Online Review:

Malcom Lavender. Greek Grammar and Syntax vs. Calvinism. Available at Crisispub.com.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter: my educational qualifications below, all of which are earned (or being earned) degrees.

B.A., (University of Maryland, Balt. Co.) Ancient Studies
M.A. (the Ohio State University), Classical Languages (Greek and Latin)
M.Div. (Westminster Theological Seminary), Pastoral Emphasis
Th.M., (Westminster), New Testament
Ph.D. (candidate, Westminster) Historical Theology

Observations on Lavender's Response to this Review

In this review, I will first make some general comments concerning Dr. Lavender's work, and then illustrate those comments with selected points from his material. This is by no means an exhaustive review or point by point refutation: such would be a vast undertaking, and there is already a great amount of published material that answers the arguments he offers.

General Observations

  1. Dr. Lavender, according to the short biography in his The Fallacy of the Sinning Christian, studied New Testament and Classical Greek at a number of Bible schools and colleges, though we are told nothing of the nature of those studies or the types of degrees he received. The biography highlights his 32 years of pastoral ministry, and also notes that his Litt.D. is an honorary degree from the Omega Bible Institute, a distance learning institution based in Monro, LA (whose website claims accreditation through Transworld Accrediting Commission based in Siloam, AK). While degrees are not everything (I have known some fine individuals whose knowledge has been acquired outside of the walls of the academy), this c.v. does not particularly inspire confidence in Dr. Lavender's scholarly abilities, an impression confirmed by an actual examination of his work. By the way, I composed the majority of this review before seeing the biography.

  2. Dr. Lavender has made his book available as a free book for the download at the website listed above. However, there is no download link that I was able to find, and this makes reading the text difficult for anyone who has a dial-up connection.

  3. This kind of undertaking reveals a great deal of hard work, and Dr. Lavender is to be commended for his diligence and review of this material. His challenge for any and all Calvinists to respond is especially to be appreciated, for such debate clarifies God's word and creates the potential for all participants and readers to see the truth more clearly

  4. Dr. Lavender's writing style is at times very difficult to follow, and I often found myself reading the same point several times in order to clarify precisely what was intended. The work should perhaps be submitted to an editor with some knowledge of Greek and a good sense of English style. This is often a problem with self-published materials, a problem aggravated by the ease with which materials may be published online in this new age of electronic communication.

  5. In terms of his actual arguments, I note that a great deal of energy is involved not with exegetical argumentation from the Greek (which the title leads the reader to expect), but with citations from various authors who have made critical, even pejorative, statements concerning Calvinism and Calvinists. Since these amount to bare assertion and unsupported appeal to authority, the author's time would have been better spent in strengthening his exegetical arguments.

  6. The language which Dr. Lavender uses is consistent with the quotations which he imports, i.e., the language is prejudicial and designed to cast the Calvinist position in the worst possible light. This kind of rhetorical technique is characteristic of the language of propaganda, and is often used to bolster otherwise weak arguments. The use of such language should therefore make the objective inquirer suspicious.

  7. The writer has an annoying habit of failing to define his terminology, particularly with regard to the specific theological claims he is answering. Without statements clarifying his own understanding of Calvinism, it is difficult to assess whether he really knows what he is talking about, or whether he is simply guilty of answering straw man arguments. Even his quotations taken from Calvinistic authors do not really clarify precisely his understanding of their doctrine.

  8. Frequently I noted that the author analyzes a Greek text and then proceeds to make claims that are not supported at all or only tenuously supported by his analysis. At first sight his work seems rather impressive, but a series of essentially non sequitur arguments have no validity whatsoever.

  9. Beginning students of NT Greek often believe that their study will soon resolve all the thorny theological debates of the ages, a delusion unfortunately strengthened by the way some pastors and radio-TV teachers tend to use "the Greek" in their sermons. It is not long into the course of study that the student's naivete is cured. After all, all the great heresies that the ancient church faced were advanced by those who knew Greek far better than any seminary graduate. The majority of such issues is not exegetical in nature, since exegesis can only provide the "nuts and bolts" argumentation for a given point. Rather, the problems are on the "macro" hermeneutical level. Dr Lavender's book is a wonderful example of how the biblical text may be read in the light of an a priori theological system, and the evidence so molded as to support that system, a rather extended petitio principi (begging the question) argument. Now, I do not hesitate to point out that many are guilty of this, including a number of Calvinist scholars. As one of my seminary professors would often state (to the point that it practically became a slogan) "hermeneutical goal will determine exegetical method." However, what the scholar should do is begin with the exegesis, and attempt to demonstrate how the language and context of the given text fits a particular theological system better than another. Dr. Lavender has failed to do this. I plan to recommend Dr. Lavender's work as a case study in how to do bad hermeneutics and exegesis, right up there with Harold Camping's 1994?

