Sin Brings a Type of Living Hell
“A trail of mutilated frogs lay along the edge of the island.” This is the sad result of sin. In C. S. Lewis’ book Perelandra, Weston, now the “unman,” leaves a trail of mutilated frogs. Weston is the epicenter of evil. He is whole-hearted evil, a predecessor to the Miserific Vision.
Yet, Weston, the “unman,” is just a concentrated picture of what we saw with Adolf Hitler and his regime. It is a picture from a different angle of the mutilation that lays in the wake of Planned Parenthood. When we anonymously try to create our own utopia we leave a trail of mutilation. Whether we listen to the Nazi idea or the Planned Parenthood idea that says, with our culture, “have it your way,” “listen to your heart,” “do what feels right.” When we “have it our way,” “listen to our heart,” and “do what feels right,” then “might will make right” because there will be no higher authority and we may just have a reincarnation of the atrocities of Dachau and Auschwitz. We might just have people “aborting” the “clump of cells” in their womb because that is just what they want to do, it is what is convenient; we might just have “doctors” sell that “clump of cells” as human organs.
Truly, as much as we think we can, we can’t “have our cake and eat it too.” We can’t indulge in sin and also think it won’t bring consequences. Sin since the beginning has been accompanied with consequences. We can’t, for example, indulge in pornography as individuals or as a society and not have an avalanche of abominations over take us. When we make humans sexual objects to be exploited that is sadly what they become, and so human sex trafficking and child abduction ensue.
To quote an unlikely source, Friedrich Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil that philosophy always creates a world in it’s own image, it cannot do anything different. When we create a world where morality doesn’t exist then in a very real way morality doesn’t exist, at least that’s how people live. In this world each will do what is right in his own eyes, might will make right, and atrocities will flourish. Various attempts at the “Final Solution” will abound, and so will death and desolation.
We reap what we sow philosophically so right now we’re reaping a whole host of debauchery. Could it be that teachings have been tainted and thus a litany of death ensues. Maybe it’s time to re-explore worldviews and their corresponding idea of human flourishing and the ability that they have to match reality to their claims.
Human bodies ripped from the womb, mutilated, and sold, and the world doesn’t bat an eye. Sad; yet sadly not surprising in our naturalistic, hedonistic, secular day. Truly, “Moral decay doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is supported by the idolatry of the society at any given time, and expressive of its worship, even if such be completely unarticulated.”[i] Moral decay happens when something other then God is our ultimate good, our summum bonum (cf. Rom. 1). Humanity spirals out of control and implodes in on itself whenever we make gods in our own image; whether infanticide in the Roman Empire, Auschwitz during the Nazi regime, or rampant abortion today. When we decipher and dictate anonymously and subjectively what is good and prospering for ourselves and society we damn ourselves and those around us. We, so to speak, eat again of the forbidden fruit and cast ourselves out of Eden. We fall into a pit we ourselves dug. We kill Abel, revel in Babel, and inculcate innumerable evils. We make life a sort of living hell; picture the living, walking, and tortured skeletons engraved in our memories from the horrors of concentration camps.
O’ for the worlds that lay asunder,
for the shalom that is slain.We ingrain habits of unrest,
we fester and pass on spoil.O’ for the earth to break,
for all to be made anew.For the habits in my heart to pour out,
and for living waters to ensue.God this world is broken,
we are altogether damaged and damned.“Destroy the destroyers of the earth”(Rev. 11:18),
destroy what in me destroys.Shalom was slain
but through the slain Messiah (is/will be) renewed.O’ God, Maranatha!
__________________________
[i] Noel Doe, Created for Worship: From Genesis to Revelation to You (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2009), 236.
A Brief Defense of the Resurrection
If the resurrection didn’t happen why go to church? Why read the Bible? Why seek to uphold the New Testament ethic?
The launch of the World Wide Web in 1990 changed the world. It led to a wealth of information unprecedented in any other age to include what followed after the creation of the printing press in 1440. The Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution, the first moon landing, the first flight, the Model T, antiseptics, the Industrial Revolution; they changed the world and, one could argue, for the better. However, their significance pales in comparison to the question of the resurrection.
The topic of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is profoundly important. Upon it Christianity, indeed, heaven and hell rest. It is the hinge on which the direction of one’s life hangs, but it is more than that. The resurrection, if it happened, means that the hermeneutic with which we look at the world, even the whole of the universe, must correctly fit that evidence.
It means that all of history—that of the television to that of Tokyo—and everybody—Albert Einstein to Adolf Hitler—hang in the balance. It means that there is a day of reckoning; a day of profound peace and of hell. It means this world will one day finally be great for some and for others it will be the best they’ve known. It means that there is purpose and extreme futility.
It means that the unreal is real. It means that the far out has burst upon the scene. It means that what is seen is not it. It means that there is more. It means that there is meaning and direction to the cosmos. It means history is going somewhere and it is on its way.
If the resurrection happened then that new creation is the most significant thing that has happened since the (literal) beginning of time with the creation of all things. If the resurrection indeed happened then it confirms the words and work of Jesus. If the resurrection happened, it truly changes everything.
Second, it is important to consider arguments for the resurrection because the Bible itself all over the place argues for the resurrection. It’s what the Christian hope is built upon. If it didn’t happen then what are we doing?!
So, many of the sermons in Acts seek to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah (see Acts 9:22; 13:16ff; 16:13; 17:3, 17; 18:4-5, 19; 19:8ff; 24:25; 26:6, 22-26; 28:23, 31 cf. 18:28; from the beginning of the church preaching and teaching was integral 2:42).[1] Also, Luke wrote an “orderly account” to Theophilus so that he would have “certainty” (Luke 1:3). Luke said that Jesus “presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs” (Acts 1:3).
Peter says “we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). John talks about very tangible proof: “…we have heard… we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands… the life was made manifest, and we have seen… that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). Even when warned at the cost of punishment Peter and John said in Acts that they could not but speak of what they had seen and heard (Acts 4:20).
The reality of the resurrection is something that is obviously very important to the New Testament authors. It is something that they did not take for granted but gave witness to (cf. e.g. Jn. 19:31-37). The reality of the resurrection is no less important for us today. We must still give testimony to it. We must still give the “many proofs” (cf. Acts 1:3) for it.
Before look at the question: did the resurrection happen? I think it’s important to consider: is it even possible for the resurrection to happen? So, let’s consider the assumptions that we have as we look at the evidence.
Our starting places or assumptions have a big impact on the way we weigh evidence. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e. Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward Tom was still convicted. Why? Because people were prejudice against the truth. The people’s a prior assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.[4]
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it happens when people consider the evidence for the resurrection. Atheists and naturalists will obviously claim that Jesus could not raise from the dead because for them that is not even a possible option. It must have been something else. There must be a different explanation. And so, they propound all sorts of other ideas. Yet what they offer does not do justice to all the information.
More common, however, is a more popular form of denial. Either people just say it’s not possible without clearly weighing the evidence or they deny it because of doctrine. That is, they don’t like certain things that the New Testament teaches and realize if they deny the resurrection then they don’t have to worry about any of the other teachings; such as repentance. However, as Timothy Keller has said, “The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like [Jesus’] teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”[5]
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”
Notice that this teaching is of “first importance.” There is a lot that we can disagree on but this is not one of those things. This is one of the absolute bare essentials. If we lose this then the whole structure collapses. Also, notice that Paul is delivering something to us that he “received.” Paul is incorporating an earlier confession or tradition that was passed down.[6]
First, Jesus was Crucifixed. Christ died (1 Cor. 15:3). And He died on a cross. This is basically an undisputed fact.[7] Tacitus says:
“Christ, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and a pernicious superstition was chekcked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital istelf” (Annals of Imperial Rome xv.44).
The Talmud even reports that Jesus (Yeshu) was hanged (as in on the cross) on the eve of the Passover (b Sanh 43a-b; cf. Justin Martyr Dial. 69) for practicing sorcery (it is important to note that the authorities did not deny that “strange” things accompanied Him).[8] The Jewish historian Josephus says that Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross (Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3). Lucian, a Greek writer of the 2nd century, mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as well (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13).
This is very significant, because to be hung on a tree, to be crucified, was to be cursed in the eyes of the Jews. Paul tells us this (Gal. 3:13) reminding us of Deuteronomy 21:23. How could Christianity develop and believe in a crucified, cursed, carpenter as their long-awaited promised Messiah? What could make sense of the fact that Jesus was crucified and later venerated as the Promised One, indeed, God incarnate?[9] Surely a crucified man could not be the Messiah (Deut. 21:22-23 cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24).[10] Plus, the expectation was a king in the vein of David. A Yehoshu’a that defeats Israel’s enemies, not a Yehoshu’a that will be defeated by dying upon a tree.[11]
This makes the existence of the Church all the more amazing. Why would people such as Peter, James, and Paul follow—to death!—someone that was crucified?! What could account for this historical fact? Why would Jews switch their day of worship from Saturday, the Sabbath, to Sunday in light of someone that died a horrible death on the cross?[12] Why would the Church be persecuted for “eating flesh” (i.e. celebrating the Lord’s Supper) if Jesus only died and never raised?
Of course, we know that Jesus, the Messiah, died as the Lamb of God to take away our sins. We see that His death was the fulfillment of passages like Isaiah 53. However, that was not immediately understood. They did not a first understand that the Messiah must suffer many things (cf. e.g. Lk. 18:31-34; 24:11). They did not understand that Jesus’ death was indeed in “accordance with the Scriptures.” Yet, they would understand. So, we see, “Jesus’ resurrection is, in fact, the best explanation for why ancient monotheistic Jews would worship him as divine.”[13]
Second, Jesus was Buried. Jesus was buried (1 Cor. 15:4). Laid in a tomb and later His tomb was found empty. There are multiple attestations of this. The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell us about this. Further, they tell us that women were the first people on the scene. This is significant because a woman’s testimony was no good in court in that day.[14] If the empty tomb story would have been made up they would not have chosen women to be the first witnesses to the resurrection. Instead, it would have made sense for them to say that Peter, for instance, was the first person on the scene.
Also, they would not have left any discrepancies in the accounts. However, discrepancies remain. They are not irreconcilable but they remain. If the story of the empty tomb was fabricated the account of it would be much more tidy.[15] Anyhow, if Jesus did not rise from the dead His followers would have no motivation to claim that He did.
One of the theories put forward against the resurrection is that Jesus was not actually dead when He was taken off the cross.[16] However, think of this: Jesus would have been a more horrific image than a zombie. He would have been in no position to convince His disciples that He had rose from the dead. Plus, He would then be a deceiver which greatly conflicts with His amazing ethical teachings.
All of this aside, it is just not possible that Jesus would have lived through the whole ordeal.[17] So William Lane Craig has said that the apparent death theory is foolish when we consider “the beatings of Jesus, His exhausting all-night trial and interrogations, His scourging, His crucifixion, the spear in His side [which serves to demonstrate that He did in fact die], the binding and wrapping of His body in seventy-five pounds of linen and spices, and the cold tomb sealed by a large stone.”[18]
In fact because of the type of beating that Jesus underwent before He was even crucified He could have died even beforehand so there was no way that He would have lived through the crucifixion.[19] Further, the guards though not doctors or scientists likely had as much experience with dead bodies as morticians. They would have known if Jesus was not dead. So Alexander Metherell, who has both a medical degree and a doctorate degree in engineering and has edited five scientific books, has said that “there was absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead” and “there’s just no way he could have survived the cross.”[20]
People have even claimed that Jesus death was faked. They claim that Jesus was slipped a drug that put Him into a deep stupor (they use Mk. 15:36 as their proof text) so people thought He was dead. However, this theory falls short for a number of reasons. Not least is the fact that had Jesus fell into a deep stupor He would have in fact died. One of the ways, probably the most common way, which people died on the cross was through asphyxiation. Thus if Jesus was drugged He would have certainly died of asphyxiation anyhow.
William Edwards concludes his study “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ”:
“It remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[21]
Although the “swoon theory” is unbelievable it does lend credibility to the other evidence leading to the resurrection. This is because if someone is willing to claim that Jesus did not die on the cross rather than face the other evidence then the other evidence must be substantial indeed.
So what then is the significance that Jesus was buried and that Paul and the confession stated that? The Heidelberg Catechism says that “His burial testified that He had really died.”[22]
Third, Jesus’ Tomb was Empty. Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:4) and thus left an empty tomb. Actually, it was never even claimed that the tomb was not empty. That was not an option that anyone could have claimed because the tomb was empty. Instead, the authorities that wanted to crush the early Christian movement said that the disciples stole Jesus’ body (Matt. 28:13, 15). Yet, that claim is preposterous for a few reasons. For example, Jesus’ followers did not have the motivation or the means to put on such a pointless charade (the penalty for the tomb-breaker was capital punishment, see the Nazareth Inscription). People have also put forward the idea that the women went to the wrong tomb. This view, however, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. If the women had gone to the wrong tomb then the authorities would have said so. They did know where the tomb was; they set guards in front of it.
First, we see early attestation that the tomb was empty. Paul quoted an early confession that Jesus was raised (1 Cor. 15:4) which implicitly states that the tomb was empty. We also have other very reliable historical sources that all claim that the tomb was empty.
Second, if the tomb wasn’t empty it would have been impossible for the Christian movement, which is founded on the resurrection, to get started in Jerusalem. Perhaps if the disciples would have moved somewhere else then it would have been possible but not in Jerusalem. People there had certainly seen Jesus teach, die a horrible death, or at least heard rumors about Jesus. Jews and Gentiles alike had reasons for hostility against the radical upstart movement. People didn’t understand Christian teaching and as Jesus predicted it brought division. So if people in Jerusalem could have produced Jesus’ body to shut up the movement before it got off the ground they would have. But they didn’t, because they couldn’t. If the tomb was not empty then there could be no Christian movement; especially in Jerusalem. Paul and the Gospel writers all identify and give names of multiple people that were said to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. If people wanted to they could question them and determine the validly of their claims. So Craig shows that “the controlling presence of living witnesses would prevent significant accrual of legend.”[23]
Again, and thirdly, the fact that the Gospels tell us that women discovered the empty tomb argues for its validity. This, once again, is because if the Gospel accounts had been made up, they would not have been made up to include women being the witnesses to the empty tomb. Something else to consider looking at is the Shroud of Turin.
Fourth, Jesus Appeared to Many. Jesus appeared too many (1 Cor. 15:5-9). Paul gave a pretty substantial list of witnesses. In fact, Paul basically said, they are still around, here are their names, you can go question them yourself. Actually, that is apparently what Luke did. Luke did a thorough investigation of the whole thing and his final verdict was that the resurrection and thus the Church did indeed happen.
