The Reign of the Servant Kings*
A Study of Eternal Security
And the Final Significance of Man
By JOSEPH C. DILLOW
[* NOTE: All
words placed inside blue brackets, are not part of the authors writing.
They are
added by the
editor to help clarify the authors meaning and strengthen scriptural
teachings.
Bold type, underlining and highlighting
passages, are used throughout the book to
place
emphasis on important statements. It is
recommended that Dr. Dillows
writings be
compared with R. Govetts exposition in: Christian!
Seek
the
Rest of God In His Millennial Kingdom. - Ed.]
Schoettle Publishing Co.
-------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Foreword [Page
xiii]
Preface
[Page
xv]
Abbreviations [Page
xvii]
Acknowledgment [Page
xx]
PROLOGUE [Page 1]
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION [Page 7]
Grace under Fire [Page 7]
The Abuse of Grace
[Page
8]
The Theology of the Reformers
[Page
8]
The answer
to Carnality [Page 10]
Front Loading the Gospel
[Page10]
Back Loading the Gospel [Page
11]
The Eternal
Security of the Saints [Page 14]
The Experimental Predestination
[Page
14]
The Partaker [Page
20]
CHAPTER 2. INTERPRETATION AND PERSEVERANCE [Page 25]
Theological Exegesis [Page
27]
Illegitimate
Total Transfer [Page
29]
Theological Science [Page
38]
CHAPTER 3. THE
INHERITANCE: OLD TESTAMENT [Page
43]
The Old
Testament Conception of Inheritance [Page 46]
An Inheritance Was a Possession
[Page
47]
An Inheritance Could Be Merited and Lost
[Page
48]
Two Kinds of
Inheritance Are Promised [Page 52]
God is Our Inheritance
[Page
52]
An Added Blessing to the Saved
[Page
53]
The
Inheritance and Heaven New Testament Parallels? [Page 55]
The Inheritance
Promises and Conditions
[Page
57]
Conclusion [Page
58]
[Page
vi]
CHAPTER 4. THE
INHERITANCE: NEW TESTAMENT
[Page 61]
An
Inheritance Is a Possession
[Page
61]
An
Inheritance Is Meritorious Ownership of the Kingdom [Page
63]
An Inheritance
Can be Forfeited [Page
63]
Inheriting
the Kingdom [Page
75]
The
Inheritance in Hebrews
[Page82]
The Inheritance
[Page
82]
The Rights of the Firstborn
[Page
84]
Two Kinds of
Inheritance [Page
85]
The
Inheritance and
Conclusion [Page
90]
CHAPTER 5. THE
INHERITANCE REST OF HEBREWS
[Page 93]
The Rest of God [Page 94]
The Rest Is the
The Rest Is Our Finished Work [Page
96]
The Partakers [Page
102]
Entering into
Rest (Heb. 4:
1-11) [Page 106]
The Warning (4: 1-2) [Page
106]
The Present Existence of the Rest (4: 3-7) [Page
107]
No Final Rest under Joshua (4:
6-9)
[Page
107]
How the Rest is Obtained (4:
10-11)
[Page
108]
Conclusion [Page
109]
CHAPTER 6. SO GREAT SALVATION [Page 111]
Usage
outside the New Testament
[Page
111]
Usage in Secular Greek [Page
112]
Usage in the Old Testament
[Page
112]
Usage in the
New Testament [Page
114]
Salvation of the Troubled [Page
114]
Salvation of a Life [Page
116]
Salvation of a Wife [Page
126]
Salvation of a Christian Leader [Page
126]
Reigning with Christ in the Kingdom [Page
127]
Salvation in the Book of Hebrews [Page128]
Conclusion [Page 132]
CHAPTER 7. INHERITING ETERNAL LIFE
[Page 135]
Given freely
as a Gift [Page 135]
Earned as a Reward [Page
135]
Conclusion [Page
143]
[Page
vii]
CHAPTER 8. JUSTIFICATION
AND SANCTIFICATION 1 [Page 147]
The Greater Righteousness [Page
147]
Both Are
Part of the New Covenant
[Page
149]
A Disciple
Does the Will of God [Page
150]
The Tests of
1 John [Page 157]
The Readers of John
[Page
157]
The Gnostic Heresy [Page
158]
The Purpose of the Epistle [Page
162]
The Tests of Fellowship with God [Page
163]
The Mark of
the Beast [Page
175]
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION 2 [Page 177]
The New Creation [Page
177]
The
Christian Cannot Live in Sin
[Page
179]
Dead to Sin [Page
180]
Sin Will Not Have Dominion [Page
183]
Slaves of Righteousness [Page
184]
Faith
without Works Is Dead [Page
187]
What Is Dead Faith? [Page
187]
Salvation Is NOT by Faith
Alone [Page
188]
By Their
Fruits You Shall Know Them
[Page
194]
Only
Believers Go to Heaven
[Page
199]
The Implied
All [Page
203]
Christians
Have Crucified the Flesh
[Page
204]
He Who Began
a Good Work [Page
205]
A Note on that faith in James 2:
14 [Page
207]
CHAPTER 10. THE POSSIBILITY OF FAILURE [Page 209]
The New
Testament Warnings [Page 209]
The Reformed
View of the Warnings [Page
218]
They Are a Means of Securing Perseverance [Page
218]
They Apply Only to Professing [i.e.,
regenerate] Christians [Page
239]
Conclusion:
Why Are the Warnings Given? [Page
243]
CHAPTER 11. FROM CALVIN TO
John Calvin
(1509-1564) [Page
248]
Saving Faith [Page
248]
The Basis of Assurance [Page
250]
Calvins Doctrine of Temporary Faith [Page
254]
Theodore
Beza (1519-1605) [Page
261]
William
Perkins (1558-1602) [Page
263]
Jacobus Arminius
(1559- 1609) [Page
265]
The
[Page
viii]
[Page XII]
FOREWORD
It became apparent at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that
the Calvinists and the Arminians had reached a stalemate concerning the
doctrine of salvation which was destined to last for centuries. The Arminians, in their exegetical approach
to certain problem passages, viewed the loss of a [regenerate] believers [eternal] salvation as a real possibility for those who fail in
a consistent walk with Christ Jesus. On
the other hand, the Calvinist with a consistent biblical theology maintained
that [regenerate] believers
in Jesus Christ could never lose their eternal salvation. For almost four centuries there has been a
breech between there two major systems of theology. It may well be that both
systems, Calvinism and Arminianism, there has been a reductionistic error
committed in understanding the meaning of salvation. Each of these theological systems appears to
have defined the term salvation narrower than God intended by emphasizing
one aspect of salvation at the expense of another.
The
concept and meaning of salvation in the Scriptures is multidimensional. For example,
when we look at salvation with respect to deliverance from sin, there is a past aspect-justification, deliverance
from the penalty of sin, and a present
aspect-sanctification, deliverance from the power of sin, and a future aspect-glorification, deliverance
from the presence of sin. There are many
works today explaining in great detail the doctrine of justification [by
Gods grace] salvation. There are lesser
number of works seeking
satisfactory explanations of the doctrine of sanctification salvation. There are almost no works
in our generation explaining the doctrine of glorification salvation. This area of study has remained a virtual
vacuum. Yet it seems that in expanding
the implications of the doctrine of glorification salvation and the judgment
seat of Christ there is an acute biblical solution for this four hundred-year
debate between the Calvinist [theology] and
the Arminian [theology]. Although a [regenerate] believer can
never lose his justification [by faith alone - his initial] salvation, there are dimensions of [Gods future millennial] glorification salvation that may be lost or
gained if we take seriously passages as Romans 14: 10, 1 Corinthians 3: 15, 2 Corinthians 5:
10, and 2 John 7-8. The danger
of loss is real and to be taken with appropriate fear and reverence in light of
the [millennial and]
eternal implications.*
The opportunity of reward, on
the other hand, with the glories of
ruling and reigning with Jesus Christ in His coming [millennial] Kingdom,
are presented in the Scriptures as a
great motivation for holy living in the present.
[* NOTE. The first three references here all apply to regenerate
believers: 2 John 7-8
would appear to include apostate believers, whom Christ will
confine, for the duration of the thousand years,
in Outer Darkness (Matt. 8: 12; 22: 13; 25: 30 cf.
Rev. 20: 10, R.V.).]
It
is precisely at this point that Joseph Dillow has performed a monumental
service to the Body of Christ. The Reign of the Servant Kings may just be
the solution to the debate [and the apparent ignorance existing amongst Bible
teachers]
between two major systems of theology [Page XIV] which have dominated church history for four
centuries - [to this present time]. I have personally studied
through the manuscript several times and found myself most enthusiastic with
Dr. Dillows exegetical clarity and consistent biblical theology. His contribution to the disciplines of soteriology [i.e. biblical teachings relative to salvation
past, present and future] and eschatology - [i.e.,
biblical teachings relative to last things or end-time events] - are to be
applauded. I heartily commend this study
to you for gaining growth in accurately understanding your position, practice,
and place with Jesus Christ, both now and in His coming kingdom rule. God has spoken and He does not stutter. Therefore, we need to be diligent in our study - [and ask the
Holy Spirit for His help (Luke 11: 13)] - to come to
a clearer meaning of what God meant by what He has spoken in His Scriptures.
Earl
D. Radmacher, Th.D.
Western
Seminary
January
1192
*
* *
[Page XV]
PREFACE
There are few issues which are as capable of raising
the temperature of theological discussion as the issue of whether or not the
saints will necessarily persevere in holiness.
The Westminster Confession (1647) has taught us that true faith
inevitably results in a holy life and that justification and sanctification are
always united. Indeed, the magnificent
Reformed tradition, which has contributed in no small way to the growth and
expansion of the church since the Reformation, has had perseverance in holiness
as one of its essential tenets.
It
is also well known that the Remonstrants (1610) rejected that point of
Calvinism and went to another extreme - conditional security. Both were struggling with the
relation between faith and works.
What do we make of a man who claims to have placed his trust in Jesus
Christ but whose present life style is a complete contradiction of the faith he
once acknowledged? The
A
large portion of Christendom has accepted variations of the Arminian view. We may note that the Roman Catholic Church
has long held to these ideas and so has the Wesleyan tradition, in some form or
other. In view of the fact that God has
given to the church the gift of teaching, we must not easily dismiss this vast
body of exegetical literature simply because it disagrees with the Reformed
tradition or with our own personal [or denominational] exegetical
conclusions. To do so is to cut
ourselves off from the expression of the gift of teaching in the
Part
of the problem may be that the disputants on the question of perseverance in
holiness perceived only two
interpretive opinions when confronted with the many passages which seem to
indicate that there is something conditional
in the [regenerate] believers ultimate destiny. The warning
passages [throughout the Scriptures (e.g., Acts 5: 3, 9, 32) and] in Hebrews for example, have entered prominently into the debate. As might be expected, the exegetical
literature, in general, has divided along two
lines; either these warnings apply to those who merely professed faith and
subsequently fell away from a profession, thus
proving that they never possessed faith to
begin with, or they apply to true
Christians who, through the sin of unbelief, forfeited their justification [by faith
alone].
[Page XVI]
Is
there a third opinion? Is there an interpretative stance which can
be completely faithful to the text and at the same time draws upon the
exegetical contributions which the Holy Spirit has made to the church through
the able, scholarly work of men from both traditions? Is there a view of these warnings and others
in the New Testament which maintains, with the Calvinist tradition, that
justification [by faith] can never be
forfeited and at the same time, allows, with the Wesleyans, that justification and sanctification are not
inextricably united and that there is indeed something conditional to
the [regenerate] believers ultimate destiny?
The
answer to the question is yes. In the pages to follow [there
are 650 pages in the authors book] I will attempt to
chart a middle road between the traditional Reformed approach and that of the
Arminian. I accept the Reformed
position that those who are truly born again can never lose their [eternal] salvation. But I also
accept the Arminian position that the warning passages of the New
Testament (e.g., Heb. 6) are directed to true Christians, not
merely [nominal or] professing
Christians. There is a real danger here.* However, contrary
to the Arminian, the danger is not loss
of [eternal life or] heaven but loss of reward there [during
the Age to come] and
severe divine discipline in [intermediate] time.
[*
By intermediate time is meant time between
the First Resurrection and the Great White Throne judgment of those whose names will
be found written in the Book of Life, (Rev. 20: 5, 11, 15).
See
Heb. 9: 27 where mention is made of a prior
Judgment of the dead which commences before Christs return
and the First Resurrection of those who will
reign with Christ, (1 Thess. 4: 16; Rev. 20: 4, 5). This judgment by Christ, before the thousand years commence, will determine who (from
amongst the dead in the underworld of Hades Acts 2: 27, 34), are accounted worthy to obtain that world [age]
(Lk. 20: 35, A.V.) i.e., the Lords coming millennial reign.]
The
issue of whether or not the saints will necessarily persevere and whether or
not true faith is indestructible is a complex interpretive issue involving numerous
passages in the New Testament, indeed ones whole system of theology as
well. Because of this, the following
discussion will take us into many different areas of biblical theology. An
entire view of the Christian life is under consideration in the following
chapters.
One final note. Throughout this book I refer to the merit which the [regenerate] believer can obtain by means of his
good works. In the theology texts, merit is often used in
two different senses. It is either construed
as a strict legal relation in which the believer by his works pleases God in
his debt or as a more general term for the notion that God rewards us according
to our works but not because of them.
Unless stated otherwise, it is the latter sense which is always
intended. God is not obliged to reward
us at all. That He chooses to do this,
and in accordance with the general correspondence to our faithfulness, is an
act of pure grace, not of debt.
Joseph
C. Dillow
15
January 1992
* *
*
[Page xvii]
ABBREVIATIONS
Scripture Versions
LXX The Septuagint Version, With Apocrypha Greek and
English.
NASB New Ameridan Standard Cible.
NIV New International Version.
NKJV Holy
Bible, New King James Version.
Reference Works
AG Arndt, William F., and Gingrish, F. Wilbur. A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
AS Abbott-Smith, G. A Manuel Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.
BDB Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, Charles A. Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the New Testament.
DM Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
NIDNTT Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by
Colin Brown. 3
vols.
ISBE International Standar. 5
vols.
LS Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert. A
Greek-English Lexicon.
1907; reprint ed., revised and augmented by Henry Stuart James and
Robert McKenzie.
[Page xviii]
MM Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. One-vol. ed., reprint ed.,
NISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rev. ed.
Edited by Geoffery W. Bromiley. 4 vols.
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley. Index compiled by
Ronald E. Pitkin. 10
vols.
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Aecher, Jr., and Bruce K.
Waltke. 2 vols.
ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by
Merrill C. Tenney
Commentaries
BKC The
Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by John F. Walvoord
and Roy Zuck. 2
vols.
EGT Expositors Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson
Nicoll. 5 vols. Reprint ed.,
Langes Lange, John Peter. Langes Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Translated and edited by Philip
Schaff. 12 double vols. 1968-70; reprint ed.,
NICNT Bruce, F. F., gen. ed., The New
International Commentary on the New Testament. 15 vols. To date.
TNTC Tasker, R. V. G. gen. ed.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,
20 vols.
[Page xix]
Journals
BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra
GTJ Grace
Theological Journal
JBL Journal
of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society
JGES Journal
of the Grace Evangelical Society
Other
Schaff The
Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed. Edited by Philip Schaff. 3 vols. 1876; reprint ed. Of Harper and Row 1931 ed.,
[Page XX]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In
1973 the writer was given a set of tapes by Zane Hodges on the book of
Hebrews. Those lectures resulted in a change
of perspective on that book and ultimately to a different way of looking at the
New Testament. I would like to thank
Professor Hodges for the profound impact he has had on my understanding of the
doctrines of eternal security and rewards.
I
would like to express appreciation to Wendall Hollis for his faithful
assistance in editing this manuscript.
His contribution in helping me to think clearly and critically about the
issues involved has been a significant aspect of this project.
Also,
special thanks to my secretary, Leslie Smith, for her many hours of
proofreading and typing and her many helpful suggestions. Any errors which remain are, of course, my
own responsibility.
*
* *
[Page 1]
Prologue
Shrouded in
darkness, the early earth lumbered silently through the heavens. Its aimless journey had already consumed
aeons of cosmic time. It was before
the Beginning. 1 No one could have guessed that this planet would one
day become the moral centre of the cosmic conflict of the ages.
1 The writer is assuming a widely held view that Gen. 1: 1 refers not to the absolute but to a relative
beginning. The entire known universe,
including the sun and stars and atmosphere, etc., came into existence [by the Word of God] out of nothing in Gen.
1: 1ff. The earth itself, however, apparently already
existed at this time. The angels were
created and some of them fell in the pre-Gen. 1: 1
universe. When God begins His creative
work, the earth is already in a judged condition. This is not to be confused with the gap theory which teaches a gap between Gen. 1: 1 and 1: 2. Rather,
the gap is between the original creation in eternity past (Jn. 1: 1-2) and the
re-creation of Gen.
1: 1 which occurred about six
thousand to twelve thousand years ago.
In the pre-Gen. 1: 1 universe
an entirely different set of natural laws prevailed. It is not germane to the purpose
of this book nor does the books central thesis depend upon this view. For this reason the writer will not defend it
here. The interested reader is referred
to Bruce Waltke, Creation and Chasos (Portland:
Western Conservative Baptist Seminary Press, 1974), pp.
31-36.
A
universal tragedy had occurred. The
Morning Star, known as Lucifer, 2 Gods perfect one, full of wisdom and beauty, 3 the
angelic being whom God has appointed as ruler over the ancient cosmos, 4
had
fallen. The prophet Ezekiel paints a
picture of divine grief in his woeful description of this betrayal (Ezek. 28: 11-19). Lucifer had been given everything. Yet he became proud. 5 He
concluded that Gods gifts were more important than the giver, that dependence
upon God and obedience to His revealed will were not necessary. He became the Satan, Gods adversary. 6 He was
cast to the earth, and the earth was judged. 7 At that time the earth, from which he ruled and upon
which he lived, 8 became without form and void (Gen. 1: 1-2).
2 Isa.
14: 12-17.
3 Ezek. 28: 12.
4 Ezek. 28: 14.
5 Ezek. 28: 17; 1 Tim. 3: 6.
6 The word Satan means
adversary.
7 Ezek. 28: 17.
8 Ezek. 28: 13.
The
angels looked on, the Lord declared:
[Page 2]
We shall give this rebellion a thorough trial. We shall permit it to run full course. The universe shall see what a creature, even
the greatest can do apart from God. We
will set up an experiment, and permit the universe of creatures to watch it,
during this brief interlude between eternity past and eternity future called time. In it the spirit of
independence shall be allowed to expand to the utmost. And the wreck and the ruin which shall result
will demonstrate to the universe, and forever, that there is no life, no joy,
no peace, apart from a complete dependence upon the Most High, possessor of
heaven and earth. 9
9 Donald Barnhouse, The
Invisible War (
The
Lord of Hosts could have destroyed this rebel immediately. He could have answered this challenge with
raw power. The Satan has said that pride
and independence were acceptable. But
instead, Yahweh brought into existence a plan which would forever answer this
satanic alternative - a plan which would involve God Himself in a moral
demonstration of His love and grace. The
King Himself would one day demonstrate the superiority of His ways - dependence
and servanthood.
For
millions of years mournful silence and darkness
reigned in Satans world. Had God
forgotten? Had He decided to ignore this
challenge to His sovereignty? Had He
decided to look the other way? The
silence of God was deafening. The
darkness was universal. The earth belonged
to the Satan. 10 The angelic sons of God yearned for the darkness and
silence to be broken. 11
10 See Lk. 4: 6-7; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Jn. 16: 11; 12: 31; Eph. 2: 2.
11 And they shouted for joy when it was (Job. 38: 7)!
Suddenly
- it was!
And God said, Let there be light, and
there was light. God
saw that the light was good, and
he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and
there was morning - the first day (Gen. 1: 3-5).
At last! thought Michael, Gods archangel. Our Lord will once again rule here!
Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them
rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all
the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground (Gen.
1: 26).
But, said Michael, what is this? A
man? This creature is so weak, so
inferior to the Satan. Why has the King placed HIM in Satans world and told HIM to rule there? How can
such an insignificant creature, much lower than the [Page 3] angels, 12 possibly
accomplish the divine purpose? Surely I
great mistake has been made!
12 Ps. 8: 5; Heb. 2: 7.
What
is the significance of man? That question
has been on the lips of both poet and philosopher since man first began to
think about these things. Thousands of
years later as the shepherd David gazed upwards into the brilliantly
star-covered sky, he was crushed to the ground with the sense of his own
insignificance and exclaimed (Ps. 8: 3-4):
When I consider the heavens,
the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
WHAT IS MAN THAT YOU ARE
MINDFUL OF HIM?
Davids
mind, apparently reflecting on the divine commission in Genesis, received a
flash of illumination (Ps. 8: 6-9):
You made him a little lower than the
heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honour.
YOU MADE HIM RULER OVER THE
WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
YOU PUT EVERYTHING UNDER HIS FEET
Oh Lord, our Lord,
How majestic is your name in
all the earth!
Man was to rule!
It was the lesser creature who would be crowned with glory and
honour. It was the inferior creature who
would be placed in rulership over the Satans world! The glory, honour, and sovereignty which the
Satan had stolen in independence and unbelief would be regained by the inferior creature living in servanthood and
faith! In this way pride is rebuked. It was Gods purpose that the lesser creature
living in dependence upon God would obtain a higher position than the superior
creature, who had stolen his by independence and unbelief. Years later the Saviour would say, he who is least among you all - he is the greatest
(Lk. 9: 48).
God intends to humble the proud and independent in a
unique way. He intends that the lower
creature, man (created lower than the angels and hence [Page
4] lower than Satan), should achieve
the highest position (all things in subjection under
His feet, Heb. 2: 8). Thus the lower creature would achieve by
independence upon God a higher position than the higher [angelic] creature, Satan, achieved through independence. For it is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking (Heb. 2: 5). Out of the least, God will bring the
greatest. It was as MAN that the Saviour defeated the enemy. It was as MAN that He silenced the principalities and powers. It was as MAN that He will reign the future
This future kingdom is the subject of hundreds of
passages in the Old Testament. It is a
glorious reign of servant kings which extends to all the works of His hands. (This may
suggest that one day mankind will rule the galaxies!) The lion will lie down with the lamb,
universal righteousness will reign, there will be no
war. Disease will be abolished, and the world of Satan will be placed under the rule of the Servant King
and His companions (Heb. 1: 9).
Consistent with His divine purpose, God chose to establish His Kingdom through
the elevation of an obscure and insignificant Semitic tribe,
The controlling principle of the biblical philosophy
of history rests in the precept of the second before the first. God often chooses the nothings (1 Cor. 1: 26, 27). Only
in this way is the self praise of man destroyed. It is
a pervading characteristic of the whole course of redemption that God chooses
the younger before the elder, sets the smaller in priority to the greater, and
chooses the second before the first.
Nor Cain but Abel and his substitute Seth; not Japheth bur Shem; not
Ishmael but Isaac; not Esau but Jacob; not Manasseh but Ephraim; 13 not
Aaron but Moses;14
not Eliab but David; 15 not Old Covenant but the New; 16 not
the first Adam but the last Adam. 17 The first becomes last and the last becomes first. 18 The
great nations are set aside, 19 and God elects to establish His purposes through two
insignificant mediums, the Israel of God (the believing remnant of the last
days) and the body of Christ (the invisible church [of
the firstborn*]).20
13 Gen. 48: 14.
14 Ex. 7: 1.
15 1 Sam.
16: 6-13.
16 Heb. 8: 13.
17 1 Cor. 15:
45.
18 Mt. 19: 30.
19 Dan. 2: 7ff; Rom. 1: 24, 26, 28.
[* See G. H. Langs Firstborn
Sons Their Rights and Risks.]
20 Rom. 8: 20-22.
[Page
5]
But the first Adam, deceived by the serpent, chose the
path of the father of lies, and acting independently, contrary to His design,
fell into sin. As a result, the sons of men
were born in need of a redeemer.
It is here that the beauty and symmetry of the divine
plan became evident. Not only did God
purpose to elevate the role of a servant and the disposition of trust, but He
gave His Son, the Second Man and the Last Adam, 21 as a saviour.
He who is of the essence of God became a servant. He made Himself nothing, taking
the very nature of a servant (Phil. 2: 7). He obeyed
finally and completely; He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross (2:
8). And in this way, living by exactly the
opposite set of principles from Satan, He achieved higher glory:
21 1 Cor.
15: 45. There are only
two
Therefore God exalted him to the highest
place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven
and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father (Phil. 2: 9-11).
Those who would rule with Him must find their lives in
the same way: Your
attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus (Phil. 2: 5). The future rulers of Gods creation must,
like their King, be servants now. There
will be no room for pride or hubris, only a heartfelt desire to extend the
blessing and glory of God throughout the created order. Unlike the Satan and his modern day
followers, they will have no desire to be lord over their subjects. Instead, like their Lord, they will desire
only to serve those over whom they rule:
Jesus called them together and said, You know that the
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their
high officials exercise authority over them. Not
so with you. Instead,
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be your slave -
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20: 25-28).
They will be greatly loved and valued by their
subjects. Instead of disobedience there
will be servant-hood, to God and to others.
The second Adam put it this way, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for
they will inherit
the earth (Mt. 5: 3-5).
[Page
6]
We [if we overcome] are
to become the servant kings. That is our
destiny. This destiny was often called salvation by the prophets. 22 This was not a salvation from hell, but the glorious
privilege of reigning with Messiah in the final destiny of man. In the eternal plan, only those who
strive to be servants now can qualify for this great future privilege then. In order to be great
in the kingdom of heaven,* to rule there, we must first become humble like a little child. 23 The greatest among you will
be your servant. For whosoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Mt. 23: 11-12).
[* Lit. the kingdom of the heavens. Presumably this is a reference to resurrected
saints, who will be able to access the heavenly sphere of Messiah
millennial kingdom. He says they will be
like angels being sons
of the resurrection (Lk.
20: 36,
NASV).]
22 A discussion of the various meanings of salvation will be undertaken in chapter 6.
23 Mt. 18: 4.
If Gods eternal plan evolves around demonstrating the
moral superiority of humility and servant-hood, it is of the utmost importance that
we learn the lesson now. All Christians are
not servants, and only those who are will be great in the [coming] kingdom. Only those sons of God who are sons indeed will be co-heirs with their coming King in the final
destiny of man. Many who have been
saved by the King are not presently living for Him. Many who have begun lives of discipleship
have not persevered. They risk forfeiture of this great future. But we are Partakers
(Gk. metochoi) of Christ, [only] if we hold our confidence firmly
to the end (Heb. 3: 14). However, those who are obedient and dependant servants now and who persevere in
discipleship to the final hour will be among Christs metochoi,
the servant kings, in the thousand-year kingdom of the Son of Man. All Christians will be in the kingdom, but tragically not all will be co-heirs
there.*
[*
See Chapter 20.]
It is by losing our lives that they find their
ultimate significance. 24 Each act of service is not only an expression of
Gods eternal purpose but is preparation and training for our final
destiny. Yes, the final answer to the
Satans rebellion, and the ultimate meaning of human existence, is to be found
in the future [millennial] reign of the servant kings. But who are thy, and how do we join their
company? Let us begin
24 Mk. 8: 35.
* *
*
[Page
7]
CHAPTER
1
Introduction
No doubt there
are millions who have professed the name of Christ and continue to live in such
a way which gives no evidence whatsoever that their profession is real. In fact, a widely reported opinion poll
survey indicated that over fifty million people in the
1 George
Gallup, Jr. and David Poling, The Search For Americas Faith (Nashville: Abingdon,
1980), p. 92.
