Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 3

This is the third in our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

This is probably the best-known verse in the entire Bible. The Arminian view is that “world” means everyone without exception—God loves you, no ifs or buts. In addition, they typically point to “whoever” as meaning that anyone and everyone has the power to believe if they choose. The Arminian view of John 3:16 can be summarised as God loves you—no exceptions, Christ died for you—no exceptions, and it’s up to you if you believe in him or not.

There are serious flaws in this view from the Calvinist viewpoint.

The basic problem with the Arminian claim is that in the Bible, “world” (kosmos in Greek) has a range of different meanings, and usually does not refer to everyone without exception. I believe that “world” here has two meanings. First, it refers to the humanc race in the sense of all peoples (not all individual people), namely Jews and Gentiles. And second, it also in John’s writings has a connotation of humanity in rebellion against God. I would summarise the combined meaning as “sinners from all the nations”. 

I am also clear that the open-ended term “sinners from all the nations” could refer to everyone without exception as Arminians and some Calvinists maintain but it need not do so. It can as easily refer to all without distinction. I am convinced in the wider context, the "world" so loved connotes to those whom God has chosen for salvation, not least since the next verse, John 3:17, states plainly that Christ came to save the same world that God loves in verse 16. We know from elsewhere in John’s Gospel that Christ will lose none of what the Father gives him, but will save them all (see John 6, John 10). 

Therefore, John 3:16 simply means that God does not love only the Jews, but all the nations so that not just the Jews, but “everyone who believes” or literally “every believing one” (both better translations than “whoever” or “whosoever” believes) will be saved. This interpretation makes much more sense in the context of Jesus’ conversation with the Jewish leader Nicodemus and with the Old Testament parallel Jesus mentions of the serpent on a pole back in Moses’ day. Just as everyone who looked on the serpent was healed, so everyone who believes in the Son will be saved, and distinctions of race or nationality do not come into it. But the verse certainly need not be interpreted in the Arminian manner and does not override plain passages which speak of predestination or election (e.g. Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc.)

Acts 7:51

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

This verse from Stephen's speech prior to his martyrdom is used by Arminians to argue that God's saving purposes can be thwarted by sinful human beings, and by implication, Arminians suggest there can be no decree or decision of God that determines salvation. The phrase used to argue this was is "resist the Holy Spirit." The Arminian argues this refers to God's will to save everyone without exception.

The Calvinist argues on the contrary that this "resisting the Holy Spirit" does not refer to God's decree (God's decretive will or God's secret will) but to God's preceptive will or God's revealed will. We believe the reference is to the people of Israel disobeying God's commands in Scripture, which of course comes from the Holy Spirit through inspiration. 

The immediate context surrounding verse 51 backs this interpretion up. In the following verse Stephen talks about the people opposing and killings God's prophets—those who brought God's message tudio the people, those who foretold of the coming of the Messiah. In verse 54, Stephen gives the context of what "resisting the Holy Spirit" amounts to: "you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."

Therefore, I believe that Acts 7:51 clearly refers to the people rejecting God's law and promises, but this has nothing to do with God's will of decree which cannot be thwarted (see Job 42:1, "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" and Isaiah 46:9-10, " I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'.")

Hebrews 2:9  

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

This verse from Hebrews is often cited by Arminians as evidence against the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. The argument is that since the verse says that Christ "might taste death for everyone" how can it be true that Christ died only to save the elect?

To begin with, we need to be clear that the word translated "everyone" is the Greek word pantos meaning "all". The phrase could be translated "he might taste death for all."

This helps slightly because we can then ask, which "all" is in view here? Though we could also ask which "everyone" is in view? 

The Arminian reads it as "everyone" or "all" without exception. Yet given the way the Bible refers to the atonement as accomplishing salvation and not merely making salvation provisionally available, this is deeply problematic. If "all means all" as the Arminian argues, this would imply universalism given the way the Bible speaks of the atonement. 

In the following verse, it refers to Christ "bringing many sons to glory" not "all sons". This would suggest there is also a limitation on the "all" of verse 9 to those who are saved. Similarly, in verse 11 it refers to those who are sanctified or made holy and that they "all" have their source of sanctification in Christ. The context here teaches that "all" does not always mean "all" "all" the time.

An alternative Calvinist interpretation would be that although Christ died to save only the elect, nonetheless, his death was sufficient to save everyone and that everyone called to faith and offered salvation without exception and in this sense Christ could be said to taste death for everyone, though he did not intend to redeem everyone and save them. 

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 2

This is the second in what will be series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

Lamentations 3:33

For he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.

The next text occasionally cited is this short fragment of Lamentations chapter 3. The Arminian argument seems to run along the lines that here the Scriptures state God does not willingly afflict or grieve human beings, yet Calvinism teaches the exact opposite since God chooses some for salvation and chooses for others to remain unsaved and to be punished for their sins.

We can deal with this objection quite quickly. The verse has nothing whatever to do with the doctrines of election or reprobation, nor does it contradict the Bible's teaching that God is a righteous judge who administers justice—including punishment for sin—and indeed delights in justice (see Jeremiah 9:24).

In the verse immediately preceding this one, the writer is clear that God does "cause grief" (v.32). For his children, he administers discipline as a good Father. For the wicked, he administers justice. And in both cases he acts according to his desires for discipline and justice. It is just as a human parent takes no enjoyment in punishing their children and does so with a heavy heart, yet it is done for the child's ultimate good and in shaping a good and well-rounded person that punishment is sometimes necessary. It is the improvement of the child's character that the parent delights in, not the discipline or punishment considered in itself, even though it is a necessary step towards the ultimate goal.