The New Testament lists twelve separate appearances over a forty-day period:[24]
- Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:10-18)
- Mary and the other women (Matt. 28:1-10)
- Peter (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5)
- Two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35)
- Ten apostles (Lk. 24:36-49)
- Eleven apostles (Jn. 20:24-31)
- Seven apostles (Jn. 21)
- All of the apostles (Matt. 28:16-20)
- Five hundred disciples (1 Cor. 15:6)
- James (1 Cor. 15:7)
- Again to all the apostles (Acts 1:4-8)
- The apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-9; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1)
One of Jesus’ followers (likely Mark) fled naked risking great shame (or worse) but was transformed by the good and surprising news of the resurrection (cf. Mk. 14:32-52). Paul, a persecutor of the Church, was radically transformed and ended up being persecuted himself for preaching the truth of Jesus the Christ’s resurrection.
As has been very often pointed out:
“The disciples… went from dejected, dispirited and grieving followers of a crucified rabbi to apostles, those who had beheld the risen Christ and who, on that basis, preached him as Lord of life and the Judge of history… The actual resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the disciples’ transformation from cowardice, despair and confusion to confident proclamation and the willingness to suffer persecution, hardship and even martyrdom for the sake of Jesus and his gospel.”[25]
And who would die for a known lie? Who would go to a bloody painful death if it could be avoided simply by denying a lie?
After Jesus was taken His apostles were scared and hid in the upper room. Peter denied Jesus 3 times. After Jesus’ resurrection he appeared to the apostles and many others. After the apostles saw the resurrected Jesus they were no longer scared, they were emboldened. All of the apostles died for their beliefs, except John. Yet, tradition says he was boiled alive and later exiled to the island Patmos. Following is how the apostles died:
- Peter- crucified
- Andrew-crucified
- Matthew- the sword
- John- died a natural death after being boiled in oil and exiled
- James, son of Alphaeus- crucified
- Philip- crucified
- Simon- crucified
- Thaddaeus- killed by arrows
- James, the brother of Jesus- stoned
- Thomas- spear thrust
- Bartholomew- crucified
- James, the son of Zebedee- the sword
Many have contended that the appearances were just hallucinations. However, this theory also falls short for various reasons. Actually, even the Orthodox Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, believed that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead even though he didn’t believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So, for instance, he said, ““When this frightened band of apostles suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society… Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation.”[26]
Others have put forward the “conspiracy theory” view that says the disciples made up the resurrection story. However, as I said, the Gospel accounts have small, though not contradictory, discrepancies in them. This would not make any sense if the early followers of Jesus got together and fabricated the whole thing. However, it would not make any sense for them to fabricate the whole thing anyhow. What would they gain from such lies?! Nothing. Nothing but persecution and death. So clearly the crucifixion of Jesus was not just some conspiracy theory that some whacks made up to serve their own end.
Can you imagine the disciples saying, in the words of William Lane Craig,
“Let us band together… to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and let us carry the sham to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for our own deceit.”[27]
Even mobsters, like Henry Hill and Alphonse D’Arco, from time to time break down and confess what they swore on life and limb they would not confess. Surely Jesus’ followers who had everything to lose and nothing to gain would break down and confess it was a hoax if it was. Thus the “conspiracy theory” fails to meet the demands of the evidence.[28]
Further, Craig points out that “if we distrust these men, then we must distrust all writers of history and records. If we accept the records of secular historians, then we must by the same standard also accept the reliability of the disciples’ testimony to the resurrection.”[29] Similarly, Licona points that “to claim as useless any effort to know the past is not only the death of history but of the legal system too.”[30]
If Jesus Christ has been raised there is purpose and direction to the cosmos; to our life. If Jesus rose from the dead His claim and promises our justified. If Jesus rose then we, who have faith in Him, will also rise. If Jesus rose the Kingdom of God and new creation has broke into this broken world. Truly, “The resurrection of Jesus… is the symbol and starting point of a new world.”[34]
- William Lane Craig, The Son Rises
- Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
- Gary R. Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- Lee Strobel, The Case for the Resurrection & The Film Collection
- How has the resurrection changed you?
- How has it changed someone you know or know of? For instance, think of the Apostle Paul.
- How should the fact of the resurrection continue to change you?
- What should you do differently this week in light of the resurrection?
- How can you thank Christ for the resurrection and all that it means?
- Lastly, read 1 Corinthians 15 this week, pray, and think about the importance of the resurrection of Christ.
______________________________
[1] Marten Hengel rightly says Paul considered the “Jewish-Messianic message and its concomitant scriptural evidence… quite important from the very beginning.” (Marten Hengel, “Paul in Arabia” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 [2002], 59).
[2] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 115
[3] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 530. See also e.g. Licona’s discussion of John Dominic Crossan’s view in The Resurrection of Jesus, 44-45 see also 608.
[4] See also John Adams in Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 609.
[5] Keller, The Reason for God, 210. Also, William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 279.
[6] Licona says “Paul wrote the letter we now refer to as 1 Corinthians in A.D. 54 or 55. If Jesus died in A.D. 30, we are reading a letter that was written within twenty-five years of Jesus’ death by a major church leader who knew a number of those who walked with Jesus. If this letter contains tradition that Paul has preserved, we are even closer than twenty-five years to the events it claims to report” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 223-24. See 223- 35).
[7] Even John Dominic Crossan says the fact that Jesus was crucified is “as sure as anything historical ever can be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991], 145).
[8] See: “Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a.”
[9] Martin Hengel says, “A crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish” (Crucifixion John Bowden trans. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 10) as Paul himself later would say (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). See also Ibid., 61-62, and esp. 89. Justin Martyr Apology I ch. 13. Also the Alexamenos graffito shows how foolish many thought it was to worship one that had been crucified. The graffiti depicts a Christian worshiping an image of a man on a cross with a donkey head.
[10] cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 75. Truly, “a crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms for the Jews” (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 292). Paul himself was among the rulers that “did not recognize him,” the Messiah, nor what the prophets said regarding Him (Acts 13:27). Yet he later was enlightened to the fact that the Scriptures were fulfilled (v. 27b) when Jesus was condemned, i.e. “cursed,” on a tree (v. 29 see also vv. 30-39). Also, Loren T. Stuckenbruck after examining the relevant apocalyptic and early Judaism literature says, “messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves” (“Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism” 112 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 90-13.
[11] In Paul’s day “Messianic expectation married social discontent. The result was the offspring of anticipation and action” (David P Seemuth, “Mission in the Early Church” in Mission in the New Testament, 51). People, not least Paul, did not expect a suffering servant that would die a violent death to be the long awaited messiah. They expected a messiah that would bring violence to their oppressors.
[12] See Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 579-80 and Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 554. “Wright argues that the empty tomb and the postresurrection appearances of Jesus are necessary conditions for the rise of early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus” (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 107).
[13] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 553.
[14] Cf. e.g. Wright who says “women were simply not acceptable witnesses” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 607 cf. 326). Also, Craig, The Son Rises, 59-61.
[15] So N.T. Wright has said, “The stories exhibit… exactly that surface tension which we associate, not with tales artfully told by people eager to sustain a fiction and therefore anxious to make everything look right” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 612).
[16] Or, as Islam teaches, Jesus was not really the one that was crucified. This, though ludicrous, is not any worse than thinking Jesus did not really die. Surah 157-58 says, “And [for] their saying, ’Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.”
[17] To think of it in terms of the miraculous, it would be more miraculous for Jesus to have lived through the crucifixion and what lead up to it then that He was resurrected from the dead.
[18] See his further helpful elaboration in The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 37-40.
[19] Cf. Alexander Metherell, interviewed in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 196.
[20] Alexander Metherell, interviewed in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 200, 202.
[21] William Edwards, M.D., et.al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association (March 26, 1986), 1463.
[22] Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 41.
[23] Craig, The Son Rises, 106. “Something more than mere curiosity about an ancient puzzle draws our attention to the first centuries of Christian history… whether or not we regard ourselves as Christians or in any way religious, we cannot altogether escape the tectonic shift of cultural values that was set in motion by those small and obscure beginnings” (Wayne A. Meeks, “The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993], 1). “The creation of so many texts and their survival is remarkable and counter-intuitive. Jesus was a Jew, and anti-Semitism was rife in the Greco-Roman world. He came from Nazareth, a tiny village in Galilee, a remote landlocked principality. He was crucified, a brutal and humiliating form of execution reserved for the lowest orders to deter subversives, troublemakers, and slaves like those who followed Spartacus” (Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” 228-29 in In Defense of the Bible).
[24] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 546.
[25] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 551.
[26] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Fortress Press, 1988), 125.
[27] Craig, The Son Rises, 24. Craig says this referencing Eusebius of Caesarea’s argument in Demonstratio evangelica 3. 4, 5.
[28] See Craig, The Son Rises, 23-36 for a concise and pungent argument.
[29] Craig, The Son Rises, 25.
[30] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 95.
[31] Thomas Arnold as quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 217.
[32] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 608.
[33] Ibid., 610 cf. 619.
[34] N. T. Wright, Surprised By Hope (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008), 67.
Legalism and License
Too often legalism is not really legalism but a mere cop-out. If we are confronted with something difficult we know we should do (or shouldn’t do) it is easier to label it legalism and thus not have to worry about doing it. We often, in the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, excuse “ourselves from single-minded obedience to the word of Jesus on the pretext of legalism and a supposed preference for an obedience ‘in faith.'”[1] We should not use are freedom as a cover-up, or copout, but we should live as servants of God (cf. 1 Peter 2:16) and servants do whatever it is their master tells them to do.
In Romans, there were two ditches that Paul wanted those on the gospel road to avoid; the ditch of legalism and the ditch of license (i.e. antinomianism which basically means anti-law[2]). One of the main things Paul was addressing in his letter to the Romans was legalism and the opposite of legalism, license. Thomas Schreiner points out that “the Jews of Paul’s day had distorted the law and used it for legalistic purposes.”[3] He was writing to Jews and Gentiles and defending the gospel to them. Some of them, to whom Paul wrote, believed that they were saved by works of the law while others believed that instead of keeping the law, even the law of Christ, they should sin and let grace abound.
Paul told the two groups that they were both wrong. He told them that no one is saved by works but that salvation comes by faith in Christ. He told them that people are saved by faith but faith is not passive, it is active. He told them that they are not to sin that grace may abound. He told them that none are saved by works but he called them all to works. Here we will seek to apply Paul’s dealing with the Jews and Gentiles to the problem of legalism and license in our present day. Often times in today’s day we go over the rumble strip on the gospel road and then we overcorrect and go into the ditch of legalism or the ditch of antinomianism but Paul exhorts us to stay out of the ditches and keep to the gospel.
Legalism
There are two types of legalism: salvation by works and extra-biblical commands that are not found in Scripture.[4] The first, salvation by works, is a grave and damning doctrine. Robertson McQuilkin says that:
“Relying on obedience to moral law or observance of ceremonial law for salvation (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21) has been the historic theological meaning of legalism. Much of what Paul wrote to the churches in Rome and Galatia was to combat this deadly heresy… It has ever been man’s method of attempted salvation.”[5]
This type of legalism is grave and damning because, as Thomas Schreiner says, it “has its origin in self-worship. If people are justified through their obedience to the law, then they merit praise, honor, and glory. Legalism, in other words, means the glory goes to people rather than God.”[6]
“Legalism claims that the death of Jesus on the cross was either unnecessary or insufficient. It essentially says to God, ‘Your plan didn’t work. The cross wasn’t enough and I need to add my good works to it to be saved.’”[7] This is a despicable thing. Imagine going to a king who you have severely rebelled against and offering a dirty, nasty, bloody rag, as payment to fix your rebellion. This king would surely be insulted and not forgive you your rebellion but rather count that as further rebellion. He would send you, the rebel, to the racks to be tortured. The insult to the king would be all the more insulting if he had provided a way for you, the rebel, to go free from your due punishment by suffering the punishment himself. We serve a King who suffered the death and punishment we deserved; we can but except His gift of righteousness. We cannot offer our own righteousness to Him. Our righteousness is but bloody rags.[8] However, praise the Lord, Jesus canceled our debt and nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14)!
The second form of legalism is extra-biblical commands that lead to “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). This type of legalism doesn’t come right out and say your saved by works but it does teach as doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15: 1-9; Mk. 7:1-7). To say that we must obey things that scripture doesn’t say we must obey is the second form of legalism that I am addressing. Many in this camp, as Bryan Chapell has said, think of God as a “perpetual Santa Clause who is making a list and checking it twice to punish the naughty and reward the nice.”[9]
McQuilkin points out that “it is quite possible to teach salvation by grace through faith alone and yet be legalistic.”[10] This is the group of Christians who are known more for what they are against rather than what they are for; namely, the good news of Jesus Christ. This group’s slogan tends to be something like; “we don’t dance, we don’t chew, and we don’t go with girls that do.” Paul would rebuke both of these groups.
We find in scripture that the law was made to increase transgression so the power is not in more laws but in Christ who has fulfilled the law perfectly. It is in and through Christ that we keep the law. It is also by God the Spirit’s empowerment that we can work to fulfill the law of Christ. We do not need more commands or works to make us righteous, rather we need Christ our King to make us righteous.
License (Antinomianism)
License (antinomianism) in our present day is at least partially an overcorrection to legalism. Legalism is a grave teaching, in part, because it casts a long dark shadow over the implicit and explicit commands in scripture. “Legalism” as Randy Alcorn says “can be a convenient label to cover our unwillingness to obey God.”[11]
Antinomianism is often a reaction and repulsion to legalism; however, antinomianism does not get the gospel right either. Antinomianism also stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel just as legalism does; however, they are different misunderstandings. Often times our reaction to being saved by faith alone is to leave it alone but as we know true faith is never alone. We, in fact, are saved by faith alone but true faith can never be left alone. Legalism gets the “faith alone” part wrong, whereas, antinomianism gets the “never alone” part wrong.
The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms says,
“Generally, Christian theology has rejected antinomianism on the basis that although Christians are not saved through keeping the law, we still have a responsibility to live uprightly, that is, in obedience to God’s law of love in service to one another (Gal 5:13-14) as we walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:16) who continually works to transform us into the image of Christ the Creator (Col 3:1, 7-10).”[12]
So, typically within evangelicalism antinomianism is denied. It is denied on paper but often times in our hearts and heads we reject not anti-law but the law of Christ.[13] It is because it is too difficult to live and love as Christ that we are anti-law of Christ. We often feel it is too hard to live radically and be like Christ so we do not even heed the exhortations to be like him we instead deny them as legalistic. What we do not realize is that by Christ’s death and resurrection we do have the power because we have God the Spirit indwelling us.