In the clearest possible terms the New Testament
writers presented the unconditional nature of the gospel offer:
And let one who is thirsty come; let the one who
wishes, take the water of
life without cost
(Rev. 22: 17 NASB).
For God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son that whoever believes
in Him should not perish but have everlasting [Gk. aionian] life
(Jn. 3: 16 NASB).
Yet explicit statements such as these are sometimes
difficult to accept. Could something as
important as our eternal destiny really come to us only through believing and
be without cost? One cannot
profitably speculate on the eternal destiny of many who have acted in a way
that brings shame to the gospel. But
this type of behaviour by people who claim to be Christians certainly makes one
anxious that the clearest possible presentation of the gospel [of
Gods grace]
be made.
Grace under
Fire
There are two powerful influences which have caused
this hesitation to accept the unconditional freeness of saving grace.
[Page
8]
The Abuse of
Grace
The first is the deplorable state into which Western
Christianity has fallen as we move to the end of the twentieth century. This has caused many to wonder, Is the teaching of free grace healthy?
There has always been sin in the church, but the
presence of the media, television evangelists, and the news and information
explosion has highlighted certain hypocrisy as never before. Furthermore, Western culture has become so
thoroughly secularized and godless that simply living in it has resulted in
many Christians getting mud on their feet.
The church, instead of being a beacon of light, has often been
penetrated by the very abuses which it speaks against.
A lamentable situation such as this is bound to
provoke thoughtful and even angry reactions within the church who are
understandably upset about empty professions of faith which have not resulted
in any change of life.
One such reaction has recently come from the able pen
of John MacArthur, pastor-teacher of
Why does such a situation like this exist in the
church today? In MacArthurs opinion it
is due to the well-meaning but misinformed teaching that salvation is being
offered without the necessity of accepting Christ as both Saviour and Lord at
the point of saving faith. He feels that
many leading Bible teachers are saying the only
criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some
basic facts about Christ.2 The fallout of this thinking, he says, is a deficient
doctrine of salvation; justification is not necessarily and inevitably linked
to sanctification. People feel they can
pray a prayer, receive eternal life, and then go on sinning.
The answer MacArthur feels,
is to include the notion of submission to the lordship of Christ as the
antidote to a defective view of faith.
This leads him into some views of the nature of saving faith and of the
conditions for salvation which, to many, would seem to
be an extreme reaction in the opposite direction from the easy believism he so vigorously attacks.
The Theology
of the Reformers
The second major influence which has caused many to
ask, Is free grace healthy? Is a
persistent theological tradition going back to John Calvin. Calvin and the Reformers who followed him
told their readers and parishioners that [Page 9] faith alone saves, but true faith is a faith which
results in a life of works. In fact, the
final proof of the reality of faith is whether or not a man perseveres in good
works to the end of life. Known as the
doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, this teaching emerged in its mature
form 3 during the Protestant Reformation.
3 Traces
of this teaching can be found in 1 Clement and the
Apostolic Fathers.
One has only to read Calvins Institutes
to see immediately that he laboured under a great burden to defend the
Reformation against the criticism that a faith alone, grace alone gospel would
lead to moral laxity. When perusing
these great volumes, the atmosphere is
pungent with anxiety to demonstrate that the gospel of free grace will not led
to license but will, to the contrary, result in a life of holiness. However, in order to make his argument air tight Calvin
went beyond the Scripture and taught
that the gospel will necessarily and inevitably guarantee
a life of holiness. This subtle change in the gospel was
readily accepted by the Reformers because it completely negated the Catholic
attack. When a person who claimed to be a Christian and yet was living a carnal
life was set up by the Catholics as an example of the product of Reformation theology,
the Reformers could now simply say he was not a [regenerate] Christian at all.
If he was, he would not live like that. When one was
in the midst of a debate which was ripping apart the fabric of
Having successfully separated from Catholicism and
established the Reformation churches, the next attack came from within. Pelagianism manifested itself in resistance
by Protestants in
4 R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English
Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p.
143.
This debate about eternal security has not been a
brief affair. In fact, it has gone on
for several hundred years and continues to some extent today. When a discussion endures that long, issues
are more precisely defined, and positions harden. The very length and intensity of the debate
has contributed in no small [Page 10] way to the traditional acceptance of opposing positions. Lest the reader doubt this point, consider
the typical seminary student, the future teacher of the sheep. When a position differing from his own
background or perhaps from that of the seminary which he attends is presented,
he is likely to check it out by opening up
the standard theology texts which support his view and learning the ancient
arguments against his opponents. Thus,
traditional arguments are passed on from book to student, from professor to
pulpit, and from pulpit to the parishioner when he becomes a pastor. Pressed for time in the seminary, and without
it in the church, he rarely has
opportunity for original study which might challenge traditional
interpretations.
The Answer
to Carnality
To prevent abuse of the gospel [of
Gods saving grace], two widely held solutions are offered. Some, harkening back to the Colossian error,
insist that the cause of the problem is that man needs more than initial
salvation in Christ - a fullness beyond our
salvation experience, a second work of grace to finish the complete
beginning. However, some of the most
notable examples of the present hypocrisy have appeared within the groups which
offer such a solution and by the very leaders who teach it. The other solution, and the one which this
book addresses, is the tendency to front-load and back-load
the gospel.
Front
Loading the Gospel
Front
loading the gospel means attaching
various works of submission and obedience on the front end and including them
in the conditions for salvation. These works are supposedly created in the
heart by God. This is commonly done
among those who maintain that submission to the lordship of Christ is a
condition of [the Christians eternal] salvation.
Faith is redefined to include submission, and a man becomes a [regenerate] Christian not
by hearing and believing
but by believing and promising God he will submit his life to Christ. This is not to deny that true faith certainly
involves a disposition of openness to God and cannot coexist with an attitude
of determination to continue in sin. But
that is not what those who teach
so-called lordship salvation mean. Rather,
their view is that a man must resolve to
turn from all known sin and follow Christ absolutely. It seems that works enter
through the front door, and another gospel is taught. But surely this God-created submission to
lordship is a work, and works in the human heart whether from God
or man do not save [eternally]!
[Page
11]
Back Loading
the Gospel
A far more subtle change in the gospel, however,
occurs when some back-load the gospel. Back loading the gospel means attaching various works of submission as
the means of achieving the final aim of faith, final deliverance from hell [meaning
the lake of fire] and entrance into heaven. This is what
has been done in the more extreme expressions of the Reformed doctrine of the
perseverance of the saints. While it is often claimed that a life of
works is the necessary and inevitable result of true faith, it is also
maintained by some that works are the means of achieving our final destiny. Of course, it is not always stated as
blatantly as that. These works, we are
told, are different than the works which the unregenerate perform to obtain
merit with God. These works are the
gifts of Christ and the fruits of regeneration.
Calvin resisted a similar theology during the Reformation:
The Sophists, who delight in sporting with
Scripture in empty cavils, think they have a suitable evasion when they expound
works to mean, such as un-regenerated men do literally, and by the effect of
free will, without the grace of Christ, and they deny that these have any
reference to spiritual works. Thus,
according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by work, provided these
are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration. 5
5 John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 2 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 3. 11. 14.
Calvin would no doubt be appalled to learn that there
are many in the church today and who bare the name who
expose this very sophistry! To the
prosaic mind, the doctrine of perseverance in holiness sometimes seems to be
expressed in a way that teaches that sanctification is a means of
justification. The English puritans
often came close to this, and at least one of their luminaries, William
Bradshaw (1571-1618), explicitly taught what others implied. 6
6 See
More recently, Arthur
Pink has maintained that God requires that true Christians must keep themselves or risk eternal damnation. 7 Yet he
unequivocally maintains the absolute and eternal
security of the saints. 8
7 Arthur
Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1968), p. 610.
8 Ibid., p. 599.
He is attempting to show that God preserves His
children through means - works. He quotes John Owen, that prince of the
Puritan expositors, with approval, teaching that works are a means of salvation:
But yet our diligent endeavour is such as indispensable
means for the end, as that without
it, it will not be brought about.
If we are in Christ, God hath given us the lives of our
souls, and hath taken [Page
12] upon Himself, in His covenant,
the preservation of them. But
yet we may say, with reference
unto the means that He hath appointed, when storms and trials arise, unless
we use our diligent endeavours, we cannot be saved. 9
9 John Owen, Hebrews, cited by Pink, p. 600.
It seems that Pink, Bradshaw, and Owen are simply
being honest about their understanding of the Reformed doctrine of
perseverance. In their preoccupation
with means they have forgotten that God has already told us what the means of [eternal] salvation
are and what they are not. Works are not a means,
whether on the front end or the back end. The only means necessary for obtaining [that] salvation is faith, and faith
alone.
He saved us, not because of
righteous things we had done, but
because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the
Holy Spirit (Ti. 3: 1).
The means are the
washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, and not our good works:
For it is by grace you have been saved through
faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not
by works, so that
no one can boast (Eph. 2: 8, 9).
The means are one - faith. This faith is apart from any means involving
works. How else can Paul say it? When Pink and his
modern followers, reacting to the moral laxity in the church, back-load the
gospel [of Gods grace] with means, they are flatly
contradicting Paul, if words have any meaning at all. In so doing, they seem to be
preaching another gospel (Gal.
1: 9).
We might ask, Has loading
the gospel with additional means and conditions achieved any more notable moral
results than those who add nothing to it? The answer seems to be no. There is just as much moral laxity in the
history of those confessions who have stressed perseverance as in those who
have not. One only has to read the works
of the English Puritans to see the burden these godly men felt over these same
issues in their churches. This approach
has been tried before without success, and it is hardly the answer to our
present dilemma. Robert Dabney, an
articulate proponent of this very doctrine, laments the deplorable state of the
Presbyterian Church in his day (1878).
The New Testament saints, he says, did not,
like so many now, sit year after year in sinful indolence, complaining of the
lack of assurance, and yet indifferent to its cultivation. 10
10 Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in
Systematic Theology (1878; reprint ed.,
[Page
13]
The problems of spiritual lethargy and spiritual abuse
are widespread. The various proposals
for correcting them have been tried before, and there seems to be no useful
purpose served in continuing with the old answers such as lordship salvation
and perseverance in holiness. It seems
to me that these problems are rooted in some very fundamental biblical
misunderstandings. Could it be that the
Protestant Reformation was incomplete and that this lies at the core of a
raging modern controversy concerning the freeness of Gods grace? Perhaps this unfinished
beginning is also a significant cause of the carnality found in many
churches. Here is the key to our modern
dilemma. The Reformers feared free grace
and, as a result, did not take the Reformation far enough. That is, their doctrine of the saints
preservation in holiness compromised the free grace of God. Because the doctrine of justification by
faith alone was potentially vulnerable to the charge of promoting license, the
Reformers simply could not let go of the notion that works played a
necessary part in our final arrival in
heaven. Unable to accept that a
regenerate man could live a life of sin and still be [eternally] saved, they included works on the back end of the
gospel [of Gods grace] as
the means (result?) of [eternal] salvation.
If the saints must inevitably and necessarily
persevere in godliness to the final hour, then the doctrine of rewards
and chastisement at the judgment seat of Christ becomes murky. How can a man who has persevered in holiness
be chastised? Since all who are
regenerate will be rewarded anyway, perhaps many settle into spiritual dullness
thinking all is well with their souls and there are no negative consequences to
pay. And if the doctrine of [divine] punishment for
a carnal life is vague and if the doctrine of rewards is reduced to a promise
of something that everyone will get anyway, then key motivations for living the
Christian life are compromised.
Most important, however, is that fact that the motivation of gratitude for
unconditional acceptance is lost.
This is because in the Reformed
system the most likely possibility for the continually sinning Christian is
that he may not be a true Christian at all.
While some advocates of this doctrine would not intend this, the
practical result is often continual introspection and doubt as to whether or
not one is really unconditionally loved and accepted in Gods [redeemed] family, apart
from any works at all! Yet,
paradoxically, those who advocate this view say our motivation should come from
gratitude. But how can gratitude emerge
from the heart of one who is continually re-examining whether or not he is
truly accepted?
A new Reformation may be needed in Western
Christianity which sets forth the magnificent freeness of Gods grace as the
only sufficient motivation for godly living.
[Page
14]
It is obvious that the question of eternal security is
inextricably involved with the question of free grace. If eternal life is truly offered without cost and salvation once received can never be lost, it might seem that
some would take the grace of God for granted and live unfaithful lives. All motivation is lost,
it is feared, to persevere in the life of faith. For the man who claims he is a Christian and
who lives a sinful life, the Arminian warns him that he is in danger of losing
his [eternal] salvation. The
English Puritans, on the other hand, simply say he never had salvation to begin
with and he had better re-examine his foundations; he is in danger of hell [i.e.,
the lake of fire]. Only the man
who perseveres in a life of good works to the final hour, they said, is truly
saved.
The Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the
saints was an out-growth of the accusations that the Reformation would
logically result in moral laxity. It
also provided a powerful means of refuting the Arminian teaching of conditional
security. The intent of this
book is to demonstrate that this doctrine is not only absent from Scripture but
could, if not carefully stated, compromise the freeness of the [saving] grace of [a
merciful, long-suffering and forgiving] God.
This is a book about the eternal
security of the saints, a doctrine which the writer
feels has good scriptural support. Yet
this doctrine has laboured under amazing exegetical contortions at the hands of
its advocates. The seeming twisting of numerous [accountability] Scriptures in
order to get them to align with a particular view of perseverance can only be
described (if politically inclined) as voodoo
exegesis. The history of interpretation must, of
course, render the final verdict, but if one had to chose between Arminian and
Calvinist interpretations of the relevant passages, the writers opinion is
that the Arminian view is eminently more successful and true to the text. Fortunately, one does not have
to chose between either of these interpretations, and
it will be the burden of this book to chart a third and mediating path.
This investigation will lead us into many related
doctrines, such as the relationship between justification and sanctification,
assurance of [eternal] salvation, and the relevance of the warning
passages [addressed to all who are regenerate] in the New
Testament. Can a true Christian commit apostasy? Does the New Testament teach the existence of
the carnal Christian? In addition, we will examine all of the passages
commonly brought to bear on the question of eternal security and consider both
Calvinist and Arminian exegesis.
The
Experimental Predestinarian
It is important at the outset of our discussion that
we define our terms carefully. Some, for
example, maintain that historically the doctrine of perseverance meant only
that no true Christian would ever commit apostasy. While there may have been some who limited
the doctrine to this mere continuation of belief, [Page 15] the vast majority of the Reformed confessions and the
theological works definitely viewed perseverance as a perseverance of good
works.
According
to the Protestant creeds. From the
earliest post-Reformation creeds, perseverance was always connected with a life
of practical victory against sin as well as continuation of faith. 11
11 The
Since we are so weak in
ourselves that we cannot stand a moment while our deadly enemies - the devil,
the world, and our own flesh - assail us without ceasing, be pleased to persevere
and strengthen us by the power of the Holy Spirit, that we may make firm stand
against them, and not sink in this spiritual war, until we come off at last
with complete victory (The Heidelberg Catechism, Schaff,
3: 355).
Perseverance is a complete victory in the spiritual
war against sin and not just a refusal to commit apostasy. Furthermore, this perseverance is ultimately
Gods work, not ours. It is God who will
persevere and strengthen us.
The specific occasion of the discussion of perseverance
in the Canons of Dort (1619) was the controversy with the Remonstrants who
denied this doctrine. The Canons make it
explicitly clear that, even though a believer may lapse into carnality for a
time, he will always return to repentance:
By such enormous sins, however, they very
highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the
exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes lose
a sense of Gods favour, for a time, until on their returning into
the right way by serious repentance, the light of Gods fatherly countenance again shines upon them. 12
12 The Canons of the Synod of
A lapse is only an interruption
and lasts only for a time until. The doctrine of perseverance guarantees, not
just that the [regenerate] believer will not apostatize but that, when he
backslides,
[God] perseveres
in them, the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally
lost; and again, by his Word and Spirit, he
certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their
sins, that they may seek to obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may
again experience the favour of a reconciled God, through faith adore his
mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with
fear and trembling. 13
13 Ibid., 3: 593-94 (5. 7).
When the believer falls, God certainly
and effectually renews him to repentance so that he will more
diligently work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. The assurance that God will always enable
them to persevere in good [Page
16] works by providing a way of escape
when they fall (5. 11) stimulates believers to persevere in piety, patience, [i.e.,
perseverance] prayer, and in suffering (5. 12) and makes them more careful to
continue in the ways of the Lord (5. 11). 14
14 The French Confession of Faith (The
Gallic Confession (1559) makes it clear that the perseverance of
the saints is specifically a perseverance in the right
way (Art. 21). We believe also that faith is not given to the elect not
only to introduce them into the right way, but also to make them continue in it
to the end. For as it
is God who hath begun the work, He will also perfect it
The French Confession of Faith,
in Schaff, 3: 371).
The Westminster Confession refers to the fact of perseverance in the following
manner:
They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved,
effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor
finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved. 15
15 The
What did the
Nevertheless they may, through the
temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining
in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous
sins, and for a time continue therein: whether they incur Gods displeasure,
and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces
and comforts; have their hearts hardened; and their consciences wounded; hurt
and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. 16
16 Ibid., 3: 637 (17. 3).
What is prevented by the Holy Spirit is final falling, and falling is clearly a falling into
grievous sins, not just apostasy.
Furthermore, perseverance guarantees that such falling is only temporary
and, as stated in the Canons of Dort, can last only for
a time.
According
to the Reformed theologians. When we turn to the discussions of
perseverance in the writings of the Reformed theologians, it is likewise clear
that a perseverance in fruit bearing is the meaning,
and not just perseverance in [Page
17] faith. 17 For example, Calvin, in his discussion of
perseverance and the good works which God works in us (Phil. 2: 13), says
that God supplies the persevering effort until the
effect is obtained. The effect
is the willing and the working of His good pleasure. In fact, he says, in our perseverance in good
works we go on without interruption, and persevere
even to the end. 18 For Calvin, the perseverance of the saints was much
more than preventing their apostasy from faith; it was a positive
sanctification in good works.
18 Institutes, 2. 3. 9.
In his chapter on perseverance in Redemption
Accomplished and Applied, Reformed theologian John Murray, is endurance to the end, abiding in Christ, and continuance
in his Word, 19 For Murray, the doctrine of perseverance is not just
a teaching that the true Christian cannot commit apostasy but that he cannot abandon himself to sin; he cannot come under the dominion of
sin; he cannot be guilty of certain kinds of unfaithfulness. His whole chapter is a sustained argument that
perseverance cannot be separated from a life of works. He says, Let us
appreciate the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and recognize that we
may entertain the faith of our security in Christ only as we
persevere in faith and holiness to the end, 20 For Murray, as
for all the Calvinist creeds which preceded him, the doctrine of the saints
perseverance is the doctrine that those who are truly saints will persevere in
faith and holiness to the final hour.
19 John Murray, Redemption
Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 155.
20 Ibid., p. 155.
He further argues against the Arminians that such a
doctrine cannot lead to antinomianism because, by
definition, it means persevering in holiness and not in
unholiness.
It not only
promotes but consists in strenuous and persevering efforts after conformity to
Christ. 21
21 Gerstner, p. 404.
[Page
18]
The outstanding Reformed theologian of the nineteenth
century Charles Hodge clearly asserts the true definition of the Reformed
doctrine of perseverance:
In must be remembered that what the Apostle
argues to prove is not merely the certainty of the salvation of those that
believe; but their certain perseverance in holiness.
Salvation in sin, according to Pauls system, is a contradiction in
terms. This perseverance
in holiness
is secured partly by the inward secret influence of the Spirit, and partly by
all the means adapted to secure that end - instructions, admonitions,
exhortations, warnings, the means of grace, and the dispensations of his
providence. 22
22 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology,
3 vols. (London: James Clarke, n. d.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdans,
1977), 3: 112-13.
The various instructions, warnings, and exhortations
in the New Testament have as their objective continuance in good works and holy
living, not just the prevention of apostasy.
Robert Dabney, the well-known Reformed Presbyterian
theologian who lectured at Union Theological Seminary in
23 Dabney, Lectures,
p. 688.
24 Ibid., p. 692.
Similarly, Louis Berkhof defines perseverance as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the
believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart is
continued and brought to completion 25 This, of course, closely approximates the Reformed
definition of sanctification. It is not
just the prevention of apostasy but the growth in holiness Berkhof intends to
convey in his doctrine of the saints perseverance. Like Hodge, he argues against the Arminians
charge of antinomianism by saying:
It is hard to see how a doctrine which
assures the believer of a perseverance
in holiness
can be an incentive for sin. It would
seem that the certainty of success in the active
striving for sanctification
would be the best possible stimulus to ever greater exertion. 26
25 Louis
Berkhof, Systematic Theology (London:
Banner of Truth, 1941), p. 546.
26 Ibid., p. 548.
[Page
19]
Minor
Premise: I
have believed and have some evidences.
Conclusion:
I am saved.
This
approach to assurance is experimental. The Hypothesis I
am saved is being tested by an experiment.
The second distinguishing mark of those within this
tradition has been a strong emphasis upon
eternal predestination. In addition,
these Puritan divines placed unusual
emphasis on the doctrines of particular grace and limited atonement, a logical
(but not exegetical!) extension of predestination. A helpful label then would
include the words experimental and predestination. R. T.
Kendall has suggested the label Experimental Predestinarians, which will be used throughout this book. 30
30 Kendall,
English Calvinism, p. 9.
-------
The Partaker
This book will discuss three basic theological
approaches to the questions of security and perseverance. While labels
often import connotations not shared by those designated, they are nevertheless
helpful in distinguishing between positions.
In this book the term Arminian refers to those followers of Jacobus Arminius who have held that it is possible
for a true [i.e., a
regenerate] Christian to lose his [eternal] salvation. For
them the warning passages (e.g., Heb. 6) refer
to regenerate people. The term Calvinist
will refer to those who feel that one who is born again [i.e., the
regenerate believer] cannot lose
his [eternal] salvation
and will necessarily and inevitably continue in good works until the end of
life (the Experimental Predestinarian).
The warning passages, according
to the Experimental Predestinarian, are addressed to unregenerate people who
have professed faith in Christ but who do not possess Christ in the heart. The designation of the third [scriptural] position
will similarly be derived from a person,
although this person is not mentioned by name but by his distinguishing
characteristic:
For we have become partakers of
Christ,
if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm unto the end (Heb. 3: 14 NASB).
The word Partaker will
designate the third theological approach to security. The
Partaker is one who, like the Calvinist, holds to the central security of the [regenerate] Christian but,
like the Arminian, believes the warning passages in the New Testament apply to
true [regenerate] Christians.
The Partaker is the Christian who perseveres in good
works to the end of life. He is the faithful Christian who will reign with
Christ in the coming messianic kingdom.
He will be one of the servant kings. What is in danger, according to the Partaker,
is not a loss of [his eternal] salvation but [Page 21] spiritual impoverishment, severe discipline in
time, and a forfeiture of reward,
viz., disinheritance in the future [millennial Kingdom]. For the Partaker the
carnal Christian is not only a lamentable fact of Christian experience but is explicitly taught in the Bible as well.
A comparison and contrast between these three
theological positions - the Arminian,
the Experimental Predestinarian, and
the Partaker - will constitute a
major portion of this book. It will be
helpful to state at the outset the precise distinctives of the Partaker
doctrine.
The Partaker view
of eternal security may be summarized as follows:
1.
Those who
have been born again will always 31 give some evidence of growth in grace and spiritual
interest and commitment. A man who claims he is a Christian and yet
never manifests any change at all has no reason to believe he is justified
(Mk. 4: 5, 16, 17).
31 This is true because (1) at conversion a person has
repented, changed his perspective about sin and Christ and is therefore
predisposed to allow Christ to change him; (2) he has been flooded with the new
motivations toward godliness accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit;
and (3) the parable of the soil says that of the second man there was growth, a
kind of fruit. But he may soon after quench the Spirit, walk by means of the flesh,
and thus fail to give visible evidences of these initial inner workings. A life of sanctification will not inevitably
and necessarily follow [initial]
justification.
2.
The assurance
of salvation is found only by looking onward to Christ and not by looking
inward to the evidences of regeneration in the life. As the gospel promise and the beauty of the
Redeemer are held before the believers gaze, assurance is the result of such
contemplation. The fruits of faith are
helpful as secondary confirmations of ones regenerate state, but their absence dose not necessarily
invalidate a mans salvation. If a
believer is looking biblically and dependently to Christ, a lifestyle of [wilful] sin will be
psychologically, spiritually, and biblically impossible (
3.
It is
possible for true [regenerate] Christians
to fail to persevere in faith and,
in remote cases, even to deny the faith
altogether (Heb. 10: 26, 35). While
initial growth is taught in the New Testament, it is possible for a true
Christian to lapse into carnality and finish his course walking as a mere
man. The automatic unity between justification and sanctification maintained
by the Experimental Predestinarians is not taught in Scripture.
4.
The warning
passages of the New Testament are intended by the New Testament writers to address regenerate people, not merely [Page 22]
professing [regenerate or unregenerate] people, and
to express real dangers to the
regenerate. The danger, however, is
not the loss of [eternal] salvation but severe
divine discipline ([premature] physical
death, [Acts 5: 3-10] or worse) in the present time and loss
of reward, and even rebuke, at the judgment seat of Christ.
5.
A life of
good works is the obligatory outcome of justification but is not the inevitable outcome (Rom.
8: 12).
6.
Those whom
God has chosen before the foundation of the world and efficaciously called into
saving faith and regenerated by His Holy Spirit can never fall away from [initial and eternal] salvation, but they shall be preserved in a state of
salvation to the final hour and be eternally saved. This
preservation is guaranteed regardless of the amount of works or lack thereof in
the believers life (Jn. 6: 38-40).
7. The motive for godly living is not to be found in
either fear or losing [eternal] salvation (Arminian)
or wondering if one is saved (Experimental
Predestination). Rather, it is to be
found, negatively, in the fear of disapproval, and positively, in gratitude for
a salvation already [fully purchased by Christ and] assured and in anticipation of hearing the Master
say, Well done! The doctrine of [millennial
rather than] eternal
rewards usually has a more prominent place in scriptural inspiration towards a
life of good works in the Partaker view than in the Arminian or Experimental
Predestinarian (1 Cor. 9: 24-27; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Jn. 8). 32
32 John MacArthur, for example, has only one sentence
devoted to the subject in his entire book on discipleship, p. 145.
For those who may assume that this is either the
direct teaching on the logical implication of the Partaker position, please
withhold judgment until you [Page
23] have finished these pages! Like our
Experimental Predestinarian friends, we would have serious doubts about the
salvation of a man who claims to be a Christian and gives little or no evidence
of it in his life. We would not give
assurance of salvation to such an individual.
We, too, are concerned about those who seem to think they
can pray a prayer and live indifferently to Christs claims and yet maintain
the fiction that they [will inherit the coming kingdom and] go to heaven anyway.
There is no question that there seems to be a general
lack of vitality in many parts of the Western church today. Whether or not many who profess Christ are
truly regenerate, none can say with certainty.
However, we can all agree that the problem of spiritual
lethargy, lukewarm Christians, and even carnality is widespread and must be
addressed. It may be that a major
cause of this difficulty is that we have not challenged our
congregations with the sobering realities of our glorious future. It is mankinds destiny to rule and have dominion, and that destiny has not yet been fulfilled. However,
if the Partaker view of perseverance is right, only those Christians who [are
granted repentance unto life, and] who persevere in a life of good works will have a
share in this future [millennial] glory. For the unfaithful
Christian, there will be shame and profound regret when he stands before the
Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ.*
[* See Heb. 9: 27. Presumably,
this
judgment will take place before the Lord returns, and before
the First Resurrection!]
