Sanctification by Faith

In his Catechism for the Church of Geneva (answer # 126), John Calvin wrote, "To believe in Christ is as much to say as to receive Christ in such sort as He doeth give Himself unto us; now this is an evident thing, that Christ doeth not only promise to deliver us from death and to restore unto us the favor of God His Father through the only merits of His innocence, but also He promiseth to make us new creatures by His Spirit, to the end that ye should lead a holy conversation in all good works, so that these must be joined together, except we would divide Christ from Himself." In simpler terms, Jesus does not save  man from the wrath of God without also making him a new creation with good works consistent with that new nature. 

The biblical basis for Calvin's statement comes from II Corinthians 5:17-21: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who, through Christ, reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake, He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." This is a description of the legal exchange that happens at the moment that a sinner experiences saving faith. He has an instantaneous exchange of status with Jesus, receiving the righteousness of Jesus in place of the sin that is ours by nature. That is why Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The moment he believed, that man had all of the righteousness of Jesus. He was as justified as any saint at a hundred years old, even though he was never given the opportunity to do a single good work. 

However, for the saint who remains in this life, for as long as he remains in this life, there will be good works. After reminding the Christians that their justification is through faith alone, not at all by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul tells the Church at Ephesus (verse 10), "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." While justification is instantaneous, as we see in the example of the thief on the cross, this new walking in good works, which we call sanctification, is a process lasting as long as the Christian remains in this life. The Westminster Larger Catechism Answer #75 defines sanctification this way: "Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, through the powerful operation of His Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life."

Yet we are never to mistake the order of these events. We can never do good works to gain the favor of God. It is only after a man is justified through faith alone in Jesus alone that he is then able to do good works. This is the point of Paul's epistle to the Galatians. "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we, too, were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for is righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:15-21). 

Paul's challenge to the erring Galatians is, if I was justified by faith alone in Jesus, how would I now turn aside from faith and seek to live the Christian life by my works? No, he says! My Christian life, too, is by faith alone in Christ alone! My good works are not by my own moral striving, but arise from the new life of Christ within me. Sanctification is by faith just as much as justification is by faith!

The Restoration of the Jews in Jeremiah 30 and Romans 11

I have written before on the subject of the conversion of the Jews (here, here, and here), so this post will rehash some material from those earlier posts. However, it has been several years, so I feel a need to revisit the question, and from a different text. 

"Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwellings; the city shall be rebuilt on its mound, and the palace shall stand where it used to be. Out of them shall come songs of thanksgiving, and the voices of those who celebrate. I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will make them honored, and they shall not be small. Their children shall be as they were of old, and their congregation shall be established before Me, and I will punish all who oppress them. Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make Him draw near, and He shall approach Me, for who would dare of himself to approach Me, declares the Lord?: And you shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:18-22). 

The first part of these verses could be taken to refer to the restoration of Judah after the exile in Babylon, the same events we see described in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, that is just a launching point, used typologically for events we have yet to see either in Israel or among the Jewish diaspora. 

While modern Jews are mostly secular, often even agnostic or atheist, the people described in this passage are expressing thanks and celebrating God, because they are a people who are established in faithfulness before their God. 

The description of their prince is especially amazing to me, because it is couched in the same language as the davidic, messianic prince. Compare the words of Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise for you a prophet like me [I. e., Moses] from among you, from your brothers...," and its explicit fulfillment in Acts 7:37. This is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). 

Jeremiah is prophesying to Israel a hope, not merely of the restoration to the land after exile in Babylon, but restoration to the covenantal relationship with her God that she had eschewed in idolatry. He remained faithful, though she was faithless (II Timothy 2:13). As he says to Israel: "You shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:22), just as He first said to them in Exodus: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment [against them]. I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians" (Exodus 6:6-7).

See some historical views on the matter here and here. 

Leprosy, Famine, and the Doctrine of Common grace

"In truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over the land, and Elijah was sent to them of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:25-27).