Often those that are anti-law (though, they may not say they are anti-law) say that to uphold biblical commands, especially, some of the more radical commands is legalism, however, this does not fit either definition of legalism. We are in fact to uphold all the biblical commands and admonishments, however uncomfortable they are and however radical they are.[14] McQuilkin similarly says, “The term legalism is applied by most people to attitudes and activities that are thoroughly biblical or at least legitimate.”[15] It is antinomian to label things legalistic that are legitimate mandates for the Christian. This reaction to what we are called to as Christians has given us an excuse to avoid a life of joyful conformity to the life of the cross, the Christ-like life. McQuilkin further points out that:
“The existence of a set of rules and regulations or a code of law does not constitute legalism (Gal. 6:2; 1 Tim. 3:2; Rom. 8:2). If on the basis of our spiritual blessing in Christ we are expected to walk worthy of our calling and obey the commands of God, then a desire to obey God does not constitute legalism (Eph. 1:3; 4:1; 5:8; Phil. 1:27). Having to do something is not legalism (1 Tim. 3:2; Eph 5:28; 2 Thess. 1:3; Rom. 15:27). Paul spoke of owing, being indebted, obligated-having to do something. Having a list of don’ts is not legalism (Rom. 12:2; Col. 3:9; Gal. 6:9; Eph. 4:25-5:18; 1 John 2:13).”[16]
If we feel as though we do not have to obey God’s Law, we will disobey God’s Law; the opposite of the law is lawlessness. We must obey because to not obey is to disobey. The problem we face in our discussion of legalism is people’s misunderstanding of what and why we are to obey. I cannot tell you everything that you must obey but I do believe that far too often we label things as legalistic when they are rather legitimate commands and exhortations from scripture.
Two groups are anti-law. The first group is against any law and only believes in grace and freedom to do whatever the heart desires; this extreme is not very common. The second form is much less extreme; they simply do not believe that it is necessary to live out the commands and admonishments of scripture and often instead paint them as legalistic although they are legitimate and do not claim to bring justification in any form. Just like legalism both of these groups that are anti-law would be rebuked by Paul. What then is the answer that Paul gives to the two opposing ditches of the gospel? In the next section, we will see his solution.
Paul’s Answer
How did Paul deal with those that insisted that people are saved by works and how did Paul deal with those saying that works are of no significance? This is what we hope to discover, explain and apply to our present situation. I hope to apply this to the two groups of legalists and the two groups that are anti-law.
Paul repeatedly says that no one is justified by works and in fact if people were than Christ would have died for no purpose (Gal. 2:21). If one reads and rightly understands Romans 3:9-19 they will understand what Paul says next; that “by works of the law no human being will be justified” (Rom. 3:20). Part of the reason why we cannot be justified by works is that nothing good dwells in us, that is, in our flesh. For even if we have the desire to do what is right, we do not have the ability to carry it out (from Rom. 7:18). Schreiner says that “Paul rejected the law as a way of salvation because human inability to obey it. No one can be justified by works of the law because no one can keep the law perfectly.”[17]
Paul says that salvation is by grace, which is unmerited favor, so it is not on the basis of works, otherwise grace would not be grace; it would not be unmerited (from Rom. 11:6). Paul says that no one is saved by works but that anyone that is saved is saved by Jesus Christ’s work on the cross. The righteousness of God is obtained not by our obtaining it on our own but rather it is through faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). We are justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus as a gift (3:22) and gifts are given, they are not worked for. Through Jesus, we have obtained access by faith into the grace in which we stand (5:2); it is through Jesus by faith not by our works. “There is no salvation by balancing the records. There is only salvation by canceling records.”[18] It is the very fact that God the Son once and for all balanced our records that causes us to live radical God-exalting lives. It is not the other way around. God does not balance our records because we live for him, we live for him because he eternally balanced our records.
We have been justified by his blood (5:9) and not our works. That is why Schreiner says “we do not gain righteousness by working for God, but by letting him work for us.”[19] Paul who had been a Pharisee of Pharisees or you may even say legalist of legalists, exclaimed, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (7:24). Paul, a formal legalist, saw that he could not merit God’s favor so he answers his question in praise “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:25). Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone can deliver us from our bodies of death.
If people are not in Christ no matter how sincere their good works are they are still condemned but there is no longer condemnation for those that are in Christ who trust in Him for salvation and not their works (8:1). It says in Romans 10:9 that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” We are justified by faith alone apart from works (3:28) but then what place do works play? Should we sin that grace may abound (6:1)? If our good works do not save us, why should we perform good works?
The law for Israel was a blessing but part of the reason it existed was to bring knowledge of sin. Paul himself said that without the law he would not have known that coveting was sin (7:7). The law increased knowledge of sin (3:31) and the amount of sins (the more rules there are the more rules there are to break). Schreiner similarly says, “Sin’s tyranny holds sway through the law and is maximized through the law.”[20] According to McQuilkin until a person
“Understands the just requirements of the law, a person will not seek salvation. So long as there is no great problem, one is not concerned about a solution. Until the ears of the heart are opened by the thunders of Sinai, one does not truly hear the beautiful grace note of Calvary. Thus the law and grace are two sides of the single coin of God’s salvation. Without grace, law is a terrifying destroyer. Without law, grace is meaningless.”[21]
The law points us to our need for Christ because we cannot uphold the law; however, Christ perfectly fulfilled the law and brought to us a new covenant. Augustine said, “The law was given that grace might be sought; grace was given that the law might be fulfilled.”[22] Christ changed the law, and I believe in doing so upped the ante. For we have always been commanded by God to be holy as He is holy but now after His incarnation, after His life on earth, we see more clearly what that means. We are to be like Him in His life and in His death.
We are now released from the law and now we serve in the new way of the Spirit (7:6). We still serve but now we serve by the empowerment of the Spirit. Douglas Moo points out that some Christians have taken the fact that we are not under law, but under grace “to mean that believers are no longer obliged to any set of commandments. But again, Paul is talking about the law—the law of Moses—and not any law in general.”[23] Romans 7:4 says, “you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him [Jesus] who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” We are now released from the law but we now belong to Jesus and we are called to bear fruit for God or you could say we are called to good works for God.
We fulfill the law ultimately because we are in Christ and he has fulfilled the law. We have fulfilled the law because Christ has taken our sin upon himself and given us his righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21) but we are still to uphold the law, that is, the law of Christ. We are still commanded to do good works. We fulfill the law because we are in Christ but we are also told to, by the Spirit, fulfill the law by loving. Love is fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:10).[24] We fulfill the law by loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind; and our neighbor as our own self (Matt. 22:37-38). Jesus said in John 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you.” We are to love others just as Jesus has loved us (1 John 3:16-18; 4:9-12). This is no easy charge but by the power of God the Spirit indwelling us we can be equipped and transformed to love as Christ loved.
Romans 3:31, has been a difficult verse for commentators to understand, it says “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Various understandings have been put forward about what it means to “uphold the law.” Moo says;
“Most interpreters think that the very next chapter supplies the answer. Paul’s stress on faith upholds the law because the law itself teaches that Abraham was justified by faith (Gn 15:6, quoted in 4:3). This might be right. But note that the word “law” is not being given its usual meaning… We therefore are encouraged to look for other possible interpretations.”[25]
Schreiner says that this verse “recalls (Rom. 2:26-27) and anticipates his [Paul’s] positive comments on keeping the law (8:2-4; 13:8-10). The moral norms of the law still function as the authoritative will of God for the believer.”[26]
Moo adds that this verse
“might mean that Christians uphold the law by obeying the command of love that Christ made the heart of new covenant ethics. But a better alternative is to look to Romans 8:4 for elaboration of 3:31. In this verse, Paul claims that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in believers. How is it fulfilled? Not by us, for we always fall short of the law’s demands, but by Christ, who perfectly obeys the law. Those who are “in Christ” therefore fulfill the demand of the law.”[27]
Schreiner chimes in again and says, “The idea is not precisely that the law is fulfilled by faith in Christ (contra Moo 1991: 257), but rather that those who have faith in Christ will keep the law. Schreiner points out that Paul
“Wants to guard against a common misunderstanding here: some may have objected that if righteousness is not through the law, then the law is abolished…” but “…righteousness apart from the law’s commands does not mean that believers can dispense with moral norms of the law.”[28]
I believe the point is that those who have faith will keep the law. “The work of the Spirit (8:2) and the work of Christ on the cross (8:3) enable believers to obey the law.”[29] The believer is empowered by the Spirit to keep the law (7:6 cf. John 14:16-17; Gal. 5:16; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27) and in fact has kept the law perfectly in Christ. “Obedience to the… law has never been intended as the way of salvation but as the appropriate response to salvation already received.”[30] When Paul, in Romans, proclaims the gospel he is not saying that people are saved by works or that works are not important but he is saying that because Christ saved us we should offer our very lives to God in worship. Moo says it this way, “The ‘indicative’ of what God has done for us does not render unnecessary the ‘imperative’ of what we are to do; rather, it stimulates it and makes it possible.”[31]
Even in the Old Testament obeying God’s laws was not a means of obtaining salvation but rather an act of praise for salvation.
“God and Moses perceived obedience to the laws, not as a way of precondition to salvation, but as the grateful response of those who had already been saved. God did not reveal the law to Israelites in Egypt and then tell them that as soon as they had measured up to this standard He would rescue them. On the contrary, by grace alone, through faith they crossed the Red Sea to freedom. All that was required was belief in God’s promise that He would hold up the walls of water on either side and see them safely through to the other shore.”[32]
It is precisely because we can never measure up to God’s holy and perfect standard that we offer our lives as worship because in Christ we now can measure up. Paul solves the problem of legalism and antinomianism by showing that good works are a response to salvation not the precursor to salvation. The legalist should now perform good works not because it will make him righteous but because Christ has made him righteous and likewise those who are anti-law should live by the law of Christ because Christ has set them free from the damning affects of the law.
Peter said to “live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16). Similarly, Paul said, “You were called to freedom brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal. 5:13). In Christ, yes, we are freed from the damning affects of the law but it does not say we are freed from obeying the law (Rom. 3:31). On the contrary, we are now free to obey the law. We are now, in Christ and by the Spirit, free to serve Him because we are now free from the slavery of sin, and are now slaves of righteousness (cf. Rom. 6:18-22). So freedom does not merely mean that the restrictions and commands are gone, though praise the Lord many are, but it means that we have power and joy in living within the purposeful, so called, “restrictions”[33] and commands. We no longer must obey the written code but we must follow the law of Christ and bear the fruits of the Spirit “against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:23).
In Romans Chapter six, essentially the same question is asked twice “are we to sin that grace may abound?” (6:6; 15) and both times Paul’s response was “By no means!” Paul basically gives Jesus’ argument that a good tree bears good fruit. Paul said that you are slaves to whom you obey, either to sin which leads to death or obedience that leads to righteousness (6:16). In other words, if you are a good slave, you will serve God, the good master, and if you are bad slave, you will serve Satan, the bad master. Schreiner rightly adds:
“The illustration from slavery is inadequate because the relationship believers have with God is shorn of all the negative elements present in slavery. We should not conclude, though, that the slavery illustration is a poor one (cf. Schlatter 1995: 149; Moo 1991:619). For the image of slavery rightly denotes that God is our master, to whom we owe total commitment.”[34]
Paul “is not here teaching that a Christian ought to be a slave of righteousness but that every Christian, by divine creation, is made a slave of righteousness and cannot be anything else.”[35] You will know a slave by the master they serve. John MacArthur says, “All men are either mastered by sin, which is to say they are under the lordship of Satan, or they are mastered by righteousness, which is to say they are under the lordship of Jesus Christ.”[36]
We were once slaves of sin but now are slaves of righteousness so we serve God not because it saves us but because we have a new Master and this loving Master gives us the free gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
“Those who live under grace show that they are under grace because they have a new master (God) and are liberated from their old master (sin). Paul refuses to accept any abstract understanding of grace separated from concrete daily living. Grace does not merely involve the forgiveness of sins. It also involves power in which the mastery and dominion of sin is broken.”[37]
John Stott says, “Conversion is an act of self-surrender; self-surrender leads inevitably to slavery; and slavery demands a total, radical, exclusive obedience.”[38] Paul does not appeal to the Romans to obey God and perform good works to earn salvation but because in Christ they have obtained salvation. “Obedience neither produces nor maintains salvation, but it is an inevitable characteristic of those who are saved.”[39]
Paul is obviously not legalistic because he defends passionately that salvation is by grace alone and through faith alone; it is a gift of God so that no one can boast. He also tells the Romans that they are not to sin that grace may abound and he calls them to radical gospel living. “Only the Son of God could have paid the cost of salvation. But He calls His followers to pay the cost of discipleship[40] (Note: Matt. 16:24-25).
In the same place, that Paul says that salvation is not by good works (against legalism) he calls them to good works (against antinomianism). So what is meant by good works? Good works:
“Conduct or actions that may be deemed good or morally upright. In Christian thought, such acts are motivated by love for God and flow out of the desire to obey God’s will. They are not intended as means to merit divine favor or means for personal gain, but are expressions of gratitude to God for the divine unmerited favor already received, and they are an integral part of the life of devotion to God and imitation of Christ. Finally, good works are not the products of human effort alone, but are the outworking of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.”[41]
McQuilkin rightly adds to the definition by saying “God appeals to his children to obey both from a hope of a reward and a fear of loss (Ezek. 3:17-21; 33:7-9; Dan. 12:3; 1 Cor. 3:10-15). But the highest motive is love. Obedience out of gratitude for all the gifts of grace is the best antidote to the virus of legalism.”[42]
In Romans 6:19, Paul says “present your members as slaves to righteousness.” John Stott has said, “Conversion is an act of self-surrender; self-surrender leads inevitably to slavery; and slavery demands a total, radical, exclusive obedience.”[43] We were slaves to sin, we obeyed it as our master, but now we are slaves to righteousness, to God, now we serve a new Master (Rom. 6:15-22). We must obey our Master. However, we must be further reminded that our Master made it possible to serve Him, by serving us on the cross, whereby we our obedient slaves (justified) and capable of obedience (sanctification).
