Translated from the 1664 edition of Opera Theologica Omnia Maximam of Dutch Reformed Professor of Theology Franciscus Gomarus.
THE BOOK OF LIFE, Rev. 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
To come to the matter itself, beginning from more general things: the Book of God is of two kinds. One is external and visible, given by God to men, which is properly called a book — as the books of the Holy Scriptures (Isa. 34:16): “Seek out of the book of the Lord and read.” The other is internal and invisible, namely, in God Himself. This is not called a book properly, but figuratively by a metaphor drawn from human usage. For just as men use books and inscribe in them things done or to be done — partly for the help of their own memory and that of others, and partly for the inviolable and perpetual certainty of the matter — so the wisdom and foreknowledge of God is called His Book because from eternity He has most certainly and most clearly known all things by the sure appointment of His decree and the infinity of His knowledge, as if they were written in a book.
This Book of God is indeed one in reality, but it is nevertheless distinguished according to the diversity of its objects and degrees. One is universal, the other particular.
- The universal book is universal foreknowledge (which has been explained). This they therefore call the Book of Knowledge and Providence, in which all things that are, have been, or shall be are contained. Concerning this, see Psalm 139:16: “In Your book all these things were written.” To this also seems to belong Psalm 56:8.
- The particular book is particular foreknowledge. This is chiefly divided into the Book of Eternal Life and the Book of Judgment.
The Book of Judgment (by a likeness drawn from forensic usage, in which the acts of litigants and the sentences of the magistrate are entered into a book) is called the foreknowledge of the decree of God’s judgment. It is either of a particular judgment (as the foreknowledge of the state of the Church until the end of the world is called a book in Rev. 5:1), or of the universal judgment. This is God’s foreknowledge by which He most perfectly knows all rational creatures (whether angels or men), and their thoughts, words, and deeds, according to which they are to be judged at the last judgment. Concerning this book also, see Revelation 20:12: “The books were opened, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” These books He will open when He reveals the hidden things of men (1 Cor. 4:5).
If anyone objects that since it is not one book but several that are mentioned, this does not suit the simple [singular] foreknowledge of God, we deny the consequence. For this foreknowledge is denoted by the name of “books” not with respect to itself (as if it were multiple), but with respect to its objects, and to denote the multitude of actions in a way suited to our capacity. These actions, as if entered into several volumes, will be revealed on the last day.
Not a few also think that by the name of these books is understood partly and chiefly God’s foreknowledge, and partly the conscience of men — just as these two are joined in 1 John 3:20. And that the consciences of men will be like books and witnesses in the future, of which a prelude appears in this life (Rom. 2:15).
The Book of Eternal Life, however, is that by which He knows His own (2 Tim. 2:19) — that is, the knowledge of those whom He has chosen and predestined to eternal life by His gratuitous love. For the Book is foreknowledge; the Writing or Inscription is election. This is properly called the Book of Life — that is, of eternal life (Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27, and 22:19); and the Book of Life of the Lamb (Rev. 13:8 and 21:27); and the Book of the Living (Psalm 69:28). Many also consider it to be the same as the Book of God mentioned in Exodus 32:32–33. To the same sense some refer the secret of the people and the writing of the house of Israel in Ezekiel 13:9. To the same also belongs what is said in Isaiah 4:3: “Whoever is recorded for life in Jerusalem.”
Some think the metaphor of this signification is taken from a military commander, who enrolls chosen soldiers in a book and discharges the rejected. But others more fittingly maintain that the likeness is derived from civil usage — from those who are granted citizenship, whose names are entered into the register of citizens. This is gathered from Revelation 22:19. In this sense, the names of the godly are said to be “written in heaven” (Luke 10:20), and Clement (with some others) is said to be “written in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3). And concerning blotting out: “I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life” (Rev. 3:5).
However, a question arises in this place: whether those inscribed in the Book of Eternal Life can be blotted out from it. This seems at first sight to be suggested by the preceding words: “I will not blot out his name.” The same appears to be confirmed by the example of Moses’ wish in Exodus 32:32: “Blot me out of the book which You have written.”
