GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS! or the gonzo journalism of grace
TRILOGY
BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE
These men have the freedom of futility,
Heaven is not a reward.
You have brought us back to Eden,
To eat of the tree of life.
The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will permit him to eat from the tree of life that is in the Paradise of God.
1
Jesus Christ, 95 A.D.
written and edited by DL Coulon
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
2
Copyright © applied for 2007 by DL Coulon
3
Preview
Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.2 And his commandments do not weigh us down, because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers the world. This is the conquering power that has conquered the world: our faith. Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 3 “The one who conquers will in no way be harmed by the second death.” 4
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
4
5
YÉÜ }âáà tá |Ç TwtÅ tÄÄ w|x? áÉ tÄáÉ |Ç V{Ü|áà tÄÄ ã|ÄÄ ux Åtwx tÄ|äxA 5
“Let nobody deceive you with empty words, for because of these things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 6 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.” 7
“Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.” 8
“I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents” 9
Christ
Adam Man
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
6
7
Justification is the divine announcement of saving faith - a heavenly child has been born. God created the original fraternal twins, Eve from Adam. God created the unique maternal twin, Christ from the virgin stock of Adam. God gives man the twin works of the gospel of grace for the propagation of a new child of heaven. The seed principle is conceived in life from death, salvation from forgiveness. Which has been oddly divided and unforgivably separated in the dark heart of a barren negative gospel of sin that has aborted divine imputations that define, and result in, the quickened moment of conception from eternal death into eternal life. The rightful claims of the gospel of the grace of God will expose this heart of darkness. The circle is a symbol of unity and the never-ending. Twin intersecting arcs are the Ichthys. God has freed Himself from judgment to return to Eden and create new heavenly men from condemned earthly men. Going up the river was like
traveling back to the earliest
beginnings of the world, when
vegetation rioted on the earth
and the big trees were kings. …
The air was warm, thick,
heavy, sluggish … The long
stretches of the waterway ran
on, deserted, into the gloom of overshadowed distances. On silvery sand-
banks, hippos and alligators sunned themselves side by side. … I turned
to the wilderness really, not to Mr. Kurtz, who, I was ready to admit, was
as good as buried. And for the moment it seemed to me as if I was buried
in a vast grave full of unspeakable secrets. I felt an intolerable weight
oppressing my breast, the smell of the damp earth, the unseen presence
of victorious corruption, the darkness of an impenetrable night.
The Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
8
9
“The Necessity for Atonement”
First of all, penalty, as an element of law, appeals to an instinctive fear.
Far better is it that evil tendencies should be restrained, and outward
conformity to law secured, through such fear than not at all. We
therefore hold all divine punishment to have a strictly rectoral function.
Punishment is the resource of all righteous government. The whole
change in the divine economy is this – that on the sole ground of the
vicarious sacrifice of Christ all who repent and believe may be forgiven
and saved. 10
Dr. John Miley,
Arminian humanist theologian
“The Necessity for At-one-ment”
God has never proposed the amendment of sinners now, nor will He in
eternity. He has provided at infinite cost a perfect regeneration and new
creation through faith in Christ. This may be received or rejected by
men. 11
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Grace of God theologian
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
10
11
Saved from what?
“The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” 12
God has brought man back to Eden in order that man may be perfected and be with Him always. The sovereignty of God and man’s free will has been designed to meet in one place. The law is an instrument of God. Faith is perfect obedience. In Grace and Innocence, God has only one command that guarantees the perfection of mankind by the exercise of his God given free will …
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
12
13
GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!
or the gonzo journalism of grace
BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE
Since there is so much delusion in a counterfeit, the person most difficult to reach with the gospel of divine grace is the person who is trying to do all that a Christian ought to do, but is doing it as a means of becoming accepted before God. His willing acknowledgement of the value of the Christian life, his unquestioned reception into the fellowship of believers, and his real sincerity in all Christian activities constitute his greatest hindrance. Such a one is more deluded than the person who acknowledges no relationship to God. Both fall short and are lost through their failure to believe on Christ as the all-sufficient Savior; but, naturally, the person who has no false hope is more apt to become conscious of the fact that he is lost than is the person who believes he is a Christian.
Lewis Sperry Chafer
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
14
15
Preface
Subsequent to the pre-
mature loss of many
charismatic leaders of this
country, during a time of great
social change and
disillusionment, those of my
generation experienced a war
where the enemy was never
defeated. And this, during a
time when “God is Dead” had
been made into a popular
slogan. The religion that
prompted that observation is
still alive and well today.
Many types of Nirvana were
thought to be a valid
spirituality by those who were
inclined to move with the
times. Times change and
spirituality removed from Jesus Christ has always been a myth. To this I am
a witness. I dedicate this book to those who will become a witness to the
gospel of God’s saving grace.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
16
17
“True Christian living and service flow out of the new creation which is the result of the saving work of God and are divinely recognized by the promise of rewards. The Bible revelation concerning rewards not only presents a great incentive to holy and faithful living, but is a necessary counterpart of the doctrines of free grace. The divine plan of salvation under free grace is to save men “without money and without price.” This means that no exchange is made. Man receives all that he has as a gift and only as a gift. It also means that there are no after payments to be made “on the installment plan,” as though some attempted correctness of life or conduct could qualify the transaction of grace. What is done for man is done graciously. God will not suffer His gift to be confused with useless attempts to pay, or return, anything to Him in exchange. It is equally evident that it is not His purpose that Christian service shall be rendered as an attempt to return something for what He has done, notwithstanding the fact that such motives in service are sometimes urged by the misinformed. God is said to be actuated by at least three motives in saving men: First, they are said to be “created unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in them.” This, it is evident, is the least of all. It is, however, the only motive that is sometimes presented. “We are saved to serve” is a common phrase which if taken alone would represent the Father as seeking our service only and as debased to the level of the most sordid commercialist. It is true rather that we are saved in order that we may serve. There can be no true service apart from salvation. Service then becomes a divinely provided privilege. Second, we are saved that “we might not perish, but have everlasting life.” This would seem of greatest importance, for it represents our unmeasured and eternal blessing in Him. But there is a third divine motive infinitely beyond these which, we may believe, is the highest motive of saving grace: namely, we are saved “that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ.” The result of that kindness toward us will be seen to be the final form in which we appear in the glory when we are “conformed to the image of his Son.” Every being in the universe will know what we were and will behold the spectacle of what we are in that final and eternal glory. This transformation will have measured the grace of God for us, and on that scale which will be wholly satisfying to Himself. He will have made a demonstration of His grace before all created beings which will be to His own exceeding joy.” 13
Lewis Sperry Chafer
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
18
19
Table of Contents
GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!............................................................... 1
OR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACE ............................................................. 1
TRILOGY .............................................................................................................. 1
BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE ....................................... 1
PREVIEW........................................................................................................... 3 PREFACE ......................................................................................................... 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ 19 PRELUDE......................................................................................................... 25
The Consistency of an Inconsistent Bible ....................................... 27 Introduction to the Historical Background to the Doctrine of the Value of the Death of Christ ............................................................ 31
Early Christianity............................................................................................ 31 The Middle Ages............................................................................................. 32
The Value of the Death of Christ ..................................................... 33 A. The Erroneous Theories of the Atonement ................................................ 35 B. The Explanation of the Value of the Death of Christ ................................... 37 C. The Extent of the Death of Christ................................................................ 40 D. The Effects of the Death of Christ ........................................................... 44
POLITICS ......................................................................................................... 59 Introduction to the Historical and Political Facts Concerning American Values of Freedom That Have No Valid Reason to be Part
and Parcel of Christian Thought...................................................... 61 Atheism ........................................................................................................... 62 Deism and the Age of Reason/Enlightenment............................................. 63 Free Will ......................................................................................................... 65 Philosophical Views of Free Will .................................................................. 66 Theological Paradox of Free Will ................................................................. 67 Modern Thought on Free Will Derived From Skeptism (Scottish: Hobbs, Hume) or Idealism (English/French: Locke, Paine, Kant) ......................... 67 The “Best Sellers List” in Colonial America ............................................... 68 Propaganda in Colonial American Literature............................................. 72 Encyclopedia .................................................................................................. 73 Thematic Essay: Political and Social Thought of the Enlightenment ........ 74 Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought................................ 81
Introduction to the Contradictory Dispensational Ages in the Bible92 THE KINGDOM ................................................................................................. 97
Historical Premise ............................................................................ 99 Statement..................................................................................................... 102 Introduction to the Elementary Argument for Grace ............................... 104 An Example of Gonzo Journalism................................................................ 118 Closing Comments ....................................................................................... 123
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
20
Detailed Commentary: Grace and the Non-Grace of Law ......................... 128 The Ancient Gentile Truth of Law and Grace ............................... 139 Righteousness, Grace, and Faith................................................... 145 The Righteousness of Sweeney Todd............................................ 157 The Denial of Grace ........................................................................ 159 The Final Judgment ........................................................................ 167 The Miracles of Christ in Behalf of His “Neighbors” and His Message of “the Kingdom is at Hand” was a Total Failure ......................... 177 The Amazing Second Revelation of the Apostle Paul .................. 183
The Church, the Body of Christ ................................................................... 185 Detailed Commentary on the Ascension and Session of Christ............... 197
FOREWORD ................................................................................................... 205 Statement of the Author’s Purpose ............................................. 207 Author’s Comments ....................................................................... 208 What Is Another Gospel?............................................................... 209 Statement of Method ..................................................................... 209 Declaration ...................................................................................... 211 Arminianism and the Separation of Church and State ............... 213 Closing Comments by the Author ................................................. 216
RELIGION....................................................................................................... 219 The Scales of Justice...................................................................... 221
PART ONE - NIGHT AND DAY .................................................................. 223 RELIGIOUS HUMANISM................................................................................... 225
Opening Discussion ........................................................................ 227 Arminianism is Religious Humanism............................................. 242 The Gospel of the Grace of God ..................................................... 249 Not Until “Thy Will Be Done” Does “Thy Kingdom Come” ........... 257 Behold, All Things are Become New! ............................................ 266 Concluding Summary Remarks ..................................................... 271
THE SUPREMACY OF NOTHING ....................................................................... 283 Intuition, the Supremacy of Nothing, Theory, Truth, and the Supremacy of Christ....................................................................... 285 THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST................................................................ 297
THE VALUE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST - LEXICON .............................................. 301 Typology - The Death of Christ is Demonstrated in the OT......... 303 Biblical Terms Related to the Death of Christ ............................. 307 Preliminary Considerations About the Value Of Christ’s Death 309 God’s Truth About What Christ Accomplished in His Death –
Forgiveness and Justification. The First Pauline Revelation: “justification by faith.” .................................................................... 312 Proof Verses ................................................................................... 317
THE VALUE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.............................................................. 321 The KJV Translation of Romans 8:1 is Misleading and Not to be Trusted ............................................................................................ 323
21
The KJV Invented Word, “Atonement,” Is Greatly Misleading.... 324 Why is “atonement” and the history of the KJV important?................... 334
Detailed Commentaries On a Misleading Idea of Atonement..... 354 The New Commandment of Koinonia and The False Professing Christians of Today Exposed in 1 John. ........................................ 363 Detailed Commentary on Koinonia................................................ 366
The Nine “Words” of NT Grace for the Believer: A Graceful View That
Corrects False Views of - The Great Commandment, the New
Commandment, and the Great Commission.............................................. 372 SALVATION.................................................................................................... 395
Salvation: The Objective in Evangelism ......................................... 398 Major Religions Practiced in the United States .......................... 404
SIN ............................................................................................................... 409 The Origin of Sin.............................................................................. 411 Justification - Salvation From the Penalty of Sin – Imputed Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Law ...................... 421 Sanctification - Salvation From the Power of Sin – Imparted Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Sin Nature or Flesh425 The New Creation Began on the Lord’s Day – The Believer’s New Life
in Christ ........................................................................................... 427 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 433
The Positive Gospel......................................................................... 435 1. The Doctrine of Imputation........................................................ 435 2. THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION...................................................... 439 3. THE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT ...................................................... 441 4. THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS ..................................................... 442 5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE NAME - CHRISTIAN ........................................ 446 6. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY...................................................... 448 7. CHRISTOLOGY ................................................................................. 450 8. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMANDMENTS ............................................... 455 9. The Doctrine of Faith.................................................................. 459
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
22
23
GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!
or the gonzo journalism of grace
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
24
25
Prelude
14
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
26
27
The Consistency of an Inconsistent Bible
Pelagius (360?-420?) denied the existence of original sin and the need
for infant baptism. He argued that the corruption of the human race is not
inborn, but is due to bad example and habit, and that the natural faculties
of humanity were not adversely affected by Adam's fall. Human beings
can lead lives of righteousness and thereby merit heaven by their own
efforts. Pelagius asserted that true grace lies in the natural gifts of
humanity, including free will, reason, and conscience. He also
recognized what he called external graces, including the Mosaic law and
the teaching and example of Christ, which stimulate the will from the
outside but have no indwelling divine power. For Pelagius, faith and
dogma hardly matter because the essence of religion is moral action. His
belief in the moral perfectibility of humanity was evidently derived from
Stoicism. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
28
29
“As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord.” –Col. ii. 6
TTTTHE life of faith is represented as receiving – an act which implies the very opposite of anything like merit. It is simply the acceptance of a gift.
As the earth drinks in the rain, as the sea receives the streams, as night
accepts light from the stars, so we, giving nothing, partake freely of the
grace of God. The saints are not, by nature, wells, or streams, they are
but cisterns into which the living water flows; they are empty vessels into
which God pours His salvation. The idea of receiving implies a sense of realization, making the matter a reality. One cannot very well receive a
shadow; we receive that which is substantial: so is it in the life of faith,
Christ becomes real to us. While we are without faith, Jesus is a mere
name to us – a person who lived a long while ago, so long ago that His
life is only a history to us now! By an act of faith Jesus becomes a real
person in the consciousness of our hearts. But receiving also means
grasping or getting possession of. The thing which I receive becomes my
own: I appropriate to myself that which is given. When I receive Jesus,
He becomes my Saviour, so mine that neither life nor death shall be able
to rob me of Him. All this is to receive Christ – to take Him as God’s
free gift; to realize Him in my heart, and to appropriate Him as mine.
Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf
receiving hearing, the dead receiving life; but we have not only received
these blessings, we have received CHRIST JESUS Himself. It is true that
He gave us life from the dead. He gave us pardon of sin; He gave us
imputed righteousness. These are all precious things, but we are not
content with them; we have received Christ Himself. The Son of God has
been poured into us, and we have received Him, and appropriated Him.
What a heartful Jesus must be, for heaven itself cannot contain Him!
Charles H. Spurgeon
Morning and Evening Devotions November 8, Morning
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
30
31
The following excerpts are from Wekipedia, an on-line encyclopedic
reference.
Introduction to the Historical Background to the Doctrine of the Value of the Death of Christ
Early Christianity
Pelagius was a British monk who journeyed to Rome around 400 AD and
was appalled at the lax behavior within churches. To combat this lack of
holiness, he preached a Gospel that began with justification through faith
alone (it was actually Pelagius, not Luther, who first added the word alone to
Paul's phrase) [1] but finished through human effort and morality. He had
read Augustine's Confessions and believed it to be a fatalistic and
pessimistic view of human nature. Pelagius' followers, including Caelestius,
went farther than their teacher and removed justification through faith,
setting up the morality- and works-based salvation now known as
Pelagianism. It should be mentioned that the only historical evidence of the
teachings of Pelagius or his followers is found through the writings of his
two strongest opponents — Augustine and Jerome.
In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that
included not only original sin (which Pelagius denied), but also
predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Critics maintain
that part of Augustine's philosophy might have stemmed from his expertise
in Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Manichaeism, which
maintained a very high view of a man's spirit and very low view of a man's
body.[2] Against the Pelagian notion that man can do everything right, he
taught the notion that man can do nothing right. Thus, he reasoned, man
cannot even accept the offer of salvation — it must be God who chooses for
himself individuals to bring to salvation.
A group of Italian bishops, led by Julian, defended the Pelagian view against
the Augustinian concept of predestination but were rejected by Pope
Innocent I at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Later a monastic movement in
Southern Gaul (modern-day France) also sought to explain predestination in
light of God's foreknowledge, but a flurry of writings from Augustine (Grace
and Free Will, Correction and Grace, The Predestination of the Saints and
The Gift of Perseverance) helped maintain the papal authority of his
doctrines.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
32
The Middle Ages
Augustine’s teaching on grace was considered the touchstone of orthodoxy
within the western church throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, within
an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of
God and man’s participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a
place for the church’s emerging system of sacraments in the overall scheme
of salvation. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of
the Middle Ages, taught that, from man’s fallen state, there were three steps
to salvation: (1) infusio gratiae - God infuses grace into the human soul - the
Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good - this step is
entirely God’s work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he
can never entirely lose it - however, faith alone is not enough for salvation;
(2) fides caritate formata - with man’s free will restored, man must now do
his best to do good works in order to have a “faith formed by charity”; and
then (3) meritum de condigno - God then judges and awards eternal life on
the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man’s “condign merit.”
Aquinas believed that by this system, he had managed to reconcile
Ephesians 2:8 (“By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God”) and James 2:20 (“faith without works is
dead”) and 2:24 (“by works a man is justified and not by faith only”), and
had provided an exposition of the Bible's teaching on salvation compatible
with Augustine's teachings.
A second stream of medieval thought, involving such thinkers as William of
Ockham, Duns Scotus, and Gabriel Biel, rejected Aquinas’ system as
destroying man’s free will. The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God
simply because of “infused grace”, then man did not love God freely. They
argued that before a man received an infusio gratiae, man must do his best in
a state of nature (i.e. based on man’s reason and inborn moral sense). They
argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man’s condign
merit for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from
God, so too, the original infusio gratiae was given to man on the basis of
meritum de congruo “congruent merit”, a reward for man’s doing his best in
a state of nature.
Aquinas’ followers, referred to as the Thomists, accused the Ockhamists of
Pelagianism for basing the infusio gratiae on man’s works. The Ockhamists
defended themselves from charges of Pelagianism by arguing that, in the
Ockhamist system, God was not bound to award the infusio gratiae on the
basis of congruent merit; rather, God’s decision to award the infusio gratiae
on the basis of congruent merit was ex liberalitate Dei, an entirely gracious
33
act on God’s part. Martin Luther’s condemnation of “justification by works”
clearly condemned Ockhamism. Some proponents of ecumenism argue that
the Thomist view of salvation is not opposed to Luther’s view of grace, and,
since Ockhamism was rejected as semi-Pelagian by the Catholic Church at
the Council of Trent, theology of salvation need not pose a bar to Protestant-
Catholic reunion. (The major streams of Catholic thought on the theology of
salvation are Thomism and Molinism, a theology developed by Jesuit
thinkers in the 16th century and also held today by some Protestants such as
William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.)
However, since the Catholic Church’s rejection of Jansenism in the bull
Unigenitus, it has been clear that Calvinism could not be accommodated
within Catholicism. Arminianism, on the other hand, while it might not
square entirely with Catholic theologies of salvation, probably could be
accommodated within the Catholic Church, a fact which Arminianism’s
Protestant opponents have often pointed out. (Augustus Toplady, for
example, famously claimed that Arminianism was the “Road to Rome.”)
Many Protestants believe that Thomism’s requirement of man doing his best
in a state of grace in order to earn condign merit is a form of “justification
by works” and is therefore semi-Pelagian. They therefore believe that all
Catholic salvation theology is semi-Pelagian, and, as such heretical, or at
least semi-heretical.
The Value of the Death of Christ
The Atonement of Christ by
Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F. R.G.S.
At the very heart of the Christian system lies the all-important doctrine
of the Atonement. The Apostle Paul, himself an advocate of “sound
doctrine,” in a condensed statement of what the Christian Church believes,
said,
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was
buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (I
Corinthians 15:3, 4).
Though the Gospel according to Paul included a sinless and a
bodily-resurrected Christ, he gives first place to the fundamental fact that
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
34
“Christ died for our sins.” In spite of the fact that some religious leaders
object vigorously to the Doctrine of the Atonement, that the Death of Jesus
Christ was sacrificial and necessary for man’s redemption, we proceed on a
sound biblical basis to pursue this great subject.
The word “atonement” in the Authorized Version of the Bible is an Old
Testament term. It appears only once in the New Testament (Romans 5:11)
where it is translated “reconciliation” in the Revised Version. It is not
entirely fanciful to suggest the idea of at-one-ment because the word
atonement is used to refer to the atoning death of Christ through which the
sinner is reconciled to God, restored to His favor.
To atone for means to make amends. In the Bible atonement is
associated with man’s sin. God commanded Israel to set aside one day each
year, the tenth day of the seventh month, which He called “the day of
atonement” (Leviticus 16:29-30; 23:27-28). The people were to bring a sin
offering, an innocent animal sacrifice “whose blood was brought in to make
atonement” (Leviticus 16:27). God had said, “For the life of the flesh is in
the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul”
(Leviticus 17:11) “. . . and without shedding of blood is no remission”
(Hebrews 9:22).
In this study we will give thought to the biblical teaching how the death
of Christ and the shedding of His blood atones for man’s sin. Upon entering
into a consideration of this majestic theme, it may be well to remind
ourselves that the Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary is a
historical fact. Some books of fiction about the Death of Christ have come
into my hands. They have a tendency to leave the mind in the dangerous
state of dreamy unreality and poetic imagination. But “sound doctrine” deals
with facts and not fiction. In the New Testament alone, we find almost two
hundred references to Christ’s Death. Though many theologians have
differed on the meaning of the Cross, the fact of our Lord’s Death has been
accepted in the history of the Church. Some theologians are frank to accept
the fact of Christ’s Death, and just as frank to say that they have no
rationale, no theory, no doctrine of the Atonement.
We believe that men are regenerated, redeemed, reconciled to God,
justified, forgiven, adopted, not by the Doctrine of the Atonement, but by the
Atonement itself, by the sacrificial and substitutional death of our Lord Jesus
Christ. We cannot hope to treat thoroughly so great a subject in this brief
study, but simply to state the basic elements of the Atonement so that
believers may have a firm foundation for their faith.
35
A. The Erroneous Theories of the Atonement
All of the great Doctrines of the Bible have been challenged by the
enemies of Historic Christianity. A distinguished University Professor wrote
a book entitled, The Human Life of Jesus, in which he flatly denies what the
Bible teaches about the Atonement. He writes, “I venture to suggest, in
disagreement with the interpretation commonly followed, that Jesus could
not have meant that sin, however grave, is pardoned in those who believe in
Him.” He continues by stating that Jesus looked upon His crucifixion as
merely “a dramatic symbol of sacrifice,” and that “the idea of vicarious
repentance had not figured in His teaching.” He admits that “the kingdom of
heaven is to be bought at a price, but each of us must pay the price himself.”
These ideas are merely human and have no Scriptural support whatever.
Another religious leader, famous for his outspoken repudiation of the
Historic Christian view of the Atonement, writes, “A father who had to be
reconciled to his children, whose wrath had to be appeased or whose
forgiveness could be purchased, is not the Father of Jesus Christ. . . . Certain
widely used hymns still perpetuate the theory that God pardons sinners
because Christ purchased that pardon by His obedience and suffering. But a
forgiveness that is paid for is not forgiveness.”
To the natural man such a view is accepted as reasonable. But having
his understanding darkened, the natural man does not comprehend God’s
view of the Atonement. These erroneous theories on the subject now under
consideration are simply a restatement of older ideas.
The most widely believed of the erroneous theories of the Atonement is
“the moral influence theory” which was popularized by Henry van Dyke
and others. It looks upon the Death of Christ as a dramatic display designed
to impress men with a sense of God’s love, and to produce in men a moral
impression. It rules out the biblical idea of vicarious sufferings and
substitution, and looks upon the Atonement as a mere influence which
persuades men to do right. Christ’s work on the Cross is explained to be that
of a martyr for a righteous cause, and it is held up as the finest example of
self-sacrifice. Christ is merely our example and not our Saviour since His
death was not an expiation. There is no need of a sacrifice for sin since the
loving God Who dwells in Heaven will not be severe with His creatures here
below. The moral influence theory holds that God is the Father of all men,
and that He does not hold man accountable for sin.
Let us beware of such a distorted view of Atonement which shuts out
the biblical Doctrine of Regeneration and Redemption as well as other
characteristic doctrines of Christianity. No amount of feeling caused by
thinking upon the sufferings of Christ can enable a guilty sinner to forsake
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
36
sin and return to God. A debt must be paid for sin, and Christ has paid that
debt on the Cross of Calvary.
Dr. Loraine Boettner has said that “the advocates of the moral influence
theory are never tired of ridiculing the idea that God must be propitiated.
They give no hint of the Scripture doctrine of the subjective effects of sin on
the human heart by which it is alienated from God and unable to respond to
any appeal of right motives however powerful. They see no impassable gulf
between the holy God and sinful man, and consequently, they see no reason
why satisfaction should be made to divine justice.”
Another popular theory of the Atonement is known as “the governmental theory.” It was developed by a famous jurist named Hugo
Grotius shortly after the turn of the seventeenth century. The governmental
theory is approached purely from a legal aspect, and the famous jurist’s legal
approach appealed to many. The essence of this theory is that God’s law and
government must be upheld. It acknowledges that man is a sinner, but that
the loving God who dwells above does not wish to punish sinners, though
He cannot allow the dignity and high standard of His law to suffer.
Now there is an element of truth in this theory, namely, that the law is
holy, and sin shall not be allowed to go unpunished, and that an “orderly
government of the universe can continue only as men do have respect for
law.” But according to Grotius, the only reason that Christ died was to show
the antagonism of God’s law to sin, and that the punishment which Christ
suffered was merely to impress others with the importance of keeping the
law. In the final analysis, Christ was punished for sin merely to keep up
appearances, to maintain the standard of the law and an orderly form of
government.
The weakness of the governmental theory is in the fact that sinners are
not made to see and feel how awful sin is in God’s sight, and that Christ, in
His Death, had the sinner’s guilt imputed unto Him. God is represented as
punishing an innocent and just person merely to make an impression upon
others. This theory would have us believe that “the cross is but a symbol,
designed to teach, by way of example, God’s hatred for sin.” This makes the
sufferings of our Lord to have a general and impersonal relation to sinners,
and that all which Christ purchased was a pardon which is offered indif-
ferently to all men. But the governmental theory is disproved and discredited
by the plain teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.
37
B. The Explanation of the Value of the Death of Christ
In attempting an explanation of the Atonement, it is important that we
know something of what motivated the death of Christ. The idea that our
Lord died a helpless martyr is nowhere taught in the Bible. Those who have
no understanding or appreciation of Jesus Christ’s work for us, lack
understanding also on the subject of the nature and effect of sin in all men.
Many Scriptures teach clearly that the Atonement of Christ is an expiation of
human sin, so that sin is that which made the Atonement necessary. Christ
became incarnate in order that He should die for human sin. Whether or not
the Son of God would have become Incarnate if man had not sinned, we do
not know, nor do we intend to speculate. It is sufficient for us to know that it
was sin which made the Cross a must in the experience of the Son of God.
Notwithstanding the false teaching of Christian Science, the existence of
sin in the world is an undeniable fact. The Bible reveals and emphasizes
sin’s true nature and penalty. Ever since the transgression of Adam, the
whole human race has groaned under the awful weight and bitter penalty of
sin. The experiences of daily life testify that there is something wrong with
man. Now God is not to be blamed for the terrible evil in the world. He
simply made man a free agent, and man has abused his privileges.
When Griffith Roberts was Dean of Bangor, he said, “It was better for
Adam that his hands were free to take the forbidden fruit, than that he should
have been compelled to go about all the days of his life with his hands tied
behind his back.” Freedom is one of God’s great blessings to man, and sin
entered into the world when man abused his privilege of freedom.
The problem of evil has engaged the attention of thinking people for a
long time. With every war, famine, epidemic of disease, great loss of life,
has come the question, “If there is a God of love and mercy, why does He
allow so much human suffering?” Let us have no hard thoughts about God in
connection with the problem of sin and its accompanying sorrow and
suffering. In Holy Scripture Satan is shown to be the cause of evil and its
continuance in the earth. The warfare against evil is not with flesh and blood
but against principalities and powers, against the spirit hosts of wickedness
in the spirit world (Ephesians 6:12). The morals and moral judgments of us
humans show that man is under the control of an evil power.
All sin is the result of Satan’s evil plan and purpose to get men to live
and act independently of God. The Devil sinned from the beginning (I John
3:8), and since he is the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:3-4), he has held
the world system in control. All who disobey God are said to be the children
of disobedience in whom Satan works (Ephesians 2:2). Satan is the greatest
hindrance in the church, attacking the servant of the Lord (I Thessalonians
2:17-18), and limiting the effectiveness of the Word of God (Mark 4:15).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
38
Believers are warned to resist the Devil (James 4:7), and to exercise great
care and caution lest they fall into reproach and the snare of the evil one (I
Timothy 3:6). The Devil controlled Cain when he murdered his brother Abel
(I John 3:12); he tempted David to sin in numbering the children of Israel (I
Chronicles 21:1); he fired the passion of Judas Iscariot when he betrayed
Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (John 13:2, 27); he blinded the mind of Peter
to the necessity of the atoning Death of Christ (Matthew 16:22-23); he
sought to shake Paul’s faith by inflicting bodily suffering upon the great
Apostle (II Corinthians 12:17). These are but a few examples which show
the immense burden of sin and suffering caused by the Devil.
The question of sin and its awful effects compels our thinking if we are
to possess an adequate understanding of the Atonement. God has decreed
from the beginning that death must follow sin, not only physical death which
is the separation of the soul from the body, but also spiritual death, or the
eternal separation of the whole man from God (Genesis 2:16-17; cf. Romans
6:23). Since all men have sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12), it follows that all
must die because the righteousness of God demands that sin’s penalty be
paid. Sin is offensive to the holiness of God, so much so, that it excites His
holy wrath. Where there is sin, the wrath of God can never be turned away.
Several passages of Scripture tell us of God’s wrath:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth
on him (John 3:36).
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
(Romans 1:18).
. . . because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children
of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6).
The wrath of God is nothing like the uncontrolled passion in men, but rather
His holy and just indignation against sin.
Because of two great facts, the holiness of God and the sinfulness of
man, Atonement is made an absolute necessity if sinners are to be pardoned
and brought to God. When we have the true conception of the holiness of
God, we will have the true conception of sin, and when we have the correct
view of sin, we will have an adequate view of the Atonement. The only
reason that men are offended at the preaching of the Cross is because they
have no adequate sense of sin and the holiness of our Lord. When a man
refuses to face sin, he will find it easy to dispense with what the Bible
teaches about the Atoning Death of Christ.
39
In defining sin, the Westminster Confession says that “Sin is any want
of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” This is perhaps the
best known of man’s definitions of sin. The Bible says that “whatsoever is
not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23), that is, whatever a man does or thinks
which is not an act or a thought proceeding from faith in God and guided by
God, is sin. The sin may be committed in ignorance, but it is no less a sin.
Sin committed in ignorance may not receive as great a punishment as sin
committed willfully and deliberately, nevertheless all sin is punishable and
must be punished.
We learn from the Bible that a man may sin in several ways. Let us look
at some of them: A man may sin in his thoughts, for “the thought of
foolishness is sin” (Proverbs 24:9).
An high look and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin
(Proverbs 21:4).
A man’s desires, known only to God and himself, may be sinful, for Jesus
said,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28).
When a man has been taught to do good, and he refuses to obey, he
sins, for “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
sin” (James 4:17).
But the sin that is greater than all sins is the rejection of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit is come, “He will reprove the
world of sin . . . Of Sin, because they believe not on Me” (John 16:8-9).
The love and mercy of God are infinite and matchless, still the penalty
for sin must be paid. Thus it was, in the eternal past, before the foundation of
the world, that God determined and planned that atonement should be
provided for His fallen creatures who would be deceived by Satan. If no plan
of atonement had been proposed and perpetuated by the Godhead, all would
be hopeless for mankind. And so, in the counsels of the Godhead, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was decreed that One should come and offer
Himself as a Divine Substitute in the sinner’s place. This necessitated the
Substitute taking upon Himself a human body. The eternal Son of God was
that Substitute. And so “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”
(John l:14). “God was manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:16). “God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19).
While the work of Atonement, which includes the bearing of sin, is the
work of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (I John 3:16; 4:10; Hebrews
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
40
9:14), nevertheless it was the Son who left Heaven’s glory, and “took upon
Himself the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man, and
being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the Cross” (Philippians 2:5-8). There is no
explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact that the eternal Son of
God, without spot or blemish, Who knew no sin and did not sin, was made
to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II
Corinthians 5:21). As His Blood was shed upon the Cross, a merciful and
loving God was able to cleanse and pardon guilty sinners, because the
Divine Substitute took upon Himself the penalty for sin. God hates and
punishes sin, but He loves the sinner, and in order to redeem those whom He
loved, “the LORD laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).
There is no satisfactory explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact
that Christ came into this world in order that He should die in the sinner’s
place. He said,
The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and
to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).
He foretold His death and fully explained its object. It was an essential part
of the Divine plan to justify condemned sinners. Christ was “delivered up by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Indeed this
is the heart of the New Testament.
C. The Extent of the Death of Christ
The provision of the Atonement for sin is for all men everywhere. The
doctrine of Election has been misunderstood by some to mean that Christ
died for a few elect people who had been given to Him by the Father and
who were therefore chosen in eternity past to be His people. It is quite true
that the Atonement, having been planned and worked out by God Himself, is
His own personal property, and that He is absolutely sovereign in the use He
chooses to make of it. Furthermore, we recognize that through the
Atonement the way is now open for God to forgive and redeem as many as
He chooses to call to Himself. It is His divine prerogative to save few, many,
or all of the human race as He deems best. God alone is the Savior of men,
and we acknowledge also from the Scripture, and from what we have seen in
the world, that He does not save all. But, as relates to the extent of the
Atonement, it is incorrect to say that Christ died only for those whom God
saw fit to save.
I will go on record as one who affirms belief in the absolute sovereignty
of God, and that nothing does or can occur except by His will. But belief in
41
the sovereignty of God does not suggest that God acts arbitrarily without
good reasons, reasons so good and so weighty, that He could in no case act
otherwise than He does. Any view of divine sovereignty that implies
arbitrariness on the part of the divine will, is not only contrary to Scripture
but is revolting to reason. In His sovereignty God claims the right to dispose
of His creatures as He will, but it is unthinkable and unscriptural, to say the
least, that divine sovereignty arbitrarily condemns some men and in hard
despotism sends them into the lake of fire.
I believe also in God’s foreknowledge, that is, that future events are
foreknown to God, and that history will follow that foreknown course of
future events. Since God’s foreknowledge is perfect, He knows the destiny
of every person from eternity. But this does not in any wise rule out the
biblical truth of free agency in man. Foreknowledge is not merely an
arbitrary God saying: “I know what I will do.” To be sure He does know
what He will do, but in the matter of an individual’s acceptance or rejection
of Jesus Christ as Saviour, it is only fair to add that God knows what that
individual will do.
Calvin used the truth of God’s perfect foreknowledge to set forth the
mistaken idea of limited Atonement. He said that “God would have been
inconsistent in sending Christ to die for those He positively foreknow would
be lost.” After Calvin’s death, other men wrote on his ideas. One writer, in
attempting to illustrate the above quotation from Calvin says, “Even a man
does not expect what he knows will not be accomplished. If he knows, for
instance, that out of a group of thirty persons who might be invited to a
banquet a certain twenty will accept and ten will not, then, even though he
may still make his invitation broad enough to include the thirty, he expects
only the twenty, and his work of preparation is done only on their behalf.
They do not deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say
that Christ died for all men, for what is that but to attribute folly to Him
whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what
He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly.”
But did the writer use a sound illustration ? I don’t think so! When God
invites all men to be saved, the preparation is the same whether few, many,
or all accept. The Atonement was just as necessary for one sinner as it was
for one million sinners. If only ten percent of the human race accepts Jesus
Christ as Saviour, He did not die in vain. There could be no waste. The
number who receive or reject Christ has nothing to do with the preparation
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Belief in God’s
foreknowledge in no wise demands belief in His arbitrary condemnation of
certain of His creatures. Such is an extreme view on limited atonement.
Another view that sets forth a way of salvation through Christ is
Universalism. An extreme view on unlimited atonement is offered by
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
42
Universalism, which holds that Christ died for all men and that eventually all
men will be saved, if not in this life, then through a future probation. This
view has made a strong and successful appeal to the feelings of many, and it
is a belief almost as old as Christianity. Universalism says, “We believe that
there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ,
by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of
mankind to holiness and happiness.” In other words, Universalism teaches
the universal fatherhood of God, and the final harmony of all souls with
God.
One variety of Universalism holds that this has been made possible
through the Death of Christ, and their followers quote I Corinthians 15:22
for their proof text “. . . For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive.” But they misinterpret the text. The entire fifteenth chapter of
First Corinthians has to do with the resurrection of the body, and it is by the
power of the living Christ that the bodies of all men will be raised, some to
everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. And if the
Universalist insists upon using the statement, “in Christ shall all be made
alive,” to mean spiritual life, then he has no right to insist that all will
receive spiritual life apart from being “in Christ.” If a man is not “in Christ,”
he must be “in Adam,” and only those who are “in Christ” are in the place of
life. This leaves all outside who are anti-Christ and who, because of pride,
selfishness, lust and indifference have refused to accept Christ.
Or, let us look at the verse from another viewpoint. The whole context is
addressed to believers, and all believers who fall asleep in Christ are in
Adam from the standpoint of the physical, or else they would not have died.
After one becomes a Christian he does not escape physical death which God
pronounced upon Adam when he sinned and fell. In the body we are in the
man Adam by whom comes death, but by being in Christ by grace, we are
assured of the resurrection from that death. In the first case it is by necessity
of nature--it is heredity, in the other it is by our own free choice--it is
personal.
That there is a sound biblical view on the extent of the Atonement
between these two extreme views seems very clear. The teaching of
Scripture regarding the satisfaction and propitiation made through the Death
of the Son of God means that He died for all. The provision of the
Atonement is for all.
He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world (I John 2: 2).
The message of the Gospel is that Christ died for all.
43
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all . . . (I Timothy
2:5-6).
The Atonement is unlimited in scope, available for all. The love of God
displayed in Christ on the Cross at Calvary reached out to the whole world,
and when God gave His only begotten Son, it was “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s
desire is to save all men.
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour; Who will
have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth (I Timothy 2:3-4).
Since God’s will and wish is that all men be saved, He has made ample
provision for the salvation of all.
The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance (II Peter 3:9).
A well-known passage in Ezekiel 18:32 says,
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord
God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Here the Lord pleads with men to turn to Him for life. We know that many
did not turn, His pleading having gone unheeded. What mockery this
language of God would be if they could not turn! That the Atonement is
universal in its offer and provision is clear from the following Scriptures,
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men
(Titus 2:11).
Again we must accept this statement on its face value and concede that the
grace of God has brought salvation within the reach of all men. The Apostle
John sounds the same note when he says,
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the
Saviour of the world (I John 4:14).
The writer to the Hebrews says,
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
44
We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the
grace of God should taste death for every man (Hebrews 2:9).
Scriptures could be multiplied that show the universality of the
provision of the Atonement, but these will suffice to make it clear “that He
(Christ) died for all” (II Corinthians 5:15). The opportunity of being born
again, of beginning again in this life, is given to all men, for when Christ
died as our substitute, universal Atonement was provided [but not a universal personal forgiveness and salvation, this writer]. The risen Christ
said to His disciples,
Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).
The Gospel call to the entire world is a sincere one. Our Lord had a
wider outlook than Judaism. It is true that He was sent especially to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, nevertheless He most certainly taught His
disciples that they were to be witnesses unto Him “both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts
1:8), and He was not sending them on a fool’s errand.
The Atonement is sufficient for all men, but it is efficient only for those
who believe! The effectiveness of the Atonement in any one’s life is
conditioned by faith. When one refuses to believe, his unbelief does not
suggest a non-existence of the provision of salvation. God provided for the
salvation of all men entirely apart from, and independent of, faith. Christ
died for all men whether all men believe it or not. There is universal
provision in the universal offer, and the fault is man’s if it be not universal in
point of effect.
D. The Effects of the Death of Christ
We are to look now at some of the effects of the death of our Lord Jesus
Christ as it regards God, and then as it regards man.
Satisfaction
As it regards God, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected
satisfaction. Before the sinner could enter into God’s holy presence, God
had to be satisfied, not arbitrarily, but because His holiness and
righteousness demands satisfaction where sin enters in. The doctrine of the
vicarious death of Jesus Christ as satisfying the law and justice of God, in
the place of guilty and condemned sinners, cannot be overlooked. When one
45
begins to compare the value of the sufferings and death of the Son of God as
it pertains to God, and then as it pertains to those who are saved by it, he
feels almost at a loss to do so. Yet it is almost unthinkable that the
Atonement could mean as much to the sinner as it does to God. The
satisfaction that the sinner receives from Christ’s death is meager compared
with the satisfaction received by the Father.
The moral law which God gave in the beginning expressed fully the
very nature of His being. One look at the law which is holy, just, and good
(Romans 7:12) showed man what the nature of God was like. When man
violated the holy law of God, he sinned, thereby contradicting that nature.
As a holy God, He hates sin, else He would not be holy. As a just God, He
not only rewards righteousness, but punishes sin. The death of Christ
provided the adequate punishment for sin which was necessary to satisfy the
law and justice of God. Since all sin is primarily against God, He alone
needed to be satisfied with the work of the Cross. And He was.
“How could the vicarious suffering and death of Christ make full
satisfaction to the Justice of God?” We welcomed this question from a
thinking young man. In a commercial or pecuniary debt, it is not so
important who pays, but what is paid. If the debt is a matter of dollars and
cents, it matters little, or not at all, who pays it. But Christ in His sufferings
and death was not paying a commercial debt. He was paying a penal debt.
No finite, fallen creature, an offender against God could ever pay in time or
eternity the obligation which he owes. The truth abides that “the soul that
sinneth, it shall die,” and since all have sinned, no sin-laden human being
could pay the price for a fellow-being to the satisfaction of God. When a
sinner bears his own penalty, he is lost forever. On the other hand, when a
sinner accepts Jesus Christ as His Sin-Bearer, he is saved forever. The
difference lies in the fact that God was behind the Atonement.
The penalty for sin must be paid by one who is holy if the justice of God
is to be satisfied. In any study of the Atonement, the sinlessly perfect and
holy character of Jesus Christ is a truth of the first magnitude. The secret of
God’s satisfaction lies in the character of the One Who paid the debt for
sinners. God was satisfied with the work of the Cross because the One Who
died at Calvary was His own beloved Son, described in the following
Scriptures as the One Who “did no sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth” (I Peter 2:22), who was “without sin,” inherited or personal
(Hebrews 4:15), and Who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners” (Hebrews 7:26). Paul testified that He “knew no sin” (II Corinthians
5:21), while John declared that “in Him is no sin” (I John 3:5). Jesus was
tempted, but in His essential nature He was God, and God cannot sin.
Therefore, as the perfect God-Man, the blood He shed has abiding efficacy,
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
46
and it satisfies the righteous demands of the holiness and justice of God.
Indeed God is satisfied!
Propitiation
The value of Christ’s death as a vindication of God’s righteousness is
indicated by the word propitiation. Here we enter upon an intricate aspect of
the doctrine of the Atonement. The word “propitiation” appears in the
English Bible three times. The Apostle John uses it twice in his First Epistle.
Speaking of Jesus Christ, he writes,
He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).
And again,
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His
Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10).
The Greek word here is “hilasmos,” and means “that which
propitiates.” It signifies expiation. Numbers 5:8 speaks of “the ram of
atonement” (propitiation), and again in Psalm 130:4, “There is forgiveness
(propitiation) with Thee.” Here is the sole ground upon which God shows
mercy to guilty sinners. Christ alone, through the shedding of His Blood in
His sacrificial and substitutionary Death on the Cross, is the Propitiation,
that which expiates or propitiates. He extinguishes the guilt of the sinner by
suffering the penalty for sin. Notice that it does not say that His death was
the propitiation, but that He himself is the Propitiation. It is the Person of our
Lord which gives efficacy to His atoning work. In Romans 3:25 the Apostle
Paul speaks of Christ,
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His
Blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forebearance of God.
Here the Greek word is not “hilasmos,” meaning “that which propitiates,”
but “hilasterion,” which means, “the place of propitiation.” The word
“hilasterion” is used in Hebrews 9:5, where we read: “And over it the
cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat (hilasterion, or the place of
propitiation).”
“Propitiation” means “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5, and we must go
back to the Old Testament to see what the mercy seat was typically to the
Israelite. The mercy seat was the golden lid or the Ark of the Covenant in
47
the Holy of Holies. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest
sprinkled the sacrificial blood of an innocent victim to atone for the broken
Law. The tables of stone on which were written the holy Law were kept in
the Ark. The sprinkled blood covered the broken Law and made possible a
meeting place between God and the sinner (Exodus 25:21-22; Leviticus
16:2, 13-14). The mercy seat was made of pure gold (Exodus 25:17), and
covered the whole Ark.
Jesus Christ, the pure Son of God, is the sinner’s Mercy Seat, and His
Blood covers all our sin. According to Scripture, therefore, the mercy seat in
the Tabernacle was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord fulfilled the
type and symbol perfectly. After His death and burial He arose from the
grave, ascended into Heaven, and on the ground of His shed Blood made
possible a meeting place where the sinner could come to God.
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He
entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption
for us (Hebrews 9:12).
Christ Himself is the Mercy Seat sprinkled with His own precious Blood.
In our Lord’s propitiatory work there is no thought of God placating
Himself or of appeasing His own anger. God’s feeling toward mankind has
never changed. There never was a time in man’s history when God did not
love him. God always has desired to bless man with salvation and its
accompanying peace and joy, but the sin of man placed an obstacle in God’s
way, separating the sinner from Himself. It is true that God hates sin and
will always hate sin. The Death of Jesus Christ did in no wise change God’s
view of sin.
The Death of Christ was a purely legal operation. The Judge took upon
Himself the penalty so that the judgment seat becomes the mercy seat. The
prayer of the publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13), is
literally, “God be propitious to me a sinner.” This passage is sometimes mis-
understood and misused. This man stood on Old Testament ground before
the Death of Christ, and he was actually asking God to offer that one
Sacrifice for sin which would put that sin away and thus provide a ground
upon which a holy and righteous God could bless him with salvation.
Remember, he was not asking God to be generous or lenient with him. He
was merely asking God to be propitious, and in making such a request he
was justified.
Now we can see plainly that such a prayer need not be uttered today.
God has been propitious in Christ. The eternal Son became our Mercy Seat,
and to ask God to do what He already has done would be rejecting the Death
of Christ. God cannot be lenient with sin, and sinners need not beg mercy
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
48
from God. God was merciful when He provided for man the Saviour, and
man is saved when he believes in and receives the Lord Jesus Christ. God
has paid the penalty for sin, and on that basis His mercy is extended to you
today.
For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in
mercy unto all them that call upon Thee (Psalm 86:5).
. . . With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous
redemption (Psalm 130:7).
SUBSTITUTION
In its effect toward mankind, the Death of Christ is looked upon as a
substitution. Though we have never found the words substitute or
substitution in the Bible, the idea of substitution is clearly seen in the work
of Christ upon the Cross. The word substitution does not represent all that
our Lord accomplished in His Death, but it does indicate that Jesus Christ, as
the sinner’s Substitute, bore the awful judgments of God against sin.
We often hear the work of the Cross referred to as the vicarious sufferings and death of the Saviour. The word vicar refers to an agent or
deputy who has been authorized to act in the place of another. Fallen man
stands before God owing an obligation which he cannot pay in time or
eternity. He needs an authorized substitute to stand in his place and represent
him. The Lord Jesus Christ is that Substitute so that we are benefited by His
death in a unique way. The death of the sinless One was substituted for the
death of sinners. Stephen died as a martyr for the truth, but in no way does
his death benefit us.
The substitutionary aspect of the Atonement was clearly anticipated in
the Old Testament. When God chose the harmless, gentle lamb as the
principal animal for the sacrifice, He was teaching His people that they were
forgiven and spared only because another who was innocent took their place
and died in their stead. Furthermore, every sacrificial offering in Old
Testament times was an execution of the sentence of the Law upon a
substitute for the guilty one, and every such offering pointed forward to the
substitutionary death of Christ. We see the type in the case of Abraham and
Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13). It was a test of Abraham’s faith. God had told him
to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Abraham did as
he was told, bound Isaac on the altar and made ready to slay him. God spoke
to him and stayed his action. Then Abraham saw in a thicket nearby a ram,
which God Himself had provided. Then we are told that “Abraham went and
took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of Isaac”
(Genesis 22:13).
49
Notice the words “in the stead of.” The substitute sacrifice that saved
Isaac from death is a beautiful foreshadowment of Christ being substituted in
death in the stead of the sinner. It illustrates the substitutional element in the
redemptive work of Christ. The prophet Isaiah wrote,
Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did
esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for
our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord
hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all ( Isaiah 53:4-6).
The New Testament abounds in passages which show that the Lord
Jesus Christ took the place of guilty sinners in His death. The following
statements which were uttered by our Lord teach us that He anticipated
dying as the sinner’s substitute. He said,
The Son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many
(Matthew 20:28).
. . . I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15).
. . . The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life
of the world (John 6:51).
This is my body which is given for you . . . This cup is the new
testament in my Blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19-20).
In almost all of his writings, the Apostle Paul taught that Christ’s Death was
substitutional. He wrote,
God . . . hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).
Jesus Christ . . . gave Himself for our sins . . . (Galatians 1:3-4).
. . . The Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me
(Galatians 2:20).
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
curse for us . . . (Galatians 3:13).
. . . Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us . . . ( Ephesians 5:2).
. . . Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it (Ephesians
5:25).
The Apostle Peter said that He (Jesus) “bare our sins in His own body
on the tree” (I Peter 2:24); and that “Christ also hath once suffered for sins,
the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God” (I Peter 3:18). The
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
50
legitimate use of these and numerous other passages imply an actual substi-tution.
RECONCILIATION
The Death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected reconciliation. The word
“reconciliation” can be defined as “that effect of the Death of Christ upon
the believing sinner which, through divine power, works in him a thorough
change toward God from enmity and aversion to love and trust.” There was
never a need for reconciliation before the fall of man, but when the disaster
occurred in the Garden of Eden, discord crept in where harmony should have
reigned. Man lost his heavenly citizenship and was made to be an alien.
Adam’s sin had separated him and his God (Isaiah 59:2), and what was true
of Adam, has in essence become true of all his posterity, so that man needed
to be reconciled to God. Keep in mind the fact that the need for
reconciliation is on the sinner’s part. Man became an enemy of God; God
never became the enemy of man. Man ceased loving God; God never ceased
loving man. Now reconciliation can never result until the existing enmity is
removed, and since there is no enmity in the heart of God it must be
removed from the heart of man. How is such an act accomplished?
Here we are to see the love of God at work. While God loathes man’s
sin, His great heart of love yearns for the sinner and moves toward him in an
endeavor to effect a reconciliation. Right here we can see a marked
difference between human and Divine love. Human love is expressed in
Romans 5:7 where we read, “For a good man some would even dare to die.”
Human love scarcely ever takes action unless it finds something in its object
to compel it to do so. But the love of God is distinct and different from any
other kind of love, for “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), so that, “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of His Son” (Romans 5:10).
At the Cross man proved to be the enemy of God by his fiendish
exhibition of human hatred against God’s Holy Son. Yet it was in that very
act that Divine love was moving toward its object, for there “God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself . . .” (II Corinthians 5:19). When
Christ died, God’s attitude toward sin had been dealt with to His satisfaction
so that man can be reconciled to Him. When Jesus put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself, He brought to an end the estrangement between God
and man. You say, “There are still many enemies of God.” You speak the
truth. But God has done His part. Now man must repent and turn to God. To
refuse to do so is to reject that reconciliation which was made in Christ. God
in Christ comes to man, pleads with him to return, offers to forgive him and
51
to put away all his sins if he will but trust Him. And when the sinner
receives Jesus Christ as his Saviour, he too will say with Paul,
. . . We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we
have now received the atonement (reconciliation) (Romans 5:11).
Have you received the reconciling work of Christ which He effected by His
Death? In Colossians 1:20 and 21, we read,
And having made peace through the Blood of His Cross, by Him to
reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be
things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometimes
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He
reconciled.
In these verses we see a two-fold aspect of reconciliation. Verse 20 tells
us that God will reconcile “all things” to Himself, whether those “things” are
in earth or in heaven. We are reminded that the whole creation has been
affected by sin. God had said, “cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and
“we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together
until now” (Romans 8:22). The reconciliation of “all things” in Colossians
1:20 is the removal of the curse from the earth and the heavens. The cursed
earth is the cause of the suffering, sorrow, catastrophes and death which
come every day to the peoples of the earth. Indeed the earth needs to be
purified. Yes, and the heavens also! Sin began in Heaven, when Lucifer, the
son of the morning, rebelled and sought to exalt himself above the throne of
God (Isaiah 14:12-15). Reconciliation to God of all things in earth and
Heaven has been provided for in the shed Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
(Hebrews 9:22).
But verse twenty-one of Colossians, chapter one speaks of the
reconciliation of all believers to God, “And you, that were sometimes
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He
reconciled.” The reconciliation of “all things” in verse twenty-one is future.
Here we see the glorious work of Christ in behalf of sinners which becomes
effective the moment one believes. The believer rejoices that he has been
brought back into favor with God and fully restored. We who are Christians
were alienated from God and enemies in our minds. We chose our own way
which was opposed to God’s, but now through the payment of the penalty by
Christ, we have been reconciled to God, “in the body of His flesh through
death” (Colossians 1:22). And because we are reconciled to God, personal relations have been settled. In a former lesson in this series on Justification
we saw how judicial relations between God and man are settled. Here we
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
52
learn that reconciliation turns the heart of the criminal toward the Judge in
love.
Another aspect of the ministry of reconciliation is taught in Paul’s
Epistle to the Ephesians. Let us read the following verses with care,
For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and, hath broken down
the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His Flesh the
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to
make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He
might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the
enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:14-16).
It seems quite clear that the “enmity” spoken of here is not between a
holy God and sinful man, but between Jew and Gentile. Under the law it was
entirely out of order for a Jew even to eat with a Gentile. The enmity
between the two is common knowledge, and it can easily be traced in
history. Actually “the middle wall of partition” was the Law by which the
Jew was bound.
When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, he expressed the Jewish
view on this matter (Acts 10:28), and afterward his brethren took him to task
for eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3). In the temple of old there was a wall,
separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, and upon
which was written, “Let no Gentile, let no man of the nations, go beyond this
wall on pain of death.” In Herod’s temple the dividing line was a stone wall
about five feet high, and this wall became the “enmity,” the cause of bitter
feeling between the Jew and the Gentile. But early in our Lord’s public
ministry He spoke to the woman of Samaria, and this in turn resulted in the
evangelization of a Gentile city (John 4:1-39). He went into Galilee to bring
light to the Gentiles who were in darkness (Matthew 4:12-16), and thus
fulfilled the prophecy according to Isaiah (Isaiah 9:2). When He cleansed the
temple (Mark 11:15-17), the Lord Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 when God said,
“Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”
REDEMPTION
Then He went to the Cross, and, once for all, broke down the wall in His
Death when He died for both Jew and Gentile. He did not attempt to
improve upon either, but He made possible any number of either becoming
“one new man,” reconciling them to each other, and then reconciling both to
God “in one body.” How wonderful it all is! Redeemed Jews and Gentiles
united through faith in our Lord’s Blood now make one new man. How far
reaching are the effects of His Atonement!
In our consideration of the effects of our Lord’s Death upon the Cross,
no single term in itself as mentioned above could represent His entire saving
work. That work is far too extensive to be contemplated in any single phase
53
of it. The theme is so vast that a few ideas could never indicate its fullness.
And yet, perhaps no word has been used more to represent the saving work
of Christ than the word redemption. But we must guard against confining
ourselves to this or any other single term lest we restrict the work of the
Cross. Redemption means to buy back something that had been temporarily
forfeited. Dr. L. S. Chafer says,
Redemption is an act of God by which He himself pays as a ransom the
price of human sin which the outraged holiness and government of God
requires. Redemption undertakes the solution of the problem of sin, as
reconciliation undertakes the solution of the problem of the sinner, and
propitiation undertakes the problem of an offended God. All are infinitely
important and all are requisite to the analysis of the whole doctrine of
Christ’s finished work, a work finished to the point of divine perfection.
Though parts of one complete whole, these great themes should never be
treated as synonyms.
The biblical idea of redemption means to redeem a thing that is
rightfully one’s own, but for a time is in the possession of another whose
price must be legally met. Like every phase of the great doctrine of
salvation, redemption is entirely the work of God Himself. When any man is
redeemed, God Himself does it.
The biblical idea of redemption is not confined to the teaching of the
New Testament but is found throughout the whole Word of God. Someone
once said that the whole Bible is redempto-centric. We will have little
difficulty in tracing the doctrine of redemption in the Bible if we keep in
mind that the terms ransom and redemption are practically the same in
meaning. Wherever you have redemption it is implied that a ransom price
has been paid.
The Old Testament doctrine of redemption expresses the thought of
setting free by payment of a ransom price. The thing redeemed might be a
person or an inheritance. If a man became burdened with debt, and after
mortgaging his entire property he still could not satisfy the claims of his
creditors, he might mortgage himself, his own strength and ability. Actually
he would become a kind of slave to his creditor. But, says God,
After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may
redeem him (Leviticus 25:48).
Notice that the redemption must be accomplished by a relative, the next
of kin, which idea has lead to the meaning of the title Kinsman-Redeemer. Boaz became Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 4:4-6), a beautiful type of our
Lord Jesus Christ Who came from Heaven to earth that He might be a
perfect Kinsman-Redeemer for us. Not only must the kinsman be the next of
kin, but he must be able also to pay the price of redemption. Whatever the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
54
price, it must be paid by the redeemer (Leviticus 25:27). Christ alone could
pay the price of the sinner’s redemption, and this He did. “Christ hath
redeemed us” (Galatians 3:13) with His own “precious Blood” (I Peter 1:18-
19).
In the New Testament, three different Greek words are used to translate
redemption, and without an understanding of these words the distinctions
which they teach are lost to the reader of the English text:
(1) Agorazo, which means to purchase in the market.
(2) Exagorazo, which means to purchase out of the market.
(3) Lutroo, which means to loosen and set free.
The scene is that of a slave market, and the sinner is pictured as being in
slavery, a bond-slave to sin, or as Paul says “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14).
He is dominated by Satan (Ephesians 2:2), condemned (John 3:18),
sentenced to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). The Son of
God became our Kinsman-Redeemer when “He also Himself likewise took
part of the same (flesh and blood)” (Hebrews 2:14), took the place of the
sinner-slave, was made a curse for us, and shed His Blood as the
ransom-price of our redemption (Matthew 20:28). When He made the
purchase in the market, He paid for every sinner-slave who was in bondage
to sin, so that redemption was provided for all. (See I Corinthians 6:20; 7:23;
and II Peter 2:1). This is agorazo, the purchasing in the market.
But redemption is more than merely paying the price. After our
Kinsman-Redeemer paid for us in the market, then He took us out of the
market. He has taken us out of the market so that we shall never again be for
sale or exposed to the lot of a slave. Of course He takes out of the market
only those who will go with Him, and when the sinner is willing to trust his
Redeemer Who paid the ransom price, he is assured of deliverance from the
hopelessly enslaved condition of bondage to sin. This goes beyond agorazo, the mere payment of the requisite price in the slave market. It takes us out of
the market. This is exagorazo, the purchasing out of the market. It is used at
least four times in the New Testament, twice with reference to the
redemption of Jewish believers from the curse of the broken Law (Galatians
3:13; 4:4-5).
The third Greek word used to translate redemption is Lutroo, and it
indicates that the redeemed one is “loosened” or “set free.” This word directs
our thinking to the actual liberation. The disciples, on the way to Emmaus,
said, “We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed (lutroo)
Israel” (Luke 24:21), referring, of course, to the deliverance of the Jews
from Roman tyranny. The corresponding noun appears in the following two
passages where the same subject is in view. Zacharias said, “Blessed is the
55
Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed (wrought redemption
for) His People” (Luke 1:68). Anna “Spake of Him to all them that looked
for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). This is redemption in its fullest
meaning, for Jesus Christ did not pay the ransom in order that the sinner’s
bondage should be merely transferred from one master to another. It is as Dr.
L. S. Chafer has said, “He has purchased with the object in view that the
ransomed one may be free. Christ will not hold unwilling slaves in
bondage.” And yet redemption does include a sort of new slavery, for the
believer is redeemed, not only “out of” the market of sin, but “unto” God.
Our redemption song is,
. . . Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood . . .
(Revelation 5:9).
Notice that we are redeemed “to God.” Now we know that this can
mean the future redemption of the body and its ascension into God’s
presence. But can it not refer also to the believer’s present separation unto
the Lord? Do we not, in a voluntary sense, become bond slaves of Jesus
Christ? The Apostle Paul referred to himself as “a servant (bondman) of
Jesus Christ . . . separated unto the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). Paul was
redeemed, not only from his former manner of life, a slave unto sin, but he
was redeemed unto God, voluntarily becoming Jesus Christ’s bondman.
This truth is typically set forth in the Old Testament. The seventh year
in Israel’s national life was a year of release for the poor and of the Hebrew
servant. Read Exodus 21:1-6 and Deuteronomy 15:16-17. If a slave served
his master for six years God said that “in the seventh he shall go out free for
nothing” (Exodus 21:2). But he was not forced to go. If the slave loved his
new master, he could voluntarily remain as a slave. The voluntary
relationship was sealed by the master piercing the slave’s ear through with
an awl. Now the Christian has been set free by the Redeemer, but he has the
choice to yield himself to the One who has redeemed him. Our Lord Jesus is
the perfect example of a voluntary servant, the description of which is found
in Psalm 40,
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened
. . . Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I
delight to do thy will, O my God . . . (Psalm 40:6-8).
This Old Testament portion is quoted in Hebrews 10:7, and it speaks of our
Lord as the yielded Servant Who is in every respect the perfect fulfillment of
the type. As the yielded Servant, “He became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), that He might redeem us from sin’s
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
56
awful slavery and death. Now His desire is that we voluntarily yield
ourselves to Him.
In the believer’s redemption there is a three-fold experience, one of
which is already past, the second being in the present, the third being yet
future.
(1) Our Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself to redeem us from the penalty of
sin.
. . . we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7). (See also
Colossians 1:14.)
Notice the words “we have redemption.” This is not something that we are
seeking after, nor that which we hope to receive, but it is our present
possession--“we have redemption.” Because all who were under the law
failed to keep God’s Law, they were under its curse,
For as many as are the works of the law are under the curse; for it is
written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them (Galatians 3:l0).
If any man hoped to be redeemed by the Law, he must be a doer of all that the Law involves, for “He is debtor to the whole law” (Galatians
5:3).
Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he
is guilty of all (James 2:10).
Now we have not kept the whole Law, and we know it. But our blessed
Redeemer fulfilled its every righteous demand, and then suffered and died
upon the Cross bearing our curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone that
hangeth on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:33, Galatians 3:13). All who seek
shelter under His shed Blood are redeemed from the guilt and penalty of sin.
Every believer is “justified (declared righteous) freely by His grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). We may not always
feel saved, but “we have redemption.” Some would tell us that we are fallen
from grace, but “we have redemption.” The Devil would lead us to believe a
lie, but “we have redemption.” The redemption that is in Christ Jesus has
settled the sin question, so that we have been delivered from the wrath and
righteous judgment of a holy God. Redemption from sin’s penalty is the
believer’s present possession.
57
(2) Look now at the second aspect of redemption. The work of the Cross
consists of far more than deliverance from the penalty of sin, for it is set
forth clearly in the Scriptures that the Death of our Lord makes possible also
deliverance from the power of sin as well. The Apostle Paul wrote,
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that
blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of
good works (Titus 2:11-14).
We stress repeatedly the fact that salvation is not of works, for no works
of ours could avail for our redemption. In other words, we are not redeemed
by our being good or trying to do good, but redemption by the Blood of
Jesus Christ does provide for the Christian’s deliverance from the power of
sin. We cannot be content to know that we have been delivered from Hell.
Christ died to deliver us from things that are unholy. We are saved unto
good works (Ephesians 2:10). This is the practical aspect of our redemption,
deliverance from the power of evil in this life.
Two verses of Scripture come to mind, both from the pen of the Apostle
Paul, and both introduced by the words, “This is a faithful saying.” The first
says that it is a faithful saying, “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners” (I Timothy 1:15). The second tells us that it is a faithful saying,
“that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good
works” (Titus 3:8). We have been redeemed from sin’s penalty; we are being
delivered daily from sin’s power. May we ever walk close to “Him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood” (Revelation 1:5).
(3) The third aspect of redemption looks ahead into the future,
extending to the deliverance of the body as well as the soul and spirit. Both
body and soul are under the sentence of death, and both need to be
redeemed. Writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul said,
. . . after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of
promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory (Ephesians
1:13, 14).
This passage informs us that God has a purchased possession yet to be
redeemed, so that we are “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
58
our body” (Romans 8:23). For that day we are waiting, watching for the
coming of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile
body (or, the body of our humiliation), that it may be fashioned like unto His
glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue
all things unto Himself (Philippians 3:20, 21). In our present physical
weakness and infirmity we are looking ahead to the redemption of our
bodies, when “we shall be changed” (I Corinthians 15:52), and “ye shall be
like Him” (I John 3:2). Oh, glorious redemption! Oh, wonderful Redeemer!
About the author: Dr. Strauss taught Old Testament history for eight years
at Philadelphia Bible Institute, and served as pastor of the Calvary Baptist
Church, Bristol, Pennsylvania, from 1939 to 1957. He was pastor of
Highland Park Baptist Church (Highland Park, Michigan) until the end of
1963 when he resigned to devote full time to an itinerant Bible conference
and evangelistic ministry both in the States and abroad. Dr. Strauss was
residing in Florida and writing his 19th book at age 86 when the Lord called
him home in June 1997. His written materials are used by permission.
(www.bible.org)
59
Politics
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
60
61
Introduction to the Historical and Political Facts Concerning American Values of Freedom That Have No Valid Reason to be Part
and Parcel of Christian Thought
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow citizens happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
Thomas Paine
“Father of the American Revolution”
quoted from The Age of Reason
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
62
On-line News Hour (online.com) – Interview with Jon Meacham, author of
The American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation:
Jeffrey Brown:
But it also did not mean, from what you write, that this is a Christian nation?
Jon Meacham:
By no means. By no means. A Christian nation is, first, a theological impossibility. Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, then would my servants fight.” In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author says, “We have no lasting city but seek the city which is to come.” The Psalm that says, “Put not thy trust in princes.”
The following entries are excerpted from Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. ©
1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Atheism
In the Western intellectual world, nonbelief in the existence of God is a
widespread phenomenon with a long and distinguished history. Philosophers
of the ancient world such as Lucretius were nonbelievers. Even in the
Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century) there were currents of thought
that questioned theist assumptions, including skepticism, the doctrine that
true knowledge is impossible, and naturalism, the belief that only natural
forces control the world. Several leading thinkers of the Enlightenment
(1700-1789) were professed atheists, including Danish writer Baron Holbach
and French encyclopedist Denis Diderot. Expressions of nonbelief also are
found in classics of Western literature, including the writings of English
poets Percy Shelley and Lord Byron; English novelist Thomas Hardy;
French philosophers Voltaire and Jean-Paul Sartre; Russian author Ivan
Turgenev; and American writers Mark Twain and Upton Sinclair. In the
19th century the most articulate and best-known atheists and critics of
religion were German philosophers Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Arthur
Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche. British philosopher Bertrand
Russell, Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, and Sartre are among the
20th century’s most influential atheists.
63
Atheism is primarily a reaction to, or a rejection of, religious belief, and thus
does not determine other philosophical beliefs. Atheism has sometimes been
associated with the philosophical ideas of materialism, which holds that only
matter exists; communism, which asserts that religion impedes human
progress; and rationalism, which emphasizes analytic reasoning over other
sources of knowledge. However, there is no necessary connection between
atheism and these positions. Some atheists have opposed communism and
some have rejected materialism. Although nearly all contemporary
materialists are atheists, the ancient Greek materialist Epicurus believed the
gods were made of matter in the form of atoms. Rationalists such as French
philosopher René Descartes have believed in God, whereas atheists such as
Sartre are not considered to be rationalists. Atheism has also been associated
with systems of thought that reject authority, such as anarchism, a political
theory opposed to all forms of government, and existentialism, a philosophic
movement that emphasizes absolute human freedom of choice; there is
however no necessary connection between atheism and these positions.
British analytic philosopher A. J. Ayer was an atheist who opposed
existentialism, while Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was an
existentialist who accepted God. Marx was an atheist who rejected
anarchism while Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, a Christian, embraced
anarchism. Because atheism in a strict sense is merely a negation, it does not
provide a comprehensive worldview. It is therefore not possible to presume
other philosophical positions to be outgrowths of atheism.
Intellectual debate over the existence of God continues to be active,
especially on college campuses, in religious discussion groups, and in
electronic forums on the Internet. In contemporary philosophical thought,
atheism has been defended by British philosopher Antony Flew, Australian
philosopher John Mackie, and American philosopher Michael Martin,
among others. Leading organizations of unbelief in the United States include
The American Atheists, The Committee for the Scientific Study of Religion,
and The Internet Infidels.
Deism and the Age of Reason/Enlightenment
Deism, a rationalist religious philosophy that flourished in the 17th and 18th
centuries, particularly in England. Generally, Deists held that a certain kind
of religious knowledge (sometimes called natural religion) is either inherent
in each person or accessible through the exercise of reason, but they denied
the validity of religious claims based on revelation or on the specific
teachings of any church.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
64
Deism emerged as a major religious and philosophical view in England. The
most prominent 17th-century Deists were Edward Herbert, John Toland, and
Charles Blount, all of whom advocated a rationalist religion and criticized
the supernatural or nonrational elements in the Jewish and Christian
traditions. In the early 18th century, Anthony Collins, Thomas Chubb, and
Matthew Tindal sharpened the rationalist attack on orthodoxy by attempting
to discredit the miracles and mysteries of the Bible.
Although these challenges to traditional and orthodox interpretations of
Christianity aroused much opposition, the Deists did much to establish the
intellectual climate of Europe in the 18th century. Their emphasis on reason
and their opposition to fanaticism and intolerance greatly influenced the
English philosophers John Locke and David Hume. In France, the
philosopher Voltaire became a particularly effective proponent of Deism and
intensified his predecessors' rationalist critique of Scripture. Nonetheless, he
retained the English Deists' view that a deity certainly exists. Versions of
Deism, some of them approaching atheism, were advocated by many other
prominent figures of the European Enlightenment.
Deism was also influential in late-18th-century America, where Deistic
views were held by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George
Washington. The most vociferous Deists in America were Ethan Allen and
Thomas Paine.
Deism in Europe and America played an important role both in exposing
traditional religion to rationalist criticism and in encouraging the
development of rationalist philosophy. Elements of the Deists' ideas have
been absorbed by Unitarianism, Modernism, and other modern religious
tendencies.
Of the basic assumptions and beliefs common to philosophers and
intellectuals of this period, perhaps the most important was an abiding faith
in the power of human reason. The age was enormously impressed by Isaac
Newton’s discovery of universal gravitation. If humanity could so unlock the
laws of the universe, God’s own laws, why could it not also discover the
laws underlying all of nature and society? People came to assume that
through a judicious use of reason, an unending progress would be possible—
progress in knowledge, in technical achievement, and even in moral values.
Following the philosophy of Locke, the 18th-century writers believed that
knowledge is not innate, but comes only from experience and observation
guided by reason. Through proper education, humanity itself could be
altered, its nature changed for the better. A great premium was placed on the
discovery of truth through the observation of nature, rather than through the
65
study of authoritative sources, such as Aristotle and the Bible. Although they
saw the church—especially the Roman Catholic church—as the principal
force that had enslaved the human mind in the past, most Enlightenment
thinkers did not renounce religion altogether. They opted rather for a form of
Deism, accepting the existence of God and of a hereafter, but rejecting the
intricacies of Christian theology. Human aspirations, they believed, should
not be centered on the next life, but rather on the means of improving this
life. Worldly happiness was placed before religious salvation. Nothing was
attacked with more intensity and ferocity than the church, with all its wealth,
political power, and suppression of the free exercise of reason.
In many respects, the homeland of the philosophes was France. It was there
that the political philosopher and jurist Charles de Montesquieu, one of the
earliest representatives of the movement, had begun publishing various
satirical works against existing institutions, as well as his monumental study
of political institutions, The Spirit of Laws (1748; trans. 1750). It was in
Paris that Denis Diderot, the author of numerous philosophical tracts, began
the publication of the Encyclopédie (1751-1772). This work, on which
numerous philosophes collaborated, was intended both as a compendium of
all knowledge and as a polemical weapon, presenting the positions of the
Enlightenment and attacking its opponents. The single most influential and
representative of the French writers was undoubtedly Voltaire. Beginning
his career as a playwright and poet, he is best known today for his prolific
pamphlets, essays, satires, and short novels, in which he popularized the
science and philosophy of his age, and for his immense correspondence with
writers and monarchs throughout Europe. Far more original were the works
of Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract (1762; trans. 1797), Émile
(1762; trans. 1763), and Confessions (1782; trans. 1783) were to have a
profound influence on later political and educational theory and were to
serve as an impulse to 19th-century romanticism. The Enlightenment was
also a profoundly cosmopolitan and antinationalistic movement with
representatives in numerous other countries. Kant in Germany, David Hume
in England, Cesare Beccaria in Italy, and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas
Jefferson in the American colonies all maintained close contacts with the
French philosophes but were important contributors to the movement in their
own right.
Free Will
Free Will, power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action
or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent
causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
66
act is itself a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law
of causality. The question of human beings’ ability to determine their actions
is important in philosophy, particularly in metaphysics and ethics, and in
theology. Generally, the extreme doctrine in which freedom of the will is
affirmed is termed libertarianism; its opposite, determinism, is the doctrine
that human action is not willed freely, but is rather the result of such
influences as passions, desires, physical conditions, and external
circumstances beyond the control of the individual.
Philosophical Views of Free Will
Freedom of the will has necessarily been a concern of metaphysicians, who
attempt to formulate theories explaining the nature of ultimate, universal
reality and the relationship of human beings to the universe. Some
metaphysicians hold that if the universe is rational it must be based on a
sequence of cause and effect: Every action, or effect, must be preceded by a
cause and must form a part of the unbroken chain of causation extending
back to the First Cause, that is, God, or the Divine. An act of absolute free
will on the part of a person or an animal is, however, an uncaused act outside
the causal chain; to accept the possibility of an uncaused act negates such
divine, rational order and makes the universe seem irrational. Viewed in this
manner, this question has never been satisfactorily resolved. During the
Middle Ages, the inexplicability of free will led to intense argument among
religious philosophers and to the famous dilemma known as “Buridan's Ass”
(see Buridan, Jean).The validity of free will has also been a subject of
considerable debate among ethical philosophers. It would appear that a
system of ethics must imply free will, for the denial of the ability to choose a
course of action would seem to negate the possibility of moral judgment. A
person without moral judgment is not responsible for his or her actions. In
an attempt to resolve this problem, ethical philosophers have taken a great
variety of positions, ranging from absolute determinism to absolute
libertarianism. The Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato maintained that
people could will their own actions, but that those actions alone were truly
free that accorded with the good or harmony of the whole. Thus, only a wise
action is free. Baruch Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher, reinterpreted free will
as self-determination, that is, insofar as a person fits into God’s nature and
the world’s own nature. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, believed
that a person must be free because freedom is a necessary postulate of the
moral consciousness; the Kantian categorical imperative is beyond any
theoretical analysis. The prevailing philosophical opinion has been that
partial self-determination exists, and that, although many considerations
67
other than will are involved in the formation of moral judgments, in certain
circumstances a core remains, however small, of creative decision.
Theological Paradox of Free Will
Free will is important in theology. One of the basic tenets of traditional
Christian theology is that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and that every
human action is foreordained by God. The doctrine of predestination, the
theological counterpart of determinism, seemingly precludes the existence of
free will. Because morality, duty, and the avoidance of sin are also basic
elements in Christian teaching, how, it is asked, can people be morally
responsible once predestination is accepted? Many attempts have been made
by theologians to explain this paradox. Saint Augustine, the great Father and
Doctor of the Church, firmly believed in predestination, holding that only
those elected by God would attain salvation; no one, however, knows who is
among the elect, and therefore all should lead God-fearing, religious lives.
Freedom, for him, was the gift of divine grace. This doctrine was opposed
by the British monk Pelagius (see Pelagianism) and particularly by his
followers, who maintained that Adam's sin concerned only Adam and not
the whole human race, and that everyone, although helped by divine grace to
attain salvation, has complete freedom of will to choose or reject the way to
God. Eventually, Roman Catholic theologians stated the doctrine of
prevenient grace to explain free will; according to this doctrine, God
bestows on individuals the grace to will themselves into a state of grace.
During the Reformation, the question of free will became a religious
battleground. Many Protestant sects, notably the Calvinists, emphasized the
Augustinian doctrine of predestination and the complete exclusion of free
will (see John Calvin). Calvinistic predestination was considered a
paramount heresy by the Roman Catholic church; and the Council of Trent
in the 16th century condemned all who denied free will. Still the problem
was not resolved. The French Roman Catholic prelate Jacques-Bénigne
Bossuet offered yet another approach, which became widely held; he stated
that free will and divine foreknowledge are certain truths that must be
accepted even though they are not logically connected.
Modern Thought on Free Will Derived From Skeptism (Scottish:
Hobbs, Hume) or Idealism (English/French: Locke, Paine, Kant)
Efforts to resolve the dualism of mind and matter, a problem first raised by
Descartes, continued to engage philosophers during the 17th and 18th
centuries. The division between science and religious belief also occupied
them. There, the aim was to preserve the essentials of faith in God while at
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
68
the same time defending the right to think freely. One view called Deism
saw God as the cause of the great mechanism of the world, a view more in
harmony with science than with traditional religion. Natural science at this
time was striding ahead, relying on sense perception as well as reason, and
thereby discovering the universal laws of nature and physics. Such empirical (observation-based) knowledge appeared to be more certain and valuable
than philosophical knowledge based upon reason alone.
After Locke philosophers became more skeptical about achieving
knowledge that they could be certain was true.
Some thinkers who despaired of finding a
resolution to dualism embraced skepticism, the
doctrine that true knowledge, other than what we
experience through the senses, is impossible.
Others turned to increasingly radical theories of
being and knowledge. Among them was German
philosopher Immanuel Kant, probably the most
influential of all because he set Western philosophy
on a new path that it still follows today. Kant’s
view that knowledge of the world is dependent
upon certain innate categories or ideas in the human
mind is known as idealism.
Psychologists have found it difficult to explain free will; their method of
scientific causality predicates determinism. The rational philosophers of the
17th and 18th centuries, who were, in a sense, psychologists, attempted to
state mechanistic laws that would include mental phenomena as they did
physical phenomena, such as gravity; free will, being anarchistic by
definition, could not be patterned into law. In the 20th century, certain
psychologists—including the Americans Rollo May, Gordon Allport, and
Abraham Maslow and especially the advocates of existentialism—have
recognized the element of spontaneity in the human mind that is admitted to
lie outside any possible scientific law. This spontaneity can be interpreted to
be free will, or at least a measure of self-determination that people feel
themselves to possess and by which they make moral judgments.
The “Best Sellers List” in Colonial America
By the mid-1700s American prose was first and foremost political. Many
18th-century thinkers believed in the ability of reason to control human
destiny and improve the human condition, an enormous change from the
belief in predestination that broadly speaking characterized the 17th century.
69
In America as well as in Western Europe, the 18th century was known as the
Age of Enlightenment. In the American colonies Enlightenment thought was
expressed chiefly through political discourse. American thinkers asserted a
growing belief in the supremacy of reason over church doctrine; they also
emphasized the importance of the individual and freedom over and above
established authorities and institutions. America's great Enlightenment
writers—Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson—also played major
roles in the American Revolution.
Before the Enlightenment, most American intellectuals were ministers. By
the 1750s a non-religious culture had developed in Philadelphia and other
colonial cities, stimulated in part by easy access to European books and
magazines and the appearance of locally published newspapers. Men and
women from the families of merchants and lawyers were prominent
participants in this new culture, but many skilled artisans also became
familiar with the scientific discoveries and radical political philosophies of
Enlightenment thinkers.
Enlightenment culture, in combination with merchant wealth, gave a major
boost to the production of high art as opposed to popular or folk art. Serious
artistic work had previously found little support in the colonies. Merchants
began to hire skilled artisans to decorate their houses with elaborate plaster
ceilings. Their wives ordered fine furniture and expensive silverware. To
dignify their newfound status, merchants commissioned artists to paint their
portraits. This patronage subsidized the early careers of the first important
American painters, Benjamin
West and John Singleton Copley,
both born in 1738. Although
these two artists were born and
did their early work in America,
they only attained real fame after
moving to London, a city that had
a much richer artistic culture than
anyplace in the American
colonies.
Philadelphia became the center of
the Enlightenment in America
partly because of the presence of
Benjamin Franklin, who
championed many Enlightenment
ideas. Franklin popularized the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
70
Enlightenment in annual editions of Poor Richard's Almanack, a collection
of practical and humorous information first published in 1732. Thousands of
people read the book. In 1743 Franklin was among the founders of the
American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, which sought to promote
useful knowledge in the sciences and humanities through scholarly research
and community service.
Franklin began his literary career as a publisher but made his greatest
contribution to American literature as a writer. In his writing Franklin
advocated hard work as the key to success. His views come across clearly in
the maxims, proverbs, and homespun wisdom that filled his Poor Richard's Almanack, which was published annually from 1733 to 1758 under the pen
name Richard Saunders. Franklin’s almanac sayings were collected in The Way to Wealth (1757) in the form of a speech by a character named Father
Abraham. It is one of Franklin’s great statements on the self-made man. Like
much of Franklin's writing, the work reached an enormous audience through
translations into European languages. Franklin’s Autobiography was first
published in full in 1868, 78 years after his death; it is considered an
American classic because of its portrait of Franklin and American life during
his time.
Thomas Paine became a leading figure in the cause of American
independence with the pamphlet Common Sense (1776). This enormously
popular political document asserted that the American colonies received no
advantage from Great Britain and that every consideration of common sense
71
called for them to establish an
independent republican govern-
ment. Written in a straightforward
style using the language of the
common person, Common Sense
was published six months before
the Declaration of Independence
was adopted. At that point, most
colonists still believed that their
grievances with Great Britain could
be settled peaceably. Paine
profoundly shook this belief,
insisting that there was no turning
back and making his readers feel that each person had the power and
responsibility to participate in the cause of revolution.
Although it lacked the searing rhetoric of Common Sense, the Declaration of
Independence was a crucial achievement in both politics and American
prose. It was structured in the form of an assertion that
was then proven through specific examples. The declaration was written by
a committee made up of Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman,
and Robert R. Livingston, though Jefferson was ultimately responsible for
most of the phrasing. The declaration and the Constitution of the United
States (1787) were key statements of American freedom, but as collaborative
documents they necessitated compromises to satisfy all of their authors. One
of the most significant compromises was the absence of any mention of
slavery. Slavery was antithetical to the ideals of the American Revolution,
but for the sake of unity with the Southern colonies, whose economy was
rooted in slavery, no protest was made against it as a social evil.
A final flurry of political writing at the close of the century arose from the
debate over ratification of the Constitution. Federalists supported the strong
central government outlined in the Constitution, while an anti-Federalist
faction opposed it. A series of essays supporting ratification was published
in 1787 and 1788 and circulated in pamphlets. The essays, later published as
The Federalist, were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and
John Jay.
*(One of Ben Franklin’s many nome de plumes was a woman named
Silence Dogood)
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
72
Propaganda in Colonial American Literature
Propaganda for distinctly political ends is as old as history. The Bible, for
example, relates that the Assyrian king Sennacherib attempted to terrify the
Kingdom of Judah into surrendering by the use of threatening propaganda
(see 2 Kings 18-19). Julius Caesar wrote De Bello Gallico (On the Gallic War) to enhance his reputation in Rome and to speed his rise to power.
The quality of the propaganda literature of the American Revolution is
outstanding. Before the Revolution the letters circulated by the patriot
Samuel Adams and such pamphlets as Letters from a Farmer in
Pennsylvania by John Dickinson sought to inform and unify American
opinion in the quarrel with Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence,
written by Thomas Jefferson, was a masterpiece of rational propaganda
intended to crystallize public opinion at home and justify the controversial
American cause abroad. During the period when that cause seemed closest
to military defeat, the radical writer Thomas Paine wrote a series of
pamphlets titled The Crisis, which rallied and sustained American morale for
the long struggle. After the war, when controversy raged over the adoption
of the federal Constitution, the articles written by Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison, and John Jay, and known collectively as The Federalist (see
Federalist, The), explained the new constitution and persuaded Americans to
ratify it (see Constitution of the United States). The Federalist was also an
effective propaganda instrument among the citizens of the new American
nation.
Thomas Jefferson claimed that he used "neither book nor pamphlet" when
writing the declaration, but his work reflected a broad understanding of
18th-century political thought. Perhaps the greatest influence on Jefferson
came from Enlightenment thinkers. These philosophers believed that the
natural world was organized in a logical and reasonable pattern. While
acknowledging that this pattern derived from the ultimate wisdom of God,
they also held that the world was understandable through the powers of
human reason. The writings of French, English, and Scottish Enlightenment
philosophers frequently presented the concept that all men are created equal
and possess certain inalienable rights. Jefferson’s belief in the social contract
came from British political philosopher John Locke, who argued that
government existed by consent of the governed and that people should rebel
if their natural rights were violated. Even the long list of grievances against
King George III reflected 18th-century philosophy. According to prevalent
thinking during the Age of Enlightenment, any deviation from the natural
and reasonable course of events, including the perceived abuse of the
73
American colonies, resulted from the actions of evil men rather than a whim
of nature.
The publication of Common Sense by Thomas Paine in January 1776 helped
convince many Americans of the need for independence. In this pamphlet,
Paine, a magazine editor and writer newly arrived from England, attacked
the king, the idea of royalty, and even the notion that there should be an
aristocracy. In eloquent yet biting language, Paine also made a direct appeal
for a manifesto or proclamation establishing American independence. The
pamphlet had an electrifying effect on hundreds of thousands of colonists.
By the spring of 1776 local Committees of Correspondence and some state
legislatures began to call openly for independence.
Encyclopedia
In form the Encyclopédie is essentially an encyclopedic dictionary,
containing both the common words of the language and proper names,
accompanied by lexical descriptions and definitions and also, in most cases,
by encyclopedic comments. Its purpose as described in its preface was “to
exhibit as far as possible the order and system of human knowledge, and as a
dictionnaire raisonné [descriptive dictionary] of the sciences, the arts, and
trades, to contain the fundamental principles and the most essential details of
every science and every art, whether liberal or mechanical.”
Encyclopedists, the writers of the 18th-century French Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raissoné de sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encyclopedia, or
Systematic Dictionary of Sciences, Arts, and Trades), commonly called the
Encyclopédie. It was edited by the French philosopher Denis Diderot in
Paris between 1751 and 1772 and voiced the advanced opinions of the time
in philosophy, politics, and religion. The contributors were many great
French writers of the day, including Montesquieu, Voltaire, Jean Jacques
Rousseau, and Friedrich Melchior, Baron von Grimm. See Encyclopedia.
A French translation of Chambers's Cyclopaedia was the foundation of the
famous Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encyclopedia or Systematic Dictionary of Sciences, Arts and
Trades), commonly called the Encyclopédie. The task of revising the
translation of Chambers's Cyclopaedia was given to French encyclopedist,
philosopher, and dramatist Denis Diderot. In his hands it developed into an
immense intellectual enterprise. Associated with Diderot was a large group
of the most distinguished scholars of the age, including mathematician and
philosopher Jean le Rond d'Alembert, who undertook the editing of the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
74
mathematical articles and wrote the famous preface. Philosopher Jean
Jacques Rousseau and scholar Louis Jean-Marie Daubenton also worked on
the project. The greater part of the work, however, fell to Diderot, who was
specially charged with the articles relating to the arts and trades, as well as
those on history and ancient philosophy. In addition, he undertook the
general revision and coordination of the material contributed by the others.
The Encyclopédie presented definite philosophical views and was
considered radical by conservative elements of society, who subjected it to
condemnation and its editor to persecution. This aspect of the Encyclopédie
has given it an important place in the history of modern thought. Those who
were associated with it or accepted its views became identified as
Encyclopedists, a term that denoted a definite social philosophy and defined
a movement. The Encyclopédie was published between 1751 and 1772 in 28
volumes, including 11 volumes of illustration plates. Five supplementary
volumes with more than 200 plates appeared in 1776 and 1777, and an
analytical table of contents in two volumes appeared in 1780. Many editions
followed.
Thematic Essay: Political and Social Thought of the Enlightenment
Thematic Essays combine a broad survey of a particular topic with key supplementary readings to create a comprehensive learning experience. This essay by historian Isaac Kramnick traces the cultural and political factors that led to the development of the Enlightenment. Accompanying the essay are Sidebars consisting of excerpts from the works of some of the movement’s most influential thinkers.
By Isaac Kramnick
The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement based on the belief that
science and human reason can triumph over political and religious tyranny.
An intellectual spirit that knew no national boundaries, it drew proponents
from America, England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Spain, and
Russia.
Although its advocates were widespread, 18th-century French thought is
usually regarded as best embodying the principles of the Enlightenment,
particularly the writings of Denis Diderot, Charles Montesquieu, Jean
Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and others. Known by their French label the
philosophes, these writers helped define Enlightenment philosophy by
publishing their magisterial, 17-volume collaboration, the Encyclopédie
75
(1751-1772). This work was designed as a catalog of all human
understanding, containing an exhaustive range of definitive articles on
science, the arts, history, and philosophy. The writers expressed unorthodox
views in this work, arguing that science and reason could triumph over the
blindness of religion and tradition. Although these views caused French
royalty and the clergy to condemn the book and persecute its authors, they
served to introduce and declare Enlightenment principles.
The philosophers regarded three Englishmen as the prophets of the
Enlightenment; thus, they dedicated their Encyclopédie to Francis Bacon,
John Locke, and Isaac Newton. American statesman Thomas Jefferson, a
disciple of the Enlightenment, agreed with this assessment, ordering for his
library in 1789 a composite portrait of the same three men. They had, he
wrote to a friend, laid the foundation for the physical and moral sciences of
modernity and were “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any
exception.”
II. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SETTING
To set a precise date on an intellectual movement is impossible, but most
important events of the Enlightenment took place during the 100-plus years
from the 1680s to the 1790s. The movement’s beginnings were marked in
Great Britain by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This bloodless overthrow
of King James II provided a constitutional arrangement that effectively
abolished the line of Stuart monarchs and ushered in religious tolerance and
a strengthened Parliament. The dawn of Enlightenment thinking in Great
Britain was heralded by two publications. The first was published in 1687,
Newton’s Principia, which used mathematics to explain observed
phenomena such as gravitation. The second, Locke’s “An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding” (1690), emphasized formulating ideas through
experience.
Two milestones signal the beginnings of the movement in France. First, in
1685 King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had granted
limited tolerance to French Protestants in 1598. The second milestone was
the writings in the late 1680s of religious skeptic Pierre Bayle and scientist
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle. Both authors questioned the prevailing
religious attitudes in styles that would become characteristic of the
Enlightenment movement.
The end of the Enlightenment is best linked to the realization of its ideals,
which occurred in the revolutionary fervor that swept through America and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
76
France in the last quarter of the 18th century. These ideals, in turn, gave rise
to a move toward romanticism in art and literature. It also provided the basis
for the political liberalism and spirit of reform that spread throughout the
19th-century Western world.
The events of the 1680s provide glaring evidence of the different settings for
Enlightenment thought in France and Britain. Religious tolerance and
freedom of publication generally flourished in the liberal atmosphere of
Augustan England. This period, characterized by literary grandeur under the
restored monarch Charles II, earned its name for its resemblance to imperial
Rome under Augustus. In France, on the other hand, Louis XIV dealt a
ringing blow to religious tolerance in 1685 when he revoked the Edict of
Nantes. The revocation ushered in a century of oppressive and absolute rule
in France, with first the persecution and then the flight of the French
Protestants, known as Huguenots. Further, royal and clerical control and
censorship of publications led to the arrest of Voltaire and other writers.
Before long, the works of Diderot, Montesquieu, Claude Helvétius, and Paul
Henri d'Holbach were condemned and suppressed. Finally, the Encyclopédie
itself was banned in 1759.
III. POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THE FRENCH ENLIGHTENMENT
Montesquieu and Diderot, attempting to avoid suppression, often invented
fictional foreigners whose observations criticized French political
institutions and the Catholic Church. The harsher realities of repression and
persecution lent the political writings of the French Enlightenment a tone
that is more bitter and less compromising than that of the British. Not that
despotism, when freed from religious zeal, was utterly incompatible with the
French Enlightenment. Several of the philosophes, including Voltaire,
Diderot, and Helvétius, envisioned the political ideal as an “enlightened
despot,” a reforming monarch. Their ideal monarch was personified by
Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia. The “enlightened despot,”
while sponsoring religious tolerance, was committed to rational reform of
the political, legal, and economic aspects of an age of reason. Examples of
such reforms include Frederick introducing new agriculture and
manufacturing methods, and Catherine attempting to modernize Russian law
by establishing a legislative commission.
Political differences notwithstanding, the intellectuals of the French and
British Enlightenment operated in relatively similar social settings. They
shared the profound transformation of Western life brought by commerce
and industrialization. Far from being alarmed at this great change, they
77
generally embraced the new commercial civilization and its values. They
saw it as a progressive, reforming force that would undermine aristocratic
privilege and religious fanaticism. Theirs was also an age of increasing
literacy: For the first time in history, reading ceased to be a monopoly of the
rich and the clergy. Intellectuals eagerly wrote for an audience of new
readers, having not yet become alienated from the “philistine” public in a
posture of romantic weariness.
IV. REASON AND REFORM
The central message of Enlightenment intellectuals was that unassisted
human reason, not faith or tradition, was the principal guide to politics and
all human conduct. “Have courage to use your own reason—that is the motto
of Enlightenment,” the German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in 1784.
To Enlightenment thinkers, everything, including political and religious
authority, must be subject to a critique of reason if it were to command the
respect of humanity. Particularly suspect were religious faith and
superstition. Humanity was not innately corrupt, as Catholicism taught, nor
was the good life found only in a blissful state of otherworldly salvation.
Pleasure and happiness were worthy ends of life and could be realized in this
world. The natural universe was not governed by the miraculous whimsy of
a supernatural God. Rather, it was ruled by rational scientific laws, which
were accessible to human beings through the scientific method of
experiment and observation.
Science and technology were the engines of progress, enabling modern
people to force nature to serve their well-being and increase their happiness.
Science and the conquest of superstition and ignorance provided the
prospect to endlessly improve and reform the human condition, to progress
toward a future that was perfection. The Enlightenment elevated the
individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest. It sought to free the
individual from all kinds of external corporate or communal limitations.