This verse simply teaches that God is not cruel or nasty. He is no sadist. Although he does "cause grief" and sends people pain and suffering as discipline or as punishment, he does not do so because he enjoys it, but for higher goals of disciplining the children he loves for their good or for constraining the evil of the wicked and giving them justice. The verse teaches that God does not derivce pleasure or happiness in punishing anyone when considered as a thing in itself. The sentiment here is closely related to the verses found in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11.

Matthew 18:14

So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This is another verse sometimes cited as implying that it is not the will of God in any sense that anyone perish. As such, the Arminian sees it as being a denial that God has any decree of reprobation and instead God would save everyone if he could, but obviously cannot achieve his aim because human free will is the determining factor in each person's salvation.

A common theme in these verses, as you may have noticed, is that Arminians tend to accept that this kind of verse should encompass everyone without exception. Likewise, you will notice that Calvinists tend to look closer at the context and restrict the application of the verses to those who are saved and not to everyone. This verse is no exception.

The verse takes place at the end of Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep. Matthew 18:12-14 reads like this:

What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

It is obvious that the sheep, as they consistently do in Scripture (see Psalm 23, John 10), represent those who are Christ's people, those who are saved. The 100th lost sheep does not stand for everyone, but for those who will be saved but are not yet saved. They are one of the elect, yet before coming to faith. It is precisely the Father's will that not one of his elect should perish. When properly understood, far from being a problem for Calvinism, this verse supports Calvinism.

Matthew 23:37 

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Matthew 23:37 is one of the most common verses cited by Arminians against Calvinism.

We should note that once again the Arminian interpretation has little to do with the context of the verse. The passage is not dealing with the atonement, the gospel offer, irresistible or resistible grace, far less election or predestination. The context is judgment and condemnation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Read the context of the passage surrounding this verse to see that is true.

This verse merely teaches that in his revealed will, Christ does desire and seek to save everyone in Jerusalem (the children), as his Saviour's heart goes out to all sinners and bids them come to him in faith to find salvation. It is this will, this desire, this delight in sinners finding salvation, that leads to Christ's anger against those who would seek to block or prevent others coming to faith in the Messiah (i.e. the leaders of the people).

The verse has nothing to do with and does not contradict the fact that in his secret or decretive will, God nevertheless chooses some for salvation and rejects others for salvation. As he taught elsewhere, "many are called but few are chosen" and all those who are called are genuinely and sincerely called. Those who refuse cannot blame God, for even though he has chosen to pass them by for salvation, he take no pleasure in their loss.

The verse condemns the Jewish leaders not only for killing the prophets in the past, but also in opposing Christ's mission to save sinners ("you would not"). The verse says that the leaders tried to prevent Christ saving the "children" of Jerusalem, but it does not teach that Christ would fail to save his people in the city. Far from it. Within weeks, on Pentecost, three thousand people were converted and saved, despite the city's leaders being opposed. Little did they know that their opposition and finally their plotting to kill Jesus would be the very means used in the plan of God to bring about the salvation of the elect (see Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28).

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

This verse is fairly often mentioned by Arminians and other non-Calvinists. The argument is that Calvinism teaches that God's purpose or decree is always carried out and cannot be thwarted by anything. Yet here we find that the Pharisees and lawyers were able to "reject" the purpose of God. Arminians therefore believe that God's will can be thwarted by human free will. He may wish people to be saved, but people are free to reject God's will.

It is important to note that the key word, translated "purpose" in the ESV is the Greek word boulé which could also be translated as the "counsel" of God, "will" of God or even "decree" of God. It usually refers to a "resolved" or "determined" plan. However, it can also refer to "counsel" in the sense of advice or "will" in the sense of God's recommendation. It can refer not to God's decree or purpose in the sense of his detemination of events, which can never be frustrated, but to God's commands or precepts representing God's wise counsel or advice on how to live or what to do. It was this, the call to repent and accept God's mercy, that the Pharisees and Experts in the Law rejected for themselves.

As some Calvinists note, even if this is a reference to the decree of God, which always comes to pass, the verse does not state that God's purpose for them was their salvation. It need only be God's purpose that they be exposed to the good news and to Christ. Even this they rejected. There is nothing in Calvinism to rule out it being God's purpose for them to meet Christ and hear his gospel and God's purpose for them to reject the good news.

Either of these approaches is feasible. Neither requires us to accept that the human will can actually overturns God's sovereign will.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 1

While I am convinced the overall teaching of the Bible points very clearly that Reformed theology or Calvinism, to give it its nickname, is true, there have always been a number of texts in the Bible used by Arminians to attempt to show that Calvinism does not match up with what the Bible says. Often these are isolated verses, plucked from context, and used as if to say, "Aha, so if Calvinism is true, why does the Bible say X..."

We will look at some of the main verses used in this way, explain why they might seem to be a problem for Calvinism, and then give explanations of the verses or reasons why they do not undermine Reformed theology. I hope fellow Calvinists and Arminians will find this process useful.

In this regard we will look at a number of such passages In each instance we will initially quote the verse from the ESV Bible. These are not every passage we could have cited, but they include the main ones usually brought up in opposition to Reformed doctrine.

To avoid this becoming a very long post, we will split this into a number of parts. In this part we deal with three verses, one in Isaiah and two that form a pair in Ezekiel.

Isaiah 53:6

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

We begin with this verse from the astonishing and well-known prophecy in Isaiah 53 which clearly foretells of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah. The alleged problem for Calvinism in this verse comes in the words "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Calvinism teaches what is known as particular redemption or limited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died with the intention of saving the elect only, that is, with the intent of saving a specific number of people who are in fact saved. Arminianism by contrast, teached unlimited atonement, that Christ died to save everyone, but only those who believe benefit from his death. The difference is clear enough. The Arminian believes Christ died equally as much for those who are saved as for those who are lost; the Calvinist believes Christ died only for those who believe, who are brought to faith by God's choice and power.