  10. It is particularly points 8 and 9 that I wish to support in my specific comments below.

Particular Responses

In this section I will selectively examine several points made throughout Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism.

In the first section of his online work, Lavender makes great capital out of the predicate nominative construction. Expressed in his own words:

In the New Testament Atonement is expressed in predicate nominative construction as follows: kai autos hilasmos estin peri tôn hamartiôn hçmôn…and He, Himself, is an Atonement concerning the sins of us (1 John 2:2). No other atonement theory can be stated in the predicate nominative construction kai = and, autos = Himself, hilasmos = Atonement, estin = (He) is, peri = concerning, tôn = the, hamartôn = sins, hçmôn = of us. Here hilasmos (Atonement) is in the predicate nominative position, the predicate of the linking verb estin (is), which expresses a state of being and not action. The significance of this powerful construction is that it emphatically links the Person and His work, i.e., He and Atonement are the same–Person and Atonement. Thus Christ is the Atonement and the Atonement is He. The double nominative He and Himself emphasize the Person of Christ in Atonement. This is Atonement stated in predicate nominative construction! This powerful construction can admit no additives whatsoever–penal, punishment, made sin, satisfaction, vicarious, wrath of God on Christ, or judgment of sin by punishing Christ.

This is truly an incredible statement as it stands. First, the Greek grammar. The predicate nominative is, grammatically speaking, an A=B construction. There is a subject, followed by an intransitive verb (usually the verb "to be"), followed by another noun (a variant is the predicate adjective, in which an adjective is substituted for the second noun). The construction is used to describe one object or idea in terms of another. The construction can be used either to specify the first (subject) noun, or to emphasize some quality. For example:

"My car is a Jag." [I wish] Car is a general concept, a Jag is a specific type of car.

"God is spirit." [John 4:24] In this statement of Jesus, God's nature is specified. Note that the concept spirit does not exhaust the nature of God, but simply qualifies one aspect of what God is.

"The Word is God." [John 1:1] Here, the anarthuous predicate "God" is used to state that the word [logos] shares the divine nature.

Now, the point is this: the primary use of the construction is descriptive, to give us information about the subject in terms of the predicate. However, it is not necessary to the construction that the description be absolutely co-extensive with the subject, as our examples above prove. Rather, the nature of the relationship between object and predicate needs to be determined by a) the actual statement made and b) the context.

This means that the claim made by Lavender above is not supported by the grammatical construction. It is not saying that the person of Christ and the atonement are the same, but the emphasis is on the fact that Christ came as an atoning sacrifice. Admittedly, the person of Christ and the work of Christ are dynamically and intimately interrelated, but Lavender here confuses the person and work and identifies them in way that does not express what the Scripture here expresses.

Secondly, the term hilasmos is better translated as "propitiation" than atonement, particularly if we examine the use of the word-group (including hilasterion) in Romans, where the turning aside of the wrath of God is an essential part of Paul's conception of the atonement. Liddel and Scott define it as "a means of appeasing…a propitiation," similarly Bauer, "expiation, propitiation…sin offering" (the last a secondary meaning). Louw and Nida resist this definition on preconceived theological grounds, stating that it cannot mean propitiation because God is already favorably disposed toward his people, thereby confusing the ordo salutis (logical expression of salvation truths) with the historia salutis (the application of God's redemptive purposes in history).1

Here are some representative translations of the verse:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. AV
1Jo 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. NIV
1Jo 2:2 and *he* is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world. DBY
1Jo 2:2 He is the offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but for all the world. BBE
1Jo 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. ASV
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. WEBSTER
1John 2:2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. NRSV
1John 2:2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. RSV
1John 2:2 He is the payment for our sins, and not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. GWT
1John 2:2 et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris non pro nostris autem tantum sed etiam pro totius mundi Vulgate

It should be noted that the translations above reflect a great deal of scholarship, and often the participation of a team of committee members. Note the majority of the translations use propitiation. "Atoning sacrifice" is an attempt to get across the same concept without using a "theological" term (though I think the paraphrase somewhat weakens the concept). The RSV's use of "expiation" reflects the same theological bias present in the Louw and Nida lexicon.