In the Experimental Predestinarian view, all who are
Christians will be rewarded, and some more than others. Thus, they have created a version of
Christianity where complete commitment is optional and not necessary. All that can be lost is a higher degree of
blessedness, but all will be blessed.
Could it be that this happy ending has lulled many into thinking they
can continue into their lukewarmness with no [millennial or] eternal
consequences to pay?
To answer this question, we must consider some
fundamental thoughts. It appears that
interpretive principles are at the root of much of controversy between the
Calvinist and the Arminian.
* *
*
[Page 24 blank: Page 25]
CHAPTER 2
Interpretation and Perseverance
[Page 42 is blank: Page 43]
In recent years it has become quite fashionable to
speak of the power of paradigms.
Originally a Greek scientific term, today the word paradigm more commonly refers to a perception, a model, or
a frame of reference. It is the way we see the world.
The reason the paradigms are said to have power
is that they determine how we perceive things. They
are lurking in the background of virtually every conclusion we make. We seldom question their accuracy, and we are
usually unaware that we even have them.
We commonly assume that the way we see things is the way they really
are. Our attitudes, behaviours, and even
our theology often grow out of these assumptions. The
way we see things unconsciously affects our conclusions. This is why two theologians can look at the
same data and come to radically opposite conclusions. It is not that the facts are different, but
the paradigms which they bring to the facts determine the interpretations.
Stephen
Covey illustrates this phenomenon with an experience which happened to him one
Sunday morning on a subway in
The
man sat down next to him and closed his eyes, apparently oblivious to the
situation. The children were yelling and
throwing things, even grabbing peoples papers.
It was quite disturbing. And yet,
while all this was going on, the man sitting next to him did nothing. It was difficult not to feel irritated. Covey could not believe that this man could
be so insensitive as to let his children run wild like that and do nothing
about it, taking no responsibility at all.
It was easy to see that everyone else on the subway felt irritated
too. So finally Covey, with what he felt
was unusual patience and restraint, turned to him and said, Sir, your children are really disturbing a lot of
people. I wonder if you couldnt control
them a little more?
The
man lifted his gaze as if to come to a consciousness of the noise for the first
time and said softly, Oh, youre right. I guess I should do something [Page
26] about
it. We
just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago. I dont know what to think, and I guess they
dont know how to handle it either.
Covey
continues: Can you imagine what I felt at that
moment? My paradigm shifted. Suddenly I saw things differently, and because I saw differently, I thought differently, I felt differently, I behaved differently. My irritation vanished. I didnt have to worry about controlling my
attitude or my behaviour; my heart was filled with the mans pain. Feelings of sympathy and compassion flowed
freely. Your wife just died? Oh, Im sorry! Can you tell me about it? What can I do to help?
Everything changed in an instant.
1
1 Stephen R. Convey, The
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1989), pp. 30-31.
In
order for some readers of this book to share the authors conclusions, they
will need to undergo a paradigm shift.
Such a shift often happens after we have reflected on things and
sincerely tried to see them from a different point of view. It is Aha! experience we feel when things fall into place for the first time. Our perceptions change and, with them, how we
interpret the data of our sensory experience.
All
interpreters of Scripture bring certain paradigms to their reading of the
Bible. These paradigms are givens. They
are things we do not need to think about.
They are obviously true. Often
we are unaware we have them until data which challenge them is presented. At that point we can either reinterpret that
data within the framework of our old paradigm or begin to do some fundamental [and
independent] thinking. Perhaps our paradigm is wrong.
About
fifteen years ago the writer underwent such a paradigm shift which has resulted
in a different way of understanding numerous
difficult and often perplexing passages in the New Testament. He
concluded that his theological traditions sometimes hindered, rather than
illuminated, his understanding of the Bible. The reader is invited on a journey of
discovery, a journey which will take him to familiar passages. Yet as he travels, he will be asked to consider the data from a different point of view.
Such
a request is difficult to make due to the very nature of this book. It is a book of polemical theology. From
beginning to end the author is attempting to persuade the reader of a
particular point of view. Having
been exposed to these kinds of books himself, the
writer knows full well that his own initial reaction to such presentations is
to continue to interpret the data from the perspective of his settled
paradigms. It is usually proper and
natural that we do this.
As
the reader journeys to various sections of Scripture and is asked to see the same data from a different paradigm, he will
often have the thought, Yes, but [Page 27] what about the
other passage and what about
? Those desiring to get the most out of this book will need to hold their
opinions until the last page.
A complete index to every scripture reference is included. Hopefully, passages which seem to contradict certain interpretations will be found
in this index.
We
now commence our journey with a discussion of two exegetical issues which must
first be cleared away if we are to correctly understand how the New Testament
writers viewed the perseverance of the saints.
The paradigm shift begins.
Theological Exegesis
It
is widely recognized that differing canons of interpretation play a
determinative role in theological discussion.
The entire difference between the Premillennialist and
Amillennialist views of Old Testament prophecy, for example, are
basically differences in interpretive approach.
The Amillennialist feels he has no New Testament justification for
spiritualizing the Old Testament predictions and applying them to the church. He believes the New Testament authors did
this. The Premillennialist feels that no
New Testament author would have spiritualized a prophetic utterance so that its
meaning differed from the intended meaning of the original author.
What
is not widely recognized, however, is that this
same hermeneutical difference underlies much of the dispute on the doctrine of perseverance.
What is the ultimate determinant of the meaning of a particular text:
the intent of the original author or a comparison of that text with other texts
(selected by the interpreter)?
Possibly
aware that strict attention to the intended meaning of texts could yield
theological conclusions at variance with his, Charles Hodge vigorously
protests, They [Arminians] seem to regard it as a proof of independence to make each
passage mean simply what its grammatical structure and logical connection
indicate, without the least regard to the analogy of Scripture. 2 No
doubt his Arminian opponents would view this as a caricaturization. They, too, are interested in the analogy of
Scripture.
2 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (London: James
Clarke, n.d., reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 3: 167.
Should
the single intent of the original author be the primary determinant in our
theological constructs? It seems that
the answer to that question is obvious.
Yes! If the intent of the
original author does not determine meaning, then someone elses intent, that of the interpreter, takes over, and all
controls are lost. It is not accidental
that the bible theology movement has tended to agree with the Premillennialist
in the fact that the New Testament teaches the future [Page
28] existence of a literal earthly
kingdom. Their emphasis upon the will of
the writer of the book yields such a conclusion.
The
Protestant doctrine of the analogy of faith has, in practice, sometimes become
what might be called theological exegesis. What
started as a valid attempt to allow other Scriptures to help interpret the
meaning of obscure passages has
gradually become a method of interpreting obviously clear passages in a way
that will harmonize with a particular theological tradition. Instead of permitting each text to speak for itself,
the theological system determines the meaning. For example, consider a common interpretation
of Rom. 2: 6-7:
Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by
perseverance in doing good see for glory and honour immortality, eternal [Gk. aionian] life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do
not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, wrath and
indignation.
Now
there is nothing obscure about this passage at all. It says that those who persevere in doing
good will obtain eternal life. However,
because that seems to involve a contradiction with the doctrine of
justification of faith alone, our theological system is brought in to save the
day:
A persons habitual conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the
condition of his heart. Eternal life is
not rewarded for good living; that would contradict many other Scriptures which
clearly state salvation is not by works, but is all of Gods grace to those who
believe (e.g., Rom. 6: 23; 10: 9-10; 11: 6; Eph. 2: 8-9; Titus
3: 5). A persons doing good shows
that his heart is
regenerate. Such a person, redeemed by
God, has eternal life. 3
3 John A. Witmer,
Romans, in BKC, 2 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 1: 445.
It
may be true that a persons habitual conduct
reveals the condition of his heart, but the
text is not addressing that issue.
According to Paul, eternal [Gk. aionian] life is rewarded for good living. How else could he say it: God will render to every man according
to his deeds? Shouldnt we let this stand? 4
4 How this can be
reconciled with Pauls doctrine of justification by faith alone will be
considered in chapter 7, Inheriting Eternal
life.
Although
Turretin demanded that an empty head
must be brought to Scripture, 5 it is,
of course, impossible to remove the analogy of faith from our exegesis; indeed,
it would not be proper to do so. All of
us approach the Bible with certain theological pre-understandings, certain
paradigms. Even when we are conscious of
them, it is still difficult to negate their controlling influence. Johnson is correct when he observes:
[Page 29]
It seems reasonable that the agenda we set for ourselves, the
problems for which we seek exegetical solutions, reflect our understanding of tension
and harmony with what the rest of what Scripture clearly teaches. And is not the exegetical question that we
ask just as important as the exegetical means we use to answer that question? 6
5 Turretin, cited
by H. Wayne Johnson, The Analogy of Faith
and Exegetical Methodology: a Preliminary Discussion on
Relationships, JETS
31 (March 1988): 76.
6 Ibid., pp. 76-77.
There
is no question that there has been a heavy influence by the analogy of faith in
the interpretations that follow. A
Reformed background has informed the writers pre-understanding of numerous
passages. The problem is that this
background seems to conflict with the plain sense, thus creating the tension of
which Johnson speaks and so setting the exegetical agenda for this book.
The
analogy of faith, therefore should only be viewed as
one element of the exegetical process.
It should not dictate our exegesis.
Rather, it is part of valid exegetical procedure, but its use should be
postponed until a very late stage.
Illegitimate Totality Transfer
Another
exegetical error which has tended to obfuscate the clarity of vision of the
disputants over the doctrine of perseverance is what James Barr calls
illegitimate totality transfer:
The error that arises, when the meaning of a word (understood as the total series of relations in which
it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as its sense and
implication there, may be called illegitimate totality transfer, 7
7 James Barr, The Semantics if
Biblical Languages (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p.
218.
Kittels
famous Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has been severely criticized
from this vantage point by Barr. Kettel,
contrary to popular perception, is not just a dictionary. He tells us in the introduction that external
lexicography (i.e., meanings derived from dictionaries and concordance usage)
is not his purpose. Rather, his burden
is what he calls internal lexicography. 8 By
this he means concept history. His burden is to present the theological idea behind a word. The
result is that we do not always get from Kittel the meaning of the word but the
theology of it as perceived by the writer of the particular article. Users of this dictionary often make a mistake
of citing Kittel as a lexical rather than a theological authority. While this is sometimes justified, these
volumes need to be read with discrimination.
8 TDNT, 1: vii.
[Page 30]
As
an illustration of this faulty procedure, it will be helpful to consider its application
to one of the key words utilized by Experimental Predestinarians in support of
their idea that submission to the lordship of Christ and perseverance in that
submission to the final hour are the necessary evidences of the truly
regenerate.
Regarding
repentance, a person could hold the view that repentance means turning from sin and is a necessary ingredient of
saving faith and still deny Reformed doctrine of perseverance. However, it
seems that those who
believe that repentance is a condition of [eternal] salvation and that it means turning from sin are sometimes guilty of Barrs
illegitimate totality transfer.
Most
would agree that the basic meaning of metanoeo is simply to change the mind. 9 But often Reformed writers go beyond this meaning
and read into it the notion of turn from sin. In some cases they base their appeal
on some standard theological dictionaries. Yet these lexical authorities have often been
guilty of a theological
idea kind of lexicography. They have in mind a theological idea of
repentance, that it involves turning from sin and conversion, and they read
that theological idea into the various texts they quote.
For
example, in support of this idea that repentance is a repudiation
of the old life and turning to God, 10 one writer cites Behms article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Behm claims that repentance demands radical conversion, a transformation of nature, a
definitive turning from evil, a resolute turning to God in total obedience.
11 Behm seems to be using an incorrect procedure, however, in order to
come to the conclusion that metaneo, repent,
means to turn from sin. Consistent with the stated purpose of the
dictionary, Behm is looking for the
concept of repentance and not the meaning of the word. In so doing, he has an idea in mind,
conversion, and believes that conversion and repentance are interchangeable
ideas.
10 Ibid.
11 Johannes Behm,
metanois, in TDNT, 4: 1002.
Yet
he candidly admits, The Greek word offers no true
linguistic or material basis for the N.T. understanding of metanoeo and metanoia as conversion. Furthermore, he says that the LXX does not use this word in translating the O.T.
and that metanoeo is rare in the LXX and is used for to regret and to change
ones mind. When he comes to the
Old Testament, he says, the prophets do not invent a
special word for true repentance but make do with the common word for return (shub). 12 The
problem is that shub is never translated in the LXX as metanoeo.
12 Johannes Behm, metanoia
in TDNTA, pp. 639-41.
[Page 31]
After
admitting that neither the Greek word nor the Old Testament gives him any basis
for equating repentance with conversion, or turning from sin, he concludes that
it will interpret the New Testament usage of the words in light of the Old
Testament concept of conversion. He does this even though he has admitted that
in no place in the Old Testament are the words used for that concept! 13 He says
that the usual meaning is change of mind or
conversion with the full OT nuance. 14 But he has given no evidence that conversion and
repentance are ever equated in the Old Testament. 15
13 Because he is looking for a theological idea rather
than the meaning of the word, Behm feels free to go to any passage in the New
Testament which contains the idea - turn from sin - and use it to support his
notion that repentance means to turn from sin.
For example, he appeals to Mt. 5: 29-30 and 10: 32 where the words metanoeo and metanoia
are not even used and uses these passages to define the meaning of these words
(p. 643)! A pronounced illustration of
faulty procedure of his use of Matt. 18: 3, Unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of
heaven. He wants converted to be equated with repent, but it is a
different word. Furthermore, the
idea of becoming like a little child
does not mean to turn from sin but to be humble and trusting like a child. Children normally are not viewed as needing
to turn from sin, so this is not the likely meaning of repent when applied to
them.
14 Behm, TDNTA,
p. 642.
15 This writer is not the only one who has noted this
faulty methodology in Behms article.
Sauer, a very articulate Experimental Predestinarian, in an excellent
doctrinal dissertation observes, Behm commits a
lexical faux pas that has far reaching consequences in his article on
repentance (R. C. Sauer, A Critical and
Exegetical Re-examination of Hebrews 5: 11-6: 8
[Ph.D. dissertation,
Goetzman
experienced the same difficulty in his frustration over the lack of Old
Testament support for the idea that repentance means to
turn from sin. He, like Behm, wants
to equate it with conversion but admits that we are
not helped by the LXX. It does not use
the noun. 16 In fact, the thought of
turning round, preached especially by the prophets and expressed by the Hebrew
verb shub, is rendered by epistrepho in Greek. 17 So, contrary to Behm, the prophet does not make do with the Hebrew word shub. Behm has a
theological idea of conversion in mind and needs an Old Testament word which is
consistent with this idea, so he goes to shub. Never mind that metanoeo is never the translation of shub; it must be equated with repentance anyway because
the theological idea of repentance is equated with conversion! Basically, his procedure boils down to
assuming, before looking at the evidence, that repentance is part of a group of
words suggesting the theological idea of turning from sin, then going to the
Bible and finding words which speak of turning.
He then equates repentance with those words. The justification is that they are all part
of the same idea. But [Page 32] how does one know
what the idea is unless he first considers each word independently? 18
16 J. Goetzmann, Conversion,
in NIDNTT, 1: 357.
17 Ibid.
18 Sometimes appeal is made is made to Th. 1: 9 where the conversion experience of the
Thessalonians is described as turning: You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. This then is used as proof that metanoia includes the idea of turning,
and yet the word metanoia is not
even used in 1 Th. 1: 9! Often repentance
is connected with epistrepho, to turn. A
study of this word is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the meaning of metanoia. The only possible connection with repentance
is a theological tradition that says repentance must be turning. Then
a Greek word which does mean turning is
found, equated with repentance, and offered as proof that repentance means
turning! This is what Barr means by
theological idea of lexicography.
Interestingly, Goetzmanns article on metanoia is not even listed under repentance
but, rather, under conversion. Ignoring Colin Browns introductory warnings
about the dangers of Barrs illegitimate totality
transfer (p. 10), Goetzmann, like Behm, pursues the theological idea
kind of lexicography.
It
seems that metanoeo is used in
different ways in the New Testament and in the Greek Old Testament, the LXX.
1.
A change of
mind (Heb. 12: 17; Jon. 3: 9-10; 4: 2; Amos 7: 3, 6; Joel 2: 13-14; Acts 2: 38).
2.
As a virtual
synonym for reliant trust of faith (Acts 20: 21).
In
Acts 20: 21 repentance and faith are united in the same
verse. Because they are both joined by
one article, it is possible (but not necessary!) that the essential quality of
the two words is stressed with the second simply a further description of the
first: 19
19. The Granville
Sharp rule of grammar. See DM, p.
147. While this rule does not apply to
plural nouns it ALWAYS applies to
singular nouns. See Daniel B. Wallace, The
Solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of [the] repentance toward God
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (NASB).
Thus,
repentance and faith can be used in some passages as synonymous. This is easy to explain because any time one shifts his trust from himself to God and believes that Jesus
is God, he has changed his perspective; he has repented.
3.
A turning
from sin as a preparatory stage prior to saving faith (Mt.
4: 17; Lk. 3: 3), or possibly, a challenge to get right with God (Mt.
12: 41).
It
is not always clear what Jesus and John meant when they said, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It could simply mean confess your sins and
turn from them and prepare to receive the coming Messiah. This would simply mean that the call to
confession is, in this instance, preparation
for saving faith. It could also mean
what an evangelist today might mean by get right with
[Page 33] God. When
confronted with broken lives, he appeals, Friends,
your only hope is to get right with God. If they ask how to do this, he says, First, you must become a Christian, and then you must live
like it. He would then give them
the gospel and challenge them to come to Christ through faith alone and receive
forgiveness. Then he would challenge
them to live the Christian life and give them practical counsel. The entire challenge may be termed
repentance. But repentance is
not a condition of [eternal] salvation
in this sense but a condition of getting right with
God, which includes faith plus submission to His lordship.
The
word salvation means rescue
or deliverance. However, the
context obviously determines what kind of [salvation] or deliverance is in view.* Sometimes it refers to deliverance from hell [i.e. the eternal place, after
resurrection of the unregenerate, when the
thousand years are finished (Rev. 20: 7, R.V.) in the lake of
fire (verse 15)], sometimes from a temporal danger, and sometimes from a disease, i.e., a
healing. Similarly, the semantic value
of metanoeo is
only to change the mind. Context
must determine what the change is about.
It could be a change of verdict
about who Christ really is (Acts
2:
38), or it could refer to a change of mind about sin, and hence a contextually added nuance [i.e., variation in meaning] of
a turning from sin.
[* See also Matt. 16: 18, for deliverance from
Hades -
(where the disembodied souls of the dead presently are in the heart of the earth,
(Matt. 12: 40), awaiting
the time of their Resurrection) - and Death. See Acts 2: 31-34; 1 Cor. 15: 20, 54ff., etc., R.V.). Compare with 1
Pet. 1: 5, 9ff. R.V.).]
Now it is clear that, in contexts where the meaning is to change ones mind about sin, the word is not being used as a condition of final deliverance from hell [i.e.,
the lake of fire]. We
know this must be true for two reasons: (1) in no passage where repentance is used in the sense of to turn from sin can it be demonstrated that it is a condition of [ones eternal and God-given] salvation, and (2) it is impossible that
it could be because the Bible everywhere attests that [this] salvation is by faith alone, and without cost [to us]:
I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of
life
without
cost (Rev. 22: 17 NASB).
And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes
take the water of life without
cost (Rev. 22: 17 NASB).
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is reckoned as righteous (Rom. 4: 5 NASB)
Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law,
or by hearing with faith? (Gal. 3: 2 NASB)
Faith occurs by hearing and is the opposite of any work, and so [eternal] salvation comes to us without cost. If we
have to pledge something to God, such as a life of submission, then how does
this differ from a work? Even if God
works in us to enable us and motivate us to pledge submission, this is still a work,
either God-enabled, or human. One
thing is that, whatever the condition of [eternal] salvation is, it is not a divine work in us or a human
work. If we have to pledge something of ourselves to God, such as turning
from sin, how can [that initial]
salvation be without cost? If one has to
give up something, pledge something, or commit to do something, how can it be
said that [the] salvation
[which Christ has purchased for us in full]
is a gift without cost? In
fact, it would appear in the [Page 34] Experimental Predestinarian
system that it costs us everything, our entire life. Therefore, repentance, understood as a
turning from sin, cannot be included in saving faith or added to it.
The preceding paragraph has alluded to a common Experimental Predestinarian
view that repentance is worked in us by God and hence, even though it is a work
in us, and not a human work. Apparently thinking that only human works can be prohibited as
conditions of salvation. Experimental Predestinarians believed they have
escaped the charge of a works salvation.
But when does God work this work of repentance? If it is the result of salvation, then
repentance is not a condition of [that] salvation. On the other
hand, if it precedes salvation, then reformation of
life precedes faith and regeneration and
so is a condition of receiving it.
Indeed, we are then making sanctification (i.e., turning from sin) a
condition of receiving our regeneration.
No doubt our Experimental Predestinarian friends would reply that
these events are compressed to a point in time, but there is a logical
sequence. That is precisely the problem,
the logical sequence and not the time which transpires. As long as repentance precedes
salvation, then a work precedes regeneration and is a condition of grace, even though it may be a divine
work. If it follows, it is not a
condition. It should also be pointed
out that few follow the Calvinists on this point - that
a man can be saved before he believes.
Would it not be better to base our doctrine of the conditions of
salvation on something more substantial than this obscure and controversial
point of Westminster Calvinism?
It is clear that turn
from sin cannot be part of
the semantic value of the word metanoia because there are passages in which that sense is
impossible. 20 For example, in Heb. 12: 17 the NIV translation reads:
Afterward,
as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind [Gk. metanoia], though he sought the blessing with tears.
20 Trench agrees, This
is all imported into, does not etymologically nor yet by primary usage lie in,
the word (Richard Chenevix
Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament [
Esau was either unable to change Isaacs mind or unable to change
the decision he himself had made. He was
unable to reverse the situation. Esau
found his act was unalterable. There is
no possibility that repentance could mean turn from sin here. It would be a non sequitur to say, Esau could not turn from sin and then say though he sought the blessing with tears.
His tears would seem to indicate that he had changed his mind, but it
was too late.
Consider the LXX use of metanoeo in Jn. 3: 9-10
and 4: 2 where God changes his mind about
destroying Nineveh and about laying waste to Israels [Page 35] spring crop (Amos
7: 3) and farm land (Amos 7: 6;
Joel 2: 13-14).
Now it is clear that turning from sin cannot be part of the semantic
value of the word, or God turns from sin.
These passages make it clear that repentance is simply to change ones
mind. 21
21 See Behm, TDNTA, p.
641. That turn from sin is not part of the semantic value of the word metanoeo is proven by the fact that in
the LXX it is said that God repented (Gk. metanoeo
in 1 Sam. 15: 29 and Jer. 4: 27-28).
One writer forcefully insists, No evangelism that omits the message of repentance can
properly be called the gospel, for sinners cannot come to Jesus Christ apart
from a radical change of heart, mind, and will. 22 Would it not follow then that the Gospel
of John, which never mentions repentance, cannot properly be called the
gospel? Nowhere does the apostle present
any other means except believe as a means of [eternal] salvation. If repentance and surrender to the lordship
of Christ are necessary means of [eternal] salvation, the gospel of John would be incapable of achieving its
intended aim (Jn. 20: 31).
22 MacArthur, p. 167.
When advocates of this position insist that faith includes the
notion of repentance, they are again committing the error of the illegitimate
totality transfer, this time in regard to faith. Beginning as they do with the theological
idea that [eternal] salvation must involve submission to
Christs lordship and realizing that faith does not
mean that, they import into it the conclusions of their views on conversion,
turning from sin, and repentance, and make faith a very pregnant concept indeed! There is no place, however, in Johns gospel
where the concept of turning from sin or submission to Christs lordship is
either stated or implied in the gospel offer.
The fact of reformation of life may have occurred in the case of the
woman at the well does not argue that a commitment to reformation was part of
the gospel offer. It only shows that she
responded to the free offer in grace with the anticipated gratitude which
normally follows the [eternal] salvation experience. The response cannot logically be assumed to
be part of the cause.
However, if we understand repentance in its basic sense as a change of mind or change of perspective, then
it is easy to see why the word was not included in Johns
gospel. Anytime a man believes, a
certain change of mind is involved. In
fact, the change of mind demanded in the New Testament is to trust in Christ
instead of institutional Judaism. That
is why repentance can be used by itself, and when it is, it is virtually a
synonym for faith. The problem of
Experimental Predestinarians is that, even though usage of
the standard lexicons admit that the words are primarily mental acts and
not volitional surrender, they must be made to mean volitional surrender in
order to square them with the Reformed doctrine of perseverance and with the
notion that discipleship is a condition for becoming a Christian.
[Page 36]
Space
cannot be taken here to adequately discuss the question of the meaning of
repentance in the New Testament. 23 The point here is simply that the procedure used to
settle the question is sometimes faulty.
It is acceptable to combine words like turn (Gk. epistrepho; Heb. shub) and conversion and repentance into a theological concept of
repentance? Can we then invest the Greek
word metanoco with all these ideas and then read them into the
usages of the word throughout the New Testament? The answer according to James Barr is
no. This pregnant meaning of repentance is far removed from its semantic value, change of mind.
This new sense, now great with child,
has given birth to a theology of faith and [initial] salvation which is far removed from the simple gospel
offer.
This
practice of going through the concordance noting in various contexts, adding
all the usages up, reading them into the semantic value of the word, and
carrying that freighted new meaning into other contexts is an illegitimate
totality transfer. 24 It is quite common to hear the theological
discussion, The usage is predominantly this, so it is
likely that this is the sense in this particular passage. One must be careful when using such a
statistical approach. As Louw has
pointed out, A word does not have a meaning without
a context, it only has possibilities of meaning.
25
24 Barr, pp. 206-62.
25 J. P. Louw,
Semantics of New Testament Greek
(Philadelphia: Fortress; Chico, CA Scholars Press, 1982) p. 40.
Frequency
of use only suggests a probable meaning which would be suggested to a reader in
the absence of any contextual indicators as to what it meant. Open the trunk
would probably be understood by most Americans as Open
the rear end of the car, unless the context had placed them in the
attic of the house. Those from
Suppose,
for example, an exegete had been reading a
mystery novel which involved many chapters of discussion regarding the contents
of the trunk in the attic. The size of
the trunk, the colour of the trunk, and, most important, clues to its contents
were the subject of pages of intrigue.
Then a bit unexpectedly he reads, He went to
the driveway and opened the trunk.
Our exegete knows theologically that trunks refer to boxes in the attic. From usage,
therefore, he assumes that it must have been temporarily moved to the
driveway. It is statistically more
probable that the coloured box of a certain size is meant. So theological
exegesis is brought in to force the word trunk
to mean box, and the illegitimate totality
transfer is made to speculate on its colour, size, and other characteristics. After the required footnotes, which establish
that the author has read and interacted with the literature,
and discussion of the use of the word trunk
by this [Page 37] particular author in all prior examples, we are told that apparently the box was moved to the driveway even
though there is no mention of this in the text.
The absurdity of this is at once
apparent. The meanings of words are
primarily determined by the usage of a particular context and that has more
force than a hundred usages elsewhere. Trunks
in driveways are the posteriors of automobiles! The
context determines the meaning. The study of usages helps determine the
range of known meanings but not the meaning in a particular context. A good exegete of the above story would know
that usage establishes that the word trunk, when connected in context with an
automobile, regularly signifies a storage area in an automobile [or
car], not in an attic.