This verse says that the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. The Arminian looks at the word "all". The Calvinist answer to this one is fairly obvious. We look at the word "us" before "all". Who are the us mentioned? The Arminian requires that "us" to be everyone—all of humanity. But does the context bear this out?

Look at the preceding verse 5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." 

Here is no provisional atonement for all indiscriminately yet only activated by faith for some. The text plainly says that this atonement is effectual for all for whom it is made. His punishment "brought us peace" and "with his stripes we are healed." Since not all are healed, and not all have peace with God, it is clear enough that the passage is addressed to God's people, not everyone without exception. 

This is further supported by verse 11, "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."  

Here the verse is clear that the "all" of verse 6 is now recognised as the "many" of verse 11. Those whom the Messiah dies for will be "accounted righteous". This is not true of everyone, but only of those for whom he made atonement.

This verse present no problem whatsovever for the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. We believe the LORD did indeed lay on him the iniquities of US all who are the Lord's people by faith.

Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. (18:32)

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (33:11)

This pair of verses in Ezekiel are often cited by Arminians. The argument is that since God says he has "no pleasure in the death of anyone" and "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" this somehow proves that predestination as Calvinism teaches it, cannot be true.

There are two Calvinist approaches to these verses. 

One group of Calvinists simply points out that verses are addressed not to people in general, but to the "house of Israel" or God's covenant people in particular. This is explicit in both passages. In chapter 18, verse 30 reads (two verses before the quotation): "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin." Similarly, 33:11 is also addressed to the people of Israel. Therefore, for this group of exegetes, God has no pleasure in the death of his people.

A second group of Calvinists accepts that God does not have pleasure in anyone's death, or to be more accurate, does not take any delight in (Hebrew chaphets) any person's death when considered as a thing in itself. Yet although God might be said not to take delight in or enjoy/take pleasure from anyone's death when considered in isolation, nevertheless the Bible also teaches that whatever God desires, he does (Job 23:13) and also that God delights in seeing justice done (Jeremiah 9:24) and in displaying his own attributes including justice and wrath (Romans 9:22). When considered in that light, these verses in no way contradict the Bible's teaching that God chose not to save everyone, but chose to pass by the reprobate and punish them for their sins. 

God's internal pleasures and delights are undoubtedly complex and it may be that considered in itself God may not take pleasure in death—and conversely does have a delight or desire towards the salvation of all, even those he has decreed not to save—yet when viewed in the wider lens of all things being considered together, he does delight in expressing and doing justice, even if that means death for some sinners. In any internal hierarchy of delight, desires, or wishes, God highest desire is to glorify himself in the display of all his attributes (see Ephesians 1:11-12 and Romans 9:22-23).

Both approaches have some things in their favour. The verses are undoubtedly addressed to the covenant people and not all humanity in general. So it could be that the verses are only speaking of the death of those chosen for salvation. Yet they seem to indicate something wider than that in my view. But equally, if the second view is correct, these verses in no way can be used to deny the Calvinist doctrines of election and reprobation as these represent the desires God was pleased to decree to come to pass, even if considered separately, Gods Word reveals other desires he chose not to satisfy in his decree.

R. C. Sproul on Common Grace

In this video, R. C. Sproul explains common grace.

The Book of Zephaniah

The short book of the prophet Zephaniah, which comes near the end of the Old Testament, has always been one that I have loved and valued.

In this video from the Bible Project, the book is well explained. It deserves to be preached on more often.

Christian Standard Bible – Anglicised Edition

 

I was happy to find out that the Christian Standard Bible is going to be issued in an Anglicised edition with British spelling and usage. I understand the new edition will go on sale in June this year.

The Christian Standard Bible or CSB is a great translation. It first came out in 2017 and was a revision of the "Holman Christian Standard Bible" first published in 2004. The CSB translators claim it uses "optimal equivalence" as its translation philosophy which is to say it is more literal than the NIV but more functional than the ESV. It is a conservative evangelical committee translation produced by Holman Publishers in the USA. Often thought of as a "Baptist" translation because it was produced by a Baptist publishing house, it is not sectarian and involved scholars from 17 denominations to avoid denominational bias.

Like the NIV, the CSB is a completely fresh translation from the original languages and is not within the Tyndale/KJV/RV/ASV/RSV family tree, which means it does not necessarily follow "traditional" renderings. I believe this is a strong point in its favour, whenever a "new" rendering is more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek.

Here are a couple of sample verses from the CSB, which I think show the nature of the CSB as a translation:

Mark 9:3 - describing Jesus' appearance during the transfiguration - "and his clothes became dazzling—extremely white as no launderer on earth could whiten them."

Where the CSB has "no launderer" the NIV has "anyone" and the ESV has "no one" but the Greek has "γναφεὺς" (grapheus) - a launderer or "fuller" (KJV), thus the CSB is considerably more accurate.

Matthew 6:9 - "Our Father in heaven, your name be honoured as holy" moving away from "hallowed" in the Tyndale/KJV tradition, which few modern readers understand or use anywhere else except in the Lord's Prayer.

John 3:16 - "For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Here the CSB again moves from the traditional to the more accurate. "In this way" is an improvement on the traditional "so loved" which we tend to read as "loved so much" rather than "loved in this way" which is what the Greek word houtos usually means. Secondly, "everyone who believes" is better in my view than "whoever believes". 

The CSB also makes good use of footnotes where alternative translations are possible or where there are textual variants. Often the footnotes contain a more traditional or literal translation. 

For example in 1 John 2:2: "He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world" with a footnote "the propitiation."

Again in 2 Timothy 3:16a: "All Scripture is inspired by God" with a footnote "breathed out by God".

There is always a danger that the CSB will fall between two stools. It may not be literal or traditional enough for churches that favour the ESV and it may not be simple enough for churches that use the NIV or anything even more functionally equivalent like the NLT.