Paul reminds the Romans that though they use to belong to another and they used to serve the sinful flesh, now they serve God and are told to bear good fruit (7:4). Paul calls the Romans to present their bodies as living sacrifices but he grounds it in worship (12:1). Martin Luther adds we “owe (God) a reasonable sacrifice and not animal sacrifices, for this is proper according to the new Law (of love).”[44] Radical living out the gospel is a result of worship of God and not trying to earn worth from God. In Romans 12:6-21 we see that Paul is clearly not against the law. He calls the Romans too many good works but once again not to merit grace but because of the grace that God has shown. He calls them to hate what is evil (12:9), contribute to the needs of the saints (12:13), and not to be slothful in zeal but be fervent in spirit (12:11) among other things.
There is almost a paradoxical nature to salvation. We are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. A good tree bears good fruit and a servant of righteousness will show he is a servant of righteousness by serving God and being righteous. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Luther had taught that man cannot stand before God, however religious his works and ways may be, because at the bottom he is always seeking his own interests…” yet “…grace had cost [Luther] his very life, and must continue to cost him the same price day by day.”[45] Also, look at what grace cost Paul, the author of Romans, himself. It cost him beatings… and his very life. What might grace “cost” us?
Bonhoeffer said:
“The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ. Such a man knows that the call to discipleship is a gift of grace, and that the call is inseparable from the grace. But those who try to use this grace as a dispensation from following Christ are simply deceiving themselves.”[46]
We are saved by faith alone and Jesus is our Savior but he is also our Lord. Christ cannot be our Savior if he is not also our Lord. “The gospel demands that we acknowledge Jesus as our Lord and live out the implications of that lordship.”[47]
As we have seen in Romans, as in scripture in general, the author will have a moral command or some sort of admonishment but then will ground it in the gospel. You see this same thing in the Old Testament, for example in Leviticus 11:44-45, God calls the Israelites to be holy and then says for, or because, I brought you out of Egypt. We, as Christians, are not simply given bland commands that we are to follow; we are given reasons why we should joyfully and radically serve God. We are told in Romans 15:1-3 not to please ourselves but instead to please others because “Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’”
_________________________________
[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 80. Elsewhere, he said,
“When we are called to follow Christ, we are summoned to an exclusive attachment to his person. The grace of his call bursts all bonds of legalism. It is a gracious call, a gracious commandment. It transcends the difference between the law and the gospel. Christ calls, the disciple follows: that is grace and commandment in one. ‘I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy commandments’ (Ps. 119:45)” [Ibid., 59.].
[2] Law in Greek is the word nomos (Greek: nomos) so antinomianism (anti nomos) literally means against law or anti law.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 93.
[4] The second type may or may not be implied by scripture because peoples understanding of the application of scripture is different. The culture in which we live may be different and therefore reflect differently how we are to respond to different scenarios. Note Paul’s argument on food offered to idols in Romans 14 and first Corinthians 8.
[5] Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1995), 54.
[6] Schreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillmen,15.
[7] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2002), 25.
[8] Isaiah 64:6: Bloody rags refer to rags that women would use when they were on their menstrual cycle.
[9] Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 298.
[10] Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1995), 54.
[11] Randy Alcorn, Money, Possessions, and Eternity (Carol Stream, Il: Tyndale House, 2003), 187.
[12] Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, Cherith Fee Nordling Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1999), 12.
[13] Note: Gal. 6:2; 5:14.
[14] It should be noted here that not all commands still apply to us New Testament believers and I also realize that there will be various understandings of these commands and thus various ways and degrees to which these commands will be lived out.
[15] Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1995), 56.
[16] Robertson McQuilkin quotes Paul Wright from class notes on “Legalism” (Columbia, S.C.: Columbia Bible Seminary and Graduate School of Missions). Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1995), 57-58.
[17] Schreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment, 44
[18] John Piper, The Passion of Jesus Christ (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 33.
[19] Schreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment, 97-98.
[20] Ibid., 83.
[21] McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, 65.
[22] Ibid., 63.
[23] Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 116.
[24] Note: 1 Cor. 13.
[25] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, 87.
[26] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 207-08.
[27] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, 87-88.
[28] Schreiner, Romans, 208.
[29] Schreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment, 151.
[30] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England –Gen. Editors Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Reference, 2003), 1016.
[31] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, 116.
[32] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England –Gen. Editors Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Reference, 2003), 1016.
[33] I say it this way because if a kid was playing in the front yard and was “restricted” from playing in the road it is not merely a restriction but a loving restriction or loving bondrey. If we have the outlook that the rules that God gives us are simply commands and restrictions it takes the fatherly love out of the equation; something that is very important to have for any child to obey his parents. So, God’s commands and restrictions should rather be looked at as loving wisdom, though, at times harsh, that a father shares with his child.
[34] Schreiner, Romans, 333.
[35] John MacArthur Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press,1991), 344.
[36] Ibid., 343.
[37] Schreiner, Romans, 332-33.
[38] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 183.
[39] Schreiner, Romans, 347.
[40] Ibid., 353.
[41] Stanley J. Grenz and Jay T. Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 48.
[42] McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, 56.
[43] Stott, The Message of Romans, 183.
[44] Martin Luther, Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 151.
[45] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 49.
[46] Ibid., 51.
[47] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, 117.
The Tri-unity of God
Introduction
What does the word “Trinity” mean? And do we even see the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament? Or did it just burst upon the scene with the arrival of Jesus? We will see the answers to these questions, and many more below, but first, why is understanding the doctrine of the Trinity important?
It is important because a biblical understanding of the Trinity keeps us from all sorts of unhealthy, unsound, and damaging teaching. It helps us be able to dialogue with Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons; all of which have divergent views on the doctrine of God.[1]
Further, as we study the doctrine of the Trinity we realize the fact that God is triune has huge implications. We can know God because He has revealed Himself to us. We do not merely know that He’s out there, He’s came here. Jesus exegetes God to us. God has tabernacled among us in Jesus. In Jesus, we see the exact image of God (homoousios). Through the Spirit, we know God because the Spirit gives us His word. However, that is not it. The Spirit of God draws us to Himself. And, wonder of wonder, the Spirit dwells in us! The triune nature of God is very important because it is through the (economic) work of the Trinity that we come to know God.
The triune nature of God is essential to our faith and our salvation. Without the unified work of the three Persons in the one God we would be forever damned. We need a perfect wrath absorbing sacrifice. We need “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb. 9:14).
The triune nature of God shows that He is relational, loving, self-giving, and personal. God is not just some distant cosmic force. He has personhood. He has existed in all eternity past in loving relationship, odd to say, with Himself. God actually and amazingly calls us to join in that relationship with Him. He recreates us in His image and welcomes us as His sons and daughters. God welcomes us through communion, and all it represents, to have communion with Himself. God sent His Son, poured out His blood, and His Spirit, in order to welcome us to the feast where we, the Church, shall be His bride. We shall be in a consummated covenant relationship with the King where the story will have an eternal happily-ever-after.
The Trinity also gives fabric and fiber to our human relationships. We have structure and not chaos when we model the Trinity in loving relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 4:4-7).
The Trinity?
The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible but teaching on the Trinity is. In fact, we see it in the very beginning of the Bible (Gen. 1:1-3; cf. Jn. 1:1-14). “The doctrine of the Trinity teaches both God’s Threeness and his oneness. The adjective triune refers to God as both thee (tri) and one (une).”[2] John Frame says,
“God is one, but somehow also three. This fact is difficult to understand, but it is quite unavoidable in Scripture and central to the gospel. The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to account for this fact and to exclude heresies that have arisen on the subject. Its basic assertion are these: (1) God is one. (2) God is three. (3) The three persons are each fully God. (4) Each of these three persons is distinct from the others. (5) The three persons are related to one another eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[3]
God is One
Monotheists believe that there is only one God and Christians agree. There is only one God. But the One God is three Persons in one God.
We see that God is one through various passages. The Shema, the Jewish and Christian confession from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” There are also many other passages that we could look at (e.g. Deut. 4:32-35, 39; 32:39; 1 Kings 8:60; Is. 40:18ff; 44:6-8; 45:5-6, 21-22; 46:9; Mk. 12:29; Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).
Christians affirm that there is only one God and that God alone must be worshiped (cf. Matt. 6:24; Mk. 12:29; 1 Cor. 10:19-20). Christians affirm the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians affirm this because it is the teaching of the New Testament but, as we will see, it is also in the Old Testament, though perhaps veiled.
So, let’s look at God’s Three in One nature in the Old Testament.
The Trinity in the Old Testament?
Imagine you walk into your house at night, the lights are off and it’s very dark. Is their furniture in your house? Is their fixtures? Pictures on the wall? A TV?
How do you know? You know because you’ve have seen your house in the light. However, if I came into your house in the dark I would have no idea what, where, or if there was anything in your house. Why? Because I have not seen it in the light.
But just because I do not understand the contents of the room does not change the fact that there are things in the room. Correct?
That is the way it is with the Trinity. The prophets, priests, and kings did not see the doctrine of the Trinity with the same light with which New Testament and post-New Testament believers see it. They longed to see it as we do (Matt. 13:17) but they didn’t. However, that does not mean that it was not there. It was there all along.
So, where is the Trinity in the Old Testament?
Plurals
Sometimes in the OT the LORD’s name is in the plural form. So in Genesis 1:26 the LORD says, “Let us make man in our image” (cf. 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8). Also “’Elohim usually takes a singular verb, but it takes plural verbs in Genesis 20:13; 35:7; Exodus; Nehemiah 9:18; and Isaiah 16:6.”[4] Of course, as John Frame points out:
“We should not try to derive any precise doctrinal content from these grammatical peculiarities. In every language, plural forms sometimes denote singular realities (like pants in English). I do think it significant, however, that the writers and characters of the Old Testament, emphatic monotheists that they were, do not object to these plural forms or try to avoid them, even though the language offered them alternatives.”[5]
Divine Persons
In the OT there entities that are identified with the LORD. First, the Spirit comes to mind. We see the Spirit in various places in the OT. The Spirit was hovering over the waters at the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2 cf. Job 26:13). God uses His Spirit to accomplish His purpose (Ps. 33:6). The Spirit enters the prophets and they speak God’s word (e.g. 2 Sam. 23:2; Ezek. 2:2).
Second, we see the angel of the Lord in the OT. There are many legions of angels and they are obviously not all divine (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Yet, it seems the angel of the Lord is. For example, in Genesis 22:11-12 the angel of the LORD says that “you have not withheld from Me [i.e. God] your son.” The angel in Genesis 31:11-13 identifies Himself as “the God of Bethel.” Further, “In 32:30, Jacob says of the man (called an ‘angel’ in Hosea 12:4) who wrestled with him that ‘saw God face to face, and my life was spared.’”[6] (cf. Gen. 16:13; Ex. 3:2-6; 23:20-22; Num. 22:35 (with v. 38); Judg. 2:1-2; 6:11 (with v. 14).
Third, we see that the promised Messiah is also said to be divine in some passages. From Isaiah we see that the Servant of the Lord is the one that will atone for people’s sin (Is. 52:13-53:12). Yet, Isaiah also teaches us that only God brings salvation (cf. Is. 43:3, 11; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 59:15-20; 60:16; 63:8). The crucifixion, the form of execution that Jesus endured, “more than any other, had associations with the idea of human sacrifice.”[7] Jesus’ followers came to see parallels between His death and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Truly Paul echoes Isaiah 53 (cf. esp. v. 11) in 1 Corinthians 5:21 (see also Matt. 8:17; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32-33; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:22, 24-25).
So Richard Bauckman has shown that there was room for Jesus in the Divine identity.[8] So, for instance, Isaiah 9:6-7 says: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” Also see Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. Davidic promises in 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17).
Psalm 110:1 shows us that “the Old Testament looks forward to a deliverer who is distinct from Yahweh, yet also bear the title of Lord.”[9] Paul, for example, would have looked at Psalm 110:1, one of the most quoted Scriptures in the NT (Matt. 22:44; Mk. 12:36; Lk. 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:20), and seen that verse 5 says that Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֥י), which was reserved only for deity in the OT, is in fact the Messiah.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 is a very important text for us as well: “’Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”
Our last passage we’ll look at is Isaiah 33:6: “Come near me and listen to this: ‘From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.’ And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.” John Frame points out that “the speaker is Yahweh, as the preceding context indicates. But the verse says that Yahweh has been sent by someone else, called ‘the Sovereign LORD,” together with another called ‘his Spirit. From a New Testament vantage point, we can see this as a Trinitarian passage. Interestingly, the following verse adds, ‘This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel”[10] (cf. Ps. 45:6-7; Is. 48:16).
The Trinity in the New Testament?
It is important for us to notice that the “doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made.”[11] The doctrine of the Trinity is more explicit in the NT then in the OT and it seems to of been more accepted then justification by faith apart from works of the Law. In Paul’s writing for instance he argues against both legalism and license but interestingly no NT writing argues for the Trinity; rather, they suppose a Trinitarian understanding of God. Let’s look at a few texts.
There are a few texts that are explicitly Trinitarian and there are others that are more implicit. We will just look at a sampling of passages.
The classic Trinitarian text comes from Matthew 28:19. We are told to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The baptism of Jesus is also a very important and popular text: “when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” Here we see God the Father (the first Person of the Trinity) speak to the Son (the second Person of the Trinity) and the Spirit descending (the third Person of the Trinity).
Jesus is God
We see the Trinity very clearly in the High Priestly Prayer of John 17. We see the Trinity in the birth narratives. “Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35) and thus comes to be ‘God with us’ (Matt. 1:23), ‘the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35).”[12] We see that the Spirit of the LORD was upon the Messiah to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (cf. Is. 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19). We see the Trinity in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:33, 38-39). We see the Trinity explicitly in Paul’s closing in the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).
We could also look at the use of the word Lord (kyrios) for Jesus when it communicates that He is LORD (e.g. Matt. 21:16/Ps. 8:2; 1 Cor. 1:31/Jer. 9:24). We could look at the Gospel of John’s “I AM” statements (cf. Ex.3:14/Jn. 4:24 “I am [ego eimi], who speaks to you”). See especially John 8:56-58.
The fact that Jesus is God was not only realized very early by the Early Church but articulated very early. So Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said may “the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians, 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128) and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36).
So to conclude our brief survey:
“The most concise, and arguably most fundamental summary of Old Testament teaching is ‘Yahweh is Lord.’ But the New Testament, over and over again, represents Jesus as Lord in the same way that the Old Testament represents Yahweh as Lord. The most fundamental summary of New Testament teaching is, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11)” (DG, 650).