The solution is by denial of the consequence, and it is twofold:
First: There is a fallacy of homonymy. For the question concerns eternal life, whereas the argument drawn from Moses’ wish concerns temporal life. Those who are granted temporal life are metaphorically inscribed by God in the Book of Life; conversely, those who are removed from the living are said to be removed from the book and register of the living. For Moses’ speech is in response to God’s threatening against the people, in which he desires the punishment to be inflicted on them be transferred to himself. But that punishment was their slaughter (vv. 10 and 12). For although many of them were reprobate, some were nevertheless elect; therefore, God did not threaten them with eternal death. Nor did Moses comparatively desire it, as if he would rather be excluded from eternal life than have the Israelite people killed. Nor even, if one considers it more deeply, could he absolutely desire the privation of the highest good and of communion with God.
Secondly, even if there were no homonymy, the consequence would nevertheless be weak. For in prayers and wishes, the saints do not always ask for or desire things that are possible, but sometimes things that are impossible (ἀδύνατα). They do not do so impiously, however, because this happens not absolutely, but with an expressed or tacit condition of God’s will and with respect to some good. For according to the variety of objects, the saints are variously affected. When they regard their own salvation or that of others and the glory of God, they are affected differently than when they contemplate God’s decree. Christ’s example demonstrates this: when He considered the cruelty and ruin of the Jews, He seriously wept over it [the city] (Luke 19:41); but when He looked upon the just decree of the Father, acquiescing in it, He gave thanks (Matt. 11:25–26). In the same way, when He weighed the most heavy weight of the impending wrath of God, He was seized with horror and prayed against it — and that without any fault: first, because it is natural and implanted by God that man should abhor his own destruction and desire his preservation; secondly, because He did not ask this absolutely, but with the added condition of God’s will. On the contrary, when He lifted His eyes to the Father’s will and decree, suppressing His natural desire, He acquiesced to it (Matt. 26:39). The holy Prophets were affected similarly: in one part they considered God’s decree, in another the salvation of men and the glory of God. Of this kind is Moses’ wish.
But someone may say: “Be it so, that in the aforesaid places a condition is understood; yet God Himself by His own sentence in Exodus 32 declares that it can happen.” For in verse 33 God says to Moses: “Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will blot out of My book.” To this it may be answered that there is a twofold inscription (and therefore a twofold blotting out):
Some are inscribed in the Book of Life in reality and in truth — that is, by eternal election they are destined by God to life and are thus known to God as His own and to be saved.
Others, on the contrary, are inscribed only in appearance and opinion — such as hypocrites, who by external calling and obedience alone are in the Church of God, and are considered by the judgment of charity and their own probable opinion to be elect sons and heirs of God.
So, conversely, blotting out from the Book of Life is spoken of in two ways:
One is the blotting out of a true and eternal inscription, (concerning which, let it be granted for argument’s sake, Moses spoke). The other is the blotting out of a feigned and temporary inscription (concerning which God spoke).
And thus, by a catachresis [or strained metaphor] no less precise than that one — “Let the dead bury their dead” (Matt. 8:22) — that phrase is to be understood in this way: hypocrites are said metaphorically to be blotted out (by a certain misuse of the term) when, their hypocrisy having been exposed, it is declared that they do not belong to the number of the sons and elect of God. This happens partly in this life, but fully and completely on the last day (Matt. 7:22–23; 25:35, 41).
Hence Augustine rightly says on Psalm 69:29, “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living”:
“Brothers, we ought not to understand this in such a way that God inscribes anyone in the book of life and then blots him out again. If a man has said, ‘What I have written, I have written,’ how much more God? But this is said according to their own opinion, because they thought of themselves as being written there. What does ‘Let them be blotted out of the book of the living’ mean? That it may be made clear to them that they were not there. And a little later he adds: So also here, those who hoped, as it were by the merit of righteousness, that they were written in the book of God — when their condemnation is brought forth, they shall also be blotted out from the book of the living in their own eyes; that is, they shall recognize that they were not there.”
To this agrees the commentary on the Apocalypse ascribed to Ambrose:
“If he calls the book of life predestination, how can anyone be blotted out of the book of life, since the Apostle says: ‘Those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified’? Unless perhaps we understand it thus: There are many who are thought by men to be elect, but in the sight of God they are not. Therefore men, who consider them elect, think they are already written in God’s book. But on the day of judgment, when the deeds of the reprobate and the just are revealed to all, this inscription and false suspicion shall be blotted out from their minds when they see their own condemnation on account of their impieties.”