Yet the CSB is a very good translation and its fresh renderings in many places are helpful to contrast with the ESV/NRSV in the Tyndale tradition or with the NIV/NLT's more functional renderings.

How to tell if someone is a Christian?

I came across this video on YouTube, which features seven people who claim to be Christians in conversation.

The point is that only six are professing Christians and one is an atheist masquerading as a Christian. Through questions, the participants try to guess who is the imposter and vote them out. It is an interesting exercise.

Personally, I have some doubts about the credibility of some of the others who claim to be Christians as well, but that's beside the point.

Of more interest is to ask, how would we try to determine if somone claiming to be a Christian is genuine?

I don't think the questions asked in the video were very good. No one seemed to ask or talk about God at all. No one mentioned Jesus or the Holy Spirit. No one referred to prayer or Bible reading. At least not in the edited version we see in the video.

These are the kind of questions I would probably ask in this scenario:

• What led you to become a Christian?
• What kind of church do you attend?
• What Bible translation do you mostly read?
• What's your favourite Bible verse?
• What's your favourite hymn or worship song?
• Do you serve in any capacity at your church?

Of course, someone deliberately setting out to deceive could probably come up with answers to these, so who knows. In my experience, most Christians are very willing to accept someone's profession of faith as genuine.

More important than our personal "tests" is to see what the Bible says about what makes a Christian. Some relevant verses are the following:

• A Christian is someone who has been born again by the Holy Spirit. The phrase "born-again Christian" is a redundancy. See John 3:3-8.
• A Christian is someone who has faith in Jesus to save them. See Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16
  
• A Christian is someone who seeks to follow Jesus in obedience to his teachings. See 1 John 2:3-6.
• A Christian is someone who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes that God raised him from the dead. See Romans 10:9
• A Christian is someone who seeks to turn away (repent) of their sins. See Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38, 2 Peter 3:9.

The folk in this video seem to associate being a Christian with going to church and maybe having some kind of spiritual experience. I was quite shocked that none of them mentioned a personal relationship with Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Meaning and Translation of "Hilasterion" in Romans 3:25

Paul's Letter to the Romans is a key part of the New Testament, the letter in which the gospel or good news is given its fullest explanation. Within this letter, the section in Romans 3:21-26 is central to the meaning of the doctrine of salvation and within that section verse 25 is a key verse. 

The focus of our discussion is on the meaning and translation of this word "hilasterion" in this verse. 

1. Description of the Possible Translations

While we confess that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16) meaning that all of Scripture comes from God, we recognise that not all the God-breathed Scriptures are equally important. Obviously, for example, the crucifixion and resurrection narratives of the Gospels are more important to the people of God and the message of salvation than say a genealogy of names in Genesis or Chronicles. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is one of the most important books in the New Testament because it is where we find the fullest exposition of Paul’s gospel. Within Romans, chapter 3 verse 25 is a key verse. And within that verse the key word is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). This word is the focus of this paper.

The verse reads as follows (author’s translation)—from verse 24 to give the context:

24 Being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a hilasterion, by his blood, to be received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The correct translation of this word "hilasterion" into English has a long history of controversy and debate. English translations of the word divide into five main categories as explained below.

a. Mercy Seat or Atonement Cover

The first group of translations sees hilasterion as a direct reference to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, traditionally known as the ‘mercy seat’ or other more descriptive translations such as ‘atonement lid’ or ‘atonement cover.’ 

This view sees hilasterion as the direct Greek equivalent of the Hebrew, כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth) which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, commanded by God to be made (Ex. 25:17 ff.), the place where God’s presence would rest and make atonement for the sins of his people. 

Translations taking this approach include the following:

God presented him as the mercy seat by his blood, through faith (CSB)

whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood (Darby)

whom God publicly displayed as the atonement seat through faith in his blood (EHV)

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith (NET)

Whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory covering, through faith in his blood. (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible)

Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood. (Concordant Literal Version)

This interpretation sees Paul’s argument being that just as the mercy seat on the ark was the place where the people’s sins were taken away, God’s wrath removed, and God’s reconciliation with his people established, so the cross of Jesus Christ was the reality of that Old Testament type. It should be noted that the last two translations above make it explicit that the kapporeth being referred to is much more than merely the lid of the covenant box or ark, it has deep theological meaning—it is a propitiatory shelter or covering—meaning it is the place where God’s wrath against sin is dealt with and taken away or removed.

b. Propitiation

The second group of translations does not link hilasterion directly to the mercy seat, but instead sees it as a reference to the means or place of propitiation (the means by which or place where sin is taken away, wrath turned aside and justice is satisfied). The translations which take this approach includes some of the most commonly used literal translations in English, as follows:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. (KJV)

whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood. (ASV)

whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. (NKJV)

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (ESV)

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (NASB 1995)

whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Moffatt)

Two versions agree that the hilasterion is a propitiation, but rather than use this technical term which would doubtless be difficult to understand for many English readers, they explain the concept of propitiation:

God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath taking away sin through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 marginal reading)

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. (NLT 1996)

c. Expiation

Some English translations, particularly it must be admitted, translations at least influenced by liberal theology, which have a tendency to deny or play down the concept of the wrath of God, see in hilasterion a reference to the taking away of sin, but not the turning aside or satisfying God’s wrath. For these translations, rather than use ‘propitiation’ with its connotation of appeasing or satisfying wrath, they use the word ‘expiation’ which connotes only to the taking away or removal of sin, without reference to wrath.

