Hebrews 1:10-12 and the LXX

Ina previous post, I discussed one of the peculiarities of the use of the vocalisation of the Hebrew consonantal texts, showing that the LXX translators understood the correct vocalisation of Psa 110:3 (109:3, LXX) differently than the later Masoretic scribes. Another quirk of this issue can be seen in the use of the LXX of Psa 102:25-27 (102:26-28 in the Hebrew; 101:26-28 in the LXX) in Heb 1:10-12, and its application to Jesus.

The Greek of Heb 1:10-12, addressing Jesus, reads:

καί· σὺ κατ᾽ ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ διαμένεις, καὶ πάντες ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσονται, καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἑλίξεις αὐτούς, ὡς ἱμάτιον καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται· σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσιν.

And, "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end." (NRSV)

It is true that the Masoretic text understands the psalmist to be speaking to Yahweh; however, the translators of the LXX understood the vocalisation of the verb ענה differently than the later MT scribes. The MT vocalises the term as ‘innah, meaning “he [Yahweh] weakened [the suppliant].” However, the LXX understood the vocalisation to be “he [Yahweh] answered [the suppliant],” therefore, introducing a second lord (κυριος) who is addressed in vv.25-27 of the LXX.

Sir Lancelot Brenton, in his translation of the LXX, translates the LXX as:

He answered him in the way of his strength: tell me the fewness of my days.

The author of Hebrews, as he is using the LXX, is not applying a “Yahweh” text from the LXX to Jesus; instead, he is using a text that has connotations of “Messianic eschatology.”

F.F. Bruce, in his New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans), writes:

In the Septuagint text the person to whom these words [“of old you laid the foundation of the earth”] are spoken is addressed explicitly as “Lord,” and it is God who addresses him thus. Whereas in the Hebrew text the suppliant is the speaker from the beginning to the end of the psalm, in the Greek text his prayer comes to an end with v. 22, and the next words read as follows: “He [God] answered him [the suppliant] in the way of his strength:
‘Declare to Me the shortness of My days: Bring Me not up in the midst of My days. Thy [the suppliant’s] years are throughout all generations. Thou, lord [the suppliant, viewed here as the Messiah by Hebrews], in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth

 Benjamin Bacon, in his essay, "Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Reading of Ps. 102:23" in the Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 3 (1902), pp.280-85(*), concludes his fascinating study with the following comment (here, p.284):

Thus instead of the application of these verses of Ps 102 to messiah being an audacious innovation on the part of the author of Hebrews, we find evidence (1) that the psalm itself was a favorite resort of those who sought in even pre-Christian times for proof-texts of messianic eschatology. This is a result which might have been anticipated from the suggestive reference to "the set time" for Jehovah's deliverance and glorification of Zion, v. 13, and the challenge to cryptographic interpretation of v.18, "this shall be written for the generation to come: and a people which shall be created shall praise the Lord." (2) We have specific evidence of the application of verses 23-24 to the Messiah by those who employed the Hebrew or some equivalent text. (3) Finally, in the LXX and the Vulg. rendering of ענה by απεκριθη, respondit, we have the explanation of how, in Christian circles at least, the accepted Messianic passage could be made to prove the doctrine of [the Messiah's personal pre-existence].

While this pericope may not be an Old Testament Yahweh text being applied to Jesus, at least due to the use of the LXX in Heb 1:10-12, there are many that understand, correctly, that this passage teaches the personal pre-existence of Jesus. Some, such as Andrew Perry, a Christadelphian apologist and author of Before He was Born, a work arguing that Jesus did not personally pre-exist, argues that this passage it to be understood as Jesus pre-existing typologically in the person of Hezekiah, who he believes to be the author of Psa 102(!), which is utterly absurd (at least he tries to deal with the passage; Duncan Heaster and other proponents of such a Christology don’t deal with this pericope [cf. Heaster’s The Real Christ]). Thomas Farrar has a very good paper on the Christological implications of this pericope here, which refutes the arguments of Parry and other proponents of such a Socinian Christology. Of course, I would disagree with Farrar on some points (he is a Trinitarian; I am clearly not; also, he rather glibly dismisses pre-millennial eschatology), but overall, the paper is sold at showing that, in the theology of the author of Hebrews, Jesus personally pre-existed.

(*) My thanks to my friend, Dr. Bill Hamblin, for forwarding me a copy of this article.

JW Christology vs. Hebrews 1

Hebrews 1 presents a catena of various Old Testament texts, often those that are Messianic in context or were part of the coronation service of the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment. Often in this chapter, the author often asks the rhetorical question of which angel did God ever say or promise such things to, with the answer being “none,” as the purpose of this chapter is, in part, to portray Jesus as being greater than all the angels. An “archangel” is just an elevated angel, belonging to the same ontological category as a “regular” angel.