Further, it sought to reform the political, moral, intellectual, and economic
worlds to serve individual interests.
More than anyone else, Voltaire, with his motto Ecrasez l'infâme ("Crush
the infamous thing"), symbolized the war against the evils, including torture
and persecution, bred by religious fanaticism and superstition—the
“infamous thing.” But virtually all Enlightenment theorists followed the lead
of Locke’s famous “Letter on Toleration” (1689) in demanding freedom of
religion. They argued that if religion were removed from public life and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
78
public authority, it would be reserved for the private sphere of individual
preference and individual practice. Public matters in a commercial society
concerned markets and property, not the saving of souls. Voltaire
approvingly described the Royal Exchange in London as the place where
“the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together, as though they
all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but
bankrupts.” Jefferson, in turn, rendered the same liberal, tolerant theme in
simple American folk wisdom: “The legitimate powers of government
extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Faith in progress required that the aristocratic, feudal past be viewed
critically, and once again Voltaire guided the Enlightenment. History, he
wrote, in 1754, is “little else than a long succession of useless cruelties” and
“a collection of crimes, follies, and misfortunes.” Progressive Enlightenment
philosophers had no respect for the superstitious past and its political
traditions in general, which could not pass the skeptical test of reason. The
American philosopher Thomas Jefferson summarized this ideal, attacking
what he labeled “the Gothic idea,” which dictates that one “look backwards
instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind.” Jefferson
argued that Americans would have nothing to do with such errors: “To recur
to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in
religion, in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion, and government,
by whom it is recommended, and whose purpose it would answer. But it is
not an idea which this country will endure.”
Enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson viewed humanity as no longer
chained to the past, with its irrational, repressive, and unjust institutions.
Guided by their reason, enlightened men and women could change and
reform their political world. They could shake off the oppressive weight of
tradition and custom. For most Enlightenment writers this meant political
reforms. They directed these reforms against what they considered the
tyrannical power of the Church, the nobility, and the monarchy. Such
reforms were for the benefit of the free individual.
V. LIBERAL INDIVIDUALISM
At the heart of the Enlightenment’s social and political thought lies a
profoundly radical individualism. Enlightenment philosophers pro-claimed
the individual as the creator of meaning, truth, and even reality. The
Enlightenment’s political ideal set the individual free politically,
79
intellectually, and economically. It demystified the political universe, as
rational acts of consent replaced the magical power of thrones, scepters, and
crowns. The individual (understood in the Enlightenment as male and
property-owning) did not receive government and authority from a 40
God who had given his secular sword to princes and magistrates to rule by
divine right. Nor did the individual keep to his lower place in a divinely
inspired hierarchy, in which kings and noblemen had been placed above him
as society’s natural governors.
Government, Enlightenment theorists argued, was voluntarily established by
free individuals through a willful act of contract. Individuals rationally
agreed to limit their own freedom and to obey civil authority in exchange for
public protection of their natural rights. Government’s purpose was to serve
self-interest, to enable individuals to enjoy peacefully their rights to life,
liberty, and property. It was not to serve the glory of God or dynasties—and
certainly was not to dictate moral or religious truth.
The Enlightenment saw the individual as free in the intellectual and moral
world as well. Governments should only be concerned with the worldly
matters of life and property, not with immaterial things such as the salvation
of souls. Public authority, be it secular or spiritual, was not to enforce
unquestioned and absolute truths upon individuals. Matters of belief and
moral conviction had to be reserved for the private realm, where each
individual was free to believe as he wished. Public law no longer enforced
God’s higher truths nor any ideal of the moral life; it merely kept order.
Clerical or royal censorship and persecution of free individual minds was the
lightning rod for contempt.
VI. REMOVING ECONOMIC RESTRAINTS
As the liberalism of the Enlightenment would free the individual from
intellectual constraint, so it would also liberate the individual from economic
restraints on private initiative. The Enlightenment rejected the ideas of a
moral economy in which economic activity was understood to serve moral
ends of justice, whether these ends were realized through church-imposed
constraints on wages and prices or through magistrates setting prices and
providing food to the poor. Church, state, and guilds (powerful trade
associations) would no longer oversee economic activity. Instead,
individuals would be left alone to seek their own self-interest in a free
voluntary market, which would work toward the good of all through “an
invisible hand.”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
80
These Enlightenment ideals are associated principally with the British
philosopher and economist Adam Smith and the French Physiocrats, the
name used for proponents of the economic theories proposed by Anne
Robert Jacques Turgot and Françoise Quesnay. However, such ideals
pervade the era and are found in the writings of Voltaire and Jefferson as
well.
Jefferson knew exactly what he was doing when he changed Locke’s trilogy
of rights “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.” Property, and the individual’s right to it, was but one form of the
larger human right to individual happiness. The Enlightenment’s
revolutionary objective, enshrined in Jefferson’s text for the Declaration of
Independence, was to place the sacredness of each individual’s quest for
happiness at the heart of politics. No longer was there assumed to be a
Christian conception of the good life or the moral life, defined by the church
and state. The Enlightenment assumption was that each individual pursued
his or her own happiness and individual sense of the good life—as long as in
doing so they did not interfere with other people’s lives, liberty, or pursuit of
happiness. Or as Jefferson put it, as long as “it neither picks my pocket, nor
breaks my leg.”
VII. THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS
For many, the Enlightenment’s rejection of feudalism and aristocracy along
with its faith in progress through unfettered individualism were realized in
the American (1775-1783) and French (1789-1799) revolutions. The French
philosopher the marquis de Condorcet described America as, of all nations,
“the most enlightened, the freest and the least burdened by prejudices.” Its
respect for human rights, he wrote, provided a lesson for all the peoples of
the world. He offered what would be the characteristic praise of America,
where there were “no distinctions of class” and where property was secure
and hard work encouraged. In America no spiritual or political aristocracy,
he wrote, held “a part of the human race in a state of humiliation, simplicity,
and misery.” Diderot, in turn, saw America as “offering all the inhabitants of
Europe an asylum against fanaticism and tyranny.” For Turgot, the
American people were “the hope of the human race, they may well become
its model.” Anglo-American political philosopher Thomas Paine joined the
chorus, writing that the cause of America was “the cause of all mankind.”
The French Revolution, as well, seemed to realize much of the
Enlightenment’s agenda. The politics of the aristocratic and monarchical old
81
order were replaced by parliamentary institutions and the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Feudal restrictions on individual economic
activity were removed. Primogeniture (the firstborn son’s right to property
inheritance), enforced tithes, and obligatory service to the lord of the manor
gave way to new economic ideals focused on individual property rights and
free market principles. The revolutionaries waged a vigorous campaign to
“de-Christianize” France. The state took over schools and church property,
making the clergy civic employees.
VIII. LEGACIES OF ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT
The excesses of the French Revolution, especially Maximilien Robes-pierre
and the Reign of Terror, led many observers associated with the
conservative and romantic movements of the late 18th and early 19th
centuries to condemn the Enlightenment as having too exalted a view of
human reason. These observers argued that the Enlightenment neglected the
roles played in human nature by feelings, imagination, spirit, and intuition.
Similarly, the Enlightenment, with its zeal for political reform, was criticized
as misunderstanding the useful roles that tradition, custom, and habit play in
society.
Today, environmentalists criticize the Enlightenment’s worship of science
and technology, citing the damage done by human-produced innovations
such as pesticides and auto exhaust. Devout Christians find fault with the
movement’s strictly secular vision of the state. Communitarians, who
believe in a cooperative way of life, take issue with its rampant
individualism. Still, Enlightenment social and political ideals live on today
in the rhetoric of those who argue for reason, reform, and tolerance in the
face of custom, tradition, and orthodoxy.
About the author: Isaac Kramnick is the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of
Government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He is the author of
several books, including The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (1996). Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought
Thematic Essays combine a broad survey of a particular topic with key supplementary readings to create a comprehensive learning experience. This essay by historian Isaac Kramnick traces the development of British political and social thought. Accompanying the essay are Sidebars
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
82
consisting of excerpts from the works of some of Britain’s most influential thinkers.
By Isaac Kramnick
Many of the central ideals of government that are taken for granted today
have their origins in the traditions of British social and political thought.
Respect for the rule of law and rejection of arbitrary and despotic authority
are rooted in the English tradition. The parliamentary system of government
that exists in many countries is a legacy of British political and social
thought. Peaceful, evolutionary reform—as opposed to violent,
revolutionary change—and respect for individual rights also derive in part
from British political thought. Indeed, the basic notions of liberal and
conservative stem from British tradition, as do the workings of politics and
government in much of the world today.
The British model of parliamentary democracy has influenced many nations,
including the United States. The thought behind this system of government
began to take form during a particularly tumultuous period in British history:
the English Revolution of 1640 to 1660. The seeds of the revolution were
planted in the 16th century, when the monarchy and the British Parliament
competed for political authority. During that period a fundamental
transformation occurred: Thinkers began to challenge the very assumptions
and ideals underlying British government. At the beginning of the 16th
century, the ruling ideas in England were those of the nobility who held the
view that they were God’s agents on Earth. Since their power over common
people derived from God, the resulting political and social inequality was, in
effect, divinely ordained.
II. DIVISION OF POWER UNDER THE TUDORS
In the 16th century the ruling Tudor monarchy increased the level of
cooperation among royalty, local aristocrats, and wealthy merchants.
Although the Tudors maintained their belief in the divine right of kings—the
doctrine that rulers derive their right to rule directly from God—they
demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to share power with the elites of
the realm. Division of power in England dated back to the Magna Carta,
sealed in 1215 by King John, which decreed that the king's nobles must be
consulted over issues of taxation. In the late 16th century Queen Elizabeth I
shared authority and actively sought guidance from the British Parliament.
At that time Parliament consisted of the House of Lords, representing landed
83
aristocrats, and the House of Commons, representing the wealthy
commercial classes. In cooperation with Parliament, the Tudors established a
mixed constitution, a set of rules both formal and informal that regulated the
workings of government. The British constitution differs from the
constitutions of the United States and many other nations because it is not a
single document; instead it is a complex collection of acts of Parliament,
judicial rulings, statutes, and conventions.
The British constitution, as it evolved under the Tudors, established that
power would be shared among the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the
wealthy commercial class. In the religious realm the Tudors compromised as
well. They followed the Protestant break from the Roman Catholic Church
and established Anglicanism as the national Church of England.
Anglicanism maintained many features of Catholicism, such as a
hierarchical clergy presided over by archbishops and bishops, but it included
some important differences from Catholicism, such as allowing Anglican
priests to marry.
III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND THE ENGLISH
REVOLUTION
After Elizabeth I died in 1603, James I became the first of the Stuarts to
ascend the English throne. The Stuarts had ruled Scotland since 1371. James
and his successor, Charles I, rejected the constitutional middle ground that
the Tudors had established and governed as absolute monarchs, refusing to
share authority with Parliament. Their authority came directly from God,
they claimed, and they ruled alone by divine right. In addition to opposing
the sharing of power, James and Charles repudiated the Tudor theological
compromise. They sought to return England to the Catholic fold, and they
actively persecuted radical English Protestants, called Puritans. Some of the
Puritans fled to settle the New England colonies in America. Those Puritans
who remained became central actors in the great constitutional crisis of the
17th century known as the English Revolution.
Between 1640 and 1649 Parliament raised an army, led by military
administrator Oliver Cromwell, that fought to overthrow Charles I and his
royalist followers. Charles was captured, arrested under charge of treason,
and executed in 1649. Cromwell abolished the monarchy and the House of
Lords, and became the first commoner to rule a great European power.
England was declared a commonwealth, in which government was to
function according to the common consent of the people. Cromwell’s
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
84
government failed, however, and the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660,
when Charles II ascended the throne. Both he and his successor, James II,
reasserted the divine right principle of ruling without Parliament and
sympathized with the Catholic cause. In 1688 opponents of James II forced
him to abdicate the throne and replaced him with William III and his wife,
Mary II, who were crowned as joint rulers in 1689. This Glorious
Revolution of 1688, as it came to be called, occurred without bloodshed and
restored the division of power between Parliament and the monarchy.
The tumultuous half-century of crisis that preceded the Glorious Revolution
inspired a reconsideration of government and produced many enduring
strands of British political and social thought. In deriving their theories
regarding government and society, thinkers of the time explored a rich
variety of ideas. They examined British and classical history for inspiration,
proposed truths about human morality, and questioned whether society
actually benefited from stern leadership.
IV. COMMON LAW AND THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF
ENGLISHMEN
In the 17th and 18th centuries some thinkers looked to England’s legal
history to justify a greater role for Parliament and rule by law rather than by
royal authority. Jurists such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir William Blackstone
played a key role. They developed the theory that English common law, an
intricate set of legal precedents and customs that had evolved over centuries,
in combination with statutory law created by acts of Parliament, formed the
foundations of the absolute rights of Englishmen. At the time rights for
women were not even considered. These moderates argued that the rule of
law took precedence over arbitrary decree by a monarch. Both statutory and
common law guaranteed the sanctity of an Englishman's life, liberty, and
property, including the rights of trial by jury, representative government, and
habeas corpus (protection against illegal imprisonment).
In the hands of 17th-century jurists such as Coke, common law emerged as a
major constraint on the power of the Stuart kings. Coke claimed that
common law was the surviving legacy of an ancient constitution that had
appeared in Saxon England but was subsequently lost. Coke believed that
the ancient constitution had both established royal authority and placed
limitations on it. Despite the loss of the ancient constitution, its tenets were
reaffirmed through common law and charters, including the Magna Carta.
85
By the 18th century, jurist and legal scholar Sir William Blackstone emerged
as the central spokesman for rule by law. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769) became the definitive statement on the British
constitution. In his writings, Blackstone produced the first clear and
relatively concise summary of constitutional law. In doing so, he supported
the ideals of the ancient constitution as the source of parliamentary
government and common law as a constitutional alternative to arbitrary rule.
V. THE CONTRIBUTION OF PURITANISM
The militant Puritans who supported Cromwell, particularly the Levellers,
took more extreme measures to defend the rights of Parliament and
Englishmen during the constitutional crisis. Members of Cromwell’s
military force, the New Model Army, believed that God chose them to purge
England of its pro-Catholic monarch. Cromwell's soldiers also opposed what
they regarded as the unmerited privilege of the idle aristocracy. Cromwell’s
army demanded voting rights for all men holding property, rather than just
for wealthy landowners. One part of his army, the Levellers, took the
demands a step further and argued that all men should be able to vote, a
revolutionary idea in the 17th century. The Levellers asserted that "the
poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he." Some in
the radical Puritan camp, called Diggers, advocated communal property,
claiming that the Bible tells of the early Christians holding goods in
common.
Behind the social and class radicalism of the Puritans lay the Protestant work
ethic. From antiquity, social and political thought had been essentially
limited to the concerns of men of leisure, ignoring those who worked for
their livelihood. Political power by right belonged to those with the leisure
time to be concerned with the public good, a task beyond the capacity of
those who had to work hard. The Protestants reversed these assumptions
with their embrace of the work ethic. Puritan writers such as Richard Baxter
and John Bunyan produced influential texts describing a cosmic struggle
between the forces of industry and idleness. Their texts vibrate with the
conflict between productive, hardworking energy and idle, unproductive
sloth.
Protestants viewed work as a battleground for personal salvation. Men
served God by busying themselves in work that served both society and the
individual. The doctrine of the calling gave each man a sense of his unique
self, as God imposed the work appropriate to each individual. After being
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
86
called to a particular occupation, it was a man's duty to labor diligently and
to avoid idleness and sloth. The virtuous man realized himself and his talents
through labor and achievement. The corrupt man was unproductive,
indolent, and in the Devil's camp; he failed the test of individual
responsibility. The ruling classes of idle nobility and useless monarchy were
the enemy that God had sent the hardworking Puritan to slay.
VI. THOMAS HOBBES
The political and constitutional crisis of the 17th century produced two of
the most important figures in the history of British political thought. The
first, philosopher Thomas Hobbes, challenged the assertions of both the
parliamentary side and the Stuart royalist camp. In Leviathan (1651),
Hobbes repudiated the royalist argument that God gave kings absolute and
indivisible power to rule, arguing that human beings make a conscious
decision to be led. Long ago, living as free and equal individuals in a state of
nature lacking any political authority, people voluntarily contracted to create
a common governmental power over them. According to Hobbes, total
freedom in the state of nature left each man insecure and frightened at the
unrestrained power of other individuals, all of whom were driven by
insatiable self-interest. Thus, Hobbes argued, government emerged from a
rational and prudent act of will. Formerly free men consented to give up
their freedom and to be governed, or, as Hobbes put it, to be held in awe by
a common sword. The restraint that government imposes on personal
freedom is thus justified by the security and order that government provides.
Leviathan infuriated the royalists by challenging the notion of divine right,
but it also upset the supporters of Parliament because Hobbes advocated
absolutist rule. Hobbes argued that the consent of the people to be led
justifies an all-powerful government. Either a legislature or a monarch may
exercise power as long as authority over society is complete. Any challenge
to this authority jeopardizes the peace and security provided by government
and is thus both illegitimate and dangerous. In Hobbes’s view, disobeying
government will return individuals to the chaos and fear of the state of
nature, where nothing restrains the appetites of competitive men. Many
supporters of Parliament saw Hobbes's idealized government, which he
labeled Leviathan, to be just as authoritarian as the government that the
Stuarts attempted to impose.
87
VII. JOHN LOCKE
In 1688 Parliament triumphed in the Glorious Revolution, securing the
division of power between the throne and the legislature. John Locke, in his
Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), best captured the predominant
political theory that ensued after this final settlement of the constitutional
crisis. Much like Hobbes, Locke conceived of civil government as a rational
creation, established by people wishing to leave a chaotic state of nature.
Locke, however, was more optimistic about the nature of human beings. He
described a state of nature in which people tend to respect one another's
natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The assumption that human
beings are inherently good is at the heart of what has come to be called
Lockean liberalism.
However, Locke acknowledged that conflicts will inevitably arise over
property, and the occasional thief will disregard the natural rights of others.
Therefore, Locke maintained, individuals consent to be governed; in this
claim, he echoed Hobbes. Locke differed dramatically from Hobbes,
however, in asserting that the people, having consented to be governed, can
change government if it interferes with the natural rights of those who
contracted to obey it, or if it fails to protect individual rights. Locke's
description of the people's power to change governments was embodied in
the Glorious Revolution and was later enlisted by Thomas Jefferson during
the American Revolution in the argument of the Declaration of
Independence (1776).
VIII. REPUBLICANISM
The English Revolution produced another school of political thought,
republicanism, which was drawn from classical Greek and Roman theories
of government. The word republic derives from the Latin res publica, which
literally means “public things.” The book Oceana, published by scholar
James Harrington in 1656, describes a republican utopia. In Oceana,
government is not a personal possession of a monarch but is rather the
common business of the people. Citizens participate in selecting
representatives in government and serve in the military to secure the
common good. Republican writers such as Harrington and British statesman
Algernon Sidney, his contemporary, argued that citizens should run their
own public affairs. Citizens, according to Harrington, are motivated by
public spirit or civic virtue, a willingness to set the common good above
their own individual interests. In Harrington’s conception, bearing arms and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
88
forming militias for common protection express this public spirit and
guarantee independence from autocratic rule.
The principal republican theorist of the 18th century was statesman Henry
St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, who headed the opposition in
Parliament to statesman Sir Robert Walpole’s leadership of the House of
Commons. Bolingbroke contrasted the republican commitment to public
spirit and civic virtue with the political corruption that he perceived in
figures such as Walpole. Bolingbroke greatly expanded the definition of
corruption beyond simple venality: He considered all leaders who lacked
civic virtue to be corrupt. He regarded such men as preoccupied with self
and uninterested in the public good. According to Bolingbroke, this type of
corruption brings about a cycle in which states decline and require periodic
revitalization and renewal to return to the original and pristine republican
commitment to civic virtue.
Bolingbroke was widely read in the American colonies, and some scholars
interpret the American Revolution (1775-1783) as a republican effort to
throw off corrupt British rule and return to public-spirited self-government.
Other scholars focus on the influence of Lockean liberalism on the American
Revolution. Locke, too, was widely read in 18th-century America. His belief
in the natural rights of men to life, liberty, and property are concerned less
with republican civic spirit and more with individual self-interest, which can
be discerned in much of the political rhetoric surrounding the revolution.
IX. THE SCOTTISH ENLIGHTENMENT
Another group of 18th-century British thinkers, Scottish intellectuals from
Glasgow, Edinburgh, and St. Andrews, offered a conception of human
nature and an interpretation of history rather different from those put
forward by Lockean liberalism and neoclassical republicanism. Thinkers
such as Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith did not depict
men as the independent and autonomous individuals described by Locke.
Men, they insisted, are moved to community by a common moral sense that
produces sociability and benevolent cooperation. These thinkers regarded
the quest for a moral life as the product of a disinterested and rational
perception of the common good. Moral sense provides all men with an
intuitive knowledge of what is right and wrong. All men are equal in the
view of this school, since they all possess the moral capacity for sociability
and benevolence.
89
The Scottish school proposed a unique interpretation of history. Unlike the
republican thinkers, Scottish writers such as Hume, Smith, Adam Ferguson,
and Lord Henry Home Kames, did not see history as Bolingbroke’s
repeating cycle of destructive corruption and virtuous revitalization. Nor did
they see the present as an era of luxury and selfishness, falling short of the
goals of republicanism. Rather, they depicted history as evolving in terms of
distinct stages of development, each characterized by the primary mode of
economic production. Societies move through four progressive stages: the
ages of hunting, herding, agriculture, and commerce. The highest stage,
commerce, produces economic abundance and a freer, more civilized social
order. For Hume and Smith, modern market society, not the classical or
Saxon past, produced freedom and happiness.
X. THE CONSERVATISM OF HUME AND BURKE
In addition to playing a significant role in the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume
was important in the development of the British conservative tradition. In Of the Origin of Government and Of the Original Contract, he described
society as the product of convention and habit rather than of a rational
decision on the part of any group to leave the chaotic state of nature. People
obey their governments not from some ancestral promise of partnership in a
social contract but from the mere fact that a government has been
established for a long time. Obedience and subjection are so familiar to
people that they do not try to understand the origin and cause of their
government. Furthermore, according to Hume, obeying government is
convenient and useful. People obey government because common sense tells
them that stability and order in society will be maintained.
The most important British conservative was Edmund Burke, whose
Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) is still considered the classic
statement of conservatism. Burke believed that the revolutionaries in France
and the British radicals of his day, who were calling for universal voting
rights and an end to the monarchy, had a misguided faith in reason and
abstract ideas. They assumed that a simple belief in natural rights, or
freedom and equality, was a sufficient basis for reforming existing
governments. Radicals and revolutionaries, Burke wrote, underestimate the
complexity of institutions and the depth of their roots in history and
tradition. Burke was suspicious of all intellectuals who sought to create an
ideal new political order instead of accepting what history had produced. In
Burke’s view, injustice and misery are best overcome through gradual
efforts at improvement and reform, not through destructive revolutionary
change.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
90
In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke also rejected the
democratic convictions of the revolutionaries. He considered the people
ignorant and impetuous and argued that they are best governed by their
social and intellectual superiors. Since the capacity for reason in most people
is severely limited, according to Burke, the wisdom of the past is always the
best guide. That wisdom is best articulated by the church, the aristocracy,
and the monarchy, which represent the social and political institutions most
deeply rooted in the past. In making these assertions, Burke repudiated not
only the French Revolution but also the prior two centuries of British
political and social thought.
XI. 19TH-CENTURY LIBERALISM
Two fundamental historical developments shaped British social and political
thought in the 19th century: the rise of democracy and the industrial
revolution. Britain extended the right to vote to virtually all adult men by
1867. The rise of political parties and mass circulation newspapers opened
up the political process even more to popular participation and the play of
public opinion. Meanwhile, the transformation of Britain from an agrarian to
an industrial, factory-based economy overturned traditional patterns of life.
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) expressed concern about the new
emphasis on public opinion and the participation of ordinary people in
politics. Mill feared that what he termed the tyranny of the majority would
threaten individual rights, especially the rights to think, hold beliefs, and
speak about unpopular or unconventional topics. No law, however strongly
backed by the popular will, should interfere with the rights of individuals
unless it prevents actions that harm or injure others. Free expression never
harmed another and thus should never be constrained by government, he
wrote. Mill also opposed laws that attempted to police the morals and beliefs
of others, as long as these beliefs or practices, which Mill considered private
issues, led to no physical harm.
Mill and other 19th-century British liberals also opposed government
intervention in the economic realm, despite increasingly strong demands to
curtail the brutality and hardship of labor in factories. As industry developed
in Britain, many social reformers called upon the British government to
regulate hours of work, wages, health, and sanitation in the factories and in
society. Over time, much new legislation imposed restrictions on factory
owners. The principal opponents of such industrial legislation were the so-
called Manchester liberals, named after the primary industrial city in Britain.
91
Their central text, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), argues that the
growth and development of the economy occur most efficiently when the
government does not intervene.
The Manchester liberals’ doctrine of laissez-faire, or noninterference in
trade, sat well with the Lockean ideal of limiting the government’s function
to protecting rights and property. Economist Richard Cobden promoted
completely free trade as the ideal policy and urged governments to drop all
tariff restrictions, which he believed inhibited the free and natural flow of
trade. Social philosopher Herbert Spencer, the 19th century's most vigorous
opponent of governmental regulation, related the ideal of unregulated
economic life to scientist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Spencer argued that business operates best as a struggle for the survival of
the fittest. He believed that government legislation intended to assist the
poor would inhibit the evolution of civilization, punishing the fit to prop up
the unfit.
XII. SOCIALISM AND FEMINISM
The revolutionary socialist ideology of German political philosopher Karl
Marx had very little influence in Britain, even though Marx spent much of
his adult life in London. Much more important in shaping English socialism
were the writings and political skills of the Fabian Society, a group of
intellectuals founded in 1884 that included playwright George Bernard Shaw
and future prime minister James Ramsay MacDonald. The group took its
name from Fabius, a Roman general who seldom attacked his enemy
directly, preferring to wear the enemy down with delaying tactics. The
Fabians rejected the Marxist revolutionary model and believed socialism
would come to Britain through a natural and peaceful evolutionary process
and also through democratic parliamentary politics. This social democratic
approach assumed that over time Parliament would pass laws in the interests
of the workers, aided by the development of a workers’ party, the Labour
Party. The Fabians also believed that the tendency already apparent in 19th-
century factory legislation would expand and culminate in the state owning
and operating industrial enterprises and thus presiding over a just and
efficient planned economy.
Along with this nonrevolutionary democratic socialist vision, the origins of
feminist political thought are evident in British political thought. As early as
the late 18th century, Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) asserted that women deserved the same rights as men. In the
work, Wollstonecraft wrote that women are the rational equals to men but
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
92
have been brought up to be dependent on men and to be concerned only with
domestic life and caring for children. She believed that these characteristics
were not expressions of an essential feminine nature but were instead
cultural inventions that men created to serve their own interests. Given equal
schooling, Wollstonecraft argued, women would compete as equals with
men in the arena of public achievement. In 1869 Mill echoed
Wollstonecraft's early feminist thought in his essay The Subjection of Women. Mill championed women's equality in several books and sought
legislation to give women the right to vote. Women in Britain and the United
States did not gain the right to vote until the 20th century, however. Still, the
origins of the feminist crusade are evident in British political thought as
early as the 18th century.
XIII. CONCLUSION
The crisis of the 16th century served as a catalyst for a reconsideration of the
role of the individual in society and government. Over time, the British
political system and society evolved and incorporated elements of the
various strains of thought that emerged. The result was a complex but highly
flexible and stable government and society. Nations around the world have
followed the British model in shaping their parliamentary governments and
constitutions.
About the author: Isaac Kramnick is the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of
Government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He is the author of
several books including The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (1996). Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Introduction to the Contradictory Dispensational Ages in the Bible
Dr. John Walvoord writes:
A. The Meaning of Dispensations
In the study of Scripture, it is important to understand that scriptural
revelation falls into well-defined periods. These are clearly separated, and
the recognition of these divisions and their divine purposes constitute one of
the important factors in true interpretation of the Scriptures. These divisions
are termed “dispensations,” and in successive periods of time different
dispensations may be observed.
93
A dispensation can be defined as a stage in the progressive revelation of God
constituting a distinctive stewardship or rule of life. Although the concept of
a dispensation and an age in the Bible is not precisely the same, it is obvious
that each age has its dispensation. Ages are often mentioned in the Bible
(Eph 2:7; 3:5, 9; Heb 1:2). Ages are also distinguished in the Bible (John
1:17; cf. Matt 5:21-22; 2 Cor 3:11; Heb 7:11-12).
It is possible that the recognition of dispensations sheds more light on the
whole message of the Bible than any other aspect of Biblical study. Often
the first clear understanding of the dispensations and God’s revealed
purposes in them results in the beginning of useful Bible knowledge and in
the fostering of a personal interest in the Bible itself. Man’s relation to God
is not the same in every age. It has been necessary to bring fallen man into
divine testing. This, in part, is God’s purpose in the ages, and the result of
the testings is in every case an unquestionable demonstration of the utter
failure and sinfulness of man. In the end, every mouth will have been
stopped because every assumption of the human heart will be revealed as
foolish and wicked by centuries of experience.
Each dispensation, therefore, begins with man being divinely placed in a
new position of privilege and responsibility, and each closes with the failure
of man resulting in righteous judgments from God. While there are certain
abiding facts such as the holy character of God which are of necessity the
same in every age, there are varying instructions and responsibilities which
are, as to their application, limited to a given period.
In this connection the Bible student must recognize the difference between a
primary and secondary application of the Word of God. Only those portions
of the Scriptures which are directly addressed to the child of God under
grace are to be given a personal or primary application. All such instructions
he is expected to perform in detail. In secondary applications it should be
observed that, while there are spiritual lessons to be drawn from every
portion of the Bible, it does not follow that the Christian is appointed by
God to conform to those governing principles which were the will of God
for people of other dispensations. The child of God under grace is not
situated as was Adam, or Abraham, or the Israelites when under the law; nor
is he called upon to follow that peculiar manner of life which according to
Scripture will be required when the King shall have returned and set up His
kingdom on the earth.
Since the child of God depends wholly on the instructions contained in the
Bible for his direction in daily life, and since the principles obtaining in the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
94
various dispensations are so diverse and even at times contradictory, it is
important that he recognize those portions of the Scriptures which directly
apply to him if he is to realize the will of God and the glory of God. In
considering the whole testimony of the Bible it is almost as important for the
believer who would do the will of God to recognize that which does not
concern him as it is for him to recognize that which does concern him. It is
obvious that, apart from the knowledge of dispensational truth, the believer
will not be intelligently adjusted to the present purpose and will of God in
the world. Such knowledge alone will save him from assuming the hopeless
legality of the dispensation that is past or from undertaking the impossible
world transforming program belonging to the dispensation which is to come.
Because of imperfect translations, some important truth is hidden to the one
who reads only the English text of the Bible. This is illustrated by the fact
that the Greek word aion, which means an age, or dispensation, is forty
times translated by the English word “world.” Thus, when it states in
Matthew 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world,” there is reference not
to the end of the material earth, which in due time must come (Isa 66:22; 2
Pet 3:7; Rev 20:11), but rather to the end of this age. The end of the world is
not drawing near, but the end of the age is. According to Scripture, there are
in all seven major dispensations, and it is evident we are now living in the
extreme end of the sixth. The kingdom age of a thousand years (Rev 20:4, 6)
is yet to come.
A dispensation is normally marked off by a new divine appointment and
responsibilities with which it begins and by divine judgment with which it
ends. Seven dispensations are commonly recognized in Scripture: (1)
innocence, (2) conscience, (3) government, (5) law, (6) grace, (7) millennial
kingdom.
In studying the seven dispensations, certain principles are essential to
understanding this teaching. Dispensationalism is derived from normal, or
literal, interpretation of the Bible. It is impossible to interpret the Bible in its
normal, literal sense without realizing that there are different ages and
different dispensations. A second principle is that of progressive revelation,
that is, the fact recognized by practically all students of Scripture, that
revelation is given by stages. Third, all expositors of the Bible will need to
recognize that later revelation to some extent supercedes earlier revelation
with a resulting change in rules of life in which earlier requirements may be
changed or withdrawn and new requirements added. For instance, while God
commanded Moses to kill a man for gathering sticks on Saturday (Num
95
15:32-36), no one would apply this command today because we live in a
different dispensation.
Although seven dispensations are frequently distinguished in Scripture, three
are more important than the others, namely, the dispensation of law,
governing Israel in the Old Testament from the time of Moses; the
dispensation of grace, the present age; and the future dispensation of the
millennial kingdom [the thousand year period of kingdom law]. 15
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
96
97
The Kingdom
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
98
99
Historical Premise
What has been gained by the enthusiastic focus on the Christian
family, concerning matters that are psychological, behavioral, and legal,
when all the while, inside the church there is no difference in the rate of
divorce and unwed or unwanted pregnancies? Divorce, pregnancy, and
abortion may be said to be completely voluntary in more than 99 of 100
incidents. Also, there is an extreme overemphasis by many so-called
Christian organizations against secular attacks upon Christianity. The
presumption being that current legal activities to defend religious freedoms
maintain the greater democratic freedoms of the United States. Keeping in
mind the just previous section of Historical and Cultural Facts, is this
assertion accurate? In 21st century American society it is rather difficult to
distinguish Christianity from the historical beginnings of political thought
that began in the post-Reformation and Protestant led English Civil War.
Christianity has been joined to political thought and used by atheist and deist
(e.g., Freemasonry i) to extend their influence and control. The great
contributors to American political thought, John Locke and Thomas Paine,
were English Deists and certainly not Christians. John Hancock, for one, and
others who signed the Declaration of Independence were freemasons. Also,
George Washington appears in a famous painting sporting full freemason
regalia and the famous freemason “apron.” Beyond the era of the founding fathers, the freemason William Taft,
the US President between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, was a
professed Unitarian. Both recent Presidents named Bush are members of the
freemasonry “Skull and Bones Club.” Which is an ivy-league fraternity. “In
God is our trust” is one line in the Star Spangled Banner. “In God We Trust”
was not mandatory on all US currency until 1955. This motto was not
originally a national movement. It first appeared on a few Union coins in
1864 - during the War Between the States. Fierce individualism is a tenet of
an unencumbered free economy conceived in the Enlightenment era and is
not a NT Christian nor an OT Jewish ethic. Freedom and liberty from the
power and penalties of sin contained in the gospel of saving grace does not
translate into the “pursuit of happiness” coined by Jefferson (or “property”
as originally written by John Locke). If the Jews desired their non-voting
i The earliest of the U.S. lodges, founded by authority of the Grand Lodge of England,
were the First Lodge of Boston, established in 1733, and one in Philadelphia, established
about the same time. By the time of the American Revolution, about 150 lodges existed
in colonial America. American Freemasons today make up more than three-fourths of the
total number of all members throughout the world; world membership exceeds 5 million.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
100
theocracy under God so much, why were they constantly being defeated,
enslaved, and dispersed as a result of their non-observance of the Torah?
All this is not to say that God and morality were not held in high
regard in early colonial America. A little appreciated fact is that a much
different “populist” Christianity existed in Colonial America than that which
has dominated Protestantism since the 1850’s. This dissimilarity is above
and beyond any moral considerations. A sovereign grace Puritan of the
1700’s is not the free will Arminian of 2008. The Christian of the “First
Great Awakening” is not the Christian of the “Second Great Awakening.”
The distinction, once again, is not morality, or rules for living – it is the
doctrine of salvation (Soteriology). The core difference being what is
believed about the value of the death of Christ for salvation. Did Christ pay
the full price or not? This was the essential difference of “justification by
faith” between Luther and the Roman Church in the Protestant Reformation.
This difference continually returns and makes its home inside Christianity.
Cults are not in view in this discussion. However, the so-called orthodox
Christian salvation - in which cults share the same Soteriology of “parolee”
salvation – is in view. In the blood of Christ, denominational distinctions
disappear and contain no vital difference. The death of Christ is either
considered the single focus, or, it is merely adapted to “rules of life,” or, so-
called biblical Christian commands for continued salvation. The two are not
separate “opinions;” rather, one is false and one is true. They cannot occupy
the same space. Christ did not die two separate deaths. So, then, historically,
American Christianity is properly packaged and separated into apple barrels
and orange crates. The distinction of probationary salvation and its
traditional form of overly stressed dramatic preaching about hell-fire exists
today in the vast populist presence of Arminianism that was spread
throughout the early frontier America (1810-1850) by stump-jumping, turn
or burn circuit riders who were farmer preachers performing for their
evening meal and traveling money.
Much of the present-day social contention over Christian freedoms
would be eliminated and disappear if transferred to the common area of civil
freedoms. But, only if the underlying Holy Grail of a tax-exempt status were
voluntarily relinquished. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is not an anti-
Christian idea, it is the plain teaching of Jesus and the NT Apostles in many
verses of the Epistles. Should this occur, the ACLU would then have no
privileged adversary and, thus, no socially offended underdogs that can be
elevated to the status of a “specially protected citizen.” Also, there would be
no “cash cow” for judgment awards to fund their extortive activities.
More importantly, what kind of Christianity is being paraded
through the courts of America? Does God really bless America because of
the unique worthiness of today’s “populist” American Christianity? The
101
character of Christianity that threatens her enemies in the modern secular
world is quite a different hazard than that which jeopardized the 1st century
secular enemies of the church. Aside from His blasting condemnation of the
spiritual sin of the Pharisees, Jesus did not condemn sinners for being
immoral. He cleansed the temple of spiritual sin and “thieves” who were
“money changers.” Also, Jesus allowed demons that He had exorcised to
destroy 2000 income producing pigs that were illegally owned by Jews. The
villagers promptly ran Him out of town. The Apostles, who were poor as dirt
themselves, took away income also. They did this by silencing a persistent
slave girl who was a fortune teller and converting people to Christianity. The
well-to-do owners of the demon-possessed slave girl lost their livelihood and
the conversions threatened the powerful metalsmith union that produced
idols and depleted the local Jewish synagogues of tithe paying Jews. (The
continued practice of Judaism for acceptance before God became spiritual
sin after the death of Christ.) The Ephesian believers burned 50,000 man-
days (almost 200 man-years) worth of “books of magic and spells” several
years after their conversion. All of the above mentioned financially injured
and non-believing parties sought legal retribution. The common thread is
monetary loss of income earned by “spiritual” sin against God in the form of
denying Jesus Christ, not moral sin.
The epistolary NT gives explicit details to determine a false teacher
by their doctrine, not their morality. The first three Gospels, with advice
intended primarily for a future time, state just the opposite. The greatest
“spiritual” sin committed today is by those who enjoy a fabulous life-style
from preaching a false Christianity. The “poor little donkey,” the teachings
defended by the NT writers against the internal enemies of the early church
had to contend with adversaries who bear much resemblance to today’s
“populist” Christianity. A popular Christianity that esteems riches and
recognition to be the deserved rewards for continued faith in Jesus Christ.
Should Christianity genuinely be a “health and wealth” contract only the
foolish would turn it down. Since this idea is false, who are those that offer
and who are they which accept such a contract? “Do not rich men oppress
you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that
worthy name by which ye are called? … For if there come unto your
assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a
man in vile raiment; … Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are
become judges of (with) evil thoughts?” (James 2:6, 7, 2, 4).
It may be said that there exists a pecking order - an order of
importance and prestige held by a “populist” Christianity. A direct example
between “two forms” of Christianity may be found in chapter 22 of the book
of Numbers. In this chapter, a poor little servant donkey, who later actually
speaks, receives a beating from the false teacher, Balaam
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
102
(Heb.=destruction). As perceived by Balaam, the donkey delays the prophet
in his pursuit of a reward for cursing the immoral enemies of a king named
Balak (Heb.=to make empty). These enemies threaten the religious freedoms
of the king and his followers. But, as we are shown in this story, Balaam is
actually serving the wrong king. He serves an easy world conformity. In this
scenario, Jesus, as the Angel of the Lord, appears and says to Balaam: “And
the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned
from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive” (Num 22:34).
In the temptation of Christ recorded in Matthew 4:3-10 there is an
uncanny parallel between Balaam’s donkey and Christ in the threefold
sequence of physical need, self-harm, and worship. Some insightful teachers
advise a new Christian to first seriously study the temptation of Christ rather
than the Gospel of John. Jesus is love, yes; but what was his experience in
love? and, what might the Christian expect?
Statement
Many books have been written about grace. Most are one-sided and
outside-in homiletic treatments where grace is approached more by
sentimentality than zealous defense. Abraham was declared righteous by
God when he believed in what God said. Only one other man in the OT was
declared righteous by God (other persons are named by the NT in Hebrews
11). The grandson of Aaron, Phinehas, was a priest who acted in the defense
of God’s honor in response to the false teaching of Balaam which had
seduced the Israelites. Through Abraham, the entrance into grace is typified.
Through Phinehas, faithful action within grace is typified. I understand these
two men as demonstrating the meritless gift of grace through faith and the
meritorious rewards of action because one has received the free gift of grace.
Both together encompass the Christian life. This is in contradiction to
behavior grounded in biblical commands and a reward of salvation for
continuing faith.
Grace is the all-important theme of this work. The enemies of grace
are found in the house of her friends. If there is no outrage at the parasitical
nature of a false Christianity that ridicules the grace that sustains true
believers; that holds the true children of God up to mockery and contempt
for holding to the “law of Christ” and not the Law of Moses; that
unreservedly asserts the child of God is lying about God’s Word when
assurance in the blood of Christ for salvation is claimed. Then where, I ask,
is the love for Christ in those who will not and cannot defend the honor of
Christ who died so that they could live? May it be recognized and well
understood that the assumption of a higher ground of morality is the same
turn of logic that is used by secular moral relativism to silence any
103
arguments about moral standards. A Christianity based on broken legal
commands that can destroy God’s grace is in league with the world -
certainly not Christ and the teachings of grace. This is a much more vital
threat than secular atheism. The fact that the unsaved are atheist is hardly
news or a threat to a properly informed Christian. The correct response of a
worthy and pious mind is to recognize the tactical diversion of an extra-
biblical threat from an atheistic world-view for what it is, namely: Get a
grip, man, that’s the mission field not the battlefield!
But, then, how may the proper battle be fought? By being a proper
witness who defends God’s saving grace in the presence of the mission field.
By exposing “spiritual” sin and cleaning first the house of the Lord. How
then may “spiritual” sin be known and proven beyond all doubt? How may
the false friends be exposed for the “spiritual” crime from which they earn
their livelihood? How may true believers who are zealous for the honor of
Christ remove this insult to the grace of God, first from their own lives and
then the stain from the honor of Christianity? The answer is simple – by
understanding grace. The process is not so easy. The transformation of the
spiritual mind takes much Scripture and dedicated attention. Also, a guide is
needed. Someone or something, who Christ has instructed and prepared for
such a purpose. Someone who has been there and come back to tell others.
This book is a guide that will detail that journey.
To begin to understand the position and moral high ground assumed
by a false Christianity, one must first appreciate that God’s offer of salvation
in Christ, on the sole condition of faith, is a very straight forward
proposition. However, sadly, as religious and pretentious men would have it,
no straight forward proposition is preached by a “populist” Christianity. A
higher moral ground than grace has been claimed. In a word – a Mountain, the symbol of a kingdom. Willful ignorance is extremely hard to separate
from convenient ignorance. In the OT this is dramatically illustrated: “Then
said Micah, Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a
Levite to my priest” (Judges 17:13). Concerning Micah, Dr. C. I. Scofield
writes, “A striking illustration of all apostasy. With his entire departure from
the revealed will of God concerning worship and priesthood, there is yet an
exaltation of false priesthood. Saying, “Blessed be thou of Jehovah,”
Micah’s mother makes an idol; and Micah expects the blessings of Jehovah
because he has linked his idolatry to the ancient levitical order.” 16
The Gospel record of Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
and the first chapter of Acts has been divinely written to be historically
correct. The record within the four Gospels is chronologically accurate.
There exists only minor perceived exceptions which do not actually conflict;
but only provide different details of different incidents at different times.
Many common scenarios are contained in the first three Synoptic Gospels.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
104
This having been said, the very existence of this correct historical record
invites the grossly false and insulting misconceptions that have been
preached as so-called “true” doctrines of “the gospel” by false Protestants
teachers for centuries. Is this to say the Bible is used against the Bible. An
emphatic affirmative is the one answer. Bear in mind the corrupted religion
depicted above, from the OT with Micah as the example. Does this seem
terribly confusing? Confusion is not of the Lord’s making; but perplexity is
the stumbling stone that discourages the unsaved who are curious and
entangles the believer who is immature. Lazy minds crippled by 10 second
sound bytes are not able to digest the mature spiritual “meat” of God’s grace
contained in Scripture. No clear distinction can be made between law and
grace until a knowledge of both is obtained by contrasting one to the other.
To properly separate myth and false doctrine in “populist”
Christianity from the pure teachings of NT grace, and, to understand grace
from the “inside-out,” as opposed to a superficial “outside-in,” is a
formidable task. Beyond any personal doubt, this fact has been demonstrated
as a result of this extended effort. Over 7000 pages of theological instruction
and references, along with three Bible translations, have been scoured and
gleaned to assemble the doctrines of central importance. These teachings of
God’s grace have been selected to produce the proofs used in this
investigative report.
A correct exposition of grace needs a highly subjective and
radically honest comparison to non-grace. A passionate and dedicated,
highly subjective, non-fiction - a gonzo journalism of grace - was used to
identify the source, not symptoms, of misleading propaganda that would
diminish the reverence that the grace of God deserves. The word
“propaganda” has its origin in the 1700’s. It is derived from the Latin
expression, Congregatio de propaganda fide, "Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith.”
Introduction to the Elementary Argument for Grace
Dr. Lewis Chafer writes on the origin and the effect of doubt that is
created by the Law of Moses which is combined, or joined with the future
Kingdom of Law:
Regarding the assumption of the law by Gentiles it is said: “For
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature (practice) [alt. imitate what Jews naturally born under the law practiced] the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else accusing
105
one another” (Rom 2:14-15). Thus the anticipation of assumption of the law
by Gentiles {in the age of grace}is revealed, and the precise effect of the
law upon them. The conscience is molded and they stand before a self-
imposed condemnation. To such there is no blessing. All that the legal
conscience can do is to accuse or excuse for failure. Let it never be supposed
that because of self-imposed legality and misguided conscience, there is any
divine recognition of Gentiles as being under the law. God must be true to
His eternal purpose as revealed in His Word, and men stand, or fall, before
Him now on the sole basis of their attitude toward the saving grace of Christ.
Those who are now lost may honestly suppose that they do the will of God
in perpetuating the principal of the law with its blasting curse; but they are
lost notwithstanding, apart from Christ. It is the people of the past age who
will judged by the law. The Gentiles who now practice the things contained
in the law are not said to be subject to divine judgment because of broken
law; they are, by that self-imposed law, either self-accused or self-excused,
according as they have created a conscience in the law. The law produces
the effect only of discomfort, misdirection, confusion, and limitation of their
own conscience. 17
What does self-imposed law mean? What motivates this imposition
and where does the law come from? Why does law create doubt instead of
the joy of graceful forgiveness and the assurance of salvation? What is the
difference between Law and grace? “There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom 8:1 KJV). In the KJV translation, the last half
or thought in this verse is considered to have been added by scribes.
“Therefore there is now no
condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus. For the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set
you free from the law of sin and
death” (Rom 8:1-2 NASB).
The first step in under-
standing grace is the most difficult,
as there is nothing to build on. It’s
all new. One need first take a step
backwards to see more clearly. I’ll
begin with a comparison to one’s
vision from a single point of view
that expands into the distance to
encompass a great deal of visual
information. Within this view, many
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
106
various objects and movements, colors and shapes - interesting, dangerous,
delightful – could be observed in a moment of motionless and quiet
reflection. Now, when the moment is over and its time to move on to other
pursuits a critical aspect of vision comes into play – one must first safely
determine what is directly in front of them.
With you as my guide, my point of view, I ask: What is the most
critical danger, what is the most key piece of information that I would have
you, the reader, know before you take a safe step in the direction of
understanding grace? To do this I need to provide a depiction of the
landscape to navigate by. A place on a map for you to begin a sure, safe
journey. One that I have already taken; but only by a most trying and
haphazard journey myself can I suggest an easier route. For this reason, I
must impose upon your patience again, while I belabor the obvious, and
request that you follow me to another familiar location – a kitchen - the
warm hearth and heart of home. A safe place, emotionally reassuring, and
filled with pleasant memories for almost everybody. But, there are
uncountable accidents and possible dangers in a kitchen. Does this make a
kitchen inconsistent?
A kitchen serves the necessity of nourishment. As one may not be
sustained by the memory of food, a daily intake is needed. This is not to
ignore dine-in “street food,” nor ready to eat food in a “bag.” Still, the food
came from a kitchen and you must trust that it was handled in a sanitary
manner and rely on your senses to determine if it is safe to eat. Is a kitchen
consistent? In the final sense of the consumer - food comes from a kitchen
somewhere.
What else is there about a kitchen that is consistent, although
dangerous? Knives, heat, containers, and their contents of food are basic
essentials that are hazardous. However, these hardware and food items are
not harmful in and of themselves. And, not all food needs to be cut. Neither
does all food need to cooked in a container. People cause the hardware and
food contents to inflict injury. By their action or inaction, people cause the
food that comes out of a kitchen to be unsafe for consumption. (Unfit for
consumption is a non-dangerous consideration.) So, may we agree that
people working in a kitchen are the consistent cause of danger to themselves
and that the food they prepare is the cause of harm to others? Also, may we
agree that, in general, the only inconsistent or dangerous aspect of any
kitchen is in the way people use the contents to prepare food?
Thanks for your patience with an over-detailed, but necessary
discussion. I’m not altogether comfortable using a non-footnoted style of
explanation, but I’m trying and hope you find the following a surprising,
amazing, simple clarification that unravels much of the confusion contained
in the field of view when one first looks into the opening three historical
107
accounts of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The image of a “kitchen” is the
most valuable and advantageous place to begin your journey to find safe,
spiritual food and to explain why some food prepared by inconsistent people
is unsafe for consumption. The Bible is God’s consistent kitchen. In His
“kitchen” He has written the instructions for the proper preparation of the
food of forgiveness (grace obtained by substitutionary sacrifice) to be given
to three different “generations,” or divisions of man. i ii
These generations are divided by the cosmo-historic events of the
death and return of Christ:
(1) The chosen generation of people in the theocratic
commonwealth of Israel, related to God by covenant and the Mosaic Law.
The Jew of the past generation as the people of the Exodus.
(2) The generation of everyone between the death and return of
Christ. Comprised of the unsaved Jew and the Gentile. And, all believers,
present and past, who are the heavenly Church, which is the Body of Christ.
The present time of “whosoever will believe” in this generation of grace.
(3) After the return of Christ, the future Jew of Israel and the
Gentile of the chosen Nations that will serve Israel. The future generation of
everyone accepted into the Kingdom of Law, and those born during the next
1000 year period.
i The details of Abraham are distinct, as his progeny of faith and flesh comprise two of
these three generations under discussion. ii In every age God has always provided salvation. Before the cross it was unknown to
man that Jesus Christ would die for “the sins of the world.” But, the requirement for
salvation has always been to trust in God’s provision for sin – even when that provision
was unknown or only prefigured as in the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law. Always
present and foremost, however, was the need for a sacrifice or a substitute.
a. God provided Adam and Eve with a covering of animal skins (Genesis 3).
b. God was pleased with Abel’s sacrifice of an animal (Genesis 4).
d. At the Exodus from Egypt, a sacrifice was required (Exodus 12).
e. The Levitical system revealed to Moses centered on animal sacrifice for sin
(Leviticus 17:11).
So, since the time that Christ was announced by John the Baptist as the “Lamb of God
that takes away the sins of the world” (although John himself did not fully understand
this, John 1:29), the post-crucifixion world of men has been well-prepared by God to
understand the final and substitutionary sacrifice that permanently expiates sin and
provides propitiation for man’s sin.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
108
The hardware in God’s kitchen is used as prescribed to prepare the food
of forgiveness in each of the above generations:
(1) The knife and fire were used by priests who were directed by the
sacrificial laws. A sacrifice was offered in response to broken commands,
statutes, and judgments in the OT. These laws detailed how and what should
be killed and burned as a secondary substitutional sacrifice (no container, the
food content {blood} was spilled). This sacrifice was permitted by God’s
grace as “a covering” for sin until Christ died to redeem all sin. This food of
forgiveness (the priest ate certain parts of the sacrifice) had to be prepared
by properly instructed and ceremonial pure men “over and over again.”
(2) Because Christ was the unique God-man, He was both container
(God) and primary substitutional food content for forgiveness (sinless man)
who was both killed (although He voluntarily went to the cross) and burned
(the cosmic suffering of hell on the cross before He gave up His human life).
In ordinary terms, the food has been prepared and cooked. The “Last
Supper” does not spoil (like the OT manna from heaven that was kept in a
golden container inside the ark of the covenant) and remains “in Christ,” in
God the Son’s incorruptible and glorified human body. Thus Jesus is the
“bread of life” sent down from heaven and the container of salvation.
Spiritual food for forgiveness in the time of grace may only be had by faith
that it exists “in Christ.” Christ contains all the food of spiritual forgiveness.
When one exhibits saving faith in Jesus, for one of many things, God the
Holy Spirit baptizes that person into the “Body of Christ” along with all
other past and present believers that are forever joined to Christ. i
(3) After the return of Christ to the earth, the container has
already reached its intended size and will not increase. The full number of
believers to be placed into “the Body of Christ” is complete. ii His death will
i May it be understood, this simplified explanation can be stretched to the point of
absurdity by those so inclined. Detailed and footnoted proofs are amply provided in all
the following discussions. ii The return of Christ and the end of the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4, 5, 6). I would
assign all of Revelation 20:4-6 as applying to the completed Body of Christ: “Blessed and
holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.” The following is correct as far as Scripture directly reveals that which obtains in the
future kingdom. The balance of conjecture from other inferred Scripture is as correct as
any other “scenario” I have read. I suggest it is tidy and logical from a dispensational and
premillennial view. It is in agreement with Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie up to the point
where they themselves admit to positing a scenario. In this suggested view, the passage in
109
Revelation 20:4-6 is left with the undisputed plain sense of what may be read by anyone
(e.g. there is no need for an annotation of many possible variations that seem to cast
doubt on the veracity of these verses applying only to “saints”). The error is to
“Christianize,” or join OT passages of prophecy that applies only to earthly or earthly
reanimated Jews. OT prophecy addressed to the covenanted nation of Israel should not
include the unrevealed “mystery” of glorified saints in the NT Church as the Body of
Christ. Only during the age of grace through faith, the time between the ascension and
return of Jesus, are the Jew and Gentile alike joined together under the sin of unbelief in
the unseen Jesus Christ. Any system of theology that does not admit to a literal return of
Christ, e.g. dispensational and premillennial, cannot cope with a sensible, non-
spirtualized, and accurate interpretation of Scripture regarding the future kingdom.
The triumphant Messiah who restores the glory of Israel was a clear and highly held
primary promise of OT prophecy. The generation of Jews in the Exodus who did not
believe and enter the “promised land,” died during the years of wandering around the
desert. The two “spies,” Joshua and Caleb, who did see the promised land, who did
believe the promise - did not die. The Messiah who died for the sins of the world was not
a clear teaching of the OT. The NT clarifying prophecy uttered by John the Baptist that
identified Jesus as “the Lamb that is slain for the sins of the world” was not fully
understood or appreciated by John during his lifetime, nor the Apostles, until after the
death of Jesus and the fulfilling of OT Scripture that was explained by the glorified Jesus
when He “opened their minds” and their “hearts burned within them.”
There is a distinction between reanimation, resurrection, and living translation fully
revealed in Scripture. Therefore, I suggest that a final group of living saints, who have
survived the Apocalypse, are translated to heaven along with the deceased, resurrected
OT Jewish saints (who are part of the heavenly Church, e.g. Abraham, Phinehas, and
those mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11, etc.). In addition, also, the “saints” who died
during the Apocalypse. This will happen just before the return of Christ to rule the future
Kingdom of Law. This event will complete “the first resurrection” of saints in Revelation
20:4-6.
Thereby, the generation that enters the future earthly Kingdom would include
reanimated OT Jews (cf. Job 19:25-27) who are not called “saints” (cf. the reanimation of
the Jew whom Jesus loved – Lazarus – who died the first time before Jesus; the Apostle
Paul, a Jew “born out of time,” who died after being stoned by pagans and Jews at Lystra
and then was reanimated to complete his earthly life; the “dry bones” of Ezekiel 37 and
the promise in verses 11-14). These are the OT Jews who had faith and looked forward to
the Messiah and the future kingdom; but were not tested by belief in the incarnate
Messiah, the Son of God, who became the unseen Jesus who died for their sins.
(Consider: (1) the testing of the Apostles in which Judas was a disciple who followed
Jesus, but gave up on the kingdom being ushered in by Jesus as the promised Messiah
and, also - along with the vast majority of Jews - was never a believer and rejected Jesus
as the Son of God who was the rightful King of Israel, and (2) the question about the
promised kingdom addressed to the glorified Jesus, before His ascension, by the Apostles
in Acts chapter 1). These are the reanimated Jews, who along with living Jews and
Gentiles of the last generation that have passed the judgment to enter the kingdom; but,
who, along with their progeny, are untested by 1000 years of kingdom law on a
regenerated earth that ends with a final test when Satan is released for a short season.
For these reasons, I suggest the following created beings enter the future earthly
kingdom: the believing reanimated OT Jew and the last generation Jew, the last
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
110
cleanse Israel and the Nations as a commonwealth and corporately; but not
the individual living Jew and Gentile. There will be no preparation of “food
content” for individual forgiveness. The “Last Supper” has been served. No
knife will be used on a secondary substitutional sacrifice. However, there
will be “memorial” sacrifices (Ezk 43) that look back to the death of Christ,
like the Lord’s Supper” does today; but, these future animal sacrifices, like
the ones of the past, do not “take away” sins. Nor, will they serve to restore
the future sinner’s blamelessness as they did in the past Mosaic generation.
Only fire will be used as a “working” tool and the fatally sinful individual
will go to this fire himself. This future Kingdom of Law will be in effect for
1000 years.
And so, dear reader, that’s the simplified explanation and the
depiction of a landscape that will help ensure that your first step is safe and
headed in the right direction. Please beware of the pervasive hazards of
Mosaic and future Kingdom Law in the first three Synoptic Gospels. Be it
known that God has given Law uniquely to the Israelites, past and future.
Law does not apply in this in-between division of time. Self-imposed law is
futile. Misuse of the law principles is to be defined as mixing them with
grace principles, or mingling by-works with by-faith instructions. The worst
result of a lethal admixture will be to prohibit saving faith and the lesser
impact will completely retard the “supranatural” aspect of grace. The
keeping of fellowship with God, the means of spiritual growth which is
spelled-out in the grace portions of Scripture, and the joy derived from
fellowship with other believers will be lost in a view of Scriptures and the
daily rule of life that comes with a legal view of salvation.
A sentimental objection exists which is grounded in a false Jesus
who forgives sin through a theoretical “governmental leniency” obtained by
His death. Also, a myopic focus on the first three Gospels - where Christ is
presented in His humiliation - is demonstrated. In the Gospel of John, Jesus
is never presented as the sheep led to slaughter; rather, He is portrayed as the
unique God-man who controls and determines “all things.” This
sentimentality is prevalent among those who themselves prepare “law” as
the food of forgiveness for salvation. They insist that a “rod of iron” - the
kingdom of law which is the earthly authority and force that leads to the
burning altar of divine law - is inconsistent with a meek and humble Jesus
portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels. These inconsistent people only desire to
take up parts of the Bible and parts of law and grace. Thereby, the extreme
generation Gentiles who pass the “judgment of the nation,” the completed and perfected
heavenly Church, the perfected angelic host, and a host of fallen angels who are to be
captured and brought to justice during the future thousand year period.
111
intensity that separates pure law and superabounding grace is reduced to a
tangle of confusion for the unlearned and unwary. A tangle that can be easily
manipulated by the teachers of confusion as convenience dictates. Beyond
doubt, Jesus came to reveal the love of His Father for lost humanity; but,
apart from the cross there can be nothing except the consuming hell fire of
judgment. Law and grace may not be mixed. The wrath of God was satisfied
by redemption in Christ. Outside that circle, only the burning wrath of God
may be had. This is the wonder of amazing grace. For confirmation read and
notice the “tone” of the red-letter Jesus as He speaks to the seven churches
in the opening chapters of Revelation.
Inconsistent people cannot serve safe food. A “blind guide” is
unable to properly navigate the kitchen of God. He or she (like Martha, the
sister of Lazarus) is compelled to busy themselves with preparing food; but
there is no food content to prepare for forgiveness in this generation, Jesus
has died and lives again, never to die a second time. Jesus lives because His
sacrifice is complete. The full price of the gift of grace for men has been
paid by God. Death - which is all the sin in the world ever to be committed -
could not keep Christ in the grave. He defeated death. Therefore, death no
longer has a claim against Him and those who believe in Him for salvation.
Believers need no longer struggle, and agonize against the Law to fight off
death. (Mary, the second sister of Lazarus, who herself had entered into
God’s rest, believed Jesus was going to die and live again. She rested in the
presence of Jesus). The food from the Mosaic Law generation is no longer
acceptable. It’s rancid and lethal. The Law was nailed to the cross and has
been on the ground since Christ died.
The food for this generation of grace is living food that was
perfectly prepared by God without “human hands.” Christ was provided by
God. Christ was both the One who Sacrifices and the Sacrifice. This food
enables the believer to forgive only because he is already forgiven by God
and to love other believers because Christ loves all believers. Should the
compulsive blind guide toss into the container a bit of food for forgiveness
prepared under the guidelines of the Mosaic Law, it will render the food
lethal. As the unsaved are already spiritually dead, they won’t notice the
food is deadly. Also, those who have been made spiritually alive recognize
that the food is unfit for consumption.
There is no “new” food prepared by God for forgiveness in the
future generation. There is only Law for forgiveness – forgive to be
forgiven. There are no instructions for men to prepare new food for
forgiveness in the Kingdom of Law. Christ was the sacrifice for all time.
There is only the sure prospect of fire for not forgiving to be forgiven after
one has failed to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Accordingly, when the
“blind guides” in this generation of grace prepare the unsaved a bit of
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
112
Kingdom Law as the food of forgiveness, they may only add a fiery death to
the food. This can merely bring about another kind of death for those already
spiritually dead. It’s a great crime to torture the unsaved with a religion of
death that they can never live-up to in this generation of grace. An age where
the “mystery” of iniquity, the force of evil, is working triple-overtime to
defeat grace. This force will be removed in the future Kingdom of Law; but,
at the same time, the future individual will be burdened with an obligation of
personal righteousness that is amplified far above the Mosaic Law. So, to
accept Kingdom Law as the required rule of life today, is to accept a double
threat without the power of grace to offset the fire of certain defeat.
The final word: only in the unmixed, uncontaminated teachings of
grace, using no knife and no fire for preparation (like the OT Sabbath meal
that had to be prepared the day before), may Christ be carried as the
complete and living “Last Supper” - just as He is, resurrected and glorified -
straight out of the kitchen of God’s Rest and Completed Truth, to be offered
for salvation to the unsaved - just as they are, spiritually dead; but, because
He died for them, they can die with Him. Because He lives, they will live
with Him. The very same offering remains eternally for those who believe.
Christ is sufficient for complete salvation and complete sanctification.
This offering of Christ as the food of forgiveness is the “hard to
accept” motif of the “I AM the bread of life” and the “Paschal Lamb” that is
clearly stated many times in the fourth Gospel (cf. John 6). “The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [Gk. koinonia, unity of believers] of the [spilled blood, completed once and fully accepted by God, substitutionary penal sacrifice for eternal salvation in His righteousness]
blood of Christ? The bread which we break [the broken body He exchanged for a living body of believers], is it not the communion of the body of
Christ? For we being many are one bread (loaf), and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread (loaf)” (1 Cor 10:16-17). And finally, the very
plain statement by Jesus in John 6:56, “As the living Father hath sent me,
and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”
The Future Kingdom of Heaven On Earth Will Not Become the
Kingdom of God On Earth Until After the 1000 Year Period; But, the “Mystery” Form of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mtw 13) Is the “Mystery” of the Body of Christ and Is Now the Kingdom of God On Earth note to self: part of this subsection needs polishing
If all the kingdom distinctions (which will be covered in the
sections below) seem confusing, this is yet another proof that John the
Baptist, Jesus, and His disciples were not preaching the gospel of saving
grace in the first twelve chapters of Matthew. In these opening chapters,
113
immediately following the OT prophetical books, the promised Messianic
kingdom was preached by John the Baptist (who knew nothing of grace and
Christianity) to be “at hand.” To further clarify the above, bear in mind, that
at the return of Christ with “His Body and Bride,” those men living on the
earth who have accepted the global second preaching of the “the everlasting
gospel” of the kingdom of law,” will enter the kingdom [1st preaching
began=John the Baptist, Luke 16:16; new kingdom law, not the Mosaic Law
(Luke 3:7-14); first preaching closed=New Brotherhood (Mtw 12:46-50)),
will be judged for entrance into the Kingdom of Law (same as the future
kingdom of heaven=God {the heavens} ruling on the earth; the kingdom of
God is the universal rule of God and may only be entered by the new birth in
the age of grace; the present mystery (Mtw 13) form of the kingdom=the
kingdom of grace in the hearts of believers, ruled by Christ from heaven is
“the kingdom of God” on earth)]. Returning to the Bride, in the future
Kingdom of Law, she is the collective church as the Body of Christ; she is
the Co-Ruler, the Cohort (L. enclosure) of Christ; and she will exercise the
rule of Law in the future 1000 year Kingdom. She, with Christ, will send
living sinners to hell. There is no personal grace available, there is no
enablement to “do” the law provided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - only
immediate rewards and instant extreme punishment - in the future Kingdom
of fiery Law.
Faith in the salvation offered by a Savior, has been open from the
time of Adam and will continue in the time that Christ rules the earth with a
rod of iron. Salvation by grace may appear to some merely a play on words;
but rather it is the all important distinction between by-works and by-faith
salvation. Faith in the promise of complete forgiveness that takes in bodily
and spiritual transformation by grace, by the actions of God in heavenly
realms, and faith in the promise of salvation by-works, by personal actions
performed in an earthly environment, is the vital difference. There will be a
time of transition, during the divinely restarted and introduced period of the
last seven year period of Mosaic Law (Daniel’s 70th week, ch. 9), when both
the gospel of saving grace and the gospel of the future kingdom of law will
be preached on the earth. This is identical to the historical time of the first
three Gospels. Until the herald of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Moses and
the prophets were preached. John preached the new kingdom of law (the
promised Messianic age was at hand and the accompanying new law was
expounded). Jesus continued this same “gospel” with His Sermon on the
Mount until He was rejected as the Son of God who was also the legitimate
human heir to the throne of King David - through the genealogy of His
natural mother and His step-father. Jesus then began to preach the gospel of
saving grace because His sacrificial death was required in the plan of the
ages programmed by God before the foundation of the world.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
114
So, at the future return of Christ to the earth, those who accepted
His offer of salvation are the believers who are transformed, their bodies will
have been changed into a glorified body like that of His own (i.e., no blood,
“flesh and bone”). This implies, conclusively, that all men since Adam, until
the second preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of the law, who did not
accept a Savior, Jew and Gentile alike, will spend eternity in perdition. That
is the sovereignty of God, who “will have mercy upon whom I will have
mercy.”
Accordingly, mortal earthly men under the Law of Moses and future
living men accepted into the Kingdom of Law – those who will become
immortal because of a transformed environment – have consistently served a
form of God’s Law for earthly rewards. Only, and this cannot be
overstressed, only those individuals made righteous by faith in Christ, from
all ages prior to the future Kingdom Law, are under grace and receive
“heavenly” rewards. Law and grace are two opposite principles that motivate
a manner of life. A life that may share a common external appearance; but,
much like the internal sin of Kingdom Law is amplified from the external sin
of the Mosaic Law into the negative matters of the human heart, so too, a
graceful manner of life and service comes only from the positive, loving
heart of a forgiven, undeserving sinner saved from death and the effort of the
Law and its condemnation - that ends in a fiery hell. The opposite principles
of heart-filled love and mind-numbing fear may be seen in the following
statements: (a) grace – believe that you receive eternal heavenly life, and
then do as you are personally directed in the spirit of Christ to receive
heavenly rewards, and (b) law – do the letter of the law that you maintain
earthly life to continue receiving earthly rewards.
An individual must change their earthly destiny to be free of “the
law of sin and death.” To do this, one need first have a choice to possess a
heavenly destiny. Jesus is the way, and the truth, and the life. Only by grace
through faith may a believer be “translated into the kingdom of the Son of
His love” where there is no threat of a second spiritual death or the
possibility of a return to the old death. Physical death still applies to
everyone. So, it may be said: Clearly, without a heavenly destiny earthly
men are consistently under the law of sin and death, because the following is
true of three historical divisions of men: (1) The unsaved in this generation
are not only born spiritually dead (this is not accounted against the unsaved);
but, also, are condemned to an eternal fire by personal sins (redeemable by
grace through faith); additionally, by participation in the sin of Adam as the
progenitor of the race of men (redeemable); last of all, by the one “new” law
of obedience (redeemable) to obey the gospel of saving grace – believe on
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. (2) The chosen
people of a chosen land, the Jew, were under the Mosaic Law System that
115
dictated death by stoning for capital disobedience. (3) The future earthly Jew
and Gentile, who enter into the Kingdom of Law System and will be under
the fiery law of immediate eternal hell for capital disobedience. Thus it is
reasonable to say: Those who are under law are consistently under law and
those who have accepted grace remain consistently under grace. Although,
God has only given only the Jews a system of law. Never the Gentiles. And,
grace will not be offered in the Kingdom of Law. If the immortal individual
makes it through the 1000 year testing, they enter into the eternal state only
after Jesus Christ destroys the last enemy – death.
Satan/death have been defeated and Christ is victorious. He has
overcome, yet still, both remain active. They are not destroyed. Everyone in
this generation has the opportunity to come to Christ for salvation by grace
through faith. Is God unfair when He allows evil to continue; but continues
to leave a grace salvation open? When the next step in His master plan of the
ages will close the door to a new heavenly race of men? Should this and the
various generations of forgiveness make God and the Bible inconsistent?
People are inconsistent, not God’s Truth.
The OT Jew was required to be very careful and observant of the
temple artifacts and the Law of God. Not everyone owned a copy of God’s
word. Today, a copy of God’s Word is not a talisman (although the unsaved
do get a bit weird around a Bible), but, it does deserve very careful and
honest observation of just how the contents are used. The Bible is God’s
kitchen and forgiveness through grace is served to those who are hungry. As
a secondary lesson, one need understand how the kitchen was and is to be
used, safely and appropriately, to prepare the proper food of forgiveness for
the correct divisions of time. For this generation, the primary lesson is that
the kitchen contains all the food that is necessary. The consistent food is
already prepared and there is no need for accidents or spoiled food to come
out of a kitchen that needs no further help. Only the waiters are needed to
carry the food to the tables where the hungry are waiting. Inconsistent
people who insist on preparing deadly food should take notice.
The good news and the bad news is - only grace is offered in this
generation. Anyone who mixes grace with law, by-faith with by-works,
cannot change their destiny by using law. The law is indivisible, one part
commits the individual to all the parts of the law. And, the future kingdom
law, like the previous Mosaic Law, will be impossible to fulfill, even by-
works, without the grace of Christ as the sacrificial substitute for sin.
Because of the grace of a transformed earth and new prevailing
circumstances, it will be possible to fulfill the law in the future Kingdom of
Law. Considering what has been discussed, it is possible to conclude by
saying: Like the OT man that was stoned to death for picking up firewood to
cook his Sabbath meal - on the Sabbath - the inconsistent “people” and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
116
“blind guides” of this generation who compulsively prepare the “food of
forgiveness” inflict a deadly harm upon themselves and others. Meritorious
works do not and - do not - offset sin by creating forgiveness, nor do they
secure additional grace for forgiveness. Sorry, there is bad news for the
sportsman, sinners who know they have nothing to offer are saved by grace -
not winners with plastic trophies.
How may law and grace be mixed - in the mind and heart – so that
one becomes “double-minded”? How do inconsistent people prepare the
deadly food of forgiveness using that which has been provided in God’s
kitchen? The principle identifies the “food content.” The implications are
transparent in two NT verses, “except your … righteousness … exceed …
the scribes and Pharisees … ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven [law]” and “Not by works of righteousness which we have done …
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost.” The following oppositional verses (from a multitude) will
demonstrate the intense difference between the death of fiery Kingdom Law
and the eternal life and joy of grace:
The Rule of Life for the Future Kingdom of Law Generation
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the
kingdom of heaven [law]. (Mtw 5:20)
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again. (Mtw 6:14-15)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth [not heaven].
(Mtw
5:5)
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy [not salvation].
(Mtw
5:7)
But if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses. (Mtw 5:20)
But I say unto you whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
117
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Mtw 5:22)
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell. (Mtw 5:29)
But the children of the kingdom [of law] shall be cast out into outer
darkness there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mtw 8:12)
That thine alms may be in secret and thy Father which seeth in secret
himself shall reward thee openly. (Mtw 6:4)
All of “The Lord’s Prayer” for the future Kingdom of Law. (Mtw
6:8-15)
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Mtw 7:12)
The Rule of Life for the Present Generation of Grace
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost. (Titus 3:5)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
And I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither
shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:28)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ
Jesus. (Rom 8:1)
I [Paul] speak not by commandment [concerning tithes, alms, giving],
but by occasion of the forwardness (zeal) of others, and to prove the
sincerity of your love. … For if there first be a willing mind, it is accepted
according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not [there is no NT command to tithe; God only blesses a “happy” giver; obligatory giving and sacrificial giving is prideful and not blessed by God; one blessed dollar has more effect than a thousand with no blessing; one must first “give himself’ to the Lord before any gift of money is blessed; money cannot serve
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
118
as a substitute for your devotion, only as a sign of devotion]. (2 Cor 8:8, 12;
cf. v. 5)
All of the “Lord’s Prayer to His Father” for His future believers.
(John 17)
Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from
wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life.
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved
you. (John 15:12).
An Example of Gonzo Journalism
Inconsistent people in early New Testament times were primarily
Jewish “legalists,” who sought to mix the Mosaic Law with grace. Today’s
inconsistent people have hi-jacked grace with a “social gospel” that has laid
claim to a vision of the future Kingdom of Law in the here-and-now that
may only be consistent with the presence of Christ on the earth. A complete
fool would consider a rule of life under fiery, blasting Law as merely a
sporting challenge. Law, when properly conceived, may only elicit a
reaction of doubt in the responsible individual who is required to perform at
a level of divine standards. I must say, I’m required by my conscience to
say: Millions upon millions of so-called Christians check their mind at the
door when they enter a church to listen and repeat that which is nothing
more than generations of sporting foolishness and “friendship with the
world.” Dr. Lewis Chafer comments upon this prevailing biblical error in the
following:
There is a dangerous and entirely baseless sentiment abroad which
assumes that every teaching of Christ must be binding during this age simply
because Christ said it. The fact is forgotten that Christ, while living under,
keeping, and applying the law of Moses, also taught the principles of His
future kingdom, and, at the end of His ministry and in relation to His cross,
He also anticipated the teachings of grace. If this threefold division of the
teachings of Christ is not recognized, there can be nothing but confusion of
mind and consequent contradiction of truth. 18
By way of clarification, an important analogy may be held in mind:
The eye perceives color by way of nuerophysics using three primary color
receptors. The pure physics of color is distinctly different. Each
119
electromagnetic vibration of color is identified by a specific wavelength and
a level of intensity. Light vibrating at a strong amplitude or intensity is white
within its own predetermined wavelength. This same wavelength produces
grey as the intensity of the vibration lessens. When the intensity drops to
zero the light is nonexistent and the color is black. Should a person be
considered biased in favor of black because he measured the contents of two
sealed containers to find that one registers white and another registers zero –
black: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John
3:19). The following explanation of the text contained at the end of each
Gospel record will bear out the accuracy of sporting foolishness in my
assertion. A foolishness that even an ancient group of ignorant fisherman
would not accept.
In addition to being an historical record, the Bible is a book for the
present as well as the future age. The four Gospels at the beginning of the
NT are not disconnected, self-supporting records where each provides a
complete testimony concerning the person and purpose of Jesus. The four
are one and share different themes of truth. The scenarios and words spoken
by Jesus at the end of each Gospel are as distinct as the beginning. However,
a common thread of doubt may be found at the end of the Gospels that
records the story of the “Great Commission” to preach the gospel of saving
grace. This story details the who, what, why, where, when, and how of the
gospel of saving grace. It is highly subjective and radical biblical truth that
qualifies as the gonzo journalism of grace. To begin, only a brief study is
needed to prove the order of progression in the four endings, namely: (1)
Mark, (2) Matthew, (3) John, (4) Luke, and then, (5) Acts.
The place where inconsistent people find a compelling vision and
blindly accept the challenge of doubt is at the end of Matthew. How may one
find grace in a scene which duplicated the supranatural scenario of “The
Transfiguration on the Mount” (a preview of the future Kingdom of Law),
which was given to the inner circle of disciples – Peter, John, and James.
How may this ending be rightly construed and preached ad infinitum as the
purpose and the defining mission statement of Christianity contained in the
last words of Jesus. Why is it inferred - where does it say - the disciples went
away leaping with joy for the opportunity to “teach all the nations”
commandments? By the standard set forth as the “Great Commission” the
leading Apostle failed miserably. The Apostle Peter did not preach the
gospel to “dogs,” the Gentiles, until God forced him into a trance while he
was hungry and waiting for dinner. Then God was good enough to give him
a nightmarish vision of food. This did not happen until well over five years
after the death of Christ. Proven in Scripture by the very words of Peter,
spoken to the Gentile he was about to share the gospel with, “Ye know how
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
120
that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come
unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call
any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Aside from a slavish devotion to
tradition and a literary absurdity – because an absurdity is impossible and
untrue - how can the words in Matthew be claimed as the parting words of
Jesus, as the “The Great Commission,” or purpose and mission statement for
this generation of grace? I emphatically claim this tradition is wrong-headed
and is typified by an icon – the Mountain – a symbol of law (Decalogue) and
the burning altar in the temple that are both the antithesis of grace. Law
produces the knowledge of sin, not the control of sin. I suggest law and
grace are depicted in the following actions of Jesus: Jesus, possessing the
Holy Spirit, overcame temptation on a mountain; Jesus gave the future
Kingdom Law Sermon on a mountain; Jesus said that faith my remove a
mountain; Jesus was transfigured on a mountain (future kingdom); and,
Jesus spoke from a mountain at the end of Matthew. That which is
symbolized by a mountain deserves the negative thrust of the reasons,
distinctions, and arguments that I have set forth in the above. The Law of
itself is faultless. The way Law is misused for self-salvation by a motive of
by-works - in an age of grace salvation only - is the sin against God’s grace
by-faith. I suggest that Scripture will absolve me, and, all believers: “Do we
then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”
(Rom 3:31). Dr. Lewis Chafer comments, “The law has never been kept by
those who try to keep it. It is kept, however, by those who humbly
acknowledge their helplessness to do anything well pleasing to God, and
who turn and find shelter in Christ who has met every demand of the law for
them. Such, and only such, have ever vindicated the holy law of God. The
people who attempt to keep the law have always outraged the law.” 19
The theme of the Gospel of Matthew depicts Jesus as the rightful
heir of David, the Jewish King of Israel, and the promised Messiah of the
Kingdom of Law that was preached and rejected; but not canceled. His
death, resurrection, ascension, advocacy in heaven, and the age of grace
intervenes. The resurrected and glorified Jesus will return to claim His
throne. At the end of this recorded account, the eleven disciples (figure of
Moses), some of whom “doubted,” met with Jesus (God) on the motif of an
OT mountain (authority, the Ten Commandments) in Galilee. There they
received the words of Jesus - as the so-called “populist” “Great
Commission” would assert - to teach commandments to all the nations.
The Gospel of Mark (thematically – Jesus as servant), minus the
religious corruption of scribal additions, authentically ends at verse 8. There
the women who followed Jesus, fled from the angel who showed them that
the body of Jesus was gone; who told them Christ was risen; and, gave them
the message that the disciples should meet Jesus at a set location in Galilee.
121
They trembled and were amazed at the “empty tomb,” and: “neither said
they any to any man, for they were afraid.” And so, this account ends with
the unseen dead servant, attended by an angelic servant who conveys a
message - to overwhelmed servile women – who in turn are asked to carry a
message for other servants of the servant to travel to a prearranged location
at a mountain in Galilee. A chain of faith and obedience regarding a
message is established in the authority of the unseen servant of God – Jesus
Christ.
In the Gospel of Luke (thematically – Jesus as man), i the ending begins
with a full gathering of the doubting disciples who, “were terrified and
affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” witnessing and partially
believing the reality of the transformed, glorified, and resurrected Jesus, who
shows them his hands and feet, “And while they yet believed not for joy,
and wondered.” After opening their minds to the Scriptures, as He had done
earlier with a few disciples on the road to Emmaus, He tells them to do two
things, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved [was commanded, binding, necessary] Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that
repentance [change of direction, change of destiny] and remission
[completed forgiveness, expiation, the taking away of all sin] of sins should
be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye
are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father
[the Holy Spirit] upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be
endued with power from on high. … And he led them out as far as Bethany
… And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to
Jerusalem with great joy.” Accordingly, Luke ends with the incredible
transformation of a man who opened the minds of witnessing men about the
truthful witness of Holy Scripture concerning Him and His death (300+
predictions). This man told them that a change of destiny is possible because
he died as the OT had predicted and that his death took away sin. He told
them to preach these things about himself to other men beginning in
Jerusalem and to preach them in his name, Jesus Christ; but to wait until
they had power from heaven through the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.
Then, these men saw this man go up into heaven and believed with great
joy. The man left joyful men as “witnesses” to other men that an incredible
transformation and change of destiny is available in His name - Jesus Christ.
Men derive all benefits from the death and resurrection of Christ.
In the Gospel of John (thematically – Jesus as God), chapter 21 is a
widely accepted “original” addition or epilogue, added by the Apostle John
i Sidenote: The Gospel and the Book of Acts were written as a legal brief to be used in
the Apostle Paul’s defense in Rome, where only Peter was well known.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
122
for a latter audience. The Gospel of John properly ends with the climax of
the doubting Thomas exclaiming, “My Lord and my God.” Wherein the last
words of Jesus are: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe.” The Apostle John, who
alone of the Gospel writers, interprets and states what is behind and below
the actions and words of Jesus in his parenthetical comments, ends his
Gospel with these words: “But these are written that ye believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have [eternal] life
through his name.” Therefore, the Son of God, who is unseen, may be
believed on for eternal life because of the witness of John’s Gospel.
The above accounts may be placed in order of occurrence and
summarized as follows: (1) In Mark, after the first scene at the empty tomb,
the frightened, doubting servants delivered the angelic message with the
authority of Jesus to the other servants. (2) Then in Matthew, these
doubting servants met Jesus at the mountain scene of OT divine authority
and received instructions about teaching and baptizing all nations. They
were told by the King to teach commandments. A King who was given
authority, “all power,” from His Father. Jesus told them to teach “all things
whatsoever [as much as] I have commanded.” They arrived and left in
doubt. (3) In John, the doubting Thomas proclaimed Jesus to be “My Lord
and my God.” Here in John, future believers, who do not doubt, will learn
that they are blessed with eternal life by believing in an unseen Jesus who is
the Son of God. That they “might have life through his name.” (4) Finally,
in Luke, the doubting disciples believe, but not to the point of joy. They are
supernaturally given the details of OT prophecy as proofs for their witness to
other men that a change of destiny and forgiveness of sins is available
because Jesus Christ suffered and died. But, they are told to wait on the
power of the Holy Spirit before they begin preaching in Jerusalem the new
message they have just learned. The scene closes when the blessed disciples
witness Jesus ascend into heaven and their partial belief turns to a great joy.
In addition, Luke in the companion book to his gospel, records the last
settings and words of Jesus. The final scene moves to the Book of Acts (1:3-
11) where additional insight to the resurrection ministry of Jesus is given
between the time of “doubting Thomas” and the ascension of Christ. This
last scenario gives further insight into the distinctions of the present time of
the indwelling Holy Spirit for power (v.4), the first preaching of the
Kingdom of Law by John the Baptist contrasted to the different baptism of
the Holy Spirit for “power” in this age (v. 5), and the future fulfillment of
the Kingdom of Law with the return of the King (vs. 6-7). Two men (angels)
witness to the disciples at the place where Jesus ascended, confirming His
return in a like manner (v. 11). So, rightfully the last red-letter words of
Jesus and the “Great Commission of Grace” is the expanded preaching of
123
the “where” from Jerusalem to Samaria and then to the “uttermost part of the
earth,” “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon
you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,
and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Luke 1:8).
As before stated the Bible is not a book for one age. The gospel of grace
is not contained in the ending of Mark-Matthew. Under extreme prevailing
circumstances of the tribulation, the future second preaching of the gospel of
the kingdom will use these verses and images. The gospel of grace for this
age - in a future time - will be recognized as completely different than the
Kingdom of Law. Much like, in Acts 15, years after the death of Christ, the
divinely inspired council of Jerusalem recognized the gospel of saving grace
was open to Jew and Gentile alike and concluded the temporary setting aside
of Judaism was the will of God. It may be seen from this study of the closing
messages in the four Gospels, from the witness of God’s Book of Truth, that
human doubt remained with the disciples as a consequence of authority, or
the influence of Law and Commandments (viz., Mark-Matthew).
Closing Comments
The lesson of the OT is that the Israelites consistently failed at Law. As
a concluding summary of the story contained in the gonzo journalism of
grace; in Mark-Matthew, you have an unseen Jesus, who does not reveal the
why and what of His death and resurrection nor the purpose of His message
to others. He speaks to His disciples through a supernatural mediator and
servile women. The men arrive at a mountain and stand silent, at a distance
from Jesus (déjà vu OT imagery). Aside from the confirmation of the new
official names of the Holy Trinity, they are told to teach nebulous,
“whatsoever” commandments to unlawful people from Gentile nations. They
are not told to teach the gospel of the kingdom - that the kingdom was at
hand. As John the Baptist and later, both Jesus and themselves had taught.
The Jews had rejected and killed the herald of the King, John the Baptist,
and the King Himself who had triumphantly entered Jerusalem on a donkey.
This dejected and forlorn group of men, belonging to a now lost cause and in
fear of reprisal, are not told to teach commandments because Jesus is about
to restore the Davidic Kingdom. Their natural, subjective questions and
reactions would have been: For whom should we teach commandments to
Gentiles? For what reason, what purpose are we to go to all nations of
“dogs”? Why teach any commandments by breaking commandments? The
Jesus we knew did not send us to preach the kingdom to “dogs.” They arrive
and leave in doubt and disbelief. The message from Christ is received as a
failure. They leave without any close communion or witness from Jesus and
no clear “Great Commission.”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
124
In John-Luke-Acts, the group of disciples who had received the so-
called “Great Commission,” from the resurrected Jesus on the glorious
mountain, had departed and returned to Jerusalem in doubt - not great zeal
and fervor, Then they are found grouped together in the Gospel of John.
Here in John, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus had “opened the minds” of two
disciples to the what and why of His death. When they stopped for the
evening and began to eat, Jesus revealed Himself to them – His resurrected
self, the who of His message. These same disciples returned to Jerusalem
that very night to witness this event to the other disciples. Jesus then
appeared to this group, sans Thomas, and showed them his wounds. Eight
days later, one Sunday to the next, He appears again and shows Himself to
Thomas. His identity as the Son of God is confirmed – the who of what and
why. At this juncture, Luke picks up with the full gathering of the disciples
in the close presence of watching Jesus eat; but who still do not believe to
the point of joy. In Luke 24:44-52 the disciples are given the full who, what,
why, where, how, and when of the gospel of saving grace. They are to begin
preaching in Jerusalem, but are to wait on the power of the promised Holy
Spirit. Then an expanded scenario is given in the Book of Acts (1:3-11). As
the indisputable last actions and words of Jesus recorded in the Bible, this
section of the NT is the proper “Great Commission” for the generation of
grace. Only after, Jesus blesses the disciples and ascends into heaven do they
enter into the total belief of “great joy.”
In the NT account of Luke, all the elements of the progression of
spiritual salvation typified in the OT are verified; expiation and redemption,
water and the Holy Spirit, joy, and power. Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:
“Numbers 21:17 The spiritual order here is beautiful: (1) atonement (vs. 8,
9; John 3:14, 15); (2) water, symbol of the Spirit bestowed (v. 16; John 7:37-
39); (3) joy (vs. 17, 18; Rom 14:17); (4) power (vs. 21-24)” (Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, P 195)
Historical scholarship will bear out the record that Luke wrote his
Gospel in tandem with the Book of Acts to introduce the Apostle Paul and
“Pauline” i doctrine to those influential people in Rome (familiar only with
Peter) who would have a part in Paul’s upcoming capital trial. The so-called
“Great Commission” in the Gospel of Matthew has no such distinction. This
i “Paul was the divinely chosen agent to develop the Christian system for New
Testament readers since previously it had appeared only in part with the teachings of
Christ. To the Apostle was given the two distinct revelations: (1) that of the way of
salvation and of life under grace … (cf. Gal 1:11-12) and (2) that of the doctrine of the
Church, which is Christ’s Body (Eph 3:1-6). These two bodies of truth include the great
New Testament message which is Christianity, something Paul termed “my gospel”
(Rom 2:16). For a time he stood alone in the defense of the new system of Christianity
(Gal 2:11-14). (Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, p 249)
125
failed “Great Commission” has been put forward as the Alpha directive of
Christianity to deceitfully obscure NT teachings of grace found in the
Epistles. This dumbing-down of Christianity has been very successful in
confirming a non-grace system of legal effort. A legal effort of by-works
salvation that Paul unequivocally and emphatically denounced countless
times in his epistolary Scripture. Legal effort has no part in God’s plan of
salvation that comes from His gifts of grace made possible only by
redemption in the blood of Jesus Christ. Who would demand a sporting
challenge to compete with the value in the death of Christ? Another gospel
allows Christ to determine entrance into the game of salvation, yes.
However, the individual is then required to compete with Him to win their
own salvation. Beyond absurd is beyond description.
The above is a clear distinction between misleading tradition and
defining truth that identifies God’s “Great Commission of Grace.” The
proper and correct starting point for understanding grace. The following is
the Apostle Paul’s restatement and expanded revelation of the motive and
object, the purpose, of “The Great Commission” in Luke 24:44-52:
Christ is the True Vine (new vine, Israel was the old vine). Remain one with Him and the fruits of a new nature will oppose the old sin nature and its sinful desires.
THE GREAT COMMISSION OF GRACE IS TO PREACH RECONCILIATION
2 Cor 5:14-21 For the love of Christ constraineth [unifies, controls] us;
because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth (no longer) live
unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Wherefore henceforth (no longer) know we no man after the flesh: yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth (no longer)
know we him (so) no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature (creation): old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself
by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit,
that God was in Christ, reconciling the world (lost mankind) unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the
word [Gk. logos=divine expression] of reconciliation. Now then we are
ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him. KJV
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
126
AMPLIFIED BIBLE For the love of Christ controls and urges and impels
us, because we are of the opinion and conviction that [if] One died for all,
then all died: And He died for all, so that all those who live might live no
longer to and for themselves, but to and for Him Who died and was raised
again for their sake. Consequently, from now on we estimate and regard no
one from a [purely] human point of view [in terms of natural standards of
value]{cf. Peter’s confession to the Gentile above (Acts 10:28)}. [No] even
though we once did estimate Christ from a human viewpoint and as a man,
yet now [we have such knowledge of Him that] we know Him no longer [in
terms of the flesh].Therefore if any person is [engrafted] he is a new creation
(a new creature altogether): the old [previous moral and spiritual condition]
has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come! But all things are
from God, Who through Jesus Christ reconciled us to Himself [received us
into favor, brought us into harmony with Himself] and gave to us the
ministry of reconciliation [that by word and deed we might aim to bring
others into harmony with Him]. It was God [personally present] in Christ,
reconciling and restoring the world {lost humanity}to favor with Himself,
not counting up and holding against [men] their trespasses [but canceling
them], and committing to us the message of reconciliation (of the restoration
to favor). So we are Christ’s ambassadors. God making His appeal as it were
through us. We [as Christ’s personal representatives] beg you for His sake to
lay hold of the divine favor [now offered you] and be reconciled to God. For
our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in
and through Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and
examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be , approved and
acceptable in right relationship to Him, by His goodness].
The Apostle John gave the “Great Commandment of Grace” that may be
added to Paul’s “Great Commission of Grace” stated above: “And this is his
[God the Father’s] commandment, That we should believe on the name of
his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he [Christ] gave us
commandment” (1 John 3:23). The populist “Great Commission” in the
Gospel of Matthew may be seen for what it is: a great empty and hollow
truth intended for a future time. The verses, in and of themselves, are God’s
perfect truth, beyond doubt; but, to apply this truth to go forth and teach
Kingdom Law commandments instead of the gospel of grace centered in
the prophetical death, resurrection, and return of Jesus - as proven by
determining the proper last words and instructions of Jesus in Luke 24:44-52
and Acts 1:1-9 - is a futile effort conditioned by willful inattention to
Scripture.
The intent and purpose of Jesus cannot contradict itself. Only the
interpretation of Scripture by men can be inconsistent. It makes little
127
difference to biblical truth that many systems begin by denying a future
kingdom. Two different messages and symbolic scenarios are demonstrated
above in Mark-Matthew and Luke-John-Acts. The two different messages
had two different results, one failed and one succeeded. Beyond argument,
this truth is demonstrated in the uncomplicated, inductive study of biblical
text. Therefore, a Protestant system that preaches an iconic “Jesus on the
Mountain” from selected texts in the Synoptic Gospels as the cornerstone of
a legal system - filled with a sentimental view towards grace and a
dishonest, deductive homiletic – may only teach doubt as the conditional
release from the penalty of sin in a parolee salvation. Anyone who uses such
a system is deliberately guilty of defrauding and fleecing the public with
“another gospel” (Gal 1:8) and another Jesus – a Jesus who is inconsistent
with Christianity. There were no Christians produced by the Mosaic Law,
only obedient children of Israel; there will be no Christians produced by a
future Kingdom Law, only obedient children of the future kingdom.
The Fatherhood of God applies uniquely to a Christian. A Christian is a
child of God and may only be produced by grace through faith in a one-time
obedience to the gospel of saving grace when they believe Jesus Christ for
perfect forgiveness and a now-but-not-yet perfect salvation. Any admixture
of law with grace cannot produce the pure faith needed to rest completely on
the finished work of Christ.