Among Reformed folks, the majority hold to the doctrine of common grace: "God's kindness to all people during their time on earth, regardless pf their present status with him. While it is true that believers will experience both common grace and saving grace, those who are apart from Christ will only experience common grace in this life." 

Of course, to the Arminian, all grace is common grace, since, he supposes, God enables all men to believe unto salvation. And that parallel must be noted. The Reformed people who hold to this doctrine are advocating a step halfway to the presuppositions that underlie the error of Arminianism. 

Not, however, the text above. These are the words of Jesus, referring to two events found in the Old Testament. The first was the three and half years that Elijah spent as a refugee in the territory of the Sidonians, while God judged Israel with drought and famine (I Kings 17-18). The second was Elisha's giving a Syrian general the means of curing his leprosy (II Kings 5). 

In both cases, Jesus makes the point that there were many people who shared common sufferings, but the grace was shared only with a particular victim in each case. That is, the grace shown was particular, not common. And that is one of the problems with the doctrine of common grace. Not only is it not biblical, but it can't be seen in the historical cases where it should have been applicable. 

The Bad News Points the Elect to the Good News

"Be as sensible of your deformity and unworthiness as you can, and walk humbly under the sense of it. But let it not slacken your pace nor abate your hope. if anything may render you worthy, that is, a suitable object of mercy, it is your coming boldly to the throne of grace with all your unworthiness about you. It is a disgustful [sic] modesty to be shy in accepting from those above us. it looks as if we would not be thought to need their kindness, or else as if we thought they needed our requital, or, at least, as if we were unwilling to be obliged by them. Much more unbecoming it is to be backward in accepting the grace from so great a person as our Lord and Redeemer." -Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

There are some men who feel such shame of their past sins that they believe that they are beyond the help of Jesus's blood. Coles addresses such people in the quote above. It is exactly because of our unworthiness that He came and extends His mercy to the elect sinner. 

This Puritan writer makes the same point in everyday language what Jesus taught in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14): "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and treated others with contempt: 'Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all I get. But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to Heaven, but beat his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner! I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." Just like the hypothetical sinner in Coles' account, it is the one who knows his inherent unworthiness that can truly turn to Jesus alone for redemption. Anyone who imagines an inherent worthiness in himself, as does the Pharisee, disqualifies himself. 

As Jesus also says (Luke 5:31-32), "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." 

We also have the testimony of the Apostle Paul (Romans 5:8): "God shows His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

The amazing thing about the biblical Gospel is that it is the opposite of what the world expects. While the world looks to the upright and virtuous as those who are worthy of Heaven, and to the wicked as those who are unworthy, that religion is backwards. It is for the sinner, the one who knows himself to be helpless, hopeless, and doomed, that Jesus gave Himself on the cross. For the one who falsely imagines that he has any worthiness within himself, Jesus disdains to extend a hope of salvation.

The Sovereignty of God over His Enemies

The Bible gives us accounts of several cases in which God interacts with Satan or Satan's demonic minions. For example, we read this story in Job 1:6-12: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, 'From where have you come?' Satan answered the Lord and said, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.' And the Lord said to Satan, 'Have you considered My servant job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?' Then Satan answered the Lord and said, 'Does Job fear God for no reason? Have You not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has has, and he will curse You to Your face.' And the Lord said to Satan, 'Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.' So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord." 

What we see is that Satan, the commander of the demons, must give answer to God for his activities. This chieftain of wickedness cannot claim for himself even the autonomy with which he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We see this in every interaction between the Father or the Son and any of the minions of Hell. Never does a demon act apart from divine permission, even when the woman is possessed by a legion of demons, or approximately six thousand (Mark 5:1-20). Even with such a number, the demons cower before the incarnate divine Son (verses 10-12). They knew that a day will come when He will judge them to their final imprisonment (Luke 8:31). 

In his catechism, question #28, Calvin addressed this subservience from the demons: "What sayest thou as touching the devils and wicked persons? Be they also subject to Him? A: Albeit that God doth not guide them with His Holy Spirit, yet He doth bridle them in such sort that they be not able to stir or move without His permission and appointment; yea, and moreover He doth compel them to execute His will, although it be against their intent and purpose." 