This position is found in the following versions:

whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (RSV)

For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his death, effective through faith. (REB)

whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood. (NABRE)

d. Reconciliation

A few English translations take hilasterion to refer not to the expiating of sin or the propitiating of wrath, but to the end result of expiation and propitiation, which is the reconciliation of God and sinners and believe this was Paul’s point in Romans 3:25. These versions include the following:

Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Geneva)

For God showed him publicly dying as a sacrifice of reconciliation to be taken advantage of through faith. (Goodspeed)

whom God purposed for reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Jubilee Bible 2000)

e. Other ‘Non-Committal’ Options

Finally, some translations, either for reasons of simplicity for the reader or from a desire to avoid the controversies surrounding the historic and ongoing ‘expiation vs propitiation’ debate, opt for a more general translation such as ‘sacrifice of atonement’ which could allow for either expiation, propitiation, or indeed reconciliation, which ‘sacrifice of atonement’ at least hints at.
    Versions taking this approach include the following:

Through his faithfulness, God displayed Jesus as the place of sacrifice where mercy is found by means of his blood. (CEB)

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 main text)

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. (NIV 2011)

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. (NLT 2004)

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

2. Assessment of the Translation Options

Of these five possible approaches, I think there are three we can dismiss quite easily and two that have strong claims.

The translations I would set aside first are the last three. To take the last one first, translating "hilasterion" as "sacrifice of atonement" is only a very broad attempt to explain the concept behind the word. Although "hilasterion" does imply an atoning sacrifice, this does not adequately explain the word's meaning and could be viewed as something of a "cop out".

Likewise, although the "hilasterion" can lead to reconciliation between the offended and the guilty party, the word does not itself refer to reconciliation.

Finally, the translation "expiation" or "expiating sacrifice" should be rejected as it does not cover the full menaing of "hilasterion". Expiation refers to the removal of guilt, but that is only half of the meaning of "hilasterion". As has been well-explained by Leon Morris, John Stott and others writing on the atonement, "expiation" has been favoured by theologians who do not believe that the atonement involves dealing with the wrath of God against sinners. But one of the key aspects of a "hilasterion" is appeasing or satisfying God's wrath.

It is for this reason that the word has traditionally been translated as "propitiation" (meaning either the means of propitiation or the place of propitiaiton). Propitiation implies both expiation (removal of guilt for sin) and the turning aside of God's wrath against sinners. For this reason, "propitiation" or an explanatory phrase meaning the same found in the NIV 1984 margin or the 1996 NLT is a good translation as far as I am concerned. The only problem with it, it might be argued, is that the word is not well understood by many readers. Chambers Dictionary defines "propitiate" as meaning "to appease or placate (an angry or insulted person or god)" and it is this appeasing, placating or satisfying divine anger or wrath that is the key aspect of "hilasterion" that most other translations omit or downplay.

Some scholars believe that Paul was not referring to a place or means of propitation in a generic sense, but rather they see this as a clear alluding to the Old Testament "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" - the lid of the ark of the covenant, the place where the people's sins were taken away and the wrath of God averted or appeased or placated. Some translations use "propitiatory cover" or "proptiatory shelter" to try to cover both concepts.

It is a difficult judgment whether to translate in a more general sense of "propitiation" or the more specific sense of "mercy seat" or "propitiatory cover". We cannot be entirely certain which of the two Paul had in mind. The difference is a translation problem, but not a theological one because both have the same meaning: the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross took away the guilt of sin and turned aside the wrath of God against sin by taking the punishment directly in his own flesh. 

If I had to pick one, I would go with the more general term "propitation" as I am not certain Paul was solely making an Old Testament allusion to the "mercy seat" when writing to a largely Gentile church in Rome. Although "hilasterion" was used in the Greek Septuagint as the translation of the mercy seat (the atonement lid on the ark of the covenant), "hilasterion" is a broader theological concept than the noun for the covenant box lid, and so on balance I think the wider theological term "propitiaton" or an explanation of what "propitiaiton" means is preferable in our English translations, with the single word "propitiation" being more suited for formal equivalent translations and a phrasal explanation such as "the way of turning aside God's wrath and taking away sin" being more suitable for functional equivalent translations.

Year's End

 

As we reach the end of 2023, many of us will reflect on the year gone by and look forward to the year ahead. This is a good time of year to consider your own walk with God. 

In my tradition, among other things, church membership vows include how we should give a "fitting proportion of time, talents and money" to the church's work in the world. At the end of 2023, maybe we should all take stock on how we did on this and how we might do better in 2024. For each one, this is a personal thing between them and God, but is always worth reviewing at least once a year and the start of a new year is a convenient time to do it.

We might also consider what sins we need to better "put to death" and what good works God is leading us to do.

All of us can surely do better. Almost all of us could use our time better to read God's word and pray for example. But maybe most important of all is to remember that we who believe in Him already have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Perhaps our biggest challenge is to live in that truth and let it guide us out of contentment and thanksgiving, not out of guilt.

We pray for a holy and blessed new year for all our readers in 2024.

My Top Ten Christmas Carols

I recenly posted a "Top Ten" Christmas carols countdown on my personal Facebook page as a countdown to Christmas and a gentle work of evangelism among my non-Christian friends. Here are my choices along with good performances of each carol.

Number 10 - While shepherds watched their flocks.

 

With ten days to go to Christmas, I thought I'd do a "top ten" Christmas carols counting down from today to Christmas Eve. These are my personal choices. With so many available, narrowing it down to 10 was hard. Your favourites might or might not feature in this list.

 

Coming in in 10th place is "While shepherds watchehd their flocks" (also published as "While humble shepherds watched" in some hymnals, including the ones I grew up with in the Church of Scotland).

 

The words were written by Nahum Tate (1652-1715) and they are a fairly straightforward paraphrase of the nativity story found in Luke's Gospel chapter 2. Tate was born in Dublin and was an Anglican clergyman, who also became Poet Laureate in 1692.