And indeed, this passage itself sufficiently proves the same thing. For here the triumphant state of the faithful after this life is being discussed, when they have been endowed with heavenly glory. This is clear because the words “He who overcomes” precede in this place in the Apocalypse. Therefore, it refers to the state after this life, for there is no victory before death. Then it follows: “I will clothe him with white garments, and I will not blot out his name.” But it is certain that no one received into heaven after this life is ever cast out or excluded from eternal life.
Nor is there any reason for anyone to object: “Why then is blotting out denied, if it cannot happen?” For by this very denial, the eternity of the benefit and of life is signified. Just as in verse 12: “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more.” Not that anyone could go out, but that by this negation the perpetuity of the glory might be indicated. And that there might be a kind of antithesis between the state of the Church militant on earth (in which there are hypocrites, who will eventually be detected and separated on the last day) and the state of the glorious Church, which will consist perpetually of pure and genuine citizens only.
THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD, Rev. 3:14
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.
This [7th] epistle is νουθετητική (reproving/corrective), instituted for the correction of life. The exordium aptly suits this scope and the subject matter. It contains a description of Christ, the Author of the epistle, drawn from chapter 1, verses 5 and 8. It embraces two things: truth and power manifested in the creation of the world.
Truth is indicated by the word “Amen.” This is a Hebrew word and usually functions as an adjective meaning “true.” Sometimes it is used substantively for “truth,” as in Isaiah 65:16: “He who swears in the God Amen” — that is, the God of truth (as the Hebrew construction shows). Thus in John 14:6 Christ shows Himself to be true when He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This is explained when it is added in this place: “the faithful and true Witness” (as in Rev. 1:5). This pertains to His prophetic office. For He bore witness to divine truth not only with His words but also with His blood (John 18:37; 1 Tim. 6:13). Therefore, He is the most true Martyr.
Power manifested in the creation of the world (which pertains to the divine nature) is indicated when He is called “the beginning of the creation of God.” The Arians eagerly seized upon this in former times, so as to persuade themselves that He was the first and mere creature, through whom the rest were afterwards formed, and therefore not the true and eternal God with the Father, as the Orthodox maintain.
However, a twofold solution is possible:
First, by denying the consequence. Even if it were said that the Son of God is the first creature (as the Arians contend), this should not be understood simply of Himself, but in a certain respect — that is, of His human nature. And indeed, not in the first and proper creation, but in the second and metaphorical creation, or regeneration — insofar as He is the beginning of the new world and the second Adam (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45), in whom we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2:10). And therefore, for this reason, nothing at all can be concluded against the deity of the Son of God.
The second response is by denying the false hypothesis which they establish by their interpretation — as if ἀρχή (arche) ought to mean the first part of something, or that it must at least be so taken in this place. On the contrary, the word is also used in three other ways.
First, it sometimes denotes a cause, as Aristotle teaches concerning the significations of the word ἀρχή in Metaphysics, Book 4, Chapter 1 […………..]
Thirdly, by metonymy of the adjunct for its subject, the Greek word ἀρχή (and ἄρχων) denotes a prince or ruler. Hence angels are called “principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10; Col. 1:16), and magistrates are also so called (Titus 3:1). When the word is taken in this sense, it fits excellently with what precedes in chapter 1, verse 5, where Christ is called “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” For [the fact] that Christ is not called the “beginning of the creation” in the sense that He is the first creature is also shown by John 1:1, where it is said of the Word: “In the beginning [ἀρχή] was the Word” — He was not created in the beginning, but “was God.” Likewise in 1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning,” and in 1 John 5:20 concerning Jesus Christ: “This is the true God and eternal life.” Finally, the matter itself proves this, for the true God alone is the Creator (Isaiah 44:24). But Christ (as even the Arians confess) is the Creator; therefore, He is the true God, who was foreshadowed by Melchizedek (Heb. 7:3), “having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”
This concerns verse 14, which contains the exordium.