The Believer Rewarded for Good Works

"There will be degrees of the glory of eternal life and of the blessedness of perfected salvation. These degrees of bliss and glory will be commensurate with the good works that God's people performed in their earthly lives. According as they worked out of love for God and the neighbor and in accordance with the good works they performed, they will receive from Christ the judge more splendid glory, more honorable responsibility, a higher place in the everlasting kingdom of Christ in the new creation." -David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," pp. 389-90 

In this paragraph, Engelsma addresses the biblical truth that Christians will receive different levels of glory in the life to come in accordance with the good works we have done in this life. We see this, for example, in the words of Jesus in the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27): "He said to [the first servant], 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' And He said to him, "And you are to be over five cities'" (verses 17-18). 

What we don't see here is Jesus's offering the servants eternal life. Why? Because the unbeliever cannot do good works (Romans 3:12, Romans 14:23, Hebrews 11:6). Nowhere does the Bible describe justification as a reward for good works. Rather, good works are always the consequence of justification. No one is saved by good works; good works are what saved people do. 

As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said to his readers, "Though we speak in this way, yet, in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things - things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for His name in serving the saints, as you still do" (Hebrews 6:9-10). Notice to whom the writer directs his comments: to the beloved, to those who serve the saints. These cannot be qualities of unbelievers. Again, good works are something that only the believer can do, so it is impossible for any supposed good works to contribute to anyone's justification,.

The False Righteousness of Men

"His own perfect work in Jesus Christ satisfies God. The one who believes only, declining to work for righteousness, comes to God lacking all justifying works, only guilty, wholly ungodly in the matter of righteousness, supplicating and magnifying the grace of God."

- Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," pp. 193-4 

In the comment above, Engelsma is paraphrasing several references in the Bible, such as Romans 5:6: "While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." Jesus didn't come to purchase salvation for those who are moral, or who clean up their lives. Rather, he came to save the one who realizes how unclean he is, with nothing of himself to offer. As the Apostle Paul continues (verses 8-11): "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

We also have the words of Jesus Himself, describing His salvific purpose: "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). He is referring to those who are self-righteous, since "none is righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). Since the Fall of Adam, no mere human being has any righteousness in himself by which to please God. All are sinners (Romans 3:23), under the well-deserved wrath of the thrice-holy God, as described above. Every act claimed by a man as his own righteousness is condemned by God, for "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

Instead, we depend on the righteousness of Jesus, which is imputed to the believer the moment he believes: "For our sake He [i. e., the Father] made Him [i. e., Jesus, the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (II Corinthians 5:21; see also Isaiah 26:12 and Hebrews 13:20-21).

There is an absolute contrast here: a person can depend on the good works that he imagines he does, and be damned; or he can condemn his own works as the wickedness that they are, under the wrath of God, and seek instead to receive forgiveness and righteousness by faith alone from Jesus alone, and be saved for eternal life.

How Long Was There Darkness After the Crucifixion? The Bible Versus the Book of Mormon

In the "Book of Mormon Student Manual," chapter 40, "The three days of darkness symbolized the death of Jesus Christ, who is 'the light and life of the world' 3 Nephi 11:11. Mormon emphasized that the three days of darkness was 'a sign' given of the Savior’s death. After describing the damage caused by the 'great storm' that lasted for three hours, Mormon documented the complete darkness as one of the signs that was now fulfilled. The darkness was so intense that 'there could not be any light at all.' During this time of darkness, the body of Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, lay in the tomb. On the day of His Resurrection, after Christ had overcome death, light came again to the people in America, signifying Christ’s victory over death and darkness." 

This refers to the LDS claim that there was three days of darkness after the crucifixion of Jesus, as, they claim, was prophesied by their prophets. "And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death  unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel" (I Nephi 19:10). And, "But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead. And he said unto me that while the thunder and the lightning lasted, and the tempest, that these things should be, and that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days" (Helaman14:20, 27). 

This is in contrast to the biblical account: "It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed" (Luke 23:44-45; see also Matthew 27:43). So, not three days, but three hours!