 

Although a number of tunes have been used with these words, the most common tune used in the UK at least is called WINCHESTER OLD which dates at least from the 1630s when it was published though it may predate being written down.

 

Here it is performed by the choir of King's College Cambridge in an arrangement by Sir David Willcocks.

 

Number 9 - It came upon the midnight clear

 

Coming in at 9th place on my top ten carols is "It came upon the midnight clear".

 

This is the first of two American carols in the top 10 and also one of those carols that are best known by different tunes on each side of the Atlantic.

 

The words were written in 1849 by Edmund Sears, who was actually a pastor in the Unitarian church. However, there is nothing in his words that would make them unacceptable to orthodox Trinitarians. 

 

Unlike many of the great carols that focus on the incarnation of the Son of God, Sears' words focus on the message of peace that the angels sang "Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, good will to men" particularly the idea of "peace on earth" and considers not the events of Bethlehem but the sweep of history and how the world has not accepted the message of peace in "our time" whether that is the 19th century of the author or the 21st century in which we live.

 

In a year that been marked by wars and strife in different parts of the world, the words of the third verse are as poignant as ever:

 

But with the woes of sin and strife

The world has suffered long;

Beneath the angel-strain have rolled

Two thousand years of wrong;

And man, at war with man, hears not

The love-song which they bring; –

Oh hush the noise, ye men of strife,

And hear the angels sing!

 

As far as the music goes, as I said, the most common tune in the United States is known simply as CAROL or WILLIS which was written for this hymn by Richard Willis.

 

Personally, I have always found the American tune a bit syrupy. For that reason, I much prefer the tune composed by Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame) and usually called NOEL. It is Sullivan's tune which is usually sung in the UK and other Commonwealth countries.

 

In this recording, the carol is performed by the choir of Winchester Cathedral.

 

Number 8 - As with gladness, men of old

 

I suspect this one might not be on everyone's list of favourites, but it has always been one of mine, both for the words and the tune, which is perfect for congregational singing.

 

The words were written by William Chatterton Dix (1837-1898). Unlike most hymn writers in Victorian Britain who were mainly clergymen, Dix was a businessman, and actually worked for a time in Glasgow as manager of a marine insurance company.

 

Many hymns about the visit of the magi focus on the gifts, but Dix's hymn draws a number of parallels between the visit of the wise men (the "men of old") and how we should seek to live as Christians now. In the first three verses there is a recurring pattern: "As they did..."/ "So may we..."

 

In verse 1, as the wise men were guided to Christ by the star, so may we be led to Jesus. In verse 2, as they travelled joyfully to Bethlehem, so may we seek the place of propitiation or "mercy-seat" found at the cross. In verse 3, As they offered gifts, so may we present our best to King Jesus in our lives.

 

The whole hymn is a prayer really and this is most evident in verse 4 which is addressed to Jesus directly:

 

Holy Jesus, every day

keep us in the narrow way;

and, when earthly things are past,

bring our ransomed souls at last

where they need no star to guide,

where no clouds Thy glory hide.

 

Transitioning from the prayer for heaven in verse 4, the hymn ends with a triumphant last verse about heaven and how Christ himself will be everything we need there.

 

Almost the only tune used with this hymn is known as DIX, originally a German tune by Conrad Kocher. Although not written for this hymn specifically, it was later adapted for it by William Monk in the 1861 edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern and has been used ever since with this hymn, the tune being re-named after the hymn's author.

 

Here it is, sung by Salisbury Cathedral Choir with a rousing descant in the final verse by Sir David Willcocks.

 

Number 7 - See, amid the winter's snow

 

At number 7 on my list is another Victorian carol, "See, amid the winter's snow" by Edward Caswall first published in 1858. The tune was later written for the words by John Goss in 1871. He called the tune HUMILITY which fits very well with the theme of Caswall's words.

 

Caswall converted from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism not long before he wrote this carol and the final verse he wrote, which includes a prayer to the Virgin Mary, is dropped from Protestant hymnals. 

 

Also, in some hymn books, the first line is changed to "See in yonder manger low" which I think misses something of the fact that in the UK and much of the northern hemisphere we do contemplate the events of Christmas in the cold and sometimes the snow of wintertime.

 

I chose this one partly because I love the tune with the quieter more reflective verses and the triumphant chorus, and also for the words, especially of two of the verses:

 

Lo, within a manger lies

He who built the starry skies

He who throned in height sublime

Sits amid the cherubim.

 

Sacred infant, all divine,

What a tender love was Thine,

Thus to come from highest bliss

Down to such a world as this.

 

To begin to grasp the truth of who this baby was and why he came into the world is to glimpse at the mystery of the incarnation and the grace of the good news.

 

Each verse sung in unison is followed by the powerful chorus in four-part harmony:

 

Hail, thou ever blessed morn,

Hail redemption's happy dawn,

Sing through all Jerusalem

Christ is born in Bethlehem.

 

Here is the carol performed by the choir of Guildford Cathedral.

 

Number 6 - Silent Night / Still the Night

 

This carol is probably many people's favourite and comes in at number 6 on my list. This is the first of two carols on the list not originally written in the English language.

 

The carol is from Austria and was originally written in German. The story goes that it was first performed on Christmas Eve 1818 in a little town called Oberndorf bei Salzburg, with words by Father Joseph Mohr and music by his organist, the local school teacher, Franz Gruber.

 

The English words exist in more than one version. The most commonly sung translation is by John Freeman Young, who was an Episcopal priest in New York City. It reads:

 

Silent night! Holy night!

All is calm, all is bright

Round yon virgin mother and child!

Holy infant, so tender and mild,

Sleep in heavenly peace!

Sleep in heavenly peace!

 

Silent night! Holy night!

Shepherds quake at the sight!