Thirdly, Lavender references the "double nominative" he/himself. Actually, there is just one word in the Greek to express this (autos), so the nominative is certainly not doubled. The actual grammatical category is the "emphatic" use of the adjective, autos . The word, however, is regularly used in the Johannine literature as a third person pronoun when a particular individual is in mind, and bears no special emphasis other than this.

Lavender's rendering of "an Atonement" is an attempt to render the anarthuous hilasmos and shows a lack of understanding concerning how the article or its lack operates in Greek. Without going into a the finer points of the syntax of the article, the absence of the article here emphasizes the descriptive nature of the predicate, but English usage certainly demands the definite article, "the Atonement," since there is only one.

As to Lavender's complete denial of "penal satisfaction" the following Scriptures are pertinent:

Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Ro 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. [NIV]

Proof-texting can be dangerous, but the above texts, if we analyze the vocabulary used (particularly Paul's legal allusions) and context, may be easily demonstrated to support the classically expressed penal substitutionary atonement.

Finally in this section, it should be noted that not only is the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement scripturally provable, but it has been accepted by the majority of the church since Anselm's forceful presentation of the subject in Cur Deus Homo. Consider this statement of John Wesley (Sermon 20, "The Lord our Righteousness")

But his obedience implied more than all this: It implied not only doing, but suffering; suffering the whole will of God, from the time he came into the world, till "he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree;" yea, till having made a full atonement for them, "he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." This is usually termed the passive righteousness of Christ; the former, his active righteousness. But as the active and passive righteousness of Christ were never, in fact, separated from each other, so we never need separate them at all, either in speaking or even in thinking. And it is with regard to both these conjointly that Jesus is called "the Lord our righteousness." 2

A classic expression of this theory is found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession (Article 8. "Of Christ the Mediator"):

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.
( Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14; Romans 3:25, 26; John 17:2; Hebrews 9:15 )

One final comment: the idea of Christ's priestly sacrifice and the penal satisfaction theory are by no means contradictory, but reflect different complementary perspectives within Scripture itself. Lavender has denied the one even while affirming the other, and so given us a deformed view of the sacrifice of Christ.

For further reading on this subject, Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol 2, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) p. 544-591 is an excellent defense of the penal theory and refutation of opposing conceptions. There is perhaps no better explanation and defense of Reformed soteriology from an exegetical perspective than John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).

Let me here suggest that Lavender has a great deal of work to do to prove his case (his grammatical statements simply won't do it, as proven above). His own conception of the atonement runs the risk of denying the Scripture and invites us to consider him as heretical.

Lavender's Treatment of Rom 10:13

Lavender states:

In Romans 10:13, we read this powerful statement of salvation to all who may call:

"For everyone (pas) whosoever (hos), on the conditioned (an) that he/she may/might call for himself/herself on the name of the Lord, will be saved."

This Scripture emphatically rules out any possibility of the Calvinistic double call necessary to Irresistible grace. The Calvinist here meets head-on several cumulative problems of an objective nature that simply cannot be circumvented; they are:
    This passage in Romans is woefully mishandled:

    whoever will call…will be saved: Wrong. …every conceivable one, whosoever, on the condition that (an) he/she may/might call for himself/herself on the name of the Lord, will be saved.

    Note the following: 1) the construction here is very strong in calling attention to the unlimited mass of humanity–everyone, (pas) and whosoever (hos); so the Atonement is not for a limited group from among the masses, but for the masses of the whole world; 2) might/may call is in a potential mood, so conditional–might call, [might not call]; if they do call, they will be saved, if not, no irresistible grace available, no efficacious call, no special inward call; it is conditioned by a potential mood (subjunctive) on calling for ones self (middle voice), ruling out any irresistible grace/force; 3) thus, salvation is for the masses, but they respond individually, conditionally–might/may; 4) predestination unto salvation is flatly ruled out. The theory is an absurd man-made doctrine. It is exceedingly dangerous to ones eternal destiny, and blasphemes the God, Who is not willing that any should perish; this is the decree with which His purpose and the extent of the Atonement accords.

    [Who] Will Be Saved?