 Why the difference? Since I consider the Bible alone to be the Word of God, I necessarily believe that the error is in the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. My suspicion is that Joseph Smith, author of the Book of Mormon, confused the account of the crucifixion with the expectation of the resurrection on the third day. If one were hurried, it would be easy to gloss "days" for "hours." Acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the writers of the Gospels had no such risk. The supposed "prophecies" were then invented to cover Smith's error.

The Gospel, Our Mission, and the Crown Rights of Jesus

 In the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:12-24), we find this statement from the master of the house (representing Jesus): "Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled" (verse 23). This is a paraphrase of the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

Where Jesus said in the Commission that we, His people, are to disciple the nations, He adds the explanation in Luke that the goal is to fill His house. This is very different from the Commission, as it is defined by dispensationalists, that we are to be a witness to the nations (a misuse of the Matthew 24:14), that is, a failed witness. That is why most English translations of the Commission change "disciple the nations" to "make disciples from all nations." The dispensationalist expects to fail, doing no more than cherry-picking a few individual converts here and there. Or to use Luke's language, the dispensationalist expects the house of the Lord to be nearly empty. 

That assumption is blatant disobedience. 

In Isaiah 56:6-7, Jehovah, i. e., the preincarnate Jesus, declares, "And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to Him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be His servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast My covenant— these I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." "Peoples," not just "people." 

How could He claim this? Because it was the promise to Him in the intra-Trinitarian covenant: "Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession" (Psalm 2:8).

Therefore, to deny that Jesus will return to a converted world (generally, not necessarily exhaustively) is to deny His word, His crown, and His right to what has been promised to Him. 

When Times Are Chaotic, Does It Mean That God Has Abandoned Us?

As I am writing this, America is in the grip of chaos. America has been shaken by understandable protests over the police killings of black people. In most places, those protests have wound down, but there a few cities, such as Portland, OR, which still see a lot of property damage and some violence. At the same time, we face the attack of the coronavirus. In some states, hospitals are at capacity, yet we still see a death toll which has surpassed one-hundred fifty-thousand.

Why are these things happening? Where is God as we face these things?

Well, we can be glad that God is where He has always been,on His throne. He is no less in control during days of chaos that He was when our society was at its most placid.

So, does that mean that there is no spiritual dimension to these circumstances? I would definitely not suggest that! Rather, it is not God who has failed us. I think that it is the organized church which has failed.

When Jesus gave us the Great Commission, He gave us a step that most Christians ignore: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). We are fine with making disciples and baptizing them. In fact, there are even some mission organizations that proudly state that they do no more than that. But the command of Jesus did not stop there. In fact, even in those first two clauses, many Christians make a false assumption, equating "making disciples" with "making converts." Of course, a person must be converted first, but he is not then a disciple. Rather, it is the third clause that makes a convert into a disciple, for a disciple will obey all that Jesus has commanded us.

I place the blame for the chaos not on President Trump or on Democrats, as culpable as they may be. Rather I blame the pietists and dispensationalists in the American church. The pietist defines his faith as just a private relationship between himself and Jesus. He never intends for his private religion to have an impact on the world - and it doesn't. The dispensationalist (and I am using the term in its classical sense, such as seen in Scofield's Bible) denies the validity of God's Law in today's world. If anything, he might replace it with rules, such as hairlength for men. But they never notice that the Great Commission says nothing about obeying the rules of men; the obedience which is commanded is to what Jesus commanded.

Where are those commands? The answer is easy: all of Scripture was mediated to its authors by Jesus (see, for example, Exodus 20:2, , Luke 24:27, and I Peter 1:11). It is the same moral law (not the ceremonial law) which was proclaimed to Israel by Moses. Jesus is the author of the Ten Commandments, and He is no schizophrenic, teaching one morality today and a different one tomorrow, contrary to the claims of the dispensationalist. And it is because the dispensationalist has deprived American society of these guiding moral principles that men now act like lawless animals. And it is because the pietist leaves his faith in the closet that the church provides no solution to a crumbling society. God has not abandoned us; the American church has abandoned God.