As previously mentioned, the precepts of Mosaic Law were restated as
amplified requirements in the teachings of the Kingdom Law. Similarly, the
precepts of the Mosaic Law have been superceded by heavenly high
requirements contained in the restatements of the teachings of grace. Also, in
a like manner, the Mosaic Law was “nailed to the cross” at the death of
Jesus; so too, as it is patently a future requirement, Kingdom Law has no
hold over the believer nor the unsaved in this age. The two systems of Law
may only have a secondary meaning in the teachings of grace, “If truth for
the children of God under grace is to be drawn from the teachings of the law
of Moses, or the kingdom, it should be acknowledged that it is taken from a
system foreign to grace, and that it is suitable only by way of a secondary
application.” i
The passionate disparity between grace and law, present and future,
turns on the force of one, all-encompassing word – doubt – “there is no fear
in love … because fear hath torment” (1 John 4:18). At the wedding in Cana,
Jesus replaced the drudgery of ritual cleansing water with the joy of
exceptional wine. Doubt is replaced by “great joy” when Jesus presents the
new believer with “all things” contained in His heavenly blessings (Luke
24:52). I have merely sketched a “stick-man” and the balance of this effort
i Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 4, p 204
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
128
will expand upon this theme. Within the following sections of this effort, an
exhaustive set of proofs identify the source of the many false beliefs
preached by “another gospel.” The guidance of Scripture and the influence
of the Holy Spirit have immeasurable value in “rightly dividing” the Word
of God.
Detailed Commentary: Grace and the Non-Grace of Law
In his Systematic Theology, Vol 4, Dr. Lewis Chafer comments with
authority and detail regarding the above discussion:
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND THE TEACHINGS OF GRACE
In this discussion, the Law of Moses will be limited to the Decalogue;
for no legalists proposes to carry forward into grace the judgments which
governed the social life of Israel, or the ordinances which governed their
religious ritual in the land. However, the moral commandments of the
Decalogue are almost universally imposed upon the church by these
legalists. In justification of this imposition, the plea is usually made that
apart from the direct application of the Decalogue there could be no divine
authority or government in the earth. In no sense does this question involve
the issues of world government; for God has never addressed either the
teachings of the law or the teachings of grace to the whole world. The world
has borrowed certain moral precepts from the Bible for its self-government;
but it does not follow that God has accepted the world on the basis of the
teachings of the law or the teachings of grace. Until this appeal is heeded,
the individual is neither under law nor under grace, as a rule of life; but is
“under sin.” The issue is, therefore, between law and grace as governing
principles in the life of the Christian. Must Christians turn to the Decalogue
for a basis of divine government in their daily lives? Scripture answers this
question with a positive assertion: “Ye are not under law, but under grace.”
If this be true, are the great moral values in the Decalogue discarded? By no
means; for it will be seen that every moral precept of the Decalogue, but
one, has been restated with increased emphasis in the teachings of grace.
These precepts do not reappear under grace in the character and coloring of
the law, but, rather, in the character and coloring of pure grace. The
following brief comparison will demonstrate the fact that the moral values of
the law are reciprocated in the teachings of grace.
1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” 1. “We … preach unto
you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God” (Acts
14:15).
129
2. :Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, … Thou shalt not
bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” 2. “Little children, keep
yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” 3. “But
above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the
earth, neither by any other oath” (James 5:12).
4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” 4. No such command is
found in the teachings of grace.
5. “Honour thy father and thy mother.” 5. “Children, obey your parents
in the Lord: for this is right [the legal promise of long life is omitted]” (Eph
6:1).
6. “Thou shalt not kill.” 6. “Whosoever hateth his [believing] brother [a Christian] is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life
abiding in him” [cf. Cain and Abel] ( 1 John 3:15).
7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” 7. “Neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers … shall inherit the kingdom of God [this is not a letter of the law verse – it is a principle of grace; this is not to say the “mystery” form of the kingdom of heaven does not include false professors of faith; it is to say a so-called living believer may not habitually sin without guilt and confession and inherit the rule of God over the universe; this is an assurance verse for those who genuinely desire to walk a Christian life because they are forgiven and accepted; not because they are trying to be forgiven and accepted]
8. “Thou shalt not steal” 8. “Steal no more” (Eph 4:28).
9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” 9. “Lie not” (Col 3:9).
10. “Thou shalt not covet.” 10. “Covetousness, let it not be once named
among you [a higher obligation to the Christ given, charisma, the spiritual gifts shared between believers; and the obligation to maintain the God given unity that exists between all believers “in Christ”]” (Eph 5:3).
While some principles of the Mosaic Law are restated under grace,
those aspects of the law which are foreign to grace are omitted. The
command to keep the seventh day is omitted wholly. … So, also, the one
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
130
promise of the Decalogue is omitted. This promise occurs in connection with
the precept concerning the obedience of children. It reads: “Honour thy
father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the
LORD thy God giveth thee.” The fact that the law presented a promise to
obedient children is pointed out in the New Testament (Eph 6:2), with no
inference that the promise is in effect now, but as a reminder of that which
obtained under the law. It would be difficult for any individual, or child, in
the Church to establish a claim to a God-given land, or to demonstrate that
any law now obtains by which long life is guaranteed to those who are now
obedient to parents. Again, concerning Israel and her relation to the land it is
written: “Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land,
and verily thou shalt be fed”; … “For the upright shall dwell in the land” (Ps
37:3; Prov 2:21). No land has been given to the Christian. He is a “stranger
and a pilgrim” here, an “ambassador,” a citizen of heaven. If he is taught in
the Scriptures, he is not looking for a long life here; but he is looking for the
coming of the Lord. He is not clinging to this life; for “to depart, and to be
with Christ … is far better.” The serious manner in which people apply an
Old Testament promise, impossible under grace, to themselves is a
revelation of the measure of inattention with which the Scriptures are too
often read and quoted. Since every adaptable precept of the law is restated in
grace, it is not necessary to violate the Scriptures by forcing the law into the
sphere of grace. The Decalogue, in its moral principles, is not only restated
in grace, but its principles are greatly amplified. This is illustrated, again, by
the same precept concerning obedient children. In the teachings of grace, the
whole issue of obedience is taken up at length, and to this is added the
instructions to parents as well. Under the teachings of grace, the appeal of
the first commandment is repeated no less than fifty times, the second twelve
times, the third four times, the fourth (about the sabbath day) not at all, the
fifth six times, the sixth six times, the seventh twelve times, the eighth six
times, the ninth four times, and the tenth nine times. Yet, further, that which
is even more vital should be noted: The teachings of grace are not only
gracious in character and of the very nature of heaven itself, but they are
extended to cover the entire range of the new issues of the life and service of
the Christian. The Ten Commandments require no life of prayer, no
Christian service, no evangelism, no missionary effort, no gospel preaching,
no life and walk in the Spirit, no Fatherhood of God, no union with Christ,
no fellowship of saints, no hope of salvation, and no hope of heaven. If it is
asserted that we have all these because we have both the law and grace, it is
replied that the law adds nothing to grace but confusion and contradiction,
and that there is the most faithful warning in the Scriptures against this
admixture. A few times the teachings of the law are referred to by the writers
of the Epistles by way of illustration. Having stated the obligation under
131
grace, they cite the fact that this same principle obtained under law. There is,
however, no basis here for a commingling of these two governing systems.
The law of Moses presents a covenant of works to be wrought in the energy
of the flesh; the teachings the teachings of grace present a covenant of faith
to be wrought in the energy of the Spirit. –P 208-11
MAJOR THEMES OF NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY
THE OLD TESTAMENT having closed without realization of the presence
of the Messiah or of Israel’s kingdom, the New Testament opens with the
appearance of the King and the offer to Israel of her long predicted kingdom
(cf. Matt 1:1; 2:1-2; 4:17; Rom 15:8). The same records go on to declare the
rejection of the King and His Kingdom (Matt 23:37-38), and indicate that all
these divine purposes will be fulfilled without failure when the King returns.
Certain new prophecies are introduced in the New Testament in addition to
the continuing unto consummation of Old Testament themes. The major
New Testament themes are: (1) the new age, (2) the new divine purpose, (3)
the nation of Israel, (4) the Gentiles, (5) the great tribulation, (6) Satan and
the forces of evil, (7) the second coming of Christ, (8) the Messianic
kingdom, and (9) the eternal state.
I. THE NEW AGE
As before stated, the present dispensation, which has extended already
nearly two thousand years and which lies between the two advents of Christ,
was never anticipated in any Old Testament prophecy. Also, in virtue of
being mentioned as a “mystery” (Matt 13:11), it is declared to be one of the
sacred secrets hidden in the counsels of God until the appointed time of its
revelation; for a “mystery” in the New Testament use of the word is
something hitherto unrevealed (note Rom 11:25; 2 Thess 2:7; Col 1:27; Eph
3:1-6; 5:25-32; 1 Cor 15:51). The phrase “the kingdom of heaven” refers to
any rule that God may exercise at any time in the earth. Being limited to the
earth, it is to be distinguished from the “kingdom of God,” which kingdom
embraces not only that which is good within the sphere of the kingdom of
heaven, but all in heaven and the whole universe that is subject to God.
While the long-predicted millennial reign of Christ in the earth is the final
form of the kingdom of heaven and that which was foreseen by all the
prophets and announced by Christ in His earthly ministry, the present
dispensation, being the form of divine rule in the earth in which God is
ruling to the extent that He is realizing the accomplishment of those things
which are termed “mysteries,” is rightly called the “mysteries of heaven”
(Matt 13:11), or the kingdom in mystery form. The first twelve chapters of
the Gospel by Matthew present Christ as Israel’s Messiah and record the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
132
first indication of His rejection by that nation. Following these indications of
His rejection, He, as recorded in chapter 13, announces by seven parables
the features of the new age and indicates its character at its beginning,
during its course, and in its end. At the opening of chapter 13, the sphere of
the divine purpose is changed from its focus on the nation Israel to include
the whole world, and Israel is seen only as a “treasure” hid in a field (13:44).
The seed of the gospel is sown in the world and the harvest is an outcalling
of those who believe. These will be received and preserved as the children of
God, while those who do not believe are to be rejected and judged. This new
age at its beginning was said to be evil (Gal 1:4), and its course is
characterized by the parallel development of both the evil and the good
(Matt 13:24-30, 36-43). Its “last days” and its evil character are set forth in
one of the most extensive bodies of New Testament Scripture ( 2 Thess 2:1-
12; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-5; James 5:1-10; 2 Pet 2:1-3:8; Jude 1:1-23; Rev
3:14-22). In no sense of the word does the Bible predict a converted earth in
this dispensation (Matt 13:1-50; 24:38-39; 2 Tim 3:13), but it does anticipate
the perfect realization of the purpose of God.
II. THE NEW DIVINE PURPOSE The New Testament introduces the Church as a new classification of
humanity in addition to the Jews and the Gentiles who have been seen
throughout the Old Testament (1 Cor 10:32). By the word Church (note its
first use – Matt 16:18) reference is made to those of all kindreds and tribes
who in this age are born-again, and thus, by receiving the new resurrection
life of Christ and by being baptized with the Spirit, are in Christ, forming
with Him the New Creation. Into this company both Jews and Gentiles are
gathered (Eph 3:1-6) through the preaching of the gospel of divine grace.
This redeemed company is now related to Christ as His sheep (John 10:6-
16), the branches in the Vine (John 15:1-6), the stones in a building (Eph
2:19-22), as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet 2:5; Heb 8:1), the New Creation (2
Cor 5:17), the Body (Eph 1:22-23; 3:6), and they will be related to Him as
His Bride in heaven (Rev 19: 7-8; 21:9). When the divine purpose in the
outcalling of the Church has been completed, Christ will come to receive His
own (John 14:1-3; 1 Thess 4:13-17). Those who have died will be raised (1
Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 4:13-17), and all, whether by resurrection or translation,
shall receive a new body like His glorious body (Phil 3:21).
New Testament prophecy carries the Church through all the pilgrim
experiences on earth (Rev 2:1-3:22), sees her received into heaven at the
coming of the Lord, and sees her returning with Him to reign with Him on
the earth (Rev 19:14; 20:6). …
VII. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
133
This the greatest theme of all prophecy was the subject of the first
prediction by man (Jude 1:14-15), and is the last message of the Bible (Rev
22:20). It is the dominant feature of all Old Testament prophecy concerning
the Day of Jehovah and, likewise, is the major theme of New Testament
prophecy. Beginning in connection with the first evidence of Israel’s
rejection of His Messianic claims, this great event was continually upon the
lips of Christ (Matt 23:37-25:46; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21: 5-38). Again, it is
emphasized by the Apostle Paul (Rom 11:26; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:1-4; 2 Thess
1:7-2:12), by James (5:1-8), by Peter (2 Pet 2:1-3:18), by Jude (1:14-15),
and by John in the Revelation.
VIII. THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM Continuing this major theme of Old Testament prophecy, the New
Testament again adds many details. The kingdom teachings of Christ,
addressed to Israel as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, portray the character
and glory of that coming age, while the Apostle John reveals its duration to
be a period of one thousand years (Rev 20:4, 6). … –P 386-87, 389
The Three Systems of Forgiveness Found in the Four Gospels
Whatever grace proposes to teach, its teachings are addressed only to
those who are saved by grace. … These teachings, being addressed to
Christians only, are never intended to be imposed on the Christ-rejecting
individual, or the Christ-rejecting world. This fact cannot be emphasized too
forcibly. The Word of God makes no appeal to the unsaved for a betterment
of life. There is but one issue in this dispensation between God and the
unregenerate man, and that is neither character nor conduct; it is the personal
appeal of the gospel of the grace of God. Until the unsaved receive Christ,
who is God’s gift in grace, no other issue can be raised. Men may moralize
among themselves, and establish their self-governments on principles of
right conduct; but God is never presented in the unfoldings of grace as
seeking to reform sinners. Every word regarding the quality of life is
reserved for those who are already rightly related to Him on the greater issue
of salvation. –P 182-83
Attention should not be diverted from the fundamental truth, … that
there are three ages - that of law, that of grace, and that of the kingdom
{LAW} – which are separated from each other by world transforming events
… These economies are complete in themselves, needing no addition
whatsoever, and each is as holy and pure in itself as the Creator who is the
Author and Designer of them. …
The very nature of grace precepts precludes them from being reduced to
a decalogue. They are free in character in the sense that they are not required
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
134
for acceptance with God. They are, rather, directions and divine beseechings
addressed to accepted persons regarding their walk before God. Twice these
appeals are termed beseechings (Rom 12:1; Eph 4:1); not the command to a
mere servant, but the polite and considerate request to a member of the
household and family. They consist in information and persuasion extended
to those who could not otherwise learn regarding that which, from a
heavenly viewpoint, is rightfully expected of them. In all this, there is a
fundamental dissimilarity between these teachings and both the Mosaic
system which imposed a curse on those who failed (Deut 28:15-68) and the
kingdom {LAW} injunctions which hold over its subjects the dangers of hell
fire (Matt 5:22, 29-30). No excuse is available for the failure to observe the
difference between either a system which proposes a curse or a system
which proposes hell fire and a system which declares that “there is therefore
now no condemnation “ (Rom 8:1) … The grace teachings are not, for
convenience, isolated in the Sacred Text. The three economies appear in the
four Gospels. … Large portions of the New Testament are wholly revelatory
of the doctrine of grace. -P 183-85
Due recognition of the essential character of each of the three crucial
ages is key to the understanding of the exact manner of the divine rule in
each age. The rule of God in each case is adapted to the conditions which
obtain. Since the respective characteristics of the ages are widely different,
the manner of the divine rule in each is common, and is, doubtless, the
greatest error into which many a devout Bible interpreters fall. It is perhaps
easier to confuse the present age with that which immediately precedes it, or
with that which immediately follows it, than to confuse it with conditions
which are remote, although there need be no confusion of these immediately
succeeding but sharply separated periods of time, for they are divided by
age-transforming events. The age of the Law of Moses is separated from the
present age of grace by the death of Christ, when He bore the curse of the
law and finished the work by which man may stand justified before God
forever, and justified as he could not of been justified by the law of Moses;
likewise by the resurrection of Christ; the advent of the Spirit; and the
dispersion of Israel. The age of grace is separated from the kingdom {LAW}
by the coming of Christ to the earth – the time when He comes to remove
the Church, to reign, to bind Satan, to regather Israel, to terminate human
governments, to lift the curse from creation, and to cause righteousness and
peace to cover the earth as the waters cover the face of the deep. The divine
government could not remain the same after the world-transforming,
spiritual victories of the cross, as it had been under the Law of Moses.
Likewise, the divine government cannot remain the same in the earth after
the world-transforming temporal victories of the second coming, as it had
been under the reign of grace. All this is reasonable; but, what is far more
135
impelling and compelling, this is what is precisely revealed by God in His
Word. There are, then, three separate and distinct systems of divine
government disclosed in the Scriptures, corresponding to three separate and
distinct ages to be governed.
Kingdom {LAW} teachings will be found in those Psalms and
prophecies of the Old Testament which anticipate the reign of Messiah in the
earth, and in the kingdom {LAW} portions of the Gospels. These teachings
as found in the Old Testament and the New are purely legal in essence, both
by their inherent character and by the explicit declaration of the Word of
God. The legal requirements of the kingdom {LAW} teachings are greatly
advanced, both in severity and detail, beyond the requirements of the Law of
Moses.” -P 168-69
“The kingdom {LAW} of God is come nigh unto you” (Luke 10:9). As
certainly as the King was before the nation, so certainly the kingdom
{LAW} was before them, and this was the appeal of the gospel of the
kingdom {LAW} which was given to “the children of the kingdom {LAW}”
only. When the King was rejected, His kingdom {LAW} was rejected.
When His kingdom {LAW} was rejected and its realization delayed until the
return of the King, the application of all Scripture which conditions life in
the kingdom {LAW} was delayed as well, and will be delayed so long as the
King tarries. This necessary delay is easily accepted with reference to the
earthly, national glory, which is the theme of the kingdom {LAW} teachings
of the Old Testament; but it is equally true that there is a necessary delay in
application of he last detail of human obligation related to the earthly
kingdom {LAW} as set forth in the New Testament. ({LAW}, this writer). -
P 178-79
Every teaching of the [future] kingdom {of LAW} which contemplates
the responsibility of the individual is, in like manner based on a covenant of
human works, and is, therefore purely legal in character. This may be
observed in all the kingdom teachings of the Old Testament and the
kingdom teachings of the New testament. Grace is extended to the nation when, apart from all merit, she is placed in her land, and restored to divine
blessing; but the rule of the King will be on a basis of pure law, and the
responsibility of the individual to that rule necessarily will be in conformity
to the same. –P 226-27
The grace order between the divine blessing and the human obligation is
preserved in every offer of salvation to the sinner and in every purpose
looking toward the preservation of the saint. Since this is the basis of the
divine purpose in the ages and the only hope of the sinner, or the saint, it
should not be questioned upon a superficial consideration of the Scriptures.
There is the widest possible difference between two replies of Christ to
practically the same question: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
136
Answer: “This do, and thou shalt live.” Again: “What shall we do, that we
might work the works of God?” Answer: “This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.” One answer is related to the law of the
kingdom; the other is related to grace, wherein Christ is seen as the “living
bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall
live forever.”
It is to be concluded, therefore, that the sinner is saved by grace apart
from every human demand other than that he receive that grace as it is for
him in Christ, and that the saint is kept by grace unto good works but not by good works. The righteous Father must insist on the good works in the life
of His child; but He does not make these works the condition of His
faithfulness. This is the vital distinction, then, between the order relating
divine blessing with human obligation in the two systems – law and grace.
One is a covenant of pure works; the other is a covenant of pure grace.
Consideration should be given to the fact that rewards, which are bestowed
in addition to the blessing of he saving grace of God, are offered to the saved
one on the principle of merit; and, on the other hand, grace was offered to
the people under law [Mosaic], in addition to the demands of the law, in the
provisions of the sacrifices. In no case do these added blessings condition
the exact character of the covenant of grace, on the one hand, or the
covenant of works, on the other hand. –P 228-29
The by-works principle of the law, and the by-faith principle of grace
cannot cooperate, or coexist, either in the salvation of a sinner, or in the rule
of life for the believer. The by-works principle of the law is not limited to
the fleshly effort to do the particular things found in the Law of Moses, or in
the law of the kingdom. It is the fleshly effort to do anything by which one
seeks to become acceptable to God. Therefore, when the teachings of grace
are attempted with a view to being accepted of God, they become purely
legal in their character. In like manner, when the elements which are
contained in the law and restated under grace are attempted in the power of
the Spirit and on the basis that acceptance with God is already gained
through Christ, these precepts become purely gracious in their character.
This principle may be extended to the larger sphere of any and all self-
imposed law, regardless of Bible injunctions. In which case it will be seen
that the doing of any good works with a view of being accepted of God, is
purely legal in character; contrariwise, the doing of any good works because
one believes himself accepted through Christ, is purely gracious in character.
The legalist may thus enter the field of the teachings of grace and suppose
himself to be subject to the whole Bible, when, in reality, he has no
conception of the blessings and relationships in grace. A person either
chooses to accept Christ in the confidence that Christ is all he will ever need
to make himself acceptable to God, or he chooses to depend on the best that
137
he can do for himself by good works. The latter is the normal bent of the
natural mind. The proposition of becoming acceptable to God by being
good, appeals to the fallen heart as the only reasonable thing to do and, apart
from that which it has pleased God to reveal concerning grace, it is the only
reasonable thing to do. It therefore becomes a question of believing the
record God has given concerning His Son (1 John 5:10).
Since there is so much delusion in a counterfeit, the person most
difficult to reach with the gospel of divine grace is the person who is trying to do all that a Christian ought to do, but is doing it as a means of becoming
accepted before God. His willing acknowledgement of the value of the
Christian life, his unquestioned reception into the fellowship of believers,
and his real sincerity in all Christian activities constitute his greatest
hindrance. Such a one is more deluded than the person who acknowledges
no relationship to God. Both fall short and are lost through their failure to
believe on Christ as the all-sufficient Savior; but, naturally, the person who
has no false hope is more apt to become conscious of the fact that he is lost
than is the person who believes he is a Christian. The law cannot save, and
the one who transforms the teachings of grace into a legal system by
attempting to do them in order that he may be right with God, and has not
believed on Christ, is still unsaved. Turning to meritorious works as a basis
for salvation, be those works a precise counterfeit of a true Christian life, is
to be under a by-works relation to God, and therefore to be under
condemnation; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His
sight. –P 231-32
Amazing, indeed, is the blindness of heart that is not instructed by the
tragic experience of failure on the part of the countless millions who have
been lost under the by-works covenant! Yet men are still turning to their
own works, both moral and religious, in the vain hope that through them
they may be accepted of God. To such He must ever be as unapproachable
as the mountain of awful fire, thunder, lightning, and earthquake; but to the
one who turns to the sufficiency which is in Christ, God becomes the Father
of all mercies, and His power and grace are exercised in the behalf of that
one for all time and eternity. The awful throne of God’s holy judgment
becomes a throne of infinite grace. –P 232-33 20
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
138
139
The Ancient Gentile Truth of Law and Grace
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
140
141
The Ancient False Gospel of Material Rewards for a Self-
Righteousness that Deserves God’s Salvation
Acts 28:4, 6 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on
his [the Apostle Paul’s] hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this
man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance
(justice) suffereth not to live. … Howbeit they looked when he should
have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a
great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds,
and said that he was a god.
Job was a Gentile (any non-Jew) descended from Noah. He lived during
a time comparable to the first Jew, Abraham. A time when the revelation of
God was personal and unrecorded. God was then known as El Shaddai, God
Almighty, the One who directs and provides for man. He later revealed
Himself as Jehovah, the Self-Existent One, to Moses at the scene of the
“burning bush.”
Accordingly, this incident in the life of Job occurred before a divine
system of rewards and punishments for behavior had been established. The
Mosaic Law was not given until later, to Israel. And this, so that the chosen
nation of Israel might be a witness of Jehovah to the Gentile nations and
people of the world.
A small and exacting God who punishes sinners and the God who
created man for His glory - a God who refines His servants with disaster –
may not be distinguished in the appearance of suffering. The distinction is
revealed in the heart of the one who suffers. A friend of Job, Eliphaz, spoke
the following man-centric, false message about God’s recognition and
rewards for those who seek His hand. This so-called friend, Eliphaz, was a
religious externalist and moralizer who considered himself specially
qualified to speak for God because he had experienced a religious “vision”
early in his life.
Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? Yet he filled their houses with good things: but the counsel of the wicked is far from me. The righteous see it, and are glad: and the innocent laugh them to scorn. Whereas our substance is not cut down, but the remnant of them the fire consumeth.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
142
Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee. Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart. If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thy shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles. Then shall thou lay up gold as dust, and the gold of Ophir as the stones of the brooks. Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defense, and thou shalt have plenty of silver. For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty, and shalt lift up thy face unto God. Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee, and thou shalt pay thy vows. Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways. When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person. He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. (Job 22:15-30) The Ancient Gospel of God’s Grace That Includes Suffering
The fourth and youngest friend of Job, Elihu, unlike his older three
friends who were religious dogmatists, did not accuse Job of being a sinner
and a hypocrite who was responsible for his own misfortunes. He spoke this
message of God’s graceful care for those who trust in Him.
For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. … The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. … Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. Why dost thy strive against him? For he giveth not account of any of his matters. For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
143
He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life aborreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his [God’s] uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit I have found a ransom (atonement)[redeemer]. His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his [God’s] face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not. He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man. To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. (Job 32:18-19; 33:4, 12-30)
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
144
145
Righteousness, Grace, and Faith
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
146
147
The ABC’s of Righteousness, Grace, and Faith
The righteousness of God is revealed in His law given to men. From a
sense of obligation, the best that man can do for God is to try and keep from
breaking God’s laws. The idea of personal satisfaction for sin is contained in
the law. Where there is law, there is the knowledge of sin and the wrath of
God is upon those who sin because God’s holy nature requires Him to pass
judgment on sin. His mercy cannot express itself through law in order that
His righteousness remain. This is a well accepted statement. But, was it
unlike God, was it outside His nature and character (He who kills, heals, and
curses) to possess the knowledge of good and evil? Was the original
command “do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
… when you eat … you will die” a righteous command or a test? Can
unrighteousness demonstrate the righteousness of God? Adam possessed no
knowledge of death. A test is designed to measure something. Might there
be a greater and higher moral righteousness of God apart from the law?
The righteousness of God apart from the law - when expressed through
love - is grace. God’s grace may only be obtained through a faith that
recognizes no personal obligation is worthy of that which has already
completely satisfied God. The satisfaction of penalty for all the sins of the
world has released God to freely express His love through gifts of grace. A
grace that fully satisfies the infinite mercy and love of God for lost men and
women. A stunning statement. How is this possible? It is demonstrated every
time someone is saved by grace through faith. The righteousness of God
apart from the law was designed to be demonstrated by saving faith. The
idea of a perfect, vicarious satisfaction for sin is contained in the
substitutionary suffering and death of Christ that was ordained “before the
foundations of the world.” This perfect righteousness of God is properly
expressed in the gospel of the grace of God. There is only one positive
command - or test - incumbent upon the unsaved, “Obey the gospel.”
Similar to Adam who had no knowledge of death, the unsaved have no
knowledge of eternal life. They must accept God at His Word. Dr. Lewis
Chafer comments:
To the unsaved, God makes no appeal to their manner of life; no
improvement or reformation is required of them. … He requires of the
unsaved that they hear and heed the gospel only. Over against this, every
divine injunction concerning a God-honoring faithfulness is addressed to the
Christian from the moment he is saved. … Next to the delinquency of
misstating the gospel with its immeasurable penalty (Gal 1:8-9), is the so
prevalent practice on the part of preachers of presenting Christian-life truth
to the unsaved without warning them that such truth is not addressed to
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
148
them. By this performance, every suggestion which might arise in the mind
of the unsaved that a vital difference might exist between themselves and
Christians is obliterated, and the unsaved are encouraged to believe that a
Christian is one who merely acts in a certain way and such actions are all
that God requires of any person. … To the end that infinite love may be
gratified, He accomplishes infinite transformations. Compared to this, the
thought that men are rescued from their plight, though a thought that
transcends all human understanding and naturally appeals tot eh mind of
man, is secondary to the extent that man is secondary to God. The truth that
the salvation of men affords an opportunity for God to gratify His infinite
love for His creatures, is a theme which is too often neglected. It will always
be remembered that because of His divine character of holiness, God can do
nothing for sinners until satisfaction for their sin has been secured – this is
accomplished in the finished work of Christ. …
Ephesians 2:7 declares: “That in the ages to come he might shew the
exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ
Jesus.” There was that in God which no created being had ever seen. They
had seen His glory, His majesty, His wisdom, and His power; but no angel
or man had ever seen His grace. Other attributes might be subject to a
variety of demonstrations; but the manifestation of grace is restricted to what
God may do for those among men who, in spite of the fact that they deserve
His judgments, are objects of His grace. As every other attribute or capacity
of God must have its perfect exercise and exhibition – even for His own
satisfaction - in like manner His grace must also have its infinitely perfect
revealing within the restricted undertaking by which He saves the lost. To
say that a sinner is saved by grace is to declare that, on the ground of a
Substitute’s death and in response to faith in that Savior, God has wrought a
work so perfect in its entirety and so free from the cooperation from other
beings that it is a complete and all-satisfying-to-God demonstration of His
grace. A statement of this kind may be made as easily as words may form a
sentence; but who on earth or in heaven is able to comprehend the infinity of
such a salvation? This demonstration, it should be added, will, by the very
nature of the case, have its outshining in the life of each individual thus
saved. It may be assumed that, had but one of all the human family been
selected for the supreme honor of exhibiting eternally before all created
beings the infinity of sovereign grace, the salvation of that one would be no
different than the salvation of any one of the unnumbered throng from every
kindred, tribe, and people who are saved by grace.” 21
In the following statements: A is the promise of eternal life, B contains
the two primary and foremost commands of before and after eternal life is
received, and C is the is the experiential verification of eternal life. The
righteousness of God apart from the law is explained to in the quotation
149
from Romans that follows. (all Bible verses are from the NET, 2nd
Beta
Edition, 2003)
A - John 5:24 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my
message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not
be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.
B – John 12:44 But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in
me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, 12:45 and the
one who sees me sees the one who sent me. 12:46 I have come as a light
into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain
in darkness. 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I
do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save
the world. 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words
has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 12:49
For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself
who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should
speak. 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the
things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”
13:34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just
as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 13:35 Everyone
will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one
another.”
15:9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain
in my love. 15:10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in
my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain
in his love. 15:11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in
you, and your joy may be complete. 15:12 My commandment is this—to
love one another just as I have loved you. 15:13 No one has greater love
than this—that one lays down his life for his friends. 15:14 You are my
friends if you do what I command you. 15:15 I no longer call you
slaves, because the slave does not understand what his master is doing.
But I have called you friends, because I have revealed to you everything
I heard from my Father. 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you
and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that
whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 15:17 This I
command you—to love one another.
C - 1 John 3:11 For this is the gospel message that you have heard
from the beginning: that we should love one another, 3:12 not like Cain
who was of the evil one and brutally murdered his brother. And why did
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
150
he murder him? Because his deeds were evil, but his brother’s were
righteous.
3:13 Therefore do not be surprised, brothers and sisters, if the world
hates you. 3:14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life
because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love
remains in death. 3:15 Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a
murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in
him. 3:16 We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his
life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians.
3:17 But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow
Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the
love of God reside in such a person?
3:18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in
deed and truth. 3:19 And by this we will know that we are of the truth
and will convince our conscience in his presence, 3:20 that if our
conscience condemns us, that God is greater than our conscience and
knows all things. 3:21 Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn
us, we have confidence in the presence of God, 3:22 and whatever we
ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do
the things that are pleasing to him. 3:23 Now this is his commandment:
that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one
another, just as he gave us the commandment. 3:24 And the person who
keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this
we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.
Romans
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for
salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the
Greek. 1:17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from
[by] faith to [for] faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will
live.”
3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the
value of circumcision? 3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of
all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3:3 What then? If
some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?
3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being
shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in
your words and will prevail when you are judged.”
3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of
God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous,
151
is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For
otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth
of God enhances12 his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a
sinner? 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of
it”?—as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is
deserved!)
The Condemnation of the World
3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have
already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 3:10 just as
it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one, 3:11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 3:12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless;
there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”
3:13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”
3:14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 3:16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who
are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole
world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes
the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness
of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been
disclosed— 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no
distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as
the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his
righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins
previously committed. 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
152
righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the
justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.
3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of
works? No, but by the principle of faith! 3:28 For we consider that a
person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.
3:29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the
Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! 3:30 Since God is one, he will
justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
3:31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead
we uphold the law.
The Illustration of Justification
4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to
the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? 4:2 For if Abraham was
declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast
about—but not before God. 4:3 For what does the scripture say?
“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4:4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but
due to obligation. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in
the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as
righteousness.
4:6 So even David himself speaks regarding the blessedness of the
man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered; 4:8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count
sin.”
4:9 Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the
uncircumcision? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as
righteousness.” 4:10 How then was it credited to him? Was he
circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but
uncircumcised! 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal
of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still
uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who
believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have
righteousness credited to them. 4:12 And he is also the father of the
circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the
footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was
still uncircumcised.
153
4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he
would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through
the righteousness that comes by faith. 4:14 For if they become heirs by
the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. 4:15 For the law
brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression
either. 4:16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with
the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants—not
only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith
of Abraham, who is the father of us all 4:17 (as it is written, “I have
made you the father of many nations”). He is our father in the presence
of God whom he believed—the God who makes the dead alive and
summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. 4:18
Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became
the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, “so will
your descendants be.” 4:19 Without being weak in faith, he considered
his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and
the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 4:20 He did not waver in unbelief about
the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able
to do. 4:22 So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
4:23 But the statement it was credited to him was not written only
for Abraham’s sake, 4:24 but also for our sake, to whom it will be
credited, those who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from
the dead. 4:25 He was given over because of our transgressions and was
raised for the sake of our justification.
Israel’s Rejection Culpable
9:30 What shall we say then?—that the Gentiles who did not pursue
righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith, 9:31 but
Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it. 9:32
Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible)
by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone [Jesus Christ], 9:33
just as it is written,
“Look, I am laying in Zion a stone that will cause people to
stumble
and a rock that will make them fall,
yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
154
10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on
behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation. 10:2 For I can testify
that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth.
10:3 For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking
instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s
righteousness. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that
there is righteousness for everyone who believes.
10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law:
“The one who does these things will live by them.” 10:6 But the
righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 10:7 or “Who will
descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 10:8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your
heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 10:9 because 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. 10:10 For with the
heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one
confesses and thus has salvation. 10:11 For the scripture says, “Everyone
who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 10:12 For there is no
distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of
all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 10:13 For everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.
10:14 How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And
how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they
to hear without someone preaching to them? 10:15 And how are they to
preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How timely is the arrival
of those who proclaim the good news.” 10:16 But not all have obeyed
the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
10:17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard
comes through the preached word of Christ.
10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Yes, they have: Their voice
has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.
10:19 But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will
make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless
nation I will provoke you to anger.” 10:20 And Isaiah is even bold
enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became
well known to those who did not ask for me.” 10:21 But about Israel he
says, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and
stubborn people!”
155
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
156
[ Pause ]
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom 9:16)
157
The Righteousness of Sweeney Todd
For the last time the shiny blade does its job. Tightly in my wet palm,
I grip the ragged yellow page. I know it by heart. Yet, no better than I do
my unfaithful wife: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear; honor
to whom honor. Owe no man any
thing, but to love one another:
for he that loveth another hath
fulfilled the law. For this, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not
steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness, Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other com-
mandment, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thy self. Love
worketh no ill to his neighbor
therefore: love is the fulfilling of
the law.”
My head is shaved. Time to
pay. … No stay of death will
stop what’s coming my way. …
My thoughts are razor sharp. They slash and bleed my doubting heart. …
Am I saved? Am I saved? ... If I can lose my salvation that means there
are unforgiven sins of mine that Christ did not die for and I am lost. If
my sin after saving faith can defeat my salvation, how was my sin
forgiven in the first place? Is it not the blood of Christ that washes away
all my sin? If I can be saved again, then I am back to where I started and
I am lost. If salvation is a reward then Christ died for nothing and I am
lost! Oh, wretched man that I am! Condemned to die! Who will save me
from the miserable followers of a God they command: “Save thyself!
Save thyself! Come down from the cross”?
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
158
I am overcome and fallen from a grace I can never deserve. I am
held hostage to doubt, blackmailed by religion, and left to make sense of
it all! … Lies! Damnable lies! They are wrong. … Faith has made reason
my friend. … Oh, glorious day! I am forgiven! You died my death and
shed your blood for me. Save me! Give me your resurrection life, sweet
faithful Jesus. Love me! Fulfill the law for me, before I leave this wicked
world to be with you – today in Paradise!
159
The Denial of Grace
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
160
161
The Judgment of Works
\Ç tÄÄ à{x U|uÄx ÉÇÄç ]xáâá {xtÄxw à{x uÄ|ÇwA g{x ÂxçxáÊ áçÅuÉÄ|éx ~ÇÉãÄxwzxA
Adam and Eve were created in Innocence, but it was corrupted by the
degeneration of the Fall. Imperfect knowledge and sin has been the estate of
every generation since. Wicked mankind is helpless to choose anything
except the “imperfect knowledge” of a fallen cosmos diabolicus that is not in
harmony with the nature and character of God. Which is the very definition
of sin. Free will is perfected by perfect knowledge and by this only - the
revelation that comes through faith that Jesus Christ died for our sin and is
the Living Resurrected Substitute for an imperfect life, not a dead man on a
cross that needs our righteousness to resurrect Him. A believer keeps his
original sin nature the same as an unbeliever. Nothing a believer does in life
adds or subtracts from an eternal salvation secured by the sustaining work of
Jesus Christ in Heaven as our High Priest. Unbelievers and believers suffer
consequences for sin in this life, certainly, but unbelievers do not have such
benefits as the peace of mind provided by faith in a trustworthy Father and
the guarantee of eternal peace with the Son of God.
The unbeliever is rebelling against
a King he can never defeat. To scoff at
the truth of Jesus Christ and the offer
of Himself as the Substitute for your
just pun-ishment is cold comfort in
this life only. The same cold comfort
is afforded to a religious philosophy
that points to Heaven as a reward.
Condemning God for unsaved
aborigines, when you yourself deny
Christ, is akin to starving yourself to
death because of famine somewhere
across the world. Bear in mind that all
but eight people were destroyed by the
flood. Bear in mind that all Gentiles,
save a very few, until Christ, were
without a hope of salvation. God revealed Himself to Abraham and the
Apostle Paul. God reveals Himself in Scripture, Old and New Testament.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
162
Anything short of complete trust in Christ as Savior, no matter how
religious, is unbelief that will lead to the truth of the Biblical second death
revealed in full by the Ascended Jesus to John the Apostle as the judgment
of works at the Great White Throne. Jesus is the Savoir of wicked humanity
and brother to the redeemed in Christ. Jesus will sit in Judgment over
wicked humanity as the redeemed in Christ watch.
Luke16:16 “The law and the prophets were in force until John [the Baptist]; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and
everyone is urged to enter it. NET
John 6:63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help!
The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. NET
Gal 4:3 So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basic
forces6 of the world. 4:4 But when the appropriate time had come, God sent
out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 4:5 to redeem those who
were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. 4:6
And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
who calls “Abba! Father!” 4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if
you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.
NET
163
6tn Or “basic principles,” “elemental things,” or “elemental spirits.” Some
interpreters take this as a reference to supernatural powers who controlled
nature and/or human fate.
Clarence Larkin, in the closing page of his classic book The Spirit World, writes the following:
The Wicked or Ungodly will not be judged to see whether they are entitled
to Eternal Life, but to ascertain the “degree” of their punishment. The sad
feature of this Judgment will be that there will be many kind and lovable
people there who are not saved, and who will be classed among the
“ungodly” because they rejected Christ as a Savior. The “Books” will be
opened in which the “Recording Angel” has kept a record of every person’s
life, and they will be judged every man according to his “works.” Some will
be sentenced to a more severe punishment than others, but none will escape.
The worst of all this is, that those who were not so bad must spend eternity
with the ungodly, and that in the “Lake of Fire.”
2 Cor 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing, 4:4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of
those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious
gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. 4:5 For we do not proclaim
ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
164
sake. 4:6 For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” is the one who
shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in
the face of Christ.
Concerning the veil that is cast by Satan over the minds of men, F.C.
Jennings writes:
He so weaves the course of this age: its religious forms, ceremonies, external
decencies, respectabilities, and conventionalities as to form a thick veil, that
entirely hides “the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus,” which consists
in righteous mercy to penitent sinners only. This veil is not formed by evil
living depravity, or any form of what passes for evil amongst men; but by
165
cold formality, heartless decency, proud self-complacency, highly esteemed
external respectability, and we must add church membership - all without
Christ. It is the most fatal of all delusions, the thickest of all veils, and the
most common. It is this way because it is religious, respectable, decent
“seems right to a man but the end thereof is death”; for there is no Christ, no
lamb of God, no Blood of Atonement in it. (Satan, pp 29-30) (quoted in
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Vol 2 p.98)
The fatal delusion “that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death”
will conclude in a very real, non-metaphorical hell.
“As heaven is a place, so also, is hell a place. Words such as Hades (Mtw
11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev 1:18; 20:13-14) - a place of “torment”
(Luke 16:28). Figurative language is used by Christ Himself - “everlasting
fire” (Mtw 25:41); “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched” (Mark 9:44); “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone”
(Rev 21:8); bottomless pit (Rev 9:2); “outer darkness,” a place of “weeping
and gnashing of teeth” (Mtw 8:12); “fire unquenchable” (Luke 3:17); and
“the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have
no rest day or night” (Rev 14:11).” 22
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
166
167
The Final Judgment
The Great White Throne
The heavens and the earth , which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men … [when] the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.23 Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. 24
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
168
169
The Great White Throne and the Judgment of Works
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
At the end of the thousand years [the millennium] this the last and all
inclusive resurrection will take place. The number of those to be resurrected
is incomprehensible. It is estimated that for every living person now on the
earth at least one hundred have died and been buried. So far from being “the
land of the living,” strictly speaking, earth is now the greatest cemetery that
that could ever be conceived. It is out of this state of bodily death that the
dead will rise to judgment. Their resurrection serves to bring all of
remaining humanity before God in judgment and to prepare them for their
conscious destiny in the lake of fire. The books are opened and men are
judged according to their works. It will be remembered that in all ages – men
have been under the inherent law or obligation to satisfy the design and
purpose of their Creator. The believer has been perfected before God forever
and therefore answers in his Christ-wrought perfection every demand of God
upon him. In the present age, however, men are condemned not only for
their unholy estate, but on the ground of their failure to respond to divine
grace as it is offered them in Christ. At the present time evil works are
wholly climaxed through an attitude of unbelief toward the Redeemer. The
Lamb’s book of life is opened – evidently to demonstrate that no mistake has
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
170
been made; for there will be none present whose names are written in that
book. God’s irrevocable answer to human sin is the lake of fire, which is the
second death. He may save men from it only as a Substitute answers the
holy demands made of them and they receive that Provision for them. Too
often men are blinded by the awfulness of this divine judgment against sin
and contend that, since God is love, He will not finally execute all that is
here predicted; but be it said again that, if God could save even one lost soul
on the ground of His compassion apart from the righteous judgments
wrought out by Christ in His death, He could save all lost souls by mere
compassion, in which case the death of Christ becomes not only needless,
but the greatest blunder of the universe. The glorious truth which needs ever
to be proclaimed is that lost souls may be saved, which truth is good news
indeed, but they may be saved only in and through Christ. Apart from Christ
as Savior, there is no salvation. Even infinite wisdom, power, and love can
provide no other escape from the holy judgments of God against sin. What
God may do with those who die having never heard the gospel is not
revealed, nor could it be revealed. The Scriptures present the unevangelized
as wholly lost. Their estate is the impelling call to missionary endeavor. If
men might be saved by their ignorance of the gospel, it were well never to
take the gospel to them lest, being enlightened, they reject the message and
come to be lost forever. Christians being instant in season and out of season
are to present this gospel to all who are yet living on the earth. This
judgment scene lends no support to the fancy that men who reject Christ in
this life will have another chance in realms beyond death. The unsaved
remain what they were when death intervened and until they stand thus
before God’s great white throne to be judged according to their works.” 25
This writer:
For the Christian, faith and hope is swallowed up in seeing God and
only love remains. For the unsaved, death and the corporeal conviction that
death is the end will be swallowed up in seeing God. When only an endless
waiting will remain – not death, or extinction.
Time is a construction and creation of God. Death as a curse
encompasses the triple aspects of the physical, the spiritual, and the eternal.
In the light of the revealed truth of God’s Word, death and the word wait become synonyms: “n (plural waits) time spent waiting: a period of time
spent while expecting something to happen. The wait seemed to go on
forever.” 26
Death, as ordained by God, when fully comprehended, may only
be seen as an ad interim instrument of God. Death comes full circle from the
Fall of Adam in Genesis to the abolishment of death in Revelation.
171
Understood as such, death becomes a divinely decreed state of waiting.
In this age, God, who himself is not bound by time, permissively “waits”
upon the living to “obey the gospel of the grace of God.” The redeemed wait
until they are released from the flesh of Adam and the sin nature and, the
time of completion when they are clothed in the same glorified body as
Christ their Savior. As a result of Adam’s sin, those who die without
accepting the gift of forgiveness, eternal life, and the righteousness of Christ must await sentencing when their full measure of torment in the eternal
damnation of the second death [wait] is determined by Christ: “In dying
[waiting] thou shalt die [wait]” (Gen 2:17, literal Hebrew translation). That
which follows is a dramatized account of a most real future Judgment of the
lost and their works.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
172
173
The Judgment of John Miley
IIII WILL SEE you sooner or later,
either nearby among the crowds
of the blessed elect or at a
distance. If at a distance - when
a cold chill runs down my back
- as my eyes find you naked in
your evil and stripped of all
borrowed goodness. Stand-ing
alone and clothed in a
resurrected body fit for a
criminal. Alone and small in
front of a high, gleaming,
glistening Great White Throne
that shines with the glory of
Christ Jesus seated in
Judgment. Jesus the King of
kings and the Lord of lords with
an Iron Rod in His fist. I watch
as you bend your knee and
confess that Jesus is Lord. He
then cries out loudly, to the
ends of Heaven, “I never knew
you! Be gone from Me, you lawbreaker!” Thus, openly confirming the
record your self-excluding sin of rejecting Him as the all sufficient
Substitute for your rebellion and the Master of your destiny. The attending
angel blots out your name from the Book of Life. Another angel then reads
off your unforgiven acts in unbelief and calls out each of the light filled
occasions in your darkened life when the Holy Spirit witnessed through
Saints the truth of the Gospel of the Grace of God that saves eternally.
Then, at the Throne, Heaven shrinks - and the degree of eternal anguish
assigned to your fate, when announced by the King, becomes like a terrible
judgment in a small room. On one side of the Throne the redeemed Saints of
Heaven in unison, in multitudes, sing His praises in the minor chords of
sorrow, the never to be told agonies only the glorified God-Man knows full
well. Chords of sound from the natural world that He created. Chords the
Saints learned in earthly sorrow. On the opposite side of the Throne, the
Angels recite His praises in a host after host of ten thousand. Now, in a
sustained thunderclap of accord, the singing Saints and the reciting Angels
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
174
repeat the three line phrase, “Holy! Holy! Holy! - Holy! Holy! Holy! -
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain!”
You stand erect, not bowed, your shoulders braced against your heaving
sobs. During the thousand years or more that you spent with the condemned
followers of religion, open rebels, and the lost from previous ages who were
waiting on this day, you gained perfect recall and know your greatest sin
was to spread the gospel of death, “for what seems right to a man but the end thereof is death.” Truth has pierced through to your very soul. You know
that there is no higher Judge, there is no redemption for those who did not
trust the One who was the Death of death for a forfeit life that now is yours
to bear for all eternity. As you hear your own Requiem of Damnation, a river
of regret, that Mercy can never answer, streams from your eyes and flows
down the curves and hollows of your naked body of shame - then disappears
into the dry stones you stand on. These, your last tears for all eternity.
Silently, in great reluctance, I see Christ pour your unclaimed eternal
life in the Church, His Body, slowly into the bowl of the unredeemed, back
into the sea of the lost. The life He exchanged for His Blood at the Cross, the
exchange of His infinite capacity to suffer separation from His Father for
your limited capacity to suffer separation from Him - for all eternity. The
portion made out to His glory. It was never your portion. It was His gift with
your name on it, a gift waiting for you to claim with your trust. The twenty-
four elders enter and surround you, each in turn says, “So be it.” The last
175
Amen over your soul. An Angel reads, “Close the Book, put out the Candle,
ring the Bell.” Another Angel closes the Book, the Light leaves the Throne,
and a double note Bell tolls three times. Six notes for the mark of a man with
no Christ for a Savior.
A Saint and an Angel from your life step out from the witnessing Host
of Heaven. A loved one who prayed for your salvation, and a familiar face
sent by Jesus to warn you. They lift you, first your weight, then themselves
and carry you from the darkened Throne and then across the Gulf of
Perdition to your final destination of endless, fruitless repentance. Where
unrelieved torment, not torture, has been gauged to your degree of rebellion
and this the worm that never dies - your eternal memory of the unforgiven
sin that separates you from the Love that is life in Jesus Christ.
There in Ghenna, the final destination of the Darkness of Judgment, the
Everlasting Lake of Fire, in solitude your soul will live a Second Death for
all eternity, in waiting you will wait, in separation you will be separated,
until the everlasting ages of the ages. In your willing self-confident religion
of rejection you chose the fate of Satan. Satan, that ancient Serpent who
strove in countless ways to deceive as many as would refuse an eternal
salvation in the Light of the Righteousness of Christ Jesus. His deception,
your rejection, has led you into the final reality and personal responsibility
of the truth of the just curse of the Fall–
“The soul that sins shall surely die [wait in separation from the love of
Christ for all eternity].”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
176
177
The Miracles of Christ in Behalf of His “Neighbors” and His Message of “the Kingdom is at Hand” was a
Total Failure
But His death “took away the sins of the world” and His resurrection
and ascension provides an eternally new life for all believers who live because He lives. The divine plan ordained by God “before the foundation of the world” - revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ - is an
absolute success and endures forever each time it is accepted.
John 15:22 If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin. 15:23 The one who hates me hates my Father too. 15:24 If I had not performed among them the miraculous deeds that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen the deeds and have hated both me and my Father. 15:25 Now this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me, 15:27 and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. NET
The Crux Interpretum
Lev 17:11 for the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I [Jehovah] have given it to you upon the altar to make an 1atonement (Heb. kaphar=to cover) for your souls [Heb. soul/life]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement (a covering on the altar by means of the life of the animal) for your soul (Heb. soul/life). KJV 1
(17:11) (1) The value of the “life” is the measure of the value of the “blood.” This gives the blood of Christ its inconceivable value. When it was shed the sinless God-man gave His life. “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins” (Heb 10:4). (2) It is not the blood in the veins of the of the sacrifice, but the blood upon the altar which is efficacious. The Scripture knows nothing of salvation by the imitation or [moral] influence of Christ’s life, but only by that life yielded up on the cross. 27
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
178
179
The Exchanged Life
Ray C. Stedman writes:
John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the
works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the
Father. RSV
Now, in Verse 12, the promise is tremendously plain. Jesus said, “He who
believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these
will he do.” That frightens and staggers us. It is theoretically acceptable, but
it is practically unbelievable. We refuse to accept it at face value. We
wonder if there is not a catch somewhere. There must be, we say, for is Jesus
really saying that Christians living today, in this 20th century, do not only the
works which he did but greater works than these? Is that what he is saying?
The promise is so staggering that we attempt to immediately to soften it. We
say to ourselves, “Can this be true of me? After all, I am not Jesus Christ,
and, therefore, I cannot be expected to do what he did.” But how do you
square an excuse like that with a verse like this? For in it Jesus plainly says,
“He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works
than these will he do.”
Here is where we need to listen very carefully to exactly what it is he is
saying. For Jesus is not saying here that a sincere, dedicated Christian of
1964 will actually be able, in his sincerity and his dedicated religious effort,
to do what Jesus did in the 1st century, let alone do greater works than he
did. In other words, he is not contrasting our labors now with his labors then.
He is not saying that dedicated Christian men and women are really going to
transcend what he accomplished as the Son of God Incarnate among men.
What he is saying is, as the Risen Christ, he will do through us greater works
than he did as the Incarnate Christ living among men. Do you see the
difference?
Notice what he links with this: “because I go to the Father.” What does he
mean? Why, it was his going to the Father that released the full potential of
the Godhead for human lives and affairs. While he was here on earth the
fullness of God was available to man only in one human body, the body of
Jesus. By the strength and indwelling life of the Father he did all the works
that we marvel at as we read the story of his life. But what he is saying now
is, that as the Risen Christ, ascended to the throne of his Father, he himself
will do through us, in terms of our personalities, and by the activity of our
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
180
lives, greater works today than he did in the days of his flesh. That is what
he is saying.
It is rather startling to realize that the work of the Incarnate Christ, that is,
Jesus Christ of Nazareth working and walking among men, was, at its end,
apparently a total and complete failure. We marvel as we read the story or
the beginning of his ministry. Those miracles he did, astonishing things,
raising men from the dead, healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind,
delivering men, women and little children from the oppression of demons,
touching with his hands the withered arm of a man and immediately it
springs into full growth and life again. We read the tremendous words that
came from his lips, The Sermon on the Mount, the parables beside the
seashore, these mysterious, marvelous, compelling things that he said. And
we do not wonder at the crowds that followed him, hounding him, following
him even into retreat, insisting upon his ministry, so that the news spread
like wildfire throughout the land of Israel that here was a prophet in the
Israel again. Men left their work and their cities and their ordinary activities
of life and went out to hear what he had to say, following him hours upon
end.
That was the beginning. But when you come to the end, where are the
crowds? Long before, they had already begun to diminish. “Many went back
and walked no more with him” (cf. John 6:66 KJV), the writers of the gospel
tell us. Already many of the searching things that he had been saying had
separated the weak from the strong, and many had gone back and refused to
follow him anymore. By the last week the actual number of disciples had
been reduced to a comparative handful. And even these, in the hour of his
capture and appearance before Pilate, forsook him and fled. In the time of
his need they left him. There was only a tiny band of one man and three or
four women that gathered around the foot of the cross. That was all the
Incarnate Christ had to show for the marvelous ministry in the power of the
Spirit which he had manifested among men. A total failure! That is the value
of the work he did.
Now do you see what he means when he says, “greater works than these will
you do, because I go to the Father?” His ministry among men, as a man, was
a failure. It did not remain; it had no enduring effects. Those who came,
attracted by the things they saw, faded back into the shadows when
persecution began to grow. No one stayed with him. But there is a very
significant promise uttered in the midst of this Upper Room Discourse that
he addresses to these disciples. In John 15:16 he says to them, “your fruit
should remain.”
181
John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you
should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain.
What you do in the power of the Spirit will not fade away. Those that you
win to Christ, those that are brought by the ministry that you will be
ministering will abide, and this cause will nourish in the earth and spread
unto the uttermost parts till every nation shall hear the word, and out of
every tribe and nation of earth shall come, at last, fruit that shall remain.
This is what he means, “Greater work than these shall you do, because I go
to the Father.” It is his work in us. 28
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
182
183
The Amazing Second Revelation of the Apostle Paul
“That your fruit should remain” (John 15:16) is guaranteed by the present ministry of Christ ascended in heaven. Whereby, He maintains the continued justification of all believers in His own righteousness. For
this reason, the first revelation of the Apostle Paul - salvation from the
penalty of sin and “justification by faith” - is without condition and
inviolable. The second revelation given to Paul was that the completion of the Body of Christ - in the fullness of Christ – which is the divine
purpose of God in the gospel of saving grace. God is presently working, not to reform men from the sinful and earthly creation in Adam (cf. all of 1 Cor 15); but to transform believers into a new race of men who
are heavenly sons and daughters of God who will be perfected and “made in the image Christ.”
Double-click to hear John chapter 15
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. NET
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
184
185
The Church, the Body of Christ
This section is an abridged excerpt from the preface of Dr. Lewis
Chafer’s Systematic Theology, 29 copyrighted in 1948, and is addressed to
the new students of Dallas Theological Seminary:
“While it is true that the Bible is the source of the material which enters
into Systematic Theology, it is equally true that the function of Systematic
Theology is to unfold the Bible. In its natural state, gold is often passed over
by those with undiscerning eyes. Likewise, the treasures of divine truth are
observed only by those who are trained to recognize them. … It is a short
step indeed from the ignorance of doctrine to the rejection and ridicule of it,
and it can be safely stated that there is no rejection of sound doctrine which
is not based on ignorance.
While the seminary student needs as much today to major in Systematic
Theology as ever, the trend unfortunately, is to substitute philosophy,
psychology, and sociology for theology. This may be somewhat accounted
for by the fact that Biblical doctrine is a revelation and the substitutes are
within the range of the thinking of the natural man. …
The question as to the evil effects of an abridged theology may be
considered with a full recognition of the fact that an abridgement of doctrine
in the seminary leaves the pastor disqualified by so much, and his limitation
will be reflected in the stunting not only of his own spiritual life but of the
spiritual life and activity of all who wait upon his ministry. …
Why unabridged? Simply because a part of anything is never equivalent
to its whole. A lifelong investigation into works on Systematic Theology has
resulted in the discovery that in the field of doctrine at least seven major
themes are consistently neglected. Few readers, indeed, are in a position to
detect what is left out of a work on theology. These omissions are: (1) the
divine program of the ages [e.g., dispensations, KJV world=Gk. aions, ages];
(2) the Church, the Body of Christ; (3) human conduct and the spiritual life;
(4) Angelology; (5) typology; (6) prophecy; and (7) the present session of
Christ in heaven. That the loss of he whole range of doctrine sustained by
these omissions may be pointed out, it is necessary to indicate some of the
important features of each doctrine.
II. THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST
Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church, incorporates three main
divisions – (a) the rue Church, the Body of Christ, (b) the organized or
visible church, and (c) the walk and service of those who are saved in this
dispensation. Though of tremendous importance, the first and third of these
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
186
divisions are practically never treated in works of Systematic Theology,
while the second, if mentioned at all, is usually restricted to peculiar features
of some sect or branch of the visible church with specific reference to
organization and ordinance.
The Book of Acts and the Epistles introduce the fact of a new
classification of humanity termed the Church which group is, also, properly
designated as a part of the New Creation since each individual within the
group has experienced the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor
5:17; Gal 6:15).
The works of Systematic Theology generally have recognized the
redeemed people of this age, but only as a supposed sequence or
continuation in the progress of the divine purpose in Israel. They refer to
“the Old Testament Church” and to “the New Testament Church” as
together constituting component parts of one divine project, thus failing to
recognize those distinctions between Israel and the Church which, being so
radical in character, serve to indicate the widest possible differences between
them – difference as to origin, difference as to character and responsibility,
and difference as to destiny. There are at least twenty-four far-reaching
distinctions yet to be observed between Israel and the Church, while there
are about twelve major features common to both; but the obvious similarities
do not set aside the differences. The fact that revelation concerning both
Israel and the Church includes the truth about God, holiness, sin, and
redemption by blood, does not eliminate a far greater body of truth in which
it is disclosed that Israelites become such by natural birth while Christians
become such by spiritual birth; that Israelites were appointed to live and
serve under a meritorious, legal system, while Christians live and serve
under a gracious system; that Israelites as a nation, have their citizenship
now and their future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on to the
new earth which is yet to be, while Christians have their citizenship and
future destiny centered only in heaven, extending on into the new heavens
that are yet to be (for both earthly and heavenly blessings see Rev 21:1-22:7;
2 Pet 3:10-13; Heb 1:10-12; Isa 65:17; 66:22). …
(3) In His death and resurrection the same two widely different
objectives are discernable. To Israel His death was a stumbling block (1 Cor
1:23), nor was His death any part of His office as King over Israel – “Long
live the king!”; yet, in His death Israel had her share to the extent that He
dealt finally with the sins committed aforetime, which sins had been only
covered according to the provisions of the Old Testament atonement (Rom
3:25). By His death the way was prepared for any individual Jew to be saved
through faith in Him; and by His death a sufficient ground was secured
whereon God will yet “take away” the sins of that nation at the time when
“all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:27). However, the nation Israel sustains
187
no relation to the resurrection of of Christ other than that which David
foresaw, namely, that if Christ died He must be raised again from the dead in
order that He might sit on David’s throne (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:25-31). Over
against this, it is revealed that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for
it (Eph 5:25-27), and that His resurrection is the beginning of the New
Creation of God, which includes the many sons whom He is bringing into
glory (Heb 2:10). In that New Creation relationship, the believer is in the
resurrected Christ and the resurrected Christ is in the believer. This twofold
unity establishes an identity of relationship which surpasses all human
understanding. It is even likened by Christ to the unity which exists between
the Persons of the Godhead (John 17:21-23). By the baptism of the Spirit,
wrought, as it is for everyone, when one believes (1 Cor 12:13), the saved
one is joined to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17; Gal 3:27), and by that union with the
resurrected Christ is made a partaker of His resurrection life (Col 1:27), is
translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of His
love (Col 1:13), is crucified, dead, and buried with Christ, and is raised to
walk in newness of life (Rom 6:2-4; Col 3:1), is now seated with Christ in
the heavenlies (Eph 2:6), is a citizen of heaven (Phil 3:20), is forgiven all
trespasses (Col 2:13), is justified (Rom 5:1), and blessed with every spiritual
blessing (Eph 1:3). This vast body of truth, which is but slightly indicated
here, is not found in the Old Testament, nor are the Old Testament saints
ever said to be related thus to the resurrected Christ. It is impossible for
these great disclosures to be fitted into a theological system which does not
distinguish the heavenly character of the Church as in contrast to the earthly
character of Israel. This failure on the part of these systems of theology to
discern the character of the true Church, related wholly, as it is, to the
resurrected Christ, accounts for the usual omission from these theological
writings of any extended treatment of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection
and all related doctrines. …
Two revelations were given to the Apostle Paul: (1) That of salvation to
infinite perfection for the individual Jew and Gentile alike through faith in
Christ and on the ground of His death and resurrection (gal 1:11, 12). That
this salvation is an exercise of grace which far surpasses anything hitherto
experienced in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in 1 Peter 1:10, where
it is stated, “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched
diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you.” (2) That
of the new divine purpose in the outcalling of the Church (Eph 3:6). This
new purpose is not that Gentiles are merely to be blessed. Old Testament
prophecy had long predicted Gentile blessings. The purpose consists in the
fact that new body of humanity was to be formed from both Jews and
Gentiles, a relationship in which neither Jew nor Gentile position is retained,
but where Christ is all in all, (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). The Apostle likewise
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
188
records the former estate of Gentiles and Jews and the present estate of those
who are now saved, whether of one group or the other. We read concerning
the Gentile, “that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of the Jew we
read, “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (Rom 9:4, 5). But of the
Church we read, “Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his
grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:3-6).
With the same fundamental distinction in view, the Apostle makes
separate enumeration of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God (1
Cor 10:32); and again in Ephesians 2:11 he refers to the Gentiles as the
Uncircumcision [unsanctified], and the Jews as the Circumcision made with hands [sanctified by self]; but in Colossians 2:11 he refers to the
Circumcision made without hands [sanctification made by God]. The latter
designation indicates the supernatural standing and character of those who
comprise the Body of Christ.
Though in its time established and imposed by Jehovah, Judaism did not
merge into Christianity, nor does it now provide the slightest advantage to
the individual Jew who would become a Christian. With reference to
Christianity, Jews and Gentiles are now, alike, “under sin.” They need
identically the same grace of God (Rom 3:9), and that grace is offered to
them on precisely the same terms (Rom 10:12). Nicodemus, who was
apparently a most perfect specimen of Judaism, was told by Christ that he must be born again, and the Apostle Paul prayed that the Israelites who had
“a zeal for God” might be saved. They were at fault in that after the new and
limitless privileges in grace had come through Christ (John 1:17), they still
clung to the old meritorious features of Judaism, “going about to establish
their own righteousness” and not submitting themselves to the imputed
righteousness of God (Rom 10:13).
The one who cannot recognize that the Church is a new heavenly
purpose of God, absolutely disassociated from Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28;
Col 3:11), but sees the Church only as an ever increasing company of
redeemed people gathered alike from all ages of human history, will perhaps
do well to ponder the following questions: Why the rent veil? Why
189
Pentecost? Why the distinctive message of the Epistles? Why the “better
things” of the book of Hebrews? Why the Jewish branches broken off? Why
the present headship and ministry of Christ in heaven? Why the present
visitation to the Gentiles and not before? Why the present indwelling by the
Spirit of all who believe? Why the baptism of the Spirit – unique in the New
Testament? Why two companies of the redeemed in the new Jerusalem?
Why only earthly promises to Israel and only heavenly promises to the
Church? Why should the divinely given rule of life be changed from law to
grace? Why is Israel likened to the repudiated and yet to be restored wife of
Jehovah, and the Church likened to the espoused bride of Christ? Why the
two objectives in the incarnation and resurrection? Why the new day – the
Day of Christ – with its rapture and resurrection of believers and with its
rewards for service and suffering - a day never once mentioned in the Old
Testament? Why the “mysteries” of the New Testament, including the Body
of Christ? Why the New Creation, comprising, as it does, all those who are
joined to the Lord and are forever in Christ? How could there be a Church,
constructed as she is, until the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the
ascension of Christ, and the Day of Pentecost? How could the Church, in
which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, be any part of Israel in this or any
other age?
Like the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, the doctrine of the true
Church with her supernatural and exalted position and her heavenly destiny
is largely omitted from theological writings only because these aspects of the
truth cannot be fitted into a Judaized system to which Systematic Theology
has too often been committed. The stupendous spiritual loss of such an
omission is only slightly reflected in the failure on the part of believers to
understand their heavenly calling with its corresponding God-designed
incentive to a holy life.
III. HUMAN CONDUCT AND THE SPIRITUAL LIFE
It is possible that the modern emphasis upon human conduct expressed
in the phrase, “It matters little what you believe, it is the life that counts,” as,
when first uttered, a protest against the omission of the theme of human
conduct from works of Systematic Theology. True to its limitations, the
world of practical men is more interested in a justification by works than it is
in a justification by faith. Much of the Bible is hortatory [encouraging or strongly advising a course of action], and the contemplation of the doctrine
of human conduct belongs properly to a science which purports to discover,
classify, and exhibit the great doctrines of the Bible. This particular theme
includes: (1) human conduct in general and in all ages – past, present, and
future; (2) the peculiar and exalted walk and daily life of the Christian: (a)
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
190
his motive, (b) his high standards, (c) his method in his warfare against the
world, the flesh, and the devil, (d) his sins, (e) his relationships, (f) his
witness, (g) his sufferings and sacrifice, his life of faith and prayer, and (h)
his contest for rewards.
1. HUMAN CONDUCT IN GENERAL AND IN ALL AGES. From the beginning,
God, in faithfulness, has disclosed to man the precise manner of life that He
requires of him. What may be termed inherent law embodies all that a
Creator expects and requires of His creature. It is well expressed by the
phrase, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” This law has been binding on that
portion of humanity in all ages to whom no other law has been addressed.
However, God has disclosed His specific will to particular groups of people
in various ages. Identification of the particular responsibility God has
imposed upon man in each age is not difficult. During much of human
history man has sustained a meritorious or legal relation to God; that is,
God’s declaration to man concerning conduct was, in substance, If you will
do good, I will bless you (Deu 28:15-68). All governmental, social, and
family affairs, of necessity, proceed upon the principle of the recognition of
human merit. It is not difficult, therefore, for men to generally understand
the legal aspect of divine government, but it is difficult apparently for them
to understand the grace aspect of divine government. i The fact that God, in
sovereign grace, now either bestows, or assures, all His saving benefits
before allowing the individual to do aught for him seems perhaps too good
to be true; but it is true, and, until this fact is recognized, the Christian will
not be able to walk with God intelligently from a true grace-motive.
Though the Bible sets forth the divine requirements for human conduct
in each age, there are three extended systems of divine government which in
secession cover the period of human history from the time when the first
written Scriptures were given to the end of the mediatorial reign of Christ,
namely, (a) the Mosaic law, embodying the manner of life prescribed in the
law age, which age existed from Moses to Christ, (b) the grace rule of life,
embodying the manner of life prescribed for the present age, which extends
from the first to the second advent of Christ, and (c) the kingdom rule of life,
embodying the manner of life prescribed for the yet future kingdom age,
which age follows the second advent. Though too often confused, the divine
government is different in each of these ages, being adapted perfectly to the
relation which the people in their respective dispensations sustain to God.
i 1. It may be observed that the divine requirements of righteousness are of such a nature
that, in the last analysis, God can never depart from a meritorious basis when dealing
with men. Grace is possible only because of the fact that the all-sufficient merit of Christ
has been made available, and satisfies the claims of every divine requirement for those
who believe.
191
Each of these systems of human government is wholly complete in itself.
The Mosaic law contained the commandments, the statutes, and the
ordinances, and was an expression of God’s will to Israel to whom alone it
was addressed. In the teachings of grace addressed only to the Church, God
has disclosed in full the manner of life which becomes those who are already
perfected in Christ. The kingdom rule of conduct embodies that precise
responsibility which will be required when Christ is reigning on the earth,
when Satan is in the pit, and when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the
earth as the waters cover the sea. It is most reasonable that there should be
widely different precepts indicated for various groups of people so diverse in
their relationships. Human obligation toward God could not be the same
after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the Day of
Pentecost, as it was before those events. In like manner, human obligation
toward God cannot be the same after the removal of the Church to heaven,
the return of Christ to reign, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven
over all the earth, as it was before.
As to the essential character of these three systems of human conduct, it
may be observed that two are legal and one is gracious. Two simple tests are
available in determining those precepts that are legal in distinction to those
that are gracious: (a) that which is legal is demonstrated to be such because
of accompanying meritorious conditions which determine the divine
blessings (cf. Ex 20:12; Ps 103:17, 18; Matt 5:3-12; 6:14, 15); while that
which is gracious is an appeal based on divine blessings already bestowed (
cf. Rom 12:1, 2; Eph 4:1-3, 32; Col 3:1). There is much in common among
these three great governing systems. Every one of the ten commandments,
excepting the fourth, is restated in the grace system. The first commandment
alone reappears in that system in one form or another upwards of fifty times,
but when thus appearing, it, like other legal features, is always restated in
order that it may conform precisely to the essential character of grace. (b)
Again, that which is legal is demonstrated to be such by the fact that only
human ability is appealed to; while that which is gracious is evidenced by
two facts, that divine enablement is provided and its exercise is anticipated.
In general, the law system is set forth in the Old Testament (cf. Ex 20:1-
31:18); the grace teachings are revealed in portions of the Gospels, the Book
of Acts, and the New Testament epistles; while the kingdom system is set
forth in the Old Testament predictions concerning the Messianic period, and
in those portions of the synoptic Gospels which record the kingdom
teachings of John the Baptist and of Christ. The present importance of these
distinctions, especially those that are related to the Church, is obvious.
2. THE PECULIAR WALK AND DAILY LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN. Conforming
to the general divisions of this subject as intimated above, it may be
observed:
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
192
The motive which actuates the conduct and service of the one who is
perfectly saved in Christ is of necessity radically different from any and
every legal incentive. To the saved one, being perfected forever in Christ,
made accepted in the Beloved, and now a recipient of every spiritual
blessing, no meritorious appeal is appropriate; and the only motive for
correct conduct remaining for such a one is that of walking worthy of the calling wherewith he is called. Living with a view to securing the favor of
God, and living in the favor of God already secured in Christ, are two widely
different motives. One is legal, the other is gracious, and the gracious
manner of life is governed by divine beseechings which are adapted to those
who are under grace (Rom 2:1, 2; Eph 4:1-3).
As to their demands, the standards of living for the Christian under
grace far exceed those required of people in other dispensations. This is not
to imply that one is more holy than the other, but rather to declare that one
requires far more achievement than the other. The law said, “Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself,” but Christ said, “A new commandment I give unto
you, That you love one another; as I have loved you” (John 13:34). The
manner of life that becomes a child of God will be found to be almost
superhuman in every particular. In fact, God does not have two standards,
one for the earth and one for heaven. Being a citizen of heaven, the believer,
though still on earth, is appointed to live according to the high and holy
ideals of his native country (cf. 2 Cor 10:5; Gal 5:16; Eph 4:1, 30; 5:2; 1
Thess 5:19; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 1:7). This divine ideal is twofold: first, victory
over evil in every form; and, second, the realization of all the will of God in
Spirit-wrought character and service. Spirituality includes both of these
achievements. To be divinely delivered from every form of evil is negative
and, when realized, does not relieve the necessity of a positive, spiritual
output in the Christian’s life to the glory of God. The spiritual life is the
greatest New Testament theme next to that of salvation by grace. Every
phase of this supernatural life is set forth in the doctrinal portions of the New
Testament Epistles. The preacher must know these truths if he is to
experience any measure of divine power either in his own life or in his
ministry. Similarly, he must know this body of truth if he is to guide others
in the path of holy living and intelligent service. Seminaries, generally, offer
no instruction in this important field of doctrine; but, over against this,
conventions for the specific study and deepening spiritual life have sprung
up in various localities. These, it would seem, are, to some extent, a protest
against the tragic failure of theological institutions to prepare pastors and
teachers for one of the greatest ministries God has committed to them.
The Christian’s method in his warfare with the world, the flesh, and the
devil is also a specific revelation. At the moment of salvation the believer
enters upon a threefold conflict which is superhuman in its forces and far-
193
reaching in its possibilities both as to tragic failure or glorious victory. The
whole scope and character of the world-system directed, as it is, by its god,
Satan, and offering its attractions and allurements, is faithfully and
extensively portrayed in the New Testament. So, also, the doctrine of the
flesh (σάρξ), with its every present enmity against the Spirit and all things
spiritual, is as faithfully declared in order that the saved one may not only
understand his new complex being, but know, as well, the way in which the
life, in spite of the flesh, may become spiritual (πνευµατικός) to the glory of
God; and, likewise, the believer faces the arch-enemy of God who is a
relentless, cruel foe, and who with superhuman strength and strategy is
“walking about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” The only
provision for the victory in this threefold conflict is a simple confidence in
the power of Another. This plan should not seem strange to one who has
already discovered the marvelous results that are secured when the Lord has
been trusted for salvation from his lost estate. It is faith that overcomes the
world (1 John 5:4); it is confidence in the Spirit of God that overcomes the
flesh (Gal 5:16, 17); and it is faith that overcomes the evil one (Eph 6:10-
16); 1 John 4:4; cf. Jude 1:9).
It is not enough to enjoin Christians to be good. In the light of the
superhuman manner of life belonging to their high calling, their own
limitations, and the threefold conflict which they wage, their problem is one
of “how to perform that which is good” (Rom 7:18), and until the Apostle
learned the precise features which govern the life of faith he knew only
defeat (Rom 7:15-24). The body of truth bearing on the life of victory by the
Spirit is as extensive and its principles as divinely arranged as are the same
features in the doctrine of salvation. In this body of truth, one is confronted
by that particular aspect of Christ’s death which is unto the judgment of the
sin nature. This aspect of His death is the righteous foundation for all God’s
work in sanctification. This is not merely a question of deciding what is right
and what is wrong; it is distinctly a problem of claiming divine power in
God’s prescribed way to live according to the very standards of heaven. Let
none suppose that these features of truth are known intuitively. On the
contrary, they call for the most careful classroom instruction in addition to
heart-searching prayer and far-reaching adjustments in his life if the pastor is
to be himself a man of God and one who is intelligent in the directing of
spiritual lives.
The character and cure of the Christian’s sin is one of the most
extensive doctrines in the Word of God including as it does, first, God’s
threefold preventative for the Christian’s sin – the Word of God, the
indwelling Spirit of God, and the interceding Christ in heaven; second, the
peculiar effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself in the loss of fellowship
with God, the loss of the peace of God, the loss of the power of God, and the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
194
loss of the joy of the Lord; and, third, the effect of the Christian’s sin upon
God Himself, and that relief from condemnation which Christ secures as
Advocate in heaven. At length the New Testament presents both the ground
of cure through a specific propitiation for the Christian’s sin (1 John 2:2),
and, by precept and example, the way by which a sinning saint may return to
full fellowship with God – a doctrine embodying explicit directions
harmonious with the Christian’s saved estate, and which is as important,
indeed, as is the life and service of the saints on earth.
The Christian sustains varied relationships which are each and every one
set forth in the New Testament Epistles with specific instructions. He
sustains a relationship to God the Father, to God the Son, to God the Holy
Spirit, to Satan, to the world-system, to himself, to human governments, to
the body of Christ, to the unregenerate, to ecclesiastical authorities,
husbands to wives, parents to children, children to parents, masters to
servants, servants to masters, the strong to the weak, the weak to the strong.
The Christian is a citizen of heaven and after he is saved is detained here
in this world in the capacity of a witness. He is a pilgrim and stranger, an
ambassador from the court of heaven. In His High Priestly prayer Christ not
only said that the saved ones are not of this world, even as He is not of this
world, but that He has sent them into the world as the Father sent Him into
the world. To them is committed the word of reconciliation and they are the
ones to whom each great commission is addressed. After dying for lost men,
there could be no greater desire or purpose in the heart of Christ than that
this gospel should be proclaimed to those for whom He died. The pastor is a
divinely appointed leader and teacher in the promotion of this enterprise. …
The Christian is called to suffering and sacrifice along with the
experience of great peace and celestial joy. The suffering will be endured
and the sacrifice be made with gladness just so far as the truth of God has
reached his heart, and the truth will normally reach his heart only as it is
brought to him by a faithful pastor deeply taught in the Word which God has
given.
Similarly, efficacious faith and prevailing prayer, which should be the
abiding experience of both pastor and people, come only through a
knowledge of the Scriptures and obedience to them.
The doctrine of rewards to be bestowed at the judgment seat of Christ
for faithfulness in life and service is a counterpart of the doctrine of divine
grace, and no preacher or layman will be intelligent in his endeavor nor be
possessed with one of the greatest divine incentives who is not actuated by
these provisions and revelations.
The major aspects of the doctrine of human conduct and the spiritual life
are thus briefly stated. It is all intensely practical and will naturally occupy a
large place in the message of the faithful preacher. This theme incorporates
195
more than a mere system of ethics. The whole field of human conduct is
involved with its major age-characterizing systems of divine government,
and added to this are the more specific features of he Christian’s
responsibility. Though belonging to God’s revelation and though of
surpassing importance, there is practically no recognition of the features of
human conduct or of the spiritual life set forth in works on Systematic
Theology generally and, by so much, uncounted numbers of preachers have
been sent out from seminaries without adequate Scriptural preparation for on
of the greatest tasks that confronts them.
VII. CHRIST’S PRESENT SESSION IN HEAVEN
The present session of Christ in heaven, the last of these major themes
of doctrine to be considered, is more generally mentioned in works on
Systematic Theology than the themes already presented; but when so
introduced it is too often restricted to the space of a few paragraphs and the
material embodied extends no further than a slight recognition of the fact of
Christ’s present intercession and advocacy and the relation the Holy Spirit
sustains as Advocate on earth to the advocacy of Christ in heaven. The vital
truth as to the measureless value to the believer of Christ’s present session in
heaven and the far-reaching ministry it becomes to the Church is not
included in their brief discussion.
Ignoring almost wholly the forty-day post-resurrection ministry of
Christ with its demonstration of the fact that the resurrection body of Christ
is adapted to life upon the earth as He will yet live here during a millennium
of earth’s peace, and with the briefest reference to the ascension without
recognition of Christ’s two entrances into heaven, and the riches of truth this
disclosed in His antitypical work as the fulfiller of the redemption type
wherein the high priest presents blood in the Holy of holies and wherein the
representative wave-sheaf is waved before Jehovah as prophetic of the first
fruits in the resurrection, these authors move directly on to a slight
recognition of the fact that Christ is now seated on His father’s throne in
heaven. The far-reaching distinction between Christ’s own throne – the
throne of David which is the throne of His glory, which throne He will
occupy here on earth – and the throne of His Father, on which He is now
seated, is not generally observed by these authors.
No discussion of he present session of Christ will be adequate that does
not include certain major revelations:
On the widest plain of His mediatorial ministry, Christ seated in heaven
is “expecting.” The Greek έκδέχοµαι conveys the meaning of one awaiting
the reception of something from another. The fact that Christ is now in the
attitude of one who is expecting is disclosed in Hebrews 10:12, 13. While
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
196
the realization of all that He thus expects is anticipated in Psalm 2:1-12;
Daniel 2:44, 45; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and Revelation 12:10 (in which
passages it is stated that the whole world of humanity is to be given to Him
and that He will rule them in uncompromising righteousness), it should be
observed that the kingdoms of this world do not become the kingdom of
Christ by virtue of human service and ministry, but by the sudden and
mighty power of God and in the midst of humanity’s rebellion against God.
Upon His ascension it was given to Christ to become “head over all
things to the church which is his body” (Eph 1:19-23). Through His death
and resurrection, He received an exaltation and a glorified name (Phil 2:9,
10), an added joy (Heb 12:2), an experience through suffering (Heb 2:10),
and to Him it was given of His Father to be “head over all things to the
church.” By this, as in other Scriptures, it is indicated that the Church had its
beginnings in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the
descent of the Spirit. This Headship is not one of mere authority or ministry;
it is rather the fact of an organic union between the Head – Christ, and the
Body – the Church.
Beginning with His ascension, Christ undertook a threefold priestly
ministry in heaven:
As the bestower of gifts (Eph 4:7-16), and the director of their exercise
(1 Cor 12:4-11), and as typified by the Old testament priest consecrating the
Sons of Levi (Ex 29:1-9), Christ is ceaselessly active in heaven. In this
connection, the whole field of Christian service is rightly introduced and the
distinction is to be observed between the believer’s threefold universal
activity as priest, and his exercise of a gift. As Intercessor, Christ continues His ministry in heaven which He began
here on earth (John 17:1-26). This undertaking extends to the shepherdhood
care of those who He has saved. He ever liveth to make intercession for
them, and for that reason He is able to save them evermore who come unto
God by Him (Heb 7:25). He does not pray for the world, but for those who
the Father has given unto Him (John 17:9). The intercession of Christ has to
do with the weakness, immaturity, and limitations of the one for whom He
prays. His intercession is said to secure their safekeeping forever.
As Advocate, and as the One who now appears for us in heaven (Heb
9:24), Christ has to do with the Christian’s actual sin. In event of sin in his
life, the Christian has an advocate with the Father. An advocate is one who
espouses the cause of another in the open courts, and there is abundant
reason for Christ to advocate in behalf of the one who so constantly sins and
whose sin must otherwise condemn him eternally. As Advocate, Christ
pleads the efficacy of His own blood on behalf of the sinning child of God,
and the thing He accomplishes is so perfect that, while thus advocating for
the sinning Christian, Christ wins the title, “Jesus Christ the righteous.”
197
Not only is the doctrine of the Christian’s sin centered in the present
heavenly ministry of Christ, but Christ’s intercession with His advocacy
forms the basis of the truth of the eternal security of all who are saved. A full
understanding of the Scriptures bearing on the extensive theme of the
Christian’s sin, as to the effects upon himself, and upon God, is of primary
importance to the minister in his own inner life, and to those whom he
attempts to guide into intelligent Christian living.
In the light of 1 John 1:4-9; 2:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32, it could
not be doubted that there is special divine attention given to, and provisions
made for, the specific sins which are committed by the children of God. The
importance of such truth is recognized when it is seen in its vast extent, its
practical bearing on spiritual power and godliness, and in the fact that it is as
adapted to the needs of the sinning saint as salvation is adapted to those who
are lost. Yet the recognition of the peculiar character of the Christian’s sin
with both its prevention and cure as divinely provided, along with the whole
field of truth concerning Christ’s present ministry in heaven, is woefully
lacking in courses for ministerial training.”
Detailed Commentary on the Ascension and Session of Christ
This detailed sub-section is excerpted from Dr. Lewis Chafer’s Volume
on the doctrine of Christology which is inter-related to salvation:
“Ephesians 1:20-23. “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him
from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far
above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, which is to
come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all
things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in
all.”
The span of the ascension of Christ is measured in this Scripture. Not
only has He left the tomb and returned to His native place, but He is exalted
above all others, with all authority in heaven and on earth committed to
Him; yet His humanity is present too. There is a man in the glory. His
glorified humanity is retained forever.
Ephesians 4:8-10. “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high,
he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended,
what is it but that he also descended first into the lower [the incarnation of Christ, not a post-death descent into hell] parts of the earth? He that
descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he
might fill all things.)”
Reference to this portion has been made by the writers quoted above.
The text contemplates the whole movement down to earth and to death and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
198
the movement back again with the immeasurable fruits of His conquest.
Much emphasis is placed in the New Testament upon the exceeding
greatness of the occasion which the eternal Son of God came into the world.
Here, as elsewhere, an equally great achievement is indicated, namely,
Christ’s return or ascension back to His former place and glory. It is written
that He prayed as He was about to leave this world: “And now, O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was” (John 17:5).
Acts 1:9-11. “And when he has spoken these things, while they beheld,
he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And men stood
by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
The historical facts related to Christ’s final ascension are here set forth
in simple terms. Having indicated the divinely arranged delay in the
realization of Israel’s earthly kingdom (Acts 1:6-7) and having defined the
scope of the responsibility of His own in the world in this age together with
the provided power of the enabling Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), Christ departs
into heaven. This Scripture traces His movement no further than that He was
removed from human sight. That He ascended above all authorities and
powers in angelic realms, that He assumed vast authority, and that He is
seated upon His Father’s throne must be understood from other portions of
the New Testament. Of great significance is the fact that, as His last words
in the world, He gives a comprehensive statement respecting Israel’s
kingdom to the effect that – though it is in no way abandoned – its time of
realization is left indefinite relative to human understanding but fully
determined in the mind and purpose of God, and a statement that the present
age, if wholly indefinite with respect to its duration, is to be characterized by
a believing witness unto Himself in the power of the Holy Spirit. Such
themes are eminently fitting – and they alone would be – for the final word
He has left in this world. As a theme, Christ’s activity and responsibility in
heaven belong to the next division of this chapter.
II. THE SESSION
The present ministry of Christ in heaven, known as His session, is far-
reaching both in consequence and import. It, too, has not been treated even
with passing consideration by Covenant theologians, doubtless due to their
inability – because of being confronted with their one-covenant theory – to
introduce features and ministries which indicate a new divine purpose in the
Church and by so much tend to disrupt the unity of a supposed immutable
purpose and covenant of God’s. Since, as will be seen, certain vital
199
ministries of Christ in heaven provide completely for the believer’s security,
the present session of Christ has been eschewed by Arminians in a manner
equally unpardonable. This neglect accounts very well for the emphasis of
their pulpit ministrations [the “social gospel” and the acts of Christ as the supposed example of a “Good Samaritan”]. The Christian public, because
deprived of the knowledge of Christ’s present ministry, are unaware of its
vast realities, though they are able from childhood itself to relate the mere
historical facts and activities of Christ during His three and one-half years of
service on earth. That Christ is doing anything now is not recognized by
Christians generally and for this a part-truth kind of preaching is wholly
responsible. It yet remains true, whether neglected by one or the other kind
of theologian, that Christ is now engaged in a ministry which determines the
service and destiny of all those who have put their trust in Him. Various
aspects of His present ministry are here indicated.
1. THE EXERCISE OF UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY. An inscrutable mystery is
present in the fact that all authority is committed by the Father to the Son. In
the light of the complete evidence that the Son is equal in His Person with
the Father, it is difficult to understand how authority could be committed to
the Son which was not properly His in His own right. Whatever may be the
solution of that problem, it is certain that “all power” is given unto Christ
(Matt 28:18). And that power, while it was used in the beginning for the
creation of all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, including
thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, is exercised now to the end
that all things may hold together (Col 1:16-17). The very seating of Christ
far above all intelligences (Eph 1:20-21) implies that He is over them in
complete authority. Thus, in a similar way, it is written that the Father hath
put all things under the feet of the Son, excepting of course Himself (1 Cor
15:27). This power will be exercised in the coming kingdom age to the end
that all rule, authority, power, and every enemy – even death – shall be
subdued (1 Cor 15:24-28); but that same authority is possessed by the Son
inherently and then is exercised in those ways in which it is required. It is,
therefore, essential when drawing a picture of the exalted Christ and in
contemplating His Person and present activity He should be seen as the One
who, under the Father, is above and over all things in the universe in the
sense that they owe their very existence to Him, are held together by Him,
and are governed by Him.
2. HEAD OVER ALL THINGS TO THE CHURCH. Unavoidably, this theme
recurs in this chapter, though considered already under the Christ’s
resurrection. Much, indeed, is made in the prophetic Scriptures of the future
relation of Christ will sustain as King to Israel and the nations at that time
when He shall have returned to the earth; but now in the present age Christ
is, through the same exaltation by the Father which placed Him above all
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
200
intelligences, made to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His
Body (cf. Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18). Out of this Headship various
responsibilities arise which will, because of their vital import, be traced as
major divisions of this theme. The point of present emphasis is the essential
fact of Christ’s Headship over the one Church, which is His Body. That it is
termed the Church, which is His Body differentiates it from every other form
of the organized or visible church, which organized church at best is no
more than an outward representation (with wheat and tares) in one locality
and in one generation of that larger company of all believers in every
locality and in every generation who, being individually joined to Christ and
perfected in Him, are one Body. This Headship is organic and real. Into Him
are all the saved ones placed by the baptism of the Spirit and He is over
them as the Head to that Body which they thus form. It is certain that Christ
was not Head over all things to the Church until He ascended into heaven.
The Church was not yet formed during His earthly ministry (cf. Matt 16:18),
nor until the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. This assertion is not only
sustained by uncomplicated, direct teaching of the New Testament but by
the types as well. It was precisely fifty days after the wave sheaf – the type
of Christ in resurrection – when the two loaves were waved which are the
type of the Church, yet to be raised also and presented in glory. The loaf
represents an uncounted number of particles sealed into one unit. Thus, also,
the Church is one through formed out of a multitude of people from every
kindred, tongue, and tribe. The Church is the supreme heavenly purpose of
God and Christ’s Headship over it is as exalted as that which is pre-eminent
in the mind of the eternal God could be. The teaching ministry of Christ may
well serve as an illustration of His Headship relation to every member of His
Body. In John 16:13 it is recorded that complete instruction is ever being
given to each yielded believer by the indwelling Spirit. It is clearly pointed
out that the Spirit does not originate the message which He imparts, but
rather speaks in the believer’s heart whatsoever He hears. The One to whom
the Spirit listens and whose message the Spirit transmits is none other than
Christ, who stated “I have yet many things to say unto you” (vs. 12). It is
thus the wonderful privilege of each member of the Body of Christ to
receive direct messages of instruction and comfort from his exalted Head up
in glory.
3. THE BESTOWER OF GIFTS. According to the New Testament, a gift is a
divine enablement wrought in and through the believer by the Spirit who
indwells him. It is the Spirit working thereby to accomplish certain divine
purposes and using the one whom He indwells to that end. It is in no sense a
human undertaking aided by the Spirit. Though certain general gifts are
mentioned in the Scripture (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12;4-11), the possible variety
is unlimited because no two lives are lived under exactly the same
201
conditions. However, to each believer some gift is given, although the
blessing and power of the gift will be experienced only when the life is
wholly yielded to God. (In Romans 12, then, the truth of verses 1 and 2
precedes that of verses 6-8.) There will be little need to exhortation of God-
honoring service for the one who is filled with the Spirit; for the Spirit will
be working in that one both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil
2:13). In like manner, certain men who are called His “gifts unto men” are
provided and locally placed in their service by the ascended Christ (Eph 4:7-
11). The Lord did not leave His work to the uncertain and insufficient
judgment of men (1 Cor 12:11, 18). The bestowment of gifts is but another
instance in which the personal and individual supervision of the exalted
Christ over each member of His Body is disclosed. Each one is appointed to
the exercise of a spiritual gift and that “as he [Christ] will” (1 Cor 12:11).
4. THE INTERCESSOR. This ministry of prayer began before He left the
earth (John 17:1-26), is carried on for the saved rather than the unsaved
(John 17:9), and will be continued in heaven as long as His own are in the
world (John 17:20). As Intercessor, His work has to do with the weakness,
the helplessness, and the immaturity of the saints who are on the earth –
things over which they have no control. He who knows the limitations of His
own and the power and the strategy of the foe with whom they have to
contend, has become unto them the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls. His
care of Peter is somewhat an illustration of this truth (Luke 22:31-32). The
priestly intercession of Christ is not only effectual, but is unending. The
priests of old failed partly because of death; but Christ, because He ever
liveth, hath an unchanging priesthood: “Wherefore he is able also to save
them to the uttermost [hence, without end] that come unto God by him,
seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). David
recognized the same divine shepherding care and its guarantee of eternal
safety, when he said, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Ps 23:1).
One of the four reasons assigned in Romans 8:34 for the believer’s
safekeeping is that Christ now “maketh intercession for us.” The
effectiveness of the intercession of Christ in the preservation of each
believer is declared to be absolute. As quoted above, “He is able also to save
them to the uttermost,” that is, to save and keep saved forever those who
come unto God by Him and this on the ground of His ministry of
intercession.
5. THE ADVOCATE. The child of God is often guilty of actual sin which
would separate him from God were it not for his Advocate and what He
wrought in His death. The effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself is that
he loses his fellowship with God, his joy, his peace, and his power. On the
other hand, these experiences are restored in infinite grace on the sole
ground that he confess his sin (1 John 1:9); but it is still more important to
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
202
consider the Christian’s sin in relation to the holy character of God. Through
the present priestly advocacy of Christ in heaven there is absolute safety and
security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning. An advocate is one
who espouses and pleads the cause of another in the open courts. As
Advocate, therefore, Christ is now appearing in heaven for His own (Heb
9:24) when they sin. It is written: “My little children, these things write I
unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). His pleading is said to be
with the father, and Satan is there also, ceasing not to accuse the brethren
night and day before God (Rev 12:10). To the Christian, the sin may seem
insignificant; but a holy God can never treat it lightly. It may be a secret sin
on earth, but it is an open scandal in heaven. The Psalmist wrote: “Thou hast
set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance”
(Ps 90:8). In marvelous grace and without solicitation from men, the
Advocate pleads the cause of the guilty child of God. What the Advocate
does in thus securing the safety of the believer is so in accordance with
infinite justice that He is mentioned in this connection as “Jesus Christ the
righteous.” He pleads His own efficacious blood and the Father is free to
preserve His child against every accusation from Satan or men and from the
very judgments which sin would otherwise impose, since Christ through His
death became “the propitiation for our [Christians’] sins” (1 John 2:2). The
truth concerning the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven does not make it
easy for the Christian to sin. On the contrary, these very things are written
that we be not sinning (1 John 2:1, Greek); for no one can sin carelessly who
considers the necessary pleading which his sin imposes upon the Advocate.
The priestly ministries of Christ as Intercessor and as Advocate are directed
unto the eternal security of those who are saved (Rom 8:34).