In Jehovah’s Witness Christology, Jesus and the archangel Michael are numerically identical to one another (similar to how Michael and the patriarch Adam are numerically identical to one another in Latter-day Saint theology [e.g., D&C 27:11]). This means that the Christology of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (official name of the JW organisation) is in clear conflict with the Christology of the author of Hebrews. Let us examine some of the pertinent texts from the JW translation of the Bible, the New World Translation (online here); Old Testament references are in square brackets:

So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs (v. 4)

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say, "You are my son; today I have become your father"? [Psa 2:7] And "I will become his father, and he will become my son"? [2 Sam 7:14]. But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all of God's angels do obeisance to him." [Deut 32:43, LXX; Psa 97:7] (vv.5-6)

Also, he says about the angels: "He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." [Psa 104:4, LXX] But about the Son, he says: "God is your throne forever and ever, and the sceptre of your Kingdom is the sceptre of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions." [Psa 45:6-7] (vv.7-9)

But about which of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet?" [Psa 110:1; 109:1, LXX] (v.13)

For the author of Hebrews, Jesus is not in the ontological category of “angel,” which would exclude an identification with being an archangel, viz. Michael. Instead, he is exalted above all angels and given a name above all other names (Heb 1:4; cf. Phil 2:5-11). I do hope that any Jehovah’s Witness, or those investigating JW claims, will seriously rethink their denomination’s Christology, as it is clearly in conflict with the Christology of the New Testament on this and many other points.

Reading Ephesians 2:8-10 in Light of Colossians 2:11-13

Eph 2:8-10 is often treated as the “clobber-text” employed by apologists for Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. Notwithstanding, the "works" in view here, as with Rom 4:4 and the use of the term "debt" (οφειλημα), are works where one tries to legally obligate God to give us salvation--this is anathema, as we cannot obligate God to "owe" us anything, let alone salvation. However, such does not condemn works within the realm of God's grace, as seen in many texts (e.g., Psa 106:30-31; Rom 2:5-10; cf. Heb 6:10).

New Testament scholar, Markus Barth, in his 1974 commentary on Ephesians, published as part of the Anchor Bible commentary series, on pp. 244-45, writes:

There appears to be some resemblance between the opponents fought in Ephesians 2:9 and those refuted in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. Therefore, the "works" of these opponents can be more clearly defined as "works of law". . . .What are the "works of law" which Paul's opponents were "boasting" about? Because their works were connected with OT commandments and Jewish customs, and because they were obviously recommended to or imposed upon Gentiles, the adversaries of Paul are usually called "Judaizers". . . . In the New Testament the term "works of law" and polemics against "righteousness by law" occur only in contexts where the imposition of some [Jewish] legal elements upon the Gentiles is discussed.

Interestingly, the Greek word translated as "gift" in Eph 2 is δωρον, which refers to a gift in a form of a sacrifice, and in the context of the pericope, refers not to salvation per se, but to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was a selfless act, not merited by human works. This fits grammatically with the use of τουτο, a demonstrative, which, like δωρον, is both neuter and singular; the demonstrative cannot refer to "faith" as πιστις is feminine while the participle "have been saved" (σεσωμενοι) is a masculine plural.

What is grace according to Paul? God looking away from one’s sins because of an imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness? No, according to Paul, grace is:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for what blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who have himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:11-14)

The very purpose of sending his Son in the context of salvation is to give grace which cleanses from sins. The purpose is not for him to look away from our sins because of an imputed, alien righteousness. One must work out salvation with fear and trembling in order to attain that resurrection of life (Phil 2:12-16) and any gospel that denies that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would challenge anyone to look at any judgement scene in the Bible and find me any one scene where one goes to heaven based on faith alone and an alien righteousness. There is not one. Every single one that separates those from going to heaven and those going to hell is based on works and obedience to God. Look at Rev 20:12-13; 22:11-14; John 5:28-29; Matt 7:16-23; 16:24-27; 25:31-46; Rom 2:4-13; 1 Cor 3:10-17. Every single one of them makes this separation based on works and obedience; they are not in regard to only extra rewards or punishments. Only the active grace that God provides and when he looks through his eyes of grace is it possible to attain salvation. For a book-length discussion, see Chris Vanlandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006) for a refutation of the common claim among many Evangelicals that works, for the Christian, determine their rewards in the hereafter, not their final destinies, at the final judgement.