Faith, the Gift of God to the Elect Alone

Every Bible-believing Christian is distinguished by one doctrine: our justification before God is through fail alone. That was the message of Jesus (see the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector, Luke 18:9-14), Paul (such as Romans 3:28), the Old Testament prophets (such as Habakkuk 2:4), and the Reformers.

But rare is the person who asks an important question: Who has such saving faith? As I demonstrate here, faith is given to us by God; it is not something that we add to the cross work of Jesus.

The Arminian claims that God gives faith equally to all men, so that all men are equally enable to respond to the Gospel. However, the Bible says otherwise: "Not all have faith" (II Thessalonians 3:2). So, contrary to the claim of the Arminian, not all have faith.

So, then, who does? "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). So the answer that Paul provides has three parts: faith, knowledge, and godliness. Thus, we aren't talking about a mere ability to believe, as is the basis of Arminianism. Paul restricts these gifts to God's elect. The elect are given faith by which to be justified, knowledge of the Gospel, and godly lives. Paul here gives an explanation of the content of the promise of Jesus in John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day."

Jesus, Justice, and the Woman Caught in Adultery

There is a strange and controversial story found in John 7:53-8:11. In the story, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman who was caught in adultery. They say, and correctly, that the Law required those convicted of adultery to be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22). Yet, we notice at least one problem with their presentation: Where was the man caught with her? So, the Pharisees ask Jesus, what do You say that we should do with her?

Jesus does not respond with law. Rather, His response is to point at the character of the woman's accusers. Rather, He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7). In our popular culture, this has been taken to mean that any person with any sin has no grounds for criticizing the actions of any other person. Well, we know that Jesus meant no such thing, because He had prescribed righteous judgment just before this story (John 7:24). And that indicates the problem that He had with the Pharisees in this case. Their accusations did not come from righteous grounds, regardless of their pious citation of Moses. Note that these are men who had allowed a guilty man to depart without punishment, while they were prepared to punish the woman with death! I think that this was the specific intent of the response of Jesus, quoted above. These men had justified the man because they shared his same proclivities for illicit sex, but they still wanted to play at being righteous! They all walked away in shame because Jesus had torn off the bandage with which they had been hiding their perversion. 

If the text is a legitimate part of John, a question which I am not qualified to answer, then why is it here? 

I started thinking about this story because of something I read in my private Bible study this morning: "I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14). Doesn't that sound a lot like the story from John? And in it I found what I surmised about the story that I described above. Jesus was exemplifying the same redemptive purpose that He, in His preincarnate state, had inspired in the prophecy of Hosea. 

Jesus was not, and is not, opposed to true justice. After all, He was also the source of the Law. He was the Yahweh who revealed the commandments to Moses in Exodus 20:1. However, He is also our compassionate Redeemer who went to the cross on behalf of His people. Notice how He deals with the repentant thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:40-43). He promised the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise in just a few hours. However, He did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was redeemed and forgiven, but still received the due temporal, legal consequence of his wicked acts (Luke 23:41). There is no sign here of the sentimental supposition that no one can judge the sins of someone else.

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Know the Bad News, then Recognize the Good News

"The law must be applied with power to the conscience, or the preciousness of grace will be very inadequately known. The superficial piety of the present day is owing, in a large degree, to feeble impressions of the malignity of sin" (James Henley Thornwell, "The necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The comment above was part of a long article in the Southern Presbyterian Review in 1849, but would be even more properly written in our current days. If anything, American evangelicalism has degenerated far past that described by Thornwell in his own time. What would he say about "churches" with female ministers, gay marriages, and that serve as laughingstocks to the world.

His diagnosis is correct. As the church has come to despise God's law, she has lost sight of the sinfulness of sin and its insult to the God she claims to serve. If the word is used at all, "sin" is left undefined, and only in occasions of unfortunate poverty and ignorance. Never is any person called a "sinner," because that is harsh and unloving.

A false Gospel that says only that "God loves you" to everyone leaves everyone satisfied with sin. God loves everyone unconditionally, so there is no need to repent. Church discipline is unheard of in our day.