6. THE BUILDER. One passage of great significance bears upon Christ’s
present undertaking in heaven as a Builder. He said: “I go to prepare a place
for you,” and this in connection with the statement that in His Father’s
house, or universe, there are many abodes (John 14:1-3). Evidently not one
of those abodes is in His estimation suitable for His Bride. Thus it comes
about that He is preparing an abode which will be even more glorious than
all within God’s creation at present. He is now thus engaged.
7. CHRIST EXPECTING. Over and above all the present stupendous
ministry of the resurrected, exalted Saviour already noted is the attitude
which He is said to maintain toward the day when, coming back to the earth.
He will defeat all enemies and take the throne to reign. Important, indeed, is
the revelation which discloses the fact that Christ is now in the attitude of
expectation toward the oncoming day when, returning on the clouds of
heaven, He will vanquish every foe (cf. Ps 2:7-9; Isa 63:1-6; 2 Thess 1:7-10;
Rev 19:15). Hebrews 10:13 records His expectation, which reads: “From
203
henceforth expecting that his enemies till his enemies be made his
footstool.” This will be realized in connection with His return to the earth in
power and great glory, which return os the theme of the next chapter in this
treatment of Christology.
In concluding this chapter on the ascension and session of the
resurrected Christ, attention is again called to the immensity of His
undertakings – some accomplished when He ascended from the tomb and
others when He ascended visibly on the clouds of heaven. To this may be
added the continued saving of souls, even all who come unto Him (Matt
11:28; John 6:37). As High Priest over the true tabernacle on high, the Lord
Jesus Christ has entered into heaven itself there to minister as Priest in
behalf of those who are His own in the world (Heb 8:1-2). The fact that He,
when ascending was received of His Father in heaven is evidence that His
earth-ministry was accepted. The fact that He sat down there indicated that
His work for the world was completed. The fact that He sat down on His
Father’s throne and not on His own throne reveals the truth, so constantly
and consistently taught in the Scriptures, that He did not set up a kingdom on
the earth at His first advent into the world, but that He is now “expecting”
until the time when His kingdom shall come in the earth and the divine will
shall be done on earth as it is done in heaven. “The kingdoms of this world”
are yet to become “the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall
reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15), and the kingly Son will yet ask of His
Father and He will give Him the nations for His inheritance and the
uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (Ps 2:8). However, Scripture
clearly indicates too that He is not now establishing that kingdom rule upon
in the earth (Matt 25:31-46), but that rather He is calling out from both Jews
and Gentiles a heavenly people who are related to Him as His Body and
Bride. After the present purpose is accomplished He will return and “build
again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down” (Acts 15:13-18).
Though He is a King-Priest according to the Melchizedek type (Heb 5:10;
7:1-3), He is now serving as Priest and not as King. He who is coming again
and will then be King of kings is now ascended on high to be “head over all
things to the church, which is his body” (Eph 1:22-23).” 30
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
204
205
Foreword
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
206
207
Statement of the Author’s Purpose
The most unlearned of men become ripe scholars in the school of grace when the Lord Jesus by His Holy Spirit unfolds the mysteries of the kingdom to them and grants the divine anointing by which they are enabled to behold the invisible.
Charles H. Spurgeon
This extended polemical discussion has been written because the
distortion of the gospel message is such a wide-ranging theme. Also, this is
not a sterilized account of the gospel that can be read by the average ten
year-old and sent out by nationwide subscription to indolent pastors. Pastors,
who are shepherds that prefer to avoid controversy by feeding the minds and
hearts of the faithful with the pabulum of obedience to the “social gospel.”
Which is the only gospel that can fit into the distorted boundaries claimed by
a limited system of “parolee salvation.”
This paper would be considered gonzo journalism compared to what is
distributed, preached, and discussed in most church gatherings. Despite the
tremendous amount of Bible verses and expert commentary that is offered
for consideration, some of the more reactionary types at these gatherings
would promptly respond: It’s a lie from hell! and; It’s straight out of the
devil’s mouth! Or worse yet, many would simply cast it off as an “opinion.”
God did not create and maintain His Word of Truth through the vagaries
of thirty-five centuries to offer men a medium for the forming of opinions;
rather, in the NT He desired to convey His message to three distinct ages.
Ages in which three individual groups of mankind are offered different, but
complete, blessings. The Old and New Testament together is a record of
God’s many covenants with men from the past, the present age, and one
future age. We live in the unpredicted, not-to-be-repeated “mystery”
(Matthew chapter 13) age of grace. An age where the only divinely
recognized distinction between the unsaved and the saved is trust in what
God says about Jesus Christ. An age where men are “justified by faith” (Gal
3:24) not law (Rom 10:4; 2 Cor 3:11-14; Gal 3:19, 25). An age where
nothing other than faith enters into God’s decision to save some and not
others. Therefore, the critical and essential importance of an accurate
understanding and defense of the gospel of saving grace against all forms of
distortion cannot be overstated.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
208
Author’s Comments
There are no new statements in these pages. I had the freedom to
investigate and report, what, possibly, others are not motivated to observe
because of their training or associations. Spiritual blindness is maintained by
a force independent of men (2 Cor 4:4); yet man remains responsible for his
own actions. More than half of religious professionals have never once read
completely through the Bible. A similar number actually believe what they
have read. Men do not become spontaneously dishonest until they become
thoroughly deluded. This happens as they seek to mimic popular religion
and/or politics.
In the New Testament (NT), excepting the recorded arguments of Jesus
against the self-concerned Pharisees, there is little in the Epistles of the NT
beyond condemnation and warnings about “certain men” and “false
brothers” that would afford a comprehensive understanding of what false
teaching included, added, or excluded from “the gospel.” Only a detailed
study of 1 John will identify the false beliefs that prompted the
denominational split in that 1st century church.
God raises His children to be messengers. Messengers, who, should they
accept, are given the ability and then a task that Christ assigns to them. The
person who ministered to the early churches, not the few appointed church
offices of elders and deacons, was never decided by ballot nor
considerations based on secular credentials. The accurate knowledge of the
gospel should be the unifying common ground of all believers who share,
and those who have been assigned to share, God’s message of divine grace
with those who will believe. Many true believers know they are saved, just
not exactly why or how. Neither do they know exactly why or how the other
gospels they hear are false. Sadly, through no fault of God – but certainly
known before the foundation of the world - self-appointed “juggling
imposters” are preaching many gospels. This is the single and greatest
“ancient” contributor to an unappealing Christian dishonesty witnessed by
the unsaved.
The notable German author and patriotic martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
called for a reinterpretation of Christianity to attract an unconcerned secular
world in the stormy days before the cataclysm of WW II. God has given man
the richly laden Epistles to the Galatians, the Romans, the Ephesians, and the
Hebrews. These are the interpretation of His timeless message and offer of
saving grace to a modern secular world. The willing servant need only learn
why and how “the message” applies to him before sharing this
understanding with others who may be drawn to the truth of the powerful and living Word of God.
209
What Is Another Gospel?
This is a gospel without faith. It is a gospel of doubt. “Another gospel”
is easily identified by its creed. Individual “professions of faith” will be
grounded in pragmatism. A humble-pie is filled with the non-belief of the
following statement: I continue to hope I will go to heaven; but I’ll believe it
when I see it! Be it understood, the theory of Save Thyself is a demonstration
of disbelief in the presence of the Cross. Such disbelief “cannot see the
kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
Statement of Method
Ignorance, intolerance, unteachableness, and slavish devotion to human leaders are the roots of doctrinal confusion with the attending evils which that confusion engenders. The names Calvinism and Arminianism may well be dismissed if only a clear understanding of the word of God may be gained. However, these appellations do represent, in the main, two conflicting schools of theological thought.
Lewis Sperry Chafer
The opposite of protest is to conform. This writer does not claim
Calvinism to be the name of the truth contained in the Bible. That name
must remain with Jesus Christ in the form of biblical Christianity. However,
Arminianism is a proper term for a system of conformed theology (both
intra and extra-biblical) that is in opposition to a Protestant reformed theology. However, historic reformed theology, though holding to an
effectively saving view of how one is saved, is itself incomplete, namely:
A. THE FIRST PAULINE REVELATION AND THE SECURITY OF THE
BELIEVER’S SALVATION: (1) “justification by faith” is only one of two
vital Pauline revelations reclaimed by the original reformers in the 16th
century, (2) The 17th century Protestant Arminian salvation doctrine
disputes and distorts this vital assurance of God’s eternal sufficiency and
care. Accordingly, Arminianism preaches a false, distorted gospel to the
unsaved. A gospel so distorted and lacking in grace that it has no
“power” to save anyone. A system of performance may only call upon
the resources of self - “elbow grace” will clean dishes, not souls.
B. THE SECOND PAULINE REVELATION THAT DISCLOSES THE RULE OF
LIFE FOR THE BELIEVER AND THE PURPOSES OF GOD: (1) A vital union of
all believers baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ as part of
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
210
the New Creation in Christ is the second and magnificent Pauline
revelation. This grace teaching concerns the provisions made for the
daily, and future life of the believer. (2) The Arminian rule for daily life,
blind to the grace teachings of the NT, has attached itself to the future
kingdom laws for Jews (to be enacted after the return of Christ) revealed
in the Synoptic Gospels. Accordingly, the entire message regarding the
rule for daily life is misplaced in the drudgery of a law that is yet future.
While this certainly remains a “fine moral platform,” it has no power to
fundamentally change the individual.
Only grace can overcome the power of sin. God’s Law, like any law,
has not been designed with the power to stop sin and crime. Remedy and
deterrent have widely different meanings. If punishment is the remedy for
sin why did Christ need to die? And, why is perdition eternal? Should not
the correct application of remedial punishment restore every soul to a state
of grace? Law may only expose the hopeless condition of the sinful flesh and
inflame and frustrate contrary desires.
Even if by the off chance that an individual has been introduced to
and/or pieced together enough of the gospel of God’s grace to possess the
inner witness - to have exhibited saving faith - that in turn was recognized
by God, that person’s efforts will never lead to effective service, the
personal joy of communion with God, or spiritual maturity while they are
blinded to the Bible’s truth about the grace of God and separated from Holy
Spirit taught true believers in whom they could share the love of God.
However, that person would be just as saved eternally as any true believer.
They would be “undercover” Christians, even to themselves. Vacillating
between faithless doubt and the inner witness of an assured salvation by the
Spirit of Christ.
The primary focus of this work in Book One – The Paradox of Law and
Grace will be to defend the first Pauline revelation, “justification by faith.”
This editorial work and commentary has been created by comparing biblical
truth to the preaching and practice of traditional fiction in order to give
evidence and clearly explain why “the gospel” about God’s offer of salvation
cannot coexist in “two conflicting schools.” This presentation is a running
argument to contrast the “gospel of the grace of God” against “another
gospel.” Detailed studies of God’s grace in Scripture are introduced.
Followed by the historical development of the ungracious principles of
“another gospel” which are then given amplification. In particular, by the
use of this method, it is anticipated that the exposition of the spiritual and
factual error contained in “another gospel” will be effectively conveyed and
completed to the satisfaction of those who read this work.
211
The second volume, Glorious Grace, is a personal appeal in which the
reader is introduced to the reasons why God’s grace is needed and the
promises He makes to all who will believe on His Son for salvation. Both
Book 2 and Book 3 rely heavily on the many direct editorial citations of a
select few, highly regarded authorities on the grace of God.
The third volume, The Tribunal, is presented in the form of a public
indictment of the almost unheard of, yet predominant Protestant adherence
to the Arminian Rectoral or Governmental theory i of atonement. This
theory allows the over-development of Arminian concepts of free will and a
graceless self-determination at the expense of the truth of the value in the
death of Christ.
Finally, the third volume is dedicated to the biblical proofs and
arguments against the error of the disgraceful Arminian arguments for a
salvation not secured in the sovereign grace of God. The Governmental
theory is the core rationale behind the graceless gospel of a required
performance salvation that is peculiar to the blood shed by the Jesus Christ
of “another gospel.”
Declaration
The assertion that Arminianism corrects the errors of Calvinism is
simply not true. Both systems of theology have problems; but, sadly and
irreversibly the former has left the bible to establish an anomalous (Gk. uneven ii
) theory of Christian salvation. More importantly it must remain
accurate and true that the gospel of saving grace is the only theology
approved by God’s Word. Men are saved by grace through faith; but how
many professing believers can correctly define God’s grace in their own
lives? Accordingly, the personal possession of an understanding of grace is
i The Rectoral or Governmental Theory of the value of Christ’s death was
originated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) of Leyden, Holland. This theory … has
held a strong influence over men of liberal minds, and has been, since its
introduction, about the only notable competitor against the time honored
doctrine of satisfaction, which doctrine, though formulated by Anselm, has been
the accepted view of the believers who form the church in all her generations.
(Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 139) ii 2. unusual: strange and difficult to identify or classify
"Individuals would occasionally give rise to new species having anomalous
habits." (Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species 1859) Encarta ® World
English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
212
the all-determining factor in an intelligent “free will” decision to trust in
Jesus for salvation.
As with many proofs of faith, it is an argument sorely lacking in
credible personal knowledge that would attempt to judge someone else’s
experience and insist that salvation is determined by free will or God’s will.
An all-important distinction is lost in this “mind-blinding” deconstructive
argument. A false, man-centered philosophical per-spective is revealed by
the plain fact that it matters not - to the subject under discussion - what
occurs in the realm of “free will” or God’s will on the front-end. From a
God-centered perspective, from a theological as opposed to a philosophical
view, the back-end of salvation determines saving faith. Only God can
recognize saving faith. Human speculative rationalism has no vote.
Personally accepted trust in the divine knowledge of the object of belief,
Jesus Christ, saves a soul, not the indeterminable metaphysics of a hurly burly, mumbo jumbo - willful desire. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31) was the response given by
the Apostle Paul to the Philippian jailer’s question, “Sirs, what must I do to
be saved?” (Acts 16:30) before the Apostle witnessed “the word of the Lord i ” to the jailer and “all that were in his house” (Acts 16:32). Then and only
then, did the jailer wash his prisoner’s wounds and was himself, “he and all
his,” “baptized” by the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:33). After which, the jailer
“rejoiced, believing in God (having believed God) with all his house” (Acts
16:34).
Supported by its Governmental theory of atonement, post-Reformation
Arminianism has ingratiated itself to human vanity through an extreme, false
similitude, or shared characteristic, in the substitution of unlimited free will
(a hypothetically uncaused cause without a repeatable effect) for faith in
Christ. It is false because God made the truth of the gospel possible.
Therefore, man’s free will, and – God’s grace - has been limited to and is
constrained to, namely: faith and total trust in the full value of “all things”
that are available and given to each believer through the death of Christ.
Contrary to an Arminian single-minded focus on a limited forgiveness from
the penalty of sin for salvation, forgiveness itself is only a single negative
consideration and cannot be compared to the riches of grace bestowed freely
upon those who truly depend on Jesus as their Savior. One cannot see the
kingdom of God by short-changing Jesus Christ with an admission ticket
countersigned by Arminian free will, which is, namely: a free will that
denies the supranatural works of grace; a free will that is centered in the
material world; and, a free will which is considered powerful enough to
i “As in the OT, this phrase focuses on the prophetic nature and divine origin of
what has been said” NET – study note (Acts 16:32).
213
reject God’s salvation after the many divine changes wrought by God’s
grace upon a believer.
The true gospel of justification by faith is limited to and contained in
sola fide – faith alone. Sadly, and in contradiction, Arminianism has
established a “mind-numbing” diversion by substitution. On the one hand,
by slight of hand, Arminianism has removed complete reliance in the
substitutionary blood of Christ from the requirements of saving faith. On the
other hand, the false claim of “parolee” salvation is prioritized above the
primary consideration of sola fide and focuses instead on the assumption of
man’s unlimited free will. In this imaginary scenario of salvation based on
unlimited free will and the power to choose to undo divine salvation by
grace, I would ask: Can one choose not to be unsaved after they willfully
commit some “high” sin; or, after they willfully do not confess many “low”
sins? Can one choose not to have their disobedient “free will” scourged into
submission by God, once and for all time - after regeneration and a new
birth from above? Can one choose not to be taken from this world, “that they
should not be condemned with the world,” because of their poor Christian
witness? An absurdity is revealed as impossible and untrue.
Free will is the corrupted condition, not the inalienable right, of men.
The Catholic notion of “prevenient grace” and the Arminian notion of
“common grace” is extra-biblical. But most importantly, as stated above,
free will is not faith. Free will may only be perfected by the acceptance and
surrender to divine knowledge. Free will may not be used by men to pipe a
tune that God should dance to. The sovereignty of God is all in all.
Unlimited free will may not be claimed as a privilege, or “an inalienable
right” by men. Furthermore, as so many inverted and misleading rationalized
arguments are remedied by re-inversion, or setting back aright, so too, the
argument for unlimited free will in salvation. God requires from man not
only that he exercise his free will; but that he also place His God-created
free will entirely and completely on faith - by trusting “in Christ” for the gift
of salvation. Salvation in Christ is for faith, not merely free will.
Arminianism and the Separation of Church and State
There exists an artificial legal precept in American law that is mirrored
by Arminian salvation theory. Both of these man-made constructions contain
the religious-political idea of an obligation to a city discussed in a previous
section. One could not create, nor wish for, a more demonstrative parallel in
that “another gospel” is identical to the oft repeated fiction that “separation
of church and state” was included in the establishment clause of the United
States Constitution. It is true that the tax supported Supreme Court is
supposed to interpret the Constitution (a document much more organized
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
214
and shorter than the Bible) and tithe supported religious leaders are supposed
to interpret the Bible. So what? Interpretation becomes innovation when a
document is assumed, as the theory of Constitutional law is taught, to be
elastic and conformable to contemporary needs. The Supreme Court
overstepped their authority sixty years ago, and has over-zealously quoted
the “separation of church and state” i decision thousands of times and the
Constitution itself, only a fraction of this number. Exceedingly vigorous
diligence is proof of motive not necessity.
In a similar manner, Arminianism has been relying, for its very
existence, on the novelty of a distinguishing theory detailing the value in the
death of Christ for more than 350 years. Together, both the accumulated
body of Constitutional law relating to the “separation of church and state”
and the Arminian “theory of atonement” exist on the weight of a lie. Only
the existence of a myth is reinforced by the preaching and practice of
fiction.
The vital truth is: God, the Almighty Judge of the Universe, has decreed
the separation of salvation and performance. Nevertheless, countless people
are misled by the appeal of an easily grasped opinion that “salvation by
grace through faith” may be lost or forfeited. They insist, by reason alone,
that salvation must be decided by personal performance. This is an artificial
union, a conflation, a conformation ii of salvation to performance. There is
i Extracted from a letter by Jefferson to a Baptist congregation who had
supported his recent election campaign. A letter written many years after the
Constitution was framed. The Danbury Baptist initiated a request that Jefferson
not include any new laws about separation. So, you have Jefferson responding in
a personal letter of confirmation and assurance: “The Constitution guarantees
the separation of church and state.” Jefferson’s point was because “separation”
was not included in the Constitution, the government had no right to make any
laws in regard to religion. Laws neither inclusive nor prohibitive. Because no
express right had been granted, religion was Constitutionally a taboo, out-of-
bounds object of any Federal laws. And thus, in context, separation in the source
letter means the reverse of its “unconstitutional” application by a Supreme Court
Judge. Hence, a great example and parallel of a dangerous lie, that once started,
continues to be self-supporting by the repetition of fiction. The most honorable
highest court of the most free and democratic example in the world, the USA,
has limited religious expression through the pragmatic means of conforming the
Constitution to an outside, invalid, and post-dated source. Go figure! Better yet,
consider what interpretation of law is so secure that only a fetus may ever lose
their US citizenship and become de facto private property.
ii conformation - 4. creation of conformity: bringing the process of one thing
into accord with another. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
215
no Scriptural support for teaching this view. Much less, for the unsaved, or,
the truly saved to believe in it for salvation. Thus, a gospel has been derived
from a philosophical, man-centric theory of atonement i to create a
conformed theology of “justification by faith” that has been combined with
un-justification by sin that stands in stark opposition to the Protestant
Reformation theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Reformed theology
contains the same gospel message that has been shared by uncounted
millions of believers and martyrs of the faith since the earliest days of
Christianity. The Apostle Peter first gave this message to the Jews gathered
in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost - when the Holy Spirit first descended
upon believers – the day the true church was born. Despite unconvincing
arguments to the contrary, a church born of God, which is the new Body of
Christ, may not be unborn.
The Arminian message cannot be God’s true gospel of grace because the
foundation is a theory of benign sentimentalism that is missing from God’s
revelation of Himself. Despite populist emotionalism to the contrary, Jesus
Christ was no bearded lady. By definition there is only one original truth
among many imitations. The genuine may be known by the startling
revelation that God’s glorious grace is self-assertive and aggressive - not
benign and complacent. The glory of the gospel exceeds that of the Mosaic
Law because of the proactive work of the Spirit of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:18).
A Living Letter
2 Cor 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? We don’t
need letters of recommendation to you or from you as some other people
do, do we? 3:2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts,
known and read by everyone, 3:3 revealing that you are a letter of Christ,
delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God,
not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.
3:4 Now we have such confidence in God through Christ. 3:5 Not that
we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming
from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 3:6 who made us
adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on
the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
i Theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating on both man and God, but on man primarily and on God only secondarily … the so-called “rectoral or governmental theory of atonement” is the primary theory.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
216
The Greater Glory of the Spirit’s Ministry
3:7 But if the ministry that produced death—carved in letters on stone
tablets—came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes
fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which
was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of
the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced
condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces
righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious
now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what
replaced it. 3:11 For if what was made ineffective came with glory, how
much more has what remains come in glory! 3:12 Therefore, since we
have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, 3:13 and not like
Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from
staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. 3:14 But their
minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they
hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in
Christ is it taken away. 3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is
read, a veil lies over their minds, 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
the Lord is present, there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled
faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the
same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord,
who is the Spirit. NET
Closing Comments by the Author
The shifting of writing sequence and short pieces of fiction are used on
occasion in this journalistic effort. The inclusion of a long citation is
intended as preparation for a discussion that follows. Also, citations are
included in the Appendix of a volume for reference. In keeping with the
requirements of the subject matter, this author is pleased to have included
the many short quotations and the extended citation of highly qualified and
distinguished writers. These authorities on the unbounded grace contained in
the gospel of divine grace have made immeasurable contributions over the
last century that will continue until marana tha (Our Lord come).
This effort is a comprehensive report on the message of God’s abundant
grace. Perhaps, some, who, because of astonishment, will not stagger
[Strong’s #1252 = withdraw, oppose, hesitate ☺ discriminate, contend, doubt, waver, etc.] “at the promise of God through unbelief.”
217
Abide in Me as I Abide in You
God would say to the children of His grace, To those who possess the power of faith:
Trim your sails and loose your rudder.
Let the breath of my Spirit carry you home.
And the rainbow water flying from your bow, Will be a stream of life in the river of now.
“At that day you shall know that I’m in my Father, and you in me, and I in
you. Because I live, you will too” 31
Rom 4:20 - 5:2 He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through
unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. And being fully
persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And
therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for
his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall
be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised for our
justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by faith into
this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory [glory is a place for believers, heaven is home] of God.
DL Coulon
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
218
219
Religion
Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty,
deceitful philosophy [theology] that is according to human traditions
and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.32 For
if Abraham was
declared righteous by
the works of the law, he
has something to boast
about—but not before
God. For what does the
scripture say? “Abra-
ham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to
the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to
obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who
declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.33
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
220
221
The Scales of Justice
A recent poll indicates that a
majority of churched Americans
hold the belief that heaven is a
reward for good deeds. Personal
sins and meritorious acts will be
weighed on a set of scales by the
God of the Bible Himself. This
reckoning will determine one’s
final destiny. In Western culture
this fits the very icon of justice -
and blind faith. I consider the day to
day reality of this kind of belief to
be a martyrdom. A martyrdom of doubt, or sacrificing for a cause which
denies the certain knowledge that you and, those you love, will be together
in heaven. On the other hand, a Muslim with a better grasp of his sacred text
in Sirah 9:111, has a sure way to heaven. He has a guarantee of salvation
when he suicides for Islam. The effect of which he hopes to make heaven his
day to day reality. The two maintain widely differing ideas of the eternal
state and what is expedient, I admit, but a parallel means of obtaining a
heavenly end may be noted – that of what man may do for God.
Further similarities exist between the Muslim who follows radical Islam
and the American who follows populist Christianity. The soon-to-be-gone
Muslim, true to his teaching, earnestly believes God’s reward is carnal
pleasure now in exchange for his jihad (a struggle by heart, tongue, hand, or
sword to please God
and lead a virtuous
life34
). As he is taught,
the Amer-ican, who has
only a hope and no
assur-ance of heaven,
sincerely believes God
will reward him a
measure of health,
wealth, and happiness
now in exchange for his
jihad. The two share
much in common. Both
focus on the here and now and, are little inclined to wait for results. Under
the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
222
threat of expulsion, radical Islam
and popular Christianity have
expositors who put upon the
supplicants a pay-as-you-go duty to
give them God’s money, as the tithe
or zakat. So, also, each religion
reveres and maintains the bones of
the same dead patriarchs. Mutually,
they are a stipulated assortment of
communal postures, prayers and
ordinances to gain the favor of God.
The followers of each believe that
the question of heaven is answered by death. At which time a just God is
obligated to give them what they deserve. They share in the belief that
heaven is a reward.
God save me from your followers! From those who pronounce God as a
four syllable word; religious garb and rings that need to be kissed; from
those who pronounce sin in a high nasal pitch; from those who film
themselves screaming your praise and wiping their mouths and foreheads
with the same cloth; from greed and the prosperity gospel; from those who
film themselves healing in huge sports arenas not hospitals; from killer
martyrs and their bombs; from those who film themselves separating the
head from the body of an innocent kidnapped victim; from those who pride
themselves as your 144,000; and those who accumulate vast records of birth
and death in order to conscript and
baptize the dead into a non-Christian
heaven.
But first and foremost, save the
lost from those who, through
ignorance or by design, insult Your
Son and Your untold grace by
following a false hope in religious humanism to teach salvation by
Christ is in continued faith. Only
because Your justice was completely
satisfied in the blood of Your Son,
Jesus Christ, may we believe the
Good News that salvation in Christ
is for faith to release us from the law
of sin and death.
223
PART ONE - NIGHT AND DAY
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis i. 3-5.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
224
225
Religious Humanism
The spirit of tolerance toward the preaching of “another gospel,” instead of the Gospel of Christ, is usually justified by the assuring statement that the Word of God needs no defense, and therefore any controversy with these perverters of the truth would be a needless and aimless warfare. To this it may be replied: No defense of the whole truth is ever made from a fear that man will destroy the eternal Word itself, but that defense is made from a God-given compassion for the multitude who are being beguiled away from all hope by the sophistries of these teachings; for any true burden for the lost will extend to the misguided as well as the unguided. With the many pious substitutes for the one Gospel of Grace today, and the ecclesiastical influence and blind enthusiasm of their promoters, evangelism has new enemies to face, and her glorious work can never be accomplished by waving the white flag of tolerance before her foes.
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Rom 8:2 For the law of the 1Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
226
227
Opening Discussion
1(8:2) Hitherto in Romans the Holy Spirit has been mentioned but once
(Rom 5:5); in this chapter He is mentioned nineteen times. Redemption
is by blood and by power (Ex 14:30, note). Rom. 3:21-5:11 speaks of the
redemptive price; Rom. 8 of redemptive power. … The blood of Christ
redeems the believer from the guilt and penalty of sin (1 Pet 1:18) as the
power of the Spirit delivers from the dominion of sin (Rom 8:2; Eph 2:2). 35
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the 1grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but
there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1(1:6) The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or
mingles law with grace as the means either of justification or
sanctification (Gal 2:21; 3:1-3), or denies the fact or guilt of sin which
alone gives grace its occasion and opportunity, it is “another” gospel, and
the preacher of it is under the anathema of God (v. 8, 9). 36
Religious humanism – An oxymoron and synonym for apostasy used in
this discussion to define spiritual systems, based on human merit, which
inevitably are interpreted to reflect contemporary concepts of “humanism.”
Today its focus is centered on a therapeutic self-preoccupation where man is
the locus and God is delegated to play the supporting role. At bottom,
religious humanism is little more than a subculture with slightly different
ideas, norms, and things from that of any particular main culture.
Consequently, there is no culture shock to be experienced.
True Christianity cannot be identified as a subculture. It is “not of this
world” as the words of Jesus proclaim: “Ye are from beneath; I am from
above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23) and, “I pray
for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me;
for they are thine. … I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated
them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”
(John 17:9, 14). Christianity exists above, but lives and works among all
cultures. It is the supra or epiculture. Unique unto itself. Culture shock is
essential to the very definition of what the NT reveals to be the divine estate
and the new experience of the Christian. Making of him or her one who has
been regenerated and Spirit baptized into the Body of Christ. Whereby he or
she becomes a stranger in a strange land - a pilgrim and a sojourner. “By
faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country
… For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose architect and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
228
builder is God. … For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the
coming one” (Heb 11:9, 10; 13:14). And also, “The third heaven (its location
however wholly unrevealed) is the abode of God – the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, and until this age has never been entered by any created
being – angel or human. The present divine purpose is to populate the third
heaven. It is called glory (Heb 2:10) and represents a place rather than a state
of mind or being (John 14:1-3). Those who enter will be “made meet” (Col
1:12). More specifically, they will become actual sons of God (John 1:12;
3:3). They will be perfected forever (Heb 10:14), justified (Rom 5:1), and
made partakers of Christ’s πλήρωµα (John 1:16), which is all fullness (Col
1:19), the very nature of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9).” 37
And lastly, the
new Jerusalem that Abraham looked forward to, “But ye are come unto
mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and
to an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church
of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect. And to Jesus the mediator of the
new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than
that of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).
Consequently, true Christianity is, and, has been racially corrected in the
broadest sense. It is a new race of men that must remain ethnocentric. As
wheat blossoms white, the tare - which resembles wheat - blossoms black
and poisonous. So too, Christianity is unrelated to any and all man-made
systems of religious culture. “But God forbid that I [Paul] should glory, save
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto
me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [religion]
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision [no religion], but a new creation [a new birth]” (Gal 6:14-15).
A humanistic gospel cannot sponsor the mystical union of Christ with an
individual to create a Christian. Which is the earthly function of all
generations in the regenerated Body of Christ by the means of the power of
the gospel of the grace of God unto eternal life. i “For though you have ten
thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ
Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech
you, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor 5:15-16). Eternal life is the gift of God
when one is “reborn from above” ii (John 3:3). “For the payoff of sin is
i Should anyone doubt these claims, they are affirmed in the credits to supporters in a
recent PBS airing of, The History of Unbelief. The AEU is one supporter. These
organizations also support the glut of books about militant ATHEISM that have been
published recently. ii 8tn The word a[nwqen (anwqen) has a double meaning, either “again” (in which case
it is synonymous with palivn [palin]) or “from above” (BDAG 92 s.v. a[nwqen).
229
death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23
NET). Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:
This priceless treasure, which is the gift of God, should not be confused
with the mere endless existence which all possess. It is a life added to that
which has been experienced before by itself. Christ said: “I am come that
they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John
10:10). This life is no less than “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27).
It comes free because a gift of His love. It at once relates the one who has
received it to God and to things eternal. Christ likened it to a birth from
above. (John 3:3, R.V. margin) “for those which were born … of God” (John
1:13).
Thus all depends on receiving Christ and being saved through Him.
John has said so again: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not
the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12). 38
A sharp distinction must be made between human existence which by its
nature continues forever and the gift of God which is eternal life. In the last
analysis, humanity is not wholly conformed to time. Every human being will
be living on forever, even after it has been decreed that time shall be no
more. Thus humanity intrudes into eternity and must, in the end, conform to
the eternal mode of existence. Each human being has a beginning. In this he
is unlike God. Each human being, however, has no end of his existence. . In
this respect he is to some extent like God. That human beings have no end is
a solemn thought; but on those who receive God’s gift of eternal life the
very life of God is bestowed. That life is a partaking of the divine nature. It
is no less than “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Thus by regeneration all
who believe become possessors of that which in God is itself eternal. In 1
Corinthians 13:12 it is declared, accordingly, that the believer one day will
know even as now he is known of God, that is, the infinite mind will be
superceded by the mind of God. Even now it is said that he has the mind of
Christ (1 Cor 2:16). Little, indeed, may be anticipated respecting the coming
transcendent experience of those who now possess eternal life when they
shall enter into the experience of eternal life in full. 39
Proven by ecumenics and biblical warnings, Christendom, when using
today’s majority standard, is an admixture of humanistic goals into “another
gospel” (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6-9) designed strictly for the economies of
simulation and a self-advancement in which only “good people”
participating in a well-ordered subculture may go to heaven.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
230
What then is a “good person” in the eyes of God? A relative standard of
cultural innocence does not escape the judgment of God. Why insist a
convicted fiend, who has motive, cannot trust in Christ for an assured
salvation while ignoring the well-to-do malefactor who has no legal guilt or
motive? The Bible clearly reveals that the possession or lack of worldly guilt
is not the divine standard of righteousness, the prime cause, nor the answer
to the need for man’s salvation. When addressing relative guilt, the
foolishness of comparing people to people (2 Cor 10:12) becomes quite
evident: For who has been 100% as evil as they might have been? Improved
individual behavior is a secondary aspect of God’s solution to “His” sin
problem. For these reasons, a partial salvation by Christ cannot answer the
logical need for a completely satisfactory salvation in Christ.
In this respect, Dr. Lewis Chafer expounds on the radical difference
between a true Christian and a religious humanist:
The widespread Arminian emphasis upon human merit has tended to
obscure one of the primary realities of a true Christian, which reality is
secured, not by merit, but by divine grace, in answer to saving belief in
Christ. That reality is that the believer is regenerated and thus is introduced
into a new estate, a new existence, a new relationship which is well defined
as a new creation. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 it is written: “Therefore if any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all
things are become new.” The Apostle likewise declares that “we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:10). This passage reveals the
truth that, as a result of the divine workmanship, the Christian is no less than
a divine creation – a form of being which did not exist before. That new
being is said to partake of the “divine nature,” which implies that it is as
enduring as the eternal God. Similarly, the same Apostle writes: “For in
231
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but
anew creature” (Gal 6:15). Upon this specific aspect of the truth the Lord
placed a great emphasis when speaking to Nicodemas. It is significant that,
when declaring the necessity of the birth from above, Christ did not select a
dissolute character, but He chose one who ranked highest in Judaism and
whose character was beyond reproach. It was a personal message when He
said to Nicodemas, “Ye must be born again,” and the universally
acknowledged mystery of it must not be suffered to detract from either the
reality or the necessity of that divine regeneration. 40
The Apostle Paul claimed, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:11-12).
And also Paul asserts, “For this cause also we thank God without ceasing,
because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,
which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess 2:13; see also
Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23). And finally, Paul claims: “But have renounced the
hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word
of God deceitfully; but by manifes-tation of the truth commending ourselves
to every man’s conscience in the sight of God … For we preach not
ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’
sake. For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath
shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor 4:2, 5-7).
Quite the opposite of Paul’s claims are used when the non-biblical
gospel of religious humanism teaches followers to not trust in the Word of
God, Christ, and His righteousness to become a “good person” - to be made
“meet” or qualified in the eyes of God. These followers are taught to trust in
themselves for adherence to the unquantified, unclear, legalism (nomianisn)
that will merit a false salvation in the legendary scales of justice. The
antithesis of these humanistic systems is branded and ridiculed for the so-
called antinomianism i of the immorality produced by reliance on faith in the
grace of God for salvation. The Apostle Paul answered this age-old charge,
“For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually
being judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may
i antinomianism - 1. Christian doubting the force of laws: in Christian doctrine, the
belief that Christians are not bound by established moral laws, but should rely on faith
and divine grace for salvation. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
232
come of it”?—as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their
condemnation is deserved!)” (Rom 3:7-8 NET).
In the Arminian’s self-validating accusation of antinomianism against
God’s sovereign grace, one major theme of the NT is completely denied.
Obedience to the law (nomianism, Gk. erga nomou, “works of the law”) has
no delivering power and, consequently, the real master continues to be sin.
As proven by Scripture, “For no one is declared righteous before him by the
works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom
3:20 NET) and “I [Paul] do not frustrate the grace of God: for if
righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal 2:21 KJV).
Knowledge and con-
fession of personal
sinfulness is not sal-vation
in Christ, rather, crucifixion
with Christ sets a believer
free from the law of sin and
death. This is not to be
taken as a “new” death. The
unsaved died spiritually
with Adam. Christ suffered
the agony of hell on the
cross. And released His
incarnate life only after all
sin was satisfactorily re-
deemed. He died a
sacrificial death that was
demonstrated by the water
and the blood that poured
from the spear wound
inflicted into His side by
the Roman soldier - after His death. Accepting the offer of the gospel of
grace is to agree that His voluntary death for sin was your death - that His
resurrection is your resurrection from eternal death into eternal life. This
awesome reality seems too simple; but how often do we daily witness the
blindness of crippling denial in others? It is no small thing to cure spiritual
blindness. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
The Apostle Paul reveals, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster …
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24 KJV); “Knowing
this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is
233
freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also
live with him” (Rom 6:6-8); “I [Paul] am crucified with Christ: nevertheless
I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the
flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself
for me” (Gal 3:20). “It is a faithful saying: If we have died with him we shall
also live with him” (1 Tim 2:11). The ordinance of baptism is the mere
shadow of a prior reality. Who then is the Christian hypocrite? The white-
haired pundit making grand claims of alliance with a Christian God in a
public baptism or the front line enlistee who is saved through faith in the
obscurity of a waterless desert?
Salvation is the “gift of God” (John 4:10; Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8) to those
who believe the truth of the true gospel of grace – where faith is the positive
response of those who take God at His word, “For I [Paul] am not ashamed
of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth …” (Rom 1:16). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes the following NOTE
in The Old Scofield Study System:
The Heb. and Gr. words for salvation imply the ideas of deliverance, safety, preservation, healing, and soundness. Salvation is the great inclusive
word of the Gospel, gathering into itself all the redemptive acts and
processes: as justification, redemption, grace, propitiation, imputation, forgiveness, sanctification, and glorification. Salvation is in three tenses: (1)
The believer has been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin (Lk 7:50; 1
Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:9) and is safe. (2) The believer is
being saved from the habit and dominion of sin (Rom 6:14; Phil 1:19; 2:12,
13; 2 Thes 2:13; Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 2:19, 20). (3) The believer is to be saved in the sense of entire conformity to Christ (Rom 13:11; Heb 10:36;
1 Pet 1:5; 1 John 3:2). Salvation is by grace through faith, is a free gift, and
wholly without works (Rom 3:27, 28; 4:1-8; 6:23; Eph 2:8). The divine
order is: first salvation, then works (Eph 2:9, 10; Tit 3:5-8).” – P. 1192
Belief in a monotheistic God other than God who was born of a virgin
Jewess descended from King David; an out of this world higher power (than
yourself); some fancy notion of an afterlife; a one-dimensional God of love
who condemns no one; or a non-Scriptural salvation not grounded wholly –
absolutely and entirely without reservation - on trust in the God-man Jesus
Christ is pointless lip service to a godless lie.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
234
The same lie that would claim a benevolent, primordial potion of mud
was the original brew that begat a plague of murderous primates that has
increased sixfold in the last 150 years. At this juncture a brief look Through a Window
i to some of the aspects of a contemporary American humanistic
view is warranted. That which underlies Western civilization’s religious
humanism can be traced back to a form of pragmatic materialism known as
Sophistry (rhymes with commercial democracy), credited to Democritus in
the 5th century B.C.. He advised material success as the goal of life because
truth was unobtainable.
Demo-critus predated
Socrates and Plato.
The relatively ad-vanced
troglodytes and naked apes
mentioned above are able to
mask a fundamental
psychopa-thology only
because others serve the needs
of convenience. These so-
cialized primates who today -
until God finally and fully
intervenes - are irretrievably
destroying the life of the
planet they live on. A
depleted world is the realized
end time event, the Silent Spring
ii of all evolutionary
and hu-manistic notions of
progress. Additionally, a
1,400 year old religious
hatred, recently made fabulously wealthy and flush with petrodollars,
declares all humans were born Muslims and holds the world responsible for
failing Islam. And lastly, the engine of capitalism no longer exclusively
emits benefits to societies by devouring natural and human resources.
As it exists today, a “free market” is ever increasing its unchecked
position in limited liability financial services to fuel an engine that devours
i Through a Window, written by the English anthropologist, Jane Goodall, in 1990 which
documented the carnivorous hunting and sharing, premeditated gang murder, and
cannibalistic behavior of chimpanzees. ii Silent Spring, written by the American marine biologist, Rachel Louise Carson, in 1962
which prompted the governmental ban of DDT.
235
the very benefits and value that it fostered in developed societies.i The
unregulated, non-bank instruments of leveraged hedge funds may account
for as much as 50 per cent of market trades in a single day. By this means,
the capitalistic engine of greed is emitting more and more risk into the
market and transferring value to the investors and owners of these funds.
The future shock is when the non-voting majority stock holders (a.k.a. John
Q. Public) find the shelves stripped and no one legally responsible for a theft
that also depleted their pensions and savings.
This will happen when government can longer bail-out the losses
generated by this greed. True capitalism died in 1929 on “Black Tuesday.”
Since then, a “fixed” system has been the American norm. A system of
government subsidies and regulated, transparent “free market” trade.
However, recently, an unregulated, non-transparent capitalism has found it
more profitable to eat its children.
The following excerpts shed some light upon the contemporary
dogmatics of capitalism. These beliefs are held to be true for what may be
termed “elitist units, i.e., corporations” (a group regarded as an individual by
law and/or a group acting as a single unit). These entities are not led by the
talented or the rough individualist fantasized and acted out by pop culture.
Rather the ethics of these created entities are defined in such non–fiction as
The Virtue of Selfishness: A Concept of New Egoism (1964) written by Ayn
Rand. The unregulated freedom of these artificial units supercedes the
citizen and is considered to be an inalienable right and entitlement by
today’s democratic legal and financial thieves who have learned to conjure
wealth by subtractive value.
Alan Greenspan Alan Greenspan, born in 1926, American economist, born in New York
City and educated at New York University. Greenspan also studied at
Columbia University under noted economist Arthur F. Burns. Greenspan
taught economics at New York University from 1953 to 1955 and also
formed a consulting firm. He was deeply influenced by his friendship with
novelist Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, which exalts laissez-
faire capitalism and promotes “rational selfishness,” the belief that people
should live for their own rational self-interests. At Rand's urging, he became
an adviser to Richard Nixon during the 1968 presidential campaign. …
In January 1992 Greenspan was appointed to a second term as head of
the FRB. He opposed tax cuts, believing that they would contribute to the
growing federal deficit. He supported President Bill Clinton's 1993 deficit-
i Reference, the writings of John T. Bogle, notable for the Vanguard Fund.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
236
reduction programs with the reservation that spending cuts were far better
than tax increases. Greenspan was reappointed as chairman of the FRB in
1996 and 2000. During Greenspan’s years with the FRB, the United States
experienced the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history.
Ayn Rand Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose
championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure
in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate. Rand upheld individualism
over collectivism and egoism over altruism. She staunchly defended reason
as the tool that sustains and nourishes the individual against the forces that
can weaken it.
Individualism Individualism, in political and economic philosophy, the doctrine,
promulgated by such theorists as English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and
British economist Adam Smith, that society is an artificial device, existing
only for the sake of its members as individuals, and properly judged only
according to criteria established by them as individuals. Individualists do not
necessarily subscribe to the doctrine of egoism, which regards self-interest
as the only logical human motivation. They may instead be guided in
political and economic thinking by motives of altruism, holding that the end
of social, political, and economic organization is the greatest good for the
greatest number. What characterizes such individualist thinkers, however, is
their conception of the “greatest number” as composed of independent units
and an opposition to the interference of the state with the happiness or
freedom of these [financial, this writer] units.
Individualist tendencies or theories play a part in all the sciences that
deal with a person as a social being. Although individualism would
theoretically consider the state as placing an artificial restraint on a person's
individual tendencies, practical distinctions between individualism and its
antitheses, such as socialism, are often difficult to make. Like individualism,
socialist or collectivist (see Collectivism) theories may place high value on
the well-being and free initiative of the individual. Individualism differs
from such theories in asserting that the welfare of the individual is of the
highest value and that each individual exists as a unique end, with society
serving only as a means to accomplish the ends of the individual [“elitist unit,” this writer]. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
In stark contrast to the world-system and its sub-culture of religious humanism, the distinction between the destiny of the saved and the unsaved
237
is determined by one’s response to Jesus Christ as Savior – not personal
behavior. Behavior does not save a soul from damnation. God saves.
Salvation is by trust in the value of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Christ who came and revealed God the Father to mankind. Christ
who gives God the Holy Spirit for the regeneration and Spirit baptism of
condemned mankind. For this reason, by definition, whosoever values
anything whatsoever more than salvation through Jesus Christ and the one
triune God is a non-believer and guilty of unbelief, yes, but more accurately,
that person is, by biblical warrant - an atheist, “Formerly when you did not
know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all”
(Gal 4:8 NET).
This is literally illustrated in the final public and private departing words
of Jesus: (1) “But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not
believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the
one who sent me. I have come as a light into the world [cf. Mtw 4:4:8; John 3:19. Grk. cosmos=indicating lost humanity], so that everyone who believes
in me should not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not
obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world [Grk. apollumi=the lost, the “marred” condition of all the unsaved that are doomed to eternal perdition after the “last day”], but to save the world [the lost who will perish]. The one who rejects me and does not accept my words
has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. For I have
not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has
commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that
his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the
Father has told me” (John 12:44-50 brackets mine NET). (2) “You believe
in God; believe also in me” (John 14:1ff NET); “Jesus replied, “If anyone
loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will
come to him and take up residence with him. The person who does not love
me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the
Father’s who sent me” (John 14:23-24 NET); “When the Advocate comes,
whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out
from the Father—he will testify about me” (John 15:26 NET). To believe in
God and not Christ is to view Christ as a “revealer” without a revelation.
Which remains an indecipherable riddle as the two are inseparable. To
believe in god is far removed and light years away from knowing Christ as
God.
Concerning the wasted anxieties inherent in a false gospel grounded in
religious humanism, Dr. Charles H. Spurgeon writes:
“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Galatians v. 18.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
238
““““HHHHE who looks at his own character and position from a legal point of
view, will not only despair when he comes to the end of his reckoning, but if
he be a wise man he will despair at the beginning; for if we are to be judged
on the footing of the law, there shall no flesh living be justified. How
blessed to know that we dwell in the domains of grace and not of law! When
thinking of my state before God the question is not, “Am I perfect in myself
before the law?” but, “Am I perfect in Christ Jesus?” That is a very different
matter. We need not enquire, “Am I without sin naturally?” but, “Have I
been washed in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness?” It is not “Am
I in myself well pleasing to God?” but it is “Am I accepted in the Beloved?”
The Christian views his evidences from the top of Sinai, and grows alarmed
concerning his salvation; it were better far if he read his title by the light of
Calvary. “Why,” saith he, “my faith has unbelief in it, it is not able to save
me.” Suppose he had considered the object of his faith instead of his faith,
then he would have said, “There is no failure in Him, and therefore I am
safe.” He sighs over his hope: “Ah! My hope is marred and dimmed by an
anxious carefulness about present things; how can I be accepted?” Had he
regarded the ground of his hope, he would have seen that the promise of
God standeth sure, and that whatever our doubts may be, the oath and
promise never fail. Ah! believer it is safer always for you to be led of the
Spirit into gospel liberty than to wear legal fetters. Judge yourself at what
Christ is rather than at what you are. Satan will try to mar your peace by
reminding you of your sinfulness and imperfections: you can only meet his
accusations by faithfully adhering to the gospel and refusing to wear the
yoke of bondage.” 41
In respect to an Arminian view of salvation, Dr. Lewis Chafer writes the
following:
They claim that God had no other decree respecting the salvation of men
than that He would save those that believe, and condemn and reprobate those
who do not believe. Beyond this, man is responsible apart from any divine
relationship. Having sent His Son into the world to remove the insuperable
obstacle of sin and having removed man’s inability by a bestowal upon him
of a supposed common grace, man is left to make his own choice, though of
course, the gospel must be preached unto him. According to this plan, God
determines nothing, bestows nothing apart from the removal of inability, and
secures nothing. Certain individuals are chosen of God only in the sense that
He foresaw their faith and good works – which faith and good works arise in
themselves and are not divinely wrought. In the end, according to this
system, man is his own savior. A salvation which originates in such
239
uncertainties, builds upon mere foreknowledge of human merit, and exalts
the human will to the place of sovereignty, cannot make place for the
doctrine of security, since eternal security of those who are saved depends
on the sovereign undertakings of God.” 42
Another point regarding the Arminian’s dethroning of God, inverts the
ideal between what God’s imparted grace may do in behalf of the believer’s
service and conditions God’s grace to depend upon man’s continuing work
for God. Hence, by this convolution, Arminian salvation has been construed
to turn upon man’s work for God. This is a criminal misconstruction of
salvation.
Rightly divided, present salvation and divine future rewards for service
(works) are separate and not interdependent. Man is saved “unto good
works,” not because of good works. Man is saved by God’s unmerited grace
through faith; never is it said to be because of man’s faith - or anything else
on the part of man. Dr. Chafer illuminates this distinction in the following:
1 Corinthians 9:27. “But I keep under my body, and bring it into
subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself
should be castaway.” [“Instead I subdue my body and make it my slave, so that after preaching to others I myself will not be disqualified” NET].
Again the distinction between rewards for Christian service and
salvation is in view. The subject is introduced, so far as this context is
concerned, with the Apostle’s question, “What is my reward then?” (vs. 18).
And this question is preceded and followed by an extended testimony on the
Apostle’s part relative to his own faithful service. Already in 3:9-15 he has
distinguished between salvation and rewards; but in this passage he
considers only his reward. In this testimony, he likens the Christian’s service
to a race in which all believers are participating and in relation to which they
must strive lawfully, and be temperate in all things. This reference to service
as a race is followed by the Apostle’s closing testimony in which he declares
that he brings his body into subjection “lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be castaway.” The rendering of άδόκιµος
[Strong’s Concordance #96=adŏkimŏs, derived from #1384=dŏkimŏs, this writer] by the word castaway is not sustained by all. This Greek word is
only the negative form of δόκιµος, which certainly means to be approved or
accepted. As for his standing before God the believer is already accepted
(Eph 1:6) and justified (Rom 5:1). As for his service, or that which man may
do for God, he must yet appear before the judgment seat [the “bema seat,” judgment of the righteous, not the “great white throne,” judgment of the damned, this writer] of Christ, where rewards are to be bestowed and failure
in service will be burned (cf. 2 Cor 5:9-10; 1 Cor 3:15). The precise meaning
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
240
of δόκιµος is seen in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.” This injunction does not imply that salvation depends on faithful
study; it rather asserts that those who are saved should study lest they be
disapproved and that is precisely the Apostle’s meaning in the text under
discussion. The Apostle’s desire to be free from the trifling, irresolute, half-
hearted manner of preaching which His Lord could never condone is worthy
of a great servant of God, and may well be taken to heart by all who are
called to preach the Word of God. There is no note of insecurity here. How
could the man who wrote the eighth chapter of Romans be fearful least he be
cast away from God? Or how could the Holy Spirit who said “They shall
never perish” now imply that they might perish? Other Scriptures belonging
in this classification are Romans 8:17; Revelation 2:10; and all references to
rewards throughout the New Testament.” 43
One of the many translation errors in the KJV which encourage
interpretations that nourish religious humanism in general and faith in a
salvation not based completely and securely on Christ, is specifically 1 John
5:4-5, “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the
victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that
overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?”
Concerning the centuries of misguided preaching contained in this one error,
Dr. Chafer writes:
The real meaning in this passage is hidden by the failure in the A.V.
translation to put the last part of verse 4 in the past tense. It should read,
“And this is the victory that overcame the world, even our faith.” In other
words, everyone, without exception if born of God, does, by that birth
overcome the world – being saved out of it. By believing one becomes an
overcomer, for overcomer means simply the same general distinction that is
in view when the term Christian is employed. Is an overcoming in daily life
There is an overcoming in daily life as described in Revelation 12:11; but
the larger use of this specific term is found in the seven letters to the seven
churches in Asia (cf. Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). If the thought of
“those that are saved” is read into each of these letters, the meaning is made
clear. 44
Dr. R. E. Brown, a specialist and authority on Johannine grammar, in his
NOTES and COMMENTS on The Epistles of John in The Anchor Bible, also
identifies a translation error here at 1 John 5:4 in the KJV:
241
“NOTES - 5:4b. Now this is the conquering power that has conquered the world. … The normal English translation of the noun nikē is “victory,” but
that loses the connection with the verb nikan, “to conquer,” which follows it.
(Nikē occurs only here in the NT, and indeed in Hellenistic Greek was
yielding in frequency to the related noun nikos.) I prefer “conquering power”
to “conquest”; for here nikē is a metonymy for the means of victory, or the
power that grants victory (BAG 541; BAGD 539). … The aorist participle
used here has been given different temporal values (Schnackenburg,
Johannesbriefe 254), which affect the meaning of the passage. (Originally
participles had no absolute time value but expressed states of action in
relation to the main verb.) … (1) Present meaning: the Vulgate rendered it as
vincit, “conquers,” and that translation influenced Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale,
and the KJV (also NEB and Moffat). Nikan was used in the present tense in
the preceding line (5:4a), and the present participle will appear in the next
verse. The present rendering, then, offers the least difficulty here as regards
sense. Grammatically it is possible; for one can posit a comprehensive aorist
(BDF 332) covering a victory still taking place (Vellanickal), although a
perfect tense would be more normal for that. One would then conclude that a
shift from a aorist participle in 5:4b to a present participle in 5:5 is just the
Johannine predilection for variation without difference of meaning.
Nevertheless, an aorist participle would normally indicate action before the
main verb, and thus a relative past (BDF 339). … COMMENTS – The
previous unit ended with a ringing victory cry: “All that is begotten by God
conquers the world,” although the author did not make clear how that
present and ongoing victory is to be related to the past conquest of the world
by Jesus at the end of his ministry (John 16:33), or to the past conquest of
the Evil One by Christians at the time of conversion (1 John 2:13-14). The
present unit [5:4b-8] will contribute to a solution by stressing that our faith is
the agency of conquest – a faith in what Jesus did in his ministry and death,
and a faith that remains firm despite the present struggle caused by the
secessionists who “belong to the world” (4:5), a world that is still being
conquered.
Although the description of faith as “the conquering power that has
conquered the world” (5:4bc) and the believer as “the one who has
conquered the world” (5:5ab) is peculiarly Johannine, the basic ideas have
solid biblical foundation. On pp. 279, 497 I pointed to passages which
insisted that Israel’s victories over enemies were never won purely by
human agency but by God’s help (also Ps 98:1-3; II Sam 23:10). In a
dualistic context the same theme is echoed in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM
3:5, 9): “The mighty deeds of God shall crush the enemy … God has struck
all the sons of darkness.” If I John attributes the victory to “this faith of
ours,” it is because through faith we are children of God and share in His life
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
242
(1 John 1:12-13). In choosing faith as the link to divine power, the Johannine
writer joins other NT thought. In Matt 17:20 and Luke 17:6 Jesus says that
faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains and transplant trees. In
Gal 5:6 Paul states that the only thing of avail is faith working through love.
What is different in the Johannine presentation of this victory is that here
faith is not simply trust in God’s power but a specific christological
understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. Only such a faith gives eternal life and
makes us God’s children with a share in Jesus’ victory. The conqueror of the
world is not simply the person who believes – the secessionist do that, in a
sense – but “the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God” (5:5b)” 45
Arminianism is Religious Humanism
As the professing, 1st century, second-generation secessionist in the
Epistle of 1 John did not pass the tests of true regeneration which proved
their saving faith in Christ as the Son of God, so likewise today, the great
majority of those who claim Christ have not been regenerated nor baptized
by the Spirit and placed “in Christ”; rather they remain “in the world” as
“false brethren.” The NT says that false teachers (apostates) will be known
by their doctrine. The secessionist of today preaches, teaches, and lives a
peculiar Christianity under the threat of an agency that may serve to render
the true child of God unregenerate again. This agency is sin. Not little sins
to be sure, but great and terrible sins.
This begs the question and conclusion which arises in a pious mind -
that should this be true - then there are sins which the Christian can commit
that Christ did not bear on the cross. Ah! but here is the rub - if the truth be
told - a little understood and rarely admitted answer remains in the mind of
the tutored Arminian or seminarian professor who has done “much more”
than simply reject the absolute predestination of the Protestant John Calvin.
Calvin shared belief in the eternally secure salvation based on faith alone
rediscovered by Martin Luther. The Arminian has abandoned the gospel of
the Protestant Reformation altogether - to become doctrinally
indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic and, the Muslim, in matters
regarding the security of the believer’s salvation. The sad, unhappy, estate of
the Arminian is that if Christ did not suffer and die personally and literally
for a sinner’s sin, then surely that sinner is not redeemed in the shed blood of
Christ and his faith is for nothing! The Arminian neologian plays games
with the word “forgiven” to redefine divine forgiveness and substitution
while stepping over the blood of Christ. The Apostle John wrote towards the
end of the first century: “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the
world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God
243
heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of
truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:5-6).
For the Arminian who knows the theory upon which his salvation is
based, the death of Christ is posited and claimed, without hesitation or
reservation, to be the sole condition which freed the Father. The Father who
is deemed the forgiving Ruler of a perceived cosmic commonwealth who is
now free to assign an administrative, benevolent, up-to-date, present tense
waiver of obligation for some sins; but not all, since that would not be fair to
His subjects who are “good people.” The “good and faithful servants” who
never incur a moment of fatal weakness. This variety of salvation may be
termed “dynamic,” as sins are either forgiven or not as they occur, and,
salvation itself hangs in the balance. This altered salvation, where the debt
still remains and the obligation is partially waived, can in no way be defined
as a “state of grace.” When viewed objectively, this is quite literally a “state
of perfection” that must be maintained “until the end.” Furthermore, this
notion of salvation has a soft underbelly of disbelief and false humility, as it
clearly asserts, “I hope I’ll be saved, but I’ll believe it when I see it!”
On the matter of God’s grace, Dr. John Walvoord writes: “Being free
through the substitutionary death of Christ, God knows no limitations and
does not cease working until, to His own satisfaction, He places the justly
doomed sinner in heaven’s highest glory, even conformed to the image of
Christ. Saving grace is more than love; it is God’s love set absolutely free
and made to triumph over His righteous judgments against the sinner, “By
grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8; cf. 2:4; Titus 3:4-5).” 46
Grace is
neither God’s love nor His mercy. Present tense grace is what God’s love is
free to do for the lost after Christ has died on their behalf. The shed blood of
Christ was the mercy of God that satisfied (propitiated) His judgment against
sin, “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of
Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal
life. (John 3:14-15 NET). Thus a grace salvation is based on what Christ
has done in the past. There was no delayed or limited dealing with sin at the
cross. Christ said, “IT IS FINISHED.” It must be stated - grace is not the
present arbitrary forgiveness of some sins by the mercy of God.
Accordingly, the basis of salvation by the grace of God is static and
immutable. The accomplished foundational fact was that substitutionary
judgment was placed on the innocent Savior when “He was made to be sin.”
This is the basis for the gospel of God’s grace. God is satisfied and free to
give His present grace. The only question that remains: Is the individual
satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Thus, the believer’s
sanctification until he or she is - finally and fully – conformed into “the
image of Christ” by God’s free grace is dynamic. “Now the Lord is the
Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. And we
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
244
all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being
transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which
is from the Lord, who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17-18 NET). Dr. Lewis Chafer
writes: “The greatest thing God can do, reverently speaking, is to make
someone like His Son. Such, then, will be the destiny of everyone who
believes (Rom 8:29; 1 John 3:2). Since grace only represents what God can
and will do for those who trust the Savior, it needs function apart from all
human works or cooperation. It calls for no more than confidence in the only
One who can save. The Scriptures assign to the operating of grace the only
salvation now offered to sinful men.” 47
Dr. Charles Ryrie defines the Governmental theory of the value in the
death of Christ: “Grotius (1583-1645). Also Wardlaw and Miley. God’s
government demanded the death of Christ to show His displeasure with sin.
Christ also did not suffer the penalty of the Law, but God accepted His
suffering as a substitute for that penalty.” 48
The straightforward answer is:
The fact that there are sins that Christ did not die for “is not a problem” in
the mind of the peculiar Arminian secessionist. Because, for him, and the
convicted heretical Dutchman, Hugo Grotius, who was the author of
Arminian salvation, Christ did not bear the sins of others. As in none-nada-
zip-zero. The “dirty little secret,” (because the shepherds hide it from the
dumb sheep) is that Arminian salvation through Christ is grounded in the
Rectoral or Governmental theory of atonement. This scheme is a non-
biblical, 350 year old subjective theory of forgiveness that is derived from
the Rectoral or Governmental estimation of the meager value contained in
the shed blood of Christ and, wherein also, His resurrection is given “no
value” that may be shared by believers. The Apostle Paul said of his gospel,
“But we have rejected shameful hidden deeds, not behaving with
deceptiveness or distorting the word of God, but by open proclamation of the
truth we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience before God. But even
if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, among
whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe
so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God” (2 Cor 4:2-4 NET).
Arminianism has adopted the Grotian scheme of salvation. It was
conceived after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, And it is
based in large part on the Catholic writings of the Scholastic, Thomas
Aquinas, and the heretic Socinus. This scheme denies Christ bore the sins of
the world in His body. So the truth is for the peculiar Christian - the
Arminian – that his sins may only be forgiven and some sins are considered
unforgivable, as there is no substitutionary blood redemption in Jesus Christ
for any nor all of his sins. Accordingly, the Arminian is left to offset his sins
245
with his “good works.” He is the master of his own fate. He alone can sit on
the Scales of Justice to determine his fate.
“Love covers a multitude of sins,” yes, but whose love? When the key
difference between unmerited grace and Arminianism balances on the head
of one unforgivable sin or many: is it not an ironic disclosure and public
display of the absence of Christ to preach a salvation dependent upon sins
that can outweigh the sacrifice made by Christ? The absence of Christ is the
only sin that tips the Scales of Justice in the direction of damnation. The
gospel truth is: Sins have been “taken away” by the Lamb of God and sin
has combined into a fifth element. This quintessence is the one new sin of
rejecting the Savior who was “made to be sin for us.” Salvation includes the
gifts of complete and total redemption for all sin, the very righteousness of
Christ, and His eternal life. Thus, the sin of unbelief has been elevated above
all others in this age. Jesus witnessed the gospel of the grace of God to
Nicodemas when He said: “For this is the way God loved the world: He
gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not
perish [be lost or remain lost, Gk. apollumi, those resurrected at the second resurrection of the condemned] but have eternal life [those resurrected at the first resurrection of life, whose names have not been blotted out of the Book of Life]. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in
him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned
already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of
God” (John 3:16-18 NET).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
246
Belief and eternal life are asserted again by the Apostle John, “The one
who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will
not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). In John 5:24
Jesus makes the claim again, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth
my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into everlasting condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
In John 17:2-3 when praying to the Father Jesus says: “As thou hast
given him [the Son, Himself] power over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that
they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”
Contrary to Arminian thought which says personal behavior will send a
believer to perdition, the lack of “the gift of eternal life” that is irrevocably
received (“For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable” Rom 11:29 NET) at
the moment of saving faith is the condemning factor for those who will be
resurrected and judged at the end of this age, “Marvel not at this: for the
hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John
5:28-29). Those who “have done evil” are judged because their names are
not found in the sacred “Book of Eternal Life.” Those who have done evil
because they have not “obeyed the gospel (of the grace of God),” the one
command incumbent upon the unsaved to believe completely in Jesus for
salvation. Instead, because of a false gospel of “performance” they profess a
Christianity they do not possess. These are they to whom Jesus will
truthfully professes, “And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and “Then shall he say also to them
on his left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared
for the devil and his angels” (Mtw 7:23; 26:41).
This is unmistakably revealed and confirmed in Revelation 20:14-15:
“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second
death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book
of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.” What peculiar gospel
then does the Arminian have to offer? Surely it is markedly different from
that promised by the resurrected and ascended Christ, who promises all
believers that their names will remain forever in the Book of Eternal Life:
“He that overcometh [the Christian who has conquered and been given victory (in the past and present tense) through his faith in Christ for salvation, cf. above], the same shall be clothed in white raiment [clothed in the righteousness of Christ, not in the supposed merit of self-righteousness wherein heaven becomes a reward for “good people”]; and I will not blot
out his name from the book of life, but I will confess his name before my
Father, and before his angels” (Rev 3:5 brackets mine, KJV). This book of
247
life was known by Moses. As it was mentioned immediately after he
returned from the mountain with the two tablets to witness the pagan revelry
of the Israelites, “And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this
people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now,
if thou wilt forgive their sin -; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy
book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever
hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Ex 32:31-33). The
infinite question concerning salvation and the sovereignty of God is: When
does God blot out the names of those who will be judged? In the past, before
the foundation of the world? Or in the ongoing present, at the moment of
death? The small word “will” is generally considered to be indicative of
future prophetic. Either way, the undeniable end result remains – many
names will not be in the Book of Eternal Life on the Day of Eternal Judgment.
Where then is individual performance “required” for salvation? A
performance which makes salvation a reward for “good people.” One will
look the NT over in vain to find one verse correctly translated and put in
proper context that conditions salvation on performance. All teaching on this
point is rationalized and inferred. But the NT does condemn performance in
the place of God’s grace as a basis for salvation through faith. “Many will
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and
in thy name cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?”
(Mtw 7:22). Truly, claiming merit for performance becomes a condition for
Jesus to respond by saying, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity [lawlessness]” (Mtw 7:23), and “‘Tie him up hand and foot and
throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing
of teeth!’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mtw 22:13-14).
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that
are sanctified by God the Father, and 1 preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
1 (v. 1) Assurance is the believer’s full conviction that, through the work of
Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he
will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture
promises to him who believes. 49
Jude 1:1 From Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those
who are called, wrapped in the love of God the Father and kept for5 Jesus
Christ. NET
5tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient
Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
248
light of the well-worn idiom of τητρέω (tēreō) in eschatological contexts, in
which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23;
1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in
similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]),
it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological
tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally
ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be]
kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays;
this may be a hint of things to come.
The follower of Arminianism is taught to humbly hope for a future
salvation. One must conclude that the Arminian’s peculiar “gospel” is
limited, and, may only offer forgiveness for some sins. This is an incomplete
and negative gospel of personal sins which offers a “chance run” at
salvation. Which is patently conditioned upon and limited by a moment of personal weakness, and, not upon the strength of any continued faith until
the end.
The trade name, Arminian, is but a form of religious humanism that is
limited to rationalism, or natural reasoning and conclusions void of biblical
truth and spiritual revelation. This view of an incomplete salvation based
upon a superficial view of morality has been prefigured in the OT by
Balaam. He was a prophet for hire, made famous by his talking donkey.
“And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee? And
Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent
unto me, saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth
the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able
to overcome them, and drive them out. And God said unto Balaam, Thou
shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed”
(Num 22: 10-12). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:
Balaam is the typical hireling prophet, seeking only to make a market of his
gift. This is “the way of Balaam” (2 Pet 2:15), and characterizes false
teachers. The “error of Balaam” (Jude 11) was that he could see only natural
morality – a holy God, he reasoned, must curse such a people as Israel. Like
all false teachers he was ignorant of the higher morality of vicarious
atonement, by which God could be just and yet the justifier of believing sinners (Rom 3:26). The “doctrine of Balaam” (Rev 2:14) refers to his
teaching Balak to corrupt the people whom he could not curse (Num 31:16,
with Num 25:1-3 and Jas 4:4). Spiritually, Balaamism in teaching never rises
above natural reasonings; in practice, it is easy world-conformity. See Rev
2:14 note. –P. 196
249
Rev 2:14. The “doctrine” of Balaam (cf. 2 Pet 2:15, note; Jude 11, note) was
his teaching Balak to corrupt the people who could not be cursed (Num
31:15, 16; 22:5; 23:8), by tempting them to marry the women of Moab,
defile their separation, and abandon their pilgrim character. It is that union
of the world and the church which is spiritual unchastity (Jas 4:4). Pergamos
[the third period church under imperial favor, settled in the world, A.D. 316 to the end) had lost the pilgrim character and was “dwelling” (v. 13) “where
Satan’s throne is,” in the world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). –P. 1332
3Jude 11. Cain (cf. Gen 4:1), type of the religious natural man, who believes
in a God, and in “religion,” but after his own will, and who rejects
redemption by blood. Compelled as a teacher of religion to explain the
atonement, the apostate teacher explains it away.
1(v. 11) Balaam. The “error” of Balaam must be distinguished from his
“way” (2 Pet 2:15, note), and his “doctrine” (Rev 2:14, note). The “error” of
Balaam was that, reasoning from natural morality, and seeing the evil in
Israel, he supposed a righteous God must curse them. He was blind to the
higher morality of the Cross, through which God maintains and enforces the
authority and awful sanctions of His law, so that He can be just and justifier
of a believing sinner. The “reward” of v. 11 may not be money, but
popularity, or applause. –P. 1328-29
2Pet
2:15. Balaam (see Num 22:5, refs.) was the typical hireling prophet,
anxious only to make a market of his gift. This is the “way” of Balaam. 50
A rationalized past, present, and future sin is offered by Arminian
apologists as a demarcation to counter any fine points of inquiry into the sins
that would destroy the believer’s salvation. Whereas the gospel of the grace
of God clearly teaches that God has redeemed all sin and made satisfactory
allowances for the past, present, and future power of sin that affects all
believers in their moments of personal weakness. The Arminian is weakened
by reliance upon his own effort to maintain his salvation, while the
“overcomer, the victorious believer,” has been and is made strong and secure
in the grace of God by one moment of personal saving faith in the completed
work of Jesus Christ for salvation.
The Gospel of the Grace of God
A “falling from grace” is the euphemistic mantra of a peculiar gospel to
indicate that one has lost, or may lose, their Christian salvation. In only one
place is the phrase “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4) used in the NT. If one does
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
250
not understand the position of the believer in grace – and the Arminian and
his negative gospel demonstrates no signs of such an understanding – what
basis is there for one to correctly comprehend and teach what is involved in
a fall from grace?
Exactly at this juncture, might those who have not checked their mind at
the door before entering into a Christianity that asserts the loss of salvation,
sincerely ask: How can I be saved again if I committed an unforgivable sin
that caused me to lose my salvation? and, also, more importantly: How is it
that everyone may be forgiven in the first place if all sins are not forgiven?
The Arminian’s scheme of salvation may only be seen as a house of cards
which cannot withstand close scrutiny nor close inquiry. It is as much a non-
biblical system of salvation as any cult dependent on the writings of its
founder and has no support in the NT.
Nor the OT, as no patriarch was saved or could have been saved by this
system – King David was guilty of a murder more heinous than
Shakespeare’s Macbeth, many OT prophets, without any hesitation, boldly
asked God for death, and, Tamar and Rehab, who are listed in the genealogy
of Christ, were bold, committed prostitutes – not victims. As a result,
Arminianism fails even as a rational expression of a “system of salvation”
that may be stated as, salvation by Christ (by the law, by Christ as an
example) is for continued faith.
Whereas, God’s expressed message of grace in His Book of Eternal Life
offers a salvation in Christ that is designed for faith. A salvation that is
eternally kept and secured by our completely satisfied God Himself who has
251
been propitiated by the redemption and reconciliation wrought through the
divine and sinless, substitutionary shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ His
Son because we believe the gospel of the grace of God, which is:
“Now the righteousness of God [Jesus Christ Himself, not the self-righteousness of a professing Christian] without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets [as predicted in the OT]; Even the
righteousness of God [is needed by and imputed to all believers] which is by
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no
difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being
justified [declared innocent and “not guilty” because of their position or standing in the imputed “righteousness of Christ”] freely by his grace
through the redemption [substitutionary death as payment to take away (expiate) the sins of the world] that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation [satisfactory payment for sin, redemption=Gk. “apolutrosis” for the “apollumi”] through faith in his blood [substitutionary sacrifice, blood sprinkled on the mercy seat], to declare his righteousness
[righteousness of God] for the remission of sins that are past [since Adam, through animal sacrifices that were instituted temporarily by God], through
the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that
he might be just and justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is
boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified [because Christ, having borne the believer’s sin on the cross, has been “made unto him righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30.] by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:21-28, brackets mine, KJV).
2 Cor 5:18 And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself
through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. 5:19 In
other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not
counting [imputing, KJV] people’s trespasses against them, and he has given
us the message of reconciliation. NET
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which
he loved us, 2:5 even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive
together with Christ—by grace you are saved! i — 2:6 and he raised us up
with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 2:7
i 16tn Or “by grace you have been saved.” The perfect tense in Greek connotes
both completed action (“you have been saved”) and continuing results (“you are
saved”).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
252
to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in
kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves,
it is the gift of God [the gift is an unmerited salvation through faith in the work of Christ because of “his great love with which he loved us” that is satisfied by his free grace towards us. His grace gives us life and we are seated together with Christ in the heavenly realms]; 2:9 it is not from works,
so that no one can boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been
created in Christ Jesus for [His] good works that God prepared beforehand
so we may do them. NET
1 Cor 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the
gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand,
15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I
preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to you as
of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was
raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared
to Cephas, then to the twelve. 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five
hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep. 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all
the apostles. 15:8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he
appeared to me also. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be
called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 15:10 But by the
grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been in vain. In
fact, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God with
me. 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, this is the way we preach and this is
the way you believed. NET
Dr. Lewis Chafer explains the one condition of salvation in the following
extended quotation:
Notwithstanding all that has been divinely accomplished for the
unsaved, they are not saved by it alone. Salvation is an immediate display of
the power of God within the lifetime and experience of the individual, and is
easily distinguished from those potential accomplishments finished nearly
two thousand years ago in the cross. As has been stated, salvation is a work
of God for man, rather than a work of man for God. No aspect of salvation,
according to the Bible, is made to depend, even in the slightest degree, on
human merit or works.
253
Great stress is laid on the value of good works which grow out of a
saved life, but they do not precede salvation or form any part of a basis for
it. This it is revealed that the first issue between God and an unsaved person
in this age is that of receiving Christ, rather than that of improving the
manner of life, however urgent improvement may be. This insistence seems
to mere human reason to be an indirect, if not aimless, means of obtaining
the moral improvement of men. The need of moral improvement is most
evident, and simply to try to help men to be better would seem to be the
direct and logical thing to do. However, the divine program strikes deeper
and declares a new creation out from which good works can flow and apart
from which there can be no acceptable works in the sight of God. Unsaved
men are thus shut up to the one condition upon which God can righteously
make them to be new creatures in Christ Jesus.
With regard to the necessity of a new creation the unregenerate are blind
in their minds (2 Cor 4:3, 4). So also a multitude of professing Christians are
poorly taught about this need. This results in a well nigh universal
misconception of the demands of the gospel. When dealing with the
unsaved, false issues are often raised and these unscriptural demands appear
in many forms. Satan’s ministers are said to be ministers of ministers of
righteousness (2 Cor 11:14, 15). They waive aside the Bible emphasis on a
new birth, which is by the power of God through faith and which is the only
source from which works acceptable to God can be produced, and devote
their energy to the improvement, morally and righteously, of the individual’s
character. Such workers, in spite of their sincerity and humanitarian motives,
are by the Spirit of God said to be “the ministers of Satan.”
Blind to the Gospel. The fact that the unregenerate are blinded by Satan
in regard to the true gospel of grace is the explanation of the age-long plea of
the moralist: “If I do the best I can, God must be satisfied with that, else He
is unreasonable” [cf. the sacrifice offered by Cain contrasted with Abel’s, and Cain’s reaction, this writer]. Granting that anyone has ever done his
best, it would still be most imperfect, and He is far from unreasonable in
demanding a perfect righteousness, impossible to man, while He stands
ready to provide as a gift all that His holiness requires. This is exactly the
offer of the Gospel. The Scriptures do not call on men of this age to present
their own righteousness to God; but it invites the unrighteous to receive the
very righteousness of God which may be theirs through a vital union with
Christ. The appeal is not self-improvement in the important matters of daily
life, but that “the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord” might be received. When this eternal issue is met the more temporal
matters of conduct are urged; but only on the grounds of the fact that divine
salvation has been wrought for sinful man wholly apart from his own works.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
254
The question confronting each individual, therefore, is that of the basis
upon which this new creation can be gained. In such an undertaking man is
powerless. All his ability must be forever set aside. It must be accomplished
for him, and God alone can form a new creation; He alone can deal with sin;
He alone can bestow a perfect righteousness; He alone can translate from the
powers of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son.
If it were only a question of the power to transform men the creative
power of God has always been sufficient; but there was a greater difficulty
caused by the fact of sin. Sin must first be judged, and no favor or grace can
be divinely exercised until every offense of righteousness has been fully
met. God cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance, and so He
can grant His favor only by and through the cross wherein, and only
wherein, the consequences of sin have been forever met in His sight. Thus
salvation can be accomplished, even by the infinite God, only through Jesus
Christ. Hence it is that a simple trust in the Savior opens the way into the
infinite power and grace and God. It is “unto everyone that believeth,” “For
there is none other name under heaven given to among men whereby we
must be saved.”
This one word “believe” represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner
must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In
this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost
condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Savior to all who put their
trust in Him. It is quite possible for any intelligent person to know whether
he has placed such confidence in the Savior. Saving faith is a matter of
personal consciousness. “I know whom I have believed.” To have deposited
one’s eternal welfare in the hands of another is a decision of the mind so
definite that it can hardly be confused with anything else. On this deposit of
oneself into His saving grace depends one’s eternal destiny. To add, or
subtract, anything from this sole condition of salvation is most perilous. The
Gospel is thus often misstated in various and subtle ways. The more
common of these should be mentioned specifically:
Belief Is Not Hope. First, The unsaved are sometimes urged to pray and
hope for an attitude of leniency on the part of God toward their sins: whereas
they should be urged to believe that every aspect of favor and expression of
love has already been wrought out by the God Himself. They are not
believing God when they beseech Him to be reconciled to them, when He is
revealed as having already accomplished a reconciliation. The Gospel does
not inspire a hope that God will be gracious: it discloses the good news that
He has been gracious and challenges every man but to believe it. A criminal
pleading for mercy before judge is not in the same position as a criminal
believing and rejoicing in the assurance of a full pardon and that he can
never be brought again into judgment.
255
Belief Is Not Works. Second, It is a most serious error to intrude any
form of human works into a situation wherein God alone can work. People
are sometimes led to believe that there is saving value in some public
confession of Christ, or profession of a decision. “With the heart man
believeth unto righteousness.” This is salvation. “With the mouth confession
is made unto salvation.” This is the voice of the new-born child speaking to
and of its Father. The only condition on which one may be saved is to
believe. Belief Is Not Trying. Third, It is equally as great an error to give the
unsaved the impression that there is saving virtue in promising to try to “lead
a Christian life.” No unregenerate mind is prepared to deal with the
problems of true Christian living. These problems anticipate the new
dynamic of the imparted divine nature, and could produce nothing but
hopeless discouragement when really contemplated by an unregenerate
person. There is danger, as well, that by forcing the issues of future conduct
into the question the main issue of receiving Christ as Savior may be
submerged in some difficulty related to the proposed standards of living.
There is an advantage in a general morality, “Sabbath observance,”
temperance and attendance on public and private worship; but there is no
saving value in any, or all of them. It is true that a person who enters into
these things might be more apt to hear the saving Gospel of grace than
otherwise; but on the other hand, the sad fact is that these very things are
often depended upon by the religiously inclined to commend themselves to
God. In the Bible a clear distinction is found between conversion and
salvation. The former is there found to indicate no more than the humanly
possible act of turning about, while the latter refers to that display of the
power of God which is manifested in the whole transformation of saving
grace.
Belief Is Not Praying. Fourth, A person is not saved because he prays.
Multitudes of people pray who are not saved. Praying is not believing on the
Lord Jesus Christ, though the new attitude of belief may be expressed in
prayer. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” In no Scripture is
salvation conditioned on asking or praying. It is faith in the Savior Who
gave His precious blood a ransom for all. The publican, living and praying
before the cross, pleads that God would be propitiated to him a sinner. The
issue now can only be one of believing that God has been so propitiated.
Belief Is Not “Seeking.” Fifth, No person is now required to “seek the
Lord.” In Isaiah 55:6 it is said to Israel, “Seek ye the LORD while he may be
found,” but in the New Testament relationship we are told to believe that the
“Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Belief Is Not Repentance. Sixth, It is an error to require repentance as a
preliminary act preceding and separate from believing. Such insistence is too
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
256
often based on Scripture which is addressed to the covenant people, Israel.
They, like Christians, being covenant people, are privileged to return to God
on the grounds of their covenant by repentance. There is much Scripture
both in the Old Testament and in the New that calls this one nation to its
long-predicted repentance, and it is usually placed before them as a separate
unrelated act that is required. The preaching of John the Baptist, of Jesus and
the early message of the disciples, was, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand”; but it was addressed only to Israel (Matt 10:5, 6). This appeal was
continued to that nation even after the day of Pentecost or so long as the
Gospel was preached to Israel alone (Acts 2:38, 3:19. See also 5:31). Paul
mentions also a separate act of repentance in the experience of Christians (2
Cor 7:8-11. See also Rev 2:5).
The conditions are very different, however, in the case of an unsaved
Gentile, who is a “stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world,” and equally different for any individual Jew in
this age. In presenting the Gospel to these classes there are one hundred and
fifteen passages at least wherein the word “believe” is used alone and apart
from every other condition as the only way of salvation. In addition to this
there are upwards of thirty-five passages wherein its synonym “faith” is
used.
There are but six passages addressed to unsaved Gentiles wherein
repentance appears either alone or in combination with other issues. These
are: God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 11:18);
“Repentance and faith” (Acts 20:21); “The goodness of God that leadeth to
repentance” (Rom 2:4); “All should come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). That
repentance is not saving is evidenced in the case of Judas, who repented and
yet went to perdition. It is worthy of note that there are twenty-five passages
wherein “believe,” or “faith,” is given as the only condition of Gentile
salvation to one passage wherein repentance appears for any reason
whatsoever. It would seem evident from this fact that repentance, like all
other issues, is almost universally omitted from the great salvation passages,
that such repentance as is possible to an unsaved person in this dispensation
is included in the one act of believing. The statement in 1 Thessalonians 1:9,
10 may serve as an illustration. Here it is said: “Ye turned to God from idols
to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven.” This
represents one all-inclusive act. Such is the accuracy of the Bible. Had the
record been that they turned from idols to God, the act of turning from idols
would have stood alone as a preliminary undertaking and would suggest a
separate work of repentance. In Acts 11:21 it is stated that many “believed
and turned to God.” This is not difficult to understand. The born-again
person might thus turn to God after believing; but there is no revelation that
257
God is expecting works suitable for anything from that which He has termed
to be dead in trespasses and sins.
Believing Is Receiving. To believe on Christ is to see and believe the all-
sufficiency of His saving power grace This most naturally includes
abandoning all other grounds of hope, and experiencing of such sorrow for
sin as would lead one to claim such a Savior. It is doubtful if the sinner of
“this present evil age” can produce greater sorrow than this, and of what
avail would greater sorrow be? No estimate is possible of the wrong that has
been done in demanding the unsaved of this age to experience some
particular degree of sorrow for sin, over which they could have no control,
before they could be assured that the way was open for them to God.
Multitudes have been driven into unrealities or into hopeless doubt as they
have thus groped in darkness. The good news of the Gospel does not invite
men to any sorrow whatsoever, or to works of repentance alone: it invites
them to find immediate “joy and peace in believing.” Repentance according
to the Bible, is a complete change of mind and, as such, is a vital element in
saving faith; but it should not now be required, as a separate act, apart from
saving faith. The Biblical emphasis upon Gentile repentance or any
repentance in this age will be more evident when the full meaning of the
word “believe” is understood.
Seventh, Moreover, no Scripture requires confession of sin as a
condition of salvation in this age. A regenerate person who has wandered
from fellowship may return to his place of blessing by a faithful confession
of his sin. 1 John 1:9 is addressed only to believers. “If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” The unsaved person must come to God by faith. “For by
grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8).
Believing is related in the Bible to two other actions: “Hear and believe”
(Acts 15:7; Rom 10:14); “Believe and be baptized” (Acts 8:13; Mark 16:16
R.V.) In the latter passage it may be noted that baptism is not mentioned
when the statement is repeated in the negative form. “He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned.”
The unsaved person is condemned for not believing rather than for not being
baptized. Thus believing here, as everywhere, is the only condition of
salvation. 51
Not Until “Thy Will Be Done” Does “Thy Kingdom Come” Mtw 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather
out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
258
gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(13:43) The kingdom does not become the kingdom of the “Father” until
Christ, having put “all enemies under his feet,” including the last enemy,
death, has “delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father” (1 Cor 15:24-
28; Rev 20:2). There is triumph over death at the first resurrection (1 Cor
15:54, 55), but death, “the last enemy,” is not destroyed till the end of the
millennium (Rev 20:14). 52
Mtw 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is
like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till
the whole was leavened.
(13:33) Summary: (1) Leaven, as a symbolic or typical substance, is always
mentioned in the O.T. in an evil sense (Gen 19:3, refs.). (2) The use of the
word in the N.T. explains its symbolic meaning. It is “malice and
wickedness,” as contrasted with “sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:6-8). It is evil
doctrine (Mt 16:12) in its threefold form of Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and
Herodianism (Mt 16:66, Mk 8:15). The leaven of the Pharisees was
externalism in religion [legalism] (Mt 23:14, 16, 23-28); of the Sadducees,
skepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures [neo-orthodoxy]
(Mt 22:23, 29); of the Herodians, worldliness – a Herod party amongst the
Jews (Mt.22:16-21; Mk 3:6). (3) The use of the word in Matthew 13:33is
congruous with its universal meaning. 53
2 Cor 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different
from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one
you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up
with it well enough! NET
2 Cor 11:26 I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in
dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from
Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at
sea, in dangers from false brothers, NET
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called
you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel— 1:7 not that
there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and
wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. NET
259
Gal 2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false
pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in
Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. NET
Jude 1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you—men who
long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe—
ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil
and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. NET
The leaven of the false doctrine spread by false churches (the woman in
the parable) and false brothers known as “certain men” who distort the
gospel with “another gospel” are not a surprise to the informed Christian
who “rightly divides,” and does not mingle grace with law or one time
period with another. For instance, the “The Lord’s Prayer” for this age of
grace, not the kingdom to come, is the entire 17th chapter in the Gospel of
John. The most misunderstood NT books are the first three Gospels because
of their minimal spiritual content. For instance, the vital difference between
a false and the true gospel of grace may well be attributed to the view one
has been taught, has accepted, and holds towards The Sermon on the Mount (Mtw chapters 5-7). Jesus, in plain fact, was speaking to Jews about the
literal Jewish expectation of a Davidic kingdom that was to be brought in by
the expected Jewish Messiah – HIMSELF. L. S. Thornton has written: “‘The
Christian doctrine of a new life stands in contrast to the contemporary
Jewish expectation of a new world. Doubtless the two doctrines overlap in
the New Testament. But the relation between them might be not
inappropriately described in terms of kernel and husk’” (Cited by Morris, p.
209, fn. 1). Compare the utterly dumbstruck response of Nicodemas - a “top
drawer,” pragmatic, “seeing-is-believing” Jewish theologian - to the
concepts of “rebirth from above,” “eternal life,” “perish,” and “believe to
see” spoken by Jesus in John chapter 3. Not until Acts chapter 15, did the
Jewish Christian leaders and the Apostles “officially” accept that the
Gentiles were to be included as the objects of God’s new purpose - to
temporarily set aside the Jewish Davidic kingdom promises and grant the Gentiles “repentance unto [eternal] life” (Acts 11:18). In 1 Corinthians the
theme of the kingdom is finalized. Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:
15:24 Then, finally, when he delivers up the kingdom to God, even the
Father, when he has done away with every rule, and every authority and
power (for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet), the last
enemy, death, is destroyed.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
260
(15:24) Kingdom (N.T.), Summary: … Kingdom truth is developed in the
N.T. in the following order: (1) The promise of the kingdom to David and
his seed, and described in the prophets (2 Sam 7:8-17, refs.; Zech 12:8),
enters the N.T. absolutely unchanged (Lk 1:31-33). The king was born in
Bethlehem (Mt 2:1; Mic 5:2), of a virgin (Mt 1:18-25; Isa 7:14). (2) The
kingdom announced was “at hand” (Mt 14:17, note) by John the Baptist, by
the King, and by the Twelve, was rejected by the Jews, first morally (Mt
11:20, note), and afterward officially (Mt 21:42, 43), and the King crowned
with thorns, was crucified. (3) In anticipation of His official rejection and
crucifixion, the King, revealed the “mysteries” of the kingdom of heaven
(Mt 13:11, note) to be fulfilled in the interval between His rejection and His
return in glory. (Mt 13:1-50). (4) Afterward He announced His purpose to
“build” His church (Mt 16:18, refs.), another “mystery” revealed through
Paul which is being fulfilled contemporaneously with the mysteries of the
kingdom. The “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” and the “mystery” of
the church (Eph 3:9-11) occupy, historically, the same period, i.e. this
present age. (5) The mysteries of the kingdom will be brought to an end by
the “harvest” (Mt 13:39-43, 49, 50) at the return of the King in glory, the
church having previously been caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess
4:14-17). (6) Upon His return the King will restore the Davidic monarchy in
His own person, re-gather dispersed Israel, establish His power over all the
earth, and reign one thousand years (Mt 24:27-30; Lk 1:31-33; Acts 15:14-
17; Rev 20:1-10). (7) The kingdom of heaven (Mt 3:2, note), thus
established under David’s divine Son, has for its object the restoration of the
divine authority in the earth, which may be regarded as a revolted province
of the great kingdom of God (Mt 6:33, note). When this is done (vs. 24, 25)
the Son will deliver up the kingdom (of heaven, Mt 3:2) to “God, even the
Father,” that “God” (i.e. the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) “may
be all in all” (v. 28). The eternal throne is that “of God, and of the Lamb”
(Rev22:1). The kingdom-age constitutes the seventh Dispensation (Eph
1:10, note). 54
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather
together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are
on earth; even in him:
Dr. C. I. Scofield writes in his introduction to the four Gospels of the NT:
“Not all, but the majority of the covenants and promises of the OT were
made to the “commonwealth” of Israel. Accordingly for the Jew of the
Synoptic Gospels, to be born a Jew was to born into the kingdom of God.
Only gross inattention by readers and an absurd man-centric system of
261
theology can explain why it is “assumed” Jesus was speaking to an audience
“on the Mount” that was sophisticated enough to understand a Gentile
Christian world view better than His own Jewish Apostles would until years
after the day of Pentecost. This “commonly” held corrupting view discolors
and clouds any clear understanding of true Christianity. It makes a train
wreck of God’s glorious message of grace that is contained in the death and
resurrection of the payment for sin and a meritorious life which He provided
through Jesus Christ the Savior of sinners and the source of righteousness
and eternal life for believers.
While the ethical teaching is God’s flawless perfection, the almost
universally preached homiletics about the “Sermon on the Mount” are
misleading and misapplied. Typically, they exclusively address the power of
the flesh, or the performance of the individual to overcome sin: “The
Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace, for it demands as the condition of
blessing (Mt 5:3-9) that perfect character which grace, through divine
power, creates (Gal 5:22, 23). The doctrines of grace are to be sought in the
Epistles, not in the Gospels. … The Gospels do not unfold the Gospel of the
Church. The word occurs in Matthew only. After His rejection as King and
Savior by the Jews, our Lord, announcing a mystery until that moment “hid
in God” (Eph 3:3-10), said, “I will build my church” (Mt 16:16, 18). It was,
therefore, yet future; but His personal ministry had gathered out the
believers who were, on the day of Pentecost, by the baptism with the Spirit,
made the first members of “the church which is his body” (1 Cor 12:12, 13;
Eph 1:23). The Gospels present a group of Jewish disciples, associated on
earth with a Messiah in humiliation; the Epistles a Church which is the body
of Christ in glory, associated with Him in the heavenlies, co-heirs with Him
of the Father, co-rulers with Him over the coming kingdom, and, as to the
earth, pilgrims and strangers. … Christ is never called King of the Church.
“The King” is indeed one of the divine titles, and the Church in her worship
joins Israel in exalting “the king, eternal, immortal, invisible” (Psa 10:16; 1
Tim 1:17). But the Church is to reign with Him. The Holy Spirit is now
calling out, not the subjects, but the co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom (2
Tim 2:11, 12; Rev 1:6; 3:21; 5:10; Rom 8:15-18; 1 Cor 6:2, 30).” 55
Dr. Charles Ryrie discusses the Jewish kingdom substitution error. This
error preaches a salvation based on personal performance that dis-regards
the grace salvation offered by God continuously from the Gospel of John to
the Book of Revelation:
“Some view this discourse [the Sermon on the Mount] as an exposition
of the way of salvation. The problem of such an interpretation is simply that
the great salvation words like redemption or justification do not occur at all
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
262
in these chapters. Also, if this is the correct interpretation, then salvation is
surely through good works.
Others consider the sermon a blueprint for Christian living today. To use
it this way would require deliteralizing much of what is taught in order to be
able to obey it in this unrighteous world. Further, if this is truth for the
church, then why did our Lord not mention the Holy Spirit, so important for
Christian living, or even the church itself?
Still others understand its primary purpose to relate to Christ’s kingdom
message. The forerunner, John, had announced the kingdom (Matt 3:2);
Christ Himself began to preach that message (Matt 4:17); now He explained
what was involved in true repentance. The kingdom they preached and the
kingdom the people expected was that messianic, Davidic, millennial
kingdom promised in the Old Testament. Christ gave no indication that they
should have understood otherwise by changing the meaning of the kingdom
He was talking about. But the people had placed their hopes so much on a
political kingdom that they forgot there were spiritual requirements for even
that political kingdom. So the Lord explained what was involved in spiritual
preparation for the Davidic kingdom.
Preached in relation to the kingdom, this discourse seems mainly to
emphasize getting ready for the kingdom. Some of he requirements to be
practiced totally would necessitate the establishment of the kingdom with its
righteous government (Matt 5:38-42) though the general principle may be
followed anytime. So the sermon is a call to repentance for those who had
263
disassociated inner change from the requirements for establishing the
kingdom. Therefore, it has relevance for any time that the kingdom is
imminent – which includes the time Christ preached it, and the future time
of the Tribulation. It also pictures conditions as they will be in the kingdom
when it is established. But, like all Scripture, it is profitable for disciples in
any age since it is one of the most detailed ethical codes in the Bible.” 56
A false, peculiar gospel places an untenable burden on the Synoptic
Gospels. Wherein the historical earthly ministry and miracles of Christ are
held-up as the means to maintaining a current probationary salvation,
physical healing, and financial well-being. In direct opposition to this
unconvincing tenet of a “parolee” salvation is that the stated purpose of the
miracles, signs, and wonders were to establish belief in the divine origin and
Jewish mission of Christ.