An
error related to the so-called illegitimate totality transfer is what Barr
calls the illegitimate identity transfer.
This occurs when a meaning in one
context is made to be the meaning in all other contexts. The discussion of trunk
above illustrates this. But perhaps a
biblical illustration will be helpful.
James Rosscup appears to commit the error of the illegitimate identity
transfer in his attempt to define the meaning of the overcomer
in Rev. 2-3. 26 In 1
Jn. 5: 4 it seems
clear that the overcomer is a Christian and that all who are Christians are, in
a particular sense, overcomers. Those
who know the Lord have, according to John, overcome by virtue of the fact that
they have believed and for no other reason. In Revelation, however, the
overcomer is one who has kept the word of My perseverance (Rev.
3: 10) and who keeps My deeds
until the end (Rev. 2: 26). As a result of this faithful behaviour, the overcomer receives various rewards. Rosscup, in the interests of the Reformed
doctrine of perseverance, wants the overcomer in 1 John (all Christians), when in fact, as will
be discussed later, it refers to tests
of our walk and fellowship with God.
This can be twisted, but the natural sense is surely to be found in the
purpose statements in the opening verses.
All who are overcomers in 1 John,
therefore, may or not be walking in fellowship; all who are overcomers in Revelation are.
An overcomer in 1 John is simply a Christian [who has believed the gospel of Gods grace]; an overcomer in Revelation is a persevering Christian.
26 James E.
Rosscup, The Overcomers of the Apocalypse. GTJ 3 (Fall 1982); 261-86.
Rosscup
reasons that, since the overcomer in 1 John is a Christian, it
must be the same in Revelation. This,
however, is importing a contextually
derived usage, justified [by faith
alone] saint, into the
semantic value of the word and then taking this pregnant new meaning to another
context [that of persevering unto the end]. An overcomer
is simply a victor, and the word itself does not even imply that the
victor is a Christian; he could be a victor in the games.
In
summary, meanings are to be derived from
the context. To use the analogy of
the elephants nose, the context includes such references as
Theological Science
It
was Calvin who first formalized the science of theology. He insisted that interpretations had to have
a scientific justification. The
allegorizing of the Middle Ages was rejected, and sound canons of hermeneutics
were embraced for the first time since Augustine. By scientific justification we mean, first of
all, that, in order for an interpretation to be true, it must be grounded in
the objective data of history, lexicography, culture, grammar, and context. But secondly, it must submit to a falsifiability criterion. If
contrary data invalidate it, it must be given up.
Karl
Popper has made the falsifiability criterion
a principal pillar of modern scientific investigation. In order for a theory to have any scientific
value, it must be capable of being proved wrong. When dealing with an induction, we cannot
always be sure that we have collected all the data, so the possibility of
invalidation must always be part of a theory, or it is not a scientific theory. Similarly, a theological theory which is incapable of falsification is
questionable in terms of its explanatory value.
The
doctrine of the perseverance of the saints certainly qualifies as a valid
scientific theory. It has been argued by
capable men on the basis of a particular interpretation of many biblical
passages. It qualifies as a scientific
theory because it is capable of falsification.
If there is one example in the Bible of a person who was born again,
fell away from the Lord, and persisted in disobedience up to the point of physical
death, then the theory of the saints perseverance has been disproved and must,
if we are honest, be abandoned. Deny
this, and all theology is as worthless as straw.
In
about A.D. 1300 William of Ockham introduced the scientific principle that whatever
explanation involves the fewest assumptions is to be preferred. Called Ockhams Razor,
it posits that any theory which, when confronted with contrary evidence, must
supply secondary explanations in order to justify its existence is a bad
theory. The continued introductions of
secondary assumptions in [Page
39] order to explain the theory in the
light of seemingly contradictory evidence results in a crumbling house of
cards. The efficiency (explanatory
value) of any theory is simply the number of facts correlated divided by the
number of assumptions made.
In theology, when a particular theological position
must be maintained by secondary assumptions, it is worthless. This is pre-eminently the case with the Experimental
Predestinarians doctrine of the saints perseverance. When confronted with apparently contradictory
evidence that a true saint in the Bible has persisted in disobedience, they
will often offer the secondary assumption, based to their system [of
false interpretations] that he could not really be a true saint at all. Or when warnings are addressed to little children, brethren, saints, and those sanctified forever, a
secondary assumption, not supported by
the text, is brought in to say that these terms refer to wheat and tares and the specific descriptions are
only the language of courtesy, not of fact. This continual addition of ad hoc explanations, which are either not alluded
to in the texts in question or are specifically refuted by them, renders the
theory useless. It becomes incapable of
falsification because any data contrary to it is simply negated by additional
assumptions. Text after text
is often ignored in this way until the whole edifice verges on collapse like
the proverbial house of cards.
Theology
is a science; in fact, it was once known as the queen of the sciences. Every science is composed of two things,
facts and their interpretation. The
facts of astronomy do not constitute astronomy, and the facts of chemistry or
history do not constitute chemistry or history.
Science is the facts plus their correlation and interpretation. The Bible is no more a system of theology
than nature is a system of chemistry or physics.
The
task of a theologian is to collect, authenticate, arrange, and explain the
facts of revelation. The natural
scientist does the same to the facts of nature.
When he does this, however, he must not modify one experimental fact in
order to accommodate it with another apparently contradictory one. Instead, he searches for higher synthesis,
larger than each fact, which will explain both.
The Protestant doctrine of the analogy of faith has
sometimes been extended to justify the modification of the obvious meaning of a
text, the experimental
fact, in view of other facts.
The
theologian must show how facts in one part of Scripture correlate and explain
facts in another part, but he must not modify the facts in order to do so. The chemist does not manufacture facts; the
theologian does not either. He must take
them as they are. He will systematically
gather all the data from revelation on a certain subject and then draw general
conclusions. The Bible is to a
theologian what nature is to a scientist.
Our duty is to collect the facts of revelation, arrange them, and apply
them to the hearts of our students.
False theories in science and false doctrines in theology are often due
to errors of fact. Furthermore, [Page
40] this collection must be
comprehensive. An incomplete induction
led men to believe the sun moved around the earth.
Most
important, as the student of nature must be honest, so must the
theologian. Recently Time magazine
reported that an Australian scientist had been found guilty of scientific
fraud. 27 When some of the experimental data did not fit his
theory, he rejected or falsified or ignored the data. Time asks, Why should
such a distinguished researcher fix evidence? The investigating commission suggested that
he had been overcome by a desire to make the facts
fit his theory about the drug.
The groups conclusion: Where a passionately
belief held belief overrides scientific objectivity, and the scientist yields
to the temptations to publish as facts things which he does not believe to be
true, scientific fraud is committed.
Who among us, as students of the Word, has not at one time or another been tempted to make the biblical facts fit
our theological theories?
27 Alan Atwood, Case of the Phantom
Rabbits, Time (December 5, 1988): 37.
If
we come across biblical data that seem to contradict our system, we must be
honest and reassess our system, and not reinterpret that fact in the light of
the [often cherished
but flawed denominational] system. It
is a life-long work. Our goal is not to
defend the viewpoint of the denomination but to know the mind of God [and
all truths revealed throughout His word].
The
[Christian] theologian, perhaps even more than the natural
scientist, is susceptible to the temptation to be dishonest with the facts because
his facts are much more important. They concern [millennial as well as] eternal issues
and not just the periodic table of the elements. It is not to be implied here that those who
disagree with the writers particular interpretation are dishonest.
But after reading the writings of the Experimental
Predestinarians, studying their passages in the Greek New Testament, and
interacting personally with their advocates, this writer is convinced that there is something going on here besides
exegesis. An
interpretive framework has so dominated their minds that their method of
exegesis cannot always be called exegesis.
It sometimes appears to be an
honest attempt to explain away passage after passage in order to sustain a
theory of the saints perseverance at all costs. The motivation
for this is pure, if unconscious. It
lies in the nagging fear that, if this doctrine is abandoned, there is no
answer to the Arminians with their denial of eternal security, and even more
important, there is no answer to the charge of being antinomian. Indeed, to give up the doctrine of
perseverance is, according to Experimental Predestinarians, to turn the grace
of God into lasciviousness.
Now,
of course, that does not necessarily follow, but there is no question that in
some cases carnal believers will do just that.
This is why Paul was charged with antinomianism (
We
must derive our doctrine from the Bible and not make the Bible teach what we
think is necessary. If a man denies that
an innocent man can die for the sins of the guilty, he must deny that Christ
bore our sins. If a man denies that the
merit of one walk can be imputed to another, then he must deny the scriptural
doctrine of justification. If he
believes that a just God would never allow a heathen to go to hell [i.e., the lake of fire], then he must do so contrary to the doctrine of Scripture. It is obvious that our whole system of
revealed truth is useless unless we commit to derive our theology from it and
not impose our theology upon it. If the
Bible teaches the existence of the [regenerate but] carnal
Christian, then our system of theology must be adjusted to accommodate this
fact. It is
the fundamental principle of all sciences, and of theology among the rest, that
theory is to be determined by facts, and not facts by
theory. As natural science was a chaos
until the principle of induction was admitted and faithfully carried out, so
theology is a jumble of human speculations, not worth a straw, when men refuse
to apply the same principle to the study of the Word of God. 28
28 Charles Hodge, Theology,
1: 14-15.
* *
*
[Page 42 blank: Page 43]
CHAPTER 3
The Inheritance: old Testament
Stephen Covey has recently written a book which is the
result of years of research in the success literature of the past two
centuries. In addition, his insights have
been gleaned from his twenty years of experience worldwide as a management
consultant to numerous corporations. He
is a recognised expert on principles of personal and organizational leadership
development. His experience and studies
have led him to the discovery that there is a common denominator among all
highly effective people - seven habits.
The second habit is begin with the end in mind.1
1 Stephen R. Covey, The Seven
Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1989), p. 96.
Imagine
yourself driving to the funeral of a loved one.
As you get out of the car and enter the funeral parlour, there are
numerous flowers, friends, and relatives.
Gentle music is playing in the background. The sense of sorrow and grief permeates the
air, and there are many tears. As you
walk down the aisle to the front of the church to look at the casket, you gasp
with surprise. When you look into the
casket, you see yourself. All these
people are here to honour you! This is
your funeral, three years from today.
These gathered friends and relatives are here to express their love and
appreciation.
Still
stunned by what you see, you take your seat and wait for the services to
begin. Glancing at the program, you note
there are to be four speakers. The first
is to be from your family both immediate and extended - representing children,
brothers, and grandchildren, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, cousins, and
grandparents. They have come from all
over the country to be present at this event.
The second speaker is your best friend.
He is someone who can give a sense of who you are as a person. The third speaker is someone from your
office. This person will, of course,
have perspective on what kind of boss you were and what kind of employee you
were. Finally, an elder from your church
will be called upon to share a few personal comments.
Now
think about this scene! What would you
like these speakers to say about you and your life? What kind of husband, father, employee,
Christian would you like their words to reflect? What contributions and achievements would you
like these people to remember? Look
carefully at the people around [Page 44] you. What difference does it
make to them that you lived or died?
What impact have you had on their lives?
Now,
Covey counsels, take a few moments and jot down the thoughts which come to your
mind - the answers to these questions.
If you thought deeply about this scene, you discovered something about
yourself that you may not have known before.
You discovered some of your deep, fundamental values. To begin with the end in mind is to begin today
with the image, picture, [and] paradigm of the end of your life as the frame of
reference or the criterion by which everything else in your life is examined. By doing this, each part of your life can be
examined in the context of the whole according to what you have concluded is
most important to you. By keeping the end in mind, you can
clearly evaluate whether or not on any given day you have violated your deepest
values. You can determine whether that
day, that week, that month has or has not contributed toward the vision you
have of life as a whole.
People
often get caught up in the trap of having success at the expense of things
which are really more important to them.
People from all walks of life struggle daily to achieve higher income,
higher position, higher honour only to fine that the
achievement of those goals, while not wrong in themselves, blinded them to the
things which they feel at a deeper level are more important to them.
If
you carefully consider what you want said at your funeral regarding you, you
have stated your definition of success.
It may be different from the definition you thought you had in mind. Many people have spent their lives climbing
various ladders only to discover when they get to the top that the ladder was
leaning against the wrong wall.
The
biblical writers everywhere counsel the Christian to begin with the end in mind, to
see life from the perspective of our final accountability before God. One day, at the judgment seat of Christ, we
all hope to hear the words Well done, good and faithful
servant; enter into the joy of your Lord. The general term for the end in mind used in the Bible is the inheritance. The more
material aspects of it are gradually enriched as revelation progressed through
the Old Testament toward the magnificent New Testament challenge to inherit the
kingdom.
It
may seem surprising that a discussion of the saints perseverance should begin
with a study of the inheritance in the Old Testament. It is therefore appropriate that at the
outset of this discussion the writer set forth his understanding of the inheritance of the saints and its relevance to
the doctrine of perseverance.
[Page 45]
1.
There is a difference between inheriting the
2.
While
3.
The inheritance is not to be equated with heaven but with something additional to
heaven, promised to those believers who faithfully obey the Lord.
4.
Just as Old Testament believers
forfeited their earthly inheritance through disobedience, we can also forfeit
our future reward (inheritance) by a similar failure. Loss of inheritance, however, does not mean
loss of [eternal] salvation.
5.
Two kinds of inheritance were enjoyed in the Old Testament. All Israelites who had believed and were
therefore regenerate had God as their
inheritance but not all inherited the land.
This paves the way for the notion that the New Testament may also teach two inheritances. We [the regenerate] are all heirs of God, but we are not all joint-heirs with Christ, unless we persevere to the end of life. The
former refers to our [eternal] salvation
and the latter to our reward.
6.
A child of
[* See Firstborn Sons
Their Rights and Risks, by G.
H. Lang on this website.]
The relevance of these conclusions to the doctrine of the
saints perseverance is obvious. First, if this is in fact the Old Testament view,
it surely must have informed the thinking of the New Testament writers. If that is so, then many passages, which have
been considered as descriptions of the elect, are in fact conditions of
obtaining a reward in [the coming kingdom of] heaven.* For example, Paul warns the Corinthians, Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God2 If inheriting the kingdom means going to heaven, then Paul is saying
[Page 46] no wicked
person can go to heaven. Such an
interpretation would be consistent with the Experimental Predestinarian system
which says that the permanently carnal Christian is a fiction. If, on the other hand, to inherit the kingdom refers not to entering heaven but to possessing and ruling in the kingdom as it does in the Old Testament, then
an entirely different interpretation of the passage emerges. Instead of warning merely professing
Christians that they may not be [regenerate] Christians at
all, he is telling true Christians that,
if they do not change their behaviour, they may be in the kingdom [in
a spiritual sense] but
they will not rule there.
2 1 Cor. 6: 9.
This
chapter is rather complex. It may be that
the reader would prefer to tentatively accept the propositions listed above and
skip to the next chapter.
The Old Testament Concept of Inheritance
In
numerous passages of the New Testament, believers are called heirs. We are told that we will inherit the kingdom, inherit
eternal life, and that the Spirit is the
earnest of our inheritance. Commonly,
these passages have been taken to refer to our final deliverance from
hell. A severe problem develops,
however, when one carefully examines the usage of the term inheritance in the Old and New Testaments.
When used of
Whatever
you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for
men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance
from the Lord as a reward.
Because
the inheritance in this system is [assumed to be] in heaven and
since we are, according to the passage, to earn
it as a reward,3 Calvin resolved the problem by appealing to Gen. 15: 5 (the promise of a seed) and Gen.
17: 1 (the seed given based on obedience) and concluded:
Did Abraham by his obedience merit the
blessing which had been promised him before the concept was given? Here assuredly we see without ambiguity that
God rewards the works of believers with blessings which he had given them
before the works were thought of, there [Page 47] still
being no cause for the blessing which he bestows but his own mercy.4
3. The Greek is antapodosis, and it means a recompense or repaying,
reward; cf. AG, p72. The LXX, for example, used the word in Ps. 19: 11: In keeping them [the words of God] there is great
reward.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 2 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 3. 18. 2.
The
problem is that Genesis clearly says
that there was a cause for the [divine] blessing
- Abrahams obedience.5 Calvin has turned the text upside down to
mean precisely the opposite of that which the original author intended. What we see is a promise of reward in Gen. 15: 1 and a recognition that all
of Gods promised blessings go only to
those to those who are obedient. An
inheritance came to the firstborn son by virtue of his birth. But
whether or not he actually secured it depended upon his obedience and his
fathers choice.
5. Gen. 22: 18: [They]
shall be blessed,
because you have
obeyed my voice.
If
we are obedient, then God promises to bless us.
The content of our obedience varies with the blessing to be
received. If the blessing is final
deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of fire Rev. 20: 15, R.V.], then the only obedience
or work is that of believing (Jn. 6: 29). If,
on the other hand, the blessing is a richer spiritual life or reward in the
future, the work is faithful perseverance (2 Cor.
5: 10).
The
New Testament writers frequently refer to the inheritance of the saints by
quoting passages referring to the
An Inheritance Was a Possession
Nothing
is more fundamental to the meaning of the Hebrew word nachala, than the idea of possession.6 The
land of Canaan was Israels promised possession.7 Leonard
Coppes commits the error of illegitimate totality transfer when he attempts to
add the idea of permanent possession as a result of
succession,8 The notions of
permanence and succession are found in some contexts,9 but
they are contradicted in others and are, therefore, not part of the basic
significance of the word.10 Craston avoids this error when he summarizes: [Page
48] The Old
Testament terms for heir, inheritance,
do not necessarily bear the special sense of hereditary succession and
possession, although they are found in laws concerning succession to the
headship of the family, with consequent control of the family property (Gen. 15: 3-5; Num. 27: 1-11; Num. 36: 1-13; Deut. 21: 15-17.11
6 As, p.
248. The Greek words cited here have the
same sense, possession.
7 1 Cor. 16: 18; Josh. 18: 20; Num. 26: 53; Deut. 4: 38; Ps. 105: 11.
8 Leonard Coppes, nichala,
not TWOT, 2: 569.
9 E.g., Lev. 25: 46.
10 Coppes himself
admits this when he refers to those many passages
where the idea of possession was conceived as a permanent and not entailing the
idea of succession (1 Sam. 26: 19), 2: 569.
11 R. C. Craston, Inheritance,
in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 561.
It
is clear, for example, that, when the psalmist says, Rise up, O God,
for all the nations are your inheritance (Psalm 82: 8), he does not mean that God receives the nations upon
the death of His parent!
Guaranteed
filial succession of property is not part of the semantic value of the word.12 Leon
Morris correctly insists that, even though the word properly denotes property
received as a result of death, the Old Testament concept of inheritance has no
implication of hereditary succession, as it dies in classical Greek. Rather, he says, the term refers only to
sanctioned and settled possession.13 The fact that a son
became an heir in no way guaranteed that he would obtain the inheritance. The father had the right to insist that the
son meet the conditions of the inheritance or to give it to another. The
obvious illustration of this is that the exodus generation was promised an
inheritance, the
12 See also Gen. 15: 7-8; Deut. 16: 20; Lev. 20: 24; Isa. 57: 13; 54: 3. Jeremiah says, Therefore
I will give their wives to other men, and their
fields to new owners [Heb. their fields to those
who will inherit them] (Jer. 8: 10). Those who inherit are simply owners.
13 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), p. 317, citing in part, comments from F.J.A. Hort, The First
Epistle of St. Peter (
An Inheritance Could Be Merited and Lost
Nothing
could be plainer from the Old Testament presentation of the inheritance than
that it was often merited or fought for.
Babb comments:
In many instances of Biblical usage, the theological meaning of the
word goes beyond the legalistic. Apart
from any legal process, it may characterize the bestowal of a gift or
possession upon his people by a merciful God, in fulfilment of a promise or as a reward for obedience. 14
14 O. J. Babb, Inheritance,
in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p.
701.
[Page 49]
That
the believers inheritance is his reward in heaven and not heaven itself has
been held by many within the Reformed faith. 15 In view of the New Testament doctrine of
justification by faith alone, it seems
curious that so many have therefore equated the inheritance with final
deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of fire.] This is even more surprising because the
New Testament itself, almost without exception, presents the believers
inheritance as something merited or earned.
15 Shedd, for example, writes: This
is proved by the fact that the reward of
the Christian is called an inheritance (Matt. 25: 34; Acts 20: 32; Gal. 3: 18; Eph. 5: 5; Col. 1: 12). The believers
reward is like a childs portion under his fathers will. This is not wages and recompense, in the
strict sense; and yet it is relatively a
reward for filial obedience (William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, 3 vols. [
We
see the idea of merit related to the inheritance in its earliest
references. Abraham is told that failure
to obey the work of circumcision will result in forfeiture (Gen. 17: 14). Caleb
will inherit the land because he followed God wholeheartedly (Num. 14: 24):
But because my
servant Caleb has a different spirit, and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him
into the land he went to, and his descendants
will inherit it.
I, however, followed the Lord my God wholeheartedly. So on that day Moses
swore to me, The land on which your feet walked will be your inheritance
and that of your children forever because you have followed the Lord my God
wholeheartedly: (Josh. 14: 8-9).
In
contrast to those Israelites who disobeyed, Caleb merited an inheritance, the
16 The
17 See Ex. 23: 30; Deut. 2: 31; 11: 11-24; 16: 20; 19: 8, 9; Josh. 11: 23; 1: 6-7.
They
will have success in their battle to inherit the land only on the condition
that they are strong and
courageous and that they obey all the law that Moses gave them. 18 Furthermore, they are promised rest
(victory after the conquest of the
18 Josh. 1: 6-7.
19 Ps. 37: 9-11. Hope does not refer
to saving faith. David was already a
saved man. It refers to the attitude of
a saved man who continues to trust and does not give up. A man who perseveres in
faith.
From these examples it will appear that the dominant Biblical sense
of inheritance is the enjoyment of a rightful title of
that which is not the fruit of personal exertion.20
20 B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (
Clearly,
the fruit of personal exertion is found in
scores of passages. It is evident from
numerous Old Testament passages that
Major Premise: The land is the
inheritance.
Minor Premise: The land will be obtained
only on the condition of faith plus obedience.
Conclusion: The
inheritance will be obtained only on the condition of faith plus
obedience.
Not
only can the inheritance be merited by obedience, but it can be lost by
disobedience. Even Moses was
excluded from the
21 Nothing is said regarding whether or not he forfeited
his heavenly reward [or millennial
reward], which
of course he did not. The New Testament
uses the experience of
Even
though
[Page 51]
Another
generation of Israelites similarly forfeited their inheritance rights and were
sold as slaves into
Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens,
Our homes to foreigners (Lam. 5: 2).
22 Of course, the Abrahamic promise guaranteed the
ultimate possession of the land by the final generation of Jews who return to
the Lord in faith just prior to the second coming. However, the generation of the Babylonian
captivity forever lost their inheritance.
An inheritance can be lost.
A
classic example of the forfeiture of ones inheritance rights was the case of
Reuben, Jacobs firstborn, who lost his inheritance rights. 23 The
possibility of the forfeiture of the
23 1 Cor. 5: 1-2
24 1 Cor. 28: 8
It
is instructive to note, when studying the inheritance in the Old Testament,
that a distinction was drawn between inhabiting the land and inheriting it or,
to put it in other words, between merely living in the land and possessing it. Abraham, for example, inhabited the land,
lived there, but he never inherited it (Heb. 11: 13). He lived there, but he never owned it (Gen. 21: 33; 35: 27). 25
25 There is a
difference between living in the land and inheriting, owning, the land. May
he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession [Heb. yarish, to
inherit] of the land where you now live as an
alien (Gen. 28: 4).
Jacob did not own the land, i.e., he had not inherited it, but he lived
there.
In
the Old Testament the ger, the
alien, was someone who did not enjoy the rights
usually possessed by a resident. 26 The ger had,
according to the lexicon, no inherited rights.
27 Moses named his son Gershom in memory of his stay in Midian (Ex. 18: 3) where he lived as an alien without inheritance
rights. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived
as strangers in
26 Harold Steigers, ger, in TWOT, 1: 155-56.
27 BDB, p. 158.
The
Levites, in particular, were told that they would have no inheritance rights in
the land:
The
Lord said to Aaron, You will
have no inheritance in their land, nor will
you have any share among them. I am your share and your inheritance among
the Israelites: (Num. 18: 20). 29
29 See also Num. 18: 23-24
[Page 52]
It
is therefore perfectly proper to think of living in a land where one had no
inheritance or property.
Two Kinds of Inheritance Are Promised
The Old Testament presents two inheritances (possessions)
which the people of God will enjoy. All
will have God as an inheritance, but only some will possess the land. All who know
the Lord [as personal Saviour] have Him as their God. But only those who obey the Lord wholeheartedly, as Caleb did, will have an
inheritance in the
The
Old Testament presents two inheritances (possessions which the people of God
will enjoy. All will have God as an
inheritance, but only some will possess the land. All who know the Lord have Him as their God. But only
those who obey the Lord wholeheartedly, as Caleb did, will have an inheritance
in the
God Is Our Inheritance
First,
the inheritance is God Himself. The
Levites, in contrast to the rest of the nation, were to have no inheritance in
the land (Deut.
14: 27):
The priests, who are Levites - indeed the
whole tribe of Levi -
are to have no allotment or inheritance with
30 See also Josh. 7: 14; 14: 1-5; 18: 7.
The
prerogative of having God as their inheritance went not just to the Levites
but, like the Levites, to all who know the Lord. The psalmist viewed God as his kleros (lot,
portion, inheritance,
LXX): 31 The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup; thou didst support my lot: (Ps.
16: 5
NASB).
In other places David says:
31 J.
Herrmann, kleronomos,
cynkleronomos, kleronomeo, in TDNT,
p. 444
My flesh and my
heart may fail
But God is the strength of my heart
And my portion [kleros LXX]
forever: (Ps.
73: 26).
The Lord is my
portion [kleros];
I promised to keep thy words: (Ps. 119:
57).
I cried out to Thee,
O Lord;
I said, Thou art my refuge,
My portion [kleros] in the land of the
living: (Ps. 124: 5).
God is the peoples portion mow, and He will
be their inheritance in the future as well:
[Page 53]
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that
time, declares the LORD. I will put my law in
their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they shall be my people (Jer. 31: 33).
Not
only will God own His people, but
they will possess Him. The references to I am the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob convey a similar thought. Not only do the people have an inheritance in
the land, but God Himself is theirs.
This applies to those within
The Inheritance Is an Added Blessing to
the Saved
All
believers have God as their inheritance, but not all (e.g., the Levites, the alien,
and the patriarchs, and those who died in the wilderness) have an inheritance
in the land. That inheritance is an
added blessing to the saved. The New
Testament writers often refer to the believers inheritance. In so doing, they embrace the imagery of
Joshua possessing
In
addition to the passages mentioned above which show that Canaan was the
inheritance that went to the already justified children of
In
Gen. 15: 1-6 Abraham is
promised an heir and in Gen. 15: 18 an
inheritance, the
Abrahams faith is recorded here because it is foundational for
marking the covenant. The Abrahamic
Covenant did not give Abraham redemption; it was a covenant made with Abram,
who had already believed and to whom righteousness had already been imputed. 32
32 Allen P. Ross, Genesis,
in BKC, 1: 55.
[Page 53]
While
Abraham received justification by faith alone, it is clear that he could only
obtain the inheritance [sometime later] by
means of obedience (Gen. 22: 15-18).