The result is to use Thornwell's words, a feeble church, and people with a superficial piety.

That wasn't the way Jesus lived: "I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). And His cousin and favorite Apostle tells us: "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). When was the last time a minister called out sin as being the influence of the devil, rather than ignorance or poor economic conditions? And what does the Bible say about that silence? "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18).

Rather, this is how the Bible defines sin: "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). And this brings us back to the problem identified by Thornwell. If minsters do not preach on the Law, then their congregants never learn God's standard of right and wrong. And if Christians have no standard, then we have no standard to present to our world: "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:8-10).

Paul the Apostle

The Good News of Double Imputation

"A penal death and a perfect righteousness imputed, the one for pardon and the other for acceptance - these are the things which make the Gospel glad tidings of great joy. To deny these is to deny Christ" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

In his comment above, Thornwell quotes the Christmas passage from Luke 2:10, when the angel proclaims to the shepherds in the fields, "Fear not, for I bring you glad tidings of great joy!" The glad tidings were that our Savior had come, the One for whom His people had been waiting since He was first foretold in Genesis 3:15. I cannot read those words without thinking of Linus, as he spoke them, in the Charlie Brown Christmas Special.

I think even that idea is ruled out now in our politically-correct society. However, even Linus did not explain why the coming of Jesus was supposed to bring us great joy. Thornwell knew, and tells us. It isn't the part that Linus told us, but the part John the Baptist told us: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29; see also Matthew 1:21). Jesus came to take away the sins of everyone for whom He died, not just of Israel, as the Jews expected, but in all nations (cf., Matthew 28:19-20)!

That is justification! We are set free from the burden of sin and the judgment that it brings. 

However, as Thornwell notes, Jesus didn't just cancel the debt of sin, and then leave us in some neutral state. No, He also gave us His righteousness, so that we are now His holy people: "For our sake He [God the Father] made Him [God the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (II Corinthians 5:21).

The Fall and the Dominion Covenant

In Luke 17:10, Jesus makes a surprising comment: "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, [should] say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'" This is the nail in the coffin for any works-righteousness religion. If a man were to perfectly fulfill the law of God, then he has still not earned eternal life, because he has only done what he was supposed to do. It is like the employee who completes his assigned duties. Should his boss, therefore, give him a bonus? No, he has only done what he was required to do, and has contributed no additional value beyond what his wage has already purchased.

Think back to the first days of man. The one recorded restriction given to Adam was not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:17). And the Fall occurred when Adam broke that one restriction (3:6). Adam forsook all of the blessings of Eden by that particular sin. Yet, was he thereby promised eternal life if he refrained from eating that fruit? No, he retained his probationary status as long as he did not eat. But His assignment in Eden was far wider than that. Rather, he was to make it fruitful through the practice of agriculture (2:15), to exercise dominion (1:26) and to have families (1:28). Adam actually had an extensive list of responsibilities. The difference here was that the command not to eat the fruit, even if it had been obeyed, would not have advanced the purposes of God. Jesus, the Second Adam, talked about this, too, in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The servants who are praised are the ones who took the master's talents, invested them, and returned a profit. The servant who is cursed is the one who returned what he had been given, with no advancement - no loss, but no profit, either.

"It is only to the just that the confirmed state of blessedness, which the Scriptures mean by life, is infallibly promised. Obedience to the law, righteousness, is the indispensable condition of God's everlasting favor. If, therefore, the scheme of redemption had done nothing more than deliver us from the curse of the law, though it would have conferred an incalculable benefit upon us, an unutterably great salvation, it would not have done all, that the necessities of the case required, to secure the perfection and blessedness of our nature" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity," emphasis in the original).

Jesus, The Prince of Peace Bears a Bloody Sword

There are some traditional biblical texts that are used whenever the Christmas story is retold (I am writing this the day after Christmas). One of those is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That is the King James Version of the verse, which is what is usually used. Why? Look at it in the ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" The second phrase of the two is strikingly different! And other modern translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and CSB, are the same as the ESV here. That second phrase is necessary to a correct understanding of the coming of Jesus. 

