Exegesis of Psalm 51:4 — “Against You, You Only, Have I Sinned”

 

Psalm 51:4 reads:
“Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight; so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge.”

This verse stands at the heart of David’s confession, written after his sin with Bathsheba, his orchestration of Uriah’s death, and the resulting death of their child (2 Samuel 11–12). The shock for many readers comes with David’s claim to have sinned “against You, You only,” seemingly reducing or overlooking his crimes against Bathsheba, Uriah, and their family. To understand the theological and emotional weight of this confession, it is necessary to consider both its literary context and the deeper biblical concept of sin.

Why “Against You, You Only”?

• All Sin Is Ultimately Against God:
  While David certainly wronged Bathsheba (through sexual violence and abuse of royal power), Uriah (whose murder he plotted), Joab (whom he involved in the plot), and even his nation as king, the confession points to a reality rooted in biblical theology: Every sin is at its root a violation of God’s law and a rebellion against the Lawgiver Himself. Even when sins are committed against people, the underlying offense is against God, whose image all humans bear and whose commandments David broke (adultery, murder).

• Emphasis in Hebrew & Literary Structure:
  The phrase “against You” leads the Hebrew sentence, stressing the primacy of David’s offense against God. This literary move doesn’t deny the harm done to others but accentuates that all such harm is an ultimate affront to God’s holiness and moral order.

• God as the Absolute Judge:
  David’s appeal is not an attempt to minimize his human crimes. Rather, he acknowledges God as “justified” and “blameless” in his judgment, confessing that it is God above all who defines and judges evil, regardless of how effectively David might have concealed his actions from others.

The Profound Guilt in Light of His Actions

• Murder, Rape, and Abuse of Power:
  David’s actions were stark violations of both human dignity and divine law. He raped Bathsheba — a vulnerable subject abused by the king’s power. He orchestrated Uriah’s death as a calculated coverup for his sin. Their child died as a consequence. Thus, it is crucial to affirm that David did sin grievously against other humans.

• The Unique Weight of Sin Against God:
  By stating, “against You, You only, have I sinned,” David confronts the relational breach between himself and God, admitting that, at the heart of all harm done to people, lies the deeper offense of casting aside God’s will, dishonoring His character, and breaking the trust of the God who had shown him so much favor.

Theological Implications

• No True Repentance Without Recognition of Offense Against God:
  True confession requires not just an admission of harm done to others but an acknowledgment before God Himself, without excuses or deflection. Only by recognizing sin’s Godward direction can authentic repentance and restoration begin.

• Responsibility to Others is Not Denied:
  David’s words do not erase his responsibility to Bathsheba, Uriah, and their families, nor the lasting consequences of his actions. Rather, this confession positions every sin — private or public — within the context of a holy God who demands justice and who is never fooled or indifferent to evil.

Conclusion

When David says, “Against You, You only, have I sinned,” he confesses the vertical dimension of sin that transcends, but does not erase, its horizontal consequences. His greatest crime was against the holy character and covenant law of the God who had raised him to the throne and entrusted him with responsibility and blessing. This confession models for all believers that genuine repentance begins with owning the true character of sin as an affront to God, even when it devastates others.

This does not diminish the real suffering visited upon Bathsheba, Uriah, and the child. Furthermore, it does not absolve David of his social and ethical obligations. Instead, it exposes the heart of sin and the depth of David’s need for divine mercy, which is only possible when his guilt is laid bare before the God against whom all sin is ultimately committed.

Credobaptism: Historical Roots, the Rise of Infant Baptism, and the Witness of the Anabaptists

 

Introduction

Credobaptism, the practice of baptizing individuals upon a credible confession of faith, represents a foundational doctrine in many Christian traditions. Unlike paedobaptism (infant baptism), credobaptism emphasizes personal faith in Jesus Christ as the prerequisite for baptism. This distinction has not only theological implications but also historical ones, as it has been at the heart of major ecclesial and societal conflicts, particularly during the Reformation.

This article explores the historical relevance of credobaptism, the eventual dominance of infant baptism in the medieval church, and the radical reassertion of believer's baptism by the Anabaptists, with particular attention to Fritz Erbe, Fritz Irbe and other significant reformers.