    The translation of this verse is to be seriously faulted: 1) it does not express the emphatic double nominatives, pas (everyone), and hos (whosoever), emphasizing the universality of God's will to save all men; 2) it completely ignores the potential or conditional nature of salvation. The construction with an (expresses condition) and epikalesetai, (a verb, subjunctive mood, aorist tense, middle voice…action bends back on one's self), and might/may cal    l for him/herself, expressing potential, condition; 3) note carefully that everyone, whosoever might/may call [collective masses of the universe] and will be saved [the individuals that do call] are not the same in number or the same group because all the masses did not exercise the potential available to them; 4) the translation in the text subtly identifies the whoever will call and will be saved as the same persons, implying "definite redemption" for all for whom Christ died, i.e., limited atonement for the elect only–i.e., the whoever and the will be saved are implicitly lumped together by ignoring the middle voice, the potential/conditional mood, and the emphatic double [or triple] nominative. But the cumulative evidence of grammatical construction flatly deny to the Calvinist his doctrine of irresistible grace extracted out of limited atonement.


In his handling of the Greek of Rom 10:13, Lavender seriously misapplies the principles of grammar. First, let's look again at how various translations have handled the passage:

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. AV
Ro 10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." NIV
Ro 10:13 For every one whosoever, who shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved. DBY
Ro 10:13 Because, Whoever will give worship to the name of the Lord will get salvation. BBE
Ro 10:13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. ASV
Ro 10:13 For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. WEBSTER
Romans 10:13 For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." NRSV
Romans 10:13 For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." RSV
Romans 10:13 So then, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." GWT

Again, it should be noted that a variety of Greek scholars agree as to translation of the text. Whenever someone has an idiosyncratic translation of the text that seems to support his own theological emphasis, then one must invoke the principle of caveat lector (let the reader beware).

First, in this passage Paul does not intend to give a theological statement about the limit of the atonement. Other passages do this effectively. He is here concerned with emphasizing the simple fact that salvation is available to all who call upon the name of the Lord. In context, calling upon the name of the Lord is calling upon Christ (which subtly underscores the nature of Christ's deity). Furthermore, this outward confession results from the inward work of faith, faith which, as Paul himself reminds us in Eph 2:8-9, is a gift of God. What Paul does not emphasize here (as he has earlier) is the divine conditions that must first be met for the human activity to take place (cf. Rom 8:28-30). As we follow Paul's discourse from chapter 8 through the current verse, "all" must be restricted to all those upon whom God's grace rests. From the human perspective, how does one know that one is saved? Well, has he called on the name of the Lord? Has he confessed Christ? This is evidence that the grace of God is truly operative in the heart.

With this in mind, I willingly stipulate that the anarthuous pas inclusively means "all" everyone. No problem here, really. The problem comes, however, when the qualifying predicate statement is ignored, and further qualification by the extended context, as we have seen above. The predicate statement affirms the condition viewed from the human perspective: one must call upon the name of the Lord. The implication is that those who fail to do so are excluded from the Kingdom; there is no evidence of God's grace upon them. The an, the particle emphasizing the conditional nature of the predicate, further strengthens the necessity of calling upon Christ to realize the covenant promises which come to God's people. We might call this "covenant conditionality." Throughout Scripture there is a dynamic interplay between God's eternal purposes and the conditional nature of his covenant dealings with mankind. The two are never placed in contradiction, but in harmony, though we never see the specifics of that harmony explicated. The expression of the relationship between these two principles comes to its height in Paul's theology.

Therefore, the syntax of the verse is quite simple, and Lavender's use of grammatical terminology (while technically correct) and his mistranslation of the text only function tendentiously to obfuscate the rather clear statement. The overall meaning of the verse is further qualified by the extended context of chapters 8-11. It is not the "unlimited mass of humanity" but all those "who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28) who are in view. And what of this calling? Paul tells us that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29).

I should briefly note Lavender's misunderstanding of the middle voice for epikalesetai. By the time the NT is written, the middle voice has all but dropped out except in a few "frozen" forms. Even in Classical Greek, to translate it as "do for oneself" (where "do" can represent any verb) is often an over-translation of the text. Often, the reference to the subject is expressed in the very meaning of the word itself. In the case of epikaleo, Bauer reminds us that the middle voice is simply used to mean "appeal to a higher authority."3 The use of the middle voice here therefore cannot be used to support Lavender's autosoterism.