In the same book, the writer quotes this comment from Jesus: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" (Luke 12:51; "sword" in Matthew 10:34). If you compared those words to the KJV version of the verse above, you would have a conflict. Did He come to bring peace to the world or not? The KJV of this second verse is the same as the ESV. In either case, we see that it is to one class of men that Jesus brought peace, but to another He brought conflict. 

Look at these words from the Apostle Paul: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Ah, here was have the distinction explained. Where the unbeliever is in conflict with God (Ephesians 2:3), the believer has been brought into a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:10). Jesus becomes his Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) by grace alone through faith alone.

In apocalyptic language, the Apostle John also tells us about this conflict: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations" (Revelation 19:15; cp. Isaiah 49:2 and Hebrews 4:12). This is the distinguishing between the sheep and goats, of which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:32ff), achieved by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:8-15), which further distinguishes between men who will believe and men who will not (II Corinthians 2:16). With the former, it is a message of peace; but to the latter it is a message of war.

"The kingdom which He came to establish consists in joy and peace, and the great blessing which He communicates to all who are sprinkled with His blood is that peace which passeth all understanding, and which abides unshaken amid the agitations and tumults, the glooms and convulsions of the world. ThroughHim, God becomes the God of peace, the Gospel the message of peace, preachers of righteousness the heralds of peace, and the two great results of His work, according to the rapturous song of the angels, are glory to God in the highest and peace on earth" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

The Example of Jesus for Our Apologetic

My objection to classical apologetics is that its proponents believe in finding a common ground with their anti-Christian opponents. Part of that is that they do not use Scripture as their evidence, because the unbeliever doesn't consider the Scriptures to be authoritative. Therefore, the apologist claims, he must appeal to the unbeliever on the basis of something that unbeliever considers authoritative. 

Do you see a problem with that principle? To the Christian, God and His word are authoritative. Of course the unbeliever rejects that authority, because he is an unbeliever! Therefore, when the Christian seeks an authority that the unbeliever accepts, he is accepting the very premise of unbelief, that God is not the ultimate authority (Genesis 3:5). In order to defend Christianity, therefore, the classical apologist starts by accepting the worldview of the unbeliever. That is to surrender before joining battle!

We must, in contrast, use the Bible exactly because it is the highest standard, the word of God Himself. If we turned to another standard, then we would be adopting the worldview of the atheist. It is illegitimate for the atheist to expect us to adopt HIS worldview in order to discuss worldviews. In fact, THAT would be circular reasoning. It is legitimate, however, for us to argue from our own worldview. Would an atheist allow us to forbid him to argue from a secular source? Obviously not. So, his assertion would be the application of a double standard, and should be labeled as such. 

Ask this question: When confronted by unbelief, what apologetical standard did Jesus apply? Look at His confrontation with Satan, the highest standard of unbelief, in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13. In the face of each challenge, His response was, "It is written..." If Jesus, God incarnate, depended on Scripture for His apologetic, how can men do less? And let us not forget that it is only His word that God promises to empower: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). 

God Kicks Away Every Competing Support

In the book known by his name, the Patriarch Job tells a very sad tale.

Starting with verse 6, he first tells us how God has opposed Himself to Job:
"Now then that God has put me in the wrong
     and closed His net about me.
Behold, I cry out, ‘Violence!’ but I am not answered;
     I call for help, but there is no justice.
He has walled up my way, so that I cannot pass,
     and He has set darkness upon my paths.
He has stripped from me my glory
     and taken the crown from my head.
He breaks me down on every side, and I am gone,
     and my hope has He pulled up like a tree.
He has kindled His wrath against me
     and counts me as His adversary.
His troops come on together;
     they have cast up their siege ramp against me 
and encamp around my tent."
- Job 19:6-12 