Something that is rarely discussed, especially among proponents of various “faith alone” theologies is the relationship Eph 2 has with Col 2. Ephesians and Colossians have very strong ties with one another, and many key passages in both epistles are to be read in light of the other to get the fuller meaning of Paul’s comments; furthermore, most scholars who hold to the authorship of one of these epistles almost universally holds to the authorship of the other (these are two of the six disputed epistles, the others being 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles).

In the parallel text to Eph 2:8-10, we read the following:

In [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism wherein also we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col 2:11-13)

In this pericope, Paul states that those "in" (εν) Christ are circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (viz. water baptism [per v. 12]), and paralleling the language used in Rom 6:1-4, we are said to be buried together (συνθαπτομαι) with him "in baptism" (εν τω βαπτισμω), resulting in God freely forgiving (χαριζομαι) us of our trespasses. The only exegetically-sound interpretation is that this pericope teaches baptismal regeneration, not a merely symbolic understanding of water baptism. Of course, it is God, not man, who affects salvation and the forgiveness of sins through water baptism, as the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of baptism, cleanses us from sins and makes us into a new creature; it is not something merited by human works (see Titus 3:3-5). It is rather disturbing, and unfortunately, has led to a lot of eisegesis and heretical theologies, the concept that if a person does anything, they legally merit salvation. If I am handed a gift, do I “merit” the gift by putting my hands out to receive it? For some, the answer is “yes.”

It should also be noted that even in Ephesians, Paul teaches the necessity of water baptism. In Eph 5:26, speaking of Christ’s relationship to the Church, we read:

To make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word. (NIV)

In the Greek, this is a purpose clause, as evidenced by the use of the subordinating conjunction ινα. Christ is said to make holy (αγιαζω) and cleanse (καθαριζω) its members with the "washing of water." The term translated as "washing" is λουτρον, which is the term for a "bath" or even a baptismal font (cf. Song 4:2; 6:6; Sirach 34:25 in the LXX). This noun, being coupled with the phrase του υδατος "of water" shows that water baptism is the instrumental means through which Christ cleanses the members of His bride, the Church.

When read contextually, and in light of Col 2:11-13, as well as the entirety of Paul’s own writings, Eph 2:8-10 is not a “problem text” for Latter-day Saint soteriology, in spite of the incessant claims from many ignorant critics of the Restored Gospel.

The transformative meaning of –οω verbs

There has been for a very long time debate about the meaning of δικαιοω, especially in “salvation” contexts in the LXX and Greek NT. While there is no question that the verb can, and indeed does, have a declarative meaning, even in some soteriological contexts, there is also a transformative dimension of the term, too (e.g., see where the verb “to constitute” [καθιστημι] is coupled with the adjective deriving from this verb, δικαιος; for a discussion on Rom 5:19, see this post).

Phillip Schaff, author of the impressive 8-vol. History of the Christian Church, while often defending the Reformed understanding of soteriology and other issues, eventually admits the fact that –οω verbs in Greek have a transformative, not only a mere declarative, sense behind them, in vol. 7, p. 104 n. 139, states (italics in original; comment in square brackets my own for clarification):

Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω,(i.to make manifest, etc.)

In his seminal 3-volume Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Celsus Spicq quotes M.J. LaGrange's article in Revue Biblique, "La Justification Selon Paul [1914:121]) stating, "First, we should note that verbs in οω mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus δικαιοω would properly mean 'make just.'"

A study of these verbs Schaff references supports this admission. The word δηλοω appears seven times in the epistles, always denoting a recognition of an actual manifestation (1 Cor 1:11; 3:13; Col 1:18; Heb 9:8; 12:27; 1 Pet 1:11; 2 Pet 1:14); φανεροω appears fifty times in the Greek NT, denoting the same (e.g., 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16); τυφοω appears three times in the NT, always denoting actual blindness (John 14:40; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 John 2:11).

Another verb, among many, one could add to Schaff’s lit that also supports this meaning is the verb τυφοω, meaning “to be puffed up”—it is used three times in the NT, and always refers, not merely to the declared state of a person, but their intrinsic qualities, too (1 Tim 3:15; 6:4; 2 Tim 3:4).

In both soteriological and non-soteriological contexts, -οω verbs do not have a mere declarative sense; only by engaging in special pleading can one claim that such is the case when δικαιοω is used in soteriological contexts. This is just another piece of evidence against various Protestant understandings of Sola Fide and the forensic nature of justification.

(For previous discussions of the transformative dimension behind δικαιοω, see this post and this post).

Matthew 1:18, 25 and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost . . . And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her son: and he all his name Jesus.

(I have removed “firstborn” [Greek: πρωτοτοκος] from v.25 as it is a later interpolation, perhaps based on Luke 2:7).