Concerning the Opening of the Door, Rev. 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
We begin with Gomarus’ initial exegesis of Rev. 3:20:
“The treatment of the epistle in the particular doctrine, before the exhortation, begins with a judgment of reproof. By this He notes their evil works, not only generally when He says, “I know your works,” but also specifically. He accuses them first of being lukewarm — that is, metaphorically, a ‘supine negligence’ in duty and a notable slackening of zeal for the glory of God and for piety. He amplifies this, partly by comparison with extremes: “I wish you were cold or hot.” This is to be understood not absolutely, but with a tacit condition — namely, “unless you repent.” For the consciousness of duty makes the neglect of it and the resulting punishment more severe (Luke 12:47–48). Partly, also, by amplifying that lukewarmness with a threatening of punishment, it is fittingly continued by allegory. For just as physicians are accustomed to provoking vomiting by a draught of lukewarm water, so Christ indicates rejection from the Church when He says: “I will vomit you out of My mouth.” This also is not to be understood absolutely, but with the exception of repentance — that is, unless he repents (v. 16), as the following words also show.
The second thing He accuses them of is a twofold arrogance: First, that they ascribed riches to themselves — namely spiritual riches, that is, abundant wisdom and righteousness. Second, trusting in these, they disdainfully rejected the help of another. This is illustrated from the efficient cause: their miserable ignorance, because they did not know they were wretched, and therefore pitiable. He declares this by induction, preserving the allegory: that they were poor (that is, destitute of spiritual goods), blind (largely deprived of spiritual wisdom), and naked as to righteousness (v. 17). (These things are not said absolutely, as is clear from what follows, but by synecdoche, taking the greater part for the whole.)
This is a grave reproof. To it a twofold exhortation is added, as a remedy suited to the above vices and miseries. First, against arrogance, He exhorts them to humility and faith: That they should buy from Him gold refined by fire, that they may be rich (to cure their poverty). Here “buy” is taken for “acquire what is offered.” It is not to be understood of righteousness obtained by human merit as a price, but by faith, by which we receive the riches of Christ offered and given in the Gospel (as in Isa. 55:1: “Buy without money”). That they should buy white garments (to cover their nakedness) — which denote innocence and obedience in the new life. Finally, that they should anoint their eyes with eye salve (so that their seeing eyes may be helped and they may see) — that is, that by the reading of the Gospel and by the Holy Spirit obtained through prayer, the eyes of the mind may be enlightened with true wisdom (Eph. 1:17–18).
This concerns verse 18.
The second exhortation, opposed to the first vice (lukewarmness), is proposed and confirmed. The proposition is: “Be zealous and repent.” By this zeal He denotes an ardent concern for the glory of God and for piety. The confirmation is drawn from Christ’s rule in the Church and from His love toward the faithful. He sets forth a twofold effect of that love: First, that those whom He loves (that is, His own faithful ones and the wandering sheep weak in infirmity) He reproves, or rebukes with words. Second, that those who do not obey out of wickedness He chastises, lest they perish. Therefore, for these reasons, one must repent — since He reproves out of love, and it is necessary that we escape His just chastisement (v. 19).
He illustrates and amplifies the first reason: first He teaches in what manner He reproves; then He promises a reward to the one who obeys.
He reproves by standing at the door and knocking — that is, He earnestly warns and calls back to duty those faithful whom He loves when they go astray. The promise is directed to him who opens (that is, to the one who repents and performs the will of Christ); to him He promises communion with Himself in heavenly glory, which is indicated by the allegory of a supper (as in Luke 13:29).
This concerns the particular doctrine (v. 20).
The universal doctrine, however, consists of a promise and a command to attend. The promise is in verse 21, by which it is promised to the overcomer that he shall have communion in the kingdom with Christ (as in 2 Tim. 2:12). The command is in verse 21.”
We now cite his further explanation of this verse:
“Since in the explanation of this third chapter we touched rather briefly on the matters pertaining to the blotting out from the Book of Life (verse 5) and the opening of the door (verse 20), and these things require fuller discussion, we have therefore deferred them to the end of the chapter.
We have already treated of the Book of Life from the Holy Scriptures for a fuller explanation of the fifth verse. It remains for us to declare more fully those things contained in verse 20 (which we explained concisely in the analysis) and to vindicate them from the corruptions of the Semi-Pelagians, and especially of the Papists.
The words of Christ are: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with Me.”