Then, in the next section, God isolates Job from even his family: 
"He has put my brothers far from me,
     and those who knew me are wholly estranged from me.
My relatives have failed me,
     my close friends have forgotten me.
The guests in my house and my maidservants count me as a stranger;
     I have become a foreigner in their eyes.
I call to my servant, but He gives me no answer;
     I must plead with Him with my mouth for mercy.
My breath is strange to my wife,
     and I am a stench to the children of my own mother.
Even young children despise me;
     when I rise they talk against me.
All my intimate friends abhor me, 
     and those whom I loved have turned against me."
- Job 19:13-19 

This is part of the process of effectual calling, the events God uses to break down our unbelief, and to eliminate whatever competing source of support we maintain. In Job's case, he depended on his relatives for sustaining strength in life, so God separated those relationships. The same with his friends. This is an application of the First Commandment: "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). Someone might object that Job never worshiped other deities. Nor do most modern Americans pray to other gods. Yet, to God, another god doesn't just mean Thor or Ganesha. Rather, to Him another god is any support we have in life for not depending on Him as our only God, whether that deity is self-confidence or supportive family. In His eyes, they are competitors, and He removes them from the lives of His elect, until we throw ourselves on Him alone: "I am the LORD; that is My name; My glory I give to no other, nor My praise to carved idols" (Isaiah 42:8).

And in the case of Job, this work was successful: 
"I know that my Redeemer lives,
     and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
     yet in my flesh I shall see God,
whom I shall see for myself,
     and my eyes shall behold, and not another. 
My heart faints within me!"
-Job 19:25-27 

Now that Job has been deprived of his crutches, he is able to see the glory of God. And, where he had been experiencing such unmitigated sorrow, now he experiences hope, the sure hope that he has been given new life, and will thus have his place in the resurrection, where he will see Jesus his Redeemer, with the same eyes with which he now sees only the sky. 

This is the question that every unbeliever faces: when you experience things like this, and feel the tug on your heart to turn from your unbelief (the meaning of repentance), how long will you resist? How long will you watch what you value in your life get pulled away? Surrender now, before the price goes up.

Jesus experienced this separation, but in the opposite order. He had perfect fellowship with His divine Father for unknown ages before He was born: "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given Me, may be with Me where I am, to see My glory that you have given Me because you loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24). But He also experienced the loss of His companions (Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:50). And, just before He died, He experienced separation, for the fist time ever, even from His own Father: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46; compare Isaiah 59:2). He experienced that separation on behalf of everyone who believes in Him. He was separated so that we can be reunited with His God, who is our God.

The Bible as Our Apologetic

I have a real problem with classical apologetics. That is for two main reasons. One is that they lead to a generic deity, not necessarily the God of the Bible. Arguing, for example, from a supposed "first cause" could as easily be fulfilled by Allah or Zeus. The other reason is that they concede, as a starting point, that God does not necessarily exist. That concession is supposedly to establish a common ground with the unbeliever. Common ground with unbelief? What does that Bible say about that? "What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:15). The starting point of the Christian apologist is with something that Scripture denies! And I have even seen R. C. Sproul, a man whom I otherwise respect, go though his apologetics system in order to determine, not that God is necessarily who the Bible says He is, but rather that God probably exists. "Probably exists" means "maybe doesn't exist." How is that a God-honoring apologetic? I don't believe that it is. And that is probably why you never see the Apostles use such an approach. 

What is the biblical apologetic? "I shall have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in Your word" (Psalm 119:42). Do you recall the answers that Jesus made to Satan during His temptation (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4)? Did He try to find common ground with Satan? Of course not! Rather, He rebuked the Devil with Scripture! 

In apologetics, we must remember one thing: the unbeliever, regardless of his claims, does not really believe that God does not exist. On the contrary, he knows perfectly well that God exists, but is suppressing that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, there is no need to establish a common ground. The believer and the unbeliever share a common belief in God. The difference is that one is living according to that belief, while the other is living contrary to it. That is why unbelief is inherently irrational and unstable. And exposing that irrationality was Paul's methodology when he preached at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34).

In His word, God has given us the most-powerful weapon possible for our spiritual conflict: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12; see also Revelation 1:16 and 2:16). And He guarantees its success: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).