19), and the apostolic benediction in which a divine blessing is invoked from each person in turn (II Cor. xiii. 14). The essential elements which enter into and together make up this great revelation of the Triune God are, however, most commonly separately insisted upon. The chief of these are the three constitutive facts: (1) that there is but one God (Deut. vi. 4; Isa. xliv. 6; I Cor. viii. 4; Jas. ii. 19); (2) that the Father is God (Matt. xi. 25; John vi. 27; viii. 41; Rom. xv. 6; I Cor. viii. 6; Gal. i. 1, 3, 4; Eph. iv. 6; vi. 23; I Thess. i. 1; Jas. i. 27; iii. 9; I Pet. i. 2; Jude 1); the Son is God (John i. 1, 18; xx. 28; Acts xx. 28; Rom ix. 5; Heb. i. 8; Col. ii. 9; Phil. ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 1); and the Spirit is God (Acts v. 3, 4; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; Eph. ii. 22), and 3) that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personally distinct from one another, distinguished by personal pronouns, able to send and be sent by one another, to love and honor each the other, and the like (John xv. 26; xvi. 13, 14; xvii. 8, 18, 23; xvi. 14; xvii. 1). The doctrine of the Trinity is but the synthesis of these facts, and, adding nothing to them, simply recognizes in the unity of the Godhead such a Trinity of persons as is involved in the working out of the plan of redemption. In the prosecution of this work there is implicated a certain relative subordination in the modes of operation of the several persons, by which it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son who sends the Spirit; but the three persons are uniformly represented in Scripture as in their essential nature each alike God over all, blessed forever (Rom. ix. 5); and we are therefore to conceive the subordination as rather economical, i.e. relative to the function of each in the work of redemption, than essential, i.e. involving the difference in nature.

Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible, edited by John D. Davis, p. 275-277