---

1. The Roots of Credobaptism

In the New Testament, baptism is consistently portrayed as a response to faith. Passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, and Romans 6:3-4 show baptism following repentance and belief. The early Christian community baptized adults and converts from paganism who made a personal confession of faith.

By the 2nd and 3rd centuries, baptismal theology became more complex. While adult baptism remained normative, some theologians—concerned with original sin and the eternal destiny of children—began to advocate for infant baptism. Thinkers like Origen and Cyprian of Carthage contributed to the theological shift that would culminate in paedobaptism becoming mainstream.

In a sermon dated Sep. 18, 2011, Dr. John MacArthur addressed paedobaptism. He stated "Infant baptism is not in Scripture. Infant baptism is not in Scripture. And against that statement there is no evidence. There is no refuting of that statement. Scripture nowhere advocates infant baptism; it nowhere mentions infant baptism; it doesn’t exist in the Bible. There is no example of it; there is no comment on it; it’s not there. It is therefore impossible to prove that infant baptism is valid from the New Testament. It’s impossible to support it from the New Testament or, for that matter, from the Old Testament.

"German theologian Schleiermacher wrote, 'All traces of infant baptism which have been asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.' He’s right. A host of German and front-ranked theologues and scholars of the Church of England – the Church of England, the Anglican Church, which believes in infant baptism – a host of their scholars have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament but from apostolic and post-apostolic times. It isn’t in the New Testament, and it didn’t exist in the earliest church. They believe it arose around the second or third century.

"A Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism, says there is no definite proof of the practice until after the third century. And he says, 'This cannot be contested.'

"A Catholic professor of theology, Haggelbacher, writes, 'This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible.' Good.

"B. B. Warfield, who is no mean theologian, was an astute and really a great, great theologian, who again influenced my life in my seminary days. B. B. Warfield affirmed – he was, by the way, an advocate of infant baptism, but he affirmed the absence of infant baptism from the Bible.

"Among the Calvinists, among the reformed people, there is a very important principle which many of them like to use; it’s called the regulative principle. And it says this, 'If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden.' Now, if they would just stick with that, they’d be all right. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it cannot be introduced into the church as normative.

"The 5 solas of the Reformation were: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. The theme, the great byword of the Reformation was Scripture only, Scripture only, Scripture, Scripture, Scripture. And yet, if you go to Scripture, you cannot find one single, solitary word about infant baptism; it’s not in the Bible. (Emphasis in the original.) It still is defended, however, amazingly, and still practiced as if it was biblical. It’s really amazing. I can understand how people within the Protestant Church can disagree about an interpretation of scripture; I really find it very hard for myself to understand how they can argue about something that isn’t in the Bible as over against what is."

---

2. The Rise and Entrenchment of Infant Baptism

By the 5th century, particularly under the influence of Augustine of Hippo, infant baptism became widely practiced and defended. Augustine's doctrine of original sin emphasized that baptism was necessary for the removal of inherited guilt. In this framework, baptismal regeneration was stressed, and the church became increasingly sacramental and institutionalized.

As Christendom expanded and state and church became more intertwined, infant baptism served not only as a spiritual rite but also as a means of social and political integration. To be baptized was to be included in the Christian society. The medieval church reinforced this practice, and by the time of the Reformation, infant baptism was virtually universal in both Roman Catholic and emerging Protestant churches.

---

3. The Anabaptist Response and the Recovery of Credobaptism

In the 16th century, amid the broader Protestant Reformation, a group known as the Radical Reformers emerged. Dissatisfied with both Roman Catholic and magisterial Protestant views, they insisted on returning to the New Testament pattern of baptism following personal belief. These reformers became known as Anabaptists (from the Greek ana, meaning "again") because they re-baptized individuals who had been baptized as infants.