Total Depravity

In his section on total depravity, Lavender treats us to the following:

The use of the imperative mood in Scripture affirms man's obligation and ability to respond to his Creator in order to be saved. The imperative mood is of such a nature—a command or entreaty—that it addresses the volition or will, and not simply the reason. The nature of the imperative, then, expresses an appeal from one will to another will in a summons to action. In ordinary communication our appeal is normally from intellect to intellect.

[...]

Repent translates metanoêsate in the aorist tense and imperative mood. The aorist tense, as we have noted, is momentary or instantaneous action. The imperative mood is a command. A good translation, then, would be:
"You repent! Do it right now!


In his understanding of the aorist imperative, Lavender presents a fairly common misunderstanding. The use of the aorist for the imperative is not so much tense, as aspect. Aspect is how the action of the verb is viewed or conceived by the speaker or writer. The aorist imperative suggests the action viewed as a whole, but does not suggest any particular urgency or speed. It simply has in view the action viewed from its entirety, from beginning to end, so to speak. This may be contrasted with the use of the present imperative, which tends to view the action as a process, rather than as a whole. Now, in English, this type of nuance is suggested not by paraphrase, but by context. Adding phrases to the aorist (such as "do it now!") or the present ("keep on") is nearly always an over-translation which is not required by the Greek forms, but may be supplied only if additional qualifiers imply this in the Greek text itself. 4

Therefore, Lavender's translation above is far from a "good translation," and it is instructive once again to note that no translation uses his particular "good" translation, which suggests that his translation is not so good after all. The only purpose that his translation really serves is to underscore his theological point on "total depravity."


In terms of his theological point, that the use of imperatives implies total freedom of choice, this conclusion may only be drawn if one ignores the various passages on God's sovereignty. A true theology (or better, anthropology) of our will cannot be made apart from the teaching of the entire Bible. The dynamic of our will in relation to God's sovereignty is perhaps best expressed in Phil 2:12-13:
2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

In a proper understanding of the biblical dynamic, human will is actualized because it is enabled by God's will. Rather than rob our choices of meaning, biblical predestination actually imparts to our actions true meaning. The act of "working out" (Grk. katergazesthe, present imperative) is result of God's work within us. Many passages of Scripture point to our spiritual inability apart from the grace of God. This is the meaning of total depravity. As the Westminster Confession of Faith 6.4 (with Scripture proofs retained for further study) states:

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

8. Rom. 5:6; 7:18; 8:7; Col. 1:21
9. Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10-12
10. Matt. 15:19; James 1:14-15; Eph. 2:2-3

Therefore, as Phil 2:12-13 implies, our will needs to be enabled to respond spiritually, for "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14).

Election

In his analysis of Rom 9:11, Lavender states:
9:11 God's purpose according to His choice would stand: WRONG! This translation projects choice as God's act. [His not in GK text.] It should read: that the purpose/will [subject] of God might continue/remain [verb] according to a choice [object]. The purpose/will is an objective, immutable fact from eternity and contemplates obedience. According to choice consists of those who act in faith and obedience–not works, not lineage, not sovereignty–and happens in time…according to the choice of those who exercise faith and obedience. So, God's purposes continue in the earth when choices are made that accord with His will.

[...]

Choice translates elogen [sic], choice, election, an accusative noun, the direct object of might continue. It is the purpose/will that might continue. A choice here is not an act of God, but being an objective state, it marks out those who have claimed the promise by faith, renouncing all claim to righteousness by lineage or works; and thus have entered into the will/purpose of God that might continue according to a choice.
Lavender here shows some confusion as to the actual syntax of the text. Eklogen is certainly accusative, but it is not the direct object of "might continue" (as an intransitive verb, the Grk. meno does not take an accusative direct object), but the object of the preposition kata. This is the type of mistake that I would expect from my first year Greek students, not one who is purportedly an expert of many years experience.

First of all, let's look at the standard translations:

Ro 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) AV
Ro 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: NIV
Ro 9:11 [the children] indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls), DBY
Ro 9:11 Before the children had come into existence, or had done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose and his selection might be effected, not by works, but by him whose purpose it is, BBE
Ro 9:11 for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, ASV
Ro 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) WEBSTER
Romans 9:11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, NRSV
Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, RSV
Romans 9:11 Before the children had been born or had done anything good or bad, Rebekah was told that the older child would serve the younger one. This was said to Rebekah so that God's plan would remain a matter of his choice, GWT

We note here that all of these translations, products of very high levels of Greek scholarship, disagree with Lavender's idiosyncratic rendering.