In this place it is certain that Christ’s benefit, man’s duty, and the reward of that duty are noted. Christ’s benefit is that He stands at the door and knocks. By the name “door” our heart is designated; by “knocking,” the excitation of that heart to repentance and obedience through the external preaching of the Word and the internal inspiration of the Spirit. This is beyond controversy.
Man’s duty, on account of which He knocks, is to hear Christ’s voice and open the door. Concerning the correct meaning of this, if one considers it more diligently, there is dispute in two ways: first, concerning the efficient cause of this opening; secondly, concerning the mode. Concerning the efficient cause: whether this opening is here attributed to man regenerate or not yet regenerate. Concerning the mode: whether it is done by natural powers of the human will and freedom of choice (wholly or in part), or by the supernatural powers of God’s grace.
Cardinal Bellarmine explains it of man not yet converted, but being converted and regenerated — and indeed by the powers of free will. He tries from this to explain that sufficient aid for conversion is given to some, those to whom efficacious aid is not given.
He defines sufficient aid in Book 1, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, chapter 2, as that by which God so calls and excites man, and is prepared to help, direct, protect, and cooperate with him, that he, thus excited and called, can truly will to believe, will to be converted, and will to do some good.
[N. B. Methodists believe that “prevenient grace,” i.e., “sufficient grace” is given to all men so that all may come to Christ if they so will.]
He argues thus in Book 1, chapter 11: “In Revelation 3 the Lord says, ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens, I will come in to him.’ Either therefore those whose heart the Lord knocks at have sufficient aid to open, or they do not. If they have, that is what we teach. If they do not have it, why, I ask, does the Lord knock? Or does He not know they cannot open? Or would He not be foolish who would knock at his neighbor’s door if he certainly knew that there was no one inside who could open?” We have, therefore, from divine Scripture [the fact] that sufficient aid is given to some to whom efficacious aid is not given.
But the Jesuit errs in both points: First, because he thinks that this passage deals with the first conversion and opening, by which someone who is utterly averse and unbelieving is converted to God. But the matter itself shows that it deals with one who is already converted, but has fallen into sins, and is being called to repentance. For this statement is accommodated to the Bishop of Laodicea and to those whom Christ loves — that is, to the converted and faithful, but negligent in duty, as appears from the text and the proposed analysis. A similar allegorical knocking of the Bridegroom and opening of the door by the Bride is described in Song of Songs 5.
This is so clear that even notable Papist doctors acknowledge it. As [noted French scholar] Pierre Boullenger says: “Imitate the good, and do penance, groaning and lamenting that you have hitherto been so lukewarm and negligent… I stand at the door of your heart.” And the Jesuit Franciscus Ribera says: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock — lest perhaps the Bishop should despair that Christ would be propitious to him or that he could return to his former state, since He had said, ‘But because you are lukewarm…’ — He promises the kindness of His mercy: ‘Behold, I stand at the door…’” So also, the learned Parisian theologian Johannes Gagnaeus.
Secondly, even if it were granted that it speaks generally of the unregenerate and of first conversion, Bellarmine still errs in that he divides sufficient aid from efficacious aid in the unconverted and ascribes the opening of the door to the powers of free will. For it does not follow: “Christ knocks, therefore man ought to open; therefore, he can do so by the powers of free will.” For in this way the duty of man is denoted, to which he is bound — not the natural faculty of effecting it.
As for Bellarmine’s objection that this would be repugnant to God’s knowledge and wisdom — that He would knock at a door where there is no one inside who can open — this is rightly denied. For the knocking serves to convict the proud deafness and obstinacy of the reprobate (Isa. 6:10; John 12:40) and is an instrument for the conversion of the elect. God, as He teaches and requires outwardly by the Word, so inwardly by His Spirit, by regenerating the blind mind and the obstinate will and endowing it with new qualities, effects the opening — as the sole cause by reason of habit [nature], and as the principal cause by reason of operation. For by reason of habit, man is merely the subject, not the cause. By reason of operation, he is the secondary, cooperating cause with God. Therefore, it is rightly attributed to God as the first and principal efficient and also assisting cause; to man, however, as a subordinate cause — not by the powers of natural generation, but by the powers of supernatural regeneration, by which he is endowed with spiritual life, from which he produces actions of life. He is not only acted upon by the Spirit, but also acts under the Spirit and with the Spirit.
And this is the genuine meaning of this passage.
END
Be First to Comment