Glories stream from heaven afar,

Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!

Christ the Saviour is born!

Christ the Saviour is born!

 

Silent night! Holy night!

Son of God, love's pure light

Radiant beams from thy holy face

With the dawn of redeeming grace,

Jesus, Lord, at thy birth!

Jesus, Lord, at thy birth!

 

However, anyone familiar with the Church of Scotland hymnary in any of its editions, knows that we usually sing a slightly different version, translated by Stopford Brooke, an Irish-born Anglican cleric who served as a royal chaplain to Queen Victoria. It’s a matter of personal preference, but I like these words a little better:

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Sleeps the world; hid from sight,

Mary and Joseph in stable bare

watch o'er the child belovèd and fair,

sleeping in heavenly rest,

sleeping in heavenly rest.

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Shepherds first saw the light,

heard resounding clear and long,

far and near, the angel-song,

'Christ the Redeemer is here!'

'Christ the Redeemer is here!'

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Son of God, O how bright

love is smiling from thy face!

Strikes for us now the hour of grace,

Saviour, since thou art born!

Saviour, since thou art born!

 

There are few recordings of this alternative version, many of the “Silent Night” version, but here is St Thomas Choir (Thomanerchor) in Leipzig, singing in the original German version and what a pure sound they create.

 

Number 5 – O come, all ye faithful

 

We now enter the top five of my personal selection of top ten Christmas carols. As the lyrics say, this carol is indeed ‘joyful and triumphant’ and ‘O come, all ye faithful’ takes the number five spot.

 

Although one of the best-known carols, the origin of its words and tune are shrouded in mystery. There's even a conspiracy theory that the words are actually a Jacobite coded message!

 

A number of people have been suggested as authors of the words. By the way, this is the second of our carols that were not originally in English, the original language in this case being Latin. The opening words in Latin are Adeste Fidelis. The main candidates for authorship include King John IV of Portugal, a 17th century musician called John Reading, and an 18th century writer called John Francis Wade. Wade is usually considered the most likely writer, but we do not really know. The first published version was by Wade in 1751.

 

The English translation was made by a Catholic priest, Frederick Oakeley in 1841, with additional translations by William Thomas Brooke.

 

The tune, known as ADESTE FIDELIS, is also of uncertain origin with many suggestions over the years including Wade himself, John Reading, King John IV, as well as a number of famous composers such as Handel, Gluck and Thomas Arne.

 

The arrangement by David Willcocks is justly celebrated with its descant on the “Sing choirs of angels” verse and his re-harmonisation of the final “Yea Lord we greet Thee” verse.

 

The words themselves touch on many of the central truths of the incarnation of Christ. The hymn is often used as the penultimate carol at Nine Lessons and Carols services following the reading of the ninth lesson, John 1:1-18. The words in the final verse “Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing” are a paraphrase of John 1:14.

 

In normal church Christmas services, the hymn is often used as the opening hymn as God’s people gather to worship.

 

Here is the hymn, in the Willocks arrangement, sung at the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols at King’s College. Cambridge.

 

Number 4 – Once in royal David's city

 

As we reach the top four of my personal choices of Christmas carol, it is very difficult to put these in order.

 

"Once in royal David's city" was written originally as a poem by Cecil Frances Alexander (née Humphreys) and then published in 1848 as one of her "Hymns for Little Children." I think it is important to remember that this is a children's hymn and when you read the words that way it makes a lot of sense.

 

Mrs Alexander was an Anglo-Irish hymn writer born in Dublin and was married to William Alexander in 1850. He was later Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland. Among her other well-known hymns are "All things bright and beautiful" and "There is a green hill far away".

 

The words are simple enough for a child to understand, yet cover the profound truths of the incarnation, that Jesus was fully God:

 

He came down to earth from heaven

Who is God and Lord of all" (v.2)

 

And at the same time, he was fully human like any one of us:

 

For he is our childhood's pattern;

Day by day like us he grew,

He was little, weak, and helpless,

Tears and smiles like us he knew." (v.4)

 

My favourite verses are the final two (verses 5 and 6) where the writer reflects on the fact that we will one day see Jesus. In verse 5 she explains that it is by Christ himself and his work that we are saved and in verse 6 she points out that when we see him it will not be as a baby in the manger, but as the King of heaven.

 

And our eyes at last shall see him

Through his own redeeming love,

For that Child so dear and gentle,

Is our Lord in heaven above:

And he leads his children on

To the place where he is gone.

 

Not in that poor lowly stable,

With the oxen standing by,

We shall see him: but in heaven,

Set at God's right hand on high,

Where like stars his children crowned,

All in white shall wait around.

 

The hymn was set to music a year after it was written by Henry John Gauntlett. His tune is called IRBY.

The hymn is traditionally the first one sung at many Lessons and Carols services, most famously at King's College Cambridge, with a boy treble singing the opening verse solo and unaccompanied.

 

Here it is in a performance by Trinity College Choir, Cambridge.

 

Number 3 – O little town of Bethlehem

 

Some of the carols we have looked at are shrouded in mystery as to their exact origins, but the very opposite is the case for "O little town of Bethlehem" where we know a great deal about its composition.

This is the second American carol on our list. It was written in 1868 by Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), an Episcopalian clergyman who was rector of Trinity Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He was inspired to write the words after visiting Bethlehem on a tour of the Holy Land.

 

The words reflect on how the most significant event in history, the birth of the Son of God came so quietly that most the world never even knew it happened. Yet for those who "receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in."

 

The final verse is a prayer that Christ would come and make his home in our hearts as we respond to the gospel:

 

We hear the Christmas angels,

the great glad tidings tell;

O come to us, abide with us,

our Lord Emmanuel!

 

As with the other American carol on this list ("It came upon the midnight clear") the carol is usually sung to different tunes in the USA and in the UK.