The works of Christ were easily accepted by the Jews; but not the divine
origin of the works. They were driven to a murderous rage when He claimed
that He could give “eternal life” to His sheep who would “never perish” or
be plucked out of His hand. Because He and the Father were One in desiring
to provide a secured salvation that is wholly dependent upon the work of
God. The “Jews” would not accept that Jesus was “God”: “These words
spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid
hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. … I said therefore unto you,
that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [I AM=God] he,
ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? … They
understood not that he spake to them of the Father” (John 8:20, 24, 25, 27).”
Neither did the Jews believe that the works performed by Jesus were
from God the Father. Which in effect, exposed their disbelief in the Father
and side-stepped the claim by Jesus that He could give eternal life with the
assurance that it would never be lost. Who are the “Jews” of today’s peculiar
gospel who deny irrevocable regeneration and the gift of eternal life to
preach that man, unaided by the power of God, may mimic the historical
teachings and works of a man named Jesus for a valid salvation?: “And it
was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus
walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about
him, and said unto him; How long dost thou makest us to doubt? If thou be
the Christ, tell us plainly? But ye believe not, because ye are not of my
sheep, as I said unto you [John 6:44; 8:47]. My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them and they follow me [John 8:12]: And I give unto them eternal
life; and they shall never perish [John 6:37], neither shall any man pluck
them [John 6:39; Rom 8:35-39; 1 Pet 1:5] out of my hand. My Father, which
gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of
my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one [John 14:9; 15:23, 24; 17:21-24].
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
264
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them,
Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those
works do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying For a good work
we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I
am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But
if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father is in me and I in him. Therefore they sought again to
take him: but he escaped out of their hand (John 10:22-39).”
The Synoptic Gospels were recorded to prove to the Jew that Christ was
Prophet, Priest, and King – the promised Jewish Messiah-King who was
distinctly Servant and Man. As such, Jesus was unique. No one today can
strictly “imitate” what He did without the risk of being perceived as insane
or criminal. And, also, much more to the point, this is counter-intuitive to
what God’s revealed Word speaks to a Christian under grace. In the main,
the events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are intended for the instruction
of the unsaved who lack any spiritual understanding through the enablement
of the indwelling Spirit. Dr. Chafer writes: “When Christ said, “If I had not
done among them the works which none other men did, they had not had sin:
but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John
15:24). He disclosed to some extent the reason why he wrought miracles.
His mighty works attested His claim to be the Messiah and so His rejection
was without excuse because of that evidence.” 57
As a stark illustration of
this contrast stands the often repeated exemplary, called the Lord’s Prayer
(for the kingdom) in Luke 11:1-4 and the actual Lord’s Prayer (to His Father
for all believers) which is recorded in John chapter 17. Dr. C. I. Scofield
writes: “Used as a form, the Lord’s prayer is, dispensationally, upon legal
ground, not church ground; it is not a prayer in the name of Christ (cf. John
14:13, 14; 16:24); and it makes human forgiveness, as under the law it must,
the condition of divine forgiveness; an order which grace exactly reverses
(cf. Eph 4:32).” 58
Christ “in the flesh” was sent for the Palestinian Jewish nation, which
was under the rule of the Pax Romana, to accept Him as their Messiah-King;
but as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels this most valid opportunity came
and went. As the following passage in the Gospel of John reveals, after the
“national” rejection of Christ as the Messiah, some individual “Jews”
believed on Christ to free them from the rule of the Romans; but not in
Christ for salvation - as He so clearly rejects them and escapes their
murderous response to His “words”: “Then said Jesus unto them, When you
265
have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do
nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things.
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do
always those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed
on him. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on him, If ye continue
in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s
seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be
made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house
for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to
kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have
seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen of your father. They
answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If
ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now
ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of
God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they
unto him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Jesus said unto them, If God were your father, ye would love me: for I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent
me. … Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my
Father who honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have
not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall
be a liar like unto you: but I know him and keep his saying. Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the
Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was I
am [I AM]. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself,
and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed
by” (John 8:25-42, 54-59).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
266
Behold, All Things are Become New!
Precisely because it applies to the Christian today who is under grace,
the “most important teaching” left by Jesus were His many declarations that
He did not speak or do anything except by His Father (Heb 10:5-10), as in:
“Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to
do your will, O God” (Heb 10:7 NET). Primarily then, the story of grace
and the Church begins at Acts chapter 2 and ends at Revelation chapter 3.
Herein lies the domain of the believer’s interest and concern. This being
accepted, a Christian who is saved by grace could not exist until the death,
resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Christ “in the flesh” had no power to
save. Only the glorified Savior gives us the gospel message to believe in for
salvation. Concerning John 8:12-30, Dr. Robert L. Deffinbaugh writes:
I am impressed, once again, with the unity of our Lord Jesus and the
Father. Jesus does not act or speak on His own initiative. He speaks and He
does what is pleasing to the Father. Surely this is what we must do. I see in
greater clarity, the significance of our Lord’s temptation (Matthew 4:1-11;
Luke 4:1-13). Satan sought to entice our Lord to act independently of the
Father, even if it appeared to be by means of some seemingly insignificant
act. Our salvation is the result of our Lord’s complete unity with the Father,
and His submission to the Father’s will.
267
Is it any wonder then that Satan, the great deceiver, is carrying out his
opposition to our Lord as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)? He
endeavors to give us new “light,” to cause us to look at things in a different
“light.” But his “light” is not the “light” of the gospel, of God’s Word. His is
“new revelation,” which contradicts what God has said. And so when he
tempted Eve, he deceived her into believing that God was not good, and that
His one command was not really for man’s good. He convinced her that
God’s warning was a lie and that disobedience was the way to godliness. He
is still seeking to “enlighten” men today, but with a “light” that comes from
the darkness. And for those of us who have trusted in Jesus as the “Light of
the world,” Satan seeks to keep us from walking in the light. Let us beware
of that which is labeled “light”—especially when it is “new light”—testing it
to see if it conforms to the “light” of God’s Word.
There is little that is “new” in our text, and with good reason: there is no
need for anything “new.” How often today men are attracted by what is
“new” more than by what is true (see Acts 17:21). Even the Corinthian
saints seem to be enticed by “new” teaching and tired of the simple
proclamation of the cross of Christ. Let us beware of leaving the “light”
behind for new and novel teaching. Let us hold fast to what is true. Let us
hold fast to Him who is the truth, the way, the life. 59
In the following citation, Dr. Chafer comments on the contemporary,
present-day ministry and current “session” of Christ in heaven that
guarantees the eternal security of salvation and provides assurance to the
believer:
The whole of Christ’s present ministry in heaven has been practically
ignored by theologians and especially Arminians, to whom this ministry is
repulsive since it guarantees the eternal security of all who are saved. Seven
aspects of His present ministry are to be recognized, namely: (1) exercise of
universal authority. He said of Himself, “All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18); (2) Headship over all things to the
Church (Eph 1:22-23); (3) bestowment and the direction of the exercise of
gifts (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; Eph 4:7-11); (4) intercession, in which
ministry Christ contemplates the weakness and immaturity of His own who
are in the world (Ps 23:1; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25); (5) advocacy, by which
ministry He appears in defense of His own before the Father’s throne when
they sin (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1); (6) building of he place He has
gone to prepare (John 14:1-3); and (7) “expecting” or waiting until the
moment when by the Father’s decree the kingdoms of this world shall
become the kingdom of the Messiah – not by human agencies but by
resistless, crushing power of the returning King (Heb 10:13). …
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
268
In the general signification of the doctrine, assurance is a confidence
that right relations exist between one’s self and God. In this respect it is not
to be confused with the doctrine of eternal security. The latter is a fact due to
God’s faithfulness whether realized by the believer or not, while the former
is that which one believes to be true respecting himself at a given time.
Assurance may rest upon personal righteousness, which assurance was in the
past age a recognition of one’s own righteous character; but in the present
age it is a recognition of that righteousness of God which is imputed to all
who believe. Isaiah declares, “And the work of righteousness shall be
peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever” (Isa
32:17). Thus also the Apostle writes of the confidence which is engendered
by understanding (Col 2:2), and they who understand God’s provisions and
who have entered intelligently into them have just this. Likewise in Hebrews
6:11 there is reference to “the full assurance of hope,” and in 10:22 to “full
assurance of faith.” Although it may be concluded that assurance is
altogether experi-mental, resting as it does on a true faith, a true hope, a true
understanding, and an imputed righteousness, such feeling may lead one to
say without any presumption, “I know that I am saved,” or, as the Apostle
testified of himself: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that
he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2
Tim 1:12). So far as the Scripture cited above is concerned, assurance rests
not only on the Word of God but as well upon Christian experience. 60
The death of Christ gives meaning to faith in Christ as the Savior of all mankind. Accordingly, the Christian is concerned with his living “glorified
and ascended” Savior. A Savior who is currently working for the
safekeeping and benefit of those regenerated with the gift of eternal life. The
Apostle Paul states unmistakably in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17 that for the
Christian to view “Christ after the flesh” is to overlook the fact they have
died with Christ and live a new life joined to the power of the risen Christ
where “all things” have become new: “For the love of Christ constraineth us;
because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto
themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore,
henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore
if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [creation]: old things are passed
away; behold, all things [“all things,” Gk. ta panta, cf. Col 1:16-20] are
become new.”
269
For the love of Christ controls us, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised. So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view. Even though we have known Christ from such a human point of view, now we do not know him in that way any longer.
So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away—look, what is new has come! NET
The following is a quotation by the
early twentieth century theologian Herman Bavinck: “God’s honor consists
precisely in the fact that he redeems and renews the same humanity, the
same world, the same Heaven, and the same earth that have been corrupted
and polluted by sin. Just as anyone in Christ is a new creation in whom the
old has passed away and everything has become new (2 Corinthians 5:17),
so this world passes away in its present form as well, in order out of its
womb, at God’s word of power, to give birth and being to a new world.” 61
Dr. Robert Deffinbaugh summarizes a passage in the Gospel of John
8:12-30 that contains four uncomplicated truths about Christ:
There are a few simple truths which John continues to proclaim and
emphasize in his Gospel, and which our Lord reiterates again and again in
our text. Let me review them briefly.
(1) Jesus Christ is unique, unlike any other man who has walked on this earth. For Christ does not speak of it as what belongs to him in common with
others, but claims it as being peculiarly his own. Hence it follows, that
out[side] of Christ there is not even a spark of true light … It must also be
observed, that the power and office of illuminating is not confined to the
personal presence of Christ; for though he is far removed from us with
respect to his body, yet he daily sheds his light upon us, by the doctrine of
the Gospel, and by the secret power of his Spirit.
He alone has “come down from heaven,” speaking with God’s
authority to mankind. He alone can testify of heavenly things.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
270
(2) Jesus is God. Some may teach that Jesus was a man becoming a god,
and that therefore we, like him, may become gods. This is not what the Bible
teaches, and it is not what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be God, who
became man. John declared this in the first verses of this Gospel. If Jesus
was not the sinless “Lamb of God,” His death would be of no saving value
for us.
It is impossible to have the kind of faith that John envisages without
having a certain high view of Christ. Unless we believe that He is more than
man we can never trust Him with that faith that is saving faith.
(3) Jesus is the only way to know and to worship God. There is no
salvation apart from Christ, and there is no true worship of the Father which
rejects, denies, diminishes the Son.
Ignorance of Christ is the root of not knowing God. People today say,
‘Well, I believe in God, but I don’t believe in Christ.’ They’re talking in a
riddle. You can’t know God without Christ. And when you come to know
Christ, you come to know God. These are inseparable.
A man can know the Father only as He knows Jesus. It is a key doctrine
of this Gospel that it is in the Son and in the Son alone that the Father is
revealed. No one has ever seen God. It is the Son who has ‘declared’ Him
(18). This is fundamental. If a man really comes to know Jesus then he will
know the Father also, and acknowledge the Father’s testimony to the Son.
The two go together (cf. Weymouth: ‘You know my Father as little as you
know me’). But to reject Jesus is to place oneself out of reach of the divine
testimony.
(4) Jesus Christ is the key to eternal life. Those who trust in Him are
saved; those who reject Him will die in their sins. There is no other way to
God. Following Jesus Christ as His disciple is not only the way to heaven, it
is the only way to escape the darkness of this life. Jesus is to be the central
focus of our life. We are never to turn to anything or anyone else as the
divine source of light and life. This is the consistent message of the New
Testament. 62
271
“He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation, for all things
in heaven and on earth were
created by him—all things,
whether visible or invisible,
whether thrones or dominions,
whether prince-palities or
powers—all things were
created through him and for
him. He himself is before all
things and all things are held
together in him. He is the head
of the body, the church, as
well as the beginning, the
firstborn from among the dead,
so that he himself may become
first in all things. For God was
pleased to have all his fullness
dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by
making peace through the blood of his cross—through him, whether things
on earth or things in heaven” (Col 1:15-20 NET). “Therefore let no man
glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,
or the world, or life, or death or things present, or things to come; all are
yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:21-23 KJV).
Concluding Summary Remarks
To my continuing astonishment, the idea that grace means an assured
salvation is hatefully received and maliciously denied by many professing
Christians. My personal guide to salvation is, “There is no faith in fear. There is no fear in faith.” Because of the perfect love of Christ we may have
confidence that we are and always will be loved. This is based on a passage
in 1 John, “Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in
the day of judgment: because as he [Jesus] is, so are we in this world. There
is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath
torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because
he first loved us” (1 John 4:17-19).
The gospel artist, Kim Hill writes concerning the restoration that is
available to all God’s children: “Only By Grace - This song has been one of
my favorites for years because of how beautifully it communicates the
meaning of grace. I think most of us get caught up in a performance based
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
272
“religion” which crushes instead of liberates. But true grace has nothing to
do with our performance or worthiness. Grace is our Father, the sovereign
Lord, running to embrace a prodigal son or daughter. We deserve His stern
rebuke and disinheritance, but because of His incomparable, unconditional
love, we are forgiven, made clean and beloved. He writes our names on His
hand and calls us His children. What an incredible gift!” 63
As recorded in the book of Acts, a strong negative or positive reaction is
a good indication that the gospel is working. Nevertheless, there is no
diversity in the gospel message itself. Whether the gospel be centered with
Christ as Judge or loving Lamb, Christ is the Savior above “all things.”
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). As
predicted by His servants, God’s message of grace continues to be
downplayed and altered.
Today the word gospel is often misused to the point that meaning
disappears. It is incorrectly applied as a synonym to anything that is true or
truthful. In ancient writing, the Greek root word for “gospel” was almost
non-existent outside the NT. The word is a superlative, indicating
unbelievable, fantastic “good news.” Because there is only one true gospel
for this age, there are many other messages that may be claimed as “the
gospel,” or even super-sized into a “full gospel,” and squared-off to make a
“four corner gospel.” All very ingenuous. But, these are in fact, “another
gospel” (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6, 7) spread by “false brethren” (2 Cor 11:26; Gal
2:4; Jude 4). i
Contrary to one moment of saving faith, a distorted message will
condition a future salvation upon human performance and not upon the
blood of Jesus Christ that releases the power of God to save a soul. This may
be termed a “negative gospel” as it cannot sustain, or preserve salvation. The
individual is burdened with the task to maintain and improve his or her new
state of forgiven perfection or lose it. Also, out of ignorance to the spiritual,
but none the less real changes wrought immediately by God in a new
believer, it is mistakenly assumed that salvation may be forfeited, or “given
back” to Christ. As one might return a gift in a box. This concept is a
contradiction to God’s message revealed in His Word as “the gospel of the
grace of God.”
The grace gospel may be designated the “positive gospel.” To state the
two directly opposite messages: (1) the gospel message based on the
negative performance of the individual leaves one with many things not to do, (2) the gospel message based on the positive performance of Christ gives
i For a more detailed discussion see Appendix – The Gospel Defined.
273
the individual someone to believe in for an assured salvation unto eternal
glory. It may now be seen that the positive, by comparison to the negative, is
truly beyond the ordinary - unbelievable and fantastic. In his final letter to
his young friend Timothy, the Apostle Paul said of the gospel:
2 Tim 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of
David; such is my gospel, 2:9 for which I suffer hardship to the point of
imprisonment as a criminal, but God’s message is not imprisoned! 2:10 So I
endure all things for the sake of those chosen by God, that they too may
obtain salvation in Christ Jesus and its eternal glory. 2:11 This saying is
trustworthy:
If we died with him, we will also live with him.
2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we deny him, he will also deny us.
2:13 If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, since he cannot deny himself.
NET
The gospel of the grace of God is not “the gospel of the kingdom” as
many mistakenly suppose. Because of misguided teaching that contains no
truth or power “unto salvation” one may become ineffectually engaged in
preaching and witnessing a gospel that is “no gospel” at all. Great grief and
remorse for personal actions, and, the divine penalty were taken away once
for all by the Divine Scapegoat, the Lamb of God. So that - no one - might
use them against a child of God. Especially, by one who dares to preach
God’s “message of reconciliation.” The three Synoptic books of the NT
“taken the wrong way” will not save anyone. These books, respectively,
reveal Jesus as King, Servant, and Man. The deity of Christ as Savior and
Jesus as the unique God-man is not fully developed for saving faith until the
Gospel of John in chapters 1-12. This is the Book of Seven Signs
(signs=supernatural works that contain spiritual significance). “And many
other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not
written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have [eternal] life
through his name” (John 20:30-31). And, lastly, the three Synoptic books are
not an instruction for daily living in grace after one comes to saving faith.
The Christian is dead to the law and “inlawed” to Christ.
The historical Lordship, or kingdom gospel had as its focus Christ
Incarnate, not Christ Glorified, “And Jesus went about all Galilee teaching in
their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom …” (Mtw 4:23).
A “gospel of the kingdom” has no God sanctioned power for faith and
salvation while Christ remains ascended in heaven. “But the children of the
kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
274
gnashing of teeth” (Mtw 8:12). Christ was rejected by the nation of Israel as
their Messiah-King. “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the
fathers” (Rom 15:8). “… Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).The
offer of an earthly kingdom is restricted to the Jews to whom God made the
promises contained in the conditional Mosaic and Davidic covenants. These
promises have been withdrawn until after the Church age ends, “Go ye into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk
16:15-16). The Church age will end when “the full number” of believers in
the Body of Christ is reached and Christ returns to earth in power and glory.
Until the return of Christ the “gospel of the kingdom” will not be sanctioned
(ref. Mtw 24:14). This will be immediately before the end of the tribulation
period. And will mark the end of all human government and all who reject Christ. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Mtw 24:14).
This teaching is further reinforced by the statements of Jesus when He
spoke to the people of His hometown, “To preach the acceptable year of the
LORD [Jehovah]. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the
minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue
were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is the
scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Lk 4:19-21). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:
A comparison with the passage quoted, Isa 61:1, 2, affords an in-stance
of the exquisite accuracy of Scripture. Jesus stopped at, the “acceptable year
of the Lord,” which is connected with the first advent and the dispensation
of grace (Gen 3:15; Acts 1:11, note); “the day of vengeance of our God”
belongs to the second advent (Duet 30:3; Acts 1:11, note) and judgment. –P.
1077
Acts 1:11 Which [the two angels] also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand
ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
(1:11) The Two Advents – Summary: (1) The O.T. foreview of the coming
Messiah is in two aspects – that of rejection and suffering (as, e.g. in Isa 53),
and that of earthly power and glory (as, e.g. in Isa 11; Jer 23; Ezk 37). Often
these two aspects blend in one passage (e.g. Psa 2). The prophets
themselves were perplexed by this seeming contradiction (1 Pet 1:10, 11), it
was solved by partial fulfillment. In due time the Messiah, born of a virgin
according to Isaiah, appeared among men and began His ministry by
275
announcing the predicted kingdom as “at hand” (Mt 4:17, note). The
rejection of King and kingdom followed. (2) Thereupon the rejected King
announced His approaching crucifixion, resurrection, departure, and return
(Mt 12:38-40; 16:1-4, 21, 27; Lk 12:35-46; 17:20-36; 18:31-34; 19:12-27;
Mt 24, 25). (3) He uttered predictions concerning the course of events
between His departure and return (Mt 13:1-50; 16:18; 24:4-26). (4) This
promised return of Christ becomes a prominent theme in Acts, Epistles, and
Revelation.
Taken together, the N.T. teachings concerning the return of Jesus Christ
may be summarized as follows: (1) That return is an event, not a process,
and is personal and corporeal (Mt 23:39; 24:30; 25:31;Mk 14:62; Lk 17:24;
John 14:3; Acts1:11; Phil 3:20, 21; 1 Thes 4:14-17). (2) His coming has a
threefold relation: to the church, to Israel, to the nations.
(a) To the church the descent of the Lord into the air to raise the
sleeping and change the living saints is set forth as a constant expectation
and hope (Mt 24:36, 44, 48-51; 25:33; 1 Cor 15:51, 52; Phil 3:20; 1 Thes
1:10; 4:14-17; 1 Tim 6:14; Tit 2:13; Rev 22:20).
(b) To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet
unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion, and
establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15:14-
17 with Zech 14:1-9). …
(c) To the Gentile nations the return of Christ is predicted to bring the
destruction of the present political world-system (Dan 2:34, 35; Rev 19:11,
note); the judgment of Mt 25:31-46, followed by world-wide Gentile
conversion and participation in the blessings of the kingdom (Isa 2:2-4;
11:10; 60:3; Zech 8:3, 20, 23; 14:16-21). 64
On the one hand, this writer fully recognizes the progressive nature of
authentic spiritual development commonly termed sanctification. The Bible
speaks of the spiritually less and the spiritually more mature Christian
brothers, disputes over permissible foods, and the law of liberty in Christ.
Accordingly, there is no “one size” that fits all for the believer’s walk in
Christ. The NT makes complete and satisfactory provision for the sins of the
sinful nature committed by all believers (Rom 5:8; 1 John 18, 10). More
importantly, no denomination may resolve this issue. Spiritual growth is as
varied as the individual and is not accomplished by personal adherence to a
creed through the power of the flesh, or self-determination. Thereby,
contrary to common teaching, a great distinction exists between salvation
and sanctification. The Christian’s walk will never effect his salvation or
position en Christō. Because of salvation en Christō the eventual
sanctification of the believer is assured. All believers will be perfected into
the “image of Christ.” Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
276
Christian position in grace is the result of the work of Christ, and is fully
entered the moment that Christ is received by faith (John 1:12, 13; Rom 8:1,
15-17; 1 Cor 1:2,30; 12:12, 13; Gal 3:26; Eph 1:3-14; 2:4-9; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev
1:6; 5:9, 10). The weakest, most ignorant, and fallible believer has precisely
the same relationships in grace as the most illustrious saint. All the after
work of God in his behalf, the application of the word to walk and
conscience (John 17:17; Eph 5:26), the divine chastenings (1 Cor 11:32; Heb
12:10), the ministry of the Spirit (Eph 4:11, 12), the difficulties and trials of
the path (1 Pet 4:12, 13), and the final transformation at the appearing of
Christ (1 John 3:2), have for their object to make the believer’s character
conform to his exalted position in Christ. He grows in grace, not into grace. 65
On the other hand, the entrance into and the eternalness of Christianity
is explicitly defined in Scripture. Just as each believer’s position is identical,
so too, the entrance into salvation. There is no more vital truth. “That no
flesh should glory in his presence. But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him
glory in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31). The greatest moral sin that one man or, free
individual units of men, can commit is to call God a liar, deny the evidence
of salvation by the grace of God, and engage themselves to “profit” from
religious humanism.
The Apostle Paul says of the gospel, “But as we were allowed of God to
be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but
God, who trieth our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4). Again Paul says, “For Christ sent
me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest
the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor 1:17). For the
record, Pelagius, Socinus, and Grotius were historical inventors of a negative
performance gospel. They were all condemned in human courts and never
absolved. With the Bible as their foundation, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin
preached the gospel of the grace of God.
The overarching theme of this presentation is salvation. Surely He by
which “all things” were created and the most precious thing in all of God’s
creation - the human life and the divine sinless blood of God the Son - was
not sacrificed for men to arbitrarily interpret and preach a sectarian, partisan
gospel of salvation. Such activities are fruitless. Dr. Scofield writes in his
notes: “In verses 13 and 14 [Gal 1] the Greek word for ‘the Jews’ religion”
is Ioudaismos (Judaism). In Acts 26:5 and Jas 1:26, 27, threskia – religious
service – is translated “religion,” and in Col 2:18 worshipping.” Excepting
Jas 1:27, “religion” has always a bad sense, and nowhere is it synonymous
with salvation or spirituality.” 66
The Bible is most unlike the United States
277
Constitution in that it may not be amended nor is it open to progressive
reinterpretations. Only by knowing and sharing God’s one true message of
salvation may other men and women come to know Christ as their Savior.
The gospel that bears good fruit is stated in Scripture: “John 14:6 … I
am the way, the truth, and the [eternal] life: no man cometh unto the Father,
except by me. Mtw 7:14 Because strait [narrow, standing close together, agreement with] is the gate [faith in the truth], and narrow [straightened and compressed, simple] is the way [the gospel], which leadeth to [eternal] life,
and few there be that find it [Me=eternal life]. 15 Beware of false prophets,
which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good
fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father [to obey the gospel] which is in heaven. Acts 6:7
The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem
increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith
[obeyed the gospel]. John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father—for
everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and
I will raise him up at the last day. (NET) Mtw 8:10 … Verily I say unto you
[the Centurion who owned a dying manservant], I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many [Gentiles who possess a dead spirit who are born a slave to the “cosmos,” ] shall come
from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom [the religious Pharisees who were born a Jew] shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
God’s grace is intended for sinners, not “good people” participating in a
sub-culture who seek after blessings and divine recognition of their extra-ordinary “beauty, brains, and bucks.” Categorically, “sinners”
unquestionably includes everyone and whosoever will believe on Jesus
Christ as Savior and receive salvation for their souls from the law of sin and
death – to the glory of Christ and God – by the Completed Satisfaction
wrought in the death of the Son of God. Dr. John Walvoord writes: “Being
set free through the substitutionary death of Christ, God knows no
limitations and does not cease working until, to His own satisfaction, He
places the justly doomed sinner in heaven’s highest glory, even conformed
to the image of Christ. Saving grace is more than love; it is love set
abundantly free and made to triumph over His righteous judgments against
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
278
the sinner. “By grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8; cf. 2:4; Titus 3:4-
5).” 67
Balaam was the OT type of the apostate NT Christian. In the following
citation, Dr. Scofield gives a summary of apostasy:
Apostasy, “falling away,” is the act of professed Christians who
deliberately reject revealed truth (1) as to the deity of Christ, and (2)
redemption through his atoning and redeeming sacrifice (1 John 4:1-3; Phil
3:18; 2 Pet 2:1). Apostasy differs therefore from error concerning truth,
which may be the result of ignorance (Acts 19:1-6), or heresy, which may be
due to the snare of Satan (2 Tim 2:25, 26), both of which may consist with
true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. Apostates
depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2
Tim 3:5). [“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”] Apostate teachers are described in 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Pet 2:1-
19; Jude 4, 8, 11-13, 16. Apostasy in the church, as in Israel (Isa 1:5, 6,; 5:5-
7), is irremediable, and awaits judgment (2 Thes 2:10-12; 2 Pet 2:17, 21;
Jude 11-15; Rev 3:14-16). 68
There is an important consideration to be held in mind before accepting
the doctrines of any so-called theory of atonement, or the redemptive
remedy for sin. Because the Bible declares itself to be God’s message to
man it is theocentric. Any message in the Bible directed to man must,
therefore, be decidedly anthropoexcentric. For this reason, I conclude, a
theory, system, message, or claim supposedly drawn from the Bible, that is
anthropocentric (man centered, created by man, and executed by man) invalidates itself. It is a message of both extra and intra-Biblical claims. Dr.
Lewis Chafer comments on this error:
The student of truth will ever be called upon to recognize counter claims
[to the claims of Scripture] which are both extra-Biblical and intra-Biblical.
That which is extra-Biblical embraces the whole field of humanly devised
religions and philosophical speculations. The intra-Biblical embraces all
cults and partial statements of divine truth which, though professing to build
their systems on the Scriptures, do, nevertheless, by false emphasis or
neglect of truth, succeed in arriving at a confusion of doctrine which is akin
to and perhaps more misleading than unmixed error. …
If fallen man does not naturally know his sinfulness, much less does he
have native capacity whereby he can know the divine remedy which is not
only revealed to man in the Word of God but has demonstrated its efficacy
in every instance in which man has met its terms and claimed its values. This
redemption not only provides a perfect salvation for the individual believer,
279
but extends to the new heaven and the new earth with sin dismissed forever.
It is conceivable that man might dream of a utopia, but what human being
could devise the plan of salvation and cause and cause it to be successful in
every instance without exception? How could man devise a plan which
discredits human merit, which secures the saving power of God, and which
tendeth ever to the glory of God and the disillusionment of human vanity?
Why should man in his fictitious utopia be concerned that it shall be wrought
out only in that manner which preserves the infinite holiness of the One who
redeems? It is only after man is redeemed that he can even feebly apprehend
the mighty workings of divine grace in the salvation of the lost. Yet if one
hesitates to receive the Bible as God’s Word, he is left with no other choice
than to believe that man is the author of redemption and that it has no more
saving value than a fallen man can impart to it. 69
That which follows this section, will give exposure to the empty
religious humanism of those who claim a probationary salvation as defined
by Arminianism. Arminian salvation (soteriology) through Jesus Christ
adamantly asserts that Christ did not personally bear the sins of the Christian
nor the sins of the world for the following reasons: (1) punishment may not
be imputed, therefore it was impossible for Christ to bear the sins of the
world, (2) for had that happened (according to the Arminian view which chooses to deny the irrevocable receiving of eternal life and the Holy Spirit that only comes through believing that all sins are forgiven in Christ) there
would be no need for faith, as all sins would be forgiven, and (3) that God is
love, therefore God had no wrath against sin. And, consequently, He had no
reason to be completely satisfied (propitiated) by the redemption provided in
the foolishly mistaken idea of a vicarious penal and substitutionary death of
Christ His Son.
A complete defense of the Arminian view of redemption in the shed
blood of Christ contained in the Rectoral or Governmental theory of
atonement is quoted below. This quote is a defense by a widely recognized
and established authority on the Arminian concept of forgiveness, Dr. John
Miley. This quotation may be found in the section titled The Necessity for
Atonement, Book 2 – The Tribunal.
As a summary of the contradicting views concerning the value in the
death of Christ, in An Introduction to Christian Belief: A Layman’s Guide,
Dr. Greg Herrick defines three major “theories.” The first two are commonly
mingled together and used to rationalize the “loss” of salvation based on the
believer’s walk. Only the Completed Satisfaction view, which results from
Penal Substitution, can be supported by the Word of God to bring about
saving faith for salvation in Jesus Christ through the irrevocable grace of
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
280
God. “That as sin [the sin nature i] hath reigned unto death, even so might
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ” (Rom
5:21):
The term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, sō ter
meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing.”
In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical
doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of
the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an
eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them
back into eternal fellowship with God. Many regard it as the primary theme
in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal. …
The Example or Moral Influence (or “subjective”) view has been
advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), Faustus and Laelius
Socinus (sixteenth century), and Abelard (1079-1142). Though there are
certainly different moral example views, their essential agreement consists
in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this,
then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as Jesus himself
i (5:21) “Sin” in Rom. [chapters] 6, 7 is the nature in distinction from “sins,”
which are manifestations of that nature. Cf. 1 John 1:8 with 1 John 1:10,
where this distinction also appears. (The Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I.
Scofield, p 1198)
281
lived. While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet
2:21), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial
aspects of scriptural teaching on the issue. …
The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius
(1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his
holy law. In this view, the death of Christ upholds God’s moral government
in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have
forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left
men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law. The death
of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God’s statement about
what he thinks about his moral government of the universe. This view has
much to commend it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the
tight connection between three important facts in Scripture: (1) the
reconciliation of the believing sinner; (2) the forgiveness of sin; and (3) the
death of Christ. Peter says that “Ch rist died for sins, once for all, the
righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God” (1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom
5:8).
The Penal Substitution view of the atonement—the view most often
associated with the Reformers, in particular, Calvin—argues that Christ died
in the sinner’s place and appeased the wrath of God toward sin. Thus there
are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice,
substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation, Though there are tensions in
this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to
the idea of Christ’s atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best
scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the
nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are
properly maintained. 70
Dr. Lewis Chafer comments:
THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION
As has been observed, the belief that Christ met the righteous demands
of God against sin has been the view of true believers in all their history, and
because of the fact that it is the plain testimony of the Word of God and the
natural conclusion whenever an unprejudiced induction of the Bible teaching
bearing on this theme is made. It remains, as it has been, the unquestioned
belief of expositors, conservative preachers, and evangelists. …
As in contrast to all other theories regarding the value of the death of
Christ - including the Rectoral or Governmental – which entire group
restricts the work of Christ to the one undertaking of providing a way by
which the sinner may be forgiven, the doctrine of satisfaction, because of its
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
282
full accounting for all that the Bible affirms, recognizes and includes the
typical foreshadowings of the Old Testament, and is as much concerned to
be in accord with these as with the New Testament antitypical teachings; it
sustains from the Word of God the actual substitution by Christ both in the
field of disobedience which He bore in the room and stead of the sinner, and
in the field of obedience which He offered to God in behalf of those who are
void of obedience; it incorporates the truth that Christ by His death ended
the entire merit-system for all who believe; it respects the peculiar and far-
reaching doctrines of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation; it gives
unreserved consideration to the death of Christ in its relation to the sin
nature and the personal sins which flow out of it; it accounts for those
specific personal sins committed by Christians; it also advances into angelic
realms and into heaven itself. Compared to all of this, a theory which cannot,
by its limitations, expand beyond a gratuitous or sovereign forgiveness of
the personal sins of those who are unsaved is less than a human gesture
where naught but the mighty arm of the infinite One can avail. Nor should it
be overlooked that so-called theories are not only hopelessly inadequate but
they dishonor God by assuming that He can disregard, if not insult, His own
holiness by an attitude of leniency toward sin; and, as has been stated, if
divine leniency for sin is once admitted, a principle is introduced which
denies the Word of God and besides, if extended to all sin, would account
the death of Christ foolishness. …
This entire volume with its exposition of Soteriology is an elucidation of
the doctrine of satisfaction and that this entire work of on theology is
grounded in that sublime reality. 71
The Apostle Paul’s closing doxology in Romans states: “Now to him
that is of power to stablish [to turn resolutely in the right direction] you
according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery [of the Church, Eph 3:3-10, Col 1:26], which was
kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the
scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting
God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith [obey the gospel]: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen” (Rom
16:25-27).
283
The Supremacy of Nothing
The Words of God in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable
for nothing?
Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counselor
hath taught him?
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong
reasons.
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me
not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
Woe to them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and
their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? And who
knoweth us?
He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he
cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and
with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass
through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and
under falsehood we have hid ourselves:
It shall even be as when a hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he
eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man
dreameth, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite:
Behold ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination
is he that chooseth you
Now go and write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that
it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
284
The vile person (fool, NASB) shall be no more called liberal (noble),
nor the churl (rogue) said to be bountiful (generous).
For the vile person will speak villany (nonsense), and his heart will
work iniquity (wickedness), to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error
against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause
the drink of the thirsty to fail.
The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices
(schemes) to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy
speaketh right. 72
285
Intuition, the Supremacy of Nothing, Theory, Truth, and the Supremacy of Christ
INTUITION
An intuition is confidence or belief which springs immediately from the
constitution of the mind. It must ever be so; hence intuition is a necessary
human function. Therefore, it may be said that intuitive knowledge is that
which the normal, natural mind assumes to be true. It includes such themes
as time and eternity; space, cause and effect; right and wrong; mathematical demonstration; self-existence, the existence of matter, and the Person of God. These and other primary truths, being already accepted by the rational
mind, are little enhanced by added demonstration, nor or they greatly
increased by counter argument. Intuitive knowledge is little more than a bias
in the direction of certain truths. Each intuitive theme offers a field of
endless research and conceals inexhaustible stores of reality. This is
particularly true of the knowledge of God. The very universality of the belief
in God proves that it is intuitive. Such general knowledge is not the
superstition of perverted minds, for it is evidently more assertive when
culture and education obtain. In the midst of a universe of transcendent
marvels, whether observed in their telescopic grandeur or microscopic
perfection, the rational mind can find but one explanation for the
phenomenon which is observed, namely, a God of infinite wisdom and
power. It is true that some men have sought to move themselves away from
this intuitive conception of God and profess to be agnostic. The Bible
recognizes this abnormal mind when it says: “The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1). 73
“In his system of philosophy Duns Scotus [John Duns Scotus, 1266?-1308] closely analyzed the concepts of causality and possibility in an
attempt to set up a rigorous proof for the existence of God, the primary and
infinite being. He held, however, that in order to know the truth in all its
fullness and to fulfill one's eternal destiny, a person must not only make use
of the insights afforded by natural knowledge or philosophy but must also be
taught by divine revelation. Revelation supplements and perfects natural
knowledge, and, in consequence, no contradiction can exist between them.
For Duns Scotus, theology and philosophy were distinct and separate
disciplines; they were, however, complementary, because theology uses
philosophy as a tool. In his view, the primary concern of theology is God,
considered from the standpoint of his own nature, whereas philosophy
properly treats of God only insofar as he is the first cause of things. With
regard to the nature of theology as a science, however, Duns Scotus departed
sharply from his Dominican forerunner, Thomas Aquinas. Whereas Aquinas
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
286
defined theology as primarily a speculative discipline, Duns Scotus saw
theology as primarily a practical science, concerned with theoretical issues
only insofar as they are ordered toward the goal of saving souls through
revelation. He argued that through faith a person may know with absolute
certainty that the human soul is incorruptible and immortal; reason plausibly
may argue the existence of such qualities of the soul, but it cannot strictly
prove that they exist.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
To be intellectually convinced of the source of your own childhood wonder is not saving belief. A creator God could exist without the attributes of three distinct and separate personalities sharing one essence or nature. The Bible reveals that God is a person. The “personhood” of God was His testimony about Himself in the OT, and, the revelation of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ. The perfect revelation of God was the supremely perfect Man. The testimony of the NT is God’s witness to His Son, and, the Son’s testimony was restricted to what the Father would have Him say or do. Two divine sources have given their word about each other. The Spirit of God does not give testimony about Himself. He uses the Word of God [the water of life] to witness the Son to those who will believe God’s testimony about Himself, “Except a man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot (see or) enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3ff, 5). Unless one can see the entrance to eternal life, he will remain outside the kingdom of God – suspended in a state of childhood wonder. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: It is true there was a time before the origin of man. God has written the record of time onto the pages of primeval light. The “big bang” theory is now fact. Men have looked into the blinding explosion of the origins of the cosmos. They know the material universe is 13.8 billion years old. This is an argument proposed by matter itself for the existence of an uncaused-first-cause. Thus the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Aside from the puerile foolishness of an infinite regression of causes, what caused the big bang? To begin, some will say there is no God. For starters, a universal negative is a logical impossibility. The immense time element required to move about the universe – even at the fastest known speed of light – proves this assertion false. No truly honest person can rationally claim the nonexistence of “anything.” Anything could move to another place or come into being anywhere - as the hypothetical witness moved about the universe to prove his negative claim.
287
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The biography of the theory of relativity has been poorly publicized. Einstein first postulated a special theory that may be understood by college level calculus. He later proposed a general theory that few men can fully appreciate. A final unified theory is still unresolved. Similarly, in his day, the scientific milestones of Isaac Newton were adopted as proofs for both Deism and Atheism in the Age of Reason/Enlightenment. The men who championed the opposing theological views for the cause of the Newtonian model of the universe knew nothing of Newton’s personal theism and experiments in alchemy. In the special theory postulated by Einstein - all motion is relative because there is no absolute rest. Which is an issue between two self-exclusive truths, “if not one then the other.” He proposed that the speed of light was constant –another truth. From this he proposed that kinetic energy would be converted to mass. Another truth. So, I ask, How may Einstein’s proof of three absolute truths, prove “truth is relative”? Or, the anecdotal extension of “moral relativism”? In its original use among knowledgeable men, “relativity,” was a philosophical dictum to indicate something that was dependent on a contextual factor, or the result of how something else was used. The idea of things being in a state of proportion to something else, relativity (E=mc2), is not the same as relative terms that observe a change in circumstantial diversity such as “big” and “small” (BigA>SmallA). Before it was successfully demonstrated to the world, it was counterintuitive at best and, foolish in the extreme, to propose that the splitting of an atom releases massive amounts of energy. Thus, the apparent quandary of the very “big” result from the very “small” context. The atomic bomb itself proposes the argument for the existence of intelligent design and absolute truths. Should the universe be chaotic, why does it not self-destruct? Thus the teleological (design, goal-directed activity) argument for the existence of God. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: God has left no concrete record of the origins of Adam and Eve for discovery and rational consideration. No material proof of body, spirit, and soul creation will be found until Christ Himself returns to establish an undeniable modern authority. God’s Word reveals that Adam was simply created from dirt (stardust) and then Eve from the flesh of Adam. These divinely created paternal twins - who were fully formed adults possessed of wit and sexuality - disobeyed God’s one command. Therefore, the irreversible conclusion, based on living men, is that the first child was born of created, but sinful human parentage. For these reasons, the moral or anthropological (though fallen, the nature of man still shares in the divine nature of God) and the ontological argument
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
288
(the reality of God must exist outside the mind to be perfect) are demonstrated.
THE SUPREMACY OF NOTHING
To say that “all living things” in God’s creation may be determined by the record of time, or based upon antecedent random cause and effect, would be to apply a known result (things as they now appear) to an unknowable fact (things as they did appear). It would be a logical “antecedent clause”(hypothesis or assumption). It would be to position the assumed chaotic origin of all life on the existing foundation of time, which may or may not support it because time is determined by place, or position in space. Also, an event may only occur at the intersection of two lines of space and time. As a consideration of this proposal made by evolutionists, the following discussion is offered (see also Book Two - Glorious Grace, The
Vanishing Point -P 664: Assumptions (A) Assuming no God. (B) Defining a cosmic state of nothing as a lack of events, not substance or material, but rather as an “absolute” rest of all material in an irreversible state of non-activity. (comment to “absolute” rest: “absolute” zero is a theoretical state of no motion and no pressure derived from a total lack of heat to excite atoms into motion; there is no opposite state or limitation to heat generated atomic motion and pressure.) (C) Of necessity, accepting that an uncaused “something” in motion originally existed. It just was. (D) Accepting on authority (as do most astrophysicist) that the universe was not created by nor may it be sustained by means of infinite and unlimited chaos. What is proven about the universe does not agree with pure chaos. (E) Using chaos and evolutionary naturalism as the foundation of an “a posteriori” argument: Premise Two hypothetical automobiles, moving randomly about an infinite empty space, may change position relative to each other; but, they will not change state until they collide at some speed. The speed of collision would determine the change of state. This would be the “zero” event. A universe driven by pure, infinite expansion from a single burst would be void of a “zero” event (e.g., predictably, automobiles moving uniformly at the same speed and direction on a freeway do not collide –this is non-chaotic).
289
(1) Would it be possible that these two automobiles were the result of a series of chaotic events that repeatedly destroyed (collision and fragmentation) and then repeatedly reassembled the automobiles (collision and fusion)? Should this be true, chaos would be then be the cause of intelligent design. And, any point between one “zero” event and the next would not be chaotic; but the infinitely duplicated path to the next “zero” event. Where a new cycle of fragmentation and fusion would begin once more. (a) This would be an infinite cycle of limited development (never improving upon the original automobiles) and redevelopment. (b) This would be an inherently goal-directed activity. (c) It’s predictable. (2) Would it be possible that the post-zero event collision of fragments deplete the initial “energy” and completely eliminate any events after some “final” collision? Should this be true, chaos would then regress into a perfect state of absolute rest defined as nothing. Where movement and occurrence would finally end. (a) This would be depletion of movement regressed into a state defined as nothing where the universe slips into an eternally comatose state of absolute rest and non-activity. (b) This would be an inherently goal directed-activity. (c) It’s predictable. Hypothesis/Antecedent Clause Reasoning from 1 and 2, “if one then not the other.” Any “zero” event produced by the depletion of chaos and energy cannot be part of a universe that has an infinite cycle of regression and progression of causes (development and redevelopment). It may be agreed that to do something once by design is non-complex and superior to a more complex design which duplicates the same process an infinite number of times. The intrinsic design, or natural force of the universe must be consistent throughout. The purpose of life and matter must agree because life is 100% material. For this reason, life is either on the path to another “zero” event or it is not. If not, then, it is on a path to a “final” event. Evolutionist assert that life ends in nothing. Nothing, therefore, is the natural force that drives the universe and life. Consequently, the universe and life are not progressive; but of a certainty, chaos and evolution are completely regressive and on a predictable path to the non-complex perfection of nothing. And, thus, man is the superior offspring of an inferior missing link. Which in turn was the inferior result of an original “something.” In conclusion: Evolutionary man will eventually regress and join the universe in the supremacy of nothing .
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
290
The ancient Greeks had an often repeated maxim: It is better for a man that he was never born.
Comments The phenomenon of personal existence demands explanation. To reject intentional design, even as a force of nature, and insist on “natural selection” as a predictable consequence of mutation is to say that a properly rounded ball rolls down hill because of chaos. On the one hand, it is dishonest to the principles of naturalism, empiricism (scientific method), and materialism for evolution to both champion an idea of development, or forwardness, with the claim that life ends in nothing. Forwardness is inseparable and logically tied to a natural design or force of the universe that is governed by limited development. On the other hand, to claim nothing as the end of life and by default –the universe – and to then both deny design and not accept, but ignore the plain conclusion of regression and depletion - that is joined to a natural design of a perfect nothing - is intellectually dishonest. To be consistent and truthful to the rational thought and conclusions of their own theories - the chaotic origin of the universe and evolutionary life – the intelligentsia who take such great academic pride in their certainties about life and death should admit “nothing” to be the goal of all research and thought. Because, by their own claims, the in-between state of man and the universe, as they exist today, came from something and will regress into a superior non-complex nothing. Their theories conclusively prove the supremacy and the final existence of “nothing.” Conclusions So then, what proves life occurred spontaneously out of chaos and at one point in time and space only? This is an unproven hypothesis where the predicate, the object of the action in the verb of the sentence or statement is - nothing. Whereby, God and/or a natural force of creative design is not proven to be, but is merely considered to be - non-existent. This is much like denying the particular events of one’s birth, which patently must be taken on the authority of others. Atheism is not a tangible philosophy, religion, or world-view; rather it is a reaction to theism that may be linked variously to many concrete philosophies. Without theism – atheism is non-existent. Whereas theism does not relay upon atheism for existence. No tangible proof can be found in the “reverse or negative truth” of any atheistic mental
291
construction for the non-existence of God. This is demonstrated by using a consistent logic that leaves out any positive consideration for a creative God, namely: On the one hand, life began as a spontaneous natural event here on earth (which is one of only two possibly true positive statements). On the other hand, if life did not begin as a spontaneous natural event here on earth (which is the single possible true negative that may be proposed) then either - (a) life never happened, which is a false negative, or (b) life migrated from another planet, which only side-steps the single possible true negative that life did not begin as a spontaneous natural event. Even so, why would life have a better chance to originate somewhere else, and, how would it exist here? The truth of the statement that life began spontaneously has only the force of its own authority and the fact of human existence to support its possible validity. This is a closed, exclusive system that has no alternative truth. It is itself an alternative truth. Other creatures, as far as we know, are not concerned about such matters. Which demonstrates to me a vital living difference between man and beast. For these reasons, the spontaneous origins of man when used by evolutionist to prove the “non-created” origins of man is simply an act of “whistling in the dark.” Because, within their own reality, there is nothing to be afraid of. Man exists prima facie, and, for the present, no one can prove his origin. There are no modern authorities for the origin of man. So what if there are not any? Gravity and electricity, although lacking a theoretical consensus for authority, continue to be a predictable factor in our lives. Colors surely existed before a neuro-physical detection system called the human eye first perceived them. Cosmic microwaves contain an ancient record of the universe and existed long before they were discovered and reproduced by men. The theory of evolution is a rationalization that has been conjured out of nothing to explain away nothing –the non-existence of a creative God. Therefore, intelligent men and women can rest assured in the supremacy of nothing. Or can they? Thomas Jefferson, when speaking of another’s religious freedoms, said, “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Which in essence is to say, It is nothing to me. Social Implications Pure chaos does not drive the universe. As discussed in the above, “spontaneous origin” must have a natural affinity to whatever logical purpose drives the universe. This is only important to determine the end
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
292
result that the concept of evolution is moving towards. Evolution has no alternative material or natural truth. I have proposed a rational basis for natural design, which is pure unproven speculation, yet it remains logically and hypothetically as valid as any proposed by evolutionists. (I have not entered into consideration the new discovery of “genomes” which complicate DNA to a mind boggling degree.) The spiritual truth is the only alternative to a natural concept of human origin. Consideration for this truth has been actively silenced by legal manipulations. And, as a sidebar, truly educated professionals are well aware of the age-old fact that the ability to reason effectively -, the capacity for rational thought - is severely limited in the vast majority of people. Overly zealous activity against something that neither “picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” proves motive not diligence. The proponents for the theory of evolution, with unreserved dishonesty and a lack of respect for science, law, and truth has secured a twofold, non-scientific, activist victory to recruit sympathizers by repeatedly attacking the same vital area, namely: First, in the classrooms and courts, not the laboratory. And this only beginning in the late half of the 20th century. The famous Mr. Scopes was levied a small fine and not permitted to teach evolution in the classroom. Evolution did not re-enter the classroom, through unapproved textbooks, until the late 60’s. When the illegal textbooks appeared and were ordered to be removed, a civil action - well prepared in advance - was filed. Under the ruling of the recent legalized fiction of separation-of-church-and-state the books were allowed and the gate was open for the writers of textbooks, not scientists, to introduce evolutionary thinking and conclusions into the cross-over sciences studied by school children. And, naturally, by virtue of their education, these generation “X” and “Next” children grew-up to write professional papers and books of their own. Secondly, evolutionist have stepped out of science and atheism into a world-view to claim they have successfully silenced forever the anthropological, or moral argument for the existence of a directly involved God with qualities like intelligence, morality, and creativity. The moral argument for the existence of God is based on the observation of these same immaterial qualities in man. The force of the counter-argument held by the new evolutionary moralist has been driven home by informing three generations of “open-minded” school children that Einstein, as the greatest philosopher of the modern age, proved by “the unified theory of relativity” the philosophical dictum that everything is morally relative and only proportional to and unified with everything else. To which there is no end of circumstantial diversity. Thus, within this calamity of comprehension, the evolutionary moralist proposes that a new higher morality must, by
293
necessity, be based upon the proven theory that big is big and small is small, and all things are relative. The argument for a new morality has gained much force and momentum in my lifetime. Theoretical proofs against a traditional concept of morality were not bandied about when I was a “flower child.” The military draft and a corrupt war seemed to be strong enough persuasion against inhibitions. Inhibitions that were simply called “hang ups.” I offer the following example to demonstrate how the ingrained theory of evolution, which has been around a long time, is used in conflation with the much more recently introduced theory of “anecdotal” unified relativity to offer an almost undetectable and circular argument against the legitimacy of what is considered the low morality of traditional moral intolerance. Therefore, unlike the old blind husband, January, in The Canterbury Tales written by Geoffrey Chaucer; but more like, May, the young cheating wife - who was given the special powers of “glib” by the Fairy Queen - the modern moralists claims a socially imposed agreement with “choice” is the mandatory virtue of the new moral high ground: (1) Morality is logically counterintuitive to the proven theories of evolution and relativity because men are only one of thousands upon thousands of past and future life-forms evolved from a common source of life, which absolutely makes all things unified and relative. (2) Morality is logically counterintuitive because only the uneducated and mean-spirited would speak against such a formidable array of academically accepted and published proofs i in favor of modern evolution and relativity. (3) Morality is logically counterintuitive by reason of (1) and (2) which are true because there is no end of future diversity in life-forms. Therefore everything will always be unified and relative. These theories support each other and are the twin pillars of man’s social and scientific progress to benefit the future of our planet in the 21st century. Things are as they are because they must be. The theories prove them to be true. Thank you, so very much!
Closing Statement In creative evolution, man is grouped with all currently living organisms, which are then proposed as “a posteriori” proof of unobserved facts and results from the record of primordial organisms. Because the bodily remains of organisms are fossil fuels that “appear” to have been
i Proofs that are self-policed to prohibit the inclusion of any “intelligent design” papers
into professional peer publications.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
294
formed long before man (e.g., the idea of an earth created by God to “appear” old) may in no way determine conclusively that ancient fauna carried the seeds of mankind. The theory of evolution, at best, is “biological materialism.” Rooted in ancient animalism, that denies the immaterial aspirations of man’s psyche, this theory is extended and conveniently used to explain the origin, morals, and destiny of “all things” that possess an evolved life force that is assumed to be driven only by the sexual urgings of genetic survival. A common culture of “relative” and innocent desires are claimed to be true of humans who do no “harm” to another life-form. Evolution would propose a universe without a god, or, if you please, in a less militant and palpable view of Deism, allowance is made for a very egalitarian god who is far removed, impersonal, and morally neutral in relation to any distinction in the affairs of fauna - ants, whales, men, snakes, bacteria – namely, all interdependent life-forms as we know them. Child and maggot possess equal value and purpose in this imagined cosmos of chaos. The usual brilliant debate offered by scientific discipline is totally lacking in this particular area. An indoctrinated academic regime has relocated evolution and diversity into all areas of lower and higher education. A collection of biology, psychology, sociology, the philosophy of ethics, and the dreams and aspirations of mankind have been moved into a dark corner of hopeless despair. Witnessed only by a theological impossibility - nothing. Creative evolution as the origin of man remains an unproven hypothesis. It denies any “ghost in the machinery” that animism would propose and gives the theory of material animalism the scientific credentials (albeit bogus) to offer an assumed explanation for the origin of life and the evolution of a self-named animal called homo sapiens, “wise man”; but it cannot demonstrate its primary assumption that all life had a common origin. This theory is jeopardized by the vital question, “Is the life in man the same as the life in the family pet?” But more importantly, do they share in the same death? Life and death extend far beyond human sensibilities - into what unregenerate man is prohibited from knowing - into the infinite domain of God’s authority. When one recognizes this, he has answered in the affirmative the “ontological” argument (the philosophy of reality, Anselm, 1100 A.D.). And, also, in so doing, he/she has answered the cosmological, the teleological, and the anthropological argument to the satisfaction of the only persons who matter, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. An eternal blessing will follow after believing the proofs offered by God about Jesus Christ.
295
THEORY
Equally flawed by the convenient misuse of facts and results that deny the suprarnatural, is the restrictive Protestant “Rectoral or Govern-mental theory of atonement.” This theory willfully deletes stated facts and results to propose a new limited value in the infinite value of the death of Christ. The death of Christ reaches far beyond forgiveness for sins into the infinite realms of the counsels of God through the works of grace that perfectly satisfy His love. What God has revealed regarding His divine purposes are the many aspects of the value of Christ’s death that obtains the power of grace for undeserving men. Primary positive facts in the voluntary death of Christ are redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation. Because of these facts, the gift of forgiveness, the righteousness of God, and eternal life result on the one condition of belief that they exist because Jesus Christ is God’s offer of salvation. Whereby, God joins man to Himself and to the body of all other believers in Christ - through the baptism of the Holy Spirit - when He accepts the individual’s trust in His message. Religion is man’s unsuccessful attempt to bind himself to God. Grace is the power of God to successfully bind man to Himself for all eternity. A different message than the saving grace of God lacks the essential content for saving faith and will fall short of successfully uniting man to God. This may be called a negative gospel. Whereas the successful union of man to God may be said to reach into infinity on the positive side of a number line. Then, so too, man’s inborn separation from God and his spiritual death reach into an infinite negative direction that only the positive message of God’s saving grace has the power to reverse. Central to the theme of this paper is the manifest reality that saving faith is determined by a force that will defeat man’s free will. The will of man is guided by what he knows and what he desires. Much like a fraudulent business prospectus, a negative message may be naively declined more times than naively accepted as true. Either way, the individual remains unsaved and the active force of deception succeeds in maintaining a negative direction! Any skilful rejection is only possible because of a present unity with God. One may also, regardless of many and various reasons and any profound depth of conviction, “naively” reject God’s positive message of divine grace that regenerates the spiritually dead with the gift of eternal life. But, the truth yet remains - one can never “skillfully” reject God’s testimony. His word is Truth.
TRUTH
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
296
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this
is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on
the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath
made him a liar; because he believeth not the record God gave of his Son.
And this is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life
is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he who hath not the Son
hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of
Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal
life. For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life
(NET). For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. He that hath
received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not
see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Who his own self bare our sin his own body on the tree, that we being
dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes (singular
=injury, wounding NET) ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray;
but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop (Overseer) of your souls.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of
his Son Jesus Christ, and love one [believer] another, as he gave us
commandment.
Beloved, let us love one [believer] another: for love is of God; and
everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not
knoweth not God. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because
that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live
through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved if God so loved us we ought also to love one [believer] another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one [believer] another, God
dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected [made complete] in us. Hereby know
297
we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior
of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God
dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believe the love
that God hath to us, God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in
God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have
boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath
torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because
he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his [believing] brother,
he is a liar: for he who loveth not his [believing] brother, whom he hath seen,
how can he love God who he hath not seen? And this commandment have
we from him, That he who loveth God love his [believing] brother also.”
(1 John 5:9-13; John 3:15-18, 33, 36; Rom 5:8-10; 1 Pet 2:24-25; 1 John
3:23; 1 John 4:7-10; 11-21 KJV)
THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things,
whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether
principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him.
1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the
firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all
things.
1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son
1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace
through the blood of his cross—through him, whether things on earth or
things in heaven.
NET
In literature, the focus of tragedy is on the tragic hero – a great person of high social standing who in a moment of tragic choice displays a tragic flaw of character. Aristotle called this flaw “hamartia,” which is the NT Greek translated as “sin.” The plot of tragedy demonstrates the element of human choice. This means that the tragic person or “hero” is always responsible for the downfall, and in biblical tragedy the tragic person is also deserving of the catastrophe. God’s grace has provided an undeserving substitute in Jesus Christ who suffered the “hamartia,” the final consequence of all catastrophe in the place of every responsible person. “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1 NET). What is salvation if
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
298
not the freedom, the free choice to make a clearheaded decision to modify one’s destiny? A destiny created by the supremacy and finished work of Christ who is the Author of new promises and possibilities. “He hath made him to be sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21 KJV) “But now in Christ
Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of
Christ” (Eph 2:13 NET) “and through him to reconcile all things to himself
by making peace through the blood of his cross –through him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven. And you who were at one time strangers
and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, but now he
has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy,
without blemish, and blameless before him –if indeed you remain in the
faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that
you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven,
and I, Paul, have become its servant.
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical
body—for the sake of his body, the church—what is lacking in the
sufferings of Christ. I became a servant of the church according to the
stewardship from God—given to me for you—in order to complete the word
of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and
generations, but has now been revealed to his saints. God wanted to make
known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which
is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him by instructing and
teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person
mature in Christ. Toward this goal I also labor, struggling according to his
power that powerfully works in me. (Col 1:20-29 NET ).
How then may an extra-biblical theory of Governmental atonement produced by men, which in essence reduces the ultimate - the value of the death of Christ - and then asserts this reduction of salvation to be the only ultimate, retain any saving value in a gospel of limited, conditional, parolee salvation that may only be successfully completed by an heroic self-effort? John Morreall writes in his work, Comedy, Tragedy, and Religion: CONVERGENT VERSUS DIVERGENT THINKING
While there is no such thing as tragic fantasy there are comedies such as
a Midsummer Night’s Dream which is all fantasy. …
Most thinking in tragedy is what psychologist call convergent thinking
– trying to find the correct answer to a problem, as in mathematical
computation. In this mode there is no room for making unusual connections
between ideas. In comedy a different kind of thinking comes into play –
299
divergent thinking, thinking in which there is no single correct answer,
where unusual relationships and analogies are explored, and no train of
thought is out of bounds. Divergent thinking need not be aimed at answers.
But when it is, it looks for many answers rather than one. …
EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT VERSUS DISENGAGEMENT
One reason why tragic heroes show little creativity and critical thinking
is that they respond to challenges with emotions. Whether considered
positive, like pride, or negative, like fear and sadness, emotions lock heroes
into self-concern and into their own perspectives, just as they do to us in real
life. In emotional states we tend to act in automatic, habitual and less
intelligent ways; and the stronger the emotion, the less rational our actions.
That is why rage and even love are called “blind.” Strong emotions tend to
magnify the situation at hand, and block rational thinking that would put
things into perspective. Tragic heroes driven by emotions, tend to be
extremists: to reach the goal set by their emotions, they will sacrifice
everything else, including their own lives and the lives of those they love.
Hamlet will prove the King’s guilt and try to execute perfect justice no
matter the cost. Ahab will kill Moby Dick or die trying.
Comic characters, by contrast, tend to keep an unemotional clear-
headedness, even in extreme situations. Confronted by misfortune, they do
not sink into self-pity or shake their fists at the sky – futile responses that at
best would make them feel good for the moment. They think rather than feel
their way through the problem, engaging their imagination and ingenuity
instead of their emotions. -P 24-27
1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1:19 For it is
written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the
cleverness of the intelligent.” 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the
expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not
made the wisdom of the world foolish? 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God
the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those
who believe by the foolishness of preaching [of the thing that is preached].
1:22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 1:23
but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and
foolishness to Gentiles. 1:24 But to those who are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1:25 For the
foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is
stronger than human strength. NET
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
300
301
The Value of the Death of Christ - Lexicon
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
302
303
Typology - The Death of Christ is Demonstrated in the OT
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
REQUIRED SACRIFICES
1. THE PASCHAL LAMB. Israel’s national and abiding redemption, as
well as the safety of the firstborn in each home, was secured by the paschal
lamb. So far-reaching is this redemption that Israel was required, in
recognition of it, to re-enact the Passover throughout all her generations –
not as a renewal of redemption, but as a memorial. … The six essential
requirements to be found in the paschal lamb were: a lamb without blemish,
a lamb that was tested; the lamb slain; the blood to be applied; the blood a
perfect propitiation against divine judgments; the lamb partaken of as food.
That Christ is the antitype in all this could hardly be doubted.
2. THE FIVE OFFERINGS (Lev 1:1-7:38). The five offerings are: the burnt
offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the
trespass offering. These are properly classed as sweet savor offerings, which
grouping includes the first three, and non-sweet savor offerings, which
grouping includes the last two. … sweet savor offerings represent Christ
offering Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14), and that this is
substitutionary to the extent that, as the sinner is wholly void of merit before
God (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22), Christ has released and made available upon
grounds of perfect equity His own merit as the basis of the believer’s
acceptance and standing before God. On the other hand, it should be
remembered that the non-sweet savor offerings represent Christ as a
sacrifice for sin and as such the Father’s face is turned away and the Savior
cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22:1; Matt
27:46; Mark 15:34). The ground of a forgiveness both just and complete in
the death of Christ is thus foreshadowed in the non-sweet savor offerings.
3. THE TWO BIRDS (Lev 14:1-7). As on the Day of Atonement when two
goats were required to fulfill the entire picture of Christ’s death, so two birds
are required in the cleansing of leprosy – the type of sin. The first bird slain
speaks of Christ “delivered for our offenses,” while the second bird, dipped
in the blood of the first bird and released, speaks of Christ “raised again for
our justification” (Rom 4:25).
4. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. Again the larger extent and
accomplishment of Christ’s death is set forth typically in magnificent detail
by the events and specific requirements of the Day of Atonement – the
bullock for the high priest, and the two goats – Dr. C.I. Scofield states:
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
304
Leviticus 16:5 The two goats. The offering of the high priest for himself has no anti-type in
Christ (Heb 7:26, 27). The typical interest centres upon the two goats and the
high priest. Typically (1) all is done by the high priest (Heb 1:3, “by Himself”),
the people only bring the sacrifice (Mt 26:47; 27:24, 25). (2) The goat slain
(Jehovah’s lot) is that aspect of Christ’s death which vindicates the holiness and
righteousness of God as expressed in the law (Rom 3:24-26), and is expiatory. (3) The living goat typifies that aspect of Christ’s work which puts away our
sins from before God (Heb 9:26; Rom 8:33, 34). (4) The high priest entering the
holiest, typifies Christ entering “heaven itself” with “His own blood” for us
(Heb 9:11, 12). His blood makes that to be a “throne of grace,” and “mercy
seat,” which else must have been a throne of judgment. (5) For us, the priests of
the New Covenant, there is what Israel never had, a rent veil (Mt 25:71; Heb
10:19, 20). So that, for worship and blessing, we enter, in virtue of His blood,
where He is, into the holiest (Heb 4:14-16; 10:19-22).
The atonement of Christ, as interpreted by the O.T. sacrificial types, has
these necessary elements: (1) It is substitutionary – the offering takes the
offerer’s place in death. (2) The law is not evaded but honored – every
sacrificial death was an execution of the sentence of the law. (3) The sinlessness
of Him who bore our sins is expressed in every animal sacrifice – it must be
without blemish. (4) The effect of the atoning work of Christ is typified (a) in
the promises, “it shall be forgiven him”; and (b) in the peace-offering, the
expression of fellowship – the highest privilege of a saint.-The Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 147-48
The specific features thus required are: the bullock for the high priest,
the substitution of the animal for the sinful person, the upholding of the law,
the perfect character of the sacrifice, the sin covered by the blood of the first
goat, and the guilt taken away by the dismissal of the second goat.
5. THE RED HEIFER (Num 19:1-22). The New Testament doctrine of
cleansing for the believer is stated in 1 John 1:7, 9. Defilement is removed
by the blood of Christ upon confession. The type of such cleansing, which
also served a grand purpose in the economy of the Mosaic system, is seen in
the ordinance of the red heifer. Of this J. N. Darby writes:
The heifer was completely burned without the camp, even its blood, except
that which was sprinkled directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, that
is, where the people were to meet God. There the blood was sprinkled seven
times (because it was there that God met with His people), a perfect testimony in
the eyes of God to the atonement made for sin. They had access there according
to the value of this blood. The priest threw it into the fire cedarwood, hyssop,
and scarlet (that is, all that was of a man, and his human glory in the world).
“From the cedar down to the hyssop,” is the expression of nature from her
305
highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you
please [expensive red dyed clothing, this writer]). The whole was burned in the
fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. Then, if anybody contracted
defilement, though it were merely through neglect, in whatever way it might be,
God took account of the defilement. And this is a solemn and important fact:
God provides for cleansing, but in no case can tolerate anything in His presence
unsuited to it. It might seem hard in an inevitable case, as one dying suddenly in
the tent. But it was to shew that for His presence God judges of what is suited to
His presence. The man was defiled and he could not go into God’s tabernacle.
To cleanse the defiled person, they took some running water, into which they
put the ashes of the heifer, and the man was sprinkled on the third and on the
seventh days; then he was clean. –Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, new ed., I,
264-65
The essential features of this ordinance were: an animal without
blemish, the slaying of the animal, every part consumed by fire, the retaining
of the ashes for cleansing, the mingling of the ashes with water, and the
application of the water and the ashes for the cleansing of defilement.
MISCELLANEOUS TYPES OF CHRIST’S DEATH
1. THE COATS OF SKINS (Gen 3:21). Jehovah undertook in behalf of the
first sinners of the human race. It is declared that He Himself clothed them
with skins, the implication being that blood was shed. Reason rather than
revelation asserts that animal sacrifice was then introduced by God and that
it was from this action on Jehovah’s part that Abel knew the truth by which
he was guided in presenting an acceptable sacrifice to Jehovah. Few types
are as complete as this. God undertakes for man, the imputation of sin to a
substitute is implied, and the covering of the sinner is revealed.
2. NOAH’S ARK (Gen 6:14-8:19). The history of the flood is replete with
suggestions of vital truth. Among these, the safety of those in the ark seems
to be a definite preview of the safety of those in Christ Jesus. Pitch was used
to cover the ark and by it the waters of judgment were resisted. The word
translated pitch is from the same word everywhere translated atonement. The
significance of the use of this word has been pointed out by many writers.
3. BREAD AND WINE AT THE HAND OF MELCHIZEDEK (Gen 14:17-24).
Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine to Abraham suggests two
important truths, namely, (a) Abraham throughout the epistles of the New
Testament is presented as a pattern of a Christian under grace and not a Jew
under the law. Grace on God’s part is made possible only through the death
of Christ, who said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was
glad!” (John 8:56). (b) The partaking of the bread and wine on Abraham’s
part may have been but dimly understood by either Melchizedek or Abraham
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
306
– it is but dimly understood by the majority who partake today – but
doubtless it all had great significance in the sight of God.
4. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen 22:1-14). In this memorable
experience, Abraham appears as the type of the Father offering His Son.
Abraham was spared the final ordeal, but, according to Romans 8:32, “God
spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” Isaac is a type of
the Son who is a willing sacrifice and obedient unto death. The ram caught
in the thicket is the type of a substitute offered in the place of another.
5. JOSEPH (Gen 37:2-50:26). Though Joseph as a type of Christ is
exceedingly rich in its vital truth, only the placing of Joseph in the pit – a
type of death – and the lifting out – a type of resurrection – are germane to
this thesis. However, to this may be added the truths that, like Christ, Joseph
was beloved of his father and was hated by his brethren.
6. MANNA IN THE WILDERNESS (Gen 16:14-22). From the use Christ
made, as recorded in John 6, of the manna as a type of Himself, none could
doubt the typical import of the manna from heaven. Thus Christ as bread
come down from heaven has given His life for the world.
7. THE SMITTEN ROCK (Ex 17:5-7; Num 20:7-13). According to 1
Corinthians 10:4, Christ is that Rock. By His death the water of life is
released; but He could be smitten but once. The smiting of the rock a second
time is estimated by God to be so great a sin that it precludes Moses from
completing his task of taking the people of Israel into the promised land. The
death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and admits of no re-enactment. It
would be difficult to discover the exceeding sinfulness of Moses’ sin apart
from the antitype – Christ in His death.
8. THE TABERNACLE (Ex 25:1-40:38). In this one structure with its
details, the most extensive typology of the Old Testament is presented and
there is much that is related to the death of Christ. The tabernacle itself is a
type of Christ as the only way to God; the ark of the covenant sprinkled with
blood is the place of propitiation; the shewbread is another type of Christ as
the Bread of Life given for the world; all references to silver speak of
redemption; the brazen alter represents those judgments against sin which
Christ bore in His death; the candlestick is a type of Christ as the light of the
world; the golden altar represents that aspect of Christ’s death which was
sweet incense unto God; and the brazen laver foreshadows the cleansing of
the believer-priest through the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7, 9). 74
307
Biblical Terms Related to the Death of Christ
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY introduces no theme more difficult than an
attempted analysis of the values secured by Christ in His death – with
respect to its necessity; its effect upon God, upon man, upon angels; and the
principles involved in its application. 75
Atonement
Whether it be accurately or inaccurately employed, the student will
become aware of the fact that the word atonement (Lev 5:10) is the term
upon which men have seized to express the entire work of Christ upon the
cross. That such a word is sorely needed cannot be doubted. The almost
universal use of atonement for this purpose may go far to give it
authoritative acceptance regardless of its inaptitude for the immense service
thus thrust upon it. Objection to the use of the as employed generally, arises
from the fact that the word is not a New testament term, and when used in
the Old Testament some seventy-seven times it is a translator’s attempt at
interpretation and poorly represents the meaning of kaphar, which it purports to translate, which word originally meant to cover. Though
etymologically the word atonement suggests at-one-ment, it feebly relates to
the New Testament truth which presents Christ as the lamb of God taking away the sin of the world.
Expiation The New Standard Dictionary (1913 ed.) defines the meaning of this
term thus: “The active means of expiating, or of making reparation or
satisfaction, as for an offense or sin; the removing of guilt by suffering
punishment; atonement, or an atonement.” In general, the term expiation is
more inclusive and definite than atonement.
Forgiveness and Remission
… divine forgiveness of sin is made possible only through the cross of
Christ, and is never exercised apart from expiation – whether anticipated, as
was in the Old Testament, or realized, as it is in the New Testament
economy.
Guilt
Guilt (Gen 42:21; Rom 3:19; 1 Cor 11:27; James 2:10), which means
that the guilty one has offended God’s character and will, is predicated of
every person in two respects:
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
308
1. As personal and thus related to the historical fact of actual sin. Such
guilt is nontransferable. History and its records can never be changed.
2. As an obligation to justice, which is the theological use of the term
guilt. This is transferable in the sense that an innocent person may discharge
the obligation of one who is guilty.
Justice
Generally speaking, whether as used in the Old Testament or the New
Testament, the term justice is a synonym of righteousness. The conduct of
one toward another is in view, and especially the truth that God acts towards
men in justice. So perfect in itself is the plan of salvation through Christ, that
God is said to be just (not, merciful) when He justifies the ungodly (Rom
3:26; 4:5). God is ever just in all His ways.
Justification Theologically considered, the term justification means to be declared
righteous. It is true that, being in Christ, the believer is righteous; but
justification is the divine acknowledgement and declaration that the one who
is in Christ is righteous. That which God thus publishes He defends.
Justification is immutable.
Penalty Though immeasurable by the finite mind, both reason and revelation
assert that penalty for sin is no more than that6 which God’s holiness
requires. It is God’s judicial authority expressed. It is that which Christ
satisfied. Whatever these demands were, it is now to be believed that Christ
has met these demands for those who trust Him.
Propitiation [Godward]
As already stated, propitiation is the Godward effect or value of the
cross. Since Christ has died, God is propitious. This truth is the heart of the
gospel and that which is to be believed.
Reconciliation [manward]
… It represents the manward effect and value of the cross. Since the
word signifies a complete change, the term cannot be applied properly to
God who is immutable, but it does apply to man, who by the death of Christ
is placed in a changed relation to God and to His judgments against man. By
his own choice man may be turned about or converted respecting the rightful
claims of God upon him.
309
Redemption and Ransom [sinward]
These two terms are practically the same meaning. Redemption implies
the payment of a ransom price, and, in the redemption which Christ has
wrought, the divine judgments against sin having been measured out, these
stand paid by Christ’s voluntary sacrifice. This again, is not something yet to
be done; but, being already accomplished, is something to be believed.
Sacrifice
While this term usually means to relinquish that which one may hold in
possession, its doctrinal meaning is that of an offering to God. Thus every
animal slain in the Mosaic economy was a sacrifice, and these looked on in
anticipation to the one final and perfect sacrifice which Christ became for
lost men (Heb 9:26; 10:12).
Satisfaction The forces of modern thought have been for nearly a century arrayed
against the doctrine of satisfaction. The offense of this doctrine is the claim
that God, having certain holy, inherent demands against sin, which claims
arise from His outraged righteousness and character, has accepted as
satisfying the payment which Christ has made. …
Vicarious and Substitutionary
Again the two words being considered are identical in meaning and refer
to the suffering of one in the place of another, in the sense that by that
suffering on the part of one the other is wholly relieved. A vicar is an
authorized or accepted substitute in office or service, and not merely anyone
providing a benefit in general. Christ suffered and died that men might not
be required to bear their burden of condemnation. To reject this truth is to
reject the plainest doctrine of Scripture, to reject the gospel, and the only
righteous ground on which God may exercise grace toward [forgive] the lost. 76
Preliminary Considerations About the Value Of Christ’s Death
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
1. GENERAL FACTS REVEALED. … The fact that the Bible so exalts the
importance of Christ’s death – even making the world, if not the universe,
redempto-centric – along with the corresponding human experience of sole
relief and benefit in things spiritual by and through the cross has compelled
serious men to formulate theories respecting the whole divine undertaking.
As the Bible offers no ready-made system of theology, in like manner it
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
310
presents no ready-made theory of the value of Christ’s work on the cross;
however, there is little difficulty, comparatively, to be encountered when the
plain teachings of the Word of God are taken in simple faith. The attempt to
formulate a philosophy which purports to analyze God and all His works is
fraught with insuperable problems. Inductions must be made and have been
made with great care covering all that God has disclosed from Genesis 3:15
to the song of triumph with which the Bible closes. Out of such inductions
certain truths emerge and these, when rightly arranged, might constitute a
theory; but it is to be remembered that such a theory thus formed is, at best,
characterized by the human element and is to that extent subject to error. A
theory never creates a fact; it reaches its fruition when it explains a fact
which already exists. Men have not originated any truth respecting the
purpose and value of Christ’s death; they have sought only to trace the
meaning of that which God has accomplished. … Primarily, the death of
Christ answers a necessity and purpose in God. Human philosophy is
strained beyond measure in its attempts to trace the majestic realities related
to that death. Obviously, no theory can be formed by man respecting
Christ’s death that will be complete in all its parts. At best, what God has
said should be received and believed. If such a procedure gives the
intellectual pride of man no great latitude, perhaps by so much the truth may
be preserved in its purity and simplicity.
2. THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS UNIQUE. Not only is Christ’s death without
parallel in all human history both with regard to the way it was endured, and
the measureless achievement said to have been wrought by it, but it was a
voluntary crucifixion. He offered no resistance, for He said, “No man taketh
it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18). It is far from
natural for one who is innocent to an infinite degree, to project himself into a
felon’s death. Of no other could it be said that he is God’s lamb taking away
the sin of the world, or that it “pleased Jehovah to bruise him,” and that
Jehovah “laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6, 10). The philosophies
of men are no more qualified to penetrate into this most crucial of all divine
undertakings than they are prepared to penetrate into the realms of infinity or
into the Person of God. Nevertheless, the burden laid on the theologian is in
evidence here as elsewhere. His is the task of systematizing and interpreting
the precise revelation God has given. Mere speculation is debarred; yet, in
spite of this obvious truth, very much of the literature bearing on the
meaning of the death of Christ is permeated with human conjecture.
3. ITS EXTENT. The almost universal disposition to restrict the value of
Christ’s death to the one truth that it is a ransom or redemption from sin
leads unavoidably to various errors. That His death is the ground of imputed
righteousness and justification, that it is the basis on which a Christian may
be forgiven and may walk in divine enablement, that it provides eternal
311
blessedness for Israel, that it is the foundation on which an oncoming sinless
eternity will rest, and that, objectively, it means more to God than it means
to all men and angels combined, seems to never to have occurred to many
inventors of theories respecting the value of Christ’s death. It is evident that
a theory which comprehends no more than forgiveness of sin - as glorious
as that truth may be – will be more given to error than to truth.
4. ITS THREE DIRECTIONS. The problem of sin when restricted to
unregenerate men is met by the death of Christ and that value points
objectively in three directions – a redemption toward sin, a reconciliation
toward man, and a propitiation toward God. Though all originates in God, it
yet remains true that He who originates provides and receives a ransom; that
He who originates provides and acknowledges His own Lamb as the One
who bears away sin, thus providing a reconciliation; and He who originates
provides, by Christ’s death, that by which He Himself is propitiated.
Though rationalism condemns these truths as being contradictory, they are
the very heart of the divine revelation regarding the saving work and grace
of God.
It is but another instance added to many already encountered in which
revelation surpasses reason and the devout soul may know by simple faith
what he otherwise could never know.
It hardly need be indicated that a theory which purports to set forth the
value of Christ’s death and yet omits any part or parts of this threefold
division of Christ’s work upon the cross can only mislead and deceive.
5. DIVINE SATISFACTION THROUGH CHRIST’S DEATH IS NOT PERSONAL
SALVATION. The satisfaction respecting the divine judgment against sin
which Christ provided in His death does not itself constitute the salvation of
those for whom He died. The unsaved are forgiven and justified not at the
time of the cross nineteen hundred years ago, but when they believe; and the
saved who sin are not forgiven and cleansed on the date of Calvary, but
when they confess. Regardless of the truth that the disposition to believe, in
the one case, and to confess, in the other case, is wrought in the individual
heart by the Holy Spirit, it yet remains true that these transforming blessings
are conditioned on what is declared to be the elective choice of men. That
treatment of the doctrine of satisfaction which invests it with those absolute
provisions which necessitate the salvation of those for whom Christ died
without regard for the element of human responsibility, is but another
rationalistic deduction which is grounded on a partial revelation and,
therefore, like all part-truth, is subject to great error.
6. TYPE AND ANTITYPE. None who accept the Scriptures as the Word of
God can doubt the divine arrangement, purpose, and sanction of the truth as
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
312
it lies paralleled between type and antitype. Since so much typology pertains
to the death of Christ, this peculiar body of truth must be given its full
import if the full value of Christ’s death is to be recognized. That it is
omitted is a self-evident fact and the effect of its neglect is obvious.
7. THEORIES MAY BE QUESTIONED. Strictly speaking, there could be no
theory relative to the value of Christ’s death. That death is a fact and the
Bible asserts its manifold effectiveness. Human speculation is ever active
and reason has raised its objections to every divine revelation. That deep
mystery is present in the greatest of all divine undertakings, should be no
surprise or cause for distress to devout minds. The heart of man – however
much it may be disciplined – can and should do no more than believe the
record God has given concerning His Son. The careful study of all that is
revealed to the end that its true message may be comprehended, is certainly
enjoined (2 Tim 2:15); but rationalistic arguments which contradict
revelation are foreign to a true theological method. 77
God’s Truth About What Christ Accomplished in His Death –
Forgiveness and Justification. The First Pauline Revelation: “justification by faith.”
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
WHEN ANTICIPATING His cross Christ said, “For this cause came I into the
world” (John 18:37), and, again, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to
save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). In light of these sayings, it may be
concluded that, as before asserted, the theme of the sufferings of Christ in
death is the ground of all right doctrine and the central fact in this cosmic
universe. It exceeds the importance of the material universe – in so far as the
universe provides sphere wherein evil may be tested, judged, and banished
forever. … The general theme of that which Christ accomplished in His
sufferings and in His death may, in an attempt at clarity, be divided into the
following fourteen divisions: (1) a substitution for sinners, (2) Christ the end
of the law principle in behalf of those who are saved, (3) a redemption
toward sin, (4) a reconciliation toward man, (5) a propitiation toward God,
(6) the judgment of the sin nature, (7) the ground of the believer’s
forgiveness and cleansing, (8) the ground for deferring righteous divine
judgments, (9) the taking away of precross sins once covered by sacrifice,
(10) the national salvation of Israel, (11) millennial and eternal blessings
upon Gentiles, (12) the spoiling of the principalities and powers, (13) the
ground of Peace, (14) the purification of things in heaven. 78
313
THE DIVINE REMEDY FOR PERSONAL Sin
As related to divine forgiveness, there are unforgiven, or forgiven. A
form of unforgiven sin is seen in the case of the unpardonable sin, which
was committed only when Christ was here on earth, and which sin is not
now possible, both because of the fact that Christ is not here as He was then
nor is He in the same relation to the Holy Spirit, and because such a penalty
as is imposed on those who committed the unpardonable sin sets up a direct
contradiction of divine grace in salvation. There cannot be an unpardonable
sin and a whosoever-will gospel at the same time. …
In a previous discussion the specific character of personal sin has been
presented, and it was there pointed out that personal sin of whatever form is
only the legitimate fruitage of the sin nature. However, the divine cure for
personal sin, it should observed, is of a wholly different character than the
divine cure for the sin nature. Being by birth a partaker of the sin nature,
there is no personal guilt charged against the individual because of that
nature, though there is condemnation on the ground of the inherent
unlikeness of that nature to God. On the other hand, both guilt and
condemnation are attributed to the individual because of personal sin. The
divine cure for personal sin is twofold, namely, (1) forgiveness and (2)
justification. It is recognized that the two themes – forgiveness and
justification – belong primarily to Soteriology, and under that main division
they are to be treated again. With some disregard for precise divisional
boundaries it has seemed good to incorporate into this work some reference
to the divine remedy for each major aspect of sin.
FORGIVENESS. In approaching the doctrine of the forgiveness of
personal sin, three erroneous impressions, quite common indeed, may be
pointed out – one of which has to do directly with this subject. (a) In their
treatment of the whole doctrine of sin, theological writers have too often
restricted their discussion to the one theme of personal sin, which misleading
practice has imposed incalculable limitations on the doctrine as a whole. (b)
It is by many assumed that the forgiveness of personal sin is the equivalent
of personal salvation. To such persons, a Christian is no more than a
forgiven sinner, whereas, of upwards of thirty-three divine accomplishments
which together comprise salvation, forgiveness is but one of them. (c) The
distinction of divine forgiveness of the unsaved and that of the Christian
must be clearly recognized, and will be so recognized in this treatment by
reserving the discussion of that phase of the doctrine which concerns the
Christian until a later division of this general theme is reached.
As an act of God, forgiveness is common to both Testaments, the
English word forgive, in its various forms, being a translation of five
Hebrew words and four Greek words. One of the Greek words is translated
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
314
nine times by English word remission. The underlying thought which the
word forgive universally conveys when expressing the act of God is that of
putting away, releasing, or pardoning. It is the taking away of sin and its
condemnation from the offender, or offenders, by imputing the sin to, and
imposing its righteous judgments upon, Another. Covering all generations of
human life upon the earth, no statement could be conclusive than that found
in Hebrews 9:22, “And without shedding of blood is no remission.” In the
period covered by the Old Testament records, we find the word forgive used
only of God in His dealing nationally or individually with Israel and her
proselytes. Gentile standing before God preceding the death of Christ is
described in Ephesians 2:12 wherein it is declared that they were without
Christ, without commonwealth privileges, without covenant promises,
without hope, and without God in the world. There is but little Scripture
bearing upon the forgiveness of the sin of Gentiles in the days before Christ.
Some Gentiles, we are told, did offer sacrifices, and their forgiveness is thus
implied. To Israel, whether as a nation or as individuals, divine forgiveness
was an act of God which was based on and followed the offering of
sacrifices (national – Num 15:24-25, and individual – Lev 4:31), though,
being a people related to God by covenant based upon sacrifices, they were
at times both nationally (Num 14:11-20) and individually (Ps 32:1-5)
forgiven on the ground of confession of sin. When forgiveness was extended
on the ground of confession, it was, as in the New Testament (cf. 1 John
1:9), made righteously possible only as based on sacrificial blood. Herein is
seen the major distinction which exists between divine forgiveness and
human forgiveness and human forgiveness. At, best human forgiveness can
do no more than to pass over, waive, or abandon any and all penalty that
exists. In such forgiveness the injured party relinquishes any and all claim to
any form of satisfaction which otherwise might be demanded or imposed
upon the offender. Such forgiveness, so far as it ever exists, is only a
voluntary gratuity in which the offended party surrenders all claim to
compensation. On the other hand, divine forgiveness is never extended to the
offender as an act of leniency, nor is the penalty waived, since God, being
infinitely holy and upholding His government which is founded on
undeviating righteousness, cannot make light of sin. Divine forgiveness is
therefore extended only when the last demand or penalty against the
offender has been satisfied. Since no human being could ever render divine
satisfaction for his sins, God, in measureless mercy, has provided all the
satisfaction, even divine propitiation, which the sinner could ever need. This
is good news. The following from Dr. Henry C. Mabie is well stated: “God
Himself, as Carnegie Simpson in his book, ‘The Fact of Christ,’ has so
strongly shown, ‘is the moral law, is the ethical order,’ in a sense that no
man, no earthly father is. While among men, and particularly men as
315
forgiven sinners, ‘forgiveness to others is the first and simplest of duties,
with God it is the profoundest of problems.’ If He as the world’s moral
Governor, even with the profoundest fatherly love, forgives, He must do it in
a way that will not legitimize sin on the one hand, and as will win the heart to penitence and faith on the other” (The Divine Reason of the Cross, p 130).
Under the Old Testament order, the value of the divinely provided and
efficacious sacrifice of Christ was accepted in anticipation and symbolized
by the shedding of blood. In due time God justified that expectation, and all
of His acts of forgiveness which had been based upon those offerings were
proved to have been righteous by the bearing by Christ of those sins which
were previously forgiven (Rom 3:25). As a verification of the fact that, in
the old order, sacrifices preceded divine forgiveness of the offender, we read
the following statement four times in Leviticus, chapter four: “And the priest
shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be
forgiven him” (vss. 20, 26, 31, 35). Correspondingly in the New Testament,
divine forgiveness is invariably based on the one sacrifice for sin which
Christ has made. But one passage need be cited : “In whom we have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7). If question be raised here concerning the fact
that before His death Christ forgave sin, it should be remembered that such
forgiveness preceded and was in anticipation of Hid death. Being Himself
the sacrificial Lamb that was to be slain who would elect to bear all sin, He
said of Himself, “The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”
(Mark 2:10). However, it should be observed that divine forgiveness, being
based as it is upon the perfect satisfaction which the death of Christ supplies,
can be, and is, as perfect and complete in character as is the work of the
Substitute on which it is based. Thus, according to Colossians 2:13, divine
forgiveness is seen to reach to “all trespasses” – past, present, and future –
for the one who is saved. The perfection of this transaction and the extent of
it are said to be such that the believer is now on a peace footing with God –
“We have peace with God” (Rom 5:1) – and “There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). Such
unqualified forgiveness belongs only to the Christian’s perfect standing, being “in Christ Jesus.” As a counterpart of this, there yet remains to be
considered, as it will be in XXII, “The Christian’s Sin and Its Remedy,” the
important divine method of dealing with those sins which the child of God
commits after he is saved and the fact that he is wholly forgiven through the
blood of Christ, being perfectly accepted in the Beloved.
Though, on the divine side the freedom to forgive sin is always secured,
directly, or indirectly, through the blood of Christ, the requirements on the
human side vary to some extent with the different ages of time. During the
period between Abel and Christ, forgiveness was made, on the human side,
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
316
to depend on the presentation of a specified sacrifice. During the present
age, it is made to depend, for the unsaved, on faith in Christ; but for the
saved, who are already under the value of Christ’s blood, forgiveness is
made to depend upon confession and is impelled by the fact that God has
already forgiven (Eph 4:32).But during the coming age divine forgiveness is,
on the human side, made to depend upon a willingness of the offender to
forgive those who have sinned against him (Matt 6:14-15). The two
principles – forgiving to be forgiven, forgiving because forgiven – cannot be
harmonized; nor is such an effort required since they belong to different ages
and represent two widely diverse divine administrations.
It may be concluded, then, that divine forgiveness of sin in whatever age
or under whatever conditions, though varying in the requirements on the
human side, is always based upon the sacrifice of Christ and consists in a
removal of sin in the sense that it is no longer charged against the sinner, but
is charged against his Substitute. No better word can be found to express this
removal of sin by forgiveness than that employed in Romans 11:27
concerning the yet future divine dealings with th e sins of the nation Israel:
“For this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins.”
2. JUSTIFICATION. The words just and justify often occur in the Bible
and are usually related directly or indirectly to justice as an element of
human character. According to Scripture usage, to be just or justified may
mean no more than to be free from guilt or innocent of any charge. With
respect to their characters, The Old Testaments saints are described upwards
of thirty times as “just” persons, and it is said under the designation, it would
seem, they are to appear in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22-24).
Speaking to those who are still under the old order and by the parable of the
lost sheep, Christ refers to one hundred individuals of whom ninety and nine
“just persons,” needing no repentance (Luke 15:3-7). In like manner, by his
good works man may be justified in the eyes of his fellow men. This is the
distinctive teaching of James 2:14-26. However, of far greater import is that
justification of man by God, which justification is based on the imputed
righteousness of God. Of the Old Testament saints, Abraham is said to have
attained unto imputed righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-4), and David
declares the man to be “blessed” unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works (Rom 4:6; cf. Ps 32:1-2). The Scriptures thus record that
Abraham obtained by faith unto imputed righteousness and implies that he
was justified by faith since he was not justified by works. David wrote, “For
in thy sight may no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2), and Bildad, who
expressed the beliefs of the ancients, said: “How … can man be justified
with God?” (Job 25:4). Though anticipated in the Old Testament, divine
justification of men, as more fully revealed in the New Testament, is the
highest consummating work, but one, of God for the believer, being
317
surpassed only by the eternal glory which is to follow: “And whom he
justified, them he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). Though the precise features of
this great doctrine are set forth in the Word of God, directly or indirectly,
Romish perversions and Arminian unbelief have gone far in robbing
multitudes of Christians of any adequate understanding of the benefits that
justification affords them.
Imputed [imparted] righteousness is secured by a vital union with
Christ, while divine justification is a judicial decree of God which is based
on, and is an acknowledgement of, imputed righteousness. There is a logical
order – though not chronological, since each and every step is wrought
simultaneously at the moment saving faith is effective – which leads to that
consummating justification which is by divine decree. These steps are: (1)
Upon believing, the individual enters actually and completely into the values
secured for him by the death of Jesus Christ. This includes the remission of
sins; but far more, indeed, since that death became the ground of divine
justification. The precise rendering of Romans 4:25 is of surpassing
importance as relating as relating divine justification to the death rather than
to the resurrection of Christ. We read: “Who was delivered for our offences,
and was raised again for our justification.” In all, three causes for divine
justification are to be distinguished: (a) a primary – the sovereign love of
God, (b) a meritorious – the substitutionary death of Christ, and (c) an
instrumental – faith. The text in question is concerned only with the
meritorious cause and and is one of the few texts in the New Testament
bearing on this phase of the truth (cf. Rom 5:9, where justification is said to
be by the blood of Christ; and 2 Cor 5:21, where imputed righteousness, the
ground of justification, is said to be possible because of the fact that Christ,
by His death, was made to be possible because of the fact that Christ, by His
death, was made to be sin for us). “It is finished,” which phrase was on the
lips of Christ when about to die, would be emptied of much of its meaning if
it did not witness to the fact that the basis of divine justification is
established forever.
Proof Verses
I. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF CHRIST
(1) As dying for sinners. Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:19a; 22:19b, 20; John 6:51; 10:11, 15, 18;
15:12, 13; Romans 5:6-8; 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15; 5:21;
Galatians 2:20; 3:13; Ephesians 5:2, 25; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; 1
Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:13, 14; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John
3:16.
(2) As suffering for sins.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
318
Romans 4:25; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; Hebrews
10:12; 1 Peter 3:18; Isaiah 53:5, 8.
(3) As bearing our sins. Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:6, 11, 12.
(4) As being “made sin” and “made a curse for us.”
2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13
II. PASSAGES WHICH ASCRIBE TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST
(1) The removal and remission of sins, and deliverance from their penal consequences. John 1:29; Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 26:28; 1 John 1:7; / Luke 24:46,
47; Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39; Ephesians 1:6, 7; Colossians 1:13, 14;
Revelation 1:5, 6; John 3:14-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:9,10.
(2) Justification. Isaiah 53:11; Romans 5:8, 9; 3:24-26
(3) Redemption. Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 6:19;
Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19;
Revelation 5:9
(4) Reconciliation to God. Romans 5:10, 11; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19; Ephesians 2:16;
Colossians 1:21, 22.
III. PASSAGES IN WHICH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS REPRESENTED
(1) As a Propitiation for sin.
1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; Romans 3:25.
(2) As a Priest. Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 3:1; 2:17; 10:21; 4:14; 7:26.
(3) As a Representative. Hebrews 5:1; 7:22; Romans 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:20-
22; 45-49.
IV. PASSAGES WHICH REPRESENT THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST
(1) As “sacrificial.”