The Spirit is God
It says in Acts 5:3-4 “Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…you have not lied to men but to God.’” Thus, we see that the Holy Spirit is God the third person of the Trinity. Also we see that the Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force but is rightly understood as the third person of the Trinity. The Spirit has personhood, the Spirit can be lied to; one cannot lie to impersonal objects or forces. We also see the Spirit’s personhood in that He teaches (Jn. 14:26), can be blasphemed (Matt. 12:31-32), comforts (Acts 9:31), speaks (Acts 28:25), can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), can be resisted (Acts 7:51), and helps us in our weakness (Rom. 8:26).
Further, as we have briefly seen, Jesus was conceived by (Matt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:35), empowered by (e.g. Is. 11:1-2; Acts 10:38), and resurrected by (e.g. Rom. 1:4) the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is also a creating Spirit. In the beginning we see “the Spirit hovering over the waters.” So we see God the Father creates (e.g. Gen. 1:1), the Son creates (e.g. Jn. 1:1-3), and the eternal Spirit also creates (Gen. 1:2; Heb. 9:14). The Spirit also re-creates and brings new life (Jn. 6:63). Regarding the deity of the Holy Spirit we could look at many other texts (cf. Is. 61:1; 63:10; Mt. 12:28; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:11; Matt. 28:19; Lk. 11:13; Jn. 14:26; 15:26; Rom. 8:26-27; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:1-2).
So we see that Scripture teaches us that there are three persons—Father (e.g. Gen. 1:1), Son (e.g. Col. 1:17; Heb. 2:3), and Holy Spirit (e.g. Heb. 9:14)—in the one God (e.g. Deut. 6:4). So Ephesians 4:4-6 says, “There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Is the Trinity a Logical Contradiction?
When understood aright, the tri-unity of God really becomes an apologetic point. Because apart from divine foreclosure, how would Jews claim God is triune, three in one? Yet, from the beginning Christians were teaching this. Of course, we’ve seen that the tri-unity of God is in the Old Testament, though in veiled form.
So the Trinity, far from defeating Christianity, is actually an argument in its favor. Something hugely significant had to happen for Jews to start expounding their Monotheism in a Trinitarian way (this is to say nothing of the Sabbath, etc.). Christ clearly showed Himself to be God and promised His followers that they would receive power from on high, the Spirit that had already empowered the prophets of old.
The Trinity isn’t a contradiction or illogical, though it is without precedent. We can talk about three leaf clovers, the three forms of water, and the three-headed dog, Cerberus, which guards hades gate but all these analogues fall short.[13] However, just because something is unprecedented or we don’t understand it doesn’t at all mean something isn’t so. Black holes, for instance, are certainly a mystery but that doesn’t invalidate them.
Light is a helpful example for us. Significantly light has paradoxically been explained by scientists and theorists alike as both a wave and a particle (wave-particle duality). It is not claimed that this is completely understood but it is nevertheless believed. Thus Albert Einstein said, “It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.” So scientists believe and claim things that they don’t fully understand, things that are shrouded in mystery, regarding the natural universe (resonance structures); so who are we to deny mystery when it comes to the supernatural God?!
The person going to a new land for the first time expects to see new things yet they don’t know what and they don’t expect they’ll understand it all. Who are we to look at God any differently? Is it not the height of folly and arrogance to think this way? We realize that there are unprecedented and unclear things that we will see when visiting a new land and culture yet we think we can know what to expect and determine with God? Who are we to say that God cannot be three in one? Are we in the place to judge God? Surely we are not! We can’t or shouldn’t even judge cultures we don’t understand.
A. W. Tozer has said, “Some persons who reject all they cannot explain have denied that God is a Trinity. Subjecting the Most High to their cold, level-eyed scrutiny, they conclude that it is impossible… These forget that their whole life is enshrouded in mystery.”[14] So Albert Einstein has reportedly said:
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws.”[15]
We only see dimly. Who are we to say that it is illogical for God to be three in one? Further, it should not surprise us that God would be past finding out (cf. Deut. 29:29; Job 9:10; 36:26; Is. 55:9; Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 13:9). He is God. He has created the vast universe that we cannot begin to fathom.
Paul Copan, Professor of Philosophy at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has pointed out that
“while God is one, three self-distinctions exist within the Godhead… Three and one aren’t in contradiction here; to be in conflict, the same category or relationship must be involved. But threeness pertains to persons; oneness pertains to God’s nature or essence. There isn’t one divine nature and three divine natures; there aren’t three persons and one person in the Godhead.”[16]
So, “There’s simply no logical contradiction when Christians say, ‘Three persons, one divine nature.’”[17] The Holy Trinity is indeed a mystery but not an incoherent one.”[18]
In a similar way, the theologian Bruce A. Ware has said,
“God is one in essence or nature, but God is three in person. There is no logical contradiction here even if the concept is beyond our complete comprehension. If God were one in essence and three in essence, or if he were one in person and three in person, then we would have a straightforward contradiction. The so-called doctrine of the Trinity, then, would be total nonsense. But this is not the case. Rather, God’s ‘oneness’ and ‘threeness’ are in different respects or senses. He is one in essence, so the essence of God is possessed fully by each member of Trinity. But he is three in person, so the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, although the Father possesses the identically same nature as does the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[19]
The Essence and Roles of the Persons of the Trinity[20]
Within the Trinity, there may be different functions or tasks of each person in the Godhead but they are in no way out of unison. The word Trinity itself means tri-unity; three in unity. The ontological, essence, or being of the Trinity is the same within all three persons, all are fully God. However, Jesus submits Himself to the Father and the Spirit to both the Father and the Son. They in a way function like a great orchestra playing a wonderful musical piece. They all play the right part at the right time and do it in complete harmony for the betterment of the song. The great song that is sung is of God’s glory in the work of redemption.
Ephesians 1:3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father [first person of the Trinity] of our Lord Jesus Christ [second person of the Trinity]” and later in verse 13 it says that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit [third person of the Trinity]. Here we see some of the functions of the Trinity. We are brought to God so that we can behold His glory through Jesus the Son (Heb 10:19) and then the Spirit is given to us as a guarantee of our inheritance. So within the Trinity there is ontological equality but economic subordination.
“From eternity, the triune God has existed. Indeed, the self-sufficient Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit have existed in their free, mutual selfgiving and self-receiving love. Relationship or communion is intrinsic to this “household” (or economy) of divine persons who, though distinct from one another, are inseparably united in other-oriented love. This divine inter- (and inner-) connection of mutuality, openness, and reciprocity has no individualistic competition among the family members but only joy, self-giving love, and transparency. Rather than being some isolated self or solitary ego, God is supremely relational in His self-giving, other-oriented nature. Within God is intimate union as well as distinction, an unbreakable communion of persons. The persons of the Godhead can be distinguished but not separated. God is both community and unity.”[21]
Truly, “The beauty of harmony is a beauty of diversity without discord, of distinctiveness without disarray, of complexity without cacophony.”[22]
So the essence of each person of the Trinity is that they are each fully and eternally God. Yet, they have different functions or roles within the history of redemption. Each person—Father, Son, and Spirit—are all fully God yet they are not the same person. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth. To state it differently: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there is only one God.[23]
Why is Understanding the Trinity Important?
In the introduction I hinted at some of the reasons understanding the Trinity is important. I will give a few more here. First, as I pointed out before, I think the doctrine of the Trinity actually adds to the validity of the Christian faith because the teaching is so unprecedented. The doctrine of the Trinity though true and biblical is not unequivocal. Why would Jesus’ first follows have said He was God and said the Spirit that indwelt them was God unless something very significant happened that would allow them to say such things? It seems then, that though the Trinity is indeed a mystery it is not illogical (as discussed above) and actually helps to validate the unprecedented nature of what happened with Jesus and His first followers.
Second, when we understand that each person of the Trinity is equally, fully, and eternally divine then we will wonder at the work and roles of each person of the Trinity and the perspective roles given to husbands and wives, for example, will be understood and carried out as they should be. The various parts of the body of the church will also be able to function and operate as they are called to without feeling either prideful or belittled. Subordination is not inferiority, it is Godlike.[24] When we understand that the authority-submission structure pictures the Trinity—who is equal ontologically in essence but distinct in roles, then we see that when we chafe at the role of authority and submission within our lives, whether at church or home, at heart, we chafe at the very nature of God Himself.[25]
Third, when we understand the Trinity we will be amazed and humbled by passages like Philippians 2:5-11 and by the fact that the Holy Spirit lives within us (1 Cor. 3:16). When we understand the fellowship within the Trinity it will be a stimulus for fellowship within our church and community. In fact, as Bruce Ware has said, “God intends that his very nature—yes, his triune and eternal nature—be expressed in our human relationships.”[26]
Fourth, we see communities and societies have a deep need for true fellowship all over the globe. This is because we were created in the image of the triune relational God. So Paul Copan says, “Because a relational God exists and chooses to create humans in His image, relationality is central to our identity as humans.”[27] We are the way we are because we are made in the image of the triune relational God. We also see that our relational desires can be meant in God, He existed in mutual loving existence for all eternity past.
Bruce Ware gives Ten Reason to Focus on the Wonder of the Trinity:[28]
- The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most important distinguishing doctrines of the Christian faith and therefore is deserving of our careful study, passionate embrace, and thoughtful application.
- The doctrine of the Trinity is both central and necessary for the Christian faith to be what it is. Remove the Trinity, and the whole Christian faith disintegrates.
- Worship of the true living God consciously acknowledges the relationship and roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- The Christian’s life of prayer must rightly acknowledge the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit as we pray to Father through the Son, in the power of the Spirit.
- The Christian’s growth in Christlikeness or sanctification is rightly understood and enriched when seen as the work of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the unity of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the diversity within the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to wonder at the social relationality of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the authority-submission structure that exists eternally in the three Persons in the Godhead, each of whom is equally and fully God.
- The doctrine of the Trinity—one God existing in three Persons in the ways we have described—provides one of the most important and neglected patterns for how human life and human relationships are to be conducted.
Further, Bruce Ware says:
“To illustrate the significance of the Trinity of our faith, consider just briefly the relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to the Christian understanding of salvation. In order for us sinners to be saved, one must see God at one and the same time as the one judging our sin (the Father), the one making payment of infinite value for our sin (the divine Son), and the one empowering and directing the incarnate—human—Son so that he lives and obeys the Father, going to the cross as a substitute for us (the Holy Spirit). The Christian God, to be savior, must then be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is, our salvation comes as the Father judges our sin in his Son, who became incarnate and lived his life in the power of the Spirit as the perfect and sinless God-man, and accomplished his perfect obedience to the Father through the power of the Spirit. Disregard the Trinity and you necessarily undermine salvation.”[29]
Conclusion
The doctrine of the Trinity is important for various reasons. It is important because God is the Lord of all and we are told to know, love, and worship Him. It is important that we know what He is like as far as we are able. When we understand the Trinity, we will wonder at the fact that Jesus reached out to the leper. He, He that eternally was, is, and will be, spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well (this was unprecedented even for a Rabbi in that time as the text shows). We will tremble to think that we are Temples of God, the Spirit dwells in us.
We should wonder at the glorious Trinity, not stand in judgment. Who are we to say that God cannot be three persons in one God? We must throw our hand over our mouth. We must understand that we cannot understand the incomprehensible.
When thinking of the Trinity far from being puffed up in pride we should explode in benediction: “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.”
Endnotes
[1] There are a few common divergent views in regard to the Trinity: First, Trithesim is a heretical view of God. Trithesits do not believe in the triune God who is three persons in one God; instead they believe in three different Gods; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Second, Modalism or Sabellianism. Modalists believe that God is not triune but rather that God has come in three different modes or manifestations as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So for the modalists there are not three divine persons but only one divine person. Third, Arianism is a heretical view that holds that Jesus was fully human but not fully God. Rather, they believe Jesus was the highest of all created beings.
[2] John Frame, The Doctrine of God¸ 622.
[3] Frame, DG, 621-22.
[4] Frame, DG, 632.
[5] Frame, DG, 632.
[6] Frame, DG, 634.
[7]Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, 87.
[8]See esp. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 19.
[9] Frame, DG, 652.
[10] Frame, DG, 637.
[11] B.B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 143 as quoted in DG, 639.
[12] Frame, DG, 639.
[13] “It may be remarked in reference to them all that they are of little value. They do not serve to make the inconceivable intelligible. The most they can do, is to show that in other spheres and in relation to other subjects, we find a somewhat analogous triplicity in unity. In most cases, however, these illustrations proceed on the assumption that there are mysteries in the Godhead which have no counterpart in the constitution of our nature, or in anything around us in the present state of our existence” (Charles Hodge, Sysetmatic Theology, vol. 1, 478).
[14] A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 23.
[15] From an interview with Albert Einstein published in G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great, (New York: Macauley, 1930).
[16] Paul Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three in One,” 211 in Contending with Christianitys Critics.
[17] Ibid., 213.
[18] Ibid., 215. “Christians have long pondered the mystery of the Trinity, and we’re not here trying to demystify the God whose nature and purposes can’t be reduced to tidy formulas or manageable boxes. We should celebrate the unfathomable God, who’s under no obligation to human demands to clarify everything about Himself (Deut 29:29). And why think our puny minds could grasp these “secret things” (NASB) anyway? Paul reminds us that we know partially and lack the clarity about God’s nature and ways (1 Cor 13:9; cf. Isa 55:9). “The great things of the gospel” (as theologian Jonathan Edwards put it) are astonishing, but mystery or partial knowledge doesn’t imply contradiction.” (Ibid., 210).
[19] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 41.
[20] In some discussions this would be classified as a discussion on the Economic Trinity and Ontological/Immanent Trinity. The economic Trinity has to do with the manifestations of the persons of the Trinity in their unique roles in dealing with creation and particularly in redemption. The ontological/immanent Trinity has to do with the essence of and interworking of the triune God without reference to God’s dealing with creation. So, as we have seen, discussions of the economic Trinity have to do with the different roles of the persons in the Godhead. Whereas, discussions of the ontology of the Trinity have to do with the fact that each person of the Godhead is ontologically equal and divine and relates to the others in mutual love.
[21] Paul Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209.
[22] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, 135.
[23] So Paul Copan says, “God is one immaterial soul (substance) with three distinct centers of consciousness, rationality, will, and agency (persons) who are deeply and necessarily interconnected, and they share the same unique divine nature” (“Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209 in Contending with Christianitys Critics Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors).
[24] Ware quotes P.T. Foryth in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, 81.
[25] Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 73.
[26] Ibid., 132.
[27] Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209.
[28] Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 15-22.
[29] Ibid., 17.