Now, the fact that eklogen is part of a prepositional phrase is important. In the overall syntax of a Greek sentence, prepositional phrases act as either adjectives modifying a noun or adverbs modifying verbal constructions. In this case, the placement of the phrase in the verse is significant, in that it precedes "purpose" (Grk prothesis). Generally, unless there is some strong contraindication in the context, the prepositional phrase will be very close to that which it modifies, either right before or right after it. Since the previous word (Grk. hina, in order that) begins a new clause, it is best to take kat' eklogen with prothesis. Therefore the standard translations are justified.

Lavender contends that "choice" or "election" (Grk. eklogen ) is the choice of the persons involved, not of God, and supports this by noting that the word "his" (Grk. autou) is not present in the original. However, his argument ignores the fact that Greek, like all languages, tends to be elliptical, omitting certain words that are understood by context. In Rom 9, it is clear that the chief actor and subject of the passage is God himself. 9:13-18 all contain examples of persons who are essentially passive recipients of God's actions. This underscores the fact that what is in view is not man's choice, but God's. The "his" must be supplied from context. Lavender's suggestion especially makes Ro 9:16, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" nonsense.

The anarthuous nature of the noun here is inconclusive. It is not at all uncommon for nouns so used in prepositional phrases to be used without the article, and this type of construction is frequent in Paul (cf. his frequent use of kata sarka, according to the flesh, passim).

Conclusion

A few random observations, and then my conclusions: I note that whenever Lavender cites the Old Testament, he does not refer to the Hebrew, but to the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (Latin for seventy, because according to legend 70 translators worked on it. This is why it is often represented by the Roman numerals LXX). I am not sure what to make of this. As scholars, we are trained to work in the original languages, and I would expect him to make his exegetical points based on an OT text from the Hebrew, with only secondary reference to a translation. Perhaps he has not studied Hebrew, or prefers to avoid its use due to some sort of Marcionite theological disposition.

I am not a Wesley scholar (I have concentrated on biblical studies and most recently the Scottish post-reformation period), and in this review I have focused on Lavender's use of the Greek. However, my brief review of Wesley's position indicates that he would argue quite vociferously with Lavender with regard to Lavender's view of perfectionism. Lavender at one point suggests that Wesley's denial of "sinless perfection" was due to the cultural context, but this is only an assertion with no proof. My feeling is that most Wesley scholars would also find plenty of fault with Lavender's interpretation of Wesley and the doctrine of perfectionism.

In this review, I have noted a number of misunderstandings with regard to Greek syntax and grammar, some of them quite elementary. Even when Lavender has been technically correct in his grammatical analysis, he has tended to misapply the grammatical principle to support his point. My original point, that he is simply attempting to use Greek grammar to advance his own theological agenda, is certainly supported by an actual examination of his use of the material.

The Center for Urban Theological Studies
Philadelphia, PA

Note: This review, Copyright © 2001, Barry Hofstetter, All Rights Reserved. Please contact the author directly for permission to reprint and/or post this article somewhere else on the WWW.

Endnotes

  1. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948), sub loc.; Walter Bauer, [Arndt & Gingrich] A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979), sub loc.; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek English Lexicon, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), sub loc.

  2. On Wesley's theory of the atonement see the paper by Charles W. Brockwell, "John Wesley's Doctrine of Justification". While it is true that the "fact of the atonement" is more important for Wesley than the particulars of any one theory, it still stands that Wesley's theory is "essentially Anselmian." .

  3. Bauer, sub loc.

  4. This is such a common fallacy that it deserves additional explanation. A book that every pastor should have on the shelf is D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. His chapter on Grammatical Fallacies, esp. p. 69-77 is helpful here (since Lavender misunderstands the use of the aorist imperative). In Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammer of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 172, the general principle is stated succinctly:

    ...[T]he present imperative is durative or iterative, the aorist imperative is punctiliar.... The result of this distinction is that in general precepts (also to an individual) concerning attitudes and conduct there is a preference for the present, in commands related to conduct in specific cases (much less frequent in the NT) for the aorist.

  • Home
  • Latin, Theology, Links