Under this head, “Behold the lamb of God,” etc., should reappear.
To these may be added: 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2;
Revelation 7:14, 15; Hebrews 9:22-28; 10:11-14.
V. PASSAGES WHICH CONNECT OUR LORD’S SUFFERINGS WITH HIS
INTERCESSION
1 Timothy 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:1, 2; Revelation 5:6; already quoted,
reappear, and Phillipians 2:8, 9, 10.
VI. PASSAGES WHICH REPRESENT THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST
(1) As procuring the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. John 7:39; 16:7; 14:16, 17; 15:26; 14:26; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:13,
14; Titus 3:5, 6.
319
(2) As conferring all Christian graces which are fruits of the Spirit. John 1:16; 15:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 1:4-7; 1:30; Ephesians 1:3, 4;
2:10; 4:7; Colossians 2:9, 10.
(3) As delivering us from the dominion of Satan. 1 John 3:8; John 2:31, 32; Hebrews 2:14, 15; Colossians 2:15.
(4) As obtaining for us eternal life. John 3:14, 15; 5:24; 6:40,47, 51; 10:27, 28; 14:2, 3; 17:1, 2;
Romans 5:20, 21; 6:23; 2 Timothy 2:10; Hebrews 5:9; 9:15; 1 Peter
5:10; 1 John 5:11; Jude 21.
VII. PASSAGES WHICH INDICATE THE STATE OF THE SAVIOUR’S MIND IN
THE PROSPECT AND IN THE ENDURANCE OF HIS SUFFERINGS.
John 10:17, 18; Luke 12:50; John 12:27; Matthew 26:36-44;
27:46
VIII. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST IN
RELATION
(1) To the free calls and offers of the gospel. John 14:6; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 4:12
(2) To the necessity of faith in order to obtain the blessings of the gospel. John 1:12; 3:18, 36; 6:35; Acts 13:38, 39; 16:31; Romans 1:16;
3:28; 5:12; 10:4; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8, 9.
IX. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE MEDIATORIAL WORK AND
SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST IN RELATION
(1) To His covenant with the Father. John 6:38-40, 51
(2) To His union with believers. John 15:4; Romans 6:5; 2 Corinthians 4:10; Galatians 2:20;
Ephesians 2:5, 6; Phillipians 3:10; Colossians 2:12; 3:3.
X. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST
(1) As a manifestation of the love of God. John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 8:32; 1 John 4:9, 10.
(2) As furnishing an example of patience and resignation. Hebrews 12:1-3; 1 Peter 2:20, 21; Luke 9:23, 24.
(3) As designed to promote our sanctification. John 17:19; Hebrews 10:10; 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians
1:4; Ephesians 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
320
321
The Value of the Death of Christ
The value of the death of Christ is the chief part of our salvation, the anchor of our Faith, the refuge of our Hope, the rule of Charity, the true foundation of the Christian religion, and the richest treasure of the Christian Church. So long as this doctrine is maintained in its integrity, Christianity itself and the peace and blessedness of all who believe in Christ are beyond the reach of danger; but if it is rejected, or in any way impaired, the whole structure of the Christian faith must sink into decay and ruin. 79
Francis Turretin (1623-1687)
As to be expected, there is no point in human history where the divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or free will, come into more vivid juxtaposition than they do in the crucifixion of Christ. … Two immeasurable facts – as far removed from each other as the east is from the west – were spoken by Peter in his Pentecostal sermon, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). In precisely the same manner in which there is no gratitude due Judas, Herod, or Pontius Pilate, there is no doctrine based on what they did. The transforming power of Christ’s death is not in the human tragedy; it is in the divine reconciliation. The death and resurrection of Christ are counterparts of one divine undertaking. None will predicate of man that he had any part in the resurrection; yet the divine accomplishment in the cross is as void of human cooperation as is the resurrection.80
Lewis Chafer
The same one and true Mediator reconciles us to God by the atoning sacrifice, remains one with God to whom he offers it, makes those one in himself for whom he offers it, and is himself both the offerer and the offering.
Augustine
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
322
323
The KJV Translation of Romans 8:1 is Misleading and Not to be Trusted
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
(1) salvation for the unregenerate person which is consummated in
justification (Rom 3:21-5:21); (2) salvation for the believer from the power
of sin, or unto sanctification (Romans 6:1-8:17). …
After having set forth the essential character of salvation in its two
major aspects, the Apostle must answer the pertinent question whether such
a salvation, which is unrelated to human merit, will endure.
This great chapter [Romans 8] – second only in significance to John 17
– opens with an all but incredible proclamation which serves as a primary
statement, the truth of which is proved by seven major arguments and these
occupy the text of the chapter. This amazing, unqualified, divine assertion
which it pleased God to record and to fortify with infallible proofs is as
follows: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus.” The added words, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit,” found in the A.V., are not, as recognized by all devout scholars (see
R.V.), a part of this text in its original form, but have been added, perhaps by
those who could not suffer to stand a statement so clear and assuring. i This
intended element of human worthiness is not only foreign to the original
text, but is a contradiction of all the truth previously set forth in this Epistle
and of that which follows. In like manner, this intrusion tends to disrupt
every revelation respecting salvation by grace which is found in the New
Testament. This added phrase - “who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit” – does belong properly in verse 4 where the believer’s responsibility
is in view. When challenged with the unqualified statement, “There is
therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” the
reader is faced with the question whether this literally and irrevocably true.
If it is true, it guarantees a state of blessedness as expanded as heaven itself
i NET Rom 8:1 tc The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western
texts, as well as a few others (Í* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional
words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Y 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words mhV kataV savrka peripatou'sin (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to
the flesh”), while even later ones (Í2 D2 33vid Ï) added ajllaV kataV pneu'ma (alla
kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence
and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were
evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s
gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the
longest reading found in Ï.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
324
and as extended as the eternity which it includes. What greater ground of
peace could be presented than that a fallen being, cursed with sin and its
ruin, should enter a sphere of relationship with God wherein there is no
condemnation now, or in eternity to come. If the answer be made that the
promise is for the present and not the future, it will be seen that the Apostle,
when arguing in the following context concerning this wonderful primary
statement, treats it in every instance as of eternal duration; that is, by his by
his own interpretation it reaches on forever. Though some restatement be
involved, attention must be called to the truth that this blessedness is not
made, in this declaration, to depend upon human worthiness, but upon the
fact that the one thus blessed is in Christ Jesus. It will be recalled that, on the
righteous ground provided by Christ in the sweet savor aspect of His death,
and on the ground of the fact that the believer is translated into the new
Headship wherein he partakes of all that Christ is - even the righteousness
of God – there remains no longer any vestige of the legal, merit system
which would cast its shadow of doubt over the perfection of God’s
manifestation of His sovereign grace. Acceptance with God is sealed
forever, and on a basis which is righteous in every respect to the end that
God Himself is declared to be just, and not merely merciful, when He
justifies eternally the ungodly who do no more than “believe in Jesus” (Rom
3:26; 4:5). It becomes, therefore, an uncomplicated accomplishment on the
part of God. Arminians are wont to make no other reply to this revelation
than that “It is too good to be true,” and that they would like to believe it if
they could. Nevertheless, this wonderful revelation is the heart of the New
Testament message respecting sovereign grace and these great declarations
yield to no other interpretation. 81
The KJV Invented Word, “Atonement,” Is Greatly Misleading
FORGIVENESS
Would one trust their well being to another who compounded a drug
formula by referring to Webster’s Dictionary? Might the safe operating
parameters for a nuclear powered 1,200 megawatt Large Steam Turbine
Generator be maintained by small children? The blood of Christ has
infinitely more effect and power than either of the examples mentioned
above. The destiny of all men and creation rests in the death of Christ. A
proper and complete understanding of forgiveness is primary and vital. It
should be the loudest and clearest part, but not the singular content, of any
presentation of the gospel message given by someone who is saved and
understands salvation. Dr. John MacArthur gives testimony to the power of
the cross declared in Romans chapter 8:
325
“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how
will He not also with Him freely give us all things. … Christ Jesus is He
who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God,
who also intercedes for us” (Rom 8:32, 34 NASB)
Freely give translates charizomai, which means to bestow graciously or
out of grace. In some of Paul’s other letters the same word carries the idea of
forgiveness (see 2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13; Col 2:13; 3:13). It therefore seems
reasonable to interpret Paul’s use of charizomai in Romans 8:32 as including
the idea of God’s gracious forgiveness as well as His gracious giving. If so,
the apostle is also saying that God freely forgives us all things (cf. 1 John
1:9). God’s unlimited forgiveness makes it impossible for a believer to sin
himself out of God’s grace. … In verse 34 Paul reveals four realities that
protect our salvation in Jesus Christ.
First, he says Christ Jesus … died. In His death He took upon Himself
the full penalty for our sins. In His death He bore the condemnation that we
deserved but for which we are forever freed (8:1). The death of the Lord
Jesus Christ on our behalf is the only condemnation we will ever know.
Second, Christ was raised from the dead, proving His victory over sin
and over its supreme penalty of death. The grave could not hold Jesus,
because He had conquered death; and His conquest over death bequeaths
eternal life to every person who trusts in Him. As Paul has declared earlier in
this letter, Christ “was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was
raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25). His death paid the price for
our sins and His resurrection gave absolute proof that the price was paid.
When God raised Jesus from the dead, He demonstrated that His Son had
offered the full satisfaction for sin that the law demands.
Third, Christ is at the right hand of God, the place of divine exaltation
and honor. Because “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the
point of death, even death on a cross, … God highly exalted Him, and
bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Phil 2:8-9). David
foretold that glorious event when he wrote, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit
at My right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet’” (Ps
110:1). …
Fourth, Christ also intercedes for us. Although His work of atonement
was finished, His continuing ministry of intercession for those saved through
His sacrifice will continue without interruption until every redeemed soul is
safe in heaven. Just as Isaiah prophesied, “He poured out Himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of
many, and interceded for the transgressors” (Isa 53:12). Jesus Christ “is able
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
326
to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always
lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25).
If we understand what Christ did on the cross to save us from sin, we
understand what it means to be secure in His salvation. If we believe that
God loved us so much when we were wretched and ungodly that He sent His
Son to die on the cross to bring us to Himself, how could we believe that,
after we are saved, His love is not strong enough to keep us saved? If Christ
had power to redeem us out of bondage to sin, how could He lack power to
keep us redeemed?
Christ, the perfect Priest, offered a perfect sacrifice to make us perfect.
To deny the security of the believer is therefore to deny the sufficiency of
the work of Christ. To deny the security of the believer is to misunderstand
the heart of God, to misunderstand the gift of Christ, to misunderstand the
meaning of the cross, to misunderstand the biblical meaning of salvation. 82
Salvation is determined by one’s personal beliefs regarding forgiveness.
Men will either accept eternal life or remain in eternal judgment solely on
what they believe about the death of Christ. Many gospels, based on various
theories of inferred covenants and atonement, share a message of incomplete
forgiveness as a basis for man’s voluntary reformation. The biblical gospel
of the grace of God contains the message of reconciliation and completed
forgiveness for the regeneration of men who are “made the righteousness of
God in him [Christ] … For he [the Father] hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21). Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:
Theologians are wont to distinguish between personal and vicarious satisfaction to God for sin. When the sinner bears his own penalty, he is lost
forever and his achievement though a failure, is a thing which originates in
him which he offers to God. This is personal satisfaction to God. On the
other hand, when the sinner accepts the vicarious Sin-Bearer, he is saved
forever and the achievement originates with the Savior and is offered to the
sinner. This vicarious satisfaction to God. These two principles – personal
and vicarious satisfaction to God – are better known by the terms works and
faith. The principle of works represents all that man can do for himself; the
principle of faith represents all that God can do for man. The one is void of
mercy; the other is the greatest possible [past] display of mercy. The one has
no promise of blessing in it; the other secures every spiritual blessing in
Christ Jesus. … The doctrine of the Bible is that God saves His own people
– those who trust Him – from His own wrath (cf. Ps 38:1; Isa 60:10; Hos
6:1; Job 42:7-8). Unconfused and without counteraction the one against the
other, God experiences both wrath and love at the same time and each to the
extent of His infinite being. … The Christian … discovers that the grace by
327
which he is saved is exercised toward him by the very tribunal which
condemned him. A throne of awful judgment has become a throne of grace. 83
But much more so, forgiveness is merely one aspect of subtraction in a
salvation that provides many additions. Christ was and is the sinners
substitute for both past penalty and future perfection. The ability for
Christian character is provided only through the regeneration of salvation,
not forgiveness. Nor, as some so strongly assert to be “the gospel,” is
character built upon a progressive freedom from the need of forgiveness.
Which might lead to an eventual salvation.
Sin separates man from his source of ultimate good. Man is born
spiritually dead and separated from God. Personal sins are the result of this
separation. Man did not originate sin. Eve was deceived but Adam sinned
freely. Sin was brought into the world by Satan. Innocent babes have their
inborn sin freely covered by the blood of Christ. After the “age of
responsibility” men and woman are free to accept or reject the truth of God’s
grace towards sin – Jesus died that believer’s may live.
Any system of Christianity that would take this truth and teach a low
view of forgiveness, holds to a low view of sin, and therefore, a low view of
God. The “repentance of sin” means to change your mind and turn to the
truth about sin. No one may be a “little sinful.” All sin and one sin holds
ultimate (final, definitive) condemnation and judgment. The sacrificial death
and shed blood of Jesus Christ was required to remove this ultimate
condemnation for sin. Redemption from sin and judgment must be believed
to receive ultimate sinlessness in the name of Christ. “Therefore, there is
now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1, see also
John 3:18; 3:36).
A rarely published fact is that all men are completely redeemed and
have been prepared by God (reconciled to His standard) to receive the value
of salvation and the remission of sins. But, sadly, all have not been told to
believe in the divine gift of a completed and satisfactory redemption to
receive salvation from all sin.
Need it be said that making Jesus Lord of your life has everything to do
with expecting recognition for obedience as the basis for a “new relation”
with Jesus Christ. This is an undesirable relation. Lordship salvation
removes Christ from His right-hand seat on God’s throne of Grace (Mtw 13,
mystery form of the kingdom of heaven) and places Him on His future
throne of blazing judgment with a “rod of iron” (Mtw 24-25, the rule of the
heavens over the earth, Dan 2:34-36, 44; 7:23-27). How far from right, how
far from left, top, and bottom can sin be? Rather, Lordship is a distraction
from the true gospel. It has nothing to do with believing in the death of Jesus
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
328
for the free gift of forgiveness, eternal life, and the righteousness of God to
the saving perfection of one’s soul. The definition of sin is “to miss the
mark, to not share in the prize.” Which implies to hit something else,
“whatever is not of faith is sin.” Dr. C. I. Scofield comments on the grace of
God:
Matthew 27:19 With the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ begins the “dispensation
of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2), which is defined as “his kindness toward us
through Jesus Christ”; and , “the gift of God: not of works, lest any man
should boast” (Eph 2:7-9). Under grace God freely gives to the believing
sinner eternal life (Rom 6:23); accounts to him a perfect righteousness (Rom
3:21, 22; 4:4, 5); and accords to him a perfect position (Eph 1:6). The
predicted results of this sixth testing of man are: (1) The salvation of all
who believe (Acts 16:31); (2) judgment upon an unbelieving world and an
apostate church (Mt 25:31-46; 2 Thess 1:7-10; 1 Pet 4:17, 18; Rev 3:15,
16).
(1) Man’s state at the beginning of the dispensation of grace (Rom 3:19;
Gal 3:22; Eph 2:11, 12). (2) Man’s responsibility under grace (John 1:11, 12;
3:36; 6:28, 29). (3) His predicted future (Mt 24:37-39; Lk 18:8; 19:12-14).
(4) The judgment (2 Thess 2:7-12). 84
ATONEMENT
Understanding the KJV redefinition of the “effect” of OT animal
sacrifices as “atonement” will demonstrate the immeasurable injustice left in
the wake of this translation. How many Christians today know that this word
was invented as at-one-ment? Which was possibly rightly defined as a
“theological” union with God; but wholly and inexcusably applied as a
translation (along with numerous other English words) of Hebrew words that
indicated OT forgiveness. This was the misappropri-ation of a NT concept
inferred back into the OT. An injustice to the unwary reader that is
continued today as many false conceptions concerning the death of Christ
and its value to the sinner is hidden by “juggling imposters” who preach
doubt for faith in their commentaries on the catch-all word “atonement.”
1 John 5:4-13 For whatever is born of God is victorious over the world: and
this is the victory that conquers the world, even our faith. Who is it that is
victorious over [that conquers the world but he who believes that Jesus is the
Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on that fact]? This is He
Who came by (with) water and blood [His baptism and His death], Jesus
Christ (the Messiah) – not by (in) the water only, but by (in) the water and
329
the blood. And it is the [Holy] Spirit Who bears witness, because the [Holy]
Spirit is the Truth. So there are three witnesses: (the “Comma Johanneum” from the
Catholic Latin Vulgate, introduced to the English speaking world by the KJV in 1 John 5:7, is decidedly not part of
any early Greek manuscripts) the Spirit, the water and the blood: and these three agree
[are in unison; their testimony coincides]. If we accept [as we do] the
testimony of men [if we are willing to take human authority], the testimony
of God is greater (of stronger authority), for this is the testimony of God,
even the witness which He has borne regarding His Son. He who believes in
the Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] has the
testimony [possesses this divine attestation] within himself. He who does not
believe God [in this way]has made Him out to be and represented Him as a
liar, because he has not believed (put his faith in, adhered to, and relied on)
the evidence (the testimony) that God has borne regarding His Son. And this
is that testimony (that evidence): God gave us eternal life, and this life is in
His Son. He who possesses the Son has that life; he who does not possess
the Son of God does not have that life. I write this to you who believe in
(adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar
services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know
[with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes,
eternal life. AMP
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
(15:22) Adam was a contrasting type of Christ (vs. 45-47; cf. Rom 5:14-19).
(1) “The first man Adam was a made a living soul” (Gen 2:7), i.e. he derived life from another, that is, God. “The last Adam was a life-giving spirit.” So
far from deriving life, He was Himself the fountain of life, and He gave that
life to others (John 1:4; 5:21; 10:10; 12:24; 1 John 5:12). (2) In origin the
first man was of the earth, earthy; the Second Man is the Lord from heaven.
(3) Each is the head of a creation, and these also are in contrast: in Adam all
die; in Christ all will be made alive; the Adamic creation is “flesh”; the new
creation, “spirit” (John 3:6). 85
As confusion would have it, invariably, the OT sacrificial concepts are
now applied to convey the NT value in the death of Christ. Resulting in a
critical misinterpretation (utterly void of truth) that God may simply forgive
some and not all the sin of a believer. An incomplete forgiveness leading to
a loss of salvation, rooted in OT death by “stoning” for high crimes and misdemeanors, is upheld by many so-called Christian theological systems.
These Methodist systems of painstaking character construction flourish
by speculating that the highest ideal of Christianity is “moral reformation or
eternal damnation” and “Save Thyself, it’s every man for himself - for
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
330
salvation is a reward that must be earned. Climb the ladder and never stop
boys, least you fall off! Onward you Salvation Army soldier.” Only the good
report of a fine reputation for morality and humanitarian effort can result
from such a religious philosophy. Which, by rights, is perfectly aligned with
earthly success and recognition. Dr. Lewis Chafer illustrates the following
contrast:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ
Jesus” [Rom 8:1. cf. John 3:18; 5:24] … the one who is bold enough to
challenge the full measure of truthfulness which this text asserts is, by
inexorable logic, compelled to deny every factor which enters into the
doctrine of sovereign grace. The Arminian contention that the salvation of a
sinner is a cooperative affair with some responsibility resting upon God and
some on the sinner – an important contention if the dignity of the sinner is to
be preserved – is not only foreign to the divine revelation, but is a
contradiction of the very principle which that revelation sets forth. Men are
either perfectly lost in the first Adam, or perfectly saved in Last Adam, and
by so much there could be no middle ground or compromise; … Passing
from one Adam to the Other is no human undertaking. God alone can do
such a thing, and the sinner’s relation to it could be no more than believe on
Him to do it in His own way, in and through Christ Jesus. In this way no
man can boast (Eph 2:9). …
The upholders of the Arminian system have never evinced ability to
comprehend the truth regarding a perfect standing in Christ which is as
enduring as the Son of God. To the Arminian, standing before God is just
what a feeble believer makes it by his daily life. Under those conditions the
Christian may fail and be lost again. For the moment it seems to be forgotten
that every believer sustains an imperfect daily life and therefore, on that
basis, all must be lost forever. The New Testament teaches that those who
believe are saved from the merit system by having all its demands satisfied
in Christ, and thus the believer endures forever. In the Arminian system
God becomes a colossal failure, unable to realize His purposes in grace. 86
“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit
sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors” (James 2:8-
9). Does God break His own commandment to recognize merit in a man’s
religious efforts, to “have respect to persons?” In these systems of sadistic
mutual judgment and envy it is asserted that no mere believer can ever know
beforehand who might successfully earn their way into heaven. Doubt is the
opposite of faith. I personally testify that any witness of salvation assured by
sovereign grace to someone who holds to this belief will be greeted by a
331
nasty look and a rabid response of contempt, rather than any show of mild
curiosity. The irony is, there is much truth in falsehood. No one will enter
heaven who holds to a low view of forgiveness and the value in the shed
blood of Christ.
Taken from the favorite book of Arminian interpretations of “faith in
doubt” and “faith in works,” the book of James [which contains many ethical parallels to the promised Jewish kingdom expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount], I offer the following enlightenment: Faith without complete
forgiveness in the blood of Christ is dead (not that it can be lost by an Arminian Christian, it never was alive in any so-called Christian) and, show
me your works (not Paul’s law-works, in James these works are acts of love to a “sister” or “brother” in Christ, much like 1 John exhortations, see James 2:14-15) “and I will shew thee my faith by my works (of love for Christians, “law of Christ,” see Gal 6:5)” (James 2:18ff. See also 1 Cor 13;
Gal 5:6; Col 1:4; 1 Thess 1:3; 1 Tim 1:5; Philem 5; Heb 10:23; 1 Pet 1:22; 1
John 3:14, 23).
The “law of Christ” is the “law of liberty” in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is
the thrice repeated “my commandment” to love your fellow Christian given
by Jesus in the Upper Room Discourse and the Lord’s Prayer to Our Father
(John chapters 13-16 and 17). It is the highest ideal of unity to be realized in
earthbound Christianity (1 John 3:23; 2 John 1:5). It is the Great
Commandment of Grace that has superceded the usefulness of the Great
Commandment of Law (Mtw 22:36-40). “But that no man is justified by the
law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith” (Gal
3:11) and, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth” (Rom 10:4). Dr. Lewis Chafer clarifies the distinction
between an OT commandment and a NT commandment:
The term commandments is found in and represents an integral part of
both the Mosaic and Christian systems, but with widely different
significance. In fact, the variance between the two systems is clearly
represented by these different uses of the word. Of the three major
classifications of humanity commandments are addressed in the Scriptures to
the Jew and the Christian, but not to the Gentile, or for that matter anyone
unsaved – either Jew or Gentile – in this age, the reason being that divine
commandments serve only to direct the daily life of those who are in right
relation to God. For the Jew in the older order this affiliation was wrought
by a physical birth which brought him into covenant relation to God, and for
the Christian this is achieved by a spiritual birth which brings him into a
sonship relation to God. Of the Gentiles, however, it must be said: “That at
that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
332
without God in the world” (Eph 2:12), and as for a lost estate there is now
“no difference” even between a Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:9; 10:12). It
follows, then, that no commandments are now addressed to Jews. In the
present age the first issue between God and an unsaved person - Jew or
Gentile – is not one of correction or direction of daily life, but of personal
salvation through faith in Christ. Therefore, directions for daily life are not
addressed to the unsaved in this age. …
Christ drew certain contrasts between that which enters into the Mosaic
system and that which will obtain in the kingdom (Matt 5:17-48). The oft-
repeated formula is, “Ye have heard that it was said [by Moses] … but I say
unto you.” In none of these contrasts, however, did Christ use the term my commandments. This designation was not used until He came to the upper
room the night before He was crucified, at which time He introduced the
body of truth especially belonging to the Church in the present age of grace.
There is nothing accidental here. This phrase on the lips of Christ designates,
and by it He distinguishes, the range of truth which belongs to the present
age. Thus at the end of His ministry on earth and after the forty days of
instruction following His resurrection, He directed His disciples to teach all
things that He had commanded them (Matt 28:20), but did not include the
Mosaic system. It is to be noted that Christ’s first injunction was “a new
commandment” (John 13:34), and that love is enjoined here as the evidence
required to indicate that marvelous unity which all believers form (cf. John
17:21-23) – a unity wrought by the Holy Spirit and to be kept or manifested
by love one for another. No such unity ever existed before. That which is
included under the words “my commandments” was taken up and expanded
by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. References to Christ’s commandments
are many – John 13:34-35; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12; 1 John 2:3; 3:22-24; 4:21;
5:2-3; 2 John 1:4-5. Cf. Matthew 28:20; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor
14:37; Galatians 6:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:2. 87
A Grace command is always beyond human ability to perform without
the supranatural enablement of regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
A Law command is intended for the natural man, unaided by divine
transformation and the Spirit of God. The Christian in grace is “in-lawed to
Christ.” But this “law” becomes lost in counterfeit offers of salvation based
in a perverted conception of “atonement” and OT Law. Which is an
incomplete forgiveness and an unmeasured performance for salvation that
transforms no one. There can be no Christian love, no at-one-ment between
people who are not indwelt and enabled by the Spirit of God. Divine
regeneration and organic union with Christ into the Body of believers is the
vital heart of “brotherly love” and Christianity (a state of being Christian).
“But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and
333
knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness has blinded his eyes. I
write unto you little children [true believers], because your sins are forgiven
you for his name’s [Jesus Christ] sake” (1 John 2:11-12), and, “Since by
your obedience to the Truth through the [Holy] Spirit you have purified your
hearts for the sincere affection of the brethren, [see that you] love one
another fervently from a pure heart. You have been regenerated (born
again), not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal
by the ever living and lasting Word of God” (1 Pet 1:22, 23 AMP). Dr. C. I.
Scofield defines the Law of Christ:
2 John 1:5 Law (of Christ), Summary: The new “law of Christ” is the divine
love, as wrought into the renewed heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5; Heb
10:16), and outflowing in the energy of the Spirit, unforced and
spontaneous, toward the objects of the divine love (2 Cor 5:14-20; 1 Thess
2:7, 8). It is, therefore, “the law of liberty” (Jas 1:25; 2:12), in contrast to the
external law of Moses. Moses’ law demands love (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5; Lk
10:27); Christ’s law is love (Rom 5:5; 1 John 4:7, 19, 20), and so takes the
place of the external law by fulfilling it (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14). It is the “law
written in the heart” under the New Covenant (Heb 8:8, note). 88
The word at-one-ment is a peculiar invention of the English King James
Version of the Bible introduced in 1611. At the time the KJV was authorized
(1604) the Church of England was unique to all of Europe. An earlier king,
Henry the VIII, had confiscated all Catholic Church holdings in England and
crowned himself Head of the Church. In essence, Henry became the new
Pope of England. The Church of England carried forward Catholic doctrine,
liturgy, sacraments, dress, and all things papal.
Queen Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry and, from whom James I
inherited the crown, had the Geneva Bible (1560) dedicated to her.
Shakespeare used this Bible. A Bishops’ Bible (1568, 2nd
ed. 1572) was
prepared for the Church of England in response to the very popular Protestant Geneva Bible that was centered in sovereign grace. Accordingly,
England had competing forms of Christianity contained in two different
English Bibles at the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Nevertheless, she was
able to keep peace between the liturgical state church and the new
Protestants of the Reformation for almost forty years.
King James I was attempting to quell the unrest, centered on the
differing Bibles, between the state church and the Protestants (Puritans
mostly) with a new version of an English Bible. He commissioned a
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
334
ecumenical committee of about forty men to produce his Authorized
Version. i
Much earlier Wycliffe, the later Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, and The Great Bible translations along with the Geneva Bible, which was completed
in Europe by English exiles, did not contain the greatly misleading English
word, “atonement.” Nor did Luther’s earlier German translation.
Parenthetical Discussion:
Why is “atonement” and the history of the KJV important?
Therefore, patently, the KJV is not the first, nor best completely
Protestant English Bible. It was a compromised translation and a temporary
peace accord between two opposing views of Christianity contained in two
different English Bibles. Opposing views that would soon explode into a
long and bloody civil war. Bear in mind, during this time, there was no
distraction of mass entertainment; no soccer teams, football jerseys and hats,
no fascination with pop-stars beyond “the King’s or Queen’s royal
company” of traveling theatrical players and, later, a few groups like
Shakespeare’s company. Christianity and a national mandate for attendance
at Sunday services was the only game in town for the common people. One
protest made by commoners was to read from the Geneva Bible while the
cleric who was holding state sanctioned services was reading from the
Bishop’s Bible. All this taken together demonstrates how government was
inextricably connected to religion and the finances of the state church. A
brief historical sketch follows:
After the Gowrie conspiracy of 1600, James repressed the Protestants as
strongly as he had the Catholics. He replaced the feudal power of the
nobility with a strong central government, and maintaining the divine right
of kings, he enforced the superiority of the state over the church.
In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died childless, and James succeeded her as
James I, the first Stuart king of England. In 1604 he ended England's war
with Spain, but his tactless attitude toward Parliament, based on his belief in
divine right, led to prolonged conflict with that body. James convoked the
i 32 … In reality, the AV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek and the
bilingual text they used to prepare the NT was essentially Erasmus’ text [Beza’s edition].
Erasmus published the first Greek NT [Novum Instrumentum, 1516; later called Textus Receptus] in order to defend his revised Latin translation. And since the meaning of [the Greek phrase] had changed after Jerome translated the Vulgate, Erasmus used a different
Latin verb to communicate the idea of “usurp authority.” 1 Timothy: Introduction,
Argument, Outline, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. , NET Resource CD
335
Hampton Court Conference (1604), at which he authorized a new translation
of the Bible, generally called the King James Version. His undue severity
toward Roman Catholics, however, led to the abortive Gunpowder Plot in
1605.
The accession of James I, the son of Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, Queen of
Scots, united the crowns of England and Scotland. It also began a century of
domestic conflict, due in part to the personalities of the Stuart kings, but
more to the problems inherited from the previous reign. The Puritans, or
extreme Protestants, who had already been restive under Elizabeth, grew
increasingly dissatisfied with the Church of England, which they felt was
still too Catholic. Religious unrest reached its height when anti-Puritan
William Laud became archbishop of Canterbury in the 1630s.
English Revolution, also called the Puritan Revolution, general
designnation for the period in English history from 1640 to 1660. It began
with the calling of the Long Parliament by King Charles I and proceeded
through two civil wars, the trial and execution of the king, the republican
experiments of Oliver Cromwell, and, ultimately, the restoration of King
Charles II. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Should the KJV contain less political intrigue than today’s congressional
legislation because the committee members were “men of God” and an
English Pope authorized the translation? The bitter acrimony between the
Church of England and the Protestant groups was no mere matter of
ceremony and dress. This requires a serious assessment by anyone who
would call themselves an American “Christian.” English Christianity was
unique and America was an early result.
Early American colonies maintained tax supported denominations. The
First Great Awakening in America (peaked in 1740’s) ended with a focus on
the personal experience of the “New Lights” and conformity to traditional
services by the “Old Lights.” These “Lights” consisted mostly of English
Quakers and Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, German Lutherans, and French
Calvinist.
New and Old Lights did not differ over the core tenet of Protestant
Reformation theology – “Justification by faith” and both Luther’s and
Calvin’s adherence to Anselm’s and Augustine’s “completed satisfaction” in
the death of Christ. “Justification by faith” during the reformation was the
strongest argument against the “works” oriented salvation of the Roman
Catholic Church. Bear in mind that Catholicism was not based on a theory of
atonement that argued against the substitutionary and imputed penalty in the
death of Christ. Historical Papal decrees, or Bulls, established a “works”
oriented and Church dependent salvation. The sale of “indulgences” to speed
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
336
the devout through a time of purgatory was used to build the huge
monument to Catholicism, St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
One leader of this early American colonial movement was the
Englishman, George Whitefield, a Calvinist Methodist who had split from
John Wesley, the founder of English Arminian Methodism. English
Methodism, with its Post-Reformation Arminian Governmental theory of
atonement (a conformed theology) combined with German Pietism, a
doctrinal non-reformed view with a social message, entered into American
Christianity over 50 years after the founding of the new American Republic.
Methodism and its message of fear (turn and keep on turning –or burn) was
popularized in the Second Great Awakening (peak in 1840s) that initiated a
non-biblical call to a humanitarian “Social Gospel” that would legislate a
Christian utopia for the unsaved. A brief historical sketch follows:
A Second Great Awakening began in New York in the early 1800s and
spread north, south, and west before disappearing in the 1840s. Tent
meetings that were a part of this revival movement brought together
spellbinding preachers and large audiences, who camped for several days to
immerse themselves in the heady atmosphere of religion. The movement
merged democratic idealism with evangelical Christianity, arguing that
America was in need of moral regeneration by dedicated Christians. The
men and the large number of women who were attracted to this movement
channeled their fervor into a series of reforms designed to eliminate evils in
American society, particularly in the industrializing North. These reforms
included women’s rights, temperance, educational improvements, humane
treatment for the mentally ill, and the abolition of slavery.
The Social Gospel, a liberal movement in American Protestantism,
prominent in the late 19th century, which sought to apply Christian
principles to a variety of social problems engendered by industrialization. Its
founders and leaders included the clergymen Washington Gladden and
Walter Rauschenbusch, who tried to counteract the effects of expanding
capitalism by teaching religion and human dignity to the working class.
Proponents of the Social Gospel also opposed the tacit support given by
organized religions to unrestrained capitalism.
The Social Gospel movement's views were formally expressed in 1908
when the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (a
forerunner of the National Council of Churches) adopted a “social creed of
the churches.” This creed called for the abolition of child labor, improved
working conditions for women, a day off each week, and the right of all
workers to a living wage. Many of the aims of the Social Gospel movement
were espoused by organized labor in the early years of the century, and some
were later incorporated in the New Deal programs of the 1930s.
337
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
From a fundamental perspective, this evangelical “Social Gospel”
became the politicized, mainstream Christianity of today. But with an ironic
twist. The call and petition for social changes were continued by groups who
denied the mother that bore them. Mother and child are now engaged in an
internecine feud and mutual torment over a Christian-correct/politically-
correct American culture. Dr. Charles Ryrie illustrates the “sin” of the three
religious groups who were arrayed against Jesus during His earthly ministry:
LEAVEN. Everywhere in the Bible, leaven typifies the presence of impurity
or evil … However, unquestionably when Christ warned of the leaven of the
Pharisees or Sadducees or Herodians, He was referring to something sinful.
1. Of the Pharisees. The leaven of the Pharisees was externalism. Though
outwardly they were righteous (Matt 5:20), knowledgeable about the
Scriptures (23:2), tithers (Luke 18:12), those who fasted (Matt 9:14) and
prayed (Luke 18:11), inwardly they were unclean, and our Lord denounced
their leaven of hypocrisy (Matt 23:14, 26, 29; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1).
2. Of the Sadducees. Their leaven was spreading false doctrine. Their beliefs
were rooted in the senses; therefore, they did not believe in the existence of
angels or in resurrection. Our Lord did not denounce this as often, for false
teaching is in itself something more apparent because it is more difficult to
hide (Matt 16:6).
3. Of the Herodians. Their leaven was secularism and worldliness. As a
party they supported Herod and the Romans rule that him his power. Thus
they sought to use worldly power to promote “spiritual” ends, and Christ
warned against this (Mark 8:15).
These same sins – externalism, false doctrine, and worldly methods –
are all too apparent in some groups today. And our Lord’s warning against
them is relevant.89
Dr. Lewis Chafer’s comments may be added to this theme:
[How could] Jews who were steeped in Judaism (could) have originated
such a Book as the New Testament? There is hardly a feature of Christianity
that the Jew does not naturally resist. … Was not Judaism from God and was
it not practiced for fifteen hundred years under the divine favor? Because of
these indisputable facts, the Jew clutched the elements of Judaism to his
heart, and still clutches them. The gospel abruptly broke in upon this
religious monopoly and its consequent isolation. … Now … [NT Jewish]
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
338
authors are seen to turn from Judaism altogether and to espouse a system
which contradicts or supercedes Judaism at almost every vital point. …
The Jewish system of government was a theocracy. God was monarch
over all. It was not an alliance of spiritual forces and interests with the state;
it was a complete incorporation of the two into one divine purpose. Though
in the New Testament believers are enjoined to be subject to, and pray for,
those who in civic authority are over them, the government is, as divinely
ordained in the present period, known as “the times of the Gentiles,” in the
hands of men; and there is no inherent unity possible between the church
which is of God and the state which is in the hands of men. The instructions
are clear that Christians are not to aspire to temporal power or to depend on
civil authority for the furtherance of spiritual ends. The early church was
true to the New Testament and her phenomenal progress was made by
persuasion and love. It is natural and normal for men to resort to what
coercive power as is available to achieve their ends. And history records no
movement other than Christianity which has secured its designs by the
appeal to the heart and mind. Indeed, it was one of the deflections of the
Church of Rome that she departed from this spiritual ideal. 90
If Christian schooling is represented by and equivalent to a knowledge
of the Bible as demonstrated in the majority of church attending adults, then
Christian schools become suspect. An effective knowledge of the NT is vital
for “obedience to the law of liberty” for good works (of love towards other
believers) and may not be obtained by “me and my KJV” working alone.
The Geneva Bible (1560) contained many doctrinal notes and illustrations
about “God’s grace” that were forbidden by King James I in the production
of the KJV.
The prolonged predominance in America of Arminian theological
interpretations and practices has established an insurmountable body of
assumptions about Christ which are far removed from Scripture. A
scandalous witness to Christianity - easily recognized by the non-religious
unsaved - are two leading examples from this preaching and practice of
Arminian fiction that are exemplified by the embezzlement of “money” from
the believer to the cosmos (ruled by Satan) world, namely:
(1) “The believer finds Christ to be true; the atheist finds Christ to be
false; the ruler finds Christ to be useful.” The apparent value in the death of
Christ is framed by the three previous statements. For example, when was
the last time anyone heard a sermon about a Christian’s “money” or
“service” confined to the boundary of the “law of Christ” in the NT principle
of communicate? Myself, I wot not when or where:
339
Gk, koinonikos, koinonia, koinoneo, koinonos. KJV=willing to
communicate, communication, companion, fellowship, contribution,
distribution, fellowship, partaker, partner. Cf. Gal 2:2, 9; 6:6; Eph 3:9; Phi
1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 4:15; 1 Tim 6:18; Heb 10:38; 13:16; Acts 2:42; Rom 12:13;
15:26, 27; 2 Cor 1:7; 8:4; 9:13; 1 Cor 1:9; 9:18; Tit 5:22; Phm 17; 1 Pet 5:1;
2 John 11; 1 John 3, 6, 7. These verses are statements regarding the sharing
between believers or warnings not to “share” with unbelievers. The biblical
principle is do not be “unequally yoked” to a non-believer because: How can
the Lord bless both parties? The net result is the believer will lose his
spiritual reward of koinonia.
In my lifetime - post-tent revivals staged by faith healers - one could
trace the beginnings of the televangelist to Jim Bakker. Who ended up
scandalized and locked-up in prison for his real estate boondoggle. As a
short memory allows for great forgiveness, he is back on TV marketing the
building of a retirement community near Branson, Missouri, to the same
people that sent him money 35 years ago. Protestant religion has become big
business. Owing in large part to the spectacular growth of the “charismatic,”
or Pentecostal movement which has even expanded into the Catholic church.
This movement involves a central figure with charisma who preaches a
shallow distorted truth concerning charismatic gifts more so than any truth
about these works of the Holy Spirit. True divine works are those performed
through the believer, not by the believer, and directed toward other believers
in the building of the Body of Christ as a divine temple for the presence of
Christ.
The vast majority of local churches have historically been less than 100
people. Big buildings and big stadium size screens are new. More
importantly, the money-giving individual has no say nor ownership in
today’s large church. It takes lots of money to operate a family enterprise
and private pension plans. The salaries and offices for national
denominations are supported by local gifts, also. Many huge charitable
ministries that live-off feeding the hungry require the lions share of the
money that is donated. Few of them preach the gospel to the people they
feed. This is the “Social Gospel” that assumes money given to any so-called
Christian (viz., humanitarian) effort will be rewarded by God.
Therefore, not because of a concern for false professing Christians, I
suggest money is embezzled from the pockets of the misguided “true
believer,” who does not know NT teaching, and is redistributed back into the
cosmos world where it does not communicate, or share in a divine blessing.
Spiritual communication requires an open line between at least two or more
believers. An interpretive comment made by the Apostle John is, “And this
spake he [Caiaphas] not of himself: but being high priest that year, he
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
340
prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. And not that nation only, but
that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were
scattered abroad” (John 11:51, 52) and “that he that soweth and he that
reapeth may rejoice together” (John 4:36ff).
One will search the NT in vain for a command or exhortation to “tithe”
any particular amount of personal income. The NT speaks only of gifts from
one prospering local group of believers to another needy, distant group of
believers. This included gifts to the Apostle Paul – on occasion. The NT
speaks of not accepting money from non-believers. Which leaves it the way
God likes it – a voluntary matter from the glad heart of one believer who
communicates joyfully (Gk. root=Eng. hilariously) with another believer
because of the “law of Christ,” “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill
the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Jesus pantomimed the washing of another
believer’s feet as a hands-on, grimy illustration of “communication.” The
object lesson is, explicitly: to help your Christian brother will not always be
a tidy affair involves only money.
Contrary to 150 years of Arminian religious twaddle, this
“communication” does not and is not, and cannot be extended to the world at
large. Jesus said of His mother and brethren: … “Who is my mother? and
who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples,
and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Mtw 12:48-49). The
Apostle Peter states: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.
Honour the king” (1 Pet 2:17).
One could feed the unsaved world for a lifetime and God would never
smile. God is not sentimental. He is transparent, truthful, and just. Humans
are sentimental for selfish reasons. Only the bread sent down from heaven
saves eternally.
A sentimental desire to temporarily relieve some of the discomforts
experienced by humanity cannot be presumptuously claimed as Christian
brotherly love. The “Good Samaritan” was a racially mixed Jew obligated to
a system of law, the “words” of God, to love others “as thy- self.” The
Christian is commanded to obey His commandment, and His “word,” to love
“one another” (fellow believer) as Christ loves us. Which remains a human
impossibility for the unsaved. The Samaritan proved himself to be a
“neighbor” because he had “compassion” [pity and sympathy AMP] on the
unidentifiable, naked, injured, and silent man; but the Samaritan was not a
regenerated believer with a new divinely enabled love for a new divine
family, and, a new home for sinners that he could tell others about.
Comparable to the misinterpretation regarding the supreme Christian ideal
assigned to the Samaritan to validate a “Social Gospel,” is the assumption
that the parable of the “prodigal son” is about salvation, where saving faith
is never mentioned. This parable illustrates God’s unlimited forgiveness for
341
the restoration of communion and the love for His children that is not based
on their behavior; rather it is based on their eternal salvation through His
Son, their Savior.
Love for the brotherhood, love for God who indwells all believers, is the
identifying “work” of true faith as explained very plainly in the Epistle of
James and in 1 John where the false professing Christians, who had no
salvation to lose, were exposed by their rejection of the primary
commandment which they demonstrated by their “lack” of brotherly love.
The first witness to the world, by the first Jerusalem Christians, was that of
love for one another expressed through sharing (cf. Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37).
Jesus both commanded a new (Gk. kathos=fresh, novel; not neos, in the
sense of young versus old) commandment and a my commandment which
He predicted to be “a sign” (#4592, semeion = supernatural indication) to the
world: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34, 35) and
“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John
15:12-14). Decades after this announcement by Jesus, the Apostle John, like
the earlier NT writer James, demonstrated the reality and foundational
character of this commandment, this “word,” when he used it as the decisive
factor in his polemical letter against those who had not “continued in God”
and “went out” because of a Christological belief that was essentially
different from faith in - God the Son who was born, lived, and died as a man
in the flesh to take away the sins of the world:
1 John 2:4-11; 4:7-5:1 Whoever says, I know Him [I perceive, recognize,
understand, and am acquainted with Him] but fails to keep and obey His
commandments (teachings) is a liar, and the Truth [of the Gospel] is not in
him. 5 But he who keeps (treasures) His Word [commandment] … truly in
him has the love of and for God been perfected (completed, reached
maturity). By this we may perceive (know, recognize, and be sure) that we
are in Him. 6 Whoever says he abides in Him ought [as a personal debt] to
walk and conduct himself in the same way in which He walked and
conducted Himself.
7
Beloved [Gk. agapetos, Heb. yahid, “uniquely beloved,” “God’s
beloved who are called saints” Rom 1:7], I am writing you no new
commandment, but an old commandment which you have had from the
beginning; the old commandment is the one you have heard [from the beginning KJV] …
8 Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is
true (is realized) in Him and in you, because the darkness (moral blindness)
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
342
is clearing away and the true Light (the revelation of God in Christ) is
already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the Light and [yet] hates his brother
[Christian, born-again child of God his Father] is in darkness
[condemnation] even until now. 10
Whoever loves his brother [believer]
abides (lives) in the Light [eternal life], and in It or in Him there is no cause,
for error or sin. 11
But he who hates (detests, despises) his brother [in Christ]
is in darkness and walking (living) in the dark; he is straying and does not
perceive or know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his
eyes.
(this passage is discussed in the sub-section heading below, Koinonia and
the False Professing Christians of Today Exposed In 1 John)
4:7
Beloved let us love one another, for love is (springs) from God; and
he who loves [his fellowmen] is begotten (born) of God and is coming
[progressively] to know and understand God [to perceive and recognize and
get a better and clearer knowledge of Him]. 8 He who does not love has not
become acquainted with God [does not and never did know Him], for God is
love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest (displayed) where we are
concerned: in that God sent His Son, the only begotten or unique [Son], into
the world so that we might live through Him. 10
In this is love: not that we
loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation (the
atoning sacrifice) for our sins. [see John 3:16]
11
Beloved, if God loved us [very much], we also ought to love one
another. 12
No man has at any time [yet] seen God. But if we love one
another, God abides (lives and remains) in us and His love (that love which
is essentially His) is brought to completion (to its full maturity, runs its full
course, is perfected) in us! 13
By this we come to know (perceive, recognize,
and understand) that we abide (live and remain) in Him and He in us:
because He has given (imparted) to us of His [Holy] Spirit. 14
And [besides]
we ourselves have seen (have deliberately and steadfastly contemplated) and
bear witness that the Father has sent the Son [as the] Savior of the world.
15
Anyone who confesses (acknowledges, owns) that Jesus is the Son of
God, God abides (lives, makes His home) in him and he [abides, lives,
makes his home] in God. 16
And we know (understand, recognize, are
conscious of, by observation and by experience) and believe (adhere to and
put faith in and rely on) the love God cherishes for us. God is love, and he
who dwells and continues in love dwells and continues in God, and God
dwells and continues in him. 17
In this [union and communion with Him]
love is brought to completion and attains perfection with us, that we may
have confidence for the day of judgment [with assurance and boldness to
face Him], because as He is, so are we in this world. 18
There is no fear in
343
love [dread does not exist], but full-grown (complete and perfect) love turns
fear out of doors and expels every trace of terror! For fear brings with it the
thought of punishment, and [so] he who is afraid has not reached the full
maturity of love [is not yet grown into love’s complete perfection]. 19
We
love Him, because He first loved us. 20
If anyone says, I love God, and hates
(detests, abominates) his brother [in Christ], he is a liar; for he who does not
love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom he has not
seen. 21
And this command (charge, order, injunction) we have from Him:
that he who loves God shall love his brother [believer] also. 5:1
Everyone
who believes (adheres to, trusts, and relies on the fact) that Jesus is the
Christ (the Messiah) is a born-again child of God; and everyone who loves
the Father also loves the one born of Him (His offspring). AMP
Should any one jump to conclude, as many commentators do, that
Christian “sharing,” koinonia, must be a form of economic communism,
they demonstrate a sore lack of understanding for a “family ethic” and the
basis of all human love. Those convinced of such an aberration in
Christianity would benefit by looking closely at the horrible excesses of the
French Revolution that occurred after the American War of Independence
and the derivative strain of “Social Gospel” that overtook the Russian
Revolution towards the end of World War I, for a comparison to the history
of “activism” and government legislated “culture” in America. Especially,
our own Civil War as compared to the earlier, English Civil War (1640-
1660).
There is little doubt that Christian ethics benefit the culture they inhabit.
But, Christianity is never intended to be a “government,” or theocracy.
Gentile (unsaved) world powers rule over men in this dispensation of grace.
Also, koinonia is a completely voluntary action by a believer, not the
unsaved. And, it is not without problems of its own (cf. the death of Ananias
and his wife Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11). It is repeated among biblical
historians that many early Roman era converts to Christianity left their
positions as judges, attorneys, and policemen.
The Apostle Paul declared very clearly: “What [business] of mine is it
and what right have I to judge outsiders? … God alone sits in judgment on
those who are outside” (1 Cor 5:12a, 13a AMP). The only obligation of the
Christian to the world at large is the overriding spiritual obligation to share
the gospel of God’s grace; that they may “obey the gospel” as God
commands and enter into the family of God. Spiritual blessings and rewards
may only accrue from associations with other believers who share “in
Christ.” “And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life
eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together …
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
344
I sent ye in to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured,
and ye are entered into their labours” (John 4:36, 38).
This vividly demonstrates the importance of real separation “unto the
gospel of God” (Rom 1:1), the “true” gospel of grace. However counter to
popularized religious ideas this may seem - spiritual fidelity to the “law of
Christ” is not intermittent humanitarian aide to the unsaved. This is critical
for the individual who would discern the wise “stewardship” of time, the
exercise of Spirit given abilities which are intended only to be used to
strengthen and build the Body of believers, and sharing a limited amount of
personal income. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace comments on the Letter to the
Ephesians:
Paul concludes the body of his epistle with a treatise on spiritual warfare
(6:10-20). In many respects this seems entirely out of place in this letter. In
reality, it is a perfect capstone to the queen of the epistles. This section
addresses a question which has been implicit since 2:2, viz, what is the
believer’s present relation to Satan? But the answer is not intended just to
satisfy our curiosity. Rather, the answer relates intrinsically to the heart of
this letter: Satan is presently attacking the unity of the church and we ought
therefore to stand and show that we are together. Seen in this light, our
“struggle [which] is not against flesh and blood” means simply, “Christians,
get along with each other! Maintain the unity practically which Christ has
effected positionally by his death.” 91
(2) Christian’s are warned not to partner in evil by supporting false
teachers: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [is
disloyal to what Jesus Christ taught], do not receive him [do not accept him,
do not welcome or admit him] into [your] house or bid him Godspeed or give him any encouragement. For he who wishes him success [who
encourages him, wishing him Godspeed] is a partaker in his evil doings” (2
John 1:10, 11 AMP).
Something that deals with an absurdity must be impossible and untrue.
The latter prophet, Malachi, never dreamed of a Christian. So how could he
be absurdly addressing a command to give money which holds a guaranteed
promise of increase to a Christian (Mal 3:10)? This is impossible and any
promise of like results are untrue. Will washing in the Jordan River
guarantee a cure for leprosy, as it did the Gentile warrior, Naaham (2 Kings
5:14)? Scripture teaches that the Jew received material blessings; that the
Christian receives “all spiritual blessings in heavenly (lit. in the heavenlies)
places in Christ” (Eph 1:3). Dr. Lewis Chafer explains:
345
In the right divisions Scripture, nothing is more fundamental or
determining than the distinction between Judaism and Christianity. As
judged by the proportion of space given to it, Judaism occupies the major
portion of the Bible including practically all of the Old Testament and much
of the New Testament. The Bible presents both of these great systems, and it
is easily one of the greatest mistakes of theologians to suppose that these are
one and the same. It is true there are certain features common to both, such
as God, man, sin, and redemption; but there are vast differences between
them and these differences must be observed. (see Ch. 3, 11 of Vol 4) 92
Like the Israelites in the Exodus, a rag and a crust is guaranteed, but
unlike the wandering Jew, no house on earth or material blessings for
obedience is promised to the heaven bound Christian. Any claim to the
contrary, regardless of sincere ignorance, is the mimicry of a “juggling
imposter” and “vain jangling” aimed at pretense to mask a manipulative
motive.
One man’s idea of “seed” is another man’s covetous interpretation of a
luxury life style for himself. In short, these are shameless hucksters calling
in suckers to “sow seeds.” Seeds which are then used for the lavish benefit
of the greedy “dynasty of the kings and queens of God” laboring to spread
the 1906 gospel of Asuza Street by giving each other fabulous amounts of
cash as birthday gifts (ABC, CBS, NBC Evening News - November 7,
2007). Make no mistake with sympathy either, these are sentimental suckers
who are under the “delusion” of ancient Christian assumptions that
“indulgences” for entrance into heaven and the power of the Holy Spirit may
be earned by giving away money to “juggling imposters” (Acts 8:20).
A gospel of greed and a continuing plea to guilt for the satisfaction of a
social obligation goes hand in hand with a system of theology, blinded by
worldly power and externalism, that does not recognize the supranatural
sufficiency of the blood of Christ. A system that fundamentally
misunderstands salvation and defines it within a limited framework of OT
misconceptions of atonement for the forgiveness of personal sins only.
Arminianism is willfully ignorant to the riches of God’s grace in the NT and
incapable of preaching “the gospel God” (Rom 1:1). God’s unlimited grace
through faith is a mystery to any limited system. All limited systems are
ecumenical in that they share in one common gospel message – faith in the
blood of Christ is insufficient for salvation. This extends through unnamed
cults, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists,
Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Methodist, Catholic, and most so-called
Protestant denominations who teach the loss of salvation instead of
preaching the assurance of God’s grace in salvation for the provision of the
believer’s daily walk.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
346
Finally, God was never referred to as the individual Father of a Jew in
the OT. Only corporately was He the Father of Israel. The individual
Fatherhood of God is a NT revelation applying only to a believer in Christ.
We only know for certain (because of the NT) that a few individuals in the
OT were saved. And, solely because God took the initiative and revealed
Himself to these individuals. Beyond this, a stated system or criteria for the
salvation of the individual Jew in the commonwealth of Israel cannot be
found in the OT. Any one who insists otherwise will search in vain for proof
of a mistaken assumption based wholly upon the preaching and practice of
fiction.
In Romans 5:11 of the KJV, atonement should be translated
reconciliation as the same Greek word translated in 5:10 (see 1 Cor 15:21-
23). Does anyone believe that at-one-ment was “created” as a translation to
imply that the OT Jew was saved temporarily after he completed a sacrifice?
Which was only effective until he sinned again? OT sacrifices were not
rational, they were a demonstration of the true sacrifice to come. “For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.
Wherefore when he [Christ] cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me” (Heb 10:4,
5; cf. Ps 40:6-8).
In this light, it is important to understand that the Old Testament KJV
word, “at-one-ment,” union of God and man, is a misapplied, failed attempt
at the NT “ministry of reconciliation” that takes in the ideas of
hilasmos/hilaskomai, the Mercy Seat – the place of propitiation (Jesus
Christ), and the principle of “propitiation” (completed satisfaction for sin) in
the NT value of the death of Christ. The many results brought about by the
death of Christ continues from this point, but may be ended here at the
gospel stage of “before saving faith.”
Thus, Jesus “took away,” expiated all the sin of the world (typified as
both the sacrificial and the scape goat). Thereby, all sinners have the
“potential” to have the value of Christ’s death applied to themselves. To be
conformed to God’s standard of sinlessness. Sinners are at-one, so to speak,
only in the sense of God’s work of reconciliation. God waits on all sinners to
make peace with Him through faith in Christ while they are still alive.
During this time Christ stands between the individual and God’s wrath
against sin. But, until one believes in Christ as Savior they have not
reconciled themselves to God, or made peace with God by the only means
available to a sinner. Peacemaking is bilateral, both parties must make peace
through the same Person, God’s Mediator between man and Himself. Which,
for the believer, results in justification by faith through grace. The sinner is
declared not guilty of any transgression against God because of one aspect
out of many in the value of the death of Christ.
347
If the word be used at all, atonement must comprehend more than
forgiveness as a limited release from penalty. This is limited human
forgiveness. God’s forgiveness by grace is unlimited and conditioned solely
upon trust in His offer of Jesus Christ for all the redemption needed for
complete forgiveness and all the “righteousness” (merit) needed for
salvation.
Conclusion
The KJV has benefit in that most of the English translation mistakes in
the Greek grammar have been widely debated, agreed upon, and published
in the last 400 years. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is available to help
anybody study the underlying original grammar and decide the meaning of a
verse for themselves. Minor grammar corrections from newer manuscripts
that have become available continues. So one may accurately say, short of
becoming skilled in NT Greek, the King James Bible has the most published
references and is the best “correctable” translation for study. But, it must be
said again: The KJV is not the first and best English, Protestant translation
inspired by God. Grammarians and linguist labor today over obscure dialects
in an attempt to translate the Bible. All translations are a compromise owing
to many factors.
The RV translation cleaned up various grammar mistakes; but critically
divided the Baptist (1979) and others over panatheros (virgin) that was not
in the Hebrew texts of Isaiah 7:14. Jesus was not an illiterate rube. The step-
brothers of Jesus, along with other Palestinian Jews, both spoke and wrote in
Greek. Jesus and His apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint, not
Hebrew texts.
A simple “copy” of the KJV contains more than a few errors and many
extra words. These errors have been compounded in the NKJV. Are the
newer translations better? No. The glut of recent translations must be at least
ten per cent different to receive a copyright. The AMP, NET, NASB, and the
NIV have good points and bad. The Old Scofield Study Bible, 1909, 1917,
previously published as The Scofield Reference Bible (not the newer revised
editions), KJV, Oxford University Press – 261RRL, ISBN 0-19-527418-0, is
the single best doctrinal reference to begin to find the meaning of God’s
Words of grace contained in the KJV. Summaries and chain references are
grounded in the “completed satisfaction” or “finished work” provided in the
value of the death of Christ and are invaluable for understanding the basic
interrelatedness of the gospel of the grace of God to all Scripture. Another
old, similar publication is The Pilgrim’s Bible (no other information
available to this writer at this time).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
348
God’s Spirit of grace will lead anyone into a deeper understanding of
His message as they desire more. Guaranteed by “all” spiritual blessings in
“the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”: “Now we have
received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we
might know the things which are freely given us of God. Which things also
we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor 2:12-
13).
ATONEMENT (CONTINUED)
A curious phenomenon is prevalent in common religious thinking
regarding “atonement” and “righteousness.” Untold millions who claim to
read and teach the Bible completely overlook the fact where the vast
majority of Jews reported in the OT and, the NT Jewish Pharisees
encountered by Christ were “wrong” about their self-righteousness.
Conformance to the Ten Commandments, more correctly the “two tablets”
to be used for comparison, or the Mosaic Law never saved anybody. The
Jew, including the Apostle Paul before his salvation experience, considered
himself “blameless” when he conformed to all required sacrifices and
cleansings after he sinned. Sinlessness was never a condition of being
“blameless.” The coming of the Jewish Messiah to “take away” sin was and
is today – overlooked: “By his will we have been made holy through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. … For by one offering he
has perfected for all time those who are made holy. … Their sins and their
lawless deeds I will remember no longer” (Heb 10:10, 14, 17 NET) and,
Paul’s states “And that I may [actually] be found and known as in Him, not
having any [self-achieved] righteousness that can be called my own, based
on my obedience to the Law’s demands (ritualistic uprightness and supposed
right standing with God thus acquired), but possessing that [genuine
righteousness] which comes through faith in Christ (the Anointed One), the
[truly] right standing with God, which comes from God by [saving] faith”
(Phil 3:9 AMP).
As revealed in the NT, forgiveness, past and future, is thoroughly
grounded in grace. The Apostle Paul was speaking of OT forgiveness when
he said, “Moreover the law (of Moses) entered, that the offence might
abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom
5:20). Here Paul is making reference to the fact that the Jews did not have a
system of law before Moses. Therefore, more sin after Moses. And “much
more” grace.
349
To a large degree the Epistle to the Hebrews is a treatise on the death of
Christ and with special reference to the truth that the old order with its
sacrifices has been superceded by the one sacrifice of the cross. The book of
Hebrews contributes more on the death of Christ than any other New
Testament book, as Leviticus contributes most of all the books of the Old
Testament. Observe: Hebrews 1:3; 2:9; 5:1-10; 7:25-27; 9:12-15, 16-18;
10:1-21; 12:2, 24; 13:10-13. 93
The sins which were “passed over” through the OT Levitical sacrificial
system until the just payment made by Christ were indeed acts of grace.
Which revealed the righteousness of God, not the individual, in His dealing
with past Jewish sin under the Law of Moses and the future justification of
sinful believers. The Apostle Paul presented the gospel to the Jews at a
synagogue in Antioch: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,
that though this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by
him all that believe are justified from all things (Gk. ta panta), from which
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that
come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers,
and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye
shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you” (Acts 13:38-41).
New wine will certainly burst “old skins.” The wedding wine of joy,
drawn by the servants from the Canaan well, replaces the ceremonial
cleansing water of a presumptuous self-righteousness. A better covenant
administered by an Eternal High Priest does away with the “law of sin and
death” to establish “the law of Christ” in “the law of liberty.” There is no
freedom, only slavery in disobedience; the freedom of salvation may only
exist in “obedience to the faith.” Because of the sacrificial blood of Christ,
the believer stands eternally forgiven, righteous, and secure in heavenly
places with the glorified Savior.
Prov 12:10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
“Another gospel” can do no more than create another savior that
conforms to all other religions on earth, namely: man must save himself.
This is a religion divorced from the primary cause of moral behavior – the
unbreakable union of the believer to Christ. A Savior who shares His eternal
life and character with the believer. A christ who cannot save completely
and eternally is not only a failure - worse yet - this type of savior is the stuff
that deceptively satisfying systems of inventive religious humanism and
presumptuous fictions are made of.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
350
CLOSING COMMENTS
Christianity is distinguished from Judaism by an interrelated set of new
revelations, or “mysteries” that were given through the Apostle Paul’s
message that he spoke of as the broad ranged “my gospel.” In one such
mystery, individual believers are revealed to be the separate, but unified
members of God’s magnificent and perfect new creation in Christ. The true
church is the living Mystical Body of Christ. This vital creation, joined in
the resurrection life of Jesus, is to have communion (koinonia) with Christ
the Head, and other “members” of the body, “But speaking the truth in love,
may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. From
whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love”
(Eph 3:15-16; cf. 1:22-23).
The creative hubris of man has no limitations: “None will predicate of
man that he had any part in the resurrection; yet the divine accomplishment
in the cross is as void of human cooperation as is the resurrection.” 94
Any
effort to add mutual human endeavor to the cross is vanity. The cross of
Christ may be seen as the antitype of the rainbow that was given as a token
to Noah, who was saved from judgment. This token was to mark God’s
everlasting covenant of faithfulness and His future completed judgment
against sin: “And I saw … as it were the appearance of fire, and it had
brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in
the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This
was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw
it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. … And the
spirit entered unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake
unto me. And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee unto the children of
Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their
fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiffhearted” (Ezk 1:27ff-28; 2:2-3, 4ff); “And
immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and
one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a
sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like
unto an emerald” (Rev 4:2-3); “And I saw another mighty angel [Christ with the sealed book,v.2, see 5:5-7] come down from heaven, clothed with a
cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun
…” (Rev 10:1ff)
One “impudent and stiffhearted” man’s experience in presuming the
priestly work of God’s chosen one - the last Judge of Israel, the Priest and
Prophet, Samuel - ended in his self-destruction and eventual suicide. This
351
man was Saul, the first King of Israel. Who was a type of Old and New
Testament Jew that cannot accept the sovereign grace of God and God’s
chosen King, Priest, and Prophet - Jesus Christ. Saul was replaced by a type
of Christ, King David, who was King and Prophet, but not Priest. Another
man’s fictional experience in doing the work of God came to a predictable
and dreadful end. This modern doctor of philosophy and the sciences was
horror-struck when he looked into the “yellow eye” of his own ambition, his
monster. He voiced his inconsolable regret, “Did any one indeed exist,
except I, the creator, who would believe, unless his senses convinced him, in
the existence of the living monument of presumption and rash ignorance
which I had let loose upon the world?” 95
Knowing that disaster (Gk. ātē) is the inevitable end of hubris, would
anyone deliberately dare to presume upon God and offer themselves as a
self-animated soul; hobbled together into a profane union of atoning flesh
and self-righteousness, to be the substitute for God’s divine work of grace?
As a hideously imperfect replacement for His work of regener-ating and
glorifying the believer’s soul and body into the divine union of His New
Creation in the Mystical Body of Christ? And, as a believer who has died
with Christ that they might live with Christ eternally as the redeemed,
sanctified, and perfected companion, the Bride of Christ, the Queen and
Cohort of the King of Heaven?
Sovereign grace is the way of salvation. Only by grace may one stand
justified, blameless, and free of transgressions. Beginning from the moment
of saving faith, the condemned individual is ultimately transformed into the
image of Christ, exclusively, because God intends to satisfy His love with
the grace purchased by the sacrificial blood of the Son of His love. Salvation
is only possible because of the completely satisfactory value of the love of
God through Christ for sinners. Proven by His finished work and an assured
salvation for the one who trusts Him, and believes Him, and relies on Him.
Whereas presumptuous and limited notions relating to the value of his death,
aided and abetted by a greatly misleading translation of “atonement” for
forgiveness - have no value.
2 Tim 1:10 … Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and
hath brought life [eternal] and immortality [incorruptibility] to light
through the gospel.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
352
2 Cor 5:14-21 For the love (law) of Christ constraineth [#4912=unifies, controls] us; because we thus judge, that if one man died for all, then were
all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth
live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him (so) no more.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation): old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of
God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given us
the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath
committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors
for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s
stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
The Lord’s Prayer for the Unity and Love Between All Believer’s
I do not ask in behalf of these alone [the disciples gathered in the Upper Room at the Last Supper], but for those also who believe in Me through their word [message, teaching, the gospel of saving grace]; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for you loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:20-26 NASB)
The Union of Profane Atonement and Self-Righteousness in the Visible
Church
Ezk 13:22-23 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad,
whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that
he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Therefore
ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my
people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
353
[They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-
conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements
more than and rather than lovers of God. For [although] they hold a form of
piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it
[their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such
people [turn away from them]. … Now just as Jannes and Jambres were
hostile to and resisted Moses, so these men also are hostile to and oppose the
Truth. They have depraved and distorted minds, and are reprobate and counterfeit and to be rejected as far as the faith is concerned. [Exod 7:11] …
For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, have ears itching [for something pleasing and
gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a
considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the
errors they hold. And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off
into myths and man-made fictions. (2 Tim 3:4, 5, 8; 4:3, 4 AMP).
Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you
unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement
and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen,
vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual
thoughts and fleshly conceit. And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom
the entire body, supplied and knot together by means of its joints and
ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If then you have died with
Christ to material ways of looking at things and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world?
[Why do you submit to rules and regulations? –such as] Do not handle
[this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them], Referring to things all
of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and
doctrines. [Isa 29:13] Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance
[that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of
devotion and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in
checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not
honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.] (Col 2:18-23 AMP)
So then, we may longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro
between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of
doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men,
[gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to
mislead. (Eph 3:14 AMP)
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
354
… There will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and
stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying
and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves
swift destruction. And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious
doings: because of them the true Way will be maligned and defamed. And in
their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning)
arguments. From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not
been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep. (2 Pet 2:1-3
AMP).
For we are not, like so many, [like hucksters making a trade of] peddling
God’s Word [shortchanging and adulterating the divine message]; but like
[men] of sincerity and the purest motive, as [commissioned and sent] by
God, we speak [His message] in Christ (the Messiah), in the [very] sight and presence of God. (2 Cor 2:17 AMP)
Detailed Commentaries On a Misleading Idea of Atonement
Dr. C. I. Scofield:
Exodus 29:33 Heb. kaphar, “to cover.” The English word “atonement” (at-one-ment)
is not a translation of the Heb. kaphar, but a translator’s interpretation. According to Scripture the legal sacrifice “covered” the offer’s sin and
secured the divine forgiveness; according to the translators it made God and
the sinner at-one. But the O.T. sacrifices did not at-one the sinner and God.
“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins”
(Heb 10:4). The Israelite’s offering implied confession of sin and of its due
desert, death; and God “covered” (passed over,” Rom 3:25) his sin, in
anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, which did, finally, “put away” the sins
“done aforetime in the forbearance of God” (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15). See
Rom. 3:25, note. The word “atonement” does not occur in the N.T.; Rom.
5:11, meaning reconciliation, and so rendered in the R.V.
Leviticus 16:6 Atonement. The biblical use and meaning of the word must be sharply
distinguished from its use in theology. In theology it is a term which covers
the whole sacrificial and redemptive work of Christ. In the O.T. atonement is
the English word used to translate the Hebrew words which mean “cover,”
coverings,” or “to cover.” Atonement (at-one-ment) is, therefore, not a
translation of the Hebrew, but a purely theological concept. The Levitical
355
offerings “covered” the sins of Israel until, and in anticipation of the Cross,
but did not “take away” (Heb 10:4) those sins. These were the “sins done
aforetime” (“covered” meantime by the Levitical sacrifices), which God
“passed over” (Rom 3:25) – for which “passing over” God’s righteousness
was never vindicated until, in the Cross, Jesus Christ was “set forth a
propitiation.” See “Propitiation,” Rom 3:25, note. It was the Cross, not the
Levitical sacrifices that made “at-one-ment.” The O.T. sacrifices enabled
God to go on with a guilty people because they typified the Cross. To the
offerer they were his confession of the desert of death, and the expression of
his faith; to God they were the “shadows” (Heb 10:1) of which Christ was
the reality.
Matthew 26:28
Forgiveness, Summary: The Greek word translated “remission” in Mt.
26:28, Acts 10:43, Heb. 9:22, is elsewhere rendered “forgiveness.” It means,
to send off, or away. And this throughout Scripture is the one fundamental
meaning of forgiveness – to separate the sin from the sinner. Distinction
must be made between divine and human forgiveness: (1) Human
forgiveness means the remission of penalty. In the Old Testament and the
New, in type and fulfillment, the divine forgiveness follows the execution of
the penalty. “The priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath
committed, and it shall be forgiven him” (Lev 4:35). “This is my blood of
the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission [sending away,
forgiveness] of sins” (Mtw 26:28). “Without shedding of blood there is no
remission” (Heb 9:22).
Hebrews 10:18
Sacrifice, Summary: (1) The first intimation of sacrifice is Gen. 3:21,
the “coats of skins” having obviously come from slain animals. The first
clear instance of sacrifice is Gen 4:4, explained in Heb. 11:4. Abel’s
righteousness was the result of his sacrifice, not of his character. (2) Before
the giving of the law the head of the family was the family priest. By the law
an order of priests was established who alone could offer sacrifices. Those
sacrifices were “shadows,” types, expressing variously the guilt and need of
the offerer in reference to God, and all pointing to Christ and fulfilled in
Him. (3) As foreshadowed by the types and explained in the N.T., the
sacrifice of Christ penal (Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21); substitutional (Lev 1:4; Isa
53:5, 6; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:24); voluntary (Gen 22:9; John 10:18);
redemptive (Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; 1 Cor 6:20); propitiatory (Rom 3:25);
reconciling (2 Cor 5:18, 19; Col 1:21, 22); efficacious (John 12:32, 33; Rom
5:9, 10; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 2:13; Heb 9:11, 12, 26; 10:10-17; 1 John 1:7; Rev
1:5); and revelatory (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10). 96
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
356
Dr. John Walvoord:
1. The divine dealing with sin before the cross is said to have been by atonement, which word, in its biblical use, means simply “to cover.” The
blood of bulls and goats could not, and did not, take away sin (Heb 10:4).
The offering of sacrificial blood indicated on the part of the sinner the
acknowledgement of the just penalty of death (Lev 1:4), and on the part of
God, the sacrifice anticipated the efficacious blood of Christ. By
symbolizing the shed blood of Christ, the atoning blood of the sacrifices
served to cover sin until that day when Christ would deal in finality with the
sin of the world.
Two New Testament passages throw light upon the meaning of the Old
Testament word “atonement,” or “covering.”
a. In Romans 3:25 the word “remission” has the meaning of “passing
over,” and in this connection it is stated that when Christ died He proved
God to have been righteous in passing over sins which were committed
before the cross and for which the atoning blood of the sacrifices had been
shed. God had promised a sufficient Lamb and had forgiven sin on the
strength of that promise. Therefore, by the death of Christ, God was proven
to have been righteous in all that He had promised.
b. In Acts 17:30 it is stated that, before the cross, God “winked at” sin.
This word should be translated “overlooked.”
2. The divine method of dealing with sin since the cross is stated in Romans 3:26. Christ has died. No longer is the value of His sacrifice a
matter of expectation to be taken as a promise and symbolized by the blood
of animals; the blood of Christ has been shed, and now all that can be asked
of any person, regardless of his degree of guilt, is that he believe in the work
which, in infinite grace, has been accomplished for him. This passage
declares that Christ upon the cross so answered the divine judgment against
every sinner that God can remain just, or uncompromised in His holiness,
when at the same time and apart from all penalties, He justifies the sinner
who does no more than believe in Jesus.
The word “atonement,” which occurs properly only in the Old
Testament, indicated the “passing over,” “overlooking,” and “covering” of
sin; but Christ in dealing with sin on the cross did not pass it over or cover it.
Of His sufficient sacrifice it is said: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world” (John 1:29; cf. Col 2:14; Heb 10:4; 1 John 3:5).
“Who his self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24). There
was no temporizing or partial dealing with sin at the cross. This great issue
between God and man was there dealt with in a manner which is satisfying
even to the infinite holiness of God, and the only question that remains is
whether man is satisfied with the sacrifice which satisfies God. To accept the
357
work of Christ for us is to believe upon the Savior to the saving of the soul. 97
In Scripture the death of Christ is revealed to be a sacrifice for the sins
of the whole world. Accordingly, John the Baptist introduced Jesus with the
words, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world”
(John 1:29). Jesus in his death was actually the substitute dying in the place
of all men. Although “substitute” is not specifically a biblical word, the idea
that Christ is the sinner’s substitute is constantly affirmed in Scripture. By
His substitutionary death the unmeasured, righteous judgments of God
against a sinner were borne by Christ. The result of this substitution is itself
as simple and definite as the transaction. The Savior has already borne the
divine judgments against the sinner to the full satisfaction of God. In
receiving the salvation which God offers, men are asked to believe this good
news, recognizing that Christ died for their sins and thereby claiming Jesus
Christ as their personal Savior.
The word “substitution” only partially expresses all that is accomplished
by the death of Christ. Actually no all-inclusive term is used in the Bible.
The word “atonement” is frequently used in theology as an all-inclusive
term, but there is no word corresponding to it in either the Old or New
Testament. In the Old Testament the concept of atoning for sin referred to
the temporary covering of sin by the sacrificial offerings. This provided a
basis for temporary forgiveness “of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God” (Rom 3:25). In forgiving sins in the Old Testament
period, God was acting in perfect righteousness, since He anticipated the
coming of His Son as a sacrificial Lamb who would in no way pass over or
cover sin temporarily but would take it away forever (John 1:29). 98
The death of Christ is often misinterpreted. Every Christian will do well
to understand thoroughly the fallacy of those misstatements which are so
general today.
1. It is claimed that the doctrine of substitution is immoral on the ground on the ground that God could not in righteousness lay the sins of the guilty on an innocent victim. This statement might be considered if it could
be proved that Christ was an unwilling victim; but Scripture presents Him as
being in fullest sympathy with His Father’s will and actuated by the same
infinite love (john 13:1; Heb 10:7). Likewise, in the inscrutable mystery of
the Godhead, it was God Himself who was in Christ reconciling the world
unto Himself (2 Cor 5:19). Far from the death of Christ being an immoral
imposition, it was God Himself, the righteous Judge in infinite love and
sacrifice, bearing the full penalty that His own holiness required of the
sinner.
2. It is claimed that Christ died as a martyr and that the value of His death is seen in the example He presented of courage and loyalty to His
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
358
convictions even unto death. The sufficient answer to this error is that, since
He was God’s provided Lamb, no man took His life from Him (John 10:18;
Acts 2:23).
3. It is claimed that Christ died to create a moral effect. Since the cross
displays the divine estimate of sin, men who consider the cross will be
constrained to turn from lives of sin. This theory, which has no foundation in
Scripture, assumes that God is now seeking the reformation of men; while,
in reality, the cross is the ground of regeneration.99
Dr. Charles Ryrie:
As one would expect, various views of the Atonement, both true and
false, have been propagated throughout church history. A study of these,
even in a summary manner, should do two things: it should help prevent one
falling into the same errors others have made, and it should help one to state
the truth more precisely because of errors that have been made.
Ransom to Satan Origen (185-254)
The death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan to satisfy any claims
Satan had against man. Ultimately Satan was deceived. The Bible does not
say anything about to whom a ransom was paid.
Recapitulation Iranaeus (130-202)
Christ recapitulated in Himself all the stages of life, including what
belongs to us sinners. His obedience substituted for Adam’s disobedience,
and this should effect a transformation in our lives.
Satisfaction Anselm (1033-1109) Cur Dues Homo
Sinful man robbed God of His honor. God rewarded the death of Christ
by viewing it as a work of supererogation so that He can pass on its stored-
up merits to us. Faith is necessary to appropriate this.
Moral Influence Abelard (1079-1142) Schleiermacher,
Ritschl, Busnell
Death of Christ was not an expiation for sin but a suffering with His
creatures to manifest God’s love. This suffering love should awaken a
responsive love in the sinner and bring an ethical change in him. This, then,
liberates from the power of sin.
359
Example Socinus (1539-1604)
Christ’s death did not atone for sin, but revealed faith and obedience as
the way to eternal life and inspiring people to lead a similar life.
Governmental Grotius (1583-1645) Wardlaw, Miley
God’s government demanded the death of Christ to show His
displeasure with sin. Christ also did not suffer the penalty of the Law, but
God accepted His suffering as a substitute for that penalty.
Dramatic Aulen (1879-1978)
Christ in His death gained victory over the powers of evil.
Barthian Barth (1886-1968)
Christ’s death was principally a revelation of God’s love and His hatred
for sin.
Penal Substitution [Completed Satisfaction] Calvin (1509-1564)
Christ the sinless One took on Himself the penalty that should have been
borne by man.
All of these viewpoints may perhaps be cataloged under three basic
categories. (1) Views that related the death of Christ to Satan (Origen,
Aulen). (2) Views that consider His death as a powerful example to
influence people (Abelard, Socinus, Grotius, Barth). (3) Views that
emphasize punishment due to the justice of God and a substitution (perhaps
Anselm – though deficient – and the Reformers). Although there may be
truth in views that do not include penal substitution, it is important to
remember that such truth, if there be some, cannot save eternally. Only the
substitutionary death of Christ can provide that which God’s justice
demands and thereby become the basis for the gift of eternal life to those
who believe. 100
Dr. Lewis Chafer:
Every thoughtful person is compelled to assign some reason for the
death of Christ. The problem consists in the fact that the sinless, harmless
Man Who most evidently was able to defend Himself against all human
strength, and being very God could have dismissed the universe from His
presence by one word nevertheless allowed Himself to be crucified in
seeming weakness, and afterward appeared in resurrection life and power.
Since both the death of Christ and His resurrection are fully established facts
of history, the question demands solution. Why did He suffer Himself thus
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
360
to be put to death. It is certain He did not need to die either because of His
own sinfulness or weakness. This problem does remain a mere abstract
riddle. The death of Christ is explained in the Scriptures and the personal
acceptance or rejection of that divine explanation is declared to be the point
which determines the destiny of each individual. Men are said to stand, or
fall, not by their moral, or religious standards, but by their personal choice in
relation to the death and saving grace of Christ. The question is as important,
therefore, as the destiny of men.
The Scriptures know but one solution to the problem of the death of
Christ – one, and only one, whether it be in type in the Old Testament, or in
the exact unfoldings of the history and doctrine of the New Testament. The
Bible lends no sanctions to differing human theories on this point. Such
speculations are but shadows of the divine revelation and their promulgation
is, like any counterfeit, a misleading substitute for the real Gospel of saving
grace.
Almost every passage related to the cross could be called into evidence
in determining the divine reason for the sacrifice on the part of the Son of
God. In these divine records two great truths are evident: He died as a
substitute for someone else, and that someone else is each and every
individual in all the lost world of mankind. “But he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:5, 6); “Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16);
“Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead” (2 Cor
5:14); “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come into the knowledge
of the truth” (1 Tim 2:1); “That by the grace of God should taste death for
every man” (Heb 2:9); “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
In the clearest terms this death is here said to be a substitution. He did
not die to show men how to die gracefully, or bravely: He died that they
might not die. What He did, therefore, does not need to be done again. It is
something accomplished for every person and in such perfection as to be
fully satisfying to the infinite God. In like manner these passages are
characterized by such universal words as “all,” “every man” and “the whole
world.” From this it must be believed that the death of Christ has already
provided a great potential and provisional value for every guilty sinner,
which is now awaiting his personal recognition.
361
Preceding the dismissal of His spirit as He hung upon the cross Jesus
said: “It is finished.” This could hardly have referred to the fact that His own
life or sufferings were at an end. It was rather the divine announcement of
the fact that a complete transaction regarding the judgment of sin and the
sufficient grounds of salvation for every sinner was accomplished. It is
important to consider what, according to the Scriptures, was then finished.
To know the meaning of three Bible words which relate the cross of
Christ to the sinner will throw some light upon the character and extent of
the work that is said to be “finished” for the whole unsaved world.
[reconciliation – for the gift of forgiveness; redemption – for the gift of eternal life; and propitiation – for the gift of the righteousness of God Who is Christ ] 101
While the doctrine of security may not represent the most important
difference which exists between these two theological systems [Arminianism and Reformation Theology], neither the claim respecting security nor the
claim respecting insecurity can be maintained apart from an effort to
harmonize each with the whole body of soteriological [salvation] truth.
Bitterness between the advocates of these divergent systems could hardly be
avoided when there is no way of reconciliation between them; and this
controversy is greatly stimulated by the immeasurable importance of the
question. The issue that is paramount is whether the saving work of Christ
on the cross includes the safekeeping of the one who trusts Him, or not.
This is the central and precise issue in the controversy. Either Christ did
enough by His death concerning the believer’s sins that it can be said that
“there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus”
(though it is not said that there is no chastisement), or He did not. Again,
either Christ did enough by His death and resurrection in fulfilling the sweet
savor type, that it can be said that the believer possesses eternal life and the
perfect standing of the Son of God, being in Him [impartation of righteousness, sanctification], or He did not. If there is no sufficient ground
for the removal of condemnation [forgiveness] and no sufficient ground for
the impartation of eternal life [redemption] and the and the imputing of
Christ’s merit [propitiation], then the most vital teachings of the New
Testament are rendered void. It is these so-compelling features of truth
which are conspicuous by their absence from Arminian writings. Arminian
theologians are the product of the limited teachings which are presented in
their schools from generation to generation, and therefore the deeper realities
are not known by them. To know these realities is to embrace them, for they
constitute the warp and woof of the Pauline gospel. 102
There are three major aspects of truth set forth in the in New Testament
doctrine relative to the unmeasured benefits which are provided for the
unsaved through the death of Christ, and redemption is but one of the three.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
362
Each of these aspects of truth is in turn expressed by one word, surrounded
as each word is by a group of derivatives or synonyms of that word. These
three words are: άπολύτρωσις, translated redemption, καταλλαγή, translated
reconciliation, and ίλασµός, translated propitiation. The riches of divine
grace which these three words represent transcend all human thought or
language; but these truths must be declared in human terms if declared at all.
As it is necessary to have four Gospels, since it is impossible for one, two, or
even three, to present the full truth concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, so the
Scriptures approach the great benefit of Christ’s death for the unsaved from
three angles, to the end that what may be lacking in the one may be supplied
in the others. There are at least four other great words – forgiveness, regeneration, justification, and sanctification – which represent spiritual
blessings secured by the death of Christ; but these are to be distinguished
from the three already mentioned in one important particular, namely, that
these four words refer to aspects of truth which belong only to those who are
saved.
Over against these, the three words – redemption, reconciliation, and
propitiation – though incorporating in the scope of their meaning vital truths
belonging to the state of the saved, refer in particular to that which Christ
wrought for the unsaved in His death on the cross.
What is termed the finished work of Christ may be defined as the sum total
of all that these words connote when restricted to those aspects of their
meaning which apply alone to the unsaved. Redemption is within th sphere
of relationship which exists between the sinner and his sins, and this word,
with those grouped with it, contemplates sin as a slavery, with the sinner as
the salve, and freedom to be secured only through the redemption, or
ransom, which is in Christ Jesus (John 8:32-36; Rom 6:17-20; 8:21; 2 Pet
2:19; Gal 5:1). Recon-ciliation is within the sphere of relationship which
exists between the sinner and God, and contemplates the sinner at enmity
with God, and Christ as the maker of peace between God and man (Rom
5:10; 8:7; 2 Cor 5:19; James 4:4). Propitiation is also within the sphere of
relationship which exists between God and the sinner, but propitiation contemplates the larger necessity God being just when He justifies the
sinner, and Christ as Offering, a Sacrifice, a Lamb slain, who, by meeting
every demand of God’s holiness against the offender, renders God
righteously propitious toward the sinner (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Thus
it may be seen that redemption is the sinward aspect of the cross,
reconciliation is the manward aspect of the cross, and propitiation is the
Godward aspect of the cross, and that these three great doctrines combine to
declare, as best any human terms are able, one divine undertaking.
363
THE VALUE OF CHRIST’S SUFFERING TO THE FATHER. Yet another vital
distinction - essential, indeed, to a clear understanding of the nature of the
sufferings and death of Christ – is that which may be seen when the value of
Christ’s sufferings and death, as pertaining to the Father, is compared with
that value as it pertains to those who are saved by it. An exact computation
of those values is not possible by any human being. That the one who is
saved will not perish, but is in present possession of eternal life, that he is
united to Christ to share His peace and glory, and that he shall, when he see
his Savior, be like Him, could never be accurately appraised by men. Over
against this is the truth that, regardless of His infinite love which would
bless the creatures of His hand, the moral restraint on God which sin
imposes could not be removed even by sovereign decree; it was necessary,
in light of His holy character and government, that the price of redemption
should be required at the hand of the offender or at the hand of a substitute
[the personal or vicarious payment for the sin debt owed by all men to God]
who would die in the offender’s place. By the death of Christ for sinners, the
moral restraint is removed and the love of God is free to act in behalf of
those who will receive His grace and blessing. No measurement may be
placed on the meaning of this freedom which the cross has secured for God.
It is revealed, however, that, when thus untrammeled, God, in the
satisfaction of His love, accomplishes the greatest thing that God can do,
which is, so to transform the sinner who trusts Him that the sinner will
appear in eternal glory conformed to the image of Christ. There is nothing
conceivable that would be a greater achievement than this; but it is wrought,
primarily, to satisfy the love of God for the sinner. Those who trust Him will
not perish, but have everlasting life. However, all this was made possible
because of the fact that God so loved that He gave His only begotten Son.
What freedom to exercise such love, which is secured by the death of Christ,
means to God is as incomprehensible as the divine love itself.
To the same end, it may be added that, as the salvation of a soul
demonstrates the exceeding grace of God, which grace could not be
exhibited by any other means, the death of Christ has secured and made
possible that exalted experience on God’s part of the exercise of His
superabounding grace. Again, all human estimations are incapable of any
adequate knowledge of the value to God of Christ’s death. 103
The New Commandment of Koinonia and The False Professing Christians of Today Exposed in 1 John.
REVEALED BY THE “EXPERIENTIAL” [JOY] ASPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE
DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
364
As introduced in the discussion above, the command to love one another
as Christ loves us is more than a magnificent “ideal.” It is not one among
other commands. It is the very heart of “the word,” the command, given by
God the Logos, Jesus Christ, to each believer. This “law of Christ” will
fulfill the obligation to conform to the very nature of God. It is accomplished
through a new love, working out the relation between Christ and all
believers, enabled by the daily imparted grace [power] of God to the child
who seeks to “keep the commandment(s)” and learn by doing the will of
God.
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness
[Gk. eusebeia, belief that forms the basis for behavior by which man is restored to godliness]: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory.
How supremely insufficient is the attempt made by false professing
Christians who adhere to a shallow misinterpretation of God’s Word. Which
is assumed to be implied in the synoptic Gospels, namely, The Sermon on
the Mount. This presumption is driven and conditioned upon a man-made
notion, a theory of atonement which defines the value of the death of Christ.
This theory undervalues His shed blood and overlooks the power of His
resurrection life shared by all believers. Taken together, the presumption and
the theory support the stalwart assertion that “daily behavior” through self-
effort determines the outcome of a future salvation. The self-centered and
joyless “experiential” aspect of Arminian salvation is that believers can
never be assured that they themselves, or their believing loved ones have
become the children of the living God who will be together in heaven with
Christ.
Christianity has two commands: (1) belief in the Bible’s witness and
testimony to Jesus Christ. Jesus as the preexistent Son of God who was
conceived by God of a virgin and entered this world in the flesh of a
newborn babe, who died for all the sins of the world, and, “this same man”
rose again in glorified human flesh that all believers might share His
resurrected life and “never see death,” and, (2) to love fellow believers as
Christ loves them. The common ground of the 1 John profession of a false
Christology and today’s Arminian profession of a false Christology is the
inescapable harmony in: (1) the assertion of a low moral ground whereby
behavior does not matter (salvific sinlessness is a given by faith because of
the pre-existence of Christ, Jesus came in water [incarnation at baptism] and
His death [blood] is of no value for a forgiveness that is unnecessary) or, (2)
the claim of the high moral ground whereby behavior is everything (salvific
365
sinlessness is maintained by self-effort and continued faith, Jesus came by
water and blood, but the blood has only a “theoretical” value for an
incomplete forgiveness).
Both professions of faith, despite the human consequences of moral
position, are false. Both maintain a low view of the value in the death of
Christ. Therefore, true saving belief in Jesus Christ is not possible. Proven
by the many clear statements of Scripture that assert without disagreement
that the blood of Christ removes all sin through faith. And, secondly,
reliance on the living, resurrected Christ, just as He is now, as the source of
daily behavior is missing from both assertions. The secessionists of 1 John
and the Arminian have failed to first obey the command incumbent upon the
unsaved and, thus, lack the ability to appreciate and obey the command
incumbent upon the saved (1 John 3:23).
God’s graceful truth is that only through the completed and secure
infinite redemption of salvation is righteous daily behavior possible “to a
thousand generations to those who love me and keep my commandments”
(Ex 2:6). More than anything, the primary commandment of Jesus “to love
one another as I have loved you” is not the indication, rather it is the means
by which Christian behavior is perfected through love and “fulfills the law.”
This is the defining argument that convicts the secessionists in I John of a
false Christological profession and apostate doctrine.
The Arminian, with his “Social Gospel,” is blind to the divine
imperative spoken by Jesus, “you must [Gk. dei] be born again from above
[Gk. anothen]” to “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:7ff, 3ff) and, “Seeing
you have purified your souls in obeying the truth [the gospel] through the
Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with
a pure heart fervently. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (1 Pet
2:22-23). In the “word,” the command from the lips of Jesus, “Now ye are
clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in
you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no
more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He
that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for
without me ye can do nothing. … As the Father hath loved me, so have I
loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall
abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and
abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might
remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment,
That ye love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do
whatsoever I command you” (John 15:3-5, 9-14).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
366
Only by the new birth is this love for one another manifested. It is a
Christian reality. Without it, one cannot abide in Jesus as the true vine and
have communion (koinonia) with God and other believers “that your joy
might be full.”
Detailed Commentary on Koinonia
Extended citation of Dr. R. E. Brown, The Anchor Bible – The Epistles of John:
LOVE OF THE BRETHREN
Over and over again … I John comes back to the theme of love of one’s
brother or the love of one another. Indeed, the author puts such love on the
same level of importance as correct belief in Jesus Christ: “Now this is
God’s commandment: we are to believe the name of His Son, Jesus Christ;
and we are to love one another just as He gave us command” (I John 3:23).
If he considered the secessionists defective on one score, almost surely he
considered them defective on the other. His use of the term “commandment”
in other passages dealing with such love (2:7-9; 4:21; 5:2-3; II John 4-6)
suggests that, when elsewhere he hints that the secessionists did not keep the
commandments (plural: I John 2:3-5; 3:22), this charge may narrow down to
their not loving their brothers. Such a narrowing of ethical conflict to one
issue would be intelligible against the background of GJohn where, when
Jesus speaks about a commandment or commandments (plural) for his
disciples, there is always mention of a demand to love (13:34-35; 14:15;
15:10,12,17), almost as if the commandment to love, especially “to love one
another,” subsumed all other commandments (ABJ 29, 504-5).
If the author’s implication is true that the secessionists did not love their
brethren, how could they have derived or justified their attitude from the
tradition known to us in GJohn? Wengst (Haresie 53-59) thinks that they
shifted their love to God; for, since they regarded themselves as God’s
children, begotten by Him, they thought themselves capable of loving God
connaturally and in a way different from those who were not God’s children.
He also thinks they wee elitists and well-off, despising the less informed and
impoverished ordinary Christians of the Johannine Community (I John 2:15-
17; 3:17). That may be true, but I do not think it goes to the heart of the
problem. Beyond the possibility that the secessionists may not have
emphasized love of brethren or may have practiced it inadequately, did they
affirm in their ethical theory that it was not necessary to love their brethren?
That would be a direct contradiction of the Johannine Jesus: “This is my
commandment, ‘Love one another as I have loved you’” (15:12); “By this
367
will all identify you as my disciples – by the love you have for one another”
(13:35). In line with my theory that the secessionists did not contradict the
GJohn tradition but drew upon it, I propose that it was perfectly possible for
the secessionists to affirm, “We love one another, as Jesus commanded,” and
still to earn the epistolary author’s condemnation for not loving the brothers.
The key to this paradox lies in the definition of the “one another” or
“brothers” who are to be loved. In the Note on 2:9b below I shall defend in
detail the position that GJohn articulates no demand to love all human
beings or to love one’s enemies – only true believers in Jesus are the
children of God and, therefore, brothers. When applied to the epistolary
situation, this means that for the author “brothers” were those members in
the Johannine Community who were in communion (koinonia) with him and
his fellow witnesses to the tradition, and who accepted his interpretation of
the Johannine gospel (angelia; see I John 1:4-5). The secessionists had left
and were no longer brothers; indeed, their very leaving was indicative of
their lack of love. He did not regard himself as violating the commandment
to love one another when he bitterly condemned the secessionists,
characterizing them as demonic Antichrists and false prophets, and as the
embodiment of eschato-logical iniquity (anomia; 2:18,22; 4:1-5; 3:4-5).