Faith Works
Faith is Never Alone[1]
Since the Reformation, which we rightly celebrate on October 31, protestants have loved the phrase “faith alone” or in Latin, as is often seen, sola fide. Is this good? Yes it surly is. Yet, with so many things, we must be aware that the pendulum has a tendency to swing further than was intended. We are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. We see this truth in James very clearly.
James asks, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (2:14). No, that “faith” cannot, because it is no faith at all (cf. v. 17, 26). It is senseless to say to a brother or sister who is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled” (15-16). We may say we care about something but our actions can prove otherwise. We can say we care for our needy brother or sister, but unless we show it then it is likely not the case. It is the same way with faith. We can say we have faith but that does not mean that we do. “Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (v.17).
We must seek to “show… faith by… works” (v.18) because even the demons believe but that obviously does not mean that they are in Christ; that Jesus is their Savior and Lord. Correct beliefs do not always translate into justifying faith. Abraham is an example of this. He showed his justifying-faith by his works.
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” (v. 22). Why did Abraham offer his son on the altar? Abraham offered his son on the altar because he truly believed. “The LORD said to Abram [later Abraham], ‘Go from your country… And I will make of you a great nation… So Abram went as the LORD had told him” (Gen. 12:1-4). Later on in chapter 15 it says, “He [Abram] believed the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness” (v. 6). He had faith that God would bless him so he moved (cf. Rom. 4:20-25; Heb. 11:8-9). Likewise, he had faith that the LORD God could even raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:19) so he laid him upon the altar (Gen. 22:1-19).
God tested Abraham’s faith (22:1; Heb. 11:17). Would Abraham’s works back up his faith? God told Abraham to offer his son, his only son, on the altar.[2] When Abraham’s boy asked where the lamb for the burnt offering was. Abraham showed that he had faith by saying, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22:8). But he also showed that he had faith. He placed his son on the altar and took the knife to slaughter him (vv. 9-10). But the angel of the LORD said, “Abraham, Abraham! Do not lay your hand on the boy… for now I know that you fear God” (vv. 11-12); or now I know that you have genuine faith.
“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works” (James 2:22). We are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone; we must complete our faith by works. Will we pass the test and show we have faith by completing it; that is, living it out practically (will we sit in the chair)? “The Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (v. 23). That is, Abraham fulfilled or demonstrated his belief by his works. Abraham, “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). He was righteous “while still uncircumcised” (v. 11) but he fulfilled or demonstrated his righteousness by receiving the sign (good work) of circumcision. He not only had faith but “walk[ed] in the footsteps of the faith” (v. 12).[3]
This is the context that this very controversial verse comes, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).[4] It must first be noted that James and Paul addressed different audiences, with different problems.[5] Paul is coming at the question in an all-together different way than James. Paul’s letter to the Romans is more hypothetical in that Paul is predicting how he believes the Romans will react to what he says and then responds to that. So, in this process Paul assumes there will be those who will go towards legalism and also those who will go to antinomianism. However, James is not responding to those who have a tendency to legalism but those who are (at least in some ways) antinomian.
It is understood that we would confront the two groups differently and this is also the case with James and Paul. James is saying, “Faith and works are closely correlated, in fact, faith will inevitably produce works.” Thomas R. Schreiner has rightly said, “James does not disagree with Paul’s contention that faith alone justifies, but he defines carefully the kind of faith that justifies. Faith that truly justifies can never be separated from works.”[6] James does not mean that we are saved by works but he does not want people to be mere hearers of the word but doers also; in fact, if we are hearers only we are deceiving ourselves (James 1:22-27).[7]
In Genesis chapter 22, Abraham was justified[8] by his works, by offering his son, but his work flowed from his faith because as we saw he had faith years earlier (Gen. 15:6). Faith and works go together. It was by faith that those immortalized in Hebrews 11 carried out their works.
“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain… By faith Noah… constructed an ark for the saving of his household… By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance… By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac… By faith Moses… refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11: 4, 7, 8, 17, 24-26).[9]
Abraham was justified “in the same way” as Rehab. That is, they both had faith and then acted out that faith. They showed they had real faith because it “was active along with… works” (v. 22). Rehab had heard about the mighty works of the LORD and she had faith, the fear of the LORD had fallen upon her, but she also had works to demonstrate (or justify) her faith (she hide the spies cf. Josh. 2; Heb. 11:31). If faith does not have works then it is no faith at all (James 2:17, 26). “Faith, in both Testaments, is hearing the word of God and doing it.”[10]
Other NT Examples
At times we see Jesus and the apostles saying, “repent”[11] (cf. Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30) and Paul even told people to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with… repentance” (Acts 26:20). Jesus also said, “come to me [faith in action]… and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28-30). In repentance, faith and works are tightly connected. You cannot repent without faith and you do not have real faith unless you repent. No one turns from sin to Jesus unless they truly believe, but if they truly believe then they must turn from their sin to Jesus. Faith and works are intricately woven together (We must remember, however, that it is God who grants both faith and works).
Paul calls this the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26 see also Acts 6:7) and we see this same concept throughout his writings. In Acts, Paul talks about performing deeds, or works, in keeping with repentance (Acts 26:20). James and Paul do not contradict each other.[12] They simply address different audiences, employ their own style, and explain things using different concepts. For example, Paul talks about us being dead to sin and alive to God. He says we are slaves of righteousness, slaves of God. He says that we must sow (work) to the Spirit if we want to reap eternal life. Paul is not as different from James as many think he is; Paul just emphases the importance of works in a different way (see also 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal.5:19-25).
Also, notice that in the Gospels there are examples of people acting in faith and thus being healed and saved. For instance, the woman that reached out and touched Jesus (Luke 8:42-48 see also Matt. 9:2; Luke 7:36-50; Jn. 6:35, 51; Mark 2:1-5) demonstrated “works” and faith. Jesus in a sense equated the two, the woman “worked” (reached out and touched Jesus) and Jesus said your “faith has made you well.”[13] These passages demonstrate the unity between faith and works. We must also remember that a tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 7:17-20; 12:35; Luke 6:43-45) just as faith is known by its works. Jesus also talks about us bearing much fruit and thus proving to be one of His disciples (John 15:9). John the baptizer, inspired by the Spirit, equates belief and obedience in John 3:36. He says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey (you expect to see “believe” here cf. v. 16, 18 but note v. 20-21) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” It is those who do the will of God that our heirs (Mark 3:35). We also see a similar thing in Hebrews, Jesus is “the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (5:10).[14]
Jesus teaches that those who merely say they believe by saying “Lord, Lord” will not enter the kingdom of heaven but those that do the will of the Father will enter in (cf. Matt. 7:21). However, Jesus by no means teaches us that we are justified by works (cf. Luke 18:9-14) but that the faith that justifies will be a faith that will unavoidably produce good works (cf. Matt. 7:17-18). Jesus is not merely concerned with right belief because, as we have seen, even the demons belief is orthodox but their belief is obviously not justifying faith for it does not lead to right action or repentance.
D.A. Carson has said,
“What, then, is the essential characteristic of the true believer, the genuine disciple of Jesus Christ? It is not loud profession, nor spectacular spiritual triumphs, nor protestations of great spiritual experience. Rather, his chief characteristic is obedience. The true believers perform the will of their Father… The Father’s will is not simply admired, discussed, praised, debated; it is done. It is not theologically analyzed, nor congratulated for its high ethical tones; it is done.”[15]
He goes on to say,
“It is true, of course, that no man enters the kingdom because of his obedience; but it is equally true that no man enters the kingdom who is not obedient. It is true that men are saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ; but it is equally true that God’s grace in a man’s life inevitably results in obedience.”[16]
Mark 16:16 is also another passage to look at, it says, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”[17] This passage does not teach baptismal regeneration but it does show us that obedience must accompany saving faith. We must remember, however, that just as God speaks all things into existence, He also gives spiritual life ex nihilo, out of nothing. We were dead as dry bones and He spoke life into us through His word. We were dead in our trespasses and sins and desperately wicked and thus we can’t work for salvation (cf. John 1:13; 6:63; Rom. 9:16; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:1, 4-5; James 1:18; Ezek. 37:1-14) this is clear, but salvation will necessarily lead to good works. That is why obedience and belief can be so deeply tied together.
The Divines of the Westminster Confession of Faith accurately wrote that:
“Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone… Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”[18]
We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone, “it is ever accompanied by all other graces.” Or as question 64 of the Heidelberg Catechism says, “It is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.”
The last passage I want to look at here is John 13. Peter tells Jesus that he does not want Him to wash his feet (v. 6). It is striking to me that Jesus says, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me” (v. 8) and then He goes on to say, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (v. 14). So Jesus is saying don’t try and work for your salvation (you can’t) but follow my example and serve others because I have served you.
Works do not save us. We are saved by accepting the work that Jesus did on our behalf, He washed us. And, in fact, if we try to work for our salvation we “have no share with [Jesus] (v. 8). However, that in no way negates the importance of works, to the contrary; it gives works deep significance. We are called to imitate Christ (v. 14-16). Jesus told Peter he could not work for salvation (v. 6-8) but works do have their place. Jesus served Peter (even enabling Peter to serve Him cf. John 1:13; 14:16; Gal. 5:16-24; 2 Peter 1:3; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:25-27) through the cross and thus Peter served Jesus imitating Him, even to death (cf. John 13:14-16); tradition says, death by upside down crucifixion (cf. John 21:18-19). Peter was saved by trusting Jesus Christ’s all-sufficient service and yet Peter served and imitated Jesus out of a supreme joyous thankfulness (cf. 1 Peter 1:3-9; 2:21-25; 4:13-14).
May we serve in the same way and with the same motivation that Peter did. May we work and serve Christ not to earn right standing before God but to demonstrate that through Christ’s atoning death we have right standing before God. If we have been declared righteous in Christ then let’s live righteously before Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2). Let’s show our faith from our works, as Abraham did.
Endnotes
[1] Someone may object that the thief beside Jesus on the cross (and all deathbed conversions) prove that to say that “faith is never alone” is wrong. However, the thief on the cross already began to demonstrate that he had faith and that demonstration would have continued had he lived. There is some fruit that we cannot see right away but in time if the tree is good it will bear good fruit. All fruit is begotten internally but if given time will show externally, that is inevitable.
[2] Though this is not why we are looking at this passage, don’t miss that Jesus is the “only Son” that was slain on the cross for us. Jesus is the offspring in whom all the nations shall be blessed because He, God’s only Son, is the sacrifice that takes away the sin of the world! God did not withhold His only Son! Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide!” And He did provide! Thank you Jesus!
[3] Here in Romans Paul is combating those that think they can be right before God because they are circumcised but Paul shows that it is not the act or work of circumcision that justifies but that it is faith, however; he never says that the work of circumcision was not crucial for Abraham. He shows that he was justified by faith but that circumcision naturally followed. Simirilly works must naturally follow are faith although we, like Abraham, are justified before works (Rom. 4:10-11).
[4] Paul and James are using the word “justified” in different ways. See endnote 8.
[5] “The issue for Paul was how a person is transferred from the realm of sin and death to the realm of grace and life, the issue for James is the nature of faith. Is it possible to have faith apart from works? Can such faith save a person? For James an abstract notion of faith has no power to save, and it will not stand the test of God’s judgment… James is not so much setting faith and works in opposition to each other as he is arguing a concept of faith that he views as barren because it expresses itself in words but not in deeds. Because this kind of faith cannot save or justify, James affirms that a person is justified by works that manifest faith” (Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology, 362). Thomas R. Schreiner says, “James addresses a situation different from that of Paul… James responds to antinomianism whereas Paul reacts to legalism” (New Testament Theology, 604).
[6] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 604
[7] True saving faith is like sitting in a chair. You have to have faith to sit down (believe that it will hold you) but you also have to do something (actually move and sit down). You will never sit unless you believe but if you believe you must sit down or it will show you don’t actually trust the chair.
[8] Note that we are saved by “His own will” (James 1:18) and not by our works because “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father” (v. 17 see also Eph. 2:8-9). Also some (e.g. Calvin, Sproul, MacArthur) believe that the word justified is used in two different ways by Paul and James: James uses “justified” (dikaioo) in 2:21; 24 he does not use it with the same meaning that Paul typically does. James means “demonstrated to be righteous,” whereas Paul means, “declared to be righteous.” John MacArthur helps us here:
It is important to understand that the Greek verb dikaioo (justified) has two general meanings. The first pertains to acquittal, that is, to declaring and treating a person as righteous… the second meaning of dikaioo pertains to vindication, or proof of righteousness. It is used in that sense a number of times in the New Testament, in relation to God as well as men. Paul says, “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, ‘That You may be justified in Your words, and prevail when You are judged’” (Rom. 3:4). He writes to Timothy that Jesus Christ “was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated [from dikaioo] in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16). Jesus comments that “wisdom is vindicated [justified] by all her children’” (Luke 7:35) (John MacArthur, James, 137-38 see also Wayne Gudem’s Systematic Theology, 731 and Calvin’s Institutes, 2:115).
Here is an example the two types of justification. Imagine two men that were tried for a crime. One of the men is proven not guilty by his actions; he demonstrated that he did not commit the crime by who he is and how he lives. He showed that he was just. The other man is not guilty of the crime because a coworker attested that they were working together at the time of the crime. He was declared just. Obviously this analogy breaks down because we did commit the crime. We sinned against a holy God. Nevertheless, I believe we can still show that we are just, even though it is true that we’ve been made just, by living just lives.
[9] This point was brought to light by John Piper’s book Future Grace (154). In the next chapter he goes on to explain that James’ point “is not merely that saving faith is always accompanied by good works. The point is that the faith produces the works” (Ibid., 167-68). Real faith will produce works.
[10] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 5.
[11] Repent (metanoeite) and repentance (metanoia) means an alteration of mind and purpose that brings a change in life and practice. J. M. Lunde says, “The biblical notion of repentance refers to the radical turning away from anything which hinders one’s wholehearted devotion to God, and the corresponding turning to God in love and obedience” (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 726. Italics mine). Here, once again, we see the all-encompassing nature of Christianity. Repentance in a sense is to convert mind, body, soul, and strength (i.e. total devotion) to Christ. Similarly, baptism partly represents living in and for Christ. We have died and our life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3 see also Rom. 6:4, 11; Gal. 3:27). Romans 7:4 says, we “have died… through the body of Christ… [and have] been raised from the dead (notice baptism language) in order that we may bear fruit for God.” Baptism symbolizes “not only the putting off of sinful habits and passions, but actual death to a former life of evil, and also resurrection to a new life of purity and holiness” (Charles R. Erdman, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to the Philemon [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, year unknown], 70.).