In the Wartburg Castle in Eisenach, Germany, up the South Tower to the entrance of the 30 foot deep there is a dungeon contained therein. Fritz Erbe, an Anabaptist, was imprisoned there from 1541 to 1548 when he died in that very cell. His crime? Non-baptism of his children, a conviction he held by reading the very Bible Luther had translated into German a scant 150 meters away barely 15 years earlier. We would do well to reflect upon the realities of sacralism, the State Church, and the Reformation as a whole.

Figures like Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and Michael Sattler spearheaded the movement in Zurich and other parts of Europe. They faced intense persecution—by both Catholic and Protestant authorities—for rejecting infant baptism and advocating for a free church composed only of confessing believers.

The Anabaptists saw credobaptism not merely as a ritual correction, but as a symbol of voluntary discipleship, separation from the world, and allegiance to Christ over civil authorities.

---

4. Fritz Irbe and 20th-Century Anabaptist Witness

While much attention is given to early Anabaptists, the legacy of credobaptism continued into the modern era, especially through Baptist and Mennonite movements. A key modern figure in this stream was Fritz Irbe, a Latvian Baptist minister and historian active in the early to mid-20th century.

Irbe was a significant advocate for Anabaptist history and theology in the face of both religious institutionalism and political oppression. His work provided a bridge between early Anabaptist convictions and contemporary expressions of believer’s baptism. He emphasized not only the biblical basis for credobaptism but also its role in shaping free, conscience-driven communities of faith.

In the context of Soviet occupation and religious suppression, Irbe’s writings and ministry courageously defended religious liberty, the separation of church and state, and the believer’s right to follow Christ in baptism and life. Alongside others like Harold Bender, Irbe contributed to the recovery and scholarly respect for Anabaptist history, influencing both academic theology and grassroots discipleship movements.

---

Conclusion

Credobaptism, far from being a mere alternative to infant baptism, represents a radical reclaiming of early Christian principles of personal faith and voluntary discipleship. The intrusion of infant baptism into the life of the church, emerging in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, reflected theological shifts and sociopolitical realities that prioritized institutional control over individual conviction.

The Anabaptists—both early and modern, including voices like Fritz Erbe—stood as prophetic witnesses to the primacy of personal faith, the cost of discipleship, and the necessity of a regenerate church. In an age where faith is often privatized or politicized, the Anabaptist call to follow Christ in believer’s baptism continues to challenge and inspire.

---

Further Reading

• Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision

• William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story

• Fritz Irbe, various writings (primarily in Latvian and German Baptist archives)

• John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus

Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4)

 In 2 Peter 2:4, the Greek term "Tartarus" (ταρταρόω - tartaroō, used as a verb meaning "to cast into Tartarus") is employed to describe the specific place of confinement for certain sinning angels. This is the only instance of this word in the New Testament.

To understand its significance, it's helpful to consider its background in ancient Greek literature and mythology, as well as its use in Jewish thought and the context of 2 Peter.

1. Tartarus in Ancient Greek Mythology:

• In classical Greek mythology, Tartarus was conceived as a deep abyss, a gloomy region far below Hades (the general realm of the dead).

• It was primarily known as a dungeon of torment and suffering, especially for those who committed egregious crimes against the gods.

• Hesiod's Theogony describes Tartarus as one of the primordial deities and a place where the Titans, after their defeat by Zeus and the Olympian gods, were imprisoned in chains and darkness. Homer's Iliad also mentions it as a place "as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth."

• Later Greek writers and philosophers, like Plato, expanded on Tartarus as a place where the wicked received divine punishment after death, with each punishment often unique to the condemned.

2. Tartarus in Jewish and Intertestamental Literature:

• While "Tartarus" is not a Hebrew word, the concept of a special prison for rebellious spiritual beings found its way into Jewish literature, particularly in texts like 1 Enoch.

• The Book of 1 Enoch, which was influential in the Second Temple period, describes the "Watchers" (angels who sinned by descending to earth and intermarrying with human women, as referenced in Genesis 6:1-4) being imprisoned in a dark, fiery abyss. Some Jewish texts even used "Tartarus" to refer to this place of angelic punishment, demonstrating that the term was known and adapted by Jewish writers to describe aspects of divine judgment.