Although he exhorted his own followers to love one another, the author of II
John immediately afterward (vv. 5,10-11) told them to treat the secessionists
in a way that was scarcely loving: “If anyone comes to you who does not
bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house and greet him, for
whoever greets him shares in his evil deeds.” If apostasy was the deadly sin
of I John 5:15-17, as seems likely, the author advised against prayers for the
secessionists. –pp 83-85 exhortation
BROTHERS
Note: I John 2:9b. all the while hating his brother. In Johannine usage of
loving is not the lack of love or indifference, but the hate of one’s brother (I
John 2:11; 3:15; 4:20). Undoubtedly this mentality has been shaped by the
experiences of the Johannine Community wherein relations with “the Jews”
and the secessionists moved quickly to hostility. The verb misein, “to hate,”
occurs 12 times in GJohn and 5 times in I John, a usage that is 40% of the
NT frequency (39 times ). Most instances in GJohn (and I John 3:13)
involve the world’s hatred for Jesus, his Father, and his disciples; but in John
3:19-20 there is a reference to loving darkness and hating light (also 12:25).
In part such a love/hate choice reflects the lack of highly differentiated verbs
in the Hebrew background (see love/hate in Deut 21:15; Prov 13:24; Mal
1:2-3; Matt 6:24); inpart it reflects Johannine dualism.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
368
This is the first occurrence of adelphos, “brother,” which is used 16
times in the Epistles for spiritual relatives (presumably female as well as
male …). In GJohn adelphos is used for physical relatives (also I John 3:12)
with only two exceptions, 20:17 and 21:23, both situated in the
postresurrectional period. In the Epistles “brother” appears 6 times with
agapan, “to love,” 4 times with misein, “to hate,” and once in the expression
“to lay down one’s life for” (I John 3:16) – two-thirds of the significant uses
concern love or hate for one’s brother.
The Christian use of “brother” for coreligionists is common in the NT
(over 200 times), being found in every work except Titus and Jude. (Only I
Cor 7:15 and Jas 2:15 take the trouble to distinguish “brother and sister,”
although individual women are called “sister” in Rom 16:1; Philem 2; cf. I
Cor 9:5.) Several factors explain this development. Already in the OT a
fellow Israelite could be addressed as “brother” (Jer 22:18 –a usage
explicable from the tribal origins of Israel which involved physical
relationship. The close-knit community of the New Covenant at Qumran
employed “brother” as a quasi-technical term for the one who had gone
through the period of probation and had been admitted to membership …
When we turn to Jesus, in a common Synoptic passage (Mark 31:35 and
par.) he says that his (true) mother and brothers are those who do the will of
God or hear the word of God. In other words he distinguishes between
relatives by birth and an eschatological family called into being by his
proclamation of God’s will and word. The notion of a common Father
shared by Jesus and his disciples is inherent in the “Our Father” that Jesus
teaches to his disciples (Matt 6:9). In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary
Magdalene, “Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and
your Father” (see Matt 28:10). God is the Father of believers because he
begets them through His Spirit (John 3:3-6); and that Spirit is given through
the death and resurrection of Jesus (7:39; 19:30,34; 20:22). Thus the words
of Jesus to Magdalene mean that his Father is now Father of those who
believe in him and who therefore are his brothers (ABJ 29A, 1016-17).
We should note, however, that in Johannine thought the spiritual term
“brothers” must be confined to “those who believe in his [Jesus’] name –
those who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man’s
desire, but by God” (John 1:12-13). And indeed that belief involves an
acceptance of Johannine christology, for I John 5:1 is precise: “Everyone
that believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten by God.” The
secessionists who did not share the author’s standard of belief would not
have been children of God by his standards. …
All of this seems so obvious that it is astonishing to find scholars like
Balz and Bultman stating that “brother” in the present passage means fellow
human being, e.g., Bultmann, Epistles 28 (without advancing proof). “
369
‘Brother’ means … not especially the Christian comrade in faith, but one’s
fellowman, the ‘neighbor.’” Westcott, Epistles 55, was far closer to the
biblical evidence a century ago when he stated, “There is, as far as it
appears, no case where a fellow-man, as man, is called ‘brother’ in the N.T.”
(He specifically included Matt 5:22 and Luke 6:41, which are not clear on
this point.) The reference to “the neighbor” shows that the basis of
Bultmann’s claim is not the Johannine notion of God’s children through
faith and the Spirit but the Synoptic command to love the neighbor as
oneself (Matt 19:19; 22:39 and par.; see Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14). It is true that
the Hebrew word rea, normally translated in Greek by plesion, “neighbor,”
can also be translated by adelphos, “brother” (Gen 43:33; Jer 31 [38]:34);
nevertheless, in the NT the two terms are not the same. The Synoptic
command to love the neighbor reaches to outsiders as well; for the Lucan
Parable of the Good Samaritan interprets the confines of the term “neighbor”
(Luke 10:27-29). Indeed, Matt 5:44 demands love of enemies.
I would point out Dr. Brown’s omission of a dispensational division, or
his seeming adherence to a one covenant view, within his excellent
grammatical exegesis. There is a “future new covenant for Israel when
Christ returns” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 7, 97-98): Similar to parts
of the NT, the OT contained predictions about Christ and of this age of grace
that followed His crucifixion (although not fully revealed until Paul’s
ministry) which did not apply to the Mosaic Law system. Mtw chapters 5-
7and the synoptical passages are the “King’s Manifesto,” or the rules for
daily life in the future Jewish earthly Kingdom. This when Jesus leaves His
right-hand seat on His Father’s throne of Grace and returns to earth to rule
from His own throne with a “rod of iron” until all His enemies have been
“made a footstool” or defeated. This future system of Kingdom Law, the
sixth dispensation and the seventh covenant, will be the rule of daily life on
earth during the last period of human testing during the millennium that
follows the unique offer and testing in the dispensation of grace. This current
age transitions into and overlaps the coming Kingdom Law age during the
future Tribulation period that restarts God’s dealing with His earthly chosen
people of Israel as depicted in Daniel’s predicted 70th week. this writer.]
Returning the citation of Dr. Brown –
But we cannot assume that the Synoptic command to love the neighbor and
the Johannine command to love the brother or one another have the same
extent. There are contrary indications elsewhere in the NT, e.g., in I Thess
3:12; 5:15 Paul mentions loving or doing good for “one another” and “for
all,” an implicit indication that “one another” means Christians. Similarly I
Pet 2:17 distinguishes, “Honor all; love the brotherhood,” keeping the latter
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
370
term for Christians. The context of the reference to philadelphia, “brotherly
love,” in Heb 13:1 indicates that fellow Christians are in mind. Moving from
the NT in general to GJohn, we remember that the command to love one
another was given at the Last Supper where Jesus was addressing “his own”
(13:1). … Immediately after the command in 13:34, the Johannine Jesus
says, “By this will all identify you as my disciples – by the love you have for
one another.” Could it be any clearer that this is a command to love within
the Christian fellowship? And the repetition of the command in 15:12,17 is
in the context of the symbolic description of the vine and the branches,
wherein, certain branches (Christian “believers”) that do not bear fruit are
cast off, so that the love of one another concerns only the fruitful branches:
“I appointed you to go and bear fruit. … This I command you: Love one
another” (15:16-17). …
Feuillet, Le mystere 109-13, would qualify the air of exclusivity at the
last Supper on the grounds that in fact only the disciples are present and so
naturally Jesus speaks only to the audience whom he loves. But there is a
deeper question: Why is the Johannine Last Supper so exclusively “his
own”? The account in GJohn is not simply historical; it is the reflection of
the self-understanding of the Johannine Community that thinks of itself
precisely as Jesus’ own. Dodd and Hoskyns would modify the impression of
an inward Johannine concentration by pointing to outgoing statements in
GJohn, which insist on bearing witness to others. Yet a desire to make
converts does little to change the impression of a brotherhood confined to
fellow Johannine Christians. … If one objects on the basis of John 3:16 that
the Johannine God loves the whole world, it may be noted that such
statement of love antedates the choice made by those who prefer darkness to
light (3:19). It is not clear that the Johannine God loves the sons of darkness.
A narrower, inter-communitarian concept of love is not without
antecedents. The command of Lev 19:18 [one of 80+ statutes in Lev 18-20],
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” seemingly referred to fellow
Israelites (Montefiore, “Neighbor” 158); but the Dead Sea Scroll community
changed it to “love one’s brother as oneself” (CD 6:20-21), narrowing its
extent to just the community. … The Johannine Jesus speaks to unbelieving
Jews as to children of the devil (John 8:44). A passage such as I John 2:15,
“Have no love for the world,” is tantamount to “Hate the world.” There are
alleviating factors, of course, and the overall view of outsiders is broader
than that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the same time the attitude is
narrower than that found elsewhere in the NT. Montefiore, “Neighbor” 169,
exaggerates but only partly: “What was distinctive about Jesus’ teaching
about neighborly love came to be altered [in John] until it was similar to the
best Jewish teaching ob love, except that mutual love was demanded in a
371
religious rather than a natural group, and became grounded on different
theological doctrines.”
With all its limitations the Johannine theme of loving one another has
real strengths also. The attitude toward the outsider is most often by
implication; the primary concern is love for the insider. That explains why in
2:9b the author regards hating one’s brother as an insuperable contradiction
to the light (also 2:11a). It is a heinous offense by the secessionists who are
misleading some of the author’s adherents on this score. In what way did the
secessionists hate their brothers? My treatment of this in the Introduction (V
B3c) suggests that the secessionists did not say they hated their brothers and
did not urge others to do so. Rather, they too spoke of loving one another
even though, since they put little salvific emphasis on human actions, they
may not have given this commandment much centrality. In my judgment the
issue in the controversy was not entirely theoretical but practical and
pastoral. From the author’s viewpoint, the secessionists hated the true
brotherhood, for they hated him and his adherents. They would not support
the needy among the author’s adherents (I John 3:17); and they had
withdrawn from fellowship (2:19) and were persuading others to do so (II
John 10). Such secession would have been the supreme example of hatred of
one’s brothers, for it destroyed fraternal relations. –pp 269-73
COMMANDMENT(S)
(See also, The Tribunal - Book Two, Appendix, The Doctrine of
Commandments.)
Notes: I John 2:3b. by keeping His commandments. Literally, “if we keep
His commandments.” … This is the first epistolary occurrence of entole, “commandment,” which is used 18 times in the Epistles (14 in I John; 4 in II
John), 10 times in the singular, 8 in the plural. In reference to Jesus entole occurs 10 times in GJohn (6 times in the singular, 4 in the plural), covering
something the Father has given to Jesus, and that Jesus has given to his
disciples. Jesus speaks of a commandment from the Father telling him what
to say and to do, and especially to lay down his life and to take it up again
(in the singular in 10:18; 12:48,50; 14:31; once in the plural in 15:10). In
13:34 and 15:12 Jesus speaks in the singular of the commandment to love
one another, which he is giving to his disciples, while in 14:15,21 and 15:10
he speaks of “my commandments,” which he gives to his disciples. In ABJ
29A, 638 and 641, I showed that the variation between singular and plural is
not of clear theological significance; see also F. M. Braun, “La reduction”
47-51. Chmiel, Lumiere 133, follows G. Schrenk in attributing significance
to the fact that in I John a plural usage is followed by a singular (e.g., 2:3-4
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
372
followed by 2:7-8); but then he makes the telltale admission that discounts
this: the singular in 4:21 is followed by the plural in 5:2-3 (cf. also the
alteration pl./sg./pl. in 3:22,23,24). Alteration of number (like variety of
tenses) is, in part, a stylistic device.
One may put the GJohn information about commandment(s) thus: Jesus
has received as a command from his Father a total direction of life, covering
his words, deeds, and death; it is not imposed from the outside but flows
from the fact that he is the Son who acts spontaneously after the pattern of
his Father. This “commandment” is, in turn, the prototype for Jesus’
commandment(s) to his disciples. Specifically he commands them to love
one another “as I have loved you,” and his love for them reflects the Father’s
love in sending his only Son (3:16). The use of a plural does not mean that
Jesus gives to his disciples a number of specific commandments (not
recorded in GJohn); rather the plural gives a comprehensive force to the
commandment to love. That commandment involves a whole way of life that
relates Christians to one another and to Jesus. Such a way of life would
include keeping the Ten Commandments [Decalogue], but that is never
made specific in GJohn.
Parenthetical comment:
The Nine “Words” of NT Grace for the Believer: A Graceful View
That Corrects False Views of - The Great Commandment, the New
Commandment, and the Great Commission
This writer:
There are no, nada, zip, zero, not any, none, and not one NT moral
command given by God that is incumbent upon the unsaved. They are
unregenerate and unrelated to God. Except only by the remotest sense of a
creative act that brought forth Adam and Eve might they be related to God.
They cannot please God. They are morally challenged and God knows this.
They are already condemned. God tells them to believe on His Son for
eternal life. Moral reformation comes after regeneration. Would any one
assume they “know better” than God? Many religious humanist make a
career of out-smarting God by ignoring the Bible and operating on
assumptions. Only one command is given to the unsaved (in over 30 NT
verses. See Appendix) – obey the gospel. It is the Christian’s obligation to
share the gospel of God’s grace. Any concern for the unsaved in remote
areas of the world is a failure committed by Christians from whatever
culture and skin color they were born into, who choose not to learn the
language and relocate to these remote areas. It is not a failure of God. The
373
few who would be saved, are unsaved because they have not yet heard the
gospel. The same as those individuals who have follow a false gospel and
“do not stand on resurrection ground” under grace, but without fail have
attended church for three generations. Missionary fields abound in the
United States. A universal preaching of the gospel is impossible under
present circumstances. A vast majority of the inhabitants of earth do not
have access to mass media and, as always, people are constantly dying and
being born. Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:
The minute accuracy of the Scripture is seen in Christ’s use of the
phrase my commandments. During the days of His ministry to the nation
Israel, He enforced the commandments of Moses, and spoke of the new
principles which were to be applied in the kingdom (cf. Sermon on the
Mount, Farewell Address to the Nation of Israel (Mtw 23-24) as “these
sayings of mine” and “I say unto you”; but at no time did He use the terms
my commandments until He used it with His disciples in the upper room, and
at the time when He was unfolding the new principles which were to
condition the daily living of those who should stand on resurrection ground,
in the New Creation, and under grace. It is also significant that the first use
of the term commandment in this grace message is when He said, “A new
commandment I give unto you” (John 13:34). There is, therefore, a possible
limitation to placed on the extent of the responsibility imposed by Christ in
His Great Commission wherein He said: “teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20). It is hardly probable that
He intends all the Mosaic Law, the governing principles of the kingdom, and
the teachings of grace to be combined and applied to those who receive the
message of the great commission. In the teachings of the kingdom, the
characterizing phrase is “hear and do” (Matt 7:24), while the characterizing
phrase under grace is “hear and believe” (John 5:24). 104
The Jewish Sabbath command, the seventh day of rest, is omitted from
the NT. God has fulfilled this fourth command to observe “a day of rest” for
those who are in a new relation, for those who are “rightly related to God”
through Jesus Christ. The fourth command no longer applies. But much
more so, Jesus Christ fulfilled the perfect law of Moses, grounded in the
holy nature of God, for all men that will believe the testimony of God that
He did this for them. Accordingly, the Law itself and condemnation attached
to the Mosaic Law has been removed. The kingdom teachings and principles
proposed as “my sayings” by Christ do not apply today, as they await His
return to be put into effect. At that time the number of those saved in the
unique age of grace will be complete.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
374
Unbelief in Jesus is the new and highest of all sins. It is not the
unforgivable sin, it is the measure by which sins are forgiven. Many verses
in the NT connoting “a must do” apply to Jesus. For the Christian, only a
handful: the Christian “must be born again” (John 3:7); “he that cometh to
God must believe” (Heb 11:6); “For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ” (2 Cor 5:10); “this corruptible must put on incorruption” (1
Cor 15:53). Other than restatements as NT exhortations, “ought to do’s,” the
“must do” commands of the Decalogue as OT Law do not apply to
Christians. Christ has fulfilled and completes this Law for the Christian in
the “gift of righteousness” and justification by faith.
The “rich young ruler” was given only 4 of the 5 manward
commandments by Jesus. The words of “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev
19:18) is the second half of a verse that begins with the statute not to “take
revenge, or bear a grudge” against another Jew who was in the same
covenant relation to God. This verse is one of 80 statutes given in Leviticus
chapters 18-20 which covers all manner of relations to other Jews. It is not a
command of the Decalogue. Jesus suggested to the young man that he sell
everything and give it to the poor. Thereby storing up treasure in heaven by
proving “himself,” not the poor, to be a neighbor. This action, had the young
ruler complied, would have been identical to the Samaritan who proved
himself to be a neighbor, not the unidentified man he helped. Law exposes
helpless, incurable sin and the need for God to save men. “Salvation is of the
Lord.”
For unto us was the gospel preached … For we which have believed do
enter into rest … There remaineth therefore a rest (keeping of a Sabbath)
to the people of God. For he that is entered into his [God’s] rest, he also
has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
(Heb 4:2a, 3a, 9-10)
1 John 3:23-24 Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the
name of his Son Jesus Christ [obey the gospel] and love one another, just
as he gave us the commandment. And the person who keeps his
commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know
that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us. NET
A. Exodus 20:3-7
Godward relationship. #1-3, Grace enabled communion (koinonia) with
God and a new love and respect for God the Father as “Abba,” (daddy).
Several OT authors summarized the Decalogue into a shorter list of
commands. There is both a singular and plural characteristic to the Lord’s
375
commands. These three commands, if one reflects at all, will show
themselves to be three aspects of one common attitude. Simply stated, when
rightly considered, none of the three may be broken separately. All three are
broken together. Also, the exhortations applying to unsaved men are all
broken by any one of the five. Much like Moses broke the original “Two
Tablets” in one prideful action that foreshadowed his premature death
mandated by God for his great sin of striking “the Rock” a second time.
By way of explanation, the first commandment (v.3), of “no other gods”
is self-evident. The second commandment (v. 4-6), which details the
crafting, either physically or emotionally, of an idol is to make “another
god.” And the third commandment, to “take the Lord’s name in vain” is
much more than a curse or a false oath spoken by unsaved men. For a
believer to assign the cognomen of god as a concession to ecumenical
political-correctness - “all religions have only one God, the same God”- is
to profane, to curse, to hold in vain pride your own “godly” opinion above
the sacrosanct name of God. The Father and Son are inseparable from belief
in the one true God.
Should any reader, who does not hold the Bible in reverence, jump onto
their hinds legs in a reflexive posture by taking offense at such an exclusive
use of the name of God, I would remind them this is God’s command
concerning Himself and His name, taken from the Book of His Truth.
Everyone is free to find a different book and call themselves anything they
like – except a Christian, who is a regenerated sinner that possesses a
zealous love for the name of God.
Since the world changing incarnation and revelation of Christ as the Son
of God sent by the Father, and, the gift of God the Holy Spirit to all
believers, God may only be – God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit (Mtw 28:19). The indivisible Holy Trinity of One I AM.
B. Exodus 20:12
Christward relationship. #5 (the “Renewed” Commandment of Christ
and the ongoing New Commandment of Koinonia), Grace enabled new love
and new obligation towards the family of other believers, to love them as
Christ loves them, “who extends faithful love to a thousand generations [cf.
Ps 118, “his love endures forever”] of those who love me and keep my
commandment[s]” (Ex 20:6). Fellowship and communion demands
separation.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
376
all are partakers of that one bread. … Ye cannot drink the cup of the
Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,
and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we
stronger than he? … Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread , and
drink this cup of the Lord, (in an unworthy manner) shall be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord. … for he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and
many sleep [God has more than chastened, He has caused them to die for this reason, “that we [they] should not be condemned with the
world”]. (1 Cor 10:16-17, 21-22; 11:27, 29-30, 32ff AMP)
The Jew has been removed from his commonwealth relation to God and
classed with the unsaved who receive no positive command, or blessings of
a long life for showing respect towards their mother and father. The Apostle
Paul does quote this command in the NT as applying to children and their
parents, but the assumption is that the children he addresses are believers
and owe as much fidelity to their Heavenly Father and other believers as any
individual who is saved. It seems to be unreasonable to have the only
positive command in the Decalogue apply as a grace exhortation only to the
parents of the saved child. The Christian is exhorted to treat the needs and
person of other believers as more important than their own. Does not the
idea of “mother and father” convey this meaning also? Communion with
God and other believers is the prayer of our Lord in John chapter 17. This
enables the power to practice the command to love another as Christ loves
us.
The “Two Tablets,” as referred to in the Semitic idiom, indicate five
commands towards God and five commands towards men. Maintaining this
division, if the fifth commandment is not applied to the believer and his new
relationship to other believers (Mtw 12:48-49), who are joined in union to
God the Father in the body of Christ, then this commandment has no
application ‘to long days in a land which the Lord has given thee’ in the age
of grace. Eternal life in heavenly relation to Christ and other believers would
seem to be the extended benefit for a new race of heavenly people. In John
2:11, the Apostle speaks of the one who “hateh his brother is in darkness,
and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that
darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Dr. Lewis Chafer explains the biblical
meaning of “darkness”:
The fact that darkness means an absence of light is used by the Scripture
to illustrate truth in five different aspects. No physical reality is more
impressive - unless it be life and death – than the phenomenon of darkness
377
and light. The various uses of the term darkness in the Bible are connected
with:
1. OPPOSITION TO THE CHARACTER OF GOD. Writing of the holiness of
God, the Apostle John has said, “And in him is no darkness at all” (1 John
1:5). Similarly, James has said, “With whom is no variableness, neither
shadow of [cast by, R.V.] turning” (James 1:17). Light thus becomes a vivid
illustration of the transparent purity of God. His glory is radiant with
Shekinah light. Some of Christ’s intrinsic glory was manifested in His
transfiguration. Perfect holiness can be indicated only by celestial light.
2. MORAL ESTATE OF THE UNSAVED WORLD. When Christ came into
the world, it was said of Him that He appeared as Light which shineth in a
dark place, and yet the darkness comprehended it not (John 1:5). The perfect
Light which God is cannot be comprehended by the darkness of this world.
Darkness first came into this world when sin entered. Its reality is faithfully
described by God in His Word, but men do not heed or understand the divine
testimony. They “loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). In the
beginning there was light enough, but men turned from the light. The
Apostle states: “Because that, when they knew not God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,
and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:21). The experience of the
blind man is symbolical, “Whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). To
the lost world about Him Christ declared, “This is your hour, and the power
of darkness” (Luke 22:53). When one is saved he is translated out of the
power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love (Col 1:13).
Truth is itself as light and the lack of it as darkness. Of the believer it is
recorded that he has been “called out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1
Pet 2:5).
3. THE CARNAL CHRISTIAN. Having declared that “God is light,” the
Apostle John asserts further: “If we say that we have fellowship with him,
and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 John 1:6). Fellowship
or communion depends upon agreement, and where sin is practiced and
defended by a believer there can be no perfect fellowship with God. To walk
in the light is to be subject to the light, that is to say, when God reveals to
one whatever in the life runs contrary to the Light which God is, there
should be adjustments to that new revelation. To walk in the light is not to
be sinlessly perfect; it is to be adjusted to all that God discloses unto the
heart concerning His will for one’s individual life. For one to say as a
pretense or supposition that he is walking in the light when evil has been
tolerated, is to assert that which is not and could not be true. If, however, the
believer walks in the light of God by being adjusted to His will, fellowship
with God is maintained without effort and the stain of all sin is removed by
the blood of Christ, for this blessed provision goes on cleansing (1 John 1:5-
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
378
7). The darkness in which the believer may walk must be distinguished from
the darkness of the lost estate; his darkness is due to carnality, and its
limitations are seen in the fact that his sin has not disturbed personal union
with God, but only his communion with Him. There are various drastic costs
which the believer pays when he walks in darkness; loss of fellowship with
God is one of them.
4. THE TRIBULATION. It is specifically revealed that when Christ returns
to the earth He will come to a universal condition of “gross darkness” which
will cover the people (Isa 60:2). The tribulation period which is ended by
Christ’s advent with power and great glory will be a time “of darkness and
of gloominess” (Joel 2:2). According to all major references concerned with
it, the tribulation is the hour of supreme darkness and distress over all the
world.
5. FINAL ESTATE OF THE LOST. There is a place called “outer darkness”
(Matt 25:30) which becomes the last and unending abode of those who go
there. That such a place has existed from the time of the fall of the angels is
evident since some of the angels are in “chains of darkness” due to that early
departure from God, awaiting a day of judgment (2 Pet 2:4). They are not
merely in physical darkness, but a place and condition utterly void of that
Light which God is. 105
C. Exodus 20:13-17
Manward relationship. #6-10, irrespective of #5, no Grace enabled love
(koinonia). Respect/honor out of a sense of “compassion” towards the
condemned individuals who have not “obeyed the gospel,” and, as a
Christian witness (e.g., the Samaritan under the Law obligation to relate to
his dying neighbor “as thy self”). The believer is still a “sinner” with a sin
nature, yet with the Grace enabling “power of God” not to sin and the Grace
enabled new obligation to witness the gospel to the unsaved. Christ died
because He loved the unsaved. A believer can carry this message; but cannot
possess that love. It may only flow through him, from Christ to the unsaved,
when the believer shares the gospel. The Apostle Paul “wished” that he
could “give-away” his salvation to his Jewish brethren, in place of delivering
the gospel. This was a desire, not a practicality.
Dr. R. E. Brown’s detailed commentary on Commandments (cont’d.)
I and II John also know of a commandment in the singular; and in I John
2:7-8 (implicitly) and in 4:21 and II John 5-6 it is a commandment to love
one another (one’s brother) just as in GJohn. The “commandment” (sg. and
pl.) is described 8 times in I John as ‘his,” and once as “from him” (4:21).
379
There are scholars who contend that in some of these instances the his/him
reference is to Christ, especially on the grounds that “it is a commandment
we have had from the beginning” (II John 5), i. e., from the beginning of
Jesus’ self-revelation during his ministry. Consistently, however, I have
interpreted the “his” as a reference to God. Sometimes the context makes
this lucidly clear (I John 4:21). I John 3:23 not only implicitly ascribes the
commandment to God but makes it twofold: “Now this is His
commandment: we are to believe the name of His Son, Jesus Christ; and we
are to love one another just as He gave us the commandment.” Similarly
interesting is II John 4, which describes “walking in truth” as “a
commandment we have received from the Father”; for these passages show
the tendency to move beyond brotherly love to general behavior and faith.
See the Comment for the significance of the shifts in usage from GJohn to I
John.
“Keeping commandments” is an idiom employing the verb terein with
the plural, 4 times in GJohn (including 15:10, the one time where Jesus
speaks of having commandments [plural] from his Father) and 5 times in I
John. In GJohn the reference is to keeping the commandments of Jesus; in I
John to keeping the commandments of God (2:3,4; 3:22,24; 5:3). Parallel
expressions are “to do the commandments” of God in I John 5:2, and “to
walk according to His commandments” in II John 6. The variety of the
expression indicates the comprehensiveness of the idea. As Lazure, Valeurs 128, recognizes, the implication of the idiom is that of realizing in one’s life
what those commandments ask. The verb “keep” with its durational
atmosphere enables the epistolary author to indicate an abiding realization.
For “keeping” commandments the LXX employs the verb phylassein, translating Hebrew samar; yet terein appears in one instance (Sir 29:1; see
also “keep the Law” in Tob 14:9, and Acts 15:5; Jas 2:10). Westcott,
Epistles 47, contends that while phylassein means to guard an unchangeable
deposit, terein means to observe watchfully; but the usage is scarcely so
precise. (The Vulgate recognized the difficulty of catching the exact nuance
of terein, translating the three occurrences in I John 2:3-5 by three different
verbs: observare, custodire, servare.) In Prov 19:16we hear: “The person
who keeps [phylassein] the commandments keeps [terein] his own soul”;
and Jesus says in John 17:12: “I kept them safe [terein] with your name … I
kept watch [phylassein] and not one of them perished.” Elsewhere in the NT
“keeping [terein] the command-ments” occurs in Rev 12:17; 14:12; Matt
19:17; cf. 1 Cor 7:19; Mark 7:9.
For the sake of comparison it is useful at this time to discuss also logos,
“word,” which is virtually interchangeable with entole, “com-mandment,” in
some of the usage just discussed. (I find meaningless the distinction made by
Chmiel, Lumiere 134: “It is necessary to obey the divine word in order to
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
380
keep the commandments.”) In GJohn terein is used with logos 8 times (7 in
the sg. – thus, as regards the sg./pl. issue, the opposite of the usage with
entole, which is always pl.). Once again we have a chain of thought: Jesus
keeps the Father’s word (8:55); and the disciples keep Jesus’ word (8:51;
14:23; 15:20; and 14:24 [pl.]. However, the disciples also keep God’s word
(17:6), and other people are challenged to keep the disciples’ word (15:20).
Interesting in this regard is 14:21-24: “Whoever keeps the commandments
that he has from me is the person who loves me. … If anyone loves me, he
will keep my word. … Whoever does not love me does not keep my words;
yet the word that you hear is not my own but comes from the Father.”
Turning to I John, we find “keeping His word” (sg.) only in 2:5 where it
follows a double reference to “keeping His commandments” in 2:3-4. In 2:7
the author speaks of “an old commandment which is ‘the word’ you already
heard.” Such prediction, confirming the interchangeability of the terms,
makes sense if we remember that in the OT (Hebrew and Greek) the
technical name for the Ten Commandments was the “Ten Words”
(Decalogue): Exod 20:1; 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4. Whereas the Hebrew of
Deut 17:19 refers to a whole law code as “all the words of this Law,” the
LXX reads “all these commandments”; and in both languages Ezra’s law
code is called “the words of the commandments of the Lord” (Ezra 7:11). –
pp 250-52
Notes: I John 2:5 [2:5 But whoever keeps His word – truly in this person the love of God] has reached perfection. … In the NT “being perfect”
(teleioun, teleios, etc.) is a frequently stated goal (I Cor 2:6; 14:20; Col 1:28;
Eph 4:13), most clearly held up as a covenant ideal by Matt 5:48: “You must
be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” [God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19), this writer]… For Paul (1 Cor
13:8,10) agape is what will remain when all else passes away – “the perfect”
that outlasts the imperfect. Particularly strong in Hebrews is the theme that
the perfection which was not possible through the Law and through the
works and sacrifices it commanded (7:11,19; 9:9; 10:1) has been brought
about through Jesus, the perfecter (12:2), the high priest who made
atonement through his blood (10:14; 12:23-24). Thus in the NT there are
survivals of a Jewish ideal whereby perfection comes about by doing what
God has commanded; but this is modified by the belief that only God’s
accomplishment in Jesus enables us to do what God really wants. –pp 257-
58
THE NEW COMMANDMENT
Three Claims of Intimate Knowledge of God to be Tested by Behavior (I
John 2:3-11)
381
2:1 (My Little Children, I am writing this to keep you from sin.)
But if anyone does sin,
We have a Paraclete in the father’s presence,
Jesus Christ, the one who is just;
2 and he himself is an atonement [propitiation] for our sins,
and not only for our sins
but also for the whole world.
3 Now this is how we can be sure that we know Him:
by keeping His commandments.
4 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS, “I know Him,”
without keeping His commandments,
is a liar;
and there is no truth in such a person.
5 But whoever keeps His word-
truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection.
This is how we can be sure we are in Him.
6 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS to abide in Him
ought himself to walk
just as Christ walked.
7 Beloved, this is no new commandment that I write you,
but an old commandment that you heard from the beginning-
an old commandment which is the “word” you already heard.
8 On second thought, the commandment I write you is new
as it is made true both in Christ and in you,
since the darkness is passing away
and the true light is already shining.
9 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS to be in the light,
all the while hating his brother,
is still in the darkness even now,
10 The person who loves his brother abides in the light,
and in him there is no cause for stumbling.
11 But the person who hates his brother is in the darkness.
He walks in the dark
with no idea where he is going,
for the darkness has blinded his eyes.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
382
Knowing God by Keeping the Commandments (1 John 2:1-3)
The second unit of part One begins with the theme of knowing God, an
almost universal religious ideal in antiquity. Dodd (Epistles 29-30) shows
how in the Greek classical period there was unbounded confidence in human
reason, so that Plato could posit a knowledge of eternal realities in heaven to
be contemplated by pure reason. In the Hellenistic period confidence
faltered, and the possibility of knowing God moved from philosophy to
mystery religions with their special revelations. Israel, of course, always
posited a special revelation to God’s people: “Let him who glories glory in
this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord” (Jer 9:23[24]).
The fulfillment of that challenge would be facilitated in the last days: “The
earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God” (Hab 2:14). The
Qumran hymn that expresses the member’s sentiments proclaims, “My
justification is with God … my light has sprung from the source of His
knowledge” (1 QS 11:2-3). Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22 speak of
knowing the Father as a special privilege given here and now to those whom
the Son chooses to reveal Him, while Paul distinguishes, “Now I know in
part; then I shall know fully” (I Cor 13:12). John 17:3 identifies eternal life
(which is given to believers by Jesus) with knowing the Father and the Son
(see ABJ 29A, 752-53). Philo, On the Decalogue 16 #81, considers it a
supreme goal to have “knowledge of Him who truly is”; and the second
century A.D. Midrash Sifre 49(85a) on Deut 11:22 says, “Study the
haggada; then you will know God and be attached to His way.” In Greek
Oriental mysticism the Corpus Hermeticum 10.9 affirms, “He who has
attained knowledge [gnosis] … is already divine.”
Why has the epistolary author chosen to introduce this concept of the
knowledge of God here? We saw that the I John Prologue followed the
GJohn Prologue closely, and that the light/darkness motif of the previous
unit (1:5-2:2) probably also came from the GJohn Prologue. There, after the
reference to the light coming into the world (John 1:19), we are told that “the
world did not know him” (1:10). Then the GJohn Prologue turns positively
to those who did accept him and become God’s children (1:12-13) with the
obvious implication that they did know him. That sequence may have led the
epistolary author to turn to knowledge after discussing light/darkness.
Secessionist theology misinterpreted the Johannine tradition on God as light;
it also misinterpreted that tradition on the knowledge of God.
Against that misinterpretation the author argues that one cannot know
God without keeping His commandments. His logic here stems in part from
the previous unit where, in relation to the theme of God as light, he argued
that there is no darkness in God and so believers should not be walking in
darkness or in sin. (The state of not being in sin, however, was to be
383
achieved not by denying sin but by asking forgiveness.) From that sequence
one might get the impression that human behavior can be deduced from a
knowledge of God. But the opposite is also true: One gains a knowledge of
God through behavior, when that behavior is governed by God’s
commandments. Keeping the commandments is more than an external way
of verifying a claim to know God; rather it is a criterion that has an essential
relationship to the claim made. In the Semitic understanding, knowledge is
more than intellectual, for it involves experience of the whole person – that
is why “knowledge” can be used for sexual intimacy. To know God means
to share His life, as can be seen from the parallelism between “know Him”
in 2;4a and “abide in Him” in 2:6a. Sharing God’s life means living
according to His will., and by so keeping His commandments one comes to
know Him intimately. i The sequence from action to knowledge is apparent
as well in I John 4:7, “Everyone who loves has been begotten by God and
knows God,” ii and in the equation in Rev 3:8,12 between those who have
kept Christ’s word and those who will receive God’s name.
The connection between way of life and knowledge of God reflects, in
particular, the New Covenant atmosphere of Johannine thought. In the
covenant associated with the Exodus, God made Himself known through the
actions He performed in delivering Israel from Egypt (Exod 7:5,17); and it
was promised that His cultic dwelling in the midst of the people in the
Tabernacle would enable Israel to know the Lord their God (Exod 29:45-
46). The prophets looked upon God’s historical action in crushing the
enemies of Israel as a way of knowing the Lordship of Yahweh (Ezek
25:5,11,17). On the other side of the coin, when Israel was unfaithful, God’s
punishing action also supplied a way of knowing His Lordship (Ezek
6:7,10,13). Hosea (4:1-2) associates the failure to keep the Ten
Commandments with “no knowledge of God in the land.” Job 36:10-12 says
that those who do not hearken to the Lord’s commands die without
knowledge. The sons of Eli who broke the commandments were
characterized as “those who did not know the Lord” )I Sam 2:12; see also
Isa 1:3-4).To correct such situations a more intimate knowledge of God was
promised when God would renew His covenant with Israel. In the New
Covenant God would put His Law within the hearts of the Israelites; and
i Bultmann, Epistles 25: “It is doubtless more nearly correct to say that ‘keeping the
commandments’ (like ‘fellowship with one another,’ 1:7) is not the condition, but rather
the characteristic of the knowledge of God.” ii The connection with 2:3 is apparent when we realize that the primary
commandment is the one to love. Chmiel, Lumiere 137, finds background for
this Johannine feature in Deut 30:16 where hearing the commandments of God
and loving Him are side by side.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
384
they would no longer need people to teach them to know the Lord, “for they
shall know me from the least to the greatest” (Jer 31:33-34). “I shall give
them a heart to know that I am the Lord” (24:7). “A new heart I will give
you and a new spirit I will put within you … and cause you to walk in my
statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” (Ezek 36:26-27). … It is
precisely this internal principle of knowledge, promised in the New
Covenant, that makes sense of the epistolary author’s attitude toward
commandments. Those who “keep” i God’s commandments are acting
according the Spirit God has put into their hearts, indeed according to the
new hearts (or natures) that God gave then when He begot them from above
as His children. And those new hearts and the life according to the
commandments enable the children to know the Father connaturally.
Both I John and GJohn use the plural and singular of commandment
interchangeably. Against a Jewish background the plural would normally
mean the commandments enjoined by God on Israel through the covenant,
especially the Ten Commandments. This is true of the one common
Synoptic instance of the plural (Mark 10:19 and par.; see also Luke 1:6).
Now, that meaning is not excluded from GJohn, but there the body of
commandments is seen under the aspect of the commandment of loving one
another as Jesus has loved. As we saw in the Introduction (V B3ac), while
this may be a magnificent concept, it means that little by way of specific
commandments is supplied in GJohn. Since the epistolary author is
commenting on GJohn tradition to strengthen his followers against the
inroads of the secessionists who also claim the support of GJohn, he is not
free to introduce entirely new vocabulary. While he cannot and would not
avoid the GJohn equation of commandments with the commandment to love,
by speaking twice as frequently of commandment(s) and by always referring
them to God and never explicitly to Jesus (the opposite of the GJohn
practice), he implicitly reminds his readers more vividly of the Ten
Commandments. When he does turn to Jesus (e.g., v. 6) , he capitalizes upon
the idea that in GJohn Jesus walked in obedience to a commandment or
commandments. He not only appeals for obedience to God’s commandments
on the part of the Christian, but he also stresses the interiorization of the
commandments so that moral action follows what one really is. –pp 277-81
i Often this Johannine idiom means no more than observe (Note on 2:3b).
Nevertheless, here it may catch the continuity of behavior that the epistolary
author wishes to inculcate. The fact that the opponents have seceded (2:19)
makes verbs of continuation (“abide,” “keep”) very important emotionally in I
John.
385
The First Wrong Claim and Its Antithesis ( 1 John 2:4-5)
The author’s difficulty is not simply with admitted sinners who do not
keep the commandments; it is with would be saints who do not think that
keeping the commandments is related to the knowledge of God. His
opponents think of themselves as those who know (ginoskein) God. …
Certainly the “I know God” of 2:4a may be a verbatim secessionist claim,
but there need be no pejoratively gnostic ring to it since the author made
exactly the same claim in 2:3a. The respective claims in 2:3a and 2:4a
support my thesis that the secessionist were Christians of the Johannine
tradition who shared many ideals with the author … The claim of both the
author and the secessionist to know God is simply a reflection of GJohn,
which uses that language some dozen times … There is no proof that they
differed because the secessionist claimed all knowledge, or a special
revelation, or a mystical knowledge of God, or a knowledge through myths.
The reason they differed is given by the author: The secessionist combine
the Johannine claim to know God with an indifference about the way a
moral life enters into that claim. While claiming the intimacy with God
implied in “knowing” Him, they see no need to live God’s way of life as
expressed in the commandments. This makes liars of them, not only in the
sense that they teach a false interpretation of the tradition, but more
importantly in the sense that they embody a contradiction between claimed
internal principle (divine life, intimacy, knowledge) and the manifestation of
the principle (a life indifferent to divine commandments). … Since he has
just denied truth to the person who does not keep the commandments, one
might have expected him to say that in whoever keeps the commandments
(word) the truth of God has reached perfection. i Rather he speaks about the
love of God reaching perfection. On the one hand, this reminds us of the
interchangeability of such Johannine terms as truth and love - Westcott
(Epistles 48) remarks, “Love is the Truth realized in personal relation.” On
the other hand, we should recognize that the choice of “love” is not
haphazard, for that is the commandment of Jesus par excellence. … In its
origin it is a love that comes from God to the Christian and is embodied in
God’s giving His only Son (1 John 4:7-10). This love was not motivated by
any value that human beings possess; rather it creates their value by making
them children of God. Keeping the commandments, and especially the
commandment to love one another as Christ loved us, involves the
perfection of the love of God, for it means that the love God had for us is
being extended to others and allowed to recreate them as children of God.
i Or even the life of God, as in John 8:51: “If a man keeps my word
[commandment], he shall never see death.”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
386
The perfection may have also involved loving God in response to His love
for us, and thus establishing a mutuality between God and the Christian upon
the pattern of the mutuality of love between God and Jesus. This is the
dream the author dared to voice in 1:3: “That you may be joined in
communion with us, for the communion we have is with the Father and with
His Son, Jesus Christ.” Divine love as creative of God’s children is what
brought the Johannine Community into being, and the dynamism of such
love exhibits itself in keeping commandments that bind the Christians to
God and to each other. In Johannine theology keeping the commandments is
not the first step to a higher love in which there will be no commandments; i
it is the perfection of love, for commandments are simply an expression of
God’s will and of His very being.
All of this makes logical the summary in 2:5c: “This is how we can be
sure we are in Him.” We have here an instance of the Johannine theology of
immanence (the Christian in God/Jesus; God/Jesus in the Christian; God and
Jesus in each other) which is vocalized some 35 times in GJohn and the
epistles in the formulas einai en, “to be in,” and meinen en, “to remain/abide
in” … Since the commandments, including that of love, stem from God’s
inner being, keeping them exemplifies union with that being. In the question
of the precise meaning of immanence or indwelling, some scholars speak of
mysticism (an experience usually thought to be the privilege of the few). But
OT background of the concept points in other directions. ii First, there is a
cultic indwelling of God among His people. When Solomon built the
Temple, he wondered if God would dwell with human beings on earth (II
Chron 6:18), but Ezek 48:35 predicted that this would be so much a part of
the future that the name of the New Jerusalem would be “The Lord is there.”
In Zech 2:14-15 (10-11) the Lord promises in the last day, “I will dwell in
the midst of you.” … In Wis 7:26, 27 Wisdom, which is a pure emanation of
the glory of the Almighty, passes into holy souls, making them friends of
God.
Much of this background stems from the mentality of the covenant
relationship, both Old Covenant and New (renewed). Certainly the cultic
indwelling of God was a fundamental corollary of Israel’s being chosen as
God’s people. The question of Israel in the desert was, “Is the Lord in
[among] us or not?” (LXX Exod 17:7). When Israel violated the covenant, it
i In Johannine thought God gave the Son a commandment that predated his
entry into the world (John 10:18; 12:49), and so there never will be a “time” in
which there are no commandments. ii See Feuillet, Le mystere 99-103, for the general background; also the full-
scale work on the subject by Malatesta (Interiority), and ABJ 29, 510-12; 29A,
602-3.
387
could ask, “Have not the evils come upon us because our God is not in
[among] us?” (Deut 31:16-17). The Wisdom passages cited above are a
reflection of the claim that the divine Law had been placed in the midst of
Israel (as symbolized by the Decalogue tablets in the Jerusalem Temple). In
the prophetic reflections on the New Covenant, this divine presence was to
be interiorized in individual Israelites. The passages cited above (pp.279-80)
promising an intimate knowledge of God as part of the New Covenant (Jer
24; 31; Ezek 36) connect such knowledge with an immanence of the divine
spirit and the Law in those who accept the covenant. In Johannine theology
Jesus is the divine Word who has come down from heaven to dwell among
God’s people (to “tent” or “tabernacle”: John 1:14), and so represents both
the cultic presence of God and the indwelling Law and Wisdom. Beyond
that, in the person of the Paraclete/Spirit Jesus makes possible a divine
presence abiding within those who keep the commandments (John 14:16-
17). This immanence goes beyond the OT expectations of the New
Covenant, for it has a mutuality: not only God in His children, but His
children in God. The reason for this development is that the model for the
immanence is the intimate relationship between father and Son revealed by
Jesus. The immanence of the Christian New Covenant is new because of
Jesus’ ideal, “That they all may be one, just as you Father in me and I in you, that they may also be in us” (17:21).
i This is not a mysticism for the
few but a new spiritual status for all who truly believe in Jesus. ii -pp 281-84
The Second Wrong Claim and the New Commandment (1 John 2:6-8)
The second (implicitly objectionable) claim involves abiding in God
without walking as Christ walked. It picks up the theme of immanence from
the preceding verse (2:5c) even as the first wrong claim in 2:4 picked up the
theme of knowing God from 2:3. I speak of an implicit objectionable claim.
In this unit the first claim. In this unit the first claim (2:4: to know God
without keeping His commandments) and the third claim (2:9: to be in the
light while hating one’s brother) are clearly wrong claims, for the author
describes the claimant respectively as a liar or as one who is in the darkness.
That there is a wrong claim behind 2:5 is by implication: when the author
says that the person who claims to abide in God ought to walk as Christ
walked. Presumably the reason the author chooses to handle the second
i To be in God is not just a matter of existing in a place (as being in a room) or of
passive presence (as being in the glow of a light by which one is warmed); it is a
communion that produces oneness. ii Schenke, “Determination” 209-10, suggests that abiding in God is a synonym for
being begotten by God.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
388
claim in this unusual way is that the “ought” leads into the theme of
commandment which he wants to develop.
The author’s objections to the claim is not over the possibility of abiding
in God, which is legitimate Johannine theology that both he and his
opponents would share. i The objection is to abiding or indwelling when it is
divorced from the way one lives one’s life (walks). By insisting that the
person who claims indwelling ought to walk just as Christ walked, the
author shows that the struggle with the secessionists over moral principles is
really rooted in a struggle over christology … . In my theory, the
secessionists attach the salvific gift of eternal life primarily to the
incarnation of Jesus, not to His life and death. ii Since they contribute no
importance to the way He “walked,” they attribute no importance to the way
Christians walk. The author insists on both and sees the obligation to walk
just as He walked as an obvious specification of the Johannine
commandment, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34; 15:2).
That is why he can insist that his demand is nothing new (novel) but a
commandment that was had “from the beginning” since it was taught to his
disciples by Jesus at the Last Supper and taught to the Johannine Christians
at their entrance into the Johannine Community. (Once again, as we saw at
the end of the Comment on the previous unit, the life-setting from which the
author draws his arguments may have been by the
conversion/initiation/baptism paraenesis.) His demand reflects the
commandment that in Johannine circles is known simply as “the word” of
the New Covenant (1 John 2:7c, see Note), even as the Ten Commandments
or stipulations of the Exodus covenant were known as “the words” of the
Lord in the OT.
In a Note on 2:6c I discussed at length the use of kathos, “just as,” in
Johannine writing. In I John it is used to place demands patterned on
Christ’s past actions (just as he walked, loved, died) and on his present state
(just as he is pure, just, or even just as he is). The comparisons are not very
specific as to what moral action is to be done or what immoral action to be
i John 17:21 is the only GJohn passage that posits the indwelling (einai en) of the
Christian in God; but John 14:20; 15:2 (einai en) and John 6:56; 15:4, 5, 6, 7 (menein en)
posit the indwelling of the Christian in Jesus, who is one with the Father. … ii I John 4:7-11 shows that the commandment to love one another as Christ
loved us was combined in Johannine tradition with John 3:16, “God loved the
world so much that He gave the only Son.” In the Introduction (V C2d) I pointed
out that the ambiguous verb “gave” in that axiom may have been understood
differently by the secessionists (“gave” in the incarnation) and by the author
(“gave” in death).
389
avoided. i In part, as I have argued in the Introduction (V B3a), that is
because GJohn offers virtually no specific moral instruction either by word
or deed. In greater part, however, the lack of specificity reminds us that the
“just as Christ” comparison involves more than the imitation of a model.
Christians have the same eternal life that Jesus had and has; ii this life, as an
internal principle, must express itself as it did and does in Him. The author’s
point of difference with the secessionists is that he conceives this life (also
truth, knowledge, light, love) to be a dynamic element expressing itself in
behavior rather than a static possession.
Having denied that he is imposing a novel demand, on second thought
(2:8ab) the author admits that his specification of the commandment to act
just as Jesus acted is new. In the Note I explained that even though the
author may have used the term “new” because it was fixed for this
commandment in the tradition (John 13:34), he has his own tonality. For
Jesus the newness of his commandment was eschatological, proclaimed in
“the hour” when human beings were being given an inner power (God’s own
life) enabling them to love as God loved. The epistolary author draws on this
idea when he says the commandment is new “as it is made true [alethes]”
both in Christ and the Christian. “True” implies a correspondence with one’s
inner reality, and so the commandment to love is made true in Christians
when the eternal life that Christ gave to believers expresses itself in loving
deeds. It is made true anew in Christ because he not only died for others in
the past as an atonement for sins but because he continues the cleansing
effect of that atonement as a paraclete in the Father’s presence (2:1-2).
Let me pause to consider the author’s claim that he is not really writing
anything new and yet, on second thought, he is - this admission is a crucial
qualification of his insistence that he proclaims a gospel that was had “from
the beginning.” It is no accident that the Johannine description of the
Paraclete’s relationship to Jesus also involves the ideas of nothing new and
yet an ability to declare the things to come (John 14:26; 16:13-15). The
Fourth Evangelist must have regarded himself an instrument of the Paraclete
when in GJohn he reported what Jesus said and did but at the same time
completely reinterpreted it. The epistolary author is playing the same
Paraclete role in relation to GJohn (see Introduction V C2c). His
understanding of a tradition had “from the beginning” is no more static than
his understanding of eternal life.
i The argument with the secessionists, in my view, was not over specific sins but over a
whole outlook on the importance of behavior. ii If the author were interested only in Jesus on earth as a model, he would have
confined his kathos comparisons to the past.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
390
As we return now to 2:8, the sudden introduction of darkness and light
in the last lines of the verse reminds us that the author is still struggling to
interpret the GJohn Prologue against the secessionists. The relationship of
2:8b (“made true [alethes] both in Christ and in you”) to 2:8cd (“since the
darkness is passing away and the true [alethinos] light is already shining”) is
somewhat clarified when we remember themes of the GJohn Prologue: “The
light shines in the darkness, for the darkness did not overcome it” (John 1:5)
followed by “The true [alethinos] light was coming into the world” (1:9).
For GJohn with the incarnation of Jesus a true light shone forth on earth
offering people a choice between light and darkness (3:19-21). Darkness
could overcome neither the light nor those who came to the light, but it did
overcome those who did not walk in the light of Jesus (12:35). I John is right
then when it speaks of a newness made true both in Christ and the Christian
in relation to the idea that the darkness is passing away. As Bultman, Klein,
and others have pointed out, the epistolary author has historicized the
eschatological [prediction of things to come] struggle between light and
darkness. But one exaggerates the difference unless one recognizes an
incipient historicization in GJohn as well in the sense that it leaves room for
the future working out of the victory won by Jesus. In Jesus’ “hour” the
Prince of this world is driven out (12:31) as part of a judgment in which the
world is conquered (16:33). Nevertheless, the Spirit of Truth must come and
prove that the world was defeated in that judgment and its Prince
condemned (16:8-11). While the Paraclete is doing that, Jesus’ followers
have to remain in the world which hates them and have to be kept safe from
the Evil One (17:14-16). In having Jesus look to a future continuation of the
struggle, GJohn agrees with other NT works that recognize the continued
presence of “the world rulers of the present darkness” (Eph 6:12) who are
“doomed to be wiped out” (1 Cor 2:6) – a picture that is not purely
eschatological but offers a faint sketch of continued salvation history.
Having said that, I acknowledge that the historical pattern is stronger in
I John than in GJohn and understandably so. When salvation is pictured, not
primarily as a punctiliar divine shining of light into the world, but as the
continued shining of that light into the darkness, it becomes possible to give
attention both to the career of Jesus and to the career of Christians as part of
that salvific process. The secessionists probably concentrated exclusively
upon the GJohn portrait of the incarnation as the coming of the true light
into the darkness (John 1:9), and upon their own choice to become
Christians as the disappearance of darkness for them (3:21). i But the
i “Enlightenment” was an early Christian designation for the experience of conversion
and baptism (Heb 6:4; 10:32; Justin, I Apology, 61.13); and that may have been true in
the Johannine tradition as well, as suggested by the baptismal implications of the story in
391
epistolary author insists that, as the commandment of love is made true in
ongoing forgiveness by Jesus and in ongoing deeds by Christians on behalf
of their brothers and sisters, the darkness is being pushed back and the true
light is shining. For the author the choice of light over darkness must be
made and manifested daily – one must walk in light. There is always a
newness in the way one’s behavior shows one to be true to the new life of
being a child of God. –pp 285-88
The Third Wrong Claim and the New Commandment (1 John 2:9-11)
Just as the first and second wrong claims drew upon an immediately
preceding theme (2:4a drawing upon 2:3; 2:6a drawing upon 2:5), so the
third wrong claim in 2:9a about being in the light draws upon the previous
theme of light in 2:8. Indeed, it draws also on the theme of the new
commandment in 2:7-8, which (implicitly) is the command to love one
another, for the wrongness of the claim involves not the possibility of being
in the light but the thought of being in the light while hating one’s brother.
In such a claimant the commandment of love has not been “made true”
(2:8b), and for him the darkness has not passed away (2:8c) – he “is still in
the darkness even now” (2:9c).
A comparison of the substance of the three wrong claims, “I know
Him,” “I abide in Him,” and “I am in the light” (2:4a, 6a, 9a), implies that
the last is a claim of closeness with God. That is confirmed by 1:7, which
states that God is in light. Some commentators posit a special gnostic
background for this claim. For instance, painter (John 121) thinks that the
“heretics” may have claimed to be illumined by a supernatural knowledge,
either through mystical experience or because they thought that their nature
partook of the essence of light. Once more I see no need for positing such a
developed gnostic background to the secessionist claim which is perfectly
justifiable in word and idea from GJohn. It is true that there we do not find
the expression “to be in” (einai en) with light or darkness as an object; i but
in GJohn the closely parallel expression “to abide/remain in” (menein en)
occurs: “No one who believes in me need remain in darkness” (John 12:46).
The passage implies that those who believe in Jesus abide in light – a claim
any Johannine Christian might make.
Once more the author’s refutation involves not the claim but the
understanding of the claim. Being in light is not a static but a dynamic
condition that must find expression in keeping the commandments,
John 9 of how a man gained sight by washing in the pool designated as “the one sent”
(ABJ 29, 381-82). i John 11:10; 12:35 have “light” as a subject “being in” people.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
392
especially the commandment to love one another (or one’s brother i) as
Christ loved us. (As usual, the Johannine way of thinking is the opposite of
what we might spontaneously have expected: not that loving enables one to
be in the light, but that being in the light given by Christ enables one to love
– because love is from God and is not purely human action.) Notice the
qualification of the claim in 2:9b: not “The person who claims to be in the
light without loving his brother,” but “all the while hating his brother.” As I
have indicated in the Note, since love is commanded, there is no room for an
antithesis consisting of indifference or neutrality; the antithesis involves
malice and hate and blindness. That is why the failure to love has such a
power to nullify spiritual claims, as attested also by Paul: “If I can prophesy
and know all mysteries and have all knowledge … but have not love, I am
nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).
In 2:5 the author stated that “the love of God” is perfected in whoever
keeps God’s commandments or word; in 2:9-11 he makes clear that keeping
the commandments or word of God and the love of brother are joined in
Johannine thought even though GJohn does not have the famous double
commandment (love of God and of neighbor) found in the Synoptics, Paul,
and intertestamental Judaism (p. 255 above). In the Note on 2:5b I
mentioned the reluctance of some NT scholars to admit any connotation of
love for God in the Johannine understanding of agape, and to avoid this
some speak of loving God in the brother. Coppens (“La doctrine” 297),
however, is surely correct when he says that in no NT work is there ever a
reference to loving God in one’s brother. John in particular is clear that love
for God is illusory if not reflected in love for brother, but the two loves are
not confused. If there is any confusion, it springs from the ambiguity of the
expression “love of God” which, as I pointed out in the Note, means
primarily love for God exhibited in Christ, a love that the Johannine
believers must extend to their brothers and sisters who are also children of
God. Often, however, the author thinks also of a mutual love between the
children and God their Father. In exercising that love the Johannine
Christians did not have to search for God in their brothers, for as children of
God they had His presence in themselves.
i Just as the three claims of knowing God, abiding in Him, and being in the light (2:4,6,
9) amount to substantially the same thing, so also the three conditions of keeping the
commandments, walking as Christ walked, and loving one another amount to the same
thing. In I John 3:11,23; 4:7,11,12; II John 5 the author speaks of the commandment in
terms of loving one another, which is GJohn terminology; but here and in 2:10,11;
3:10,14,15; 4:20,21 it is a question of loving or hating the “brother,” a more common
ecclesiastical term. In 5:1,2 the author speaks of loving the one begotten by God or God’s childrenI. All these terms describe the same reality, namely, one’s fellow Johannine
Christian – not all people or even all who claim to be Christian (see Note on 2:9b).
393
The author’s judgment on the first wrong claim in this unit was: “There
is no truth in such a person” (2:4d). The judgment on the third wrong claim
is similar: the person “is still in darkness even now” (2:9c). Darkness and
falsehood (and hate), light and truth (and love) are virtually interchangeable;
and a wrong claim means one is working out of falsehood/darkness rather
than out of truth/light. To be in darkness before the light came into the world
was bad enough (John 3:19), but it is truly tragic to be in darkness “even
now” when the darkness is passing away and the true light is already
shining. Once again there is a certain historicization in I John when we
consider the use of the phrase “even now” when the darkness is passing
away and the light is already shining. Once again, there is a certain
historicization in I John when we consider the use of the phrase “even now,”
employed by GJohn (2:10; 5:17; 16:24) to describe the eschatological
moment of Jesus’ ministry. The epistolary author, who sees the shining of
the light not simply as the incarnation but as the continued loving action of
Jesus and the Christian, uses “even now” to describe the continued action.
For the GJohn tradition those who never believed are in the darkness “even
now”; for the epistolary author those who claimed to believe but have
seceded (thus hating their brothers) are in the darkness “even now.”
In 2:10-11 the author emphasizes this point by a compound antithesis.
The positive half of the antithesis (2:10: “The person who loves his brother
abides in the light”) takes up from 2:9a the secessionists claim to be in the
light and shows how it may be justified through love. The negative half of
the antithesis (2:11: “The person who hates his brother is in the darkness”)
takes up from 2:9b the wrong feature in the secessionist claim, namely, that
they made the claim while hating their brothers, and stresses its disastrous
results. The new features in 2:10-11 are the reference in v. 10b to a “cause
for stumbling” and the themes of loss of direction and of blindness in v.
11cd. Here one sees the plausibility of the thesis of Munoz Leon
(Introduction III A3) that the source of the sharp antithesis in I John is the
antithesis pattern in GJohn. Behind 2:10-11 may be a saying like John 11:9-
10: “If a man goes walking by day he does not fall … but if he goes walking
by night, he will fall.” i Also John 8:12, “No follower of mine shall ever
walk in darkness”; and 12:35, “The man who walks in the dark does not
know where he is going.” In the Note on 2:10b I suggested that the most
probable interpretation of “in him there is no cause for stumbling” is that in
the person who abides in light and manifests this by loving his Johannine
brother there is nothing that will cause him to sin by leaving the Community.
i In turn, the symbolism in GJohn has OT background, e.g. Prov 4:18-19: “The paths of
the just shine as with light … the paths of the wicked lie in darkness; they do not know
over what they fall.”
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
394
On the other hand, the person who manifests his hate for his Johannine
brother by seceding has cut himself off from koinonia with God and Christ
(1:3) i and has plunged into the realm of darkness.
This choice of darkness amounts to deliberate self-blinding (2:11d). As I
indicated in the Note, the NT uses the image of deliberate blindness,
borrowed from Isa 6:10, to explain the fact that some Jews refused to believe
in Jesus. For instance, John 12:39-40 comes at the end of the public ministry
as a judgment on “the Jews” who have resisted Jesus’ challenge in 12:35-36
to walk in the light and become sons of light: “The reason they could not
believe was, as Isaiah said, “God has blinded their eyes … for fear they
might see.’” Perhaps in imitation of this GJohn pattern, after having given
six boasts or claims reflecting secessionist theology (in two units), the
epistolary author concludes the second unit with the judgment that “darkness
has blinded the eyes” of anyone who holds such theology. GJohn’s polemic
language, hitherto used against outsiders like “the Jews,” is now being
applied to former confreres who have become the most dangerous “sons of
darkness” (see Introduction V C2a). At the beginning of the first unit (and of
Part One of I John) the author had summarized the Johannine gospel as
“God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all”; and now to his own
satisfaction he has shown that the secessionists and any seduced by them
belong to the darkness. It is clear, then, that they do not know God or abide
in Him or have communion with Him as they have boasted and claimed.
Having consigned the secessionists to outer darkness, the author will turn his
attention in the next unit [2:12-17] to those who are Jesus’ own, i.e., the sons
of light who constitute the Johannine Community, which is koinonia [in communication] with himself. –pp 288-92
i That the author connects these ideas is not a guess if we remember 1:6: “If we boast,
‘We are in koinonia with Him,’ while continuing to walk in darkness, we are liars.”
395
Salvation
But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? 106
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
396
397
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer:
There would be no hope for any sinner – saved or unsaved – apart from the death of Christ; but sheltered under that provision, divine propitiation is infinitely real and unchangeably effective for man.107
This writer: Only through trust in Christ as Savior may men turn to the opposite direction (KJV repent) and enter - once and for all time - the light of eternal life from the darkness of eternal judgment by the miracle of a literal new birth from above; but most essentially, beneath that trust, only by the gospel of the grace of God may men learn the reason why those who are “in Christ” are the light of His life and righteousness, “for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8). To be placed “in Christ” is to become light, “In him was [eternal] life, and the life was the light [His eternal life] of mankind. And the light shineth in darkness [eternal
judgment]; and the darkness [eternal judgment] comprehended it not.” (John 1:4-5). And, Jesus says of Himself, “I am come a light [I have brought my
eternal life] into the world, that whosoever believeth in me should not abide [remain] in darkness [eternal judgment]” (John 12:46).
Dr. B. B. Warfield:
Nothing, indeed, is more startling in the structure of recent theories of atonement, than the apparently vanishing sense of sin that underlies them. Surely, it is only where the sense of guilt for sin has grown grievously faint, that men can fancy that they can at will cast it off from them in a “revolutionary repentance.” Surely it is only where the heinousness of sin has practically passed away, that man can imagine that the holy and just God can deal with it lightly. If we have not much to be saved from, why, certainly, a very little atonement will suffice for our needs. It is, after all, only the sinner that requires a Saviour. But if we are sinners, and appreciate what it means to be sinners, we will cry out for that Saviour who only after He was perfected by suffering could become the Author of our Salvation.” 108
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
398
Salvation: The Objective in Evangelism
Isa 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid: for the
LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my
salvation.
KJV
“Just, and the justifier of him which believeth.” Rom iii. 26.
BBBBEING justified by faith, we have peace with God. Conscience accuses no
longer. Judgment now decides for the sinner instead of against him. Memory
looks back upon past sins, with deep sorrow for the sin, but yet with no
dread of any penalty to come; for Christ has paid the debt of his people to
the last jot and tittle, and received the divine receipt; and unless God can be
so unjust as to demand double payment for one debt, no soul for whom Jesus
died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell. It seems to be one of the very
principles of our enlightened nature to believe that God is just; we feel that it
must be so, and this gives us our terror at first; but is it not marvelous that
this very same belief that God is just, becomes afterwards the pillar of our
confidence and peace! If God be just, I, a sinner, standing in Christ can
never be punished. God must change His nature before one soul, for whom
Jesus was a substitute, can ever by any possibility suffer the lash of the law.
Therefore, Jesus having taken the place of the believer – having rendered a
full equivalent to divine wrath for all that His people ought to have suffered
as the result of sin, the believer can shout with glorious triumph, “Who shall
lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” Not God, for He hath justified;
not Christ, for He hath died, “yea rather hath risen again.” My hope lives not
because I am not a sinner, but because I am a sinner for whom Christ died;
my trust is not that I am holy, but that being unholy, He is my righteousness.
My faith rests not upon what I am, or shall be, or feel, or know, but in what
Christ is, in what He has done, and in what He is now doing for me. On the
lion of justice the fair maid of hope rides like a queen. 109
Charles H. Spurgeon
Dr. Lewis Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary,
expresses his apprehension for the barren effects created by those who
enthusiastically support and tolerate a false gospel message as a substitute
for the grace of God:
“All evangelism finds its consummation in one phase of the great
Scriptural word, “Salvation.” It is a word which covers more than the
399
objective of evangelism, in that it includes, beyond the deliverance from the
present penalty of sin and the final unfolding and development of the saved
one into the image of Christ. The word includes a whole series of other great
doctrines and revelations in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen
working toward the transformation of the individual, body, soul, and spirit,
into a celestial being and a partaker with Christ of the heavenly glory. This is
the mighty working of the Triune God toward the heavenly perfection of
everyone who believes. Blessed indeed are they who learn to yield
themselves wholly to His saving power!
Because of the universal Satanic blindness upon the minds of
unregenerate people (2 Cor 4:3, 4) the scope of the transforming work of
salvation is not always understood, even where such knowledge is boldly
assumed, and many religious leaders, through this blindness, have ignorantly
turned away from the real Gospel and have sincerely espoused “another
gospel” of social reform, ethical culture, humanitarianism, or morality. In
turning to these good but subordinate things they have revealed, both by
their careless rejection of the one Gospel of Grace and by their unbounded
enthusiasm for these unworthy substitutes, that the riches of the glorious
Gospel of Christ have not dawned on them.
The spirit of tolerance toward the preaching of “another gospel,” instead
of the Gospel of Christ, is usually justified by the assuring statement that the
Word of God needs no defense, and therefore any controversy with these
perverters of the truth would be a needless and aimless warfare. To this it
may be replied: No defense of the whole truth is ever made from a fear that
man will destroy the eternal Word itself, but that defense is made from a
God-given compassion for the multitude who are being beguiled away from
all hope by the sophistries of these teachings; for any true burden for the lost
will extend to the misguided as well as the unguided.
With the many pious substitutes for the one Gospel of Grace today, and
the ecclesiastical influence and blind enthusiasm of their promoters,
evangelism has new enemies to face, and her glorious work can never be
accomplished by waving the white flag of tolerance before her foes.” 110
Dr. Charles Ryrie, the author of many reformed evangelical works,
gives further details regarding salvation and the gospel of grace:
“I. THE SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT. Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is
one of the grandest themes in the Scriptures. It embraces all of time as well
as eternity past and future. It relates in one way or another to all of mankind,
without exception. It even has ramifications in the sphere of the angels. It is
the theme of both the Old and New Testaments. It is personal, national, and
cosmic. And it centers on the greatest Person, our Lord Jesus Christ.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
400
From God’s perspective, salvation includes the total work of God in
bring people from condemnation to justification, from death to eternal life,
from alienation to filiation. From the human perspective, it incorporates all
of the blessings that being in Christ brings in this life and the life to come.
The inclusive sweep of salvation is underscored by observing the three
tenses of salvation: (1) The moment one believed he was saved from the
condemnation of sin (Eph 2:8; Titus 3:5). (2) That believer is also being
saved from the dominion of sin and is being sanctified and preserved (Heb
7:25). (3) And he will be saved from the very presence of sin in heaven
forever (Rom 5:9-10).
II. THE MOTIVES FOR SALVATION. Why should God want to save
sinners? Why should He bear the pain of giving His only begotten Son to die
for people who had rebelled against His goodness? What could it possibly
mean to God to have a family of human beings?
The Bible indicates at least three reasons that God wanted to save
sinners.
(1) This was the greatest and most concrete demonstration of the love of
God. His good gifts in nature and through His providential care (great as
they are) do not hold a candle to the gift of His Son to be our Savior. John
3:16 reminds us that His love was shown in His gift, and Romans 5:8 says
that God proved conclusively that He loved us by the death of Christ.
(2) Salvation also gives God a display of His grace throughout all
eternity (Eph 2:7). Each saved person will be a special trophy of God’s grace
forever. Only redeemed human beings can provide this display.
(3) God also wanted a people who would do good works in this life and
thus give the world a glimpse, albeit imperfect, of God who is good (v. 10).
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF SALVATION. In only two instances does the
New Testament pronounce a curse … One is not loving the Lord (1 Cor
16:22), and the other is preaching a gospel other than the Gospel of the grace
of God (Gal 1:6-9). Not comprehending clearly the doctrine of salvation can
lead to proclaiming a false or perverted Gospel, and many statements of the
Gospel one hears today may well come under this curse. Yet the grace of
God over powers our unclear presentations, and people are saved in spite of,
though not as a result of, an unclear or misstated Gospel.
Positively, this doctrine is crucial simply because a Gospel witness is
the responsibility of all believers. For the preacher it is even more important,
for he is the link between God and the unregenerated person, and his
message must be clear (Rom 10:14-15). Chafer, whose ministry began in
evangelism, still thought near the end of his life that “in a well-balanced
ministry, Gospel preaching should account for no less than 75 per cent of the
pulpit testimony. The remainder may be for the edification of those who are
401
saved.” This certainly underscores the importance of studying and
understanding this great theme of soteriology.
THE BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
I. THE OLD TESTAMENT USAGE. The most important Hebrew root word
related to salvation in the Old Testament is yasha′. Originally it meant to be
roomy or broad in contrast to narrowness or oppression. Thus it signifies
freedom from what binds or restricts, and it came to mean deliverance,
liberation, or giving width or breadth to something. Sometimes this
deliverance came through the agency of man (e.g., through judges, Judg
2:18; 6:14; 8:22; 12:2; or kings, 1 Sam 23:2), and sometimes through the
agency of Yahweh (Pss 20:6; 34:6; Isa 61:10; Ezek 37:23; Zech 3:4).
Sometimes salvation is individual (Ps 86:1-2) and sometimes corporate, that
is, of the nation (Isa 12:2, though all the world will share in it, 45:22; 49:6).
In the Old Testament salvation was not only a deliverance from some
trouble but also a deliverance to the Lord for His special purpose (43:11-12;
49:6).
Faith was the necessary condition for salvation in the Old Testament as
well as in the New. Abraham believed in the Lord, and the Lord counted it to
him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). The Hebrew prefix beth indicates that
Abraham confidently rested his faith on God (cf. Exod 14:31; Jon 3:5). The
covenant relationship established by the Mosaic Law also implied that an
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
402
Israelite had to have faith in the God of that covenant if he were to be
pleasing to Him and not be cut off.
The object of faith was always the true God (Num 14:11; 20:12; 2 Kings
17:14, Ps 78:22; Jon 3:5). This Savior God was the sole origin of salvation
(Ps 3:8; Jon 2:9). To trust in idols was not only ineffective but ludicrous, for
salvation was of the Lord.
II. THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE. In both the Septuagint and the New
Testament the Greek verb sōzō and its cognates sōtēr and sōtēria usually
translate yasha′ and its respective nouns. However, a number of times the
sōzō group translates shalom, peace or wholeness, and its cognates. Thus
salvation can mean cure, recovery, remedy, rescue, redemption, or welfare.
This can be related to preservation from danger, disease, or death (Matt
9:22; Acts 27:20, 31, 34; Heb 5:7). But the full Christian usage means
saving from eternal death and endowing a person with everlasting life (Rom
5:9; Heb 7:25).
As in the Old Testament, the initiative of salvation is entirely with God
(John 3:16). The Lord Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the sole basis for
that salvation. Other concepts like sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation,
propitiation, and justification are vital to a full understanding of the doctrine.
These will be considered later, but I mention them now lest anyone think
that the doctrine is built only on the words related to saving.
Salvation affects the whole person. Nevertheless, the removal of man’s
fallen nature and the receiving of a resurrection body awaits a future day.
But this also is a part of our salvation (Rom 8:23). In addition, the curse that
has been on the world will be removed (vv. 18-23), and the entire universe
will feel the effects of Christ’s work of reconciliation (Col 1:20).” 111
Salvation and the unconditional new covenant is grounded in the death
and shed blood of Jesus Christ. What might be the terms and conditions of
this “new covenant”? A new covenant that is encompassed by the gospel of
the grace of God which culminates in the coming millennial kingdom
described in the “Beatitudes” and Isaiah chapter 11. In Major Bible Themes, written by Lewis Chafer and, later revised by John Walvoord, the details of
this new covenant are given in the following:
“The new covenant guarantees all that God proposes to do for men on
the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects:
(a) That He will save, preserve, and present in heaven conformed to His
Son, all who have believed on Christ. The fact that it is necessary to believe
on Christ in order to be saved does not form a condition in this covenant.
Believing is not part of the covenant, but rather is the ground of admission
into its eternal blessings. The covenant is not related to the unsaved, but it is
made with those who believe, and it promises the faithfulness of God in their
403
behalf. “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the
day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6) and every other promise concerning the
saving and keeping power of God are part of this covenant in grace.
There is no salvation contemplated for man in this age that does not
guarantee perfect preservation here and a final presentation of the saved one
in glory. There may be issue between the Father and His child as to the daily
life, and as in the case of David’s sins, the Christian’s sin may call for the
chastening hand of God; but those questions which enter into the daily life of
the believer are never made to condition the promise of God concerning the
eternal salvation of those whom He has received in grace.
There are those who emphasize the importance and power of the human
will and who contend that both salvation and safekeeping must be made
conditional on the cooperation of the human will. This may seem reasonable
to the human mind; but it is not according to the revelation given in
Scripture.
In every case God has declared unconditionally what He will do for all
those who put their trust in Him (John 5:24; 6:37; 10:28). This is a very
great undertaking which must of necessity involve the absolute control of the
very thoughts and intents of the heart; but it is no more unreasonable than
that God should declare to Noah that his seed would follow the absolute
channels which He had decreed, or that He should declare to Abraham that
He would make of him a great nation and that of his seed Christ should be
born.
In every case it is the manifestation of sovereign authority and power. It
is evident that God has given latitude for the exercise of the human will. He
appeals to the wills of men, and men who are saved are conscious that both
their salvation and their service are according to their own deepest choice.
We are told that God controls the will of man (John 6:44; Phil 2:13) and at
the same time appeals to and conditions His blessing on the will of man
(John 5:40; 7:17; Rom 12:1; 1 John 1:9).
Scripture gives unquestionable emphasis to the sovereignty of God. God
has perfectly determined what will be, and His determined purpose will be
realized; for it is impossible that God should ever be surprised or
disappointed. So, also, there is equal emphasis in Scripture upon the fact that
lying between these two undiminished aspects of His sovereignty – His
eternal purpose and its perfect realization – He has permitted sufficient
latitude for some exercise of the human will. In so doing, His determined
ends are in no way jeopardized. One aspect of this truth without the other
will lead, in the one case, to fatalism, wherein there is no place for petition
in prayer, no motive for the wooing of God’s love, no ground for
condemnation, no occasion for evangelistic appeal, and no meaning to very
much Scripture; in the other case it will lead to the dethroning of God. It is
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
404
reasonable to believe that the human will may be under the control of God;
but most unreasonable to believe that the sovereignty of God is under the
control of the human will. Those who believe are saved and safe forever
because it is according to the unconditional covenant of God.
(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional
new covenant (Isa 27:9; Ezek 37:23; Rom 11:26-27). This salvation will be
accomplished only on the ground of the shed blood of Christ. Through the
sacrifice of Christ, God is as free to save a nation as He is free to save an
individual. Israel is represented by Christ as a treasure hid in the field. The
field is the world. It was Christ, we believe, who sold all that He had that He
might purchase the field and possess the treasure (Matt 13:44).” – Pp. 147-
48
The following list gives the approximate numerical standing of “the
gospel of the grace of God” (as understood and to be expounded and
defended in this paper) among U. S “Christian” denominations:
Major Religions Practiced in the United States *Catholic Church membership outnumbers the other top nine memberships combined. **Catholic and Methodist combined membership outnumbers reformed evangelical membership 5:1 (reformed evangelical, i.e., the inerrancy of the Bible, the gospel of the grace of God, the gift of eternal life, the gift of the righteousness of God, the eternal security of the believer, and a literal second advent of Christ to establish the eternal Davidic throne during the millennium on a recreated earth, and finally on a new earth and heavens in the future eternity).
Religious Body
Year Reported
Number of Churches Membership
Clergy Serving Parishes1
African Methodist Episcopal Church 2000 6,200 2,500,000 N/A
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 2002 3,226 1,209,887 3,235
The American Baptist Association 1998 1,760 275,000 1,740
American Baptist Churches in the United States 2002 5,836 1,484,291 4,325
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
2002 230 380,000 400
Armenian Apostolic Church of America 2002 34 360,000 32
405
Armenian Apostolic Church, Diocese of America 1991 72 414,000 49
Assemblies of God 2002 12,133 2,687,366 19,005
Baha'i2 2001 N/A 84,000 N/A
Baptist Bible Fellowship International 2002 4,500 1,200,000 N/A
Baptist General Conference 2002 902 145,148 N/A
Baptist Missionary Association of America 1999 1,334 234,732 1,525
Buddhist2 2001 N/A 1,082,000 N/A
The Catholic Church 2002 19,484 66,407,105 N/A
The Christian and Missionary Alliance 2002 1,963 389,232 N/A
Christian Brethren (Plymouth Brethren) 2002 1,165 85,050 N/A
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 2002 3,691 786,334 3,362
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ 1988 5,579 1,071,616 5,525
The Christian Congregation, Inc. 2000 1,439 119,391 1,437
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 2002 3,300 850,000 3,001
Christian Reformed Church in North America 2002 762 197,339 655
Church of God (Anderson, IN) 2002 2,290 247,007 3,445
Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 2002 6,623 944,857 5,084
The Church of God in Christ 1991 15,300 5,499,875 28,988
Church of God of Prophecy 2002 1,841 110,000 3,946
Church of the Brethren 2002 1,069 134,844 925
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2002 11,879 5,410,544 35,657
Church of the Nazarene 2002 4,983 643,649 4,516
Churches of Christ 1999 15,000 1,500,000 14,500
Conservative Baptist Association of America 2002 1,200 200,000 1,800
Coptic Orthodox Church 2000 100 300,000 140
Cumberland Presbyterian Church 2002 780 84,417 635
The Episcopal Church 2001 7,344 2,333,628 6,057
The Evangelical Covenant Church 2002 718 103,549 589
The Evangelical Free Church of America 1995 1,224 242,619 1,936
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 2002 10,721 5,038,006 7,354
Free Methodist Church of North America 2001 978 69,342 N/A
Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches & Ministers International
2002 902 326,900 2,210
General Association of General Baptists 2001 713 85,346 1,121
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches 2002 1,415 129,407 N/A
Grace Gospel Fellowship 1992 128 60,000 160
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America N/A 510 1,500,000 599
Hindu2 2001 N/A 766,000 N/A
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
406
Independent Fundamental Churches of America 1999 659 61,655 N/A
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel 2001 1,847 305,852 4,879
International Council of Community Churches 2002 192 115,812 240
International Pentecostal Holiness Church 2002 1,905 213,348 1,956
Jehovah's Witnesses 2000 11,636 998,166 N/A
Jewish2 2001 N/A 2,831,000 N/A
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 2002 6,142 2,512,714 5,217
Mennonite Church 2002 964 112,688 738
Muslim/Islamic2 2001 N/A 1,104,000 N/A
National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
2002 432 65,392 507
National Association of Free Will Baptists 2001 2,470 197,919 2,470
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. 2000 N/A 3,500,000 N/A
National Baptist Convention, United States, Inc. 1992 33,000 8,200,000 32,832
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
1992 N/A 2,500,000 N/A
Old Order Amish Church 1993 898 80,820 3,592
The Orthodox Church in America 2002 725 900,000 792
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. 1998 1,750 1,500,000 4,500
Pentecostal Church of God 2002 1,197 104,000 N/A
Polish National Catholic Church of America 2002 145 60,000 131
Presbyterian Church (United States) 2002 11,097 3,407,329 8,725
Presbyterian Church in America 2002 1,499 310,750 N/A
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 1995 2,000 2,500,000 N/A
Reformed Church in America 2002 901 281,475 823
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
1995 1,160 177,779 16,671
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America 2002 22 1,500 16
The Salvation Army 2001 1,369 454,982 2,812
Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada
1986 68 67,000 60
Seventh-day Adventist Church 2002 4,619 918,882 2,589
Southern Baptist Convention 2002 42,775 16,247,736 94,231
Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations
2002 1,010 214,738 1,267
United Church of Christ 2002 5,850 1,330,985 4,295
The United Methodist Church 2002 35,102 8,251,042 24,273
The Wesleyan Church 2002 1,628 123,160 1,975
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 2002 1,250 403,345 1,257
407
N/A = not available.
1. Does not include retired clergy or clergy not working with congregations.
2. American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS), City University of New York, 2001.
Source: 2004 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches; American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS) 2001.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
408
409
Sin
One of the many reasons for confusion in the doctrine of regeneration is the attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion that a soul once genuinely regenerated is saved forever. The bestowal of eternal life cannot be revoked. It declares the unchangeable purpose of God to bring the regenerated person to glory. Never in the Scriptures do we find anyone regenerated a second time. … In the last analysis, the experiences of this life are only antecedent to the larger experiences the regenerated person will have after deliverance from the presence and temptation of sin.112
John F. Walvoord
Regeneration is a most essential step in that preparation which must be made if individuals from this fallen race are to be constituted worthy dwellers within the highest spheres and made associates there with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It becomes one of the greatest facts in the whole universe. Its full extent and value will be seen not on earth or in time, but in glory and for all eternity.113
Lewis Sperry Chafer
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
410
411
The Origin of Sin
Sin is God’s problem. To His everlasting glory, God planned to
eliminate His problem before an angel or Adam were ever created. Without
death, the unique God-man Jesus Christ could not die for the salvation of
His creation. Without the divine imputation of the sin of man to Christ in His
substitutionary and vicarious death - there is no gospel message, there is no
truth in any so-called system of theology, and most assuredly - there is no
salvation or hope for humanity.
Forgiveness for sin is based upon the past sacrifice of Christ, this being
true, a request for forgiveness will save no one. Much more than a mere
matter of semantics, as eternal damnation hangs in the balance, only belief
and trust in the past shed divine and sinless blood of Christ for the gift of
present forgiveness saves a sinner. This may be plainly illustrated where
“advanced tickets required” are needed for seating at a particular event,
whereby, any one demanding to purchase current tickets would be seen to be
guilty of negligence, at best. Christ holds all the “advance tickets” and
promises them free to those who will trust him and take a seat.
Likewise, any man-made system of Christianity based on a subjective
theory (create your own truth) which denies a past imputation of man’s sin
to Christ - and denial is the only option - by so doing, that system has
rejected Christ and its followers are left with only a religious false hope in
exchange for a criminally negligent, present demand for forgiveness. The
essential topsy-turvy, apostatized gospel may be stated as that which
transfers “merit” from Christ to self, as in, “Heaven is a reward (for good
and faithful me)!” And, this is claimed by those who never trusted in Christ
for salvation and received the gift of forgiveness to begin with! Contrary to
popular unstated assumptions, Satan and his followers are not fairy-tale
vampires. These enemies of God are not effected by a cross, the supposed
“hallowed” ground of a church, or the light of day. Consequently, they
prosper and flourish in an environment centered on Christ as leader and Lord
(not Savior) and where homiletics on contemporary “happiness” values are
the main event. Dr. Lewis Chafer:
“Evil began with the lapse of an angel. That lapse was followed by a
multitude of other angels (Rev 12:4). The same lapse was enacted by the
first man and transmitted to his race in the form of a depraved nature.
Tracing backwards over this historical sequence, it is possible to recognize
that the race was injured in the sin of its federal head, that the federal head
was tempted by the angel who first sinned in heaven, and that a multitude of
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
412
angels sinned under the influence of that same original sinner. … To attempt
the discovery of an understandable reason where the mind recognizes that
reason failed, as it did when the angel sinned, is to undertake the impossible.
Sin, being a contradiction of reason and irrational in itself, is not subject to
reason. It is quite possible that an irrational creature accustomed to unholy
ways may lend sympathetic understanding to the insanity which a fellow
creature exhibits, but that provides no reason which might serve as an
explanation for an unfallen angel’s sin.” 114
“There are, no doubt, serious difficulties in the way of accepting the
doctrine of a personal, superhuman, evil power as Satan is described to be. It
is doubtful, however, whether these difficulties may not be due, at least in
part, to a misunderstanding of the doctrine and certain of its implications. In
addition, it must be acknowledged, that whatever difficulties there may be in
the teaching, they are exaggerated and, at the same time, not fairly met by
the vague and irrational skepticism which denies without investigation.
There are difficulties involved in any view of the world. To say the least,
some problems are met by the view of a superhuman, evil world-power.” 115
“Three general objections have been raised against the Biblical doctrine
of Satan. (1) It is asserted that it has its origins in mythology. This
conception cannot be sustained. The Bible does not systematize this division
of doctrine more than any other. All that is set forth is with that saneness and
restraint which characterizes the divine world-conception as a whole. (2)
The second objection is that the doctrine of Satan conforms to the dualism of
Zoroastrianism. To this it may be replied that the whole doctrine of evil –
apart from the eternal divine anticipation of it – had its beginning and will as
definitely come to its end. All evil exists by divine permission, but it is
under divine restraint. (3) It is yet said that the doctrine of Satan destroys the
unity of God; but the creation by God of other wills than His own, since, in
the end, they are accountable to Him, in no way militates against the unity of
God. In the end, as from the beginning, “God is all in all.” 116
“The Bible represents Satan as an enemy of the saints of God and
especially is this seen to be true of the saints of this age. There is no
controversy between Satan and unsaved people; for they are part of this
world-system. They have not been delivered from the powers of darkness
and translated into the kingdom of the Son of God. Satan is the energizing
power in those who are unsaved (Ephesians 2:2), as God is the energizing
power in those who are saved (Philippians 2:13). Every human being is
either under the power of Satan, or under the power of God. This is not to
say that Christians may not be influenced by Satan and the unsaved by the
Spirit of God; but their position is in one domain or the other, and Satan’s
domain is not in all matters characterized by things that are inherently evil as
those things are estimated by the world. Satan’s life-purpose is to be “like
413
the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14), and he appears “as an angel of light,” and his
ministers “as the ministers of righteousness” (II Corinthians 11:13-15). His
ministers being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation
and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone,
unrelated to any human virtue. Therefore the world, with all its moral
standards and culture, is not necessarily free from the power and energizing
control of Satan. He would promote forms of religion and human excellence
apart from the redemption that is in Christ, and the world is evidently
energized to undertake that very thing. He has blinded the unsaved; but
concerning one thing only: they are blinded by Satan lest the light of the
gospel should shine unto them (II Corinthians 4:3, 4).” 117
Dr. C. I. Scofield:
“Satan: This fearful being, apparently created one of the cherubim (Ezk
1:5, note; 28:12-14, note) and anointed for a position of great authority,
perhaps over the primitive creation (Gen 1:2, note; Ezk 28:11-15), fell
through pride (Isa 14:12-14). His “I will” (Isa 4:13) marks the introduction
of sin into the universe. Cast out of heaven (Lk 10:18), he makes earth and
air the scene of his tireless activity (Eph 2:2; 1 Pet 5:8). After the creation of
man he entered into the serpent (Gen 3:1, note), and, beguiling Eve by his
subtlety, secured the downfall of Adam and through him of the race, and the
entrance of sin into the world of men (Rom 5:12-14). The Adamic covenant
(Gen 3:14-19, note) promised the ultimate destruction of Satan through the
“Seed of the woman.” Then began his long warfare against the work of God
in behalf of humanity, which still continues. The present world-system (Rev
13:8), organized upon the principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition,
and sinful pleasure, is his work and was the bribe he offered to Christ (Mt
4:8, 9). Of that world-system he is prince (John 14:30; 16:11), and god (2
Cor 4:4). As “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2) he is at the head of a
vast host of demons (Mt 7:22, note); To him, under God, was committed
upon the earth the power of death (Heb 2:14). Cast out of heaven as his
proper sphere and “first estate,” he still has access to God as the “accuser of
the brethren” (Rev 12:10), and is permitted a certain power of sifting or
testing the self-confident and carnal among believers (Job 1:6-11; Lk 22:31,
32; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20), but this is a strictly limited and permissive
power, and believers so sifted are kept in faith through the advocacy of
Christ (Lk 22:31, 32; 1 John 2:1, note). At the beginning of the great
tribulation Satan’s privilege of access to God as accuser will be withdrawn
(Rev 12:7-12. At the return of Christ in glory Satan will be bound for a
thousand years (Rev 20:1); after which he will be loosed for a little season”
(Rev 20:3, 7, 8), and will become the head of a final effort to overthrow the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
414
kingdom. Defeated in this, he will be finally cast into the lake of fire, his
final doom. The notion that he reigns in hell is Miltonic, not biblical. He is
prince of this present world system, but will be tormented in the lake of
fire.” 118
Dr. John Walvoord:
“Two errors regarding Satan are current, and since he alone is benefited
by them it is reasonable to conclude that he is the author of them.
1. Many believe that Satan does not really exist and that the supposed person of Satan is no more than an evil principle, or influence, which is in man and in the world. This conception is proved to be wrong by the fact that
there is the same abundant evidence that Satan is a person as there is that
Christ is a person. Scripture, which alone is authoritative on these matters,
treats one to be a person as much as the other, and if the personality of Christ
is accepted on the testimony of the Bible, the personality of Satan must also
be accepted on the same testimony.
2. Likewise, others believe the error that Satan is the direct cause of sin in every person. This impression is not true (a) because Satan is aiming to
promote sin in the world. He did not purpose to be a fiend, but rather to be
“like the most High” (Isa 14:14); he is not aiming to destroy so much as he
is to construct and realize his own ambition for authority over this world-
system with its culture, morality, and religion (2 Cor 11:13-15). The
impression that Satan is the direct cause of sin is not true (b) because human
sin is said to come directly from the fallen human heart (Gen 6:5; Mark
7:18-23; James 1:13-16).
Isaiah 14:12-17 is only one of the many passages bearing on the work of
Satan. This passage reveals Satan’s original and supreme purpose. He would
ascend into heaven, exalt his throne above the stars of God, and be like the
most High. To this end he will use unmeasured wisdom and power; he will
weaken the nations, make the earth to tremble, make the world as a
wilderness, destroy the cities thereof, and refuse to release his prisoners.
Though every phrase of this passage is a startling disclosure, two in
particular may be noted.
1. The expression “I will be like the most High” (v. 14) indicates the supreme motive that guides all his activities after the fall. It was this purpose
which in all seriousness he recommended to Adam and Eve (Gen 3:5), and
they, by adopting Satan’s ideal, became self-centered, self-sufficient, and
independent of God. This attitude on the part of Adam and Eve became their
very nature and has been transmitted to all their posterity to the extent that
their posterity are called the “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3; 5:6; Rom 1:18),
they must be born again (John 3:3), and when saved, have a struggle to be
415
yielded wholly to the will of God. Again, Satan’s desire to be “like the most
High” is seen in his passion to be worshipped by Christ (Lk 4:5-7). When
the Man of Sin enters the holy place and is worshipped as God (2 Thess 2:3,
4; Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; Rev 13:4-8) for a brief moment, Satan’s supreme
desire will be realized under the permissive will of God.
2. The expression that He “opened not the house of his prisoners” (Isa 14:17) seems to refer to Satan’s present power over unsaved people as well as his incapacity to help them in their in their eternal judgment. The entire
prophecy from which this phrase is taken concerns the work of Satan as it
will have been completed in the day of his final judgment. Doubtless there is
a larger fulfillment yet future; however, we know that Satan is now doing all
in his power to keep the unsaved from being delivered from the power of
darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col 1:13).
Satan is the one who energizes the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2), blinds
the minds of the unsaved lest the light of the Gospel reach them (2 Cor 4:3,
4), and holds the unconscious world in his arms (1 John 5:19, NASB). [“We
know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the
evil one,” this writer]
It is also revealed that Satan in his warfare will counterfeit the things of
God, which undertaking will likewise be in accord with his purpose to be
“like the most High.” He will promote extensive religious systems (1 Tim
4:1-3; 2 Cor 11:13-15). In this connection it should be observed that Satan
can promote forms of religion which are based on selected Bible texts,
which elevate Christ as the leader, and which incorporate every phase of the
Christian faith except one – the doctrine of salvation by grace alone on the
ground of the shed blood of Christ. Such satanic delusions are now in the
world and multitudes are being deceived by them. Such false systems are
always to be tested by the attitude they take toward the saving grace of God
through the efficacious blood of Christ (Rev 12:11).
Satan’s enmity is evidently against God alone. He is in no way at enmity
with the unsaved, and when he aims his “fiery darts” at the children of God,
he attacks them only because of the fact that they are indwelt by the divine
nature, and through them he is enabled to secure a thrust at God.
Likewise, the attack against the children of God is not in the sphere of
“flesh and blood,” but in the sphere of their heavenly association with
Christ. That is, the believer may not be drawn away into immortality, but he
may utterly fail in prayer, in testimony, and in spiritual victory. Such failure,
it should be seen, is as much defeat and dishonor in the sight of God as those
sins which are freely condemned by the world.” 119
“THE FALL OF MAN. Scripture does not indicate the length of time the
first man and the first woman remained in an unfallen state, but they were
unfallen long enough to become accustomed to the situation in which they
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
416
were placed, to name the animals, and to experience the blessing of
fellowship with God. As to the object of creation, Adam and Eve like all the
works of God were “very good” (Gen 1:31), that is, they were pleasing to
their Creator. Their spiritual state was one of innocence, that is, freedom
from sin; but their character was short of holiness, such as is seen as an
attribute of God which is a positive term, making it impossible for God to
sin.
Man, because he was made in the image of God, possessed a complete
personality and the capacity to make moral decisions. In contrast with God
who cannot sin, both men and angels could sin. As seen in the earlier study
of angels, Satan sinned (Isa 14:12-14; Ezek 28:15), and the angels who
joined Satan in sinning are described as those who “kept not their first
estate” (Jude 6). Because of the fact that Satan and the fallen angels sinned
first, man did not originate sin, but became a sinner due to satanic influence
(Gen 3:4-7).
The account of how Adam and Eve sinned is revealed in Genesis 3:1-6.
According to this record Satan appeared in the form of a serpent, a creature
which at that time was a very beautiful and attractive animal. God had given
to Adam and Eve only one prohibition as far as the scriptural record is
concerned – they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
According to Genesis 2:17, God said, “But of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in that day that thou shalt eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.” This relatively simple prohibition was a test case to
see whether Adam or Eve would obey God.