[12] John Macarthur says in his book Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles [(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 153] that “James is not at odds with Paul. ‘They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel’” [Alexander Ross, “The Epistles of James and John,” The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich,: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.].
[13] The Greek word seswken can mean “heal” or “save” but I believe it means both in this context; notice Jesus says “go in peace.”
[14] Jesus does say, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word” (Jn. 14:23) but we don’t keep his word merely through white-knuckling and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. Jesus gives us a Helper and empowers us (v. 16). Jesus only says we will keep His word because He first says that He will give us a Helper to enable us to do so. Salvation is God’s work from start to finish (Heb. 12:2). It is only when we abide in Jesus and He abides in us by grace that we bear fruit (Jn. 15:4-5). So although we must bear the fruits of faith even that fruit is a gracious gift and work of God. It is the direct result of being connected to Christ and does not come from good that is intrinsically in us. As Paul reminds us we work with all the power that God works within us (Phil. 2:13). We must be reminded that if we are in Christ there will necessarily be a work within us but this work is by His power. We were made alive by God (Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13) by connection to Jesus the “true vine” through whom we, the branches, can now bear fruit. Apart from Him we can do nothing (Jn. 15:5)! Notice that we did not connect ourselves to the true vine, we were dead helpless branches on the ground, the vine dresser connected us (v. 1, 16). We did not chose God, He chose us (v. 16). Faith and fruit are both gracious gifts of God.
[15] D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5-7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 130.
[16] Ibid., 131.
[17] I realize that many people believe that the “long ending” of Mark was not included in the original autographs. Whether or not that is the case is not what I seek to answer here.
[18] Taken from the Westminster Confession of Faith (italics mine). For scriptural grounds for this statement see: Rom. 8:30; 3:24; 5:15–16; 4:5–8; 2 Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 3:22–28; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30–31; Rom. 5:17–19; John 1:12; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:38; Phil. 3:9; Eph. 2:7–8; John 6:44–45, 65; Phil. 1:29; John 3:18, 36; Rom. 3:28; 5:1; James 2:17, 22, 26; Gal. 5:6. See also article 4, 6, and 20 of the Augsburg Confession.
Do Calvinists Practice Evangelism?
I was recently asked, “Do ‘Calvinists’ practice evangelism?” I think we see a parallel to this question in the motivation of the Gold Rush. During the Gold Rush, people went West because there was a good chance that they would strike gold. Calvinists, or at least healthy Calvinists, are motivated by this chance of “striking gold” as well. Let me explain…
During the California Gold Rush (1848-55), men and women left everything they knew to go “out West” because they knew that there was a chance—a good chance—that they would strike gold. Clearly, they would not have left family, friends, and security to go West if there was only a random chance of striking gold. However, there was a chance, and so there was a “Gold Rush.”
In total, around 300,000 people saw the potential gold as a great opportunity and set out for California. Men and women left their lives in the East—many times at great cost, sometimes even of life and limb—to travel to the West. This Gold Rush even brought people from as far away as Latin America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. The life of a prospector was a difficult one: the work was hard, the environment was harsh, and there was the constant fear of Indian attack.
God Says There is “Gold” Among the Nations
Paul tells us that he endures everything for the sake of the elect (2 Tim. 2:10). Thus, far from making Paul relax his missionary zeal it encouraged it. In fact, one night the Lord said to him,
“Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent… for I have many in this city who are my people.” (Acts 18:9-10)
Paul was encouraged to keep speaking because God had many elect people in the city.
There are elect people among the nations—or “gold”—that only have to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved. So, it is true that Calvinists believe that God elects people to salvation (see for example Eph. 1:4) but it also true that God uses us as means to bring about that salvation (see Rom. 10:13 for instance). So it is a great evangelistic encouragement to us that there are people ransomed for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (see Rev. 5:9-10). This truth, far from causing us to cease our evangelistic efforts, should cause a type of evangelistic “gold rush.”
One of the greatest encouragements in evangelism and missions is that there is a chance that we will “strike gold.” There is a chance that those to whom we are ministering are of the elect—chosen by God to be saved. Far from discouraging from evangelism, this truth should stir us up all the more to evangelize. When we read the passages we looked at we should see “Gold!” God has not only made evangelism possible, but He has in fact guaranteed that our evangelistic efforts are not in vain, for “He has many people in this city.” Our eyes should light up with the prospect of spiritual riches for us and for those with whom we can share Christ.
So yes, Calvinists do, or should, believe in and practice evangelism.
The Baptism, Filling, and Continual Filling of the Holy Spirit
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
First, I must say, this is a difficult question as there is much disagreement and misunderstanding on the topic. However, it is a very practical and important question.
“Pentecostal and charismatic theology generally maintains that baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, an experience of God’s grace subsequent to conversion.”[1] However, Allison demonstrates that “the New Testament vividly portrays the initial work involving the Spirit with several interchangeable expressions.”[2] To understand what our term, “baptized in the Spirit,” means we have to look at the extended context in which it is used. We also have to determine if Jesus’ followers were regenerate or not. If we believe that they were already regenerate then our term refers to a second or subsequent work of the Spirit. If they were not already regenerate then it does not refer to a subsequent work but to the conversion work of the Spirit. I believe that Allison has demonstrated that it refers to the conversion work of the Spirit and not to a subsequent work.[3]
If this is true then “baptized in the Spirit” means something akin to regenerated by the Spirit or the initial giving of the Spirit. However, I think this term brings in more meaning.[4] I believe that “baptized in the Spirit” (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16) means something close to immersed in the Spirit. It has to do with being engulfed in the glory and wonder of God by the Spirit. “Baptized” (Gk. baptizo) means dip, submerge, or plunge. So, the baptism of the Spirit, like the one at Pentecost, is an overwhelming experience (So, the LXX reading of Isaiah 21:4: “My heart wanders, and transgression ‘overwhelms’ [Gk. baptizo] me”).
It also seems that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in Scripture, has partly to do with being incorporated into the people of God. We see this for example through Paul’s use of a similar phrase. He says, “In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Yet, we also saw this at Pentecost: Jew and Gentile, together, we’re baptized in the Spirit. They were brought together through the overwhelming experience of the Spirit.
In Scripture, I think baptism of the Spirit is used to refer to the initial giving and overwhelming effect of the Spirit. The Spirit was poured out and overwhelmed God’s people in accord with Joel 2. However, in popular parlance it has come to mean something else. This is not surprising since many believe that the baptism of the Spirit was and is a subsequent work and not a converting work. It is also not surprising since the term in many ways is synonymous with filled with the Spirit. The term does perhaps especially emphasize the overwhelming effect of the Spirit. So, for instance, I think it would be okay to say, the Great Awakening that Princeton’s Jonathan Edwards was involved in was a type of immersion of the Holy Spirit. People were dipped, as it were, into the reality of God and His truth; they were “baptized by the Spirit.”
Sinclair B. Ferguson has said,
“Revival is the unstopping of the pent-up energies of the Spirit of God breaking down the dams which have been erected against his convicting and converting ministry in whole communities of individuals, as happened at Pentecost and in the ‘awakenings’ which have followed.”[5]
I also believe that Pentecost was unique in some ways. Unique in that it may have been the first time that believers were indwelt by God the Spirit (there is much debate and necessary caveats regarding this statement). There were also prophecies that were fulfilled through Pentecost (Joel 2). It was also a very turbulent time and there was an especially significant need for God to demonstrate that He was behind the New Covenant and the inclusion of the Gentiles (cf. Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11). This is not to say, that God does not still work in significant and similar ways. I believe He does at times. I do not believe that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have seized. This is only to say that we must see the special uniqueness of that time in the life of the Church.
I believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is closely related to the filling of the Holy Spirit and may or may not result in the sign gifts of the Spirit. That, briefly, is how I understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I would, however, like to further study this subject.
Filling of the Holy Spirit
From the point of our new birth we are filled with the Holy Spirit. We are, amazingly, temples of the Living God (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:13). However, we can still be filled with the Spirit. We need this filling for instance to be powerful witnesses, to put to death the wicked deeds of the body, and to know and love God as we should.
Paul wrote to the saints (who thus were indwelt by the Spirit) at Ephesus (Eph. 1:1) and yet he prayed that they would be filled with all the fullness of God (notice “filled,” “all,” and “fullness”) (Eph. 3:19). He prayed that they would have strength to comprehend the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, this happens through the Spirit’s power (Eph. 3:16). So, I think the filling of the Spirit has to do with tasting the reality of God’s truth. It is more than cognitive consent.
So, for instance, I think Jonathan Edwards is getting at this when he says, “There is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means… There is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness.”[6]
Yet, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not just about having this “sense.” It is also about being prepared for significant ministry. However, I think the two tend to go hand in hand. We see this in Scripture; it’s clear in the book of Acts. Many earlier church leaders were “filled with the Holy Spirit” before or as they carried out the Lord’s work (cf. Acts 4:8; 4:31; 7:55; 13:9; 13:52). “Furthermore, the same vocabulary is sometimes used to describe an honorable Christian lifestyle. The table servers (Acts 6:3), as exemplified by Stephan (Acts 6:5), and Barnabas (Acts 11:24) were characterized as being ‘full of the Holy Spirit.’”[7]
So I agree with Allison, I think “the sense of the filling or fullness of the Spirit is being thoroughly and regularly pervaded by or permeated with the Spirit resulting in fruitfulness, seen in productive ministry and proven godly character.”[8] We should all greatly desire, pray for, and seek this filling of the Spirit. We want to both have a sense of the great sweetness of God and His truth (cf. Ps. 34:8; 1 Pet. 2:3) and be empowered for significant ministry to God’s glory.
Continual Filling of the Holy Spirit
I believe that the Spirit fills us through a collaboration of means. He works as we sing songs, and hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16). He speaks through Scripture. He works as we pray (Eph. 1:17ff; 3:16ff). We come to God as our good Father and ask Him to fill us with the Spirit (Lk. 11:5-13). “Sam Storms explains, baptism with the Spirit at salvation ‘does not preclude multiple, subsequent experiences of the Spirit’s activity… The New Testament endorses and encourages multiple subsequent experiences of the Spirit’s power and presence.’”[9] We see this in Scripture. We’ll take our example from Ephesians.
First, Paul says, “Be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), he says it as a command, not an option. We must also realize that he says it to believers, believers that are already temples indwelt with the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:13 cf. Titus 3:5; Jn. 3:3, 5). So there must be a way that we can be more filled (notice Paul’s language in Eph. 3:19). Second, the tense is present, so we could say that we are called to “keep on being filled with the Spirit.” It is not simply a once and done type of thing. We continually need to pursue the filling of the Spirit. Third, it is in the passive voice, we are filled and we cannot do the filling on our own. The Spirit does the work of filling us and we cannot fabricate or conjure His presence. However, that does not mean that we are inactive in our pursuit of being filled with the Spirit. Remember, Paul says “be filled.” It’s a passive imperative. Thus we pray (Lk. 11:5-13) and we sing (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16). We kill sin (mortification) and live towards God (vivification). We purify ourselves to be worthy vessels (Rom. 8:4-6; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20; Gal. 5:16-25; 2 Tim. 2:21).
____________________________________________
[1] Gregg R. Allison, “Baptism with and Filling of the Holy Spirit,” 8.
[2] Ibid., 11. Sinclair B. Ferguson also says that “Luke-Acts speaks of being filled with or being full of the Spirit as an ongoing condition, but also describes particular occasions when individuals appear to experience distinct fillings” (The Holy Spirit, 89).
[3] see Ibid., esp. 10-14.
[4] Max Turner gives a good and brief biblical analysis of what the term means to different authors. He says:
“The phrase, ‘baptize in (the) (Holy) Spirit (and fire)’ in the NT is found on the lips of John the Baptist, Jesus (Acts 1:5) and Peter (Acts 11:16) and, perhaps, in the writings of Paul (1 Cor 12:13). It is only just beginning to be realized (cf. Hummel, Fireplace chap. 14) that these usages are not uniform but amount to different metaphors-topic and illustration being subtly different in each case:
(a) John the Baptist uses the phrase as a metaphor for the end-time ‘deluge’ of Spirit-and-fire that will destroy and recreate the world (Mt. 3:11 f.). All will experience that. (b) Jesus uses the same language, this time as a metaphor for the deluge of Spirit experienced by the 120 at Pentecost (Jesus’ re-use of end-time language in connection with events in salvation history is characteristic: cf. his use of ‘kingdom of God’ language at Lk. 11:20 for example). At Acts 1:5 there is no suggestion that any further such mighty deluge of Spirit (before the end) is actually indicated.
(c) Peter (Acts 11:16) sees Cornelius’ experience and ‘remembers’ Jesus’ vivid metaphor. (The inference is that this was not the usual experience and ‘baptize in Spirit’ not the usual language of Peter’s circle: this surprising experience recalled that metaphor.)
In conclusion we can say that the speakers in Luke-Acts use ‘baptize in Holy Spirit’ as a metaphor for being ‘deluged’ or ‘overwhelmed’ by the Spirit (albeit in different ways). Luke, like Josephus (see Turner, ‘Spirit Endowment’ 50ff.), uses ‘baptize’ metaphorically to compare an experience of the Spirit (or wine, or sleep or whatever) with how a deluge or floodtide overcomes and engulfs a man. The phraseology is used to denote a dramatic experience which overwhelms. Few in the NT are described as having such an overwhelmingly powerful experience of the Spirit as to suggest the metaphor (Pentecost and Cornelius in Luke-Acts); and few today have such a powerful experience that this language commends itself.
(d) Paul’s use in 1 Cor. 12:13 ‘for by one Spirit we were all baptized into the one body’ means God, in spirit, ‘immerses’ us into Christ’s body. All experience this, but Paul’s metaphor is not Luke’s. He is using ‘baptize’ language to compare the Spirit’s placing of us into the body of Christ with the way a man immerses or sinks an item into a fluid. The point of comparison is ‘total incorporation’, not ‘overwhelming experience’. Stott, Dunn and Bruner are right to insist (in Pauline terms) that all Christians are baptized by the Spirit into Christ: but they wrongly read Luke’s language this way. Charismatics rightly see that Luke’s phrase denotes overwhelming experience, but wrongly assume Luke thinks it happens to all before the parousia (then, of course, it will happen to all!) and wrongly apply it to many experiences today for which the language can only charitably be called a gross exaggeration.”
[5] Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, 90.
[6] “A Divine and Supernatural Light.”
[7] Allison, “Baptism with and Filling of the Holy Spirit,” 14.
[8] Ibid., 15.
[9] Ibid., 14.
Abortion: This Subject is a Matter of Life or Death
Thinking about abortion is very difficult but very important. I hope to look at it with grace and candor. So, out front, I want to say two things: First, abortion is wrong and a grave sin against a holy God. Second, there is grace and forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus Christ! So even as we think about this difficult subject, I do not want us to have a holier-than-thou mind set. We are all sinners saved by the grace of God. 1 John 1:9 gives us all hope: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I also want us to realize that the problem of abortion cannot be fixed by mere legislation (abortion was happening when it was against the law and infanticide has sadly been around for thousands of years). Legislation is important however. Yet, the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is people’s hearts; people need to be transformed by God from the inside out. So, the problem is not just abortion, that is a fruit, albeit perhaps the ugliest fruit, of this society’s worldview.[1] This fruit is seen all over the place just in different flavors. However, the underlying problem is the same, idolatry. People worship convenience, their unhindered sexual lifestyle, their accomplishments, or a thousand other things above the one true God. We know from Romans chapter one the chaos that ensues when things usurp God’s place on the throne. When we make a god out of what is no god, it is its own punishment. God gives people up to a debased mind; to do what ought not to be done.
Society often paints things in a thin veneer. It looks attractive. When examined closely, however, it is most worthless, even poisons. It is interesting that many have abortions to escape consequences but end up instead sadly multiplying them as the Scriptures say (cf. Rom. 1). The immediate physical and psychological consequences of an abortion are often many, to speak nothing of long term affects. However, these sadly are just a foretaste of what awaits those who do not turn to Jesus for forgiveness.
Statistics Regarding Abortion in America
• Since 1973, there have been 53,000,000 reported and legal abortions. This is equal to the population of 19 western states.
• There are 1.21 Million abortions per year (2005)
• There are approximately 3,700 abortions per day.
• 1/3 of American women will have an abortion by the time they are forty-five.
• Reasons why women have an abortion:
o 1% of all abortion occur because of rape or incest
o 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems
o 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons:
Some say they have responsibility to other people
Cannot afford a child
Having a child would interfere with work, school, etc.
Don’t want to be a single parent or would have problems with the father of the child
• Partial birth abortion (the name alone is sad) is used to abort women who are 20 to 30 weeks pregnant.
• Some studies report that up to 90% of women chose not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound.
• The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.
• Babies of 22 weeks gestation have survived, though this is still very rare.
• Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.
• There are several health risks for the woman:
o Breast cancer
o Ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
o Bad effects on future pregnancies
o Becoming sterile
o Sexual dysfunction
o Mental health risks
(From The Village Church)
Why is Abortion Wrong?
First, because Genesis 1:26-27 tells us we are created in image of God. Second, because Exodus 20:13 tells us, “Thou shall not murder.”
However, are these texts enough? Or could people object that that is all well and good but what is inside a woman womb is not a human. What can we say about that from Scripture?
Exodus 21:22-25 says:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (See Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, 159-60, 160n2 and Frame, 718-21).
There is quite a few things to note on this significant passage. First, notice what the result is if there is no harm to the child (see v. 22)? Just a fine. However, what happens if there is harm? “Life for life,” it says. Notice that this still means it is an accident but the punishment is still life for life. In other cases of accidental manslaughter this was not the mandate but provision of “house arrest” and protection was made. Therefore, this shows the seriousness of protecting unborn life. If God has such hatred for the accidental death of an unborn child what is His reaction to intentional death? Wrath (cf. Jer. 7:30-34).
Meredith G. Kline points out that
“Induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to the abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism” (“Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” 200-01).
Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Job 31:15-18; Ps. 22:9; Hos. 12:3; Gen. 25:23-26) says:
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. [14] I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. [15] My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
Psalm 51:5 says: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Remember the context? David is repenting of his sin. What is David saying here? He is saying he has a sinful nature inherited from Adam. He is not saying it was his mother’s fault. Note, “Sin in Scripture is a personal quality, never an impersonal one. It is never a property of things, only of persons” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 722). Thus, we see here a very strong argument for personhood beginning at conception. If he had a sin nature in his mother’s womb than it follows that he was a real human being with a soul. “Fetal tissue” or any type of tissue or inanimate object for that matter is not sinful, people alone are sinful. Do you see the conclusion here? David was a person, a real human person, in his mother’s womb.
We could also look at Judges 13:3-5 and Luke 1:35. Jesus too was a divine-human person from conception (cf. Heb 2:17-18; 4:15; Lk. 41-44 cf. 2:16).
We see in Scripture that we should take precautions so as to avoid the possible destruction of life (Deut. 22:8 cf. 19:5). Thus, even if you are not entirely persuaded by these arguments the principle that we see in Scripture would lead us not to agree with abortion. As Frame says, “Even if the above arguments are only, say, 80 percent certain, they make it highly probable that abortion destroys human lives. And God’s law clearly tells us not to take that risk. So our practical response should be exactly the same as if we were persuaded 100 percent” (Frame, 724).
To illustrate this point imagine I go hunting with you. We go out into the thick woods and after a while I hear a rustling in the grass so I do what any hunter should do, I don’t hesitate, I point in that general direction, and fire a few shots hoping I hit my intended target. Would you hunt with me very long if that was my practice? No, because you would be either to scared or dead. Do you see the principal? You don’t just shoot at any rustling noise because a human could be making the noise and not a deer. We take precautions to protect life!
The United States Military goes by an ROE, Rules of Engagement. They for instance have to have positive identity before they engage an enemy force. Or they have to use escalation of force. Our military personnel take great precautions to not destroy innocent life, even to the point of putting their own self in great harm, and yet in our own country we do not take these same precautions with our unborn. We do not have “positive identity” and yet many are okay with taking life. Should we not rather take great precautions even if we are not exactly sure when life begins? If we as a country make people put hand rails up on their own house and enforce all sorts of other codes, should we not also protect the unborn even if their is disagreement when life begins?
DNA: “From the point of conception, unborn children have a full complement of chromosomes… Therefore, the child is not ‘part of his mother’s body.’ His genetic makeup is different from hers. So we should not treat the unborn child as we treat hair or fingernails, or even as we treat organs like the gall bladder or liver. The unborn child is a separate and unique human being” (Frame, 725). Yes the child is dependent on his mother yet he will also be after he is outside of the womb and that in no way gives his mother the right to kill him. Though there are helpful scientific observations, “Personhood is a metaphysical, religious, theological, and ethical category, not a scientific one. There are no scientific observations or experiments that can detect a difference between a person and a nonperson” (Frame, 726). Yet, as we saw above, if we have a ROE for combat how much more should we go to great lengths to protect human unborn life!
I read an article about a teenage boy that falsely admitted to a crime and later was proven innocent from DNA. People are sometime proven guilty and proven innocent by their DNA and yet not proven to be human by their DNA this does not make sense to me.
Objections that People Raise (see Grudem, Politics, 162-63 regarding this section)
1. Unable to interact or survive on its own: I have already said how I think this argument is faulty above. A young baby is also unable to survive on its own and that in no way justifies starving it, for example.
2. Birth defects: The question here is whether we would think it is right to put a child to death after it is born because it may have problems. There have also been predictions about the capabilities of child that have been wrong. So, no, potential birth defect or known birth defects cannot justify an abortion (cf. Ex. 4:11; Jn. 9:2-3).
3. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest: These situations, though few (around 1% or less of all abortions), should be treated with much sensitivity and love. However, the child should not be punished for the sin of the father (Deut. 24:16).
4. Abortion to save the life of the mother: People make it seem like this problem arises very often however the truth is it does not (less than 0.118% of all abortions). This situation is different from the ones above because the choice is between the loss of one life (the baby) and the loss of two lives (the baby and the mother). As we have seen, the Scriptures teach the importance of protecting human life. So if both lives cannot be protected I believe the right thing to do is protect the life that can be protected. I agree with Grudem, though this is a difficult subject.
“I cannot see a reason to say this would be morally wrong, and in fact, I believe it would be morally right for doctors to save the life that can be saved and take the life of the preborn child from the mother’s body (for example from the Fallopain tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy) results from directly intending to save the life of the mother, not from directly intending to take the child’s life. If the medical technology exists to save the child’s life in such cases, then of course the child’s life should also be saved. But if abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, this would seem to be the only situation in which it is morally justified” (Politics, 163-64).
5. If Abortion is not allowed it is a wrongful restriction of freedom: However, does that make any sense? I think not. Does not the government make restrictions, isn’t that what we have empowered them to do? Did you know I do not have the freedom to drink and drive, the madness! I am not allowed to shoot guns at people, the government is so restrictive… not even in the city limits… As we can see, the government restricts people and that is right and good. We should not be able to drink and drive, shoot guns at people, etc.
6. “All children should be wanted children”: This, to tell you the truth, makes me sick. Yes! Duh! All children should be wanted children. But the problem is with the parents. It saddens me that we have taken consumerism and applied to human life as a society. Today, there are many people that want to customize their children. However, once a child is born can you just put him or her to death because you don’t want them? Surely not (at least yet)! So, again, this argument holds no ground. It simply pushes the problem back. Children should be wanted. However, the child should not be killed because they are not wanted, the parent should change to want the child. Of course, there is also adoption which is also a good option for many people.
7. Others say, “I’m personally against abortion, but I just don’t support laws against abortion”: That is akin to saying, “I am personally against drunk driving (or murdering for that matter) and I recommend people not do it but don’t support laws against it because individuals should make that decision themselves.” Do you see how silly that is?! Let’s just have no laws! That is foolish and unbiblical. This is especially foolish in a country where we actually have a say.
8. Others say, “We should reduce the causes of abortion but not have laws against abortion”: That would be like saying lets reverse the laws on murder and just have more classes on anger management. That is ridicules. Yes, classes on anger management are important and we should have them but that alone will never do.
9. Yet others say, “Christians should not try to impose their moral standards on other people”: I would agree that we should not impose our religion on people. However, moral standards are a different thing, especially when we live in a country that essentially lets the consensus of the majority make the rules (See Gen. 41:37-45; 42:6; 45:8-9, 26; Dan. 4:27; Jer. 29:7; Neh. 1:1; Esther 5:1-8; 7:1-6; 8:3-13; 9:4,12-15, 20-32; 10:3 for the NT cf. Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 for people “imposing” their moral standards). Plus, non-Christians saying this are acturally wanting to impose their moral standard on people. However, their moral standard says that their should be no moral standard, or it should be very low, or it should allow abortion, or it should allow everything except pedophelia.
[1] One person has said, “What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic.”
Are the Gifts of the Spirit for Today? A Brief Exploration
Introduction
“Are the gifts of the Spirit for today?” This is a big question and an important one because it impacts the church, missions, and individual’s spiritual lives. It is an important question because many denominations and individuals are divided over it.
Truly and sadly very often “those who [speak] most loudly of being led by the Spirit [are] the very persons responsible for quenching the Spirit’s work.”[1] Interestingly, this was also true of the Corinthians of Paul’s day. Yet, Paul does not say, “Away with the Spirit!” Instead, he says, “Don’t quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19)! The Spirit is not the problem; we are.
I think both camps, cessationists (they believe the gifts have seized) and continuationists (they believe the gifts continue), are right on some points and wrong on others. “Error is much more likely to be propagated, when it is mixed with truth. This hides deformity and makes it go down more easily.”[2] Those who believe that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit continue and those that believe they do not both very often sound right. This likely means that both arguments have been construed wrongly.
Neither side is understanding the question rightly. Of course, I will not satisfy everyone, or, perhaps, anyone. But this is my attempt to satisfy myself on this subject. And I hope to bring you along as well.
We will first look at four negative arguments that people make that believe the charismatic gifts have seized. Then we will look at one positive argument in favor of the continuation of the charismatic gifts. I also have included a long excursus that outlines a somewhat chronological example of the ongoing powerful and uncommon work of the Spirit since Pentecost. Finally, we will look at a few practical reflections.
The Grave Necessity for a Hideous Hell
Hell is unashamedly a dreadful doctrine; yet, as we will see, a necessary doctrine.[1] C. S. Lewis’ said,
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.”[2]
We don’t desire controversy for the sake of controversy.[3] Rather, we want to be convinced biblically,[4] logically, and practically that hell is a necessary doctrine.
It is important before considering the evidence to think about our a priori assumptions. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mocking Bird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e. Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward Tom was convicted. Why? Because people were prejudice against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it happens when people consider other forms of evidence. This is especially likely to occur when emotional issues are involved. So when people consider what the Bible teaches on certain subjects they come with tinted glasses. One theologian, for instance, admits that he “was led to question the traditional belief in everlasting conscious torment because of moral revulsion and broader theological considerations, not first of all on scriptural grounds.”[6]
John Stott believed in annihilationism. Stott, by his own admission, left the ranks of what is “traditional orthodoxy for most of the church fathers, the medieval theological and the Reformers.” Even as Stott emotionally wrestled with the doctrine of hell he said, “our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it. As a committed evangelical, my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”[7]
As we look at the wrath of God we look from a certain vantage point in the cultural climate in which we live. This inevitably shades our perception of things. One book I read told of a Korean man that struggled not with the wrath of God (and even hell) but with the love and grace of God.[8] This was because he had seen horrible wickedness and clearly understood that wickedness deserves justice.
Timothy Keller tells about a woman that told him that the very idea of a judging God was offensive. Keller responded by asking why she wasn’t offended by the idea of a forgiving God. The woman was puzzled so Keller continued:
“’I respectfully urge you to consider your cultural location when you find the Christian teaching about hell offensive.’ …Westerns get upset by the Christian doctrine of hell, but they find Biblical teaching about turning the other cheek and forgiving enemies appealing. I then asked her to consider how someone from a very different culture sees Christianity. In traditional societies the teaching about ‘turning the other cheek’ makes absolutely no sense. It offends people’s deepest instincts about what is right. For them the doctrine of judgment, however, is no problem at all. That society is repulsed by aspects of Christianity that Western people enjoy, and are attracted by the aspects that secular Westerns can’t stand.”[9]
Many people are chronological or geographical snobs. That is, they have baseless biases and think their place in space and time has the unique vantage point to decipher morals, values, and truth claims of people in different times and cultures than their own. However, why should one think that non-Western cultures are inferior to our own?
The various aspects of the unpopularity of Christianity actually show that it is transcultural. Keller says,
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this is the place, the Christian doctrine of divine judgment.”[10]
Let’s, as Keller says, for the sake of argument, listen to the transcultural truth of Scripture. Let’s not be biased. Let’s take our tinted glasses off and seek to see why hell is necessary.
in X 