When examining the biblical teaching on Mary and the question of whether she was a perpetual virgin, Matt 1:18, 25 are two key passages, as they show the impossibility of any other interpretation than the “Helvidian” perspective (viz. Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus, engaged in sexual activity as husband and wife, and sired children after Jesus).

The phrase “before they came together” is πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς. The verb translated as “to come together” is συνερχομαι. While it is correctly noted by some Catholic scholars and apologists (e.g., John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [1975]) that this phrase can mean “to come together [platonically]” or even “to live together,” this is not the contextual meaning of this verb; indeed, Matthew in vv.18-25 is defending the concept of the virginal conception and birth of Jesus, so a sexual/euphemistic meaning of this verb is in view here. That this is the case can be seen in how leading scholarly Greek lexicons understand this verb in light of v.18.

For instance, Louw-Nida in their lexicon (23.61) offers the following meaning of the verb in light of γινωσκω in v.25:

συνέρχομαι: πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα 'before they had sexual intercourse, she was found to be pregnant' Mt 1.18

Moulton-Milligan in their Greek lexicon offer this definition of the verb in light of the papyri evidence:

The verb is common in connexion with marriage, as in Mt 1¹⁸, e.g. BGU IV. 1050⁶ (time of Augustus) συγχωροῦσιν Ἰσιδώρα καὶ Διονύσιος συνεληλυθέναι ἀλλήλοις πρὸς γάμο(ν), so ib. 1098⁸ (c. B.C. 20), 1105⁸ (c. B.C. 10), P Tebt II. 351² (ii/A.D.) οἰκί(ας) . . δοθείσης αὐτῇ … συνερχο(μένῃ) τῷ ὁμομητ(ρίῳ) ἀδελ(φῷ), “a house given to her on her marriage with her brother on the mother’s side,” ib. 334⁴ (A.D. 200–1) σ[υ]νῆλθον πρὸς γάμον Ἑρμῇ, “I was united in marriage to Hermes” (Edd.): cf. also Gnomon 47 (= BGU V. p. 23) (c. A.D. 150) ἀστὴ συνελθοῦσα Aiv[γ]u[πτίῳ] kατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν ὡς ἀστῷ ἀνεύθυνός ἐστιν, and the use of the subst. συνέλευσις in PSI V. 450¹⁰ (ii/iii A.D.), with which the editor compares P Oxy XII. 1473⁶ (A.D. 201) ἅμα τῇ τοῦ γάμ[ο]υ αὐτῶν προσελεύσει.

There is no hint that Joseph and Mary’s relationship was one of an aged protector and an avowed temple virgin, as later (mainly Eastern) or any other relationship but a genuine husband/wife relationship. This is further substantiated by vv.16 and 20, where the terms “her [Mary’s] husband” is used of her relationship with Joseph (Greek ανηρ) in v.16, and Mary is called Joseph’s “wife” (Greek: γυνη) in v.20.

The verb “to know” in v.25 is γινωσκω. While, like its Hebrew equivalent ידע it can mean intellectual knowledge, both terms carry the euphemistic meaning of “sexual intercourse,” similar to συνερχομαι in v.18 (e.g., Gen 4:1, 25 in both the Hebrew OT and LXX). Again, as this whole pericope (vv.18-25) is a polemic in defense of the miraculous conception of Jesus, the euphemistic meaning is clearly in view here.

Friberg, in his Greek Lexicon, offers the following definition in light of Matt 1:25 (emphasis in original):

[E]uphemistically have sexual intercourse (MT 1.25).

Jerome, in his work in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary from A.D. 383, "Against Helvidius," understood the term to have such a meaning, although he tried to argue for a continuation of the celibate relationship between Mary and Joseph post-partum.

As Murray Harris in his book, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (2012) noted, had Matthew wish to convey the idea of a continuation of the abstinence post-partum between Mary and Joseph, the term “until” (Greek: εως ου) would not have been used on its own, as the predominant meaning of this phrase is “until ‘x’ but not afterwards” (i.e., a cessation of the main clause [see this post responding to Tim Staples on εως ου]) but would have coupled it with the Greek phrase η απο τοτε ("or after that" [i.e., the birth of Jesus]); however, he did not, and coupled with the texts in Matthew that speak of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus (Matt 12:46-47; 13:55), the defender of Mary’s perpetual virginity is in a precarious position, exegetically.

Defenders of Mary's perpetual virginity are in the unenviable position of having to argue for a position that is totally at odds with the prima facie reading of the pertinent texts, as well as the exegetical, grammatical, and lexical evidence supporting the "Helvidian" perspective.