For
the Israelites, conquering
It
is sometimes erroneously stated that inheriting the land is to be compared to
the believers entrance into heaven.
But
just as important, the inheritance of the Old Testament was offered to those who were already justified, who would receive
something in addition to heaven if they would obey. This is seen first of all in the fact that
the nation which left
33 Surprisingly, some
have contended that the absence of a fully developed Old Testament doctrine of
heaven is proof that
By faith the people passed through the
By Faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had
marched around them for seven days (Heb. 11: 29-30).
His
favourite phrase, by faith, is applied in 11: 30 to the
believing generation which entered the land and in the rest of the chapter to
Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and others who are all regenerate. 34 He
therefore views the exodus generation as a whole that way. Paul had the same view:
34 Heb. 11: 4, 5, 7-8, 11, 17, 20-24.
[They]
drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from
the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that
rock was Christ. Nevertheless God was not pleased with most of
them; their bodies were scattered over the desert
(1 Cor. 10:
4, 5).
[Page 55]
The
Israelites, as a nation, seemed to reveal their regenerate condition when they
promised, We
will do everything the Lord has said (Ex.
19: 8). They had bowed down and worshiped and trusted in the blood of the Passover Lamb (Ex. 12: 27-28),
had by faith crossed the Red Sea, and had drunk (i.e., trusted in, Jn. 4: 13-14; Jn. 6: 53-56) that spiritual rock which was Christ, yet they never obtained
[*NOTE. In Num. 14: 22, 35, 36 (where
the word all is used), it would appear that all
the accountable generation, (who had sheltered under the lambs blood
and left
R.
T.Kendall, pastor of Westminster Chapel in
It would be a serious mistake to dismiss the children of
35 R. T. Kendall, Once saved Always Saved
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984), p. 155.
It
would not be surprising then if the New Testament writers similarly viewed the inheritance
of the saints from a two-fold perspective.
All regenerate men have God as their inheritance, or as Paul puts it,
are heirs of God
(Rom. 8: 17; Gal. 4: 7). That heirship
is received on the basis of only one work, the work of believing. But there is another inheritance in the New
Testament, an inheritance which, like that of the Israelites, is merited. They are also heirs if the kingdom; and
joint-heirs with Messiah (2 Tim. 2: 12; Rom. 8: 17). 36
36 These passages
will be developed in the section on inheritance in the New Testament below.
The
Inheritance and Heaven - New Testament Parallels?
Many
outstanding commentaries and theological works have attempted to equate
entrance into the
37 Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of
Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), p. 196.
38 A. B. Davidson, The Epistle
to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. * T. Clark, 1959), pp. 91-92. By the term salvation
Davidson means the Christians final deliverance from hell [i.e., from
the lake of fire],
a meaning far removed from the Old Testament world in which the writer to the
Hebrews moved.
A-Millennialism
have often drawn the parallel between
The occupation of the earthly
39 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible
and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 279. Hoekema gives no evidence substantiating this
assertion.
40 Patrick Fairbairn, Typology
of Scripture (1845-47; reprint ed.,
A
more singularly inappropriate parallel could hardly be found. An
inheritance which could be merited by obedience and forfeited through
disobedience is hardly a good type of heaven. Both aspects
are, it would seem, an embarrassment to those of the
Reformed persuasion. On one hand, the forfeiture of the inheritance through
disobedience contradicts the doctrine of the eternal security of the
believer. On the other hand, the works
required to obtain the inheritance in the Old Testament contradict the doctrine
of justification by faith alone.
Pink [after
moving from his former Pre-millennial position into Anti-millennial teachings
and interpretations] explains
the works problem by viewing
If
the rest meant heaven, it would be against all Scripture analogy to assume that all the
Israelites who died in the wilderness were excluded from future happiness. And there are many other difficulties which
will at once suggest themselves. 41
41 F. W.Farrar, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews in
[Page 57]
Those from the Arminian tradition could immediately point out that
the failure to enter the land can refer to a loss of [eternal] salvation. They too, however, must struggle with the
problem of the works involved in obtaining it.
Only by allowing inheritance to mean possession
and acknowledging that it can be merited can the parallel drawn out by the New
Testament authors be explained. The
inheritance is not salvation in the sense of final deliverance from hell but
the reward which came to the faithful in
The
Inheritance - Promises and Conditions.
From the earliest references the inheritance was promised to
Abraham and his descendants upon the basis of a divine oath.42 But a tension is apparent. They were told that, if they do what is good and right in
the LORDS sight (Deut. 6: 18),
they would have victory over the Canaanites and possess the land (Deut. 11: 22-25). Even
though the inheritance has been promised on an oath, it will only come to them
of they carefully follow all these laws (Deut. 19: 8-10). How is this tension to be explained?
42 Gen. 12: 7; 15: 18-21; 26: 3; 28: 13; Ex. 6: 8.
The parallel with Abraham may suggest an answer. As pointed out above, Abraham was already a
saved man when he received the promise of the inheritance. Therefore, it was not the act of saving faith
which guaranteed Abraham an heir (Gen. 15: 4-5)
or the inheritance of
The angel of the LORD called Abraham from heaven a second time and
said, I sware
by myself, Declares the LORD,
that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will
surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the [Page
58] sky and as the sand of the
seashore. Your descendants will
take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your
offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me (Gen. 22: 15-18).
The passage is instructive in that it clarifies that the
inheritance which has been given unconditionally to the descendants by oath
will only be obtained by each one personally when he obeys. What is true for the father of those who believe is true of his descendants. The unconditional nature of the Abrahamic
blessing is available for each generation of Israelites. But only that generation which appropriates
it by faith will enter into those blessings.
God never promised anything to a
generation of rebels. It is to the Israel of God (Gal. 6: 16), the believing remnant of the last days,
that the promise will finally be fulfilled (Rom. 11: 26ff). 43
43 Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament
Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 93-94. In 1 Kings 8: 25 we
see a similar parallel with David.
The inheritance, while given to the descendants in general by
promise, was obtained by individuals or groups of people only by
obedience. This was seen in the like of
Abraham above and is forcefully illustrated in the experience of the Israelites
and their attempted initial entrance into
These people as a group are saved people, the people of God. While some may not have been saved, only two of
them will inherit because only two out of two million met the conditions. Thus all the rest will go to heaven [after the millennium and their resurrection] but forfeit
their inheritance [in the land]. This thought is in the mind of the writer to
the Hebrews in Heb. 3: 7ff where obtaining the inheritance is
equated with entering rest. The instant they accepted the Passover, were
circumcised, and by faith moved out of
Conclusion
It has been seen that the Old Testament notion of inheritance does
not always include the idea of a guarantee.
The Israelite became an heir by birth, but due to disobedience he could forfeit the firstborn privilege. It was necessary that [Page
59] he obey
if he would obtain what was promised. We
are therefore alerted to the fact that the inheritance is not something which comes
automatically to all who are sons but only to those sons who are obedient. The inheritance was something in addition to [eternal] salvation and was not equated with
it. It was obtained by victorious
perseverance and obedient faith.
With this background in mind we are now in a better position to
understand the New Testament teaching on inheritance.
* *
*
[Page 61 blank: Page 62]
CHAPTER 4
The Inheritance: New Testament
We must begin
with the end in mind. Only then can we bring the daily details of
life into proper perspective. This
lesson is wonderfully taught through the example of a high school junior, Kay
Bothwell. Kay was greatly admired by
both Christians and non-Christians alike.
Not only had she given her life to Christ, but she had also allowed
Christ to be formed in her.
One
day she was given the following assignment in her English literature class: State how you would spend your time if you knew this would
be the last week of your life.
Her essay read as follows:
Today I live. One
week from today I die. If a situation
such as this came to me I should probably weep.
As soon as I realized there are many things to be done, I would try to
regain my composure. The first day of my
suddenly shortened life I would use to see all my loved ones and assure them I
loved them all very much. On the evening
of my first day I would ask God, in the solace of my room, to give me strength
to bear the rest of my precious days and give me His hand, so that I could walk
with him.
On the second day I would awaken early in order to see the rising
sun, which I had so often set aside to gain a few more moments of coveted
sleep. I would continue throughout the
day to visit family and friends, telling each one, I love you.
Thank you for the part youve played in my life.
On the third day Id travel alone into the woods, allowing Gods
goodness and creation to surround me. I
would see, undoubtedly for the first time, many things I had not taken the time
to notice before.
On the fourth day I would prepare my will; all sentimental things I
possess I would leave to my family and friends.
I would spend the rest of the day with my mother. We have always been very close, and I would
want to especially assure her of my deep gratitude for her tremendous impact on
my life.
On Friday, the fifth day, my life almost ended, I would spend the
time with my pastor, speaking with him of my relationship with Christ and
seeking advice [Page 62] for my final hours.
I would spend the rest of the day visiting those who are ill, silently
being thankful that I know no pain and yet I know my destiny.
On Saturday morning I would spend my time with a special friend who
is going through a difficult time with her broken family and seek to comfort
her. The rest of Saturday I would spend
with my treasured grandparents and elderly friends, seeking their wisdom and
sharing my love. Saturday night I would
spend awake in prayer, knowing that God was by my side. I would be at peace now, knowing that because
of Christ I was soon going to spend an eternity of heaven.
Upon waking on Sunday morning, I would make all my last
preparations, and then taking my Bible, I would go to church to spend the last
hours in worship and praise, seeking to die gracefully and with the hope that my life had influence upon
others for His glorious name. The
last hour would not be spent in agony but the perfect harmony of my
relationship with Jesus Christ.
One week almost to the day after she
handed in this essay, Kay Bothwell was ushered into eternity when she was
killed in an automobile accident just outside her home in
For
the last week of her life, at least, Kay Bothwell lived life with the end in
mind. Like the imaginary funeral
referred to in the preceding chapter, the essay in the literature class helped
her think through what was really important in life. For the readers of the Old Testament, the revelation becomes more
specific, and it is referred to as inheriting the kingdom and entering into rest. The New Testament concepts of inheritance and rest will be the subjects of the next two chapters.
Old
Testament usage and understanding necessarily informs the thinking of the New
Testament writers. It would be
surprising indeed if there was no continuity of thought between their
understanding of an inheritance and that found in their Bible.
This
chapter will try to demonstrate that just like the Old Testament there are two kinds of inheritance
presented in the New. All believers have
God as their inheritance but not all will inherit the [millennial] kingdom.
Furthermore, inheriting the [coming] kingdom is not to be equated with entering it but,
rather, with possessing it and ruling there. All
Christians will enter the kingdom [i.e.,
on a spiritual sense - Christ ruling in their hearts], but not all will rule there, i.e., inherit it.
There
are four words related to the inheritance idea in the New Testament: the verb to inherit (kleronomeo)
and the nouns inheritance (kleronomia),
heir (kleronomos),
and lot, portion (kleros). Every usage of these words will be referred
to in the discussion below. However,
since the [Page 63] conclusions parallel Old Testament usage in a
striking way, we will organize them under the same categories.
An Inheritance Is a Possession
Like its Old Testament counterpart a kleronomia is fundamentally a
possession. 1 How it is acquired or passed on to ones descendants
is not intrinsic to the word. The word
does not always or even fundamentally mean an estate passed on to a son at the
death of a parent, as it does in Gen. 4: 7. To include
those contextually derived notions within the semantic value of the word itself is, again, to commit an illegitimate totality
transfer. Arndt and Gingrich define it
as an inheritance, possession, property. 2
Abbott-Smith concurs that it means in general, a
possession, inheritance. 3
Rarely, if ever, does it mean property transmitted by
will. 4 Vine observes that only in
a few cases in the Gospels has it the meaning ordinarily attached to that word
in English, i.e., that into possession of which the heir enters only on the
death of an ancestor. 5
1 This seems to be the sense of inheritance, property (klernmia) in
Mt. 21:
38; Mk. 12: 7; Lk. 12: 13; 20: 14; Acts 7: 5; and Eph. 1: 18.
2 AG, p. 436.
3 AS, p. 249.
4 Ernset De Witt
5 W. E. Vine, An Expositary Dictionary
of New Testament Words (1939; reprint ed.,
The Inheritance Is Meritorious Ownership
of the Kingdom
Also
like their Old Testament counterparts the words for inheritance in the New Testament
often involve spiritual obedience (i.e., faith plus works) as a condition of
obtaining the inheritance. Becoming an
heir (kleronomos) can occur through
filial relationship, 6 through faith, 7
or through some king of works of obedience. 8 The acquisition of the inheritance (kleronomia) is often related to merit. 9 In
nearly every instance the verb to inherit (kleronomia) is often related to merit. 9 In nearly every instance the verb to inherit (kleronomeo) includes, contextually,
either the presence or absence of some work or character quality as a condition
of obtaining or forfeiting the possession. 10 In view of the fact that [Page 64] works are associated with the acquisition of the
inheritance, is a prima facie doubtful that the inheritance could be equated
with entrance into heaven as is so often done. Yet in order to sustain the idea of
perseverance in holiness, Experimental Predestinarians interpret the passages
as descriptions of all true Christians. Theological exegesis is thus brought in to
make every one of these texts say something that they not only do not say but
that is in fact contradictory to the rest of the New Testament.
It
is plain that the New Testament not only teaches the existence of the carnal
Christian 11 but of true Christians who persisted in their
carnality up to the point of physical death. 12 They will, having been justified, [think
they are, and will] be
in the kingdom; however they will not
inherit it. 13 Vine points out that the term is often used of that which is received on
the condition of obedience to certain precepts (1 Pet. 3: 9), and of faithfulness to God amidst opposition (Rev. 21: 7). 14 Only the obedient and faithful inherit, not all who are saved.
It is a reward in the coming age and reward of the
condition of soul which forbears retaliation and self-vindication, and
expresses itself in gentleness of behaviour. 15 Vine
points out that it is the reward of those who have
shown kindness to the brethren of the Lord in their distress. 16
11 See Chapter 14, The
Carnal Christian.
12 Acts 5: 1-10; 1 Cor. 5: 5; 3: 15; 11: 30; Heb.10: 29; 1 Jn. 5: 16-17.
13 Gal. 5: 21; Eph. 5: 5; 1 Cor. 6: 9.
14 Vine, p. 588.
15 Ibid. See Mk. 10: 30; Mt. 5: 5.
16 Ibid., p. 589.
A rich
young ruler once asked Jesus, What good thing shall I
do that I may have eternal life? Having (echo)
eternal life is equated with inheriting it in
the parallel passage in Mark where the word kleronomeo is used rather than echo, demonstrating to the rich young ruler, at least, the equality of the
terms (Mk. 10:
17).
Jesus understands his question as how to enter
life, i.e., how to get to heaven (v.
17).
It therefore appears that Jesus is equating inheriting
eternal life with entering into heaven. However, that conclusion is too hasty. Several things should be mentioned.
First,
consistent with its usage throughout the Old and New Testaments, the verb kleronomeo in this passage implies obtaining a possession by merit.
It cannot, therefore, mean to obtain heaven by faith. Second, the rich young ruler is reflecting
first-century Jewish theology and not the gospel of the New Testament. The Rabbis taught that works were necessary
in order to inherit eternal life, 18 and they were partially correct. Eternal life could be earned when viewed as
an [page 65] enriched
experience of that life given [after faith in Christ] at regeneration. The rich young ruler, however, was unaware
that eternal life could be had now [as a
free gift (Rom. 6: 23, R.V.)]. One could enter into it immediately by faith and not have to wait until the
final judgment, where an enriched
demonstration of it could be rewarded to faithful discipleship [during the
time of Messiahs millennial reign]. It is to this possibility that
our Lord begins to direct his attention.
18 See William E.
Brown, The New Testament Concept of the Believers
Inheritance (Th. D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary,
1984) for discussion.
Third,
Jesus understands what he is really asking.
He is asking how he can enter into heaven. Jesus says, It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of heaven (Mt. 19: 23). In the rich
young rulers mind entering heaven, inheriting eternal life, and having eternal
life were all the same thing, and all meant go to
heaven when I die. Jesus neither
affirms nor denies this equation here. 19 He understands that the young man wants to know how
to enter life, or enter the kingdom.
Rather, He moves to the heart of the young mans question
and his
problem. How good does one have to be to
merit heaven? Christ leads him to the
conclusion that one would have to be perfect if one wants to obtain eternal [Gk.
aionian] life by works.
He does this by pointing out to him that, if he wants to get to heaven
by being good, then he must keep [all] the commandments.
It is true that, if a man could keep [all] the
commandments, he would merit heaven. The
problem is, of course, that no one [apart from Jesus Himself] can. This is
what Jesus wants the young ruler to [understand and] see.
19 The fact that these terms were synonymous to the rich young ruler does
not mean that this is the teaching of Scripture. Error is often accurately repeated under
inspiration. Recall the Satans words, You will surely not die.
A
modern parallel to the young mans question might help to elucidate the
story. Consider the common situation of
a man enmeshed in Catholicism all his life.
When he thinks of going to heaven and achieving rewards there, it is all
mixed together in his mind. Both
entrance and rewards are based on works.
Impressed with the evangelistic sermon he hears, he approaches the
evangelist and says, How good do I have to be to
obtain my heavenly reward? By heavenly reward he means two things: entrance into
heaven and rewards in heaven. They are
joined in his thinking. The evangelist
does not go into distinctions between
rewards and entrance because he understands what the man is really after; he
wants to know how he can have assurance of going to heaven. So the evangelist says, If you want to go to heaven by being good, here is what you
must do. Now when the evangelist
says that, he is not equating heavenly reward with go to
heaven; in a similar way Jesus is not equating entering the [eternal]
When
the young man says, All these
have I kept from my youth, Jesus
sensitively moves to the heart of the matter by pointing out one he has not
kept. If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and
give to the poor; and [Page 66] you will have treasure
in heaven; and
come and follow Me. Had he
perfectly kept the commandments, he would be willing to part with his
money. But he was not willing to part
with all his money and follow an itinerant teacher around
At
this point some have felt that Jesus was asking the man to submit to the
lordship of Christ in order to become a Christian. All interpreters have experienced difficulty
here. Why does Jesus not explain the
faith-alone gospel He came to offer? An
adequate answer is found in the parallel passage in Mark. There the Lord explains, Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter
the
20 This reading is
not found in most ancient texts but is found in the majority of Greek
manuscripts. Whether it is valid or not,
it represents a very ancient view of the Lords words and is one that fits very
well with the context.
After
informing the rich young ruler that he must sell all he has if he would obtain
eternal life, 21 the disciples ask; We have left everything to follow you! What then will there
be for us? (Mt. 19: 27). Peters question deals with rewards. That they
saw a connection between leaving everything and obtaining some reward is
obvious. And in His thrilling answer
Jesus confirms their theology:
21 Jesus is no doubt using the law lawfully to convict
this man of the sin of trusting in riches instead of the good teacher alone for
salvation.
I tell you the truth, at the
renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have
followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
A difficulty now arises: since eternal life is usually equated
with regeneration [i.e., being given at the time of first faith
in Jesus Christ as Saviour], how can it be obtained by abandoning
father, mother, home, children, and the other things listed? The answer is, as will be argued below, that every time
[Page 67] eternal [Gk. aionian] life
is presented in Scripture as something to be obtained by a [regenerate
believers] work [after his/her initial faith and acceptance
of it through faith alone in Christ Jesus as Saviour (Jn. 3: 16)], it is always a future acquisition. It becomes synonymous in these contexts with
a richer experience of that life given freely at [the
time of a believers]
regeneration. The point here, however, is that to inherit can be - [and is in this instance] - used as a meritorious
acquisition. There will be differences in heaven [and during Messiahs coming kingdom-reign*], some
first and some last, and those who are first are those who have inherited, who
have left [when called upon by God, are ready,
obedient and willing to leave] all for Him.
Only the reference to eternal
life [in this context: When the Son of Man sits on HIS glorious throne] could lead interpreters to forget that
the subject matter is discipleship [and
the future millennial inheritance and rewards] which
is [are] based on [their] works, and not on [their] regeneration which is [always]
based on [Christs finished work and on] faith alone.
[* Keep in mind: God has made mention of two kingdoms throughout
the Holy Scriptures. The first of these
will appear in manifested glory, when
Messiah return from heaven to this earth, and sit on Davids throne in
A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is rewards.
The Saviour says, Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit
[kleronomeo] the earth (Mt. 5: 5). The subject matter is our
reward in heaven: Rejoice and
be glad because great is your reward [misthos] in heaven (Mt. 5: 12). The idea of rewards is
repeatedly emphasized in the Sermon, which is addressed primarily to the disciples (5: 1). 22
The word misthos basically means a payment for work done. 23 Jesus is
speaking of the inheritance here
as a reward for a humble, trusting life. There is no indication that all Christians
have this quality of life. In fact, it is possible for a Christian to
become saltless (Mt. 5: 13) and be thrown out. True
Christians can lose their saltiness, their testimony for the Lord. When they do, they [may] forfeit their [inheritance on earth and their]
reward in heaven. Furthermore, He specifically says the
disobedient believer who annuls one of the least
of these commandments will be in the kingdom (Mt. 5: 19) but will be least in contrast to great in that kingdom.
23 AG, p. 525.
What is the content of our inheritance reward? He says it involves inheriting
the earth. No doubt this goes back to the [divine] promises to David and his greater Son:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the end of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron septre; and you will dash them to pieces like pottery (Ps. 2: 8-9).
We can become joint rulers
with Christ over the nations according to John:
To him who
overcomes and does my will to the end, I
will give authority over the nations He will rule them with an iron sceptre; he will dash them to pieces like pottery (Rev. 2: 26).
To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcome and sat down with My
Father on His throne (Rev. 3: 21 NKJV)
[Page 68]
The
apostle Paul echoed a similar theme when he said, If we endure, we shall also reign with him (2 Tim. 2: 12).
So
it is the meek who will be rewarded with rulership with Christ in the coming
millennial kingdom.
Another
passage which refers to the inheritance as a reward is found in Col.
3: 23-24:
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart
since you know that you
will receive an inheritance [kleronomis] from the
Lord as a reward
[Gk. antapodosis].
The
inheritance is a reward which is received as wages 24 for
work done. Nothing could be
plainer. The context is speaking of the
return a man should receive because of his work, as in an employer-employee
relationship. The inheritance is
received as a result of [the disciples] work; it does
not come as a gift. The Greek antapodosis means repayment or reward. 25 The verb antapodidomi
never means to receive a gift; it is always used in the New Testament as a
repayment due to an obligation. 26
24 receive = apolambano,
to receive, especially as wages, AG, p. 93.
The word often means to receive something back that is due, not as a
gift. See Lk.
6: 34; 18: 30; 23: 41; Rom. 1: 27.
25 AG, p. 72.
They relate it to Rom. 2: 5. Paul speaks of our receiving at the judgment a recompense based upon our works.
26 See Rom. 11: 35; 12-19; 1 Th. 3: 9; 2 Th. 1: 6; Heb. 10: 30. See the
article by P. C. Boettger, Recompense, Reward,
Gain, wages, in NIDNTT,
3:134-36.
An Inheritance Can be Forfeited
In
several passages Paul speaks of the possibility of not inheriting the kingdom.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit [kleronomeo]
the
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God
(6: 11).
While
entering the kingdom has often be equated with
inheriting the kingdom, there is no semantic or exegetical basis for the
equality. Even in English we acknowledge
a distinction between entering and inheriting.
A tenant, for [Page 69] example, may live on to enter a landowners great estate, but he does
not own or inherit it. To inherit simply means to possess, and the distinction between possession of
Similarly,
there is no reason to assume that entering the kingdom and living there is the
same thing as owning it and ruling in it. The
heirs of the kingdom are its owners and rulers and not just its residents. Kendall agrees, In
other words, salvation is unchangeable but our inheritance in the
27 R. T. Kendall Once Saved Always
Saved (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984), p. 92.
28 R. C. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), p. 247.
Yet
there is a real danger. It is possible for [regenerate] Christians to lose their inheritance. The Epistle
to the Hebrews illustrates this from the life of Esau:
See that no one is sexually immoral or is godless like Esau, who
for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as
you know, when he wanted to inherit [kleronomeo]
this blessing, he
was rejected. He
could bring about no change of mind,
though he sought the blessing
with tears (Heb.
12: 16-17).
Esau
forfeited his inheritance, but he was still Isaacs son. He did not forfeit his relationship to his
father. Furthermore, at the end of his
life Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau regarding their future (Heb. 11: 20). As Eric
Sauer put it:
Doubtless, birthright [inheritance
right] is not identical with sonship. Esau remained Isaacs son even after he had
rejected his birthright. In fact, he
received, in spite of his great failure, a kind of secondary blessing (Gen. 27: 38-40b). 29 *
29 Eric Sauer, In the Arena of
Faith (Grand Rapids: Eedrmans, 1966), p. 152.
* See also G. H. Langs Firstborn
Sons Their Rights And Risks.
A
Christian can deny his inheritance rights. 30 This should not come as a surprise because the
inheritance in the Old Testament could be forfeited through disobedience. This fact surely informed the viewpoint of
the New Testament writers! While this is
not the same as losing ones justification [by faith], the
consequences for eternity are serious.
The apostle tells us that at the judgment seat of Christ our works will
be revealed by fire (1
Cor. 3:
13): It will be revealed by fire [Page 70] and the fire will test
the quality of each mans work. It is possible for a Christians life work to
be burned up because the building materials were wood, hay, and stubble. Only those works done in obedience to the
Lord, out of proper motives and in dependence upon Him (Gold, silver, and
precious stones), will survive the searing heat! Some
will survive with very little to carry with them into eternity. As Paul put it:
30 This interpretation assumes that the readers of this
epistle are genuine Christians and not merely professing ones. This point will be established in chapter 19
and 20.
If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be
saved, but
only as one escaping through the flames (1 Cor. 3: 15).
Sauer
summarizes:
The position of being a child of God is, indeed, not forfeitable, but not the total fullness of the heavenly
birthright [inheritance]. In this sense there is urgent need to give
diligence to make our calling and election sure. For thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into
the eternal [Gk. aionian] kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1: 10-11). 31
31 Ibid., p. 154.
We
are therefore not surprised to read in 1 Cor. 6: 10 that unrighteous Christians will lose their
inheritance in the
But
does the passage refer to unrighteous Christians, or does it refer to
non-Christians who may have been loosely associated with the church and whose
lack of perseverance in holiness has demonstrated that they were not true
Christians at all?
We
are told in verse 9 that the wicked (Gk. adikoi) will not inherit this kingdom, and in verse 1 the same word is used for non-Christians (cf. 6:
6). In fact, the contrast between the righteous, dikaioi, and the unrighteous, adikoi, is common in the New Testament, 32 and those whose lives are characterized by adikia are in some contexts eternally condemned. 33. But this kind of argument assumes that adakoi is a kind of technical term for those lacking the
imputed righteousness of Christ. The
illegitimate identity transfer is committed to import the contextually derived
suggestion of one kind of consequence of being adikos into the semantic value of the word.
However, it is a general term for those (Christian or non-Christian)
lacking godly character. 34 Both [regenerate] Christians
and non-Christians [i.e., nominal Christians] can
be adikoi. In fact, in 6: 8 the
apostle declares that the Corinthians are acting like adikoi (he uses the verb form adikeo) just like the non-Christians of verse 1. [Page
71] Robertson and Plummer are correct
when they say, The word [wicked in verse 9]
is suggested by the previous, adikeo [you cheat and do wrong,
verse 8], and not
with the adikoi, [the wicked, of verse 1.] 35
32 See 1 Pet. 3: 18; Acts 24: 15; Mt. 5: 45.
33 See Brown. Cf. Rom.
1: 18, 29; 2: 8; 2 Th. 2: 10-12; 2 Pet. 2: 13-15.