3. Use in 2 Peter 2:4:

• Context: Peter uses the example of these sinning angels (along with the judgment on the ancient world in Noah's time and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah) to emphasize God's certainty in punishing the wicked, especially the false teachers he is condemning in his letter. The argument is: if God didn't spare even angels who sinned so grievously, he certainly won't spare these false teachers who are leading people astray.

• Specific Meaning: By using "Tartarus," Peter is likely drawing on the familiar imagery of a profound, dark, and secure prison for exceptionally wicked beings. It signifies a place of severe and inescapable confinement, distinct from the general abode of the dead (Hades).

• Targeted Inhabitants: Importantly, 2 Peter 2:4 specifies that angels were cast into Tartarus. This differentiates it from the fate of unrighteous humans, who typically go to Hades (and ultimately Gehenna/the lake of fire for final judgment). The angels in Tartarus are described as being held "in chains of darkness" and "reserved for judgment," indicating a temporary holding place until a future, more final judgment.

• Not Necessarily Affirming Greek Mythology: Peter's use of the term doesn't imply an endorsement of the entire Greek mythological narrative. Rather, he employs a word that his Greek-speaking audience would understand to convey the idea of a particularly severe and inescapable confinement for rebellious supernatural beings, a concept that had already been integrated into certain Jewish traditions. It's a culturally accessible term for a concept rooted in biblical truth.

In summary, "Tartarus" in 2 Peter 2:4 is a powerful Greek term used to describe a specialized, dark prison for fallen angels, emphasizing the severity of their sin and the certainty of God's coming judgment upon all who rebel against Him.

Exegesis of James 1:21

 

James 1:21 (ESV) states:

"Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."

Immediate Context

James, writing to Jewish Christians, emphasizes practical holiness and wholehearted obedience. In the broader context, verses 19–27 focus on hearing and doing God’s word, urging believers to live out genuine faith.

Structure of the Verse

The verse breaks down into three main exhortations:

• Put away all filthiness and wickedness: A call to repentance and moral cleansing.

• Receive with meekness the implanted word: Openness and humility toward God’s transforming message.

• The implanted word . . . is able to save your souls: Emphasizing the saving and transformative power of God’s word.

Focus: "The Implanted Word . . . Is Able to Save Your Souls"

Meaning of "The Implanted Word"

• Implantation Imagery: The phrase draws from agricultural imagery—God’s word is like a seed planted in believers’ hearts. This recalls Old Testament themes (see Jeremiah 31:33), where God’s law would be written on the heart. It is not an external code but an internal, living principle shaping desires, actions, and character.

• Reception and Growth: The proper attitude is "meekness," an openness and readiness to let God’s word take root, grow, and bear fruit.

Saving Power: "Is Able to Save Your Souls"

• Present and Future Salvation: The phrase refers both to the believer’s ongoing sanctification and the ultimate salvation at the end of the age. Receiving God’s word leads to transformation now and preservation into eternal life.

• Contrast With Mere Hearing: James contrasts merely hearing with truly receiving the word. The 'implanted' word is one that shapes behavior and brings about spiritual deliverance, not just intellectual assent.

• Dynamic Power: The Greek text emphasizes dynamis (power; ability)—the word has inherent power to bring about salvation, but it must be welcomed and allowed to work within the believer’s life.

Practical Application

• Repentance (putting away): Continuous rejection of sin and moral filth is necessary to create space for God’s word to flourish.

• Meekness (humility): Openness to correction and renewal is crucial for spiritual growth.

• Ongoing Process: Salvation in James is not just one-time or theoretical; it is an ongoing work of transformation in response to God's inwardly active word.

Summary Table: Key Elements in James 1:21

Element	Meaning in Context	Theological Emphasis
Putting away filthiness	Repentance from sin	Prerequisite for fruitful hearing
The implanted word	God’s word within	New covenant reality
Receive with meekness	Humble acceptance	Openness for transformation
Able to save your souls	Power for salvation	Both now (sanctification) and future (glorification)

James 1:21 challenges believers to active repentance, humility, and faithful receptivity to God’s word. The 'implanted word' signifies God’s living message, sown in the heart, with inherent power to bring continual and ultimate salvation as it is received and acted upon.