 

In a way, the American tune is the more "authentic" one. It was written by Brooks's own organist, Lewis Redner, for the hymn and with the author's approval. The tune is known as ST LOUIS.

However, in the UK, we normally sing the hymn to an English folk tune, FOREST GREEN, which was paired with the words by the English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams.

 

It probably depends a lot on what you are used to, but I like both tunes, though I think the American tune is definitely of its time and can sound overly sentimental, which is fine if I'm feeling overly sentimental myself!

 

So we have two renditions to share on this one. First, we have the American tune sung by the Trinity Choir. Second, the choir of Ely Cathedral singing the hymn to FOREST GREEN.

Number 2 – In the bleak mid-winter

 

The second top place goes to "In the bleak mid-winter" and it was a close thing between this and the number one. This carol is simply perfect and makes it feel like Christmas any time I listen to it or sing it.

 

The words were originally written as a poem by the English poet Christina Gabriel Rossetti (1830-1894), though perhaps with prescience she titled the poem "A Christmas Carol" when it was first published in 1872.

 

The original poem has five stanzas. Verse one focuses on the weather around Christmas time, at least in the cold northern hemisphere, and hints at the fact that it was (and is) a harsh world that the Christ child was born into.

 

Then in verse two the focus switches to the incarnation itself with the God who reigns over all becoming a poor baby born in a stable.

 

Verse three (which is omitted in some versions of the sung carol) focuses on the child's human needs ("a breastful of milk and a mangerful of hay") yet even then he received the "worship" of "the ox and ass and camel which adore."

 

The fourth verse imagines the angels and archangels gathering to worship, but Mary worshipping Jesus with a tender kiss.

 

The final verse creates a challenge for the poet and us today. "What can I give Him, poor as I am?" And her answer, which ours should be too, is to give Him our hearts.

 

I have always had a deeply emotional experience when singing these words.

 

And that brings us to the music. It is sad that Rossetti never lived to see her words set to music. She died in 1894. There are two equally good and famous settings of the words to music. The first one was by the English composer Gustav Holst (he of "The Planets" fame) in 1906. He called his hymn tune CRANHAM. This is maybe the best-known version and certainly the one suitable for congregational hymn singing. It is a beautiful tune which matches the mood of the words perfectly.

 

As with many of the carols we have looked at, there is more than one setting of the words. The second tune was written by Harold Darke in 1909. Darke's version is more suited as an anthem for a choir to sing as each verse has a different arrangement, some with solo voices, some unaccompanied. It is also a lovely tune which is well-matched with the text.

 

There are at least five or six other settings with other tunes, but these are the "big two".

 

We present both versions, first the Darke version with the Cambridge Singers, with City of London Sinfonia conducted by John Rutter. Second the Holst setting to the tune Cranham sung by the choir of King's College Cambridge conducted by Stephen Cleobury.

 

Number 1 – Hark! The herald angels sing

 

So we arrive at our number one choice this Christmas Eve and I've chosen "Hark! the herald angels sing" as my favourite Christmas carol of all.

 

The original words were written by Charles Wesley (1707-1788) in 1739, although Wesley's original is a bit different from the version we normally sing today. Wesley's opening words were "Hark! how all the Welkin rings, Glory to the King of Kings" ("Welkin" is an archaic word for "heaven"). The first words were revised by Wesley's colleague, George Whitefield, to "Hark! The herald angels sing, Glory to the new-born King" as well as a few other changes, and more tweaks to the words occurred in later years. Wesley also wrote several more verses than we normally sing today.

 

The great words of this carol really get to the heart of the Christmas message and the Christian gospel.

In verse one the message of the angels in Luke 2 are the focus:

 

Hark! The herald angels sing,

"Glory to the newborn King;

Peace on earth and mercy mild,

God and sinners reconciled."

 

In verse two, the words reflect on the fact that the baby Jesus is God incarnate, God made flesh:

 

Christ, by highest heaven adored

Christ, the everlasting Lord,

Late in time behold him come

Offspring of a Virgin's womb:

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,

Hail the incarnate Deity,

Please as man with man to dwell,

Jesus, our Emmanuel.

 

The third verse is a great hymn of praise to Christ:

 

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace!

Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

Light and life to all He brings

Risen with healing in His wings.

But the verse also comes back to the gospel message of salvation:

Born that man no more may die

Born to raise the sons of earth

Born to give them second birth.

 

Each verse ends with the same refrain as the hymn's opening:

 

Hark! The herald angels sing,

"Glory to the newborn King!"

 

It is hard now to even read the words without also hearing the tune for this carol. Yet the words and music are separated by a century. The tune for this carol is usually kunown as MENDELSSOHN or sometimes as BETHLEHEM. It was written by Felix Mendelssohn in 1840 for a completely different piece, a secular cantata called "Festgesang" about the printer Gutenberg. It wasn't until 1855 that William Cummings, organist at Waltham Abbey Church paired Mendelssohn's tune (with slight amendment) with Wesley/Whitefield's words, and the rest is history.

 

Incidentally, before that, Wesley himself in his lifetime, preferred "Hark! The herald" to be sung to the same tune he used for "Christ the Lord is risen today" which is Handel's tune MACCABAEUS usually used today with "Thine be the glory". Confused yet? As with one or two other carols on the list, it is strange to think that Wesley never heard his hymn sung to the tune we can't imagine it without nowadays.

 

The hymn is often sung with a rousing descant and reharmonsiation on the final verse by Sir David Willcocks which was written in 1961.

 

So, here is "Hark! the Herald angels sing" in Willcocks' arrangement. As befitting our number one choice, this version also has a brass fanfare to introduce it. Here it is sung by the Choir of King's College, Cambridge conducted by David Willcocks, with organ and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble.