Part II
4. Special Uses:
A few special uses of the word may be noted. That the special blessing of God on a particular undertaking (Ac 14:26; 15:40) should be called a "grace" needs no explanation. In Lu 6:32-34, and 1Pe 2:19,20, charis seems to be used in the sense of "that which deserves the thanks of God," i.e. a specifically Christian act as distinguished from an act of "natural morality." "Grace for grace" in Joh 1:16 is a difficult phrase, but an almost exact parallel in Philo (Poster. Cain, 43) may fix the sense as "benefit on benefit." But the tendency of the New Testament writers is to combine the various meanings the word can have, something that is particularly well illustrated in 2Co 8; 9. In these two chapters the word occurs 10 t, but in so many different senses as to suggest that Paul is consciously playing with the term. Charis is the money given to the Jerusalemites by the Corinthians (2Co 8:19), it is the increase of goods that God will grant the Corinthians (2Co 9:8), it is the disposition of the givers (2Co 8:6), it is the power of God that has wrought this disposition (2Co 8:1; 9:14), it is the act of Christ in the Incarnation (2Co 8:9; contrast the distinction between "God’s grace" and "Christs act" in Heb 2:9), it is the thanks that Paul renders (2Co 9:15). That all a Christian is and all that he has is God’s gift could have been stated of course without the use of any special term at all. But in these two chapters Paul has taught this truth by using for the various ideas always the same term and by referring this term to God at the beginning and the end of the section. That is, to the multiplicity of concepts there is given a unity of terminology, corresponding to the unity given the multiple aspects of life by the thought of entire dependence on God. So charis, "grace," becomes almost an equivalent for "Christianity," viewed as the religion of dependence on God through Christ. As one may think of entering Christianity, abiding in it, or falling from it, so one may speak of entering into (Ro 5:2), abiding in (Ac 13:43), or falling from (Ga 5:4) grace; compare 1Pe 5:12. So the teaching of Christianity may be summed up as word or gospel of grace (Ac 14:3; 20:24,32). So "grace be with you" closes the Epistles as a sufficient summary of all the blessings that can be wished Christian readers. At the beginning of the Epistles the words "and peace" are usually added, but this is due only to the influence of the Jewish greeting "peace be with you" (Lu 10:5, etc.), and not to any reflection on "grace" and "peace" as separate things. (It is possible that the Greek use of chairein, "rejoice," as an epistolary salutation (so in Jas 1:1) influenced the Christian use of charis. But that "grace and peace" was consciously regarded as a universalistic combination of Jewish and Gentilecustom is altogether unlikely.) The further expansion of the introductory formula by the introduction of "mercy" in 1 and 2Ti is quite without theological significance.
5. Teaching of Christ:
In the Greek Gospels, charis is used in the words of Christ only in Lu 6:32-34; 17:9. As Christ spoke in Aram, the choice of this word is due to Luke, probably under the influence of its common Christian use in his own day. And there is no word in our Lord’s recorded sayings that suggests that He employed habitually any especial term to denote grace in any of its senses. But the ideas are unambiguously present. That the pardon of sins is a free act on God’s part may be described as an essential in Christ’s teaching, and the lesson is taught in all manner of ways. The prodigal knowing only his own wretchedness (Lu 15:20), the publican without merit to urge (Lu 18:13), the sick who need a physician (Mr 2:17), they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mt 5:6), these are the ones for whom God’s pardon is inexhaustible. And positive blessings, be they temporal or spiritual, are to be looked for from God, with perfect trust in Him who clothes the lilies and knows how to give good gifts to His children (Mt 7:11; here Lu 11:13 has "Holy Spirit" for "gifts," doubtless a Lukan interpretation, but certainly a correct one). Indeed, it is not too much to say that Christ knows but one unpardonable sin, the sin of spiritual self-satisfaction—"That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Lu 16:15; compare Lu 17:7-10; Mt 20:1-16).
6. In the Old Testament:
There is no word in Hebrew that can represent all the meanings of charis, and in the Septuagint charis itself is used, practically, only as a translation of the Hebrew chen, "favor," this restriction of meaning being due to the desire to represent the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word as far as possible. And chen, in turn, is used chiefly only in the phrase "find favor" (Ge 6:8, etc.), whether the reference is to God or men, and without theological importance. Much nearer Paul’s use of charis is ratson, "acceptance," in such p***ages as Isa 60:10, "In my favor have I had mercy on thee"; Ps 44:3, "not .... by their own sword .... but .... because thou wast favorable unto them." Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of checedh, "kindness," "mercy," as in Ex 20:6, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to p***ages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust. The main lines seem to be these:
(1) Technically, salvation by grace in the New Testament is opposed to an Old Testament doctrine of salvation by works (Ro 4:4; 11:6), or, what is the same thing, by law (Ro 6:14; Joh 1:17); i.e men and God are thought of as parties to a contract, to be fulfilled by each independently. Most of the legislation seems to presuppose some idea of man as a quan***y quite outside of God, while De 30:11-14 states explicitly that the law is not too hard nor too far off for man.
(2) Yet even this legalism is not without important modifications. The keeping of the law is man’s work, but that man has the law to keep is something for which God only is to be thanked. Ps 119 is the essence of legalism, but the writer feels overwhelmed throughout by the greatness of the mercy that disclosed such statutes to men. After all, the initial (and vital!) act is God’s not man’s. This is stated most sharply in Eze 23:1-4—Oholibah and her sister became God’s, not because of any virtue in them, but in spite of most revolting conduct. Compare De 7:7, etc.
(3) But even in the most legalistic p***ages, an absolute literal keeping of the law is never (not even in such a p***age as Nu 15:30,31) made a condition of salvation. The thought of transgression is at all times tempered with the thought of God’s pardon. The whole sacrificial system, in so far as it is expiatory, rests on God’s gracious acceptance of something in place of legal obedience, while the p***ages that offer God’s mercy without demanding even a sacrifice (Isa 1:18; Mic 7:18-20, etc.) are countless. Indeed, in Eze 16; 20; 23, mercy is promised to a nation that is spoken of as hardly even desiring it, a most extreme instance.
(4) But a mere negative granting of pardon is a most deficient definition of the Old Testament idea of God’s mercy, which delights in conferring positive benefits. The gift to Abraham of the land of Canaan, liberation from Egypt, food in the wilderness, salvation from enemies, deliverance from exile—all of Israel’s history can be felt to be the record of what God did for His people through no duty or compulsion, grateful thanksgiving for such unmerited blessings filling, for instance, much of the Psalter. The hearts of men are in God’s keeping, to receive from Him the impulse toward what is right (1Ch 29:18, etc.). And the promise is made that the God who has manifested Himself as a forgiving Father will in due time take hold of His children to work in them actual righteousness (Isa 1:26; 4:3,1; 32:1-8; 33:24; Jer 31:33,14; Eze 36:25,26; Zec 8; Da 9:24; Ps 51:10-12) With this promise—for the Old Testament always a matter of the future—the Old Testament teaching p***es into that of the New Testament.
7. Summary:
(The following is the most typical error of Mormon hermeneutics!!!)
Most of the discussions of the Biblical doctrine of grace have been faulty in narrowing the meaning of "grace" to some special sense, and then endeavoring to force this special sense on all the Biblical p***ages. For instance, Roman scholars, starting with the meaning of the word in (say) 2Co 12:9, have made Ro 3:24 state that men are justified by the infusion of Divine holiness into them, an interpretation that utterly ruins Paul’s argument. On the other hand, Protestant extremists have tried to reverse the process and have argued that grace cannot mean anything except favor as an at***ude, with results that are equally disastrous from the exegetical standpoint. And a confusion has resulted that has prevented men from seeing that most of the controversies about grace are at cross-purposes. A rigid definition is hardly possible, but still a single conception is actually present in almost every case where "grace" is found—the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ. The kingdom of heaven is reserved for those who become as little children, for those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do.
LITERATURE.
All the Biblical theologies contain full discussions of the subject; for the New Testament the closest definitions are given by Bernard Weiss. But for the meaning of "grace" in any particular place the commentaries must be consulted, although the student may be warned against discussions that argue too closely from what may seem to be parallel p***ages.
Written by Burton Scott Easton
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by BigJulie