In his conversation with Eve, Satan introduced this prohibition saying to
Eve, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
(Gen 3:1). The implication was that God was holding something back that
was good and was being unnecessarily severe in His prohibition. Eve replied
to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the
fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” (Gen 3:2-3).
Eve in her reply fell into Satan’s trap by leaving out the word “freely” in
God’s permission to eat of the trees of the garden, and she left out also the
word “surely” in God’s warning. The natural tendency of man to minimize
God’s goodness and to magnify His strictness are familiar characteristics of
human experience ever since. Satan immediately seized upon the omission
of the word “surely” in regard to the penalty and said to the woman, “Ye
shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
evil” (Gen 3:4-5).
In his conversation with the woman, Satan is revealed as the arch
deceiver. The certainty of the punishment is directly challenged, and the
417
Word of God expressly denied. That through eating the fruit their eyes
would be opened to know good and evil was true, but what Satan did not
reveal was that they would have the power to know good and evil without
the power to do good.
According to Genesis 3:6, the fall of Adam and Eve into sin is recorded,
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of
the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave unto her husband with her; and he did
eat.” Whether Satan pointed this out to the woman or whether she came to
those conclusions herself, Scripture does not say.
The familiar pattern, however, of temptation along three lines indicated
in 1 John 2:16 is seen here: the fact that the fruit was good for food appealed
to the “lust of the flesh”; the fact that it was “pleasant to the eyes” appealed
to “the lust of the eyes”; and the power of the fruit of the tree to make them
wise appealed to “the pride of life.” A similar pattern of temptation was
followed by Satan in the temptation of Christ of Christ (Matt 4:1-11; Mark
1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). Eve was deceived into partaking of the fruit, and
Adam followed her example although he was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14).” 120
“THE EFFECT UPON THE RACE OF ADAM’S SIN. The immediate effect of
sin on Adam and Eve was that they died spiritually and became subject to
spiritual death. Their nature now was depraved and, henceforth, the human
race would experience the slavery of sin. In addition to the change of the fate
of man and the change of his environment, Scripture also reveals a profound
doctrine of imputation, setting forth the truth that God now charged Adam
with sin and, subsequently, charged his descendents with the responsibility
of Adam’s first sin.
Three imputations are set forth in Scripture: (1) The sin of Adam is
imputed to his posterity (Rom 5:12-14); (2) the sin of man is imputed to
Christ (2 Cor 5:21); (3) the righteousness of God is imputed to those who
believe (Gen 15:6; Ps 32:2; Rom 3:22; 4:3, 8, 21-25; 2 Cor 5:21; Philem 17,
18).
It is obvious that there was judicial transfer of the sin of man to Christ
the Sin-Bearer. Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:5; John
1:29; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). So, in the same way, there is a judicial transfer of the
righteousness of God to the believer (2 Cor 5:21); for there could be no other
grounds of justification or acceptance with God. This imputation belongs to
the new relationship within the new creation. Being joined to the Lord by the
baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:17; 12:13; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:27) and vitally
related to Christ as a member in His body (Eph 5:30), it follows that every
virtue of Christ is extended to those who have become an organic part of
Him. The believer is “in Christ” and thus partakes of all that Christ is.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
418
In like manner, the facts of the old creation are actually transferred to
those who by natural generation are “in Adam.” They become possessed of
the Adamic nature and themselves are said to have sinned in adam. This is as
real in constituting a sufficient ground for divine judgment as the imputation
of the righteousness of God in Christ is a sufficient ground for justification;
the result is the divine judgment upon the race whether or not they have
sinned as Adam did.
Although men contend, as they do, that they are not responsible for
Adam’s sin, the divine revelation stands that because of the far-reaching
effect of representation by Adam as the federal head of the [old, this writer]
race, Adam’s one, initial sin is transmitted in the form of a sinful nature
immediately, or by inheritance, from father to son throughout all
generations. The effect of the fall is universal; so, also, the offer of divine
grace.
Men do not now fall by their first sin, they are born fallen sons of Adam.
They do not become sinful by sinning, but they sin because by nature they
are sinful. No child needs to be taught to sin, but every child must be
encouraged to be good.
It should be observed that, though the fall of Adam rests upon the race,
there is evident divine provision for infants and all who are irresponsible.
The holy judgments of God must rest upon all men outside of Christ, (1)
because of imputed sin, (2) because of an inherited sin nature, (3) because
they are under sin, and (4) because of their own personal sins. Though these
holy judgments of God cannot be diminished, the sinner may be saved from
them through Christ. This is the good news of the Gospel.
The penalties resting on the old creation are (1) physical death, which is
separation of the soul from the body; (2) spiritual death, which (like
Adam’s) is the present estate of the lost and is the separation of the soul
from God (Eph 2:1; 4:18, 19); and (3) the second death, which is the eternal
separation of the soul from God and banishment from His presence forever
(Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8).
A. HUMAN SPECULATION ON SIN. Because sin is a dominant fact of
human experience as well as a major theme of the Bible, it has been the
subject of endless discussion. Those who reject scriptural revelation have
frequently provided inadequate concepts of sin. A familiar feature of the
nonbiblical approach is to sin as to some extent an illusion, that is, that sin is
just a misconception based upon a false theory that thre is a right and a
wrong in the world. This false theory, of course, fails to face the facts of life
and the evils of the sin, and denies the existence of a moral God and moral
principles.
Another ancient approach to the problem of sin regards it as an inherent
principle, the opposite of what God is, and related to the physical world.
419
This is found in oriental philosophy as well as Greek Gnosticism and is the
background both for asceticism, the denial of the desires of the body, and its
opposite, Epicureanism, advocating indulgences of the body. The effect,
however, is to deny that man really sins and is accountable to God. A
common, although inadequate, concept that sin is just selfishness. While sin
is often selfish, this concept does not cover all cases, for man sometimes sins
against himself..
All these theories fall short of the biblical standard and are a rejection of
the biblical revelation of the character and universality of sin.
B. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN. The teaching of Scripture is that sin
is any want of conformity to the character of God, whether it be an act, a
disposition, or state. Various sins are defined in the Word of God as
illustrated, for instance, in the Ten Commandments which God gave to Israel
(Exod 20:3-17). Sin is sin because it is different from what God is and God
is eternally holy. Sin is always against God ((Ps 5:4; Luke 15:18), even
though it may be directed against human beings. A person who sins is,
accordingly, unlike God and subject to God’s judgment. The doctrine of sin
is presented in the Bible in four aspects.
1. Personal sin (Rom 3:28) is the form of sin which includes everything in the daily life which is against or fails to conform to the character of God. Men are frequently conscious of their personal sins, and personals sins may
take a variety of form. Generally speaking, personal sin relates to some
particular command of God in Scripture. It includes the aspect of rebellion
or disobedience. Although at least eight important words are used for sin in
the Old Testament and as many as twelve in the New Testament, the basic
idea is lack of conformity to God’s character and will by acts either of
omission or commission. The essential idea is that man comes short, he
misses the mark, and he fails to attain the standard of God’s own character
of holiness.
2. The sin nature of man (Rom 5:19; Eph 2:3) is another major aspect of sin as revealed in the Bible. Adam’s own initial sin caused him to fall, and in
the fall he became an entirely different being, depraved and degenerate, and
only capable of begetting posterity like his fallen self. Therefore, every child
of Adam is born with the Adamic nature, is ever and always prone to sin,
and, though this nature was judged by Christ on the cross (Rom 6:10), it
remains a vitally active force in every Christian’s life. It is never said to be
removed or eradicated in this life, but for the Christian there is overcoming
power provided through the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:4; Gal 5:16-17).
Many biblical passages allude to this important subject. According to
Ephesians 2:3, all men “were by nature the children of wrath,” and man’s
whole nature is depraved. The concept of total depravity is not hat every
man is as evil as he possibly could be but rather that man, throughout his
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
420
nature, is corrupted by sin (Rom 1:18-3:20). Accordingly, man in his will (
Rom 1:28), his conscience (1 Tim 4:2), and his intellect (Rom 1:28; 2 Cor
4:4) is corrupted and depraved, and his heart and understanding are blinded
(Eph 4:18). As seen in previous study, the reason why men have a sin nature is that
it is transmitted to them from their parents. No child ever born in the world
has been free from his sin nature except in the unique case of the birth of
Christ. Men do not sin and become sinners; it is rather that men sin because
they have a sin nature. The remedy for this as well as for personal sin is, of
course, the redemption which is provided in salvation in Christ.
3. Sin is also presented in Scripture as imputed or reckoned to our account (Rom 5:12-18). As revealed in connection with the fall of man in
the preceding chapter, there are three major imputations set forth in the
Scriptures: (a) the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race, on which fact the
doctrine of original sin is based; (b) the imputation of the sin of man to
Christ, on which fact the doctrine of salvation is based; and (c) the
imputation of the righteousness of God to those who believe on Christ, on
which fact the doctrine of justification is based.
Imputation may be either (a) actual, or (b) judicial. Actual imputation is
the reckoning to one of that which is antecedently his own. Although God
might righteously do this, yet because of the reconciling work of Christ God
is not now imputing to man the sin which is antecedently his own (2 Cor
5:19).
Judicial imputation is the reckoning to one of that which is not
antecedently his own (Philem 18). Though there has been disagreement as to
whether the imputation of Adam’s sin to each member of the race is actual or judicial, Romans 5:12 clearly states that the imputation is actual, since in
the federal headship representation, Adam’s posterity sinned when he
sinned.
The next two verses (Rom 5:13-14) are written to prove that this is not a
reference to personal sins (cf. Heb 7:9-10). However, Romans 5:17-18
implies that this imputation is also judicial, as it is stated that by one’s man
sin judgment came upon all men. Only the one initial sin of Adam is in
question. Its effect is death – both to Adam and directly from Adam to each
member of the race. The divinely provided cure for imputed sin is the gift of
God, which is eternal life through Jesus Christ.
4. The resulting judicial state of sin for the entire human race is also presented in Scripture. By divine reckoning the whole world, including Jew
and Gentile, is now “under sin” (Rom 3:9; 11:32; Gal 3:22). To be under sin
is to be divinely reckoned to be without merit which might contribute toward
salvation. Since salvation is by grace alone and grace excludes all human
merit, God has decreed all, as regards their salvation, to be “under sin,” or
421
without merit. This estate under sin is remedied only when the individual,
through the riches of grace, is reckoned to stand in the merit of Christ.
Taken as a whole, the Bible clearly indicates the devastating effects of
sin upon man and the hopelessness of man solving his own sin problem. The
proper understanding of the doctrine of sin is essential to understanding
God’s remedy for it.
Justification - Salvation From the Penalty of Sin – Imputed Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Law
A. THE MEANING OF SALVATION. The divine revelation concerning
salvation should be mastered by every child of God, (1) since personal
salvation depends on it, (2) it is the one message which God has committed
to the believer to proclaim to the world, and (3) it alone discloses the full
measure of God’s love.
According to its largest meaning as used in Scripture, the word
“salvation” represents the whole work of God by which He rescues man
from the eternal ruin and doom of sin and bestows on him the riches of His
grace, including eternal life now and eternal glory in heaven. “Salvation is of
the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). Therefore it is in every aspect a work of God in
behalf of man and is in no sense a work of man for God.
Certain details of this divine undertaking have varied from age to age.
We are assured that, beginning with Adam and continuing to Christ, those
individuals who put their trust in God were spiritually reborn and made heirs
of heaven’s glory. Likewise, the nation Israel will yet be spiritually born in a
day at the time of the Lord’s return (Isa 66:8).
It is also said of the multitudes of both Jews and Gentiles who are to live
on the earth during the coming kingdom that all shall know the Lord from
the least unto the greatest (Jer 31:34). However, the salvation which is
offered to men in the present age is not only more fully revealed in the Bible
as to its details, but it far exceeds every other saving work of God in the
marvels which it accomplishes; for, as offered in the present age, salvation
includes every phase of the gracious work of God such as the indwelling,
sealing, and baptism of the Spirit.
B. SALVATION AS GOD’S REMEDY FOR SIN. While in the biblical
doctrine of sin there are certain distinctions, two universal facts should first
be noted:
1. Sin is always equally sinful whether it be committed by the heathen or the civilized, the unregenerate or the regenerate. The question of many
stripes or few is taken up into consideration in the judgments to be imposed
upon the sinner (Luke 12:47-48); but any sin in itself is unvaryingly sinful
because it outrages the holiness of God.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
422
2. Sin can only be cured on the ground of the shed blood of the Son of
God. This was as true of those who anticipated the death of Christ by animal
sacrifices as it is now of those who look back to that death by faith. Divine
forgiveness has never been a mere act of leniency in remitting the penalty of
sin. If the penalty is remitted, it is because a substitute has met the holy
demands against a sinner. In the old order it was only after the priest had
offered the atoning blood sacrifice which anticipated the death of Christ that
the sinner was forgiven (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; 19:22;
Num 15:25, 26, 28). Likewise, after Christ has died the same truth applies,
as stated in the passage, “In whom we have redemption through his blood,
even the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14; cf. Eph 1:7).
The substitutionary work of Christ on the cross is infinitely perfect in its
sufficiency. Therefore the sinner who trusts in Christ not only is forgiven,
but he is even justified forever (Rom 3:24). God has never treated sin lightly.
Forgiveness may impose no burden on the sinner, but he is forgiven and
justified only because the undiminished divine penalty has been borne by
Christ ( 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). …
D. THE THREE TENSES OF SALVATION.
1. The past tense of salvation is revealed in certain passages which, when speaking of salvation, refer to it as being wholly past, or completed for the one who has believed (Luke 7:50; 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8).
So perfect is this divine work that the saved are said to be safe forever (John
5:24; 10:28, 29; Rom 8:1).
John 5:24 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message
and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be
condemned, but has crossed over from death to life. NET
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one
will snatch them from my hand. 10:29 My Father, who has given them to
me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s
hand.
NET
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus.
NET
2. The present tense of salvation, which will be the theme of the next chapter, has to do with present salvation from the reigning power of sin.
(Rom 6:14; 8:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 2:19-20; Phil 1:19; 2:12-13; 2 Thess 2:13).
423
3. The future tense of salvation contemplates that the believer will yet be saved into full conformity to Christ (Rom 8:29; 13:11; 1 Pet 1:5; 1 John 3:2).
The fact that some aspects of salvation are yet to be accomplished for the
one who believes does not imply that there is ground for doubt as to its
ultimate completion; for it is nowhere taught that any feature of salvation
depends upon the faithfulness of man. God is faithful and, having begun a
good work, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6).
E. SALVATION AS THE FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST. When contemplating
the work of God for lost men, it is important to distinguish between the
finished work of Christ for all, which is completed to infinite perfection, and
the saving work of God which is wrought for and in the individual at the
moment he believes in Christ.
“It is finished” is the last recorded word of Christ before His death (John
19:30). It is evident that He was not referring to His own life, His service, or
His suffering; but rather to a special work which His Father had given Him
to do, which did not even begin until He was on the cross and which was
completed when He died. This was distinctly a work for the whole world
(John 3:16; Heb 2:9) and, in a provisionary sense, provided redemption (1
Tim 2:6), reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19), and propitiation (1 John 2:2) for every
man.
The fact that Christ died does not save men, but it provides a sufficient
ground upon which God in full harmony with His holiness is free to save
even the chief of sinners. This is the good news which the Christian is
appointed to proclaim to all the world. The blood of God’s only and well-
beloved Son was the most precious thing before His eyes, yet it was paid to
ransom the sinner. The offense of sin had separated the sinner from God, yet
God provided His own Lamb to bear away the sin forever. The holy
judgments of God were against the sinner because of his sin of the whole
world.
The fact that all this is already finished constitutes a message which the
sinner is asked to believe as the testimony of God. One can scarcely be said
to have believed who, having heard this message, has not experienced a
sense of relief that the sin problem has thus been solved, and responded with
a sense of gratitude to God for this priceless blessing.
F. SALVATION AS THE SAVING WORK OF GOD. The saving work of God
which is accomplished the moment one believes includes various phases of
God’s gracious work: redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, forgiveness,
regeneration, imputation, justification, sanctification, perfection,
glorification. By it we are made fit to be partakers of the inheritance of saints
(Col 1:12), made accepted in the Beloved (Eph 1:6), made the righteousness
of God (2 Cor 5:21), made near to God (Eph 2:13), made a new creation (2
Cor 5:17), made members of the family and household of God (Eph 2:19;
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
424
3:15), and made complete in Christ (Col 2:10). The child of God has been
delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of
God’s dear Son (Col 1:13), and he now possesses every spiritual blessing
(Eph 1:3).
Among the stupendous works of God just mentioned, the guilt and
penalty of sin are seen to have been removed; for it is said of the saved one
that he both is forgiven all trespasses and is justified forever. God could not
forgive and justify apart from the cross of Christ; but since Christ has died,
God is able to save to the uttermost all who come to Him by Christ Jesus.
G. SALVATION AS RELATED TO THE SIN OF THE SAVED.
1. The forgiveness of sin is accomplished for the sinner when he believes upon Christ and is a part of his salvation. Many things which constitute
salvation are wrought of God at the moment one believes; but forgiveness is
never received by the unsaved apart from the whole work of saving grace or
the ground of believing on Christ as Savior.
2. In the divine dealing with the sins of the Christian, it is the sin
question alone that is in view, and the Christian’s sin is forgiven, not on the
ground of believing unto salvation, but on the ground of confessing the sin
(1 John 1:9).
The effect of the Christian’s sin, among other things, is the loss of
fellowship with the Father and the Son and the grieving of the indwelling
Spirit. The child of God who has sinned will be restored to fellowship, joy,
blessing, and power when he confesses his sin.
While the effect of sin upon the believer is the loss of blessing, which
may be removed by confession, the effect of the believer’s sin upon God is a
far more serious matter. But for the value of the shed blood of Christ and the
present advocacy of Christ in heaven (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 3:1-2),
sin would separate Christians from God forever. However, we are assured
that the blood of efficacious (1 John 2:2 [propitiation=completed satisfaction, this writer]) and the Advocate’s cause is righteous (1 John 2:1).
The sinning saint is not lost because of his sin, even while sinning, he has an
Advocate with the Father. This truth, which alone forms the basis on which
any Christian has ever been kept saved for a moment, so far from
encouraging Christians to sin, is presented in Scripture to the end that the
Christian “sin not,” or “be not sinning” (1 John 2:1). Beholding the Savior
advocating for us in heaven must cause us to hesitate before yielding to
temptation.
H. SALVATION CONDITIONED UPON FAITH ALONE. In the New
Testament in about 115 passages, the salvation of a sinner is declared to
depend only upon believing and in about 35 passages to depend on faith,
which is a synonym for believing. By believing an individual wills to trust
Christ. It is an act of the whole man, not just his intellect or emotion. While
425
intellectual assent is not of real faith, and merely a stirring of the emotions is
short of faith, believing is a definite act in which the individual wills to
receive Christ by faith.
Scripture everywhere harmonizes with this overwhelming body of truth.
God alone can save a soul, and God can save only through the sacrifice of
His Son. Man can sustain no other relation to salvation than to believe God’s
message to the extent of turning from self-works to depend only on the work
of God through Christ. Believing is the opposite of doing anything; it is
trusting another instead. Therefore Scripture is violated and the whole
doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything
other than believing. The divine message is not “believe and pray,” “believe
and confess sin,” “believe and confess Christ,” “believe and be baptized,”
“believe and repent,” or “believe and make restitution.” These six added
subjects are mentioned in Scripture, and there they have their full intended
meaning; but if they were as essential to salvation as believing they would
never be omitted from any passage wherein the way to be saved is stated
(note John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:29; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom 1:16; 3:22;
4:5, 24; 5:1; 10:4; Gal 3:22). Salvation is only through Christ, and men are
therefore saved when they receive Him as their Savior.” 121
Sanctification - Salvation From the Power of Sin – Imparted Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Sin Nature or Flesh
THE CHURCH: THE BODY AND BRIDE OF CHRIST AND HER REWARD
A. THE SEVEN FIGURES OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH. In Scripture,
seven figures are used to reveal the relationship between Christ and His
church.
1. The Shepherd and the sheep anticipated in the Twenty-Third Psalm are used in John 10, where Christ is the Shepherd and those believe in Him are His sheep. According to this passage (a) Christ came by the door, that is,
through the appointed lineage of David; (b) He is the true Shepherd who is
followed by the true sheep; (c) Christ is also the Door of the sheep, the Door
of entrance into salvation as well as the Door which provides security (John
10:28-29); (d) life and food are provided for by the Shepherd; (e) in contrast,
other shepherds are merely hirelings who would not give their lives for the
sheep; (f) there is a fellowship between the sheep and the Shepherd – just as
the Father knows the Son and the the Son knows the Father, so the sheep
know the Shepherd; (g) although Israel belonged to a different fold in the
Old Testament, in the present age there is one fold and one Shepherd in
which Jew and Gentile alike have salvation (John 10:6); (h) As the
Shepherd, Christ not only lays down His life for His sheep but ever lives to
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
426
intercede for them and provide for them the spiritual life and food they need
(Heb 7:25). According to Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
want.”
2. Christ is the True Vine, and believers are the branches . Although
Israel was related to God in the figure of a vine in the Old Testament, Christ
is the True Vine and believers are the branches, according to John 15. The
figure speaks both of the union with Christ and communion with Christ.
Believers are exhorted to abide in this unbroken fellowship with Christ
(15:10); and the results of abiding are cleansing or pruning (v. 2), effectual
prayer (v. 7), celestial joy (v. 11), and eternal truth (v. 16). The central truth
of the vine and the branches is that the believer cannot enjoy his Christian
life or be fruitful in his service apart from a living connection with Christ the
true Vine.
3. Christ is the Cornerstone, and the church comprises stones of the building. In contrast with the Old Testament, in which Israel had a temple
(Exod 25:8), the church is a temple (Eph 2:19-22). It is God’s present
purpose to build His church (Matt 6:18). In the construction of the church as
a building, each stone is a living stone because it partakes of the divine
nature (1 Pet 2:5); Christ is the Chief Cornerstone and Foundation (1 Cor
3:11; Eph 2:20-22; 1 Pet 2:6); and the building as a whole becomes “an
habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). In the figure of the
building, the dependence of each believer upon Christ as the Foundation and
Chief Cornerstone is evident, and the stones of the building likewise reveal
interdependence of believers, with the building as a whole the temple of God
through the Spirit.
4. Christ is pictured in the New Testament as our High Priest with the believers as believer-priests. As pointed out in previous studies, the
believer-priest has a fourfold sacrifice: (a) he offers a service of sacrifice,
presenting himself once for all to God (Rom 12:1-2); (b) he offers a service
of worship, in giving praise and thanksgiving to God (Heb 13:15), including
a service of intercession, or prayer on behalf of his own needs and others’
(Rom 8:26-27; Col 4:2; 1 Tim 2:1; Heb 10:19-22). As our High Priest,
Christ enters into heaven through His blood shed at Calvary (Heb 4:14-16;
9:24; 10:19-22) and now intercedes for us (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25).
As members of the royal priesthood, it is important for us to note that
believers also offer (c) the sacrifice of good works and (d) the sacrifice of
their substance in addition to offering their bodies as a living sacrifice (Heb
13:16).
5. Christ as the Last Adam and the church as the new creation is a figure in which Christ, as the Resurrected One, replaces Adam, the head of the old order, and becomes head of the new creatures in Christ. The figure
is based on th certainty of the resurrection of Christ and the significance that
427
in His resurrection Christ established a new order. The believer is seen to be
in Christ by baptism of the Spirit, in contrast with being in Adam. In his new
position in Christ he shares all that Christ did on his behalf by way of
providing both righteousness and new life in Christ. Because Christ is the
Head of a new creation, it requires a new commemorative day, the first day
of the week, in contrast with the Sabbath, which belonged to the old order.
7. Christ as the Bridegroom and the church as the bride is the figure that is prophetic of both present and future relationships between Christ and His church. In contrast with Israel presented in the Old Testament as an
unfaithful wife of Jehovah, the church is revealed in the New Testament to
be a virgin bride waiting the coming of her Bridegroom. This will be the
subject of an extended discussion later in this chapter. Just as the church as
the body of Christ is the most important figure revealing the present purpose
of God, so the church as the bride is the most important figure revealing the
future relationship of the church to Christ.” 122
The New Creation Began on the Lord’s Day – The Believer’s New Life in
Christ
“THE SABBATH IN THE COMING AGE. In full harmony with the doctrine
that the new Lord’s Day is related only to the church, it is prophesied that
the Sabbath will be reinstated - thus superceding the Lord’s Day –
immediately upon the completion of the out-calling of the church and her
removal from the world. Even in the brief period of the Tribulation which
must intervene between the end of this age and the age of the kingdom, the
Sabbath is again in view (Matt 24:20); but prophecy especially anticipates
the Sabbath as a vital feature of the coming kingdom age (Isa 66:23; Ezk
46:1).
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AND THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. The
first day of the week has been celebrated by the church from the resurrection
of Christ to the present time. This fact is proven by the New Testament
records, the writings of the early fathers, and the history of the church. There
have been those in nearly every century who, not comprehending the present
purpose of God in the new creation, have earnestly contended for the
observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. At present, those who specialize in
urging the observance of the seventh day combine these appeals with other
unscriptural doctrines. Since the believer is appointed of God to observe the
first day of the week under the new relationship of grace, confusion arises
when that day is invested with the character of, and is governed by, the
seventh-day Sabbath laws. All such teachings ignore the New Testament
doctrine of the new creation.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
428
THE NEW CREATION. The New Testament reveals that the purpose of
God in the present unforeseen dispensation is the out-calling of the church
(Acts 15:13-18, [the first church council in Jerusalem where it was agreed, that according to prophecy, Judaism was temporarily suspended as God’s purpose. this writer]), and this redeemed company is the new creation, a
heavenly people. While it is indicated that marvelous glories and perfections
are to be accomplished for this company as a whole (Eph 5:25-27), it is also
revealed that they individually are the objects of the greatest divine
undertakings and transformations. Likewise, as the corporate body is
organically related to Christ (1 Cor 12:12), so the individual believer is
vitally joined to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17; Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 12:13).
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his
death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.
NET
1 Cor 6:17 But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him.
NET
1 Cor 12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and
all the members of the body—though many—are one body, so too is
Christ. 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.
Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of
the one Spirit.
NET
Concerning the individual believer, the Bible teaches that (1) as to sin,
each one in this company has been cleansed, forgiven, and justified; (2) as to
his possessions, each one has been given the indwelling Spirit, the gift of
God which is eternal life, has become a legal heir of God, and a joint heir
with Christ; (3) as to position, each one has been made the righteousness of
God by which he is accepted in the beloved forever (2 Cor 5:21; Eph 1:6), a
member of Christ’s mystical body, a part of His glorious bride, and a living
partaker in the new creation of which Christ is the Federal Head. We read:
“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [creation]: old things [as to
position, not experience] are passed away; behold, all things are become
new. And all [these positional] things are of God” (2 Cor 5:17-18; cf. Gal
6:15; Eph 2:10; 4:24).
Gal 6:15 For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for
anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation! NET
429
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ
Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them
NET
Eph 4:24 and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s
image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.
NET
Peter, writing of this company of believers, states, “but ye are a chosen
generation” (1 Pet 2:9), which means a distinct heaven born race, or
nationality – a stock, or kind – which has been directly created by the power
of God. As the first Adam begat a race which partook of his human life and
imperfections, so Christ, the last Adam, is now begetting by the Spirit a new
race which partakes of His eternal life and perfection. “The first man Adam
was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening [life-giving]
spirit” (1 Cor 15:45).
Having partaken of the resurrection life of Christ, and being in Christ, the believer is said to be already raised (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12-13; 3:14).
However, as to his body, the believer is yet to receive a glorious body like
the resurrection body of Christ (Phil 3:20-21). In confirmation of this we
also read that when Christ appeared in heaven immediately following His
resurrection, it was as the “firstfruits,” implying that the whole company that
are to follow will be like Him (1 John 3:2), even to their glorified bodies.
In the Word of God, the new creation – which began with the
resurrection of Christ and consists of a born-again, heavenly company who
are in Christ – is everywhere held in contrast with the old creation, and it is
from the old and ruined creation that the believer is said to have been saved
and delivered.
As the Sabbath was instituted to celebrate the old creation (Exod 20:10-
11; 31:12-17; Heb 4:4), so the Lord’s Day celebrates the new creation.
Likewise, as the Sabbath was limited in its application to Israel as the earthly
people of God, so also the Lord’s Day is limited in its application to the
church as the heavenly people of God.
THE LORD’S DAY. In addition to the fact that the Sabbath is nowhere
imposed on the children of God under grace, there are abundant reasons for
their observing the first day of the week.
1. A new day is prophesied and appointed under grace. According to
Psalm 118:22-24 and Acts 4:10-11, Christ in His crucifixion was the Stone
rejected by Israel the “builders”; but through His resurrection He has been
made the Headstone of the corner. This marvelous thing is of God, and the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
430
day of its accomplishment is divinely appointed as a day of rejoicing and
gladness. Accordingly, Christ’s greeting on the resurrection morn was “All
hail!” (Matt 28:9, which is more literally, “O joy!”), and being “the day
which the Lord hath made,” it is rightfully termed “The Lord’s Day.”
2. Observance of the first day is indicated by various events. (a) On that
day Christ arose from the dead (Matt 28:9). (b) On that day He first met His
disciples in the new fellowship (John 20:19). (c) On that day He gave them
instruction (Luke 24:13-45). (d) On that day He ascended into heaven as the
“firstfruits,” or wave sheaf (Lev 23:10-12; John 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20, 23). (e)
On that day He breathed on them (John 20:22). (f) On that day the Spirit
descended from heaven (Acts 2:1-4). (g) On that day the Apostle Paul
preached in Troas (Acts 20:6-7). (h) On that day the believers came together
to break bread (Acts 20:6-7). (i) On that day they were to “lay by in store” as
God had prospered them (1 Cor 16:2). (j) On that day Christ appeared to
John on Patmos (Rev 1:10).
3. The eighth day was the day of circumcision. The rite of circumcision,
performed on the eighth day, typified the believer’s separation from the flesh
and the old order by the death of Christ (Col 2:11), and the eighth day, being
the first day after a completed week, is symbolical of a new beginning.
4. The new day is of grace. At the end of a week of toil, a day of rest
was granted to the people who were related to God by works of the law;
while to the people under grace, whose works are finished in Christ, a day of
worship is appointed which, being the first day of the week, precedes all
days of work. In the blessing of the first day the believer lives and serves the
following six days. A day of rest belongs to a people who are related to God
by works which are to be accomplished; a day of ceaseless worship and
service belongs to a people who are related to God by the finished work of
Christ. The seventh day was characterized by unyielding law; the first day is
characterized by the latitude and liberty belonging to grace. The seventh day
was observed with the hope that by it one might be acceptable to God; the
first day is observed with the assurance that one is already accepted of God.
The keeping of the seventh day was wrought by the flesh; the keeping of the
first day is wrought by the indwelling Spirit.
5. The new day has been blessed of God. Through-out this age the most
Spirit-filled, devout believers to whom the will of God has been clearly
revealed have kept the Lord’s day apart from any sense of responsibility to
keep the seventh day. It is reasonable to suppose that if they has been guilty
of Sabbath-breaking, they would have been [Spirit] convicted of that sin.
6. The new day is committed only to the individual believer. It is not
committed to the unsaved. It is certainly most misleading to the unsaved to
give them grounds for supposing that they will be more accepted of God if
they observe a day; for apart from the salvation which is in Christ, all men
431
are utterly and equally lost. For social or physical reasons a day of rest may
be secured to the benefit of all; but the unregenerate should understand that
the observance of such a day adds nothing to their merit before God.
It is not committed to the church as a body. The responsibility to the
observance of the first day is of necessity committed to the individual
believer only, and not to the church as a whole; and the manner of its
celebration by the individual is suggested in the two sayings of Christ on the
morning of His resurrection: “O joy!” and “Go tell.” This calls for
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
432
ceaseless activity in all forms of worship and service; such activity contrasts
with the seventh-day rest.
7. No command is given to keep the first day. Since it is all of grace, a
written requirement for the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not imposed, nor is
the manner of its observance prescribed. By this wise provision, none are
encouraged to keep the day as a mere duty; it is to kept from the heart. Israel
stood before God as immature children under tutors and governors and
needing the commandments which are given to a child (Gal 4:1-11); the
church stands before God as an adult sons. The believer’s life under grace is
clearly defined, but it is presented only as the beseechings of God with the
expectation that all shall be done willingly (Rom 12:1-2; Eph 4:1-3). There is
little question as to how a well-instructed, Spirit filled believer (and the
Scripture presupposes a normal Christian to be such) will be occupied on the
day which commemorates Christ’s resurrection and the new creation. If the
Child of God is not yielded to God, no unwilling observance of a day will
correct his carnal heart, nor would such observance be pleasing to God. The
issue between God and the carnal Christian is not one of outward actions,
but of a yielded life.
8. The manner of the observance of the Lord’s Day may be extended to all days. Christ was not more devoted to His Father on one day than on
another. Sabbath rest could not be extended to all days alike; but while the
believer may have more time and freedom on the first day of the week, his
worship, joy, and service which characterizes the keeping of the Lord’s Day
should, as far as possible, be his experience every day (Rom 14:5).” 123
433
Appendix
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
434
435
The Positive Gospel
“The unregenerate may be told that upon becoming regenerate they will
be accorded a twofold provision whereby the sin nature may be divinely
dealt with. They may look on to such an experience the same as they may
anticipate forgiveness and justification, though, since all that enters into the
remedy for the sin nature so relates only to the problems of the Christian’s
daily life, the divine dealing with the sin nature is not at any time included in
the offers which the gospel of the grace of God extends to the unsaved. On
the other hand, the sin nature enters largely into the need of salvation which
is represented by the unsaved. No more misleading message can be given by
sincere men when the unsaved are told that they are lost because of their
sins. To this they might reply that, since they had never been even one per
cent as sinful as they might have been, they are only one per cent lost. Such
reasoning naturally follows that form of preaching which bases man’s lost
estate on the personal sins committed. Man is lost by nature – born a lost
soul, with no hope apart from the redeeming blood of Christ. A much more
weighty appeal is made when the need of salvation is made to reach to the
root of all the evil ever wrought. The twofold remedy is (a) the judgment for
believers of the sin nature by Christ on the cross, and (b) the gift of the
indwelling Spirit as One who is able to give victory over every evil
disposition. God has judged the sin nature for believers, else it could not be
said, as it is, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).” (Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2,
pp 292-93)
1. The Doctrine of Imputation
“The word impute means to reckon over to one’s account, as the Apostle
writing to Philemon regarding whatever Onesimus might owe Philemon
declared: “Put that on mine account” (1:18). Because of the various phases
of doctrine involved, imputation becomes at once one of the major or
fundamental doctrines of Christianity. On this account great care is enjoined,
that the student may comprehend the teaching perfectly. There are three
major imputations set forth in the Scriptures, as will be seen below.
Imputation may either be real or judicial. A real imputation calls for the
reckoning to one of what is antecedently his own, while a judicial imputation
for the reckoning to one of what is not antecedently his own.
1. Of Adam’s Sin to the Race. The central passage bearing on
imputation is found in Romans 5:12-21. In verse 12 it is declared that death
as a penalty has come upon all men in that all have sinned. This does not
refer to the fact that all men sin in their daily experience, but as the verb
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
436
sinned is in the aorist45 tense it refers to a completed past action. That is, all
men sinned when Adam sinned, and thereby brought the penalty of physical
death upon themselves by so doing. That this evil may not be deemed
personal sins, the Apostle points out how all died between the period
between Adam and Moses, or before the Mosaic Law was given (which law
first gave to sin the heinous character of transgression), and likewise how all
irresponsible persons such as infants and imbeciles died although they have
never sinned willfully, as in the case of Adam’s transgression. Since God
reckons each member of the race to have sinned in Adam’s sin, this becomes
the one case of real imputation, that is, a reckoning to each person that
which is antecedently his own. An illustration of like seminal action may be
seen in the record that Levi, who was supported by tithes, paid tithes while
being in the loins of his great grandfather Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10, meaning
when Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek).
2. Of the Sin of the Race to Christ. In this particular field of truth the
whole gospel resides. Though the word impute is not used, similar terms are
to be found such as “made him to be sin,” “laid on him,” “bare our sins”
(Isa. 53:5-6, 11; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Here is a judicial imputation since
the sin was never antecedently Christ’s, for when laid upon Him it became
His in an awful sense.
3. Of the Righteousness of God to the Believer. This third im-putation
constitutes the Christian’s acceptance and standing before God. It is the only
righteousness that God ever accepts for salvation and by it alone may one
enter heaven. The entire book of Romans is more or less occupied with
setting forth the doctrine respecting the imputed righteousness of God, and
as the purpose of the Romans Epistle is to reveal the truth concerning
salvation it follows that the imputed righteousness of God must be an
important factor therein. The apostolic phrase the righteousness of God
(Rom. 1:17; 3:32; 10:3), then, means a righteousness from God rather than
the mere fact that God Himself is righteous. In Romans 3:10 it is declared
that none among men are in the sight of God righteous; hence an imputed
righteousness is the only hope for men on this earth. Regarding the hope of
imputed righteousness, the Apostle wrote: “… not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the law, but which is of the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). To be fitted for the
presence of God is of immeasurable importance (Col. 1:2). This calls for a
righteousness which is made over to the believer even as was Christ was
45
type of verb in classical Greek: a verb tense used to express a past action in an
unqualified way, without specifying whether that action was repeated, continuing, or
completed or how long it lasted, found especially in classical Greek Encarta ® World
English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
437
made to be sin for all men (2 Cor. 5:21). Obviously here must be a judicial
imputation as this righteousness is not antecedently the believer’s.
Nevertheless, when imputed to him by God he will possess it forever.
This imputation which provides the believer with all he needs before
God forever is so important that its basis is revealed in the Scriptures, and so
it is quite essential for each believer to understand the revelation. It is made
unto him a legal bestowment through the death of Christ and is applied by
the Holy Spirit through His baptism of the believer into Christ.
a. Such imputation is constituted legal before God since Christ offered
Himself without spot to God (Heb. 9:14). This is to say, Christ not only was
made a sin offering by His death, by which remission of sin is legally
possible on the ground of the truth that He substituted for those who believe,
but also He presented Himself without spot as an offering well-pleasing to
God, thus providing a release of all that He is in infinite merit and making
His merit available for those who had no merit. As God goes to the cross for
the legal basis to remit sin, so He goes to the same cross for a legal basis to
impute righteousness. All of this is typically presented in the five offerings
in Leviticus, chapters 1-5, where Christ’s death may be seen both as a sweet
savor and a non-sweet savor in the estimation of the Father. There is that in
His death which was not a sweet savor to God as seen in the words of Christ,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46; cf. Ps 22:1).
Similarly, as cited above, Hebrews 9:14 suggests a sweet savor offering to
God.
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from
dead works to worship the living God. NET
He offered Himself without spot to God not merely to inform the father of
Himself, but on the behalf of others. Here also He served as a Substitute.
When others did not have and could not secure a standing and merit before
God, He released His own self and all its perfection for them. Nothing could
be more needed on the part of meritless sinners.
b. Imputed righteousness is applied directly on the ground of the pivotal
fact that the believer is in Christ. By the baptism of the Spirit, being joined
thereby to Christ, one is in Christ as a new Headship. As hitherto that one
was in the first Adam, fallen and undone, now in the resurrected Christ he
partakes of all that Christ represents, even the righteousness of God which
Christ is. Christ is thus made unto the believer righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30),
and being in Him the believer is “made” the righteousness of God (2 Cor.
5:21).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
438
1 Cor 1:30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, [31tn
Grk “of him you are in Christ Jesus.”] who became for us wisdom from
God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, NET
2 Cor 5:21 God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us,so that
in him [40sn That is, “in Christ.”] we would become the righteousness of
God. NET
Unto this marvelous standing the great Apostle aspired when he wrote: “And
be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but
that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith” (Phil. 3:9).
Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness
derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by
way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based
on Christ’s faithfulness. NET
The extent of this position in Christ cannot be estimated or understood.
In Hebrews 10:14, however, it is declared: For by one offering he hath
perfected us for ever them that are sanctified,” and in John 1:16 reference is
made to the πλήρωµα [pleroma] or fullness of Christ which the believer has
received. That fullness is described in Colossians 1:19: “For it pleased the
Father that in him should all fullness dwell,” and again in 2:9: “For in him
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” while verse 10 repeats the
message of John 1:16, namely, that the believer is filled with the πλήρωµα
[pleroma] (or, is complete) in Him.
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler
and authority. NET
The legal basis for the imputing of God’s righteousness to the believer is
found, then, in the sweet savor offerings and the application is accomplished
by his being placed in union with Christ through the working of the Holy
Spirit.
The three imputations named above prove foundational to all that enters
into Christianity. They are wholly foreign to the Mosaic system and never
mentioned in any Scripture related to the coming kingdom. This teaching,
along with other foundational doctrines such as propitiation, accordingly
should be comprehended by every student at any cost.” 46
46
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 191-93 (brackets mine)
439
2. THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION
“The Greek words employed in the doctrine of propitiation are: ίλασµός
, signifying that which Christ became for the sinner (1 John 2:2; 4:10),
ίλαστήριον, the place of propitiation (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:25), ίλεως (Matt
16:22; Heb 8:12), and ίλάσκοµαι, (Luke 18:3; Heb 2:17).
Ιλάσκοµαι [hilaskomai] indicates that God has become gracious,
reconciled. In profane Greek the word means “to render propitious by prayer
and sacrifice.” But from the Biblical standpoint God is not of Himself
alienated from man. His sentiment does not, therefore, need to be changed.
Still, in order that He may not for righteousness’ sake be necessitated to
comport Himself otherwise, an infinite expiation is necessary, which to be
sure He Himself in His love institutes and gives. Man, all exposed to wrath,
could neither venture nor find an expiation. But then God, in finding it,
anticipates and meets the demands of His own righteousness. Nothing
happens to change God, as in the heathen view. Therefore it is never read
that God must be reconciled. Rather something happens to man, who now
escapes the wrath to come. A call for mere mercy would require the use of
Έλέησον. When guilt and its punishment need to be acknowledged,
however, the word ίλάσκοµαι is used (Luke 18:13; Heb 2:17).
Christ became the Propitiator and thus the Father is propitiated. The
terminology in Hebrews 9:5 for mercy seat corresponds to the LXX
translation of the word, namely, ίλαστήριον.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The mercy seat is a throne of grace because
of there being propitiation. Sacrificial blood sprinkled on the lid of an ark,
where Jehovah’s presence was to found, changed what would otherwise be a
scene of awful judgment to one filled with mercy, making it in a measure the
mercy seat. However, animal blood was efficacious only to the extent that it
provided a just ground on which God could pass over the sins until Christ
should come and shed His own blood for them. God was propitiated
aforetime merely to the extent of deferring judgment. For this measure of
grace nevertheless it was reasonable to pray (cf. Luke 18:13).
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Christ by having His own blood sprinkled,
as it were, over His body at Golgatha, becomes the Mercy Seat in reality. He
is the Propitiator and has made propitiation by so answering the just
demands of God’s holiness against sin that heaven is rendered propitious.
This fact of propitiation existing is to be believed. Certainly the adjustment
is not to asked for if it is already accomplished. The flood-gates of divine
mercy are open, the flow coming however only through that channel which
Christ as Propitiator is.
Propitiation is the Godward side of the work of Christ on the cross. The
death of Christ for the sin of the world changed the whole position of
mankind in its relation to God, for He recognizes what Christ did in behalf
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
440
of the world whether man enters into it or not. God is never said to be
reconciled, but His attitude toward the world is altered when the world’s
relation to Him becomes radically changed through the death of Christ.
God is propitious toward the unsaved and toward the sinning saint:
“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but for the
sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Attention should be called to the fact
that God saves a sinner or restores a saint without striking a blow or even
offering a word of criticism. It is too often supposed that human repentance
and sorrow soften the heart of God and render Him propitious. This cannot
be true. It is the legal fact that Christ has borne all sin which renders God
propitious.
The most determining truth to which all gospel preaching should be
harmonized is that God is propitious; thus all the burden is taken off the
sinner or Christian, only leaving him to believe that through Christ’s bearing
His sin God is propitious.
The publican went up to the temple to pray after having presented his
sacrifice, which was the custom (Luke 18:13). The Authorized Version
reports him to have said: “God be merciful to me a sinner.” What he really
prayed was (R.V. marg.) : “God, be thou propitiated to me the sinner.”
Luke 18:13 The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even
look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me,
sinner that I am!’ 18:14 I tell you that this man went down to his home
justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will
be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” NET
39tn The prayer is a humble call for forgiveness. The term for mercy
(iJlavskomai, Jilaskomai) is associated with the concept of a request for
atonement (BDAG 473-74 s.v. 1; Ps 51:1, 3; 25:11; 34:6, 18).
He did not ask for mercy as though he must persuade God to be propitious,
but in full harmony with the relationship existing between the Old Testament
covenant people and God, and on the ground of his offering or sacrifice, he
did ask God to be propitious on that special basis. Such a prayer since Christ
has died is wholly wrong. In the present age of grace one need not ask God
merely to be merciful toward sin, for that He cannot be, and furthermore
since Christ’s death has rendered God propitious there is no occasion even to
ask God to be propitiated. In fact, to do so becomes rank unbelief and
unbelief can save no one. The mercy seat in the Old Testament could make a
ίλαστήριον by sacrifice (Heb 9:5), but the blood sprinkled body of Christ on
the cross has long ago become the mercy seat for the sinner once and for all.
It is there accordingly that God in righteousness can meet the sinner with
441
salvation and restore the saint to communion. The mercy seat becomes a
perpetual throne of grace. What otherwise would be an awful judgment
throne is changed to one of infinite mercy. 47
3. THE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT
1. FUTURE. Future, eternal punishment must have an adequate cause or
reason therefore. The Bible is the only authority on this determining theme.
It declares that sin is infinite because of being against God. His character is
outraged by it and His authority resisted.
The doctrine of punishment, then, contends that men exist forever and
must because of the unavoidable divine judgment against them for sin (in its
every form) forever be separated from God in a state which is conscious
torment. Some have speculated on what that torment is. It has been asserted
that it is (a) remorse due to failure to secure the blessings of heaven when
they were offered, (b) suffering of the soul which can best be described to
the human mind by the figures employed in the Scriptures – a lake of fire, a
bottomless pit, or a worm that does not die, (c) a literal fire, pit, and undying
worm.
The doctrine is more emphasized by Christ than by any other in the
Bible. He taught that, apart from His own saving power, men die in their sins
(John 8:24) and are raised again to judgment (John 5:28-29; cf. Matt. 5:22,
29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; 25:41, 46; Luke 12:5).
In the Old Testament the Hebrew word sheol (sometimes translated
“grave,” “pit,” and “hell” ), like the New Testament Greek word Hades
(translated “hell” and “grave”), refers to the place of departed spirits, and
three shades of meaning are given to it: (1) the grave where activity ceases
(Ps 83:3), (2) the end of life as far as human knowledge can go (Eccles 9:5,
10), (3) a place of conscious sorrow (2 Sam 22:6; Ps 9:17; 18:5; 116:3).
In the New Testament the Greek words γέεννα, άιδης, τάρταρος (this
term in verbal form) are translated “hell.” Γέεννα is a name which speaks of
human sacrifice and suffering (Matt 5:29), άιδης indicates the place of
departed spirits (Luke 16:23), while τάρταρος refers to the lowest abyss, and
to it the wicked spirits are consigned (2 Pet 2:4).
Additional English words concerned with this theme to be found in the
New Testament are: (1) “perdition,” meaning utter loss and ruin (1 Tim 6:9);
(2) “damnation,” which is often more accurately translated judgment or
condemnation (Matt 23:14); (3) “torment,” which speaks of physical pain
(Luke 16:28); “the second death,” which is synonymous with the “lake of
fire” (Rev 20:14); “everlasting fire” (Matt 18:8) and “everlasting
punishment” (Matt 25:46). The Greek for everlasting - more often translated
47
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 258-60
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
442
eternal – is αίώνιος [aeons]; although it may be used to indicate a mere ages
of time, implying an end or termination, this word is almost universally
found in the New Testament to express that which is eternal. The new life
which the believer has received is forty-seven times said to be “eternal” or
“everlasting.” Mention is likewise made of the “eternal Spirit,” the
“everlasting God,” “eternal salvation,” “eternal redemption,” “eternal glory,”
“everlasting kingdom,” and the “everlasting gospel.” Seven times this word
is used in connection with the destiny of the wicked (Matt 18:8; 25:41, 46;
Mark 3:29; 2 Thess 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 1:7).
Some assert that αίώνιος is limited in duration when referring to the
suffering of the lost; but, if this were true, every promise for the believer and
the very existence of God would doubtless have to be limited as well. See
Hades.
2. PRESENT. (a) God punishes nations (note e.g., Egypt, Ex 7-12) and (b)
He punishes individuals as He may decree it necessary (Acts 12:23). The
saints, for instance, are both chastened and scourged (Heb 12:6). 48
4. THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS
The correct understanding of the teaching of Scripture on forgiveness
will go far in the direction of clarifying other doctrines of the Bible. Because
of the fact that this theme is so constantly misunderstood, special attention
should be given to it. Forgiveness on the part of one person toward another
is the simplest of duties, whereas forgiveness on the part of God toward man
proves the most complicated and costly of undertakings. As seen in the
Bible, there is an analogy between forgiveness and debt and, in the case of
that forgiveness which God exercises, the debt must be paid – though it be
paid by Himself – before forgiveness can be extended. Thus it is learned
while human forgiveness only remits a penalty or charge divine forgiving
must require complete satisfaction for the demands of God’s outraged
holiness first of all. This doctrine may be divided into seven important
particulars.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. This aspect of divine forgiveness, though
rich in typical significance, nevertheless is a complete forgiveness in itself.
The all-important feature which enters into all divine remission, namely,
payment of very obligation to injured holiness as the preliminary to
forgiving, is included in the offering of animal sacrifices. First, the sacrifice
itself was deemed by the one who offered it a substitute in that upon it fell
the just penalty of death. It was when a sacrifice had thus been presented that
the offender could be forgiven. Accordingly, it is declared in Leviticus 4:20,
as always in the Old Testament: “The priest shall make an atonement for
48
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 260-62
443
them, and it shall be forgiven them.” But, since the sacrifice served only
typically and as a covering of sin until the appointed time when God should
deal finally or righteously with sin in the death of Christ, the transaction was
incomplete on the divine side, sin necessarily being pretermitted. However,
divine forgiveness as such was extended to the offender perfectly. Two New
Testament passages shed light upon the nature and fact of this temporary
divine dealing with sin. In Romans 3:25 reference is made by the word
�άρεσις to the pretermitting or passing over of sins aforetime, that is,
before the cross; likewise in Acts 17:30 by the word ύ�ερεϊδον – translated
“winked at” – reference is made to the fact that in times past God did not
then fully judge sin. It should be remembered, however, that the vast array
of divine promises for full and perfect dealing with every sin thus passed
over was all gathered up and accounted for by Christ on the cross eventually.
2. FOR THE UNSAVED. In this aspect of the general doctrine of
forgiveness there is need for emphasis on the truth that forgiveness of sin is
extended to the unsaved only as an integral of the whole divine undertaking
called salvation. Of the many transformations wrought by God in response
to simple faith in Christ, the remission of sin is but one. Hence it should be
observed that the forgiveness of sin can never be claimed by itself on the
part of those who are unregenerate. Forgiveness is provided to them to
infinite completeness, but may be secured only as a phase of God’s whole
work in salvation. Though to often supposed to be the truth, remission of sin
for the unsaved is not equivalent to salvation. Forgiveness connotes
subtraction, indeed, whereas all else in salvation is glorious addition. It is
therefore written, “I give unto them eternal life” (John 10:28), and in
Romans 5:17 reference is made for example, to the “gift of righteousness.”
3. FOR CHRISTIAN’S WHO SIN. The foundational truth respecting the
believer in relation to his sins is the fact that when he was saved all his
trespasses (the past, present, and future) – so far as condemnation may be
concerned – were forgiven. This must be the meaning of the Apostle’s word
in Colossians 2:13, “having forgiven you all trespasses.” So complete proves
this divine dealing with all sin that it can be said, “There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). The believer is
not condemned (John 3:18), and therefore shall not come into judgment
(“condemnation,” John 5:24). It need only be remembered that, since Christ
has borne all sin and since the believer’s standing is complete in the risen
Christ, he is perfected forever by reason of being in Christ. As a member in
the household and family of God, the Christian – should he sin – of course
is, as any child, subject to chastisement from the Father, but never to be
condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:31-32).
The cure the effect of sin upon himself is confession thereof to God. By
this he is returned to agreement with God respecting the evil character of all
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
444
sin. It is written: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9). The
simple act of penitent confession results with absolute divine certainty in the
forgiveness and cleansing of the sin. The believer thus exercised about evil
conduct should not wait until some change of feeling respecting the sin is
experienced; it is his privilege to accept by faith that restoration which God
so certainly promises as following at once. It may be added here that, though
confession is always directed to God (cf. Ps 51:4; Luke 5:18-19), there are
times and situations when such admission should be extended to the person
or persons wronged also. This will be especially true when those wronged
are aware of the evil. However, it must be emphasized that confession is
primarily made unto God and should in the vast majority of experiences go
no further.
As for the effect of the believer’s sin upon God, it may be observed
how, were it not for that which Christ has wrought and that which He
undertakes when the Christian sins, the least sin would have the power to
hurl the one who sins from the presence of God and down to eternal ruin. In
1 John 2:1 it is asserted that Christ advocates before God for the believer
without delay at the very time that he sins. By so much it is revealed that He
enters a plea before God the father in the court of heaven that He bore that
very sin in His body on the cross. This is so complete an answer to the
requisite divine judgment which otherwise must fall upon the believer that
by such advocacy He wins here the exalted title, “Jesus Christ the
righteous.” There was a specific and separate dealing by Christ on the cross
with those sins which the believer would commit. It is written, consequently,
“He is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). It is true, also, that He has
become the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” However, in any
right understanding of the doctrine of divine forgiveness, a wide difference
will be observed between the propitiation which Christ became for
Christians and that which He became for the world of the unsaved.
4. IN THE COMING KINGDOM. Being itself the manifesto of the King
respecting the terms of admission into Messianic kingdom as well as of
conditions which are to obtain in that kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt 5:1-7:27) affords a specific indication of the terms on which divine
forgiveness may be secured during the extended period. This indication is
found in the prayer (Matt 6:9-13) which Christ taught His disciples to pray
during the period of His kingdom preaching to Israel – a time when His
ministry was wholly confined to the proclamation of the kingdom. It is
therefore imperative, if any semblance of a right interpretation is to be
preserved, that this prayer, including the disclosure respecting divine
forgiveness, be confined in its doctrine and application to the age unto which
it belongs. It is then that what has become known as the Golden Rule (Matt
445
7:12) has its proper place. The specific phrase in the prayer which discloses
the terms for divine forgiveness reads: ;And forgive us our debts, as we
forgive our debtors.” No misinterpretation should be permitted here
regardless of sentiment or custom pertaining to this prayer formula. The
passage conditions divine forgiveness upon human alacrity to forgive. This
could not apply to one who as a believer has been forgiven all trespasses
already – past, present, and future; nor could it apply to the Christian who
has sinned and who is subject consequently to chastisement, since of him it
is written that if he but confesses his sin he will be forgiven and cleansed.
The acts of confession and of forgiving others have no relation to each other
whatsoever. This is the one petition in the prayer which Christ took up
afterwards for a special comment and interpretation. It is as though He
anticipated the unwarranted use of the prayer in this age and sought to make
its character all the more clear. The comment of Christ reads: “For if ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but
if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses” (Matt 6:14-15). No unprejudiced contemplation of this petition
or of Christ’s interpretation of it has ever rescued it from being in complete
disagreement with the fact of divine forgiveness in the grace age. It is
written, for example, in Ephesians 4:32: “And be ye kind one to another,
tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath
forgiven you.” Here a contrast between law and grace is again set up. To be
forgiving because one has already been forgiven of God for Christ’s sake is
quite removed from the condition wherein one will be forgiven only in the
measure in which he himself forgives. The latter belongs to a merit system
such as will obtain in the kingdom; the former is in harmony with the
present riches of divine grace.
5. OBLIGATION BETWEEN MEN. Though, as stated above, the terms upon
which divine forgiveness may be secured in the kingdom is that of having
forgiven others, the motive for forgiving others in the kingdom proves
similar to that under the present reign of grace, namely, the fact that one has
been forgiven. This principle of action as one related to the kingdom
requirements is declared by Christ in Matthew 18:21-35. A certain king
forgave a debt of ten thousand talents – an enormous sum of money,
whereupon the one thus forgiven refused to cancel a debt in the paltry
amount of one hundred pence. That such an incident could have no place in
the life of all who are perfected in Christ and therefore secure forever is
learned from the closing verses of this portion, which reads: “And his lord
was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that
was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if
ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses” (Matt
18:34-35). The believer who belongs to this age is enjoined to be kind unto
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
446
other believers, tenderhearted, and forgiving to one another even as God “for
Christ’s sake has forgiven you.”
6. THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. When Christ was on earth ministering in
the power of the Holy Spirit, a peculiar sin was possible and might have
been committed, namely, attributing to Satan the power of the Spirit thus
manifested. For this sin there could be no forgiveness either in the age then
present or the age immediately following (Matt 2:22-32). It is evident that no
such situation exists in the world now. It is wholly without warrant to
suppose that any human attitude toward the Holy Spirit is a duplication of
this evil and hence unpardonable as the one sin of which Christ gave
warning. An unpardonable sin and a “whosoever will” gospel cannot
coexist. Were there an unpardonable sin possible today, every gospel
invitation in the New Testament would have to exclude specifically those
who had committed that sin.
7. A SIN UNTO DEATH. The Apostle John writes of a sin resulting in
physical death which believers may commit. The passage reads, “If any man
see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall
give him life for them and that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I
do not say that he shall pray for it” (1 John 5:16). It will be remembered that,
according to John 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 11:30, God reserves the right to
remove from this life a believer who has ceased to be a worthy witness in the
world. Such a removal does not imply that the one thus removed is lost; it
only means a form of drastic chastisement and to the end that such may not
be condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:31-32).49
5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE NAME - CHRISTIAN
As a title which belongs to those who are saved, though itself now
employed more than any other, Christian appears in the Sacred Text but
three times: “And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch” (Acts
11:26); “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian” (Acts 26:28); “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be
ashamed” (1 Pet 4:6). The term Christian is evidently a Gentile designation
for believers, since the word Christ upon which this title was constructed
suggests recognition of the anointed Messiah and no unbelieving Jew was
prepared to acknowledge the Messianic claims of Christ. This
acknowledgment, indeed, became the very crux of the problem of a Jew’s
relation to the new faith. It is significant that Saul of Tarsas, when saved,
“straightway … preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of
God” (Acts 9:20). Messianism was ever the theme of those who preached to
the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. All might be able to identify the person who
49
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 161-66
447
was Jesus of Nazareth, but it was the determining test that He be
acknowledged as the Christ or the Messiah, and thus the Son of God. The
Jews spoke of believers as Nazarenes. This had no complimentary
implication. Very early in the days of Christ’s ministry on earth, however,
Nathaniel voiced the accepted idea when he inquired, “Can there any good
thing come out of Nazareth?” Also, the orator Tertullus when arguing before
Felix thought it well to condemn Paul as “a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). It will thus be observed that believers did not assign
the name Christian to themselves, though Peter employed it in reference to
that which had become a recognized practice (1 Pet 4:16). It seems probable
that this custom of designating believers was the expression of a conviction
that Jesus is the Messiah; it was rather based upon Christ’s familiar name as
a Christian leader. The designations brethren, used about 200 times in the
New Testament, saints, used about 60 times, disciples (beginning with its
appearance in the Acts) used about 30 times, and believers meaning those
who believe, used about 80 times, thus hold a preference according to the
Acts and Epistles of the New Testament.
Beyond the problem of what may be an appropriate title is the fact itself
of being identified one way or another. What, according to the New
Testament and thus upon the authority of God, makes one a believer or
Christian? Answers to this question are varied, sometimes falling so low that
the title Christian is assigned to one who merely holds citizenship in a so-
called Christian country. Over against this, the reality which the saved one
represents reaches out beyond all human comprehension. Under Soteriology
(Vol. III) thirty-three simultaneous and instantaneous divine undertakings
and transformations which together constitute the salvation of a soul have
been named. All of these are wrought at the moment of saving faith in Christ
is exercised. Three of these great realities alone may be cited here, namely:
1. A NEW PURIFICATION. That divine forgiveness which has been
achieved as a part of salvation is complete an extends to all sin – past,
present, and future – so far as condemnation is concerned. Romans 8:1
therefore declares: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them who
are in Christ Jesus.” It still remains true that the believer’s sin may, as seen
elsewhere, lead to chastisement. Forgiveness nevertheless is unto
purification and wrought through the blood of Christ. It proves so complete
that not one shadow or stain will be seen upon the saved one – even by the
eyes of infinite holiness – throughout eternity. Divine forgiveness is not
based on the leniency of God, but rather on the fact that the condemning
power of every sin has spent itself upon the divinely provided Substitute.
God’s forgiveness is a legal recognition of the truth that Another has borne
the judgment for the one who is forgiven. The purification is thus as
complete and perfect as the ground upon which it is wrought.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
448
2. A NEW CREATION. An actual and wholly legitimate sonship relation
to God is divinely engendered when a soul has been saved. The one who is
saved becomes the offspring of God. He becomes therefore an heir of God
and a joint heir with Christ. The Apostle John testifies of Christ that to “as
many as received him, to them gave he” sonship standing (John 1:12) – not a
mere option or choice in the direction of regeneration, for He causes them to
become in the most absolute sense the sons of God. As such they are fitted
and destined to take the honored place in the Father’s family and household
in heaven. God is now “bringing many sons unto glory” (Heb 2:10).
3. A NEW STANDING. Because of the perfect identity and union of the
believer with Christ which is wrought by the Holy Spirit, it may be said of
the one saved that he has been “made … accepted” (Eph 1:6). This standing
is not a fiction or fancy, but such by it the believer becomes at once not only
clothed in the righteousness of God, himself the very righteousness of God.
This immeasurable reality depends wholly on the one fact that the child of
God being blessed is in Christ. Such a limitless position before God is made
legally possible through the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s death when as
Substitute He “offered himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14), thus
releasing all that He is in Himself to be the portion of those whom He saves.
This provision through His death is actualized and sealed unto eternal reality
by a vital union with Christ.
A Christian then, is not one who does certain things for God, but instead
one for whom God has done certain things; he is not so much one who
conforms to a certain manner of life as he is one who has received the gift of
eternal life; he is not one who depends upon a hopelessly imperfect state, but
rather one who has reached a perfect standing before God as being in Christ. 50
6. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY
That body of truth which is now known as Christianity was identified by
the early church as The Faith and This Way (Acts 9:2). According to Acts
6:7 a great company of the priests were “obedient to the faith,” and Jude 1:3
contended for the faith once-for-all-delivered. Not until Ignatius of Antioch
(d. 107?) was the term Christianity introduced. It, like the word Christian,
has come into general use today as a representation of that which the
apostles revealed in the New Testament, and was itself brought into
existence by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and present ministry in
heaven, as well as by the advent of the Holy Spirit into the world. Of all the
religious systems which have been fostered in the world, but two have the
distinction being designed , originated, and (eventually, though not as yet)
50
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 73-75)
449
consummated according to the specific purpose of God. These are Judaism
and Christianity. Though Covenant Theology, with its extended doctrinal
influence, has either confused or ignored the distinctions which obtain
between the two divinely fostered systems, a recognition of the difference
them is the essential foundation of any beginning or progress in the right
understanding of the Scriptures. To demonstrate the truthfulness of this
statement, it should be added that, while both of these systems incorporate
instructions for daily life here on earth, it can be ascertained by reason of
evidence which any unprejudic-ed person may trace that Judaism is a system
belonging to one nation – Israel, that is earthly in its scope, purpose, and the
destiny which it provides, while Christianity is heavenly in its scope,
purpose, and the destiny which it provides. It will be seen, as well, though
including much that is common to both that they are alike the outworking of
opposite principles, and that they are not and could not be in force at the
same time. Judaism alone was in action from the call of Abraham to the
death and resurrection of Christ and will again be the outworking of the
divine purpose in the earth after the Church has been removed, but
Christianity is the only divine objective in the present age, which age is
bounded by the two advents of Christ. Too often it has been assumed that
Judaism has been terminated or merged into Christianity. A favorite
expression of this notion is to the effect that Judaism was the bud and
Christianity the blossom. Over against this misconception is the truth that
both Judaism and Christianity run their prescribed courses unimpaired and
unconfused from their beginnings into eternity to come. By far the larger
portion of Bible prophecy concerns Israel with their land, that is, the nation,
the Davidic throne, the Messiah-King, and His kingdom. This and much
more together form the eschatology of Judaism. Here it can be seen again
that it is exceedingly inaccurate to speak of Systematic Theology as
Christian Theology, since the former incorporates vast ranges of truth which
are wholly foreign in their primary application to that which belongs to
Christianity. Because much theological teaching is confused in these fields
of truth, it is essential that particular emphasis be added here.
Though it was given to the Apostle Paul to formulate and record the
realities which together constitute Christianity, he did not himself make its
initial announcement. Christ in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13:1-
17:26) declared the new and vital features of Christianity. This occurred at
the very end of His earthly ministry and was set forth as an anticipation of
that which was about to be inaugurated. The earthly ministry of Christ was
restricted, in the main, to Israel and carried on wholly within the scope of
their covenants of promise. In the Upper Room Discourse are found the
important factors of the relationship to the father, to the Son, and to the Holy
Spirit which are peculiar to Christianity. However, as divinely planned, the
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
450
great Apostle was raised up to receive and formulate the new system, based
as it is on the death and resurrection of Christ and the values gained at
Pentecost.
At this point certain terms with their shades of meaning may well be
introduced:
1. NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, which embraces that which is dis-
tinctively Christian in the New Testament. New chapters are added to
Judaism are added to Judaism in connection with the unfolding of that which
constitutes Christianity.
2. PAULINE THEOLOGY, which is doctrine restricted o the writings of
Paul but which nevertheless unfolds much regarding Judaism, especially in
its contrasts with Christianity (cf. the larger portion of the Epistle to the
Hebrews).
3. MY GOSPEL (ROM 2:16), which designation is used by the Apostle
when referring to all the revelation that was given him in Arabia (cf. Gal
1:11-12) and also the revelation respecting the Church as the one Body of
Christ composed, as it is, of believing Jews and Gentiles. To all this should
be added the range of truth which sets forth the Christian’s peculiar
responsibility in daily life, with the new and incomparable provisions for
holy living through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Apostle’s
designation “my gospel,” is equivalent to Christianity when a direct,
constructive, and unrelated (to Judaism, etc.) consideration of Christianity is
in view.
As a summarization, it may be restated that Christianity incorporates
the gospel of divine grace which is based on the death and resurrection of
Christ, the fact of the one Body with all its relationships and destiny, and the
new and vital way of life through the Holy Spirit’s enablement. 51
7. CHRISTOLOGY
Recognizing that an entire volume of this work has been assigned to
Christology (Vol V), the subject may again be approached in what is
intended to be a highly condensed review. The theme (has been and) is well
divided into the seven positions in which Christ has been set forth by the
Bible, namely:
1. THE PREINCARNATE SON OF GOD. The fact of His preincarnate
existence is established not only by direct statements of Scripture but by
every implication. Some of these lines of proof are:
a. CHRIST IS GOD. It follows that if Christ is God then He has existed
from all eternity. Evidence that He is God may be seen in His titles – Logos,
Only Begotten, Express Image, First Begotten, Elohim, and Jehovah; in His
51
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 75-77
451
divine attributes – eternity (Mic 5:2), immutability (Heb 1:11-12; 13:8),
omnipotence (1 Cor 15:28; Phil 3:21), omniscience, and omnipresence; in
His mighty works – creation, preservation, forgiveness of sin, raising the
dead, and execution of all judgment.
b. CHRIST IS CREATOR. In this regard the Scriptures are explicit (Rom
11:36; Col 1:15-19; Heb 1:2-12). If He is Creator, He has existed before
creation.
c. CHRIST IS NAMED AS ONE EQUAL TO THE OTHERS IN THE TRINITY. In all
references to the persons of the Godhead, Christ the Son shares equally. In
all purposes of God, as far as revealed, He assumes those parts which only
God can assume. He is thus before all things.
d. THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS GOD. Since Christ is the
Messiah of the Old Testament, He is necessarily God and from all eternity.
e. THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH IS CHRIST. This is clearly proved in earlier
pages of the present theological work and is unfailing evidence of Christ’s
pre-existence, indeed.
f. THE DIRECT BIBLICAL ASSERTIONS IMPLY THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF
CHRIST. Such assertions are numerous and conclusive.
g. THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE IS THAT CHRIST HAS EXISTED
FOREVER. (e.g., John 1:1-2; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:1-3).
2. THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD. The theme respecting the incarnate
Christ occupies about two-fifths of the New Testament. The general outline
of this aspect of Christology may be stated under seven divisions:
a. OLD TESTAMENT ANTICIPATIONS. These are both typical and prophetic
in character.
b. BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD. Very much that is fundamental in doctrine is
properly based on the birth of Christ. Here is to be introduced His various
sonships – the title Son of God suggesting the divine; Son of man, the racial;
Son of Mary, the human; Son of David, the Messianic and Jewish; Son of
Abraham, the redemptive. Here also will be unfolded the entire theme of His
hypostatic union of two natures; the mediatorial aspect of Christ’s Person
and His death; His earthly ministry to Israel as Messiah, Immanuel, and
King; His ministry to the Gentiles as Savior, Judge, and Ruler; His ministry
to the Church as the Head, Lord, and Bridegroom. Here too is learned the
twofold object of His earthly ministry, first to Israel respecting her
covenanted kingdom and later to Jews and Gentiles respecting the Church
which is His Body. Again, yet more of major import is brought forward,
namely, Christ’s three offices – that of Prophet, which incorporates all His
teaching ministry; of Priest, which incorporates the sacrifice of Himself for
the world; and of King, which incorporates the whole Davidic covenant
together with the predictions and their fulfillment in His future reign.
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
452
c. BAPTISM. The baptism of Christ was a major event in His earthly life
and of far-reaching significance since by it He was consecrated to the office
of Priest, which office, like that of King, endures forever.
d. TEMPTATION. Judging from the extended description given this crisis,
the temptation is possessed evidently of great importance. It became the
crucial attack of Satan against the humanity of Christ, the issue being
whether or not He would abide in His father’s perfect will. That He would
was assured by His very nature as God and was determined from all eternity;
yet the test was allowed so that finite minds might be satisfied about the
impeccability of the Savior.
e. TRANSFIGURATION. The transfiguration, it is declared, was a setting
forth of the power and coming of Christ in His kingdom (Matt 16:28; Mark
9:1; Luke 9:27),that is, the event pictures the glory of the coming kingdom.
When transfigured, Christ was about to turn from the kingdom ministry
which had engaged John, the disciples, and Himself over to the new
heavenly purpose concerned with a people qualified for glory through His
death and resurrection. It was therefore essential that the kingdom not only
be promised but displayed, that its future certainty might not be lost from
view with the crushing disappointment which His death as a rejected king
engendered.
f. TEACHING. Probably no clearer evidence respecting the scope and
purpose of Christ’s first advent can be discovered than is indicated in His
teaching, especially that of the major discourses. His ministry to Israel and
to the Church are therein distinguished completely – to those not blinded by
theological prejudice.
g. MIGHTY WORKS. When Christ said, “If I had not done among them the
works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they
both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:24). He disclosed to
some extent the reason why He wrought miracles. His mighty works attested
His claim to be the Messiah and so His rejection was without excuse because
of that evidence.
3. THE EFFICACIOUS SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF THE SON OF
GOD. Considering these three events separately:
a. HIS SUFFERINGS. The evidence presented in John 19:28 intimates that
the actual bearing of the judgments of sin fell upon Christ in the hours of His
suffering which terminated in death. It was just before He said “It is
finished” that John declares of Him, “Jesus knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” What was
actually experienced by Christ in those six hours upon the cross cannot be
known in this world by any man; yet the value of it is received by those who
believe.
453
b. HIS DEATH. It was required of any efficacious sacrifice that it should
be delivered unto death and the shedding of blood. The death of Christ is the
antitype of every typical sacrifice and determined the nature of that
particular type. Typical sacrificial deaths through bloodshedding were such
as God required because of the truth that Christ would thus be sacrificed.
The range of Biblical testimony respecting Christ’s death may be examined
in seven divisions, namely: (1) types, (2) prophecies, (3) historical
declarations of the Synoptic Gospels, (4) declarations of the Apostle John in
his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, (5) declarations of the Apostle Paul, (6)
of the Apostle Peter, and (7) of the Letter to the Hebrews.
If it be inquired, as constantly it is, Who put Christ to death? It may be
pointed out that He was offered by the Father (Ps 22:15; John 3:16; Rom
3:25), of His own free will (John 10:17; Heb 7:27; 9:14; 10:12), by the Spirit
(Heb 9:14), and by men – Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel (Acts 2:23;
4:27). To this may be added that part in His death which was contributed by
Satan (cf. Gen 3:15).
The death of Christ achieved a vast array of objectives. At least fourteen
of these are indicated in this work under Soteriology (Vol. III).
c. HIS BURIAL. As the scapegoat type anticipated, Christ carried away
the burden of sin into oblivion. He went into the grave a sin-bearer and He
came out the Lord of glory.
4. THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. Again, the Old Testament
witness to that which concerns Christ is seen in types and prophecies. In the
New Testament this theme is declared (1) by the predictions of Christ and
(2) by the historical fact that He rose from the dead – an event more fully
proved than perhaps any other of history. Christ was raised by the Father (Ps
16:10; Acts 2:27, 31-32; Rom 6:4; Eph 1:19-20), by the Son Himself (John
2:19; 10:17-18), and by the Spirit (1 Pet 3:18).
In disclosing the factors which enter into Christianity, the Apostle to
whom this revelation was given places the resurrection of Christ in a central
and all important position. The death of Christ provides, but the resurrection
constructs. Through Christ’s death demerit is canceled and the merit of
Christ is made available, but by the resurrection of Christ the new Headship
over a perfected New Creation is established forever. The importance of His
resurrection may be seen from the following facts which in turn declare the
reasons for the rising. Christ arose (a) because of what He is (Acts 2:24).
That is, it is impossible that the He the Son of God should be held in the
place of death. (b) He arose because of who He is (Rom 1:3-4). The
resurrection served to prove His position as “Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness.” (c) He arose to be Head over all things to
the Church (Eph 1:22-23). (d) He arose to bestow resurrection life upon all
who believe (John 12:24). (e) He arose to be the source of resurrection
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
454
power in the lives of those who are His own in the world (Matt 28:18; Rom
6:4; Eph 1:19-20). (f) He arose because His work which provided the ground
for justification was completed (Rom 4:25). (g) He arose as the pattern or
first-fruits of all who are saved (1 Cor 15:20-23; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Tim 6:16).
(h) He arose to sit on David’s throne and thus to fulfill all covenant promises
to Israel (Acts 2:30).
In the sight and estimation of God, the resurrection of Christ is of
sufficient import to be celebrated once every week and so the first day of the
week on which it is celebrated supplants, in the present age, the Sabbath of
the old order.
5. THE ASCENSION AND SESSION OF THE SON OF GOD.
a. HIS ASCENSION. The departure of Christ for heaven has already ben
considered under the doctrine of ascension in this volume. It is mentioned
again here only to complete the structure of doctrine belonging to
Christology. Two ascensions have been indicated – one immediately after
the resurrection when the return of Christ into heaven as First-Fruits and as
Priest presenting His blood occurred. The second ascension was that of final
departure from the earth when He took up His present ministry in heaven.
b. HIS SESSION. The whole of Christ’s present ministry in heaven has
been practically ignored by theologians and especially by Arminians, to
whom this ministry is repulsive since it guarantees the eternal security of all
who are saved. Seven aspects of His present ministry are to be recognized,
namely: (1) exercise of universal authority. He said of Himself, “All power
is given to me in heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18); (2) Headship over all
things to the Church (Eph 1:22-23); bestowment and direction of the
exercise of gifts (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; Eph 4:7-11); (4) intercession,
in which ministry Christ contemplates the weakness and immaturity of His
own who are in the world (Ps 23:1; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25); (5) advocacy, by
which ministry He appears in defense of His own before the Father’s throne
when they sin (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1); (6) building of the place
He has gone to prepare (John 14:1-3); and (7) “expecting” or waiting until
the moment when by the Father’s decree the kingdoms of this world shall
become the kingdom of the Messiah – not by human agencies but by the
resistless, crushing power of the returning King (Heb 10:13).
6. THE SECOND COMING AND KINGDOM OF THE SON OF GOD.
a. THE SECOND COMING. The stupendous event of the second advent of
Christ with all its world-transforming results is to be distinguished from His
coming into the air to gather the Church to Himself both by resurrection and
translation. His second advent concerns the Jews, the Gentiles and the
angelic hosts including Satan and his angels, and is related to the Church
only as she is seen returning with Him and reigning with Him.
455
b. THE KINGDOM. Though the long promised, earthly, Davidic king-dom
of Christ was offered to Israel at His first advent, it was forthwith rejected
and postponed in the counsels of God until He comes again. One of the basic
theological misconceptions is the attempt to relate Christ’s kingdom on earth
simply to His first advent. Since no earthly kingdom came into view even
then, it is claimed by theologians that His kingdom must be spiritual and that
all expectation based on covenants and promises of the Old Testament was
misunderstood by the apostles and prophets in so far as that may have been
construed literally. Nevertheless, according to every word of Scripture, a
scope which extends to the greatest of all expectations, Messiah will come
again and will do literally what it has been predicted He will do for the
kingdom.
7. THE CONCLUSION OF MEDIATION AND THE ETERNAL REIGN OF THE
SON OF GOD. Following the conclusion of the millennial kingdom, which is
itself the last form of Christ’s mediation, certain immeasurable events occur
with all their transforming results, namely: (a) Satan is released from the
abyss (Rev 20:3); (b) armies are formed and a revolt against God occurs
again (Rev 20:7-9); (c) the passing of the old heaven and the old earth (Rev
20:11); (d) the great white throne judgment (Rev 20:12-15); (e) the creation
of the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet 3:10-14; Rev 21:1); (f) the
descent of the bridal city out of heaven (Rev 3:12; 21:2, 9-10); (g) the actual
surrender of mediation, but not of the Davidic throne. From the reading of 1
Corinthians 15:25-28 translated according to the Authorized Version, a
belief has been engendered that Christ surrenders His reign at the end of the
kingdom age. Having declared that Christ receives the kingdom and its
authority from the Father (1 Cor 15:27), however, the passage really goes to
say that, after the mediatorial reign of a thousand years, Christ will go on
reigning forever by the same authority of the Father. It is the testimony of
the Davidic covenant that He shall reign on David’s throne forever and ever
(2 Sam 7:16; Ps 89:20-27; Isa 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Rev 11:15).52
8. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMANDMENTS
The term commandments is found in and represents an integral part of
both the Mosaic and Christian systems, but with widely different
significance. In fact, the variance between the two systems is clearly
represented by these different uses of the word. Of the three major
classifications of humanity commandments are addressed in the Scriptures to
the Jew and the Christian, but not to the Gentile, or for that matter anyone
unsaved – either Jew or Gentile – in this age, the reason being that divine
commandments serve only to direct the daily life of those who are in right
52
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 78-83
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
456
relation to God. For the Jew in the older order this affiliation was wrought
by a physical birth which brought him into covenant relation to God, and for
the Christian this is achieved by a spiritual birth which brings him into a
sonship relation to God. Of the Gentiles, however, it must be said: “That at
that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and
without God in the world” (Eph 2:12), and as for a lost estate there is now
“no difference” even between a Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:9; 10:12). It
follows, then, that no commandments are now addressed to Jews. In the
present age the first issue between God and an unsaved person - Jew or
Gentile – is not one of correction or direction of daily life, but of personal
salvation through faith in Christ. Therefore, directions for daily life are not
addressed to the unsaved in this age.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The divine counsels for Israel which came
by Moses and which remained in effect until the death and resurrection of
Christ fall into three major divisions, namely, the commandments (Ex 20:1-
17) which directed Israel’s moral actions, the judgments (Ex 21:1-24:11)
which governed Israel’s social activities, and the statutes or ordinances (Ex
24:12-31:18) which guided Israel’s religious activities. These three forms of
divine requirement were interrelated and interdependent; one could not
function fully apart from the other two. The modern notion that the Mosaic
commandments are still in force, but that the judgments and ordinances have
been abolished, can be entertained only when inattention exists respecting
the form and nature of the Mosaic commandments. Great grace from God to
the Jews of old is observable in the fact that apart from any merit of their
own they were by sovereign election - each one of them – born physically
into covenant relationship to God. Similarly, great grace was upon them
which, when they sinned, provided restoration into right relations with God
through blood sacrifice. Such restoration was granted to every Israelite. The
whole nation was restored. The whole nation was restored to a right
relationship with God on the Day of Atonement. There was, however,
always a remnant of all those in the nation who manifested a particular
renewal or spiritual reality. Some of these are listed in the eleventh chapter
of Hebrews, and many more are recorded throughout the Old Testament and
in the early portions of the New Testament.
Upon examination (Num 15:32-36), it will be discovered that the
penalty of death was divinely imposed for the breaking of the ten
commandments. Concerning this severity in the penalty for infraction of the
Mosaic Law, it is written: “He that despised Mose’s law died without mercy
under two or three witnesses” (Heb 10:28). That the Mosaic system is not
now in force is evident from the fact that not all its conditions are applicable.
The Sabbath enjoined by the Mosaic Law is superceded for the present age
457
by the Lord’s Day, and the promise of long life upon the promised land
which God had bestowed has no relation to the Church. To her there was no
land given, for she is definitely said to be a people who are “strangers and
pilgrims.” In like manner, a long life here contradicts the truth that the
Christian is waiting for the return of Christ to receive him into glory (1
Thess 1:9-10). The commandments of Moses are declared directly by the
Scriptures to be abolished and done away for the present age (cf. John 1:17;
Rom 6:14; 7:1, 3-4; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 3:23-25). 2 Corinthians 3:7
determines the fact that it is the Ten Commandments of Moses as well as the
judgments and ordinances which were done away. If it be feared that the
disannulling of the commandments of Moses as such involves the loss of
their great principles of righteousness, it may be observed that every truth
contained in the Mosaic system of morals – excepting that related to the
Sabbath day – has been restated under grace, but is there adapted to grace
and not to law. The first of the Ten Commandments of Moses appears nearly
fifty times in and adapted to the new relationships under grace. The
commandments of Moses partake of the nature of elementary instructions
adapted to minors who are “under tutors and governors,” but to those who
were in such relation to God by covenant nevertheless as to be according to
His will and purpose for them. This relationship which the nation Israel
sustained to Jehovah should not be confused with the high and holy
relationship which Christian’s now sustain toward God by reason of being in
Christ. It is because of the fact that Israel was in covenant relation to God
that the manner of life set forth in the Mosaic system could be addressed to
them. Observing to do all that Moses required did not bring them into the
Jewish covenants; they were enjoined to keep the law because God in grace,
apart from all merit of their own, had placed them in covenant relation to
Himself. Students who recognize and teach these most fundamental facts are
sometimes accused by Covenant theologians of holding that people of the
old order were saved and constituted what they were by keeping the law of
Moses, all of which is a misconception. The godly Jew was subject to
blessing for his faithfulness in that which Jehovah required of him. But the
Mosaic Law only holds the distinction of being Jehovah’s rule of life for His
people in the age that is past. These are the commandments which they
“brake” (Jer 31:32) and which are yet to be incorporated into (Deu 30:8),
although as a covenant to be superceded by, the new covenant which has
still to come (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13).
Jer 31:33 “But I will make a new agreement with the whole nation of
Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord. “I will put my
law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. And I will be
their God and they will be my people. NET
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
458
2. FROM CHRIST. The second use of the word commandments, when
reference is made by it to a system or to principles governing human action,
occurs when it signifies the commandments of Christ. When setting forth the
principles which are to obtain in the coming kingdom age (Matt 5:1-7:29).
The Beatitudes
Mtw 5:1 When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain. After he sat
down his disciples came to him. 5:2 Then he began to teach them by
saying:
NET
2tn Or “up a mountain”
sn The expression up the mountain here may be idiomatic or generic, much
like the English “he went to the hospital” (cf. 15:29), or even intentionally
reminiscent of Exod 24:12 (LXX), since the genre of the Sermon on the
Mount seems to be that of a new Moses giving a new law.
Christ drew certain contrasts between that which enters into the Mosaic
system and that which will obtain in the kingdom (Matt 5:17-48). The oft-
repeated formula is, “Ye have heard that it was said [by Moses] … but I say
unto you.” In none of these contrasts, however, did Christ use the term my commandments. This designation was not used until He came to the upper
room the night before He was crucified, at which time He introduced the
body of truth especially belonging to the Church in the present age of grace.
There is nothing accidental here. This phrase on the lips of Christ designates,
and by it He distinguishes, the range of truth which belongs to the present
age. Thus at the end of His ministry on earth and after the forty days of
instruction following His resurrection, He directed His disciples to teach all
things that He had commanded them (Matt 28:20), but did not include the
Mosaic system. It is to be noted that Christ’s first injunction was “a new
commandment” (John 13:34), and that love is enjoined here as the evidence
required to indicate that marvelous unity which all believers form (cf. John
17:21-23) – a unity wrought by the Holy Spirit and to be kept or manifested
by love one for another. No such unity ever existed before. That which is
included under the words “my commandments” was taken up and expanded
by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. References to Christ’s commandments
are many – John 13:34-35; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12; 1 John 2:3; 3:22-24; 4:21;
5:2-3; 2 John 1:4-5. Cf. Matthew 28:20; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor
14:37; Galatians 6:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:2. 53
53
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 85-88
459
9. The Doctrine of Faith
According to the simplest conception of it, faith is a personal confidence
in God. This implies that the individual has come to know God to some
degree of real experience. Not all men have faith, so the Apostle declares (2
Thess 3:2). Thus lying back of faith is this determining factor, namely,
knowing God. Regarding the personal knowledge of God, Christ said: “All
things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but
the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matt 11:27). This statement is
decisive. No one knows the Father except the Son and those only to whom
the Son may reveal Him. However, with that divinely wrought knowledge of
God in view, the invitation is immediately extended by this context for all
the world-weary to come unto Him and there, and only there, find rest for
the soul. Since God is not fully discerned by the human senses, it is easy for
the natural man in a day of grace to treat the Person of God and all His
claims as though they did not exist, or, at best, as if a mere harmless fiction.
Faith accordingly is declared, in one aspect of it, to be “the gift of God”
(Eph 2:8). Utter want of faith is the condition of unregenerate men (2 Cor
2:14) until God be revealed to them by the Son through the Spirit. The
following quotation from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
states the simple facts about that faith which is confidence in God (Handley
Dunelm, s.v., “Faith”):
It is important to notice that Hebrews 11:1 is no exception to the rule “faith”
normally means “reliance,” “trust.” There “Faith is the substance [or
possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by New
Testament writers, ‘the guaranty’] of things hoped for, the evidence [or
‘convincing proof’] of things not seen.” This is sometimes interpreted as if
faith, in the writer’s view, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a
mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows
that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply
reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the
believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the
phrase here, “Faith is the evidence,” etc., is parallel in form to our familiar
saying, “Knowledge is power.” A few detached remarks may be added: (a)
The history of the use of the Greek word pistis is instructive. In the LXX it
normally, if not always, bears the “passive” sense, “fidelity,” “good faith,”
while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, “trust.” In the
koinē, the type of Greek universally common at the Christian era, it seems to
have adopted the active meaning as the ruling one only just in time, so to
speak, to provide it for the utterance of Him whose supreme message was
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
460
“reliance,” and who passed that message onto His apostles. Through their
lips and pens “faith,” in that sense, became the supreme watchword of
Christianity. … In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other
articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the
central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being in its
true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of
Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living
and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any
mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in
which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus faith is our side of
union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits,
pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory. – II, 1088
In its larger usage, the word faith represents as least four varied ideas:
(1) As above, it can be personal confidence in God. This the most common
aspect of faith may be subdivided into three features: (a) Saving faith, which
is the inwrought confidence in God’s promises and provisions respecting the
Savior that leads one to elect to repose upon and trust in the One who alone
can save. (b) Serving faith, which contemplates as true the fact of divinely
bestowed gifts and all details respecting divine appointments for service.
This faith is always a personal matter, and so one believer should not
become a pattern for another. That such faith with its personal characteristic
may be kept inviolate, the Apostle writes: “Hast thou faith? Have it to
thyself before God” (Rom 14:22). Great injury may be wrought if one
Christian imitates another in matters of appointment of service. (c)
Sanctifying or sustaining faith, which lays hold of the power of God for
one’s daily life. It is the life lived in dependence upon God, working upon a
new life-principle (Rom 6:4). The justified one, having become what he is
by faith, must go ahead living on the same principle of utter dependence
upon God. (2) It can also be creedal or doctrinal announcement which is
sometimes distinguished as the faith. Christ propounded this question:
“When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8;
cf. Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 16:13; 2 Cor 13:5; Col 1:23; 2:7; Titus 1:13; Jude 1:3).
(3) It may signify faithfulness, which implies that the believer is faithful
towards God. Here is an inwrought divine characteristic, for it appears as
one of the nine graces which together comprise the fruit of the Spirit (Gal
5:22-23). (4) It may prove a title belonging to Christ, as in Galatians 3:23, 25
where Christ is seen to be the object of faith.
While faith, basically considered, must be divinely inwrought, it is ever
increasing as the knowledge of God and experience in His fellowship
advances. It is natural for God not to be pleased with those who distrust Him
(Heb 11:6). Faith, indeed, vindicates the character of God and frees His arm
461
to act in behalf of those who trust Him. Thus because of the heaven-high
riches which reliance secures, it is termed by Peter once, “precious faith” (2
Pet 1:1).
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
462
463
Bibliography
1 Rev 2:7 NET
2 1 John 3:23 NET
3 1 John 5:4-5 NET
4 Revelation 2:11ff NET
5 1 Corinthians 15:22 NET
6 Ephesians 5:11 NET
7 John 3:36 NET
8 Rom 5:18-21 NET (verse omission mine)
9 Luke 15:10 NET
10 Ibid., Vol 2, pp 176-84, cited in Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol
3, pp 147-153 11
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2, p 362 12
1 Cor 15:47-50 NET (verse omission mine) 13
Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 79-80 14
The Biblical Studies Foundation, Winter 2001, www.bible.org 15
Major Bible Themes, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp 126-28 16
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 308 17
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, p 237-38 18
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, P 224 19
Ibid., Vol 4, pp 239-40 20
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, pp 168-232ff 21
Ibid., Vol 3, pp 226-27, 228-29 22
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, p 430 23
2 Pet 3:7, 10 KJV 24
Rev 20:11-15 NET 25
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 5, pp 363-65 26
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved. 27
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 150 28
The Holy Spirit and Prayer, Ray C. Stedman, Copyright ©1995 Discovery
Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church, requests for permission –
Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3695 29
Vol 1, pp viii-ix, xiii-xxxviii 30
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 5, pp 372-379 31
John 14:19ff, 20ff 32
Col 2:8 NET (brackets mine, this writer) NET 33
Rom 4:2-5 NET (verse omission mine) 34
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved. 35
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, pp 1201, 88
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
464
36
Ibid., p1241 37
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer , Vol 7, p 186 38
Ibid., Vol 7, p 227 39
Ibid., Vol 7, p 142 40
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 335 41
Morning and Evening Devotions, Dr. C. H. Spurgeon, p 501 42
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 279 43
Ibid., Vol 3, pp 308-09 44
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 306 45
The Anchor Bible – The Epistles of John, R. E. Brown, p 570 and pp 594-95 46
Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord 47
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, p 178-79 48
Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, p 356 49
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 1328 50
Ibid., p 1319 51
Salvation, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, pp 45-52 52
Ibid., p 1017 53
Ibid., p 1016 54
Ibid., p 1226-27 55
Ibid., p. 989-90 56
Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 293-94 57
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, p 80 58
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, p 1089-90 59
So That You May Believe: A study of the Gospel of John – Lesson 19, Robert
L. Deffinbaugh, Th. M., NET Bible 2nd
Beta Edition Resource CD 60
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 82; 21 61
- P. 157, The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, cited in
Heaven, Randy Alcorn, pp 112-13 62
So That You may Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John – Lesson 19, Dr.
Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Th. M., NET Bible 2nd
Beta Edition Resource CD 63
Liner notes – Listen to Our Hearts Vol. 1, EMI Christian Music Publishing 64
Ibid., p 1148 65
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 1211 66
Ibid., p 1242 67
Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, p 280 68
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, pp 1280-811 69
Systematic Theology,Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, p 23, 26-27 70
NET Bible 2nd
Beta Edition Resource CD 71
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 154-55 72 Isaiah 44:10; 30:8; 40:13; 29:16; 29:15; 41:21; 28:15; 29:8; 44:20; 41:24;
32:5-7 73
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, p 130 74
Systematic Theology,Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 120-125
465
75
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 131 76
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 127-30 77
Ibid., Vol 3, pp 131-35 78
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 55 79
Cited by R. W. Dale, The Atonement, 4th ed., p 3
80 Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 48-49
81 Ibid., Vol 3, pp 340-41
82 The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Romans 1-8, Dr. John
MacArthur, p 506, 508-09 83
Ibid., Vol 3, p 58-59 84
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 1044 85
Ibid., p 1226 86
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 342, 344 87
Ibid., Vol 7, pp 85-88 88
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, p 1326 89
Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 248-49 90
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, 28-29, 35 91
Ephesians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.,
NET 2nd
Beta Edition Resource CD 92
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, p 47 93
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 126 94
Ibid., Vol 3, p 49 95
Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley, Barnes and
Nobles ed., p 78 96
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, pp 110, 148, 1038, 1300 97
Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp
184-85 98
Ibid., pp 60-61 99
Ibid., pp 63-64 100
Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 355-57 101
Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 37-39 102
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 274-75 103
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 51-52 104
Ibid., Vol 4, p 174-75 105
Ibid., Vol 7, 107-08 106
Romans 5:8-10 NET 107
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 198 108
Studies in Theology, B. B. Warfield, pp.283-97 cited in Systematic Theology,
Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 160-64 109
Morning and Evening Devotions, Dr. C. H. Spurgeon, p 538, Morning - Sept. 25 110
True Evangelism, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 27-28 111
Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 319-22
rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō
466
112
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Dr. John F. Walvoord, p 149-51 – cited in
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 6, p 121 113
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 6, p 121 114
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2, pp 30-31 115
Ibid., Vol 2, p 37 116
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, IV, 2695 – cited in
Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2, p 37-38 117
He That Is Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer, p 102 118
Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 1350 119
Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer – revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp
161-63 120
Ibid., pp 172-73 121
Ibid., pp 174-87 122
Ibid., pp 274-78 123
Ibid., pp 291-295
Top Related