34 See usage in Lk. 16: 10-11; 18: 11; Heb. 6: 10.
35 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of
St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2d ed., International
Critical Commentary (
Exegetically
this seems better for three reasons.
First, the verb form of adikoi
in verse 8 is the near antecedent and one normally looks there
first. And second, the phrase in verse 9 is not the same as the
wicked in verse 1. In verse 1 the noun has the
article, and it is definite, referring to a class. But in verse 9 it is without the
article. The
articular construction emphasizes identity;
the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.
36 Because the same word is used twice, once with the article (verse 1) and then without (verse
9), it may be justifiable to press for
this standard grammatical distinction here.
If so, then the adikoi of verse 9 are not the wicked of verse 1. They are not of that definite
class of people who are non-Christians.
Rather, as their behaviour traits they are behaving in an unrighteous
manner or character. In other words, the
use of the wicked in verse
1 signifies being,
but the use of wicked in verse
9 signifies not being but doing, and that was their problem. According to the adikeo of verse 8, they continued to walk as mere men (1 Cor. 3: 4).
36 DM, p. 140.
Finally,
it is highly unlikely that the wicked of verse 9 could be
non-Christians because Paul says, Do not be deceived, the wicked will not inherit the kingdom. Why should Christians think that non-Christians would inherit Gods kingdom? Lang is surely correct, Wherever inheriting is in question the relationship of a
child to a parent is taken implicitly for granted: if children then heirs is the
universal rule. 37
37 G. H. Lang, Firstborn Sons: Their Rights and Risks
(London: Samuel Roberts, 1936; reprint ed., Miami Springs, FL: Conley and
Schoettle, 1984), p. 110.
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong [adikeo], and you do this to your brothers (1 Cor. 6: 8).
Here
Paul uses the verb form, adikeo, of
the adjective adikos. He says in verse 8 that they cheat and do wrong, and then in verse 9 he warns them
concerning the eternal [Gk. aionian: that is,
in this context, should be understood as age-lasting] consequences of their behaviour. He is not warning
non-Christians that they will not inherit the [eternal]
kingdom; he is warning Christians, those who do wrong and do it to their brothers.* It is pointless to argue that true [regenerate] Christians
could never be characterized by the things in this list when Paul connects the
true Christians of verse
8 with the individuals in verse 9. It is even more futile to argue this way when
the entire context of 1 Corinthians describes activities of true Christians
which parallel nearly every item in verses 9-10.
They were involved in sexual immorality (6: 15);
covetousness (probable motive in lawsuits, (6:
1); drunkenness [Page 72] (1
Cor. 11:
21); dishonouring the Lords table (1 Cor. 10: 11: 30 - for this
reason some of them experienced the sin unto death); adultery (5: 1); and they
were arrogant (4: 18;
5: 6). Yet this group of people that acts
unrighteously, adikeo, and that is
guilty of all these things has been
washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6: 11)! They were washed and saved from all those
things, and yet they are
still doing them. That is a
terrible inconsistency which grieves the apostle through all sixteen chapters
of this book. His burden in 6: 9-10 is not to call
into question their [eternal] salvation (he
especially says they are saved in verse 11 38 but to warn them that, if they do not change their behaviour, they will,
like Esau, forfeit their inheritance [in Messiahs
coming kingdom].* As Kendall put it, It was not salvation, then, but their inheritance in the kingdom of God these Christians were in danger of forfeiting. 39
[*That is, all who are regenerate will inherit
Gods eternal kingdom - the mew creation mentioned in Rev. 21: 1). But that
kingdom will be created after God destroys His present
creation by fire (2 Pet. 3: 10) - when the thousand years are finished (Rev. 20: 7, R.V.). Therefore
the regenerate believers inheritance in Messiahs millennial kingdom can be lost! This coming kingdom should therefore be
understood as an inheritance given to believers as a reward for their good behaviour; and not as something which they will
automatically inherit on the basis of Christs imputed righteousness alone!
It
was this
inherited blessing which the writer of Hebrews
had in mind, when he mentioned Esaus loss of his Firstborn position within the
family: he bartered it away to satisfy his natural appetite; and, in later
life, he was unable to recover that loss (for
he found no place of repentance), (i.e., he was unable to get his father Isaac to change his mind)
- though he sought it diligently with tears (Heb. 12: 17, R.V.).]
38 He has said
they are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints (1
Cor. 1: 2)
but that they were carnal (1 Cor. 3: 1, 3).
39
This,
of course, does not mean that a person who commits one of these sins will not enter
heaven [after Jesus returns to resurrect the holy dead (1 Th. 4: 16)].* It does mean that, after he
commits such a sin and persists in it without confessing and receiving
cleansing (1 Jn.
1: 9), he will lose his right to rule
with Christ. Those walking in such a state, without their sin confessed, face
eternal [Gk. aionian
i.e., age-lasting] consequences if their Lord should suddenly appear
and find them unprepared. They will truly be ashamed before Him at His coming (1
Jn. 2: 28).
[* Always keep in mind: there are two future and general
resurrections unto immortality - (with the exceptions of the Two Witnesses of Rev.
20: 11). We cannot, unlike our Lord Jesus Christ,
enter into the presence of God in heaven, - (as disembodied souls without an immortal
body of flesh and bones Lk. 24: 39) immediately after the time of Death! Our spirit,
soul and body
are
all going to be reunited.
We
never read in Scripture of the resurrection of the body, or of the resurrection
of the soul, or of the resurrection of our animating spirit! Why?
Because it is Gods purpose to have the whole man (or woman) to
be redeemed from the grasp and power of Death: and this will take place at the
time of their Resurrection. It is not
just one or two parts of those who are deceased who will be resurrected! All that Death has separated will
one day be reunited at the time of Resurrection! Search and see. This is what we learn from studying the
inspired word of God: and this is a foundational truth of Scripture, and one
which our Lord Jesus, and His chosen Apostles, taught all the people.]
The
parallel passages in Gal. 5: 19-21 and Eph. 5: 5-6 are to be interpreted the same way. In both passages we see the notion of merit and
obedience connected with the [millennial] inheritance.
In neither, however, is there any contextual justification for assuming
that those in danger of losing their inheritance
are non-Christians who have only professed faith in Christ. That is a theological notion, delivered from
the doctrine of perseverance in holiness, which must be forced into the
text. If inheriting the kingdom in these
texts refers to going to heaven, then the apostles sublime exaltation to these
believers is reduced to the banal observation: remember,
non-Christians do not go to heaven.
A profound thought! And one which would have little relevance to these Galatian
Christians who belong to Christ Jesus (Gal. 5: 24).
40 Surely R. T. Kendall is correct when he says:
40 The fact that these believers have crucified the sinful nature can hardly refer to
the idea that all Christians have sacrificially negated the impulses of the
flesh. The unexpected occurrence of the
active voice may be parallel with 1 Cor. 9: 22, I have become all things to all men in order that by all
means I might save some. The
passage refers back to Rom. 6: 1-11, our joint-crucifixion with Christ at initial
salvation, which must be put into experience by reckoning and yielding.
Are we to say that anybody who does any of these things (e.g.,
envying, strife) is not going to heaven?
Not at all.
But such things as [Page
73] covetousness, foolish talking, as well as
sexual immorality forfeit ones inheritance in Gods kingdom. 41
41
In
Mt. 25: 34 we find
once again that inheriting the kingdom is
conditioned on obedience and service to the King, a condition for removed from the New Testament teaching of
justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven:
Then the King will say to those on His right, Come,
you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance [lit. inherit the kingdom, kleronomeo], the kingdom prepared for you since the
foundation of the world.
And
again:
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but
the righteous eternal life [lit.
go forth to the aionian
cutting off: but the righteous to aionian
life.] (Mt. 25: 46).
Why
are they being granted this blessing?
Because (gar,
verse 35) they ministered to Christs brethren, the Jews,
during the terrible holocaust of the great tribulation (25:
35-40). Here
inheriting should be given its full sense of reward for faithful service as the
context requires. 42
42 Entering eternal life in Mt.
25: 46 is
similar to inheriting the kingdom in 25: 34. It does not refer to entrance into life at
regeneration; these sheep are saints already.
Subsequent to becoming saints, they will enter into eternal life. As will be discussed in chapter 7, they are entering into
an enriched experience of that life they have already received at regeneration,
available to the faithful believer.
Alford says, the zoe here spoken of is not bare existence,
which would have annihilation for
its opposite; but blessedness and reward (Henry Alford, The Greek
Testament, ed. Everett F. Harrison, 4 vols. (1849-60; reprint
ed.,
But
there are only two categories of people mentioned as being at this judgment,
not three. We see only sheep and goats,
Christians and non-Christians, and not two categories of Christians and one of
unbelievers. Why are there not two kinds
of sheep, the faithful and the unfaithful?
There are three reasons. First, the unfaithful sheep are not mentioned
because our Lord is speaking in broad terms, and the focus is on the reward to
the faithful. As a group the
believers surviving the tribulation are viewed in terms of their expected and
anticipated performance, faithful sheep.
That some were faithful and some
were not in no way negates the general offer of the inheritance to the sheep. All
would understand that not all sheep have been faithful and that technically
only the faithful sheep receive the inheritance. It seems to this writer that to argue
otherwise is a wooden use of language
that would prevent men from ever speaking in general terms or risk being
misunderstood.
[Page 74]
Earlier
in the context He has told us that there are unfaithful Christians: the wicked hypocritical servant (24:
48);
the foolish virgins (25: 2); and the
wicked servant (25: 26). All three of these unfaithful
Christians are sheep, saved people, as will be argued elsewhere. 43
43 See chapter 17.
Second,
there were not many unfaithful sheep there.
The persecutions of the Antichrist, made one very careful about becoming
a believer.
But,
third, the separation of the faithful from the unfaithful does not occur at
this time but afterward. After the
kingdom has begun and all those [accounted worthy] who are born
again have entered it, the wedding feast occurs. At that time the separation of the wise and
the foolish virgins occurs. 44 Because God does not deal with the unfaithful
believer at this time, they are not mentioned.
44 See discussion
in chapter 17.
Is
this a case of special pleading? Is it
not clear that the term sheep is all that is mentioned and that there is no
reference to faithful and unfaithful sheep?
In reply we would say that there are many things about these sheep which
are not mentioned which are nevertheless taught elsewhere in the
Scripture. It is not mentioned that the
sheep are distinguished elsewhere into various classes according to different
degrees of reward, but they will be.
Some receive five cities and some ten.
It is not mentioned that they will receive resurrection bodies at this
time with varying degrees of glory, but [if considered
worthy (Lk.
20: 35)] they will. 45 It is not mentioned that some will sit on thrones and
some will not. It is not mentioned that
some will be great in the kingdom and some will be least. Everything does not have to be said in every
verse! If the distinctions among sheep
are taught elsewhere and not contextually denied here (and they are not!),
there is no exegetical reason for not assuming their presence in this passage
even if they are not specifically mentioned.
45 1 Cor. 15: 41-42.
The
faithful sheep are now being rewarded with the inheritance. This is the fulfilment of the Lords promise:
But he who
stands firm to the end will be saved. 46 They are those who persevered under persecution unto
the end (Rev. 14: 12). Jesus has already explained that Christians who
annul the least of the commands and teach others to do the same will be in the
kingdom but will be called
least there (Mt. 5: 19). On the other
hand, whoever practices and
teaches these commands will be called great on the kingdom of heaven. Being called
great in the kingdom is to be one of the meek who will inherit the earth
(Mt. 5: 5). These are those who are persecuted because of righteousness to [Page 75] whom belong the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5: 5). These are the
faithful Christians to whom the Lord Jesus said: Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets which were
before you (Mt. 5: 12). These verses
from the lips of our Lord in the same gospel make it clear that the sheep in Mt. 25: 34 are the faithful sheep; otherwise they would not have
inherited the kingdom. The unfaithful
are not mentioned because they are not relevant here, since they receive no
reward. And because inheriting the
kingdom is conditioned
upon this faithful perseverance, it cannot be equated with justification [by
faith]
and theologically interpreted as continuation in holiness because a perfect
perseverance and obedience would be necessary for that (Mt.
5: 48). George
Peters explains:
The Saviour, therefore, in accord with the general analogy of the
Scripture on the subject, declares that when He comes with His saints in glory
to set up His Kingdom, out of the nations those who exhibited a living faith by active deeds of sympathy
and assistance
shall with those that preceded them
inherit (i.e., be kings in) a Kingdom. It is a direct lesson of encouragement to
those who live during the period of Antichrist in the persecution of the
Church, to exercise charity, for which they shall be rewarded [emphasis is Peters]. Hence it follows that the test presented is
precisely the one needed to ascertain, not
who would be saved
(for that is not the train of thought, although connected with it), but who inherit a Kingdom or gain an
actual, real relationship in it. 47
47 George N. H.
Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 vols.
(New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972),
2: 376.
Inheriting the Kingdom
The
phrase inherit the kingdom has occurred several times in the discussion
above. Because of its specific meaning,
some additional comment is in order. We
find the phrase in Mt. 25: 34; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; 15: 50; Gal. 5: 21; and Eph. 5: 5. In addition, the phrase inherit the
land is found in Mt.
5: 5. In each instance we find that, in order to inherit the [Messiahs
coming millennial] kingdom, there must [now] be some work
done or certain character traits,
such as immorality, must be absent from our lives. The fact that such conditions are necessary suggests that the term is
not to be equated with entering
the [everlasting*] kingdom which is available to all [regenerate
Christians]
freely, on the basis of faith alone but
with something in addition to entering.
Indeed, the very use of the word inherit instead of enter in these
passages suggests that more than just
entrance is meant.
[* That is, the
kingdom mentioned in Rev. 21: 1, which
will be created after the thousand years of Messiahs
reign on and over this creation will have expired.). Keep in mind: (1) Messiah has two
Kingdoms; and (2) all Christians will not be resurrected when Jesus
returns: (1 Th. 4:
16; Rev. 20: 15).]
[Page 76]
SCRIPTURE PHRASE CNDITIONS
Mt. 25: 3
take your caring for brothers by
giving food
inheritance and drink during the
tribulation.
1 Cor. 6: 9
inherit the having none of the
following character
kingdom traits: immorality,
idolatry, adultery,
prostitution, homosexuality, thievery,
greed, drunkenness, or being a swindler.
1 Cor. 15: 50 inherit the having a resurrection [and
immortal]
kingdom body [of flesh and bones (Lk.
24: 39).]
Eph. 5: 5
an inheritance
having none of the following character
in the kingdom traits: immorality, idolatry,
impurity,
greed.
Gal. 5: 21
inherit the not having our lives
characterized by the
earth acts of the sinful nature.
Mt.
5: 5
inherit the land meekness.
[Page 77]
But what does it mean to inherit the kingdom? The Lords teaching in the Sermon on the
Mount gives us a helpful starting point for understanding this great theme:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5: 3).
Blessed are the meek, for
they will inherit the earth (Mt. 5: 5).
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5: 10)
The Lord seems to be equating the terms theirs is the kingdom of heaven with inherit the earth. Eichler, noting this
parallelism observed, In the
Beatitudes, Jesus puts side by side the
promise of the kingdom of heaven and that of inheriting the earth. 48 That the term
inherit the kingdom is
equivalent to the promise of Abraham that his
descendants will inherit the land
has been noted my many. Robertson and Plummer say, To inherit the
48 J. Eichler, Inheritance,
NIDNTT, 2: 300.
49 Robertson and
Plummer, p. 118.
50
But he who takes refuge in Me, shall inherit the land, and shall possess My holy mountain (Isa. 57: 13).
The prophet exults that in the coming kingdom all your people will be righteous; they will
possess [inherit] the land forever (Isa. 60: 21 NASB).
Throughout the Old Testament the possession of the earth
by the righteous is a common theme and refers to the rule of the saints in the
future kingdom. 51
51 See Prov.
11: 31; 10: 30; Ps. 136: 21-22; 115: 16; 37: 9, 11, 22, 29, 34. In Psa. 37 the inheriting of
the land follows the removal of the evil doers in the kingdom.
Now if the functional equivalence of the
terms inherit the kingdom and inherit the land
are accepted, then our study of inheriting the land in the Old Testament
becomes very relevant to the understanding of the term inherit the kingdom in the New. In particular, we noted that the
The New Testament uses the phrase enter the kingdom of heaven eight times. 52 In contrast to
the phrase inherit the kingdom,
the [primary, i.e., first in order of importance (dict. def.] conditions for entering are faith alone. Entrance is ours through rebirth (Jn. 3: 5) which is ours
solely through believing on His name (Jn. 1: 12, 13). We must have the humble,
simple trust of a child if we are to enter Gods kingdom (Mt.
18: 3), and there is only one work we can do,
the work of believing (Mt. 7: 21; Jn. 6: 40). 53 A perfect righteousness is necessary to
obtain entrance, a righteousness, which comes by faith alone (Mt. 5: 20: 6: 48; 2 Cor. 5: 21;
52 Mt. 5: 20; 7: 21; 18: 3; 19: 23; 19: 24; Mk. 9: 47; Jn. 3: 5; Acts 14: 22.
53 See discussion on Mt.
7 in chapter 9.
54 See discussion on rich
young ruler above.
That inheriting the kingdom is different from entering
(in the sense of inhabiting) the kingdom seems to be reinforced in the New
Testament by Pauls use of the phrase in 1 Cor. 15: 50.
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
It is quite clear to the apostle Paul that men and
women in mortal bodies will be in the kingdom.
There will be physical procreation and physical death (Isa.
65: 20; Ezek. 36: 11). Furthermore, a multitude of unregenerate men
in mortal bodies will rebel at the end of the thousand-year kingdom and will be
devoured, hardly an experience of resurrected and immortal
saints (Rev. 20: 7-10).
Pauls statement, in order to be made consistent with the
rest of the Bible requires that there is
a difference between being a resident of the kingdom and inheriting it. Clearly, human beings in mortal bodies do
live in the kingdom, but they are not
heirs of that kingdom, a privilege which only those in resurrection [and immortal] bodies can share. 55
55 Paul is not saying here that all transformed saints inherit the kingdom, only transformed saints inherit
the kingdom. See Peters, 1: 602, where
he expects the same view and equates inheriting the kingdom with becoming a
ruler in it.
When the apostle declares that men in mortal bodies
will not inherit the kingdom, 56 this obviously requires that the resurrection and
transformation of the [Page 79] sheep occurs prior to the receiving the kingdom and
must be simultaneous with the judgment
of the sheep and the goats [before their
resurrection, (Heb. 9: 27; 1 Cor. 15: 54)].
56 Only resurrected
Since the Scriptures are silent on this problem, one
must be careful how he explains the difficulty.
It is appropriate at this juncture to invoke the analogy of faith and
allow other scriptural examples or teachings to explain what is left unsaid
regarding this judgment. We are told
that the experiences of the Israelites as they journeyed from
An answer at once suggests itself. The entire first generation was judged in
unbelief and died in the wilderness, with the exception of those under twenty
years of age.
In this desert your bodies will fall - every
one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who have
grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to
make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son
of Nun (Num.
14: 29-30).
The passage is instructive in several ways. Even though God swore with uplifted hand that He would give them the land, they will not receive the land because of
their disobedience and unbelief. But
equally important it shows that those
who had not reached an age of accountability were exempt from the judgment
which prohibited their elders from entering the land. 57 In a
similar way, perhaps the believing children of the sheep who have escaped the judgments of the great tribulation will constitute
a kind of second exodus and will be mortal
believers who enter into the coming kingdom and who are its subjects, if not
its owners. 58
57 Entering
the land does not parallel the
believers entrance into heaven; it signifies his willingness to cross the
58 One must [first and
foremost] be born again to enter the kingdom of
heaven, Jn. 3:
5.
Assuming that inherit the kingdom has
become a fundamental equivalent to inherit the land in Jewish
theology, what precisely does it mean?
It appears that the basic meaning of to inherit (Gk. kleronomeo) is to possess, to own.
[Page 80] The lexicons
define the word as to receive as ones own, 59 to acquire, obtain, come into possession of. 60 An
inheritance (Gk. kleronomia)
is a possession, property. 61 Therefore,
when Jesus invites the sheep to inherit the kingdom, He is inviting them to possess the kingdom, to receive it as their
own, to acquire it.
59 AS, p. 248.
60 AG, p. 436.
61 Ibid.
Many times, when the word possess
is used with concrete nouns, it includes the notion of to have authority over, but that is, of course, not part of the
meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words for inheritance. Nevertheless, it is difficult to separate
this notion from its usage in many contexts.
This is particularly obvious when the fundamental notion of inheritance,
to receive property, is concerned.
Normally, when one receives property, we understand that he has the
right to do with it what he chooses. He
may sell it, build a house upon it, farm it, or rent it out. It is his to do with what he wants; he owns it. The
prerogative of doing what one wants with ones own is what is normally meant by
having authority over ones own possession.
For this reason there is justification in saying that inheriting land will
result in a degree of authority or sovereignty over that land after it has been received as an
inheritance. This is not to say that
inherit itself means to rule or have authority over.
However, when one begins to consider the theological
concept involved in inheriting the land, and not just the semantic value of the
word inherit, a justification begins to emerge for investing the
phrase inherit the kingdom with more
than just ownership. Rather, the
notion of having authority becomes more prominent. This is implied in the messianic psalm from
which Jesus quotes in Mt. 5: 5 (the meek shall inherit the earth),
the context referring to the coming
fulfilment of the Old Testament hope* in the
messianic psalm. We are immediately cast into a surrounding
sea of ideas about the role of the saints in that future eschaton.
[*
NOTE. This hope, I believe, is what the apostle Peter had in
mind when writing to the elect! In his epistle to them he wrote: If ye should suffer for righteousness sake, blessed are ye:
and fear not their fear, neither be troubled; but sanctify in your
hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that
asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with
meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3: 15,
R.V.). This hope is clearly associated with the inheritance awaiting overcomers
in the coming age (Rev. 2: 25-27; Lk. 20: 35): which
will only be realized at the end of your faith, even the
salvation of your souls (1 Pet. 1: 9, R.V.): and that future salvation will
take place at the First Resurrection (Rev. 20: 5, 6), when the
disembodied
souls of the holy dead are released from the underworld of Hades (see Mt. 16: 18; Acts 2: 27, 34ff), and reunited to the saints glorified
and immortal
bodies from the grave/tomb.]
Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament passages
will attest that Gods final goal for man during that era is not simply to live
there and be happy. It is much more than
this. His goal is that one day we [who are accounted worthy to attain to that age (Lk. 20: 35)] will rule
and have dominion over the earth (Gen. 1: 16-28):
What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that
you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly
beings and crowned
him with glory and honour. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything
under his feet (Ps.
8: 4-6).
Mans destiny is not just to reside in blessedness in
the millennial
[Page
81]
This seems to receive explicit conformation when Jesus
tells the sheep in Mt.
25:34 to inherit the kingdom. It appears
that Jesus is lifting a phrase right out of Dan. 7:
As I watched, this horn was waging war
against the saints and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced
judgment in favour of the saints of
the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom (Dan. 7: 21-22).
The contexts are similar, both refer to the coming of
a Son of Man (Dan. 7: 13; Mt. 25: 31). In both
passages we are in the [great] tribulation
period just prior to the second coming where the saints are persecuted. Jesus evidently had the book of Daniel in mind in the Olivet Discourse because He quotes from it in 24:
15
where He mentions the abomination of desolation of Dan. 9: 27. The phrase possess the kingdom seems therefore to precisely parallel the phrase inherit the Kingdom and is the source of this New Testament concept.
But what does it mean?
The Aramaic word in Dan.
7: 22 translated possess
is chasan, and it means to take
possession. It emphasizes strength and riches. 62
According to the lexicon it means to be strong,
overcome; take possession of, 63 The choice of the word
suggests more than a mere passive receiving but a degree of authority in the
kingdom. The idea seems to be confirmed
when, in Dan. 7: 27 Daniel
clarifies what it will mean to
possess the kingdom:
62 R.
Laird Harris, chasan, in TWOT, 2: 1020.
63 BDB,
p. 1093.
Then the sovereignty, power and greatness
of the kingdoms under
the whole heaven
will be handed over to the
saints, the
people of the Most High (Dan. 7: 27).
Possessing
the kingdom is therefore the receipt of sovereignty over the nations. One day the saints will rule the world! Ladd says it
refers to rule over all the earth. 64 The
apparent direct borrowing of the phrase by Jesus seems to justify the
conclusion that to inherit the
kingdom means far more than mere
residence there; it is to have authority and rulership there. If so, this would fit in well with a broad
New Testament theme:
64 George E. Ladd, A theology of the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). P.
148.
If we endure, we
will also reign with Him (2 Tim. 2: 12).
To him who overcomes and does my will
to the end, I will give authority over the nations (Rev. 2: 26).
[Page
82]
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? (1 Cor. 6: 2)
There are several phrases which seems
to be equivalent to the phrase inherit the kingdom. For example, when Jesus tells the faithful
servant to enter
into the joy of your Lord (Mt. 25: 21), this could be understood as an invitation to share
in the messianic rule. As such it is
possible to understand it as being something different than an invitation to
enter the kingdom: rather, it is
entrance into the Masters happiness, the
messianic partnership. Similarly, as will be explained in the next
chapter, the phrase used by the author to the Hebrews, enter into rest, is not to be equated with entrance into the
kingdom [mentioned in Rev.
21: 1] but with
obtaining the inheritance, an honour won on the field of battle.
In conclusion, to inherit the kingdom as a virtual synonym for rulership in the kingdom
and not entrance into it. George N. H. Peters is correct when he says,
To inherit the kingdom, if it has any propriety of
meaning, undoubtedly denotes the
reception of kingly authority or rulership in the kingdom. 65 All saints [at
the time of their regeneration] will enter the kingdom through faith alone (Jn.
3: 3), but only obedient saints who endure, who overcome,
and who perform works of righteousness (e.g.,
ministering to Christs brethren) will inherit it [in
the age to come], i.e., rule there [after the first resurrection.].
65 Peters, 2: 573.
The
Inheritance in Hebrews
The
Inheritance
The verb kleronomeo
occurs four times in the book of Hebrews. 66 Its usage there is not inconsistent with its usage
elsewhere, a reward for a life of faithfulness. The [millennial] inheritance
can be forfeited because of disobedience, as in the case of Esau (Heb. 12: 17), and it is only obtained by persevering, i.e., by faith and patience (Heb. 6: 12). Jesus has inherited a superior name to that
of the angels (1: 4). He achieved
this inheritance by perseverance in suffering (Heb. 2: 10; Phil. 2: 9-11), 67 Similarly, His companions (Heb. 1: 9, Gk. metochoi)
will inherit
salvation (Heb. 1: 14) in the same way.
We share in that future glory, the inheritance-salvation, only if we remain faithful to
the end:
66 Heb. 1: 4; 1: 14; 6: 12; 12: 17.
67 Christs obedience as the condition for obtaining His
new name, LORD JESUS CHRIST (Phil. 2: 9-11, therefore), seems
to be a similar idea to His receiving of His inheritance.
We have come to share in Christ [i.e., we are metochoi]
if we hold firmly till the
end the confidence we had at
first (Heb.
3: 14).
So do not throw away your confidence, it will
be richly rewarded. You
need to persevere so
that when you have
done the will of God, you will receive what he has
promised (Heb. 10: 35, 36).
[Page
83]
Perseverance to the end, faithfulness, and doing
the will of God are the conditions of obtaining the
inheritance-salvation in this epistle,
conditions which are absent from the Pauline teaching of obtaining [eternal] salvation (in
the sense of final deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of fire.] on the basis of faith alone. As will be discussed below, a different salvation is in view: co-rulership with Christ in the coming kingdom.