Mary being called “Virgin” after the New Testament

An interesting “counter” offered by some Roman Catholic apologists (e.g., Gerry Matatics; Tim Staples) is that Mary was often called the “virgin” after the birth of Jesus. They reason that, if one had a bachelor uncle, one would cease to call them a “bachelor” after they got married, so, analogously, if Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus, no one would have predicated the title, “virgin” upon her unless she was a perpetual virgin.

Apart from being an absolutely desperate argument void of serious biblical exegesis, it is void of logic, too. Notice, as one example, that John the Baptist was still called “the Baptist” even after he was killed by Herod, such as Matt 16:14 17:13. Why? Obviously, John was not pictured as baptising people in his posthumous state. The reason why John was called “the Baptist” post-mortem, and why Mary was called “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus, was due to the fact that these titles reflected their functions in the life of Jesus. There is no justification for reading into the predication of the term, “virgin” of Mary as evidence of perpetual virginity, especially as the term “ever-virgin” was not used in the earliest writings of the patristic era—such was a later development.

For Further Reading

Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person

John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament

2 Peter 2:1 vs. Eternal Security and Limited Atonement

 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Pet 2:2; emphasis added).

The term "bought" is the Greek αγοραζω. Louw-Nida define the term as follows:

57.188  ἀγοράζω ; ὠνέομαι: to acquire possessions or services in exchange for money - 'to buy, to purchase.' ἀγοράζω: ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀγοράσαι ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος 'while they were gone to buy (some oil), the bridegroom arrived' Mt 25.10. ὠνέομαι: ἐτέθησαν ἐν τῷ μνήματι ᾧ ὠνήσατο Ἀβραὰμ τιμῆς ἀργυρίου παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Εμμώρ 'they were buried in a grave which Abraham had bought from the tribe of Hamor for a sum of money' Ac 7.16.

This text has often been used as one of the strongest passages refuting various theories of “eternal security” (others including Heb 6:4-6). While some have tried to relegate the force of this term and the phrase, it clearly teaches that there are those for whom Christ died for who fall from their salvation and are ultimately damned; furthermore, such also serves as an explicit refutation of Limited Atonement. Consider the following comment from a well-known Reformed commentator and grammarian of the New Testament:

That bought them (ton agorasanta autous). First aorist active articular participle of agorazó, same idea with lutoó in 1 Pet. 1:18f. These were professing  Christians, at any rate, these heretics. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [6 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1933], 6:160; emphasis in original).

Freewill, Predestination, and Salvation in the Bible

It is common for many Calvinists to cite Rom 9 as definitive evidence of Reformed soteriology. One common text that has been used in favour of this theology is Rom 9:22:

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

Many Reformed apologists use this verse as alleged biblical proof that God predestines people to salvation as well as reprobates others to damnation, as opposed to "preterition," wherein God is active only in election; passive in damnation.

However, when one examines the underlying Greek of this verse, one will find that the phrase translated as "fitted to destruction" is κατηρτισμενα, which is the perfect passive participle form of καταρτιζω, "to mend/fit/perfect." The use of the passive voice refutes the idea that God takes an active role in reprobation.

A related verse is that of John 1:12:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Both ελαβον ("received") and πιστευουσιν ("believe") are in the active voice, denoting the personal decision of the individual, as opposed to the passive which would mean that they were made (by God's infallible decree, a la Reformed theology) to receive and believe.

In trying to stress the sovereignty of God, Reformed theology has made God an impotent deity who cannot allow genuine free-will among humans to accomplish His goals. Notice the following confession from a well-known and respected Reformed author:

If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemption history. Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning. (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God [rev ed.: Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986], 16).

Compare and contrast with the following text:

Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord. (Zech 1:3; cf. 3:7; Mal 3:7; John 6:40, etc).

The Hebrew term translated as “turn” is שׁוב; the LXX translates it as επιστρεφω; both these terms in the Hebrew OT and LXX refers to turning back to God/repentance. (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:33, 35) as well as Yahweh turning back to His people/averting His wrath against sin (e.g., Zech 1:16). In this verse, and many other texts, God turning back to His people is contingent upon his people turning back to Him, not vice versa, showing that genuine free-will is part-and-parcel of the “salvation formula,” not mere compatibilist freedom. The conception of deity one finds with "Mormonism" is a potent deity who allows people to have genuine free-will to accept or reject the gospel, and yet will be victorious at the end of times; the Calvinist understanding of God is an impotent, blasphemous deity, who calls everyone to repentance and yet actively withholds the ability to all but a small few the ability to come to faith, and such is required so he can achieve his goals. One concept is a truly sovereign concept of God; the other is an anti-biblical blasphemy--I will let readers decide which one is which.