Home>Charles G. Finney

Charles G. Finney

Preterist Commentaries


September 15, 1852

by Charles Grandison Finney
President of Oberlin College

Text.–1 Pet. 4:18: “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

From the connection of this passage, some have inferred that the apostle had his eye immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. They suppose this great and fearful event to be alluded to in the language, “For the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?” This may refer to the destruction of the city and temple of God’s ancient people, yet the evidence for the opinion does not seem to be decisive. A reference to the event is possible and even probable. We know that when Jerusalem was destroyed, not one Christian perished. They had timely notice in the signs Christ had already given them, and perceiving those signs in season, they all fled to Pella, on the east of the Jordan, and hence were not involved in the general destruction.

But whether Peter refers to this particular event or not, one thing is plain: he recognizes a principle in the government of God, namely, that the righteous will be saved, though with difficulty, but the wicked will not be saved at all. It is plain throughout this whole chapter that Peter had his mind upon the broad distinction between the righteous and the wicked–a distinction which was strikingly illustrated in the destruction of Jerusalem, and which can never lack illustrations under the moral and providential government of a holy God.

The salvation of the righteous, though certain, is difficult. Though saved, they will be scarcely saved. On this basis rests the argument of the Apostle;– that if their salvation be so difficult, the sinner cannot be saved at all. His salvation is utterly impossible. This is plainly the doctrine of the text. It had a striking exemplification in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the passage, as I have said, may or may not have reference to that event. All students of the Bible know that this great destruction is often held up as a type or model of the final judgment of the world. It was a great event on the page of Jewish history, and certainly had great significance as an illustration of God’s dealings towards our sinning race.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security

Date: 03 Dec 2010
Time: 06:18:29

Your Comments:

Because Finney says, more than once, that this passage “may or may not” refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, I do not think it is appropriate to categorically classify him as a futurist. He may or may not interpret this particular passage in a preterist manner, but that does not, in any way, justify the assumption that he is therefore a futurist.

[TD: agreed]