To equate the inheritance with [entering] heaven
results in a glaring inconsistency. It
would mean that believers, by entering the church, are already heirs of the
kingdom [which Jesus will
return to inherit (Ps. 2: 8). cf. Ezek. 37: 28; Ps. 110: 1-3, R.V.]. Why then are
they uniformly exhorted to become heirs by faithful labour when they are
already heirs?
The noun kleronomia
is found in two places in Hebrews (Heb. 11: 8; 9: 15). In Heb. 11: 8 it refers to Abrahams acquisition of the
The final use of the noun is in Heb. 9: 15:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a
new covenant, that those who are called may
receive the promised eternal [Gk.
aionian] inheritance [kleronomia]
- now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
How they obtain this inheritance is not affirmed here,
but it is affirmed elsewhere. It is by faith and patience [Gk. long endurance] (Heb. 6: 12) and holding firm to the end
(Heb. 3: 14) that we inherit what has been promised. To what promises is he referring? Sometimes in Hebrews the promise
seems to refer to justification by faith.
But in this passage, the conclusion of the warning, we are justified in
looking back to 4: 1 where the promise of the remaining [sabbath] rest is in view.
This refers to the completion of
our task and subsequent entrance into our reward. It appears to have similar meaning in Heb.
11: 9, 13 when it
is used of the land promises to the patriarchs.
They too were to remain faithful to the end of life, and in so doing,
they entered into rest and will one day possess the
land. The
inheritance should take the meaning it takes elsewhere in Hebrews -
ownership of the millennial land of Canaan, the future reign of the
servant kings, joint rulership with Messiah in the heavenly country, the millennial
land of Palestine. Kaiser insists that the inheritance in Heb. 9: 15 is the firm possession of the land as Heb. 11: 9 most assuredly asserts.
68 Christs mediatorial work has as its aim that His sons should [during
the age to come] enter into that partnership with Him. Their achievement of that destiny, however,
as explained elsewhere in the book, is conditioned upon obedience [Page 84] from the heart. It is an
eternal [Gk. aionian
= age-lasting in this context] inheritance
because we [if judged worthy] will inherit the land forever. 69 *
68 Walter
C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 169.
* That is, for as long as this earth will remain.
The Rights
of the Firstborn
One of the sternest warnings of the New Testament is
found in Heb. 12: 12-29. The Writer of
the epistle to the Hebrews challenges them to
pursue sanctification and cautions that without it no one will see
the Lord. Some have held that this refers to the beatific vision which some Christians will enjoy in
heaven and some will not. 70 However, in view of the other references in Scripture
to seeing the Lord, it may be best to understand the phrase as referring to a
deeper Christian experience. 71 Then he warns
them regarding the loss of their
inheritance rights.
70 For example, Lang, Firstborn
Sons [: Their Rights and Risks], pp. 98ff.
71 In Mt. 5: 8 the peacemakers will see
God, i.e., they will really know Him and walk with Him. In Job 42: 5 Job came to see
God as a result of his trial. The meaning is that he came to know Him more deeply and intimately. [cf.
Phil. 3: 11.]
See to it that on one comes short of the
grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble and by
it many be defiled; that there be no
immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold
his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that
even afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing he was rejected, for he found no
place for repentance, though he sought for
it with tears (Heb. 12: 15-17 NASB).
Esau was the firstborn son and therefore by birth had
the rights and privileges described as belonging to the firstborn. The law of the firstborn sheds great light on
the biblical condition for obtaining the inheritance. Among the sons, the firstborn son enjoyed special privileges. When his father died, he received a double share of the inheritance (Dt. 21: 17). During his
life he was pre-eminent among his
brothers (Gen. 43: 33). God
had originally intended to make the firstborn of the sons of
God often violated His own rule regarding the
firstborn blessing. Sometimes this was
based upon grace. Isaac was selected
ahead of Ishmael, the firstborn; and Jacob was chosen instead of Esau for the
blessing of the firstborn. Sometimes the
reversal of the firstborn right to the inheritance was based upon merit. To the
end of his life it was the fathers prerogative to determine the disposal of
his property. 72 If the eldest
son was not qualified, then the father could [Page 85] give it to
the son who was. The Scripture only requires that, if the
firstborn right is denied to the eldest, that it not be a matter of favouritism
(Dt. 21: 15-17). Even though Reuben was Jacobs firstborn,
the inheritance rights passed to Simeon (Gen.
49: 3-4) and
ultimately to
The rights and privileges of the firstborn were given,
provisionally, at birth. The right to
the inheritance was his, but he could lose it. It was necessary that the
firstborn son maintain these rights. He must be worthy of the elevated status and honour. All the sons are heirs, but only
those who met the conditions of the firstborn achieved the elevated
status and authority and retain their inheritance. The many New Testament references to
something conditional in the future life of the [regenerate] believer may reflect this Old Testament
distinction between the firstborn son who retained his privilege and those like
Esau who did not. Those Christians who suffer with Him
(Rom. 8: 17), who endure
(2 Tim. 2: 5), and who are
the overcomers of the book of Revelation are the
firstborn sons.
Esau, although heir to the rights of
the firstborn, counted them of little
value. In
order to satisfy his passing appetite, he sold them for a meal. Later in life he changed his mind and
regretted his rash decision. Yet he was unable to change his
fathers mind.
Whether or not Esau was [eternally] saved is not
relevant to this discussion. The writer
uses him as an illustration of the fact that the [eternally] saved can
lose their firstborn inheritance rights. His example is applied to those who have come
to the church of the firstborn ones (Heb. 12: 23). 73
73 The Greek
word translated firstborn is plural, and therefore the firstborn ones are referred to and not Christ as firstborn. To
come to the church of the firstborn means to be called to the privilege of being a firstborn son. All [regenerate] Christians
are called to be part of that assembly and by birth [at the time of initial salvation] have a right to be there. However, [later in life (by unbelief in
Gods accountability truths and conditional promises)] - they
may forfeit that right and never achieve their calling. That is the thrust of all the [divine] warnings of the book of Hebrews. See chapters 19
and 20.
True
Christians fully parallel the description of Esau. We are
children of God and we are firstborn sons.
Because of that we possess the rights of the firstborn. We do not have to earn these rights. They are given to us through the grace of
God. However, we must value and keep these rights and [we] are warned by Esaus example regarding the
possibility of not doing so. But even though we cannot forfeit eternal
life, we can forfeit our firstborn rights.
Two Kinds of
Inheritance
Consistent with the Old Testament usage, believers in
the New Testament are presented with two different inheritances. As discussed above, we are, if faithful,
heirs of the millennial
So, then, being
justified by his grace, we might become heirs [kleronomos] having the hope of eternal [Gk.
aionian] life (Tit. 3: 7).*
[*NOTE. Tit. 3: 7
is conditional! Why not quote Rom. 6: 23 as unconditional
where aionian (used in that
context), is correctly translated eternal?
See also Heb. 5: 9; Gal. 6: 8; 1 Tim. 6: 12; Tit. 1: 2. These
are all conditional examples
where aionian should be translated
and understood as age-lasting. These passages have to do with running the present race
of the faith in view of one day realizing an inheritance in the
kingdom, which is the hope set before Christians. (A. L. Chitwood, Let us go on, p. 26).]
Similarly, Paul tells us in Galatians:
If you belong to Christ, then you are
Abrahams seed, and heirs [kleronomos] according to the promise
(Gal. 3: 39).
The promise refers to Gal. 3: 8, All
nations will be blessed through you. It is a reference to that aspect of the
Abrahamic promise which referred not to
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit
of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls
out, Abba, Father.
So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since
you are a son, God has made you
also an heir [kleronomos] (Gal. 4: 6-7).
Here is an heirship which comes to the Christian only because he is a son and for no other
reason. There is no mention of work or obedience here. However, there is an inheritance which is conditional as well. It is kept through faith and
obtained only if we share in
his sufferings. All Christians are heirs of God, but not all
will inherit the kingdom.
In 1
Pet. 1: 3-5 the apostle exclaims:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ! In his great mercy
he has given us new birth into a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an
inheritance [kleronomia] that can never perish,
spoil or fade - kept in
heaven for you, who through faith
are shielded by Gods power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed at the
last time.
It is possible that Paul had a similar thought in mind
in Rom. 8: 16-17:
The Spirit Himself testified with our spirit that we are Gods
children. Now if we are children then we are heirs - heirs of God - and co-heirs with Christ if indeed we share in His sufferings; in order that we may also share in His glory.
[* Note the change in punctuation of the text above. We are heirs of God
(by His grace alone) and co-heirs with Christ if ...]
This passage, in agreement with Gal. 4: 7, says we are all heirs of God by virtue of the fact
that we are His [redeemed] children. But it says something else.
It says we are also co-heirs with Christ if indeed we share in His sufferings.
The second heirship mentioned in this verse is conditional upon our joining with Him in His [Page 87] sufferings. Being an heir of God is unconditional, but being a
joint heir of the kingdom is conditioned upon our spiritual perseverance. 74 Full discussion of this passage will
be undertaken in chapter 16.
74 The translation above has been
slightly changed from the rendering in the NIV.
In the Greek text punctuation marks were added by later editor, and the
writer has placed the comma after heirs of God
rather than after co-heirs of Christ, thus
implying two heirships, not one, are
taught. Justification for this will be
taught in chapter
16, Life in the Spirit. See under Rom.
8: 17 in
index.
The fact that this heirship is conditional is commonly
acknowledged by Sanday and Denney. 76 However, since both these commentators equate these two heirships as one, they labour
under the difficulty of explaining how all of a sudden Paul is teaching a
salvation from hell [i.e. the lake of fire] which is now conditioned upon the believer persevering
in suffering. In fact, Sanday
specifically connects verse
17 with a current
Christian saying: 2 Tim. 2: 11, which makes
rulership in the kingdom the issue and not salvation from hell. The
difficulty would be resolved and the obvious harmony with 2
Tim. 2: 11 explained
on the simple assumption taught elsewhere of two heirships.
76 James Denney, St. Pauls Epistle
to the Romans. In EGT, p. 648.
The inheritance is usually conditioned upon obedience,
but [eternal] salvation from hell is always by faith alone. In
order to become a joint heir with Christ, one of His metochoi, we must
faithfully endure our sufferings to the end.
This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We
shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He will also deny us;
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2: 11-13 NKJV).
As in
The
Inheritance and
In the epistle to the Galatians the apostle refers to
the inheritance and to the heirs.
For if the inheritance [kleronomia]
depends on the law, then
it no longer depends on a promise;
but God in his grace gave it
to Abraham through a promise (Gal. 3: 18).
If you belong to Christ, then
you are Abrahams seed, and heirs [kleronomos]
according to the promise (Gal. 3: 29).
The promise referred to in 3: 18 is found
in 3: 8 and 16 and recalls the promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through you (Gal. 3: 8). 77 It is
significant that the inheritance here is connected not with the land promise
but with the aspect of the Abrahamic promise which referred to the gift of
justification to the Gentiles. The heirs of 3: 29 become heirs
by virtue of being sons, and for no other reason, and they are heirs of God,
i.e., possessors of eternal life. Thus, the inheritance is not the
77 Gen.
12: 3; 22: 18; 26: 4; 28: 14.
The original promise was limited to the
possession of the promised land, but was coupled with
a perpetual covenant between God and the seed of Abraham: I will be their God, Thou shalt keep My covenant, thou
and thy seed after thee in their generations. Hence Hebrew prophecy
imported into the idea of a spiritual inheritance* and the Epistle adopts this interpretation
without hesitation. 78
[* How often it is implied, (and it has actually been stated
by an Anti-millennialist in my presence) that the land
God promised to Abraham and his Seed, is not on this earth but in Heaven! Therefore,
all Gods unfulfilled prophetic and millennial promises to His people - (that is,
We read of those, in whom the
god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them (2 Cor. 4: 4, R.V.).
Our God cannot lie. He gives
wisdom and understanding to those who ask Him.
His unfulfilled prophetic promises, - relative to Christs millennial
inheritance (Psa. 2:
8), - most certainly will one Day be literally fulfilled. He that is wise winneth
souls. Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth (Prov. 30b-31a, R.V.). A false
witness shall not be unpunished; and he that
uttereth lies shall perish (Prov. 19: 9, R.V.):
and there is no respect of persons! (
78
This argument is fallacious. As pointed out above, Paul does not even have
the land promise aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant in view. He is referring to the universal promises to
the Gentiles.
The word heir is used again in 4: 7:
[Page
89]
So you are no longer a slave, but a son;
and since you are a son, God has
made you also an heir [kleronomos].
All [regenerate] Christians are heirs of God by faith alone. But like the
Old Testament there are two kinds of inheritance: an inheritance which is
merited and an inheritance which belongs to all Christians because they are
sons, and for no other reason. The
fulfilment of the land promise, while ultimately certain for
the nation, was conditioned for each
generation on the basis of obedience.
Pauls use of kleronomia
in 4: 30 is similarly explained:
But what does the Scripture say? Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for
the slave womans son will never share in the inheritance [kleronomia]
with the free womans son.
It should be noted that this usage is found in an
illustration from the Old Testament (4:
24-31). He is using the illustration
of Hagar and Sarah to refute the notion that law and grace can be mixed. He says he speaks figuratively. He is using the term heir
on the general sense of possessor to figuratively illustrate that heirship in general is never appropriated my a mixture of Sinai and the
Jerusalem above, Ishmael and Isaac, law and grace; neither is the inheritance
of heaven.
It might be objected that this interpretation seems to
be in conflict with either conclusions regarding Gal. 5: 21. There it was claimed that the inheritance
was not equal to heaven but referred to our reward. What justification is there for changing the
meaning in Gal. 5: 21 from heaven to reward in heaven? Surely it is obvious the same word can have different meanings in the same book, the same
chapter, or even the same verse.
In the book of 1 Timothy the word save has different meanings in different chapters. In 1 Tim. 1: 15 we read that Christ came into the world to save (Gk. sozo) sinners. The word means to
deliver from hell. But who would
claim that the word means that in 1 Tim. 2: 15 where we are told that the women will be saved (Gk. sozo) through childbearing? 79 An
example of different meanings of the same word in the same chapter in 1 Tim. 5. In 1 Tim. 5: 1 the Greek word presbyteros
is translated older man. However, in verse 17 it is translated elder,
meaning an official in the church.
Finally, sometimes words change their meaning even in the same
verse! For example, in Dt. 2: 31 we are told, The Lord said
to me, See, I
have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer
[dispossess, Heb. yarash] and possess [Heb. yarash,
to [Page 90] inherit] 80 his land. The same word means dispossess
in the first half of the verse and possess in the second half.
79 See also 1 Tim. 4: 16 where save does not mean deliver
from hell.
80 BDB, p. 439, yarash
= take possession of, inherit, dispossess.
It means to inherit or possess especially by force. In this passage they are to disinherit the enemy in order to
inherit the land by conquest. They are
to dispossess in order to possess!
Now in regard to the inheritance. It is not even the same word used in the two
different contexts. The noun kleronomos (heir)
is used in Gal. 4: 7, and the
verb kleronomeo is found in 5: 21. As pointed out earlier in this chapter, in
every use of the verb in the New Testament, and in Gal. 5: 21 in particular, conditions of merit are contextually
associated with the obtaining of the inheritance. In Gal.
4: 7
there is no such conditions. One becomes
an heir by faith alone. But one inherits
the kingdom by works. Since differing conditions are present in the differing contexts,
different meanings of the word are meant.
In summary, the
inheritance of Gal. 3: 18 and 4: 30 is parallel not with
the land promises,
Another reference to the inheritance is found in Ephesians:
And you also were included in Christ when
you heart the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the
promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance [kleronomia]
until the redemption of those
who are Gods possession - to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1: 13-14). 81
81 Eph. 1: 18; 1: 14; [cf.] 5: 5.
The inheritance here is [eternal and] unmistakably
heaven. It is an inheritance which goes
to those who have believed [on Christ as Saviour]. As in the Old
Testament there are two kinds of inheritance in the New. All [regenerate] Christians
are heirs of God, but not all are heirs
of the kingdom and joint heirs with Christ.
The content of the inheritance here is life in heaven with God. Should
it be objected that there is therefore no justification for equating the
inheritance in 5: 5 with our reward in [the kingdom of] heaven, the
author would reply as above.
Conclusion
The concept of the believers inheritance, as has been
seen, is rich indeed. It has been argued
that it means much more than go to heaven when we die. The inheritance in the Bible is either our
relationship with God as a result of justification or something in
addition to justification, namely, a greater degree
of [Page
91] glorification in [the
kingdom of]
heaven as a result of our rewards.
As is always the case in
interpretation, the context of each usage must determine meaning in that
context. While Experimental Predestinarians are
willing to grant that the inheritance is heaven, and even that the inheritance
in many contexts seems to be a reward, they
have failed to integrate these two meanings into a comprehensive system of
biblical thought. Several factors
seem to lead to the conclusion that it is proper in most contexts of the New
Testament to understand the inheritance of the saints as their ownership of the
coming [messianic] kingdom rather than their mere residence there.
First, as argued from the Old Testament,
Second, in every usage of the verb to inherit except one (1 Cor. 15: 50), the action implies some work of obedience necessary to obtain [i.e.,
attain
= to gain by effort)] the [millennial]* inheritance.
[* See 1 Cor. 6: 9; Gal. 5: 21; Eph. 5: 5. Compare 1 Cor. 15: 50 with Lk. 24: 39, 44; Rev. 20: 5, 6, R.V.]
Third, usage in the Old Testament, and the common
meaning of the word inherit in English, Hebrew, or Greek, implies a distinction between merely believing in the
Fourth, we are explicitly told in Col. 3: 24 that the
future inheritance comes to us as a reward for obedience.
Fifth, in every instance the phrase inherit the
kingdom is consistent with its Old
Testament analog, inherit the land. The Kingdom is always (except for 1 Cor. 15: 50) inherited by
means of works. It is always
associated with character qualities which come from acts of obedience. In one context specific positive works of
obedience (service to Christs brethren during the tribulation [Mt. 25: 34-35]) are
the reason for their inheriting
the kingdom.
Sixth, the phrase inherit the kingdom is
directly borrowed from Daniels term possess the kingdom (Dan.
7: 22). It refers to the rulership over the kingdom of the Son of Man given to
the saints [i.e., those who are judged to be overcomers (Rev. 2: 25; 3: 21)]. In the Jewish rabbinical literature this
future inheritance was obtained by works.
That aspect of Jewish theology was not corrected [because it was not initially understood]* by the New Testament writers but seemingly accepted
as the above arguments show.
[*
See for example Lk. 24: 11, 21, 25-27; Acts
1: 6; Eph.
1: 17-18, R.V. etc.]
These conclusions now must be developed more
fully. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in particulat does precisely this.
He explains that, when we have obtained the inheritance by means of a
life of perseverance in good works, we will have finished our task and hence
will enter into rest.
* *
*
[Page
91 blank: Page 92]
CHAPTER
5
The
Inheritance-Rest of Hebrews
The last words of great men are often significant. Often when a man comes to the end of his
life, wisdom is distilled and challenging comments are made. Perhaps one of the most moving illustrations
of such a final exhortation came from the lips of General Douglas MacArthur
before the corps of cadets at
MacArthur
went to
The shadows are lengthening for me.
The twilight is here. My days of
old have vanished, tone and tint; they have gone glimmering through the dreams
of things that were. Their memory is one
of wonderous beauty, watered by tears, and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of
yesterday. I listen vainly, but with
thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far
drums beating the long roll. In my
dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory, I always
come back to
[Page 94]
MacArthur
had completed his life work and could look back on a career spanning over fifty
years and know that he had done his best.
Likewise, the desire of God is that every [regenerate] Christian should similarly be able to say at the end
of life, I have finished my
work.
This accomplishment was termed entering into rest by the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Perhaps
on other writer of the New Testament reflected as deeply and profoundly upon
the theme of the inheritance as did the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Addressing [regenerate] believers
undergoing persecution and considering a return to Judaism, he presses upon them the failure of the
exodus generation and warns them of a similar fate. With unusual insight he notes that their failure to enter into rest was a
failure to finish their work, precisely the danger facing the Hebrews who were
considering an abandonment of their confession.
The Rest of God
But
what is the content of the inheritance in Hebrews? Does it refer to heaven or our rewards
there? To answer that, we must consider
the rest described in chapters
3 and 4:
So I declared on oath in my
anger,
They shall never enter my rest (Heb. 3: 11).
The
readers of this epistle were in danger of falling away (Heb.
6: 6) and ignoring a great salvation (Heb. 2: 3). All five of
the warning passages are directed against this peril. To enforce their perseverance in the midst of
persecutions, he sets before them the example of Israelites in the wilderness
who fell away and did not enter into
The Rest Is the
Those
who argue that the rest is the
1 See also Dt. 1: 34-36; Num. 32: 10-12; comp. Dt. 12: 9.
2 A. B. Davidson,
The Epistle
to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1959), p. 99. Davidson, however, while acknowledging that
this is the meaning of the Old Testament texts, wants to spiritualize
them to mean heaven.
Second,
the terms rest and
You are not to do as we do today, everyone
as he sees fit, since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance
the Lord your God is giving you (Dt. 12: 8-9).
Sun
sees this passage a theological equation of rest with
the secured settlement of the Promised Land:3
3 H. T. C. Sun, Rest, resting Place, in NISBE, 4: 143. He cites 3: 20; 25: 19; and 28: 65 as
parallels.
But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the Lord your
God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you
rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety
(Dt. 12: 10).
In
the future,
For the Lord has
chosen Zion, he has
desired it for his dwelling: This is
my resting place for ever and ever (Ps.
132: 13-14).
F.
F. Bruce comments that
4 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, 14: 65.
5 Walter Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), p. 157.
The
interchangeability between the terms rest and land
is suggested by the following passages as well:
Remember the command that Moses the servant of the Lord gave you: The
Lord your God is giving you rest and has granted you this land (Josh. 1: 13).
[Page 96]
I commanded you at that time: The Lord your God has given you this land to
take possession of it.
However,
your wives
may stay
in the towns I have given you, until the
Lord gives rest to
your brothers as he has to you, and they too have taken over the land that the Lord your God
is giving them, across the
The Rest Is Our Finished Work
While
it does seem that rest and land are clearly related in
the Old Testament, it is difficult to see that the concept of rest is limited
to the idea of possession of the land.
In Josh. 1: 13 God says
He is giving them rest and the
land. In Dt. 12: 10 a similar statement asserts that He is giving them
the inheritance (
But there were still seven Israelites tribes who had not yet
received their inheritance. So Joshua said to the Israelites: How
long will you wait before you begin to take possession of [Heb. yarash,
to inherit] the land the LORD, the God of your fathers, has
given you? (Josh.
18: 2-3).
So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their
fathers, and they took possession of [Heb. yarash,
inherited] it and settled there. The
LORD gave them rest on every side,
just as he had sworn to their
forefathers. Not
one of their enemies withstood them;
the LORD handed all their
enemies over to them. Not
one of all the LORDS good promises to the house of
6 See also Josh. 22: 4; 23: 4-5; 24: 28; 18: 7.
This
passage in Dt. 12: 10 referred
to above is instructive in that it relates the rest to the inheritance, the
But you will have a son who will be a man of peace, and
I will give him rest
from all his enemies on
every side. His
name will [Page
97] be Solomon, and I will grant
The
rest from enemies is immediately
connected with the opportunity for peace, for building Gods house, and for
fellowship with Him there.
Our
suspicion that rest is a broader concept that mere land seems to be confirmed
by the fact that the word for rest (Hab. nuah)
is used interchangeably with the word for Sabbath (Heb. shabat):
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested
[Heb. nuah) from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and make it
holy, because on it he rested
[Heb. shabat] from all the work of creating that he had
done (Gen. 2: 2-3.).
For in six days the LORD made the heavens
and the earth, the sea, and
all that is in them, but he rested [Heb. nuah]
on the seventh day. Therefore
the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20: 11).
The
Hebrew word shabat (to cease from
labour) is used to describe Gods rest in Gen. 2: 2-3, but the
word nuah is used in the parallel
passage concerning Gods rest on the Sabbath in Ex. 20: 11. Thus rest includes the notion of completing
ones work: By the seventh
day God had finished the work He had been doing.
The
particular work which
The LORD gave them rest on every side, just
as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not
one of their enemies over to them. Not
one of all the LORDS good promises to the house of
Coppes
concludes from this and similar passages 7 that rest included the notion of to defeat
7 E.g., Dt. 12: 10; 2 San.
7: 1; 1 Ki. 5: 4; 1 Chron. 22: 9.
8 Leonard J.
Coppes, nuah, in TWOT, 2: 562.
9 B. L. Bandstra, Land,
in NISBE, 3: 71.
This
impression is reinforced by the Lords startling statement in Ps. 95: 11, So I declared on oath in My anger,
they shall
never enter into My rest. Here He calls
the rest, into which the exodus generation should have entered, My
rest. The thought immediately casts us
back to Gen. 2: 2-3, By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been
doing; so on the seventh day He rested. Gods rest is
the experience of having finished the work. That experience
is what God desires for His [redeemed and
regenerate] people of all ages, including ours!
But
when did the Israelites enter into rest?
It was not when they entered into
They entered into rest in Joshua
12 when they received the inheritance. 10 At that point they enjoyed freedom from enemies and
had completed their work, just as God had completed His work in the creation.
10 The writer to the Hebrews
informs us that this was not a complete fulfilment of the
promised rest (Heb. 3-4).
There
is something particularly new about this approach. Indeed, it has been articulated in numerous
books on the spiritual life. In these
books the journey of
11 See Ian Thomas, The Saving
Life of Christ (
There
is, however, a persistent notion that the
12 In addition, see Jer. 3: 11-20; 12: 14-17; 16: 10-18; 23: 1-8; 28: 1-4; 29: 1-14; 30: 1-3, 10-11; 31: 2-14, 15-20; 32: 1-44; 42: 1-22; 50: 17-20; Ezek. 11: 14-21; 20: 30-44; 34: 1-16; 35: 1-36; 36: 16-36; 30: 21-29. The sheer number of these promises in
nearly every prophet of the Old Testament makes it highly unlikely that the
meagre return under Zerubbabel was the fulfilment. Indeed, if
that was the predicted fulfilment, then why did Zechariah in 518 B.C. continue
to predict the future return as if it had not yet occurred?
To state the question is to answer it. Obviously
not! The book of Joshua supplies at least one illustration of an Israelite who in fact
entered the land but who never finished the task. As a result, he never obtained the
inheritance and never entered into rest.
His name was Achan. After
the successful conquest of Jericho, this
regenerate son of God (Josh.
7: 19) stole some of the plunder for himself and
then lied* about it (Josh. 7: 10-11). Such impurity among the people of God made
them impotent against their enemies (Josh. 7: 12).
[* This
incident may well be what the apostle Paul had in mind when writing to
regenerate believers in the church at
Precisely
the same situation existed in the early church when Ananias and Sapphira lied
to the Holy Spirit. They claimed some material things had been
given to the church, but they had in fact been held back for themselves (Acts 5: 3). The
result for Achan was capital punishment (Josh. 7: 24-26). The same happened to Ananias and Sapphira
(Acts 5:
5).
It is therefore evident that a man can enter into the land but not
obtain the inheritance there and never enter into [Gods
future millennial] rest.
The former was available to all Israelites on the basis of a promise, but the latter came only to those who
obeyed and won the victory.
In
the parallel to which the writer to the Hebrews alludes, all Christians enter
into the kingdom at the time of spiritual birth. But
not all Christians finish their work.
For the writer to the Hebrews the predicted Old Testament kingdom has
already begun. He divides history
between the past and these last days (Heb. 1: 1-2). He tells us
that the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah (Jer. 31: 31-34), which
will be fulfilled for national
13 See, for example, George E. Ladd, A
Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
pp. 57-80.
[* See authors book for diagram here.]
Paul tells us that these things occurred as examples (1 Cor. 10: 6) so there
is some justification for such speculations.
The journey of the exodus generation and their sons to
To enter into rest was to possess the
One day the city of Zion, the central city of Canaan in the
kingdom, the capital of the entire
globe (Isa. 2: 3), will
be the resting
place (Ps.
132: 13-14) of God
when He pours out His blessings on that heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 11: 10) which
is located in the heavenly country, the
restored millennial land of Canaan (Heb. 11: 16), 14 which
is the subject of many Old Testament predictions. 15
14 The fact
that the heavenly country and heavenly city are called heavenly does not mean that they were
located in heaven any
more than the sharers of the heavenly calling (3: 1) who had tasted the heavenly gift (6: 4) were not those who
lived on earth. The
15 For example, Amos 9: 13-15; Joel 3: 17-21; Zeph. 3: 14-20; Zech. 14: 8-21; Isa. 2: 2-5; 11: 1-16.
In may be concluded that the rest of Heb. 3 is more
than the
16 Kendall shares a similar view although he equates the rest with our reward in the
spiritual
The
Partakers
This magnificent concept of entering into rest was
uniquely appropriate to apply to the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews who
were in danger, like the exodus generation, of a failure to complete their life
work by doing the will of God to the end (Heb. 10: 36). So he warns
them in Heb. 3: 14:
We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
The phrase for we have come to share in Christ is literally in Greek, For we are partakers [metochoi]
of Christ (metochoi
gar tou Christu gegonamen). The
perfect tense have come (gegonamen)
takes the most basic sense of the perfect, the intensive perfect. It is a strong way
of saying that a thing is.
Usually its
closest approximation is the English present. 17 The
genitive of Christ is the simple genitive of possession. We may therefore translate, We are partners of Christ or we
are Christs partners.
17 DM, p. 202.
The NIV translation above, we have come to share in Christ, is
somewhat ambiguous. The word partaker
(metochos) basically means partaker
or companion. 18 How
is one a partaker in another person?
Someone could certainly share with a person but
not in. Perhaps some of the difficulty is that the
translators are attempting to read the Pauline concept of in Christ
into this Greek word. If the word metochos means to be in Christ
or part of Christ, then the verse is suggesting that we are Christians if and only if we
persevere to the end. If, on the
other hand, the word metochos
suggests something like companion with Christ, then an entirely
different kind of relationship is in view.
In fact, it is highly unlikely that metochos implies the Pauline idea of being in Christ.* Montefiore comments:
Most commentators take the phrase to mean
that we are partakers of Christ
or that we share in Christ. This Pauline concept, however,
is
entirely alien to our author who regards Christ not as a new [Page 103] humanity into whom believers are incorporated by faith union, but
as head of the Christian family, the son among brothers. 19
18 AG, p. 516. In
the LXX it often means companions, Hermann Hanse, echo,
in TDNTA, p. 289.
[*
Note: The text could be better
translated: For we have become Associates [i.e., companions] of the Anointed, if indeed we
hold fast the beginning of our CONFIDENCE firm to the End. It is conditional and should
therefore be understood as the Christians hope
and not understood as a certainty! See 1 Pet. 3: 15, R.V.]
19 Hugh
Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 149.
Similarly, Hughes concurs:
There is, indeed, a certain ambiguity associated
with the Greek noun used here since it may mean either partakers
with someone in a particular activity
or relationship, in which case it denotes companions or partners, as in
1: 9 and Luke 5: 7 (the only occurrence of the noun outside the
Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament), or partakers of. 20
20 Philip
Edgecomb Hughes, A Commentry on the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). P. 149.
Hughes argues that the former interpretation should be
favoured here. He notes that the
Israelites were partners with Moses in the wilderness parallel (and not
partakers of) and that the same sense is found in Heb. 1: 9 where it is implied that the Christians are the
companions of the royal Son.
Farrar has adopted the same view:
But the meaning may rather be partakers with Christ; for
the thought of mystical union with Christ extending into the spiritual unity
and identity, which makes the words in Christ the monogram of
21 F. W.
Farrar, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews,
Finally, Martin Lloyd-Jones explains it this way, It means participant
or sharer. It is sometimes used
for associate, partner. A partner is a man who goes along with
another man in a business or whatever it may chance to be. 22
22 D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans Chapter 8: 17-39: The final Perseverance of the Saints (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 322.
But being Christs partner is not the same as being His son. Only sons are
partners, but not all sons are partners - only those
who hold
firmly to the end the confidence they had at first. The
word metochos
was used in the papyri for a partner
or associate in a business enterprise.
One manuscript contains a portion of a sentence which reads, We Dionysius, son of Socrates and the associate [metochoi] collectors
of public clothing. 23 Apparently, Dionysius and his associates were
partners in a tax collecting business. A man named Sotas was also writing receipts for tax bills
paid and collected through his company:
paid
to [Page 104] Sotas and associates [metochoi],
collectors of money-taxes. 24 A similar usage is found in the New Testament in
reference to Simon Peters fishing business.
He was a partner of James and John (Lk. 5: 10):
24 Ibid.
When they had done so, they
caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signalled their partners [metochoi] in the
other boat to come and help them (Lk. 5: 6-7).
The word is found in classical Greek for a wife, a member of a board of officials, a partner in business, or a joint
owner of a house. 25
25 LS, p. 1122.
The Hebrew word chaber is translated by metochos nine
times in the Septuagint. 26 In each case it refers to a companion or one in partnership with
another. Its common meaning is companion, associate, knit together. 27 It
describes a close bond between persons such as the close relationship between
Daniel and his three friends because of their common faith and loyalty to God (Dan.
2: 13-18).
26 Edwin Hatch and Henry Redpath, A Concordance to the
Septuagint, 2 vols. (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2: 918.
27 Gerald Van
The term chaber is also used to express the very close
relationship that exists between people in various walks of life. Israelites were united as one man (RSV) in their war against the Benjamites
because of their outrageous crime (Jud. 20:
11). Men can be very closely joined together as
thieves (Isa. 1: 23), as destroyers (Prov. 28: 24), and as corrupt priests likened to
ambushing robbers (Hos. 6: 9). 28
28 Ibid.
Men may or may not be joined together as thieves,
destroyers, or robbers, but they are all still men; only their partnership in a
particular enterprise is in question.
Similarly, Christians may or may
not be joined together with Christ in the coming messianic
partnership, but they are still Christians.
It was perfectly normal for a king to surround himself
with certain associates with whom he maintained a more intimate relationship
than he did with all other citizens of his kingdom. In the Old Testament we might think of
Davids mighty men (2 Sam. 23: 8-39) or perhaps of Davids invitation to the crippled
Mephibosheth to eat at his table like one of the kings sons (2 Sam. 9: 7, 11, 13). Certainly
the disastrous counsel which Rehoboam received from the young men who had grown
up with him and [who] were serving him (1 Ki. 12: 8) could be
said to have come from his partners, his metochoi.
[Page
105]
In the Roman world it was a great privilege to be
known as a friend of Caesar. Recall
Pilates prompt reversal at the trial of Christ when the Jews questioned
whether or not he was a friend of Caesar (Jn. 19: 12). Suetonius, in his The
Deified Julius, says:
Moreover when he came to power he advanced
some of his friends
to the highest position, even though they were of the humblest origin and when taken to task for it flatly
declared that if he had been helped in defending his honour by brigands and
cutthroats he would have requited such men in the same way.
Perhaps, in a similar vein, we might think of the
honour of being a member of Caesars household (Phil. 4: 22). The term Caesars household was commonly applied to the imperial civil service
throughout the empire. Philo says, If Agrippa had not been a king, but instead one of Caesars
household, would he not have had some privilege or honour? 29
29 A. Rupprecht, Caesars Household,
in ZPED, 1: 683.
Gods King-Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews has
likewise surrounded Himself with companions
(Heb. 1: 9, Gk. metochoi). In the case
of David there were many citizens living in his kingdom other than those who
ate at his table and his mighty men.
Many lived under Rehoboams sovereignty who
were not among those with whom he grew up.
There were many on Caesars kingdom who did not
have the official title, Friend of Caesar or Member of Caesars household, and probably there were many in the business of
Sotas, Dionysius, and Peter who were not associates.
Jesus made it clear that only those Christians who do the will of My Father
in heaven are His friends (Mt. 12: 48-50). He told them
that friendship with Him was conditional:
You are my
friends if you do what I command (Jn. 15: 14). He even spoke of Christians who could in no
way be considered His friends because He would not entrust Himself to them,
for He knew all man (Jn. 2: 24). Yet these
from whom He drew back believed
in His name and were therefore born
again. 30
30 Many people saw the miraculous signs and episteusan eis to onoma autou (believed on His name). Yet Jesus would not episteuen auton autois (entrust Himself to
them) because He knew all men. The phrase believe
on His name is used throughout John
for saving faith. Note especially John 3: 18
where the same phrase is used. The
phrase pisteuo eis is Johns
standard expression for saving faith.
One believes on him or in His name 6: 40; 7: 39; 8: 30; 10: 42; 11: 25; 11: 26; 12: 11.
Therefore, Calvins claim in the Institutes (3.2.12)
that they did not have true faith but were only borne along by some impulse of zeal which prevented them from carefully
examining their hearts is fallacious.
The metochoi of King Jesus then are His co-heirs
in the rulership of the messianic kingdom.
They are those friends, partners, and companions who have endured the
trials of life, were faithful to the end, who will therefore obtain the [Page 106]
inheritance-rest. The danger in Heb. 3: 14 is not that they might lose their justification [by
faith]
but that they might lose their [millennial] inheritance by forfeiting their position as one
of Christs metochoi in the coming kingdom. It is
to help them avoid this danger that the writer applies to them the
lesson of the failure of the exodus generation to enter rest. They
too are in danger of not entering into rest.
Entering
Into Rest (Heb. 4: 1-11)
Having set before their eyes the failure of the exodus
generation, he now warns them against the possibility of failure in their
Christian lives as well.
The Warning
(4: 1-2)
Therefore since the promise of entering his
rest still stands, let
us* be
careful that none
of you be found to have fallen short of it (Heb. 4: 1)
[* The writer of the epistle includes himself here.]
There is reason for assuming the rest (Gk. katapausis) in Heb. 4 is any different from the inheritance of
For we also have had the gospel preached to
us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value
to them because those who heard did not combine it with faith (Heb. 4: 2).
What gospel was preached to them? It probably was not the good news of
forgiveness of sins. There is no
reference to such a gospel in the context of this warning passage. The word
gospel is simply good news. Our Reformation heritage has perhaps caused us to limit it to only one
kind of good news, deliverance from
hell [i.e.,
the lake of fire (Rev.
20: 15,
R.V.)]. But the good news they received was the promise of the inheritance of
the
[Page
107]
The Present
Existence of the Rest (4: 3-7)
Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
So I declared on oath in my anger, They shall never enter my rest. And yet his work has
been finished since the creation of the world (4: 3).
Here he makes it explicit that only those who believe
enter into rest. His interest is not in
those who have believed at a point in time but in those who continue to believe to the end of life (3: 6, 14). It is perseverance in faith, not
a one-time exercise of it, which guarantees that we enter into rest.
He quotes Ps. 95: 11 again, which is
a Davidic commentary on the failure of the exodus generation. This rest, this experience of finished work which
comes through meritorious acquisition of the
In the discussion above it was argued that the meaning
of entering into rest included not only the obtaining of the inheritance of
For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh
day in these words: And on the seventh day God rested from all his work. And again in the
passage above he says, They shall never
enter my rest (4: 4-5).
The precise connection between God
having finished His work and their not finishing theirs by entering the
land seems to be as follows. Since God
has completed His work, the experience of completed work, rest, has been
available to all since the creation of the world. We enter into that experience the same way
God did, by finishing the task. Possession
of
No Final
Rest under Joshua (4: 6-9)
It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formally had the gospel preached to them
did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again
set a certain day, calling it Today, [Page
108] when a long time later he
spoke through David, as was said before: Today, if you hear his voice, do not
harden your hearts (4: 6-7).
The exodus generation failed to enter the land. They never finished their task, and that task
still remains to be completed! Even
under Joshua the task was not completed.
But, someone might argue, was not the entire promise of the
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have
spoken later about another
day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God (4: 8-9).
If the experience of Sabbath rest had been
fulfilled in Joshuas conquest of the land, David, four hundred years later,
would not still be offering the same promise in Ps. 95: 11 and saying it
is available today. The writer
is evidently setting before his Christian readers the
hope of an inheritance in the
How the Rest
Is Obtained (4: 10-11)
He now explains how the rest is to be obtained:
For anyone who enters Gods rest also rests
from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us,
therefore, make every effort
to enter that rest, so that no one will
fall by following their example of disobedience (4: 10-11).
As Christian believers they will have an inheritance
in the
Entering rest is therefore more than obtaining the
You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
[Page
109]
In a similar way Jesus said, My food is to do the will of
him who sent me and to finish his work (Jn.
4: 34).
The conclusion
is that the content of the inheritance
in Heb. [chapters] 3
and 4 is the millennial
Well done, good and faithful
servant! You have been
faithful with a few things; I will put you in
charge of many things. Come and share your masters happiness (Mt. 25: 21).
There are many in the kingdom today, but only some
will inherit the land in the consummation.
That is why the rest must be worked for:
Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will
fall by following their example of disobedience (Heb. 4: 11).
Consistent with its usage throughout the New
Testament, the inheritance (rest) must be earned. Unlike heaven, it is not a free gift, nor is there anything in this passage about
perseverance in holiness as proof of the presence of saving faith. Not all Christians will make that effort or
will make equal effort, and distinctions will be
acknowledged by Christ the coming reign of the metochoi during the millennial
kingdom.
Conclusion
We enter into rest only when we persevere in faith to
the end of life. When we do this, we [hope* we] will obtain a share in the inheritance, the millennial
[* See Lk. 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; Lk. 14: 14; Rev. 20: 4-6.
Christians who assume these texts embrace all regenerate believers
on the basis of Christs imputed righteousness, have lost focus on Gods responsibility
truths and conditional promises!
It is like burying ones head in the sand to ignore the plain sense of
His inspired prophetic words found in Rev. 20: 12-15! A
deceased Christians Judgment must precede the
First Resurrection (Heb. 9: 27; Rev. 20: 6): and that judgment (is in Hades, Acts 2: 31! not in Heaven) has to do with
a disciples
undisclosed standard of personal righteousness, (Matt. 5: 20). It is
the undisclosed standard of ones personal righteousness, (which is
clearly revealed to be associated with his hope)
which will decide who will rise out of dead ones
lit. Gk.), when Christ returns (1
Thess. 4: 16)!]
The kingdom predicted in the Old Testament was
inaugurated at the ascension and will be consummated at the second coming. God can accomplish what he has decided to
accomplish. The Christian who labours to enter into rest [Page 110] will do so and will have a share with that great company of the
metochoi in the future reign of the servant kings.
* *
*
[Page
111]
CHAPTER
6
SO GREAT
SALVATION
It would be
difficult to find a concept which is richer and more varied in meaning than the
biblical concept of salvation. The
breadth of salvation is so sweeping and its intended aim so magnificent that in
many contexts the words used defy precise definition. Yet these difficulties have not
thwarted numerous interpreters from assuming, often without any contextual
justification, that the words used invariably mean deliverance
from hell or go to heaven when you die.
It may come as a surprise to many
that this usage of salvation (Gk. soteria) would have been the least likely meaning to come to
the mind of a reader of the Bible in the first century. Indeed, in 812 usages of the various Hebrew
words translated to save or salvation in the Old Testament, only 58 (7.1 percent) refer to eternal
salvation.1
1 Robert N. Wilkin, Repentance
and Salvation, Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament,
JGES 2 (Spring 1998): 14.
As will be seen in the following discussion, the tendency to assume that salvation always refers to final deliverance
from hell [i.e., the lake of fire] has led many
to interpret certain passages incorrectly. When James, for example, says,
Can faith
alone save a man, the
Experimental Predestinarians understandably are perplexed about the apparent
conflict with Paul. However, if salvation means something other than go to heaven when you die, the apparent conflict
evaporates.
Usage
outside the New Testament
An adequate discussion of the Greek verb sozo (to save),
and the noun soteria could easily consume an entire book. This analysis will summarize its meaning in
secular Greek and in the Old Testament, and then it will discuss some of the
references to these words in the New Testament (over 150 references). In particular, the burden will be to illustrate those usages which establish meanings
other than final deliverance from hell [Gk. Hades].
[Page
112]
Usage in
Secular Greek
The noun soteria is often
found in the papyri in the sense of bodily health or well-being (happiness,
health, and prosperity). 2 Moulton and Milligan cite one manuscript which reads,
To all this I swear by Almighty God and by the
supremacy, salvation and preservation of our most precious sovereigns, Flavius
Heraclius and Aelia Flavia. The
citizen is flattering his ruler with wishes of good health and good fortune.
It commonly means, to thrive, prosper or get on well or to keep or preserve in good condition in extra biblical
Greek. 3 In fact, the positive notion of keeping in good health, benefiting,
or well-being is common, and the thought of
deliverance disappears altogether. 4
2 MM, p. 622. A
similar usage is found in Acts 27: 34, where food is needed for survival.
3 AG, p. 805.
4 W. Foerster, sozo, in TNDT,
1: 414.
In the Apocrypha the word often means salvation from affliction of earthly life;
in Qumram it was salvation from temptation or from oppression which was
central; and the sense of blessing is common
in Josephus. Philo often used it for
preservation, deliverance, health or
well-being (i.e., happiness, prosperity, etc.).
In the Testament of the Twelve salvation is obtained by prayer and
personal piety along with Gods help and refers to temporal salvation, i.e., a
rich and meaningful life. 5
5 Ibid.
In view of this common usage one would not be
surprised to find similar thoughts in the Old Testament. In fact, such is the case.
Usage in the
Old Testament
The principal Old Testament word, yasha, which is translated by soteria in the LXX,
is used 353 times in the Masoretic text.
Apparently the original meaning may have been something like to make wide or sufficient. 6 White speculates that original meaning was width, spaciousness, freedom from restraint. 7 Salvation
could be from the misery of slavery in
6 John E. Hartley, yasha, in TWOT,
1: 414.
7 R. E.
O. White, Salvation, in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A Elwell (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1984), p. 967.
8 Ex. 14: 13; 15: 2.
9 Ps. 106: 10.
11 Robert
Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (
[Page
113]
Of particular interest are references to salvation
from social decay which may parallel New Testament usages of salvation from the
filth of the world. 12 It often approaches the meaning of moral and personal welfare when it is used for
prosperity in Job 30: 15, and it regularly means religious blessing in general (Ps. 28: 9). 13
12 Hos.
1: 7.
13 White, p. 967.
By far the most common usage in the Old Testament is
of Gods deliverance of His people from
their struggles (Ex. 14: 30). 14
Scores of passages could be cited. 15 This meaning has been considerably enriched by the New
Testament writers when they point out that the salvation of Christ also saves
us from our enemies - the world, the flesh, and the Satan. Spiritual
victory in life is salvation!
14 See 1 Sam. 22: 4.
15 E.g., Num. 10: 9. Ps. 18: 3; Isa. 30: 15; 45: 17; Jer. 30: 17.
Often, however, the word simply means blessing,
health, or happiness; 16 restoration to fellowship; 17 or the future blessings of the messianic kingdom.
18
16 See Ps.7: 10; Ps. 28: 8, 9; 86: 16; Jer. 17: 14.
17 See Ps. 132: 16; Isa. 43: 3, 5, 8, 19; 44: 3, 20; Isa. 25: 9; Jer. 31: 7.
Schneider notes that certain
passages in the prophets have an
eschatological dimension. In the
last days Yahweh will bring full salvation for his people (e.g., Isa. 43: 5ff.; Jer. 31: 7; 46: 27; Zech. 8: 7;
). 19 At
that time, in the future earthly kingdom,
According to Schneider, the theme of the great future messianic salvation was often found in
the Qumran literature where the people of God are redeemed out of tribulation,
saved for an eternal salvation from the powers of darkness, and the enemy
nations of
20 Ibid., 3: 210-11.
[Page
114]
Usage in the
New Testament
It is in the New Testament, however, that the full breadth
of meaning of salvation comes to the forefront.
The verb sozo occurs
106 times and the noun soteria 46
times. The meaning deliver from hell [i.e., Hades R.V.], while rare in the Old Testament, is quite common in
the New. Statistically, sozo is used 40 percent of the time in this way 21 and soteria 35 percent. 22 Like the Old Testament it sometimes simply means healing or recovery of health. When this happens the notion of deliver
disappears altogether, and the word simply means to heal.
For example, in response to the faith
and resultant healing of the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years,
Jesus said: Your
faith has healed [sozo] you
(Mt. 9: 21-22). This sense is quite common (19 percent). 23
21 E.g., Acts 4: 12; 11: 14; Rom. 8: 24; 9: 27; 1 Cor. 5: 5; Jude 23.
22 Acts 4: 12; 13:
26; Rom. 1: 16; 10: 1; 2 Cor. 6: 2; Eph. 1: 13.
Consistent with its most frequent usage in the Old
Testament (LXX), sozo often
means to deliver from some danger
(19 percent). For example, when Jesus
prayed in the garden, he asked, Save [sozo] me from this hour (Jn. 12: 27). 24
24 See Mt. 8: 25; 14: 30; 24: 22; Lk. 1: 71; 23: 35, 37, 39; Jn. 12: 27; Acts 7: 52; 27: 20, 31, 34; 1 Th. 5: 9.
Salvation of
the Troubled
Similar to the idea of deliverance
from danger, but with a distinctively positive emphasis, are the
references in which salvation is viewed as
victorious endurance [by the saints] and not just escape.
Pauls concern over the soteria of the believers at
If we are distressed, it is for your
comfort and salvation [soteria]; if we are comforted,
it is for your comfort, which
produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer
(2 Cor. 1: 6).
Salvation
seems to be equated with patient endurance, an aspect of sanctification.
It is possible that the idea of victorious
endurance is behind the use of soteria in Philippians
which has often perplexed interpreters:
[Page 115]
Therefore, my dear friends,
as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now
much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation [soteria] with fear and
trembling, for it is God who
works in you to
will and to act
according to his good purpose (Phil. 2: 12-13).
This salvation must be worked for. The phrase work out translates katergazomai, which simply means to
effect by labour, achieve, work out, bring about, etc. 25 A
salvation which can be achieved by labour is hardly the
justification-by-faith-alone kind of salvation offered elsewhere. Neither is any notion of obedience being the
evidence of true faith found in this passage; rather, obedience is the condition of salvation [as
used
in this context].
25 AS, p.
240. See
The salvation to which Paul refers here is related contextually back to his discussion
in Phil. 1: 27-30 and Phil. 1: 19-20.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by
the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to
me will turn out for
my deliverance [soteria]. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed,
but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ
will be exalted in my body, whether by life or
by death (Phil. 1: 19-20).
The thought of deliverance from danger is the obvious
meaning of salvation here, but more than
that, Paul wants to be delivered in
such a way that Christ will be honoured in his body. He
desires that his [regenerate] readers
similarly will be victorious in their trials as well, following his
example:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves
in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then,
whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you
stand firm in one spirit, contending as one
man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed but that you will be saved [of your soteria], and that by God. For it has been
granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had,
and now hear that I still have (Phil. 1: 27-30).
The apostle aspired to a victorious endurance in which
his life or death would magnify Christ, and he
exhorts them to aspire to the same goal. Their lack of fear in the face of enemies and
their united stand is clear evidence that the reality of their victorious
endurance (salvation), which will be evident to all. Their [Page 116] courageous attitude also signifies the temporal and eternal doom of their adversaries.*
[* Always keep in
mind: Amongst ones enemies there will also be regenerate believers who misinterpret prophetical and accountability truths. Our Lord was hated for His teachings by the
religious leaders of His day: and those, whose teachings are synonymous with
His, can only expect the same
treatment! Paul said to Timothy: At my first defence no one took my part, but all forsook me: may
it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me, and
strengthened me; that through me the message
might be fully proclaimed
(2 Tim. 16, 17,
R.V.). cf. Acts 14: 22; 26: 6, 7, etc..]
This salvation is one beyond their initial [and
eternal] salvation
in Christ. The first salvation was
received by simple faith (Eph. 2: 8, 9), but this one comes by faithful
endurance. It
consists of Christ being magnified in ones life. This
salvation must be achieved
by labour. This
is the salvation which he wants them to work out in Phil. 2: 12. They are
to continue to bring honour to Christ as
they boldly respond [in a Christ-like
fashion]* to their trials. He is
exhorting them to victorious
endurance.
[* G. H. Lang
wrote: He [Christ] will
give the strength to resist any opposition that may come. It is forbearance
when opposed that commends the truth
professed.]
Such an interpretation would not be unexpected by
readers in the first century, saturated as they were with the idea of salvation
found in their Greek Bible. As mentioned
above, the most common usage of the word
there was deliverance from trials. 26
26 See, for
example, Ps. 3: 8; 18: 3, 35, 46, 50; 35: 3; 37: 39; 38: 22; 44: 4. In all these references the LXX employs soteria.
Salvation of
a Life
The phrase save a soul
(Gk. sozo
psyche) seems to have a technical
meaning of preserve your physical life. Jesus used it in Matthew:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take
up his cross, and follow me,
for whoever wishes to save his life [psyche] will lose
it; but whoever loses his life [psyche] for my
sake shall find it. For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul [psyche]? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul
[psyche]? (Mt.
16: 24-26).
It remains for scholars of historical theology to
discern how this phrase ever came
connected with the idea of deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of fire]. 27 * It is never used that way in the Bible, and such an
idea would have been foreign to any Jewish reader of the New Testament. Furthermore, the
context requires that works, suffering, and taking up ones cross are necessary
conditions for the saving of the soul. This creates obvious problems with the rest
of the New Testament where works such as this are distanced as far as possible
from the gospel offer (e.g., Eph. 2: 8, 9; Jn. 3: 16). It is either necessary to redefine faith as
being equivalent to obedience, which a lexical study will not allow, or
reconsider the traditional meaning of save a soul.
27 Lenski, for
example, says that to deny oneself in order to save ones soul refers to true
conversion. See R. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthews Gospel
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), pp. 643-46.
[Page 117]
This phrase is found eleven times in the LXX, and in
each case it has the notion of preserving ones physical life. 28. In Gen. 19: 17 it means
to escape with
your life; and in Gen. 32: 30 Jacob, after his struggle with the Angel of the Lord,
exclaims, My life has been
preserved. In one passage it seems to refer to
delivering the needy from social injustice (Ps. 72: 13) by preserving their lives. Even the warrior, declares Amos, will not save his life in the coming invasion (Amos 2: 14).
Because the meaning is definitely established from
other passages, there is no reason to abandon it in the New Testament, no
reason except the interests of the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. Here we have a case where the traditional
meaning, deliver from hell, is absolutely
without parallel in biblical or extra-biblical literature, and yet it is
accepted as the starting point for understanding the meaning in the New
Testament.
It is clear that the saying in question was addressed to believers (Mt.
16: 24), and therefore Christ is not preaching the gospel to
unbelievers to come to [eternal] salvation
but challenging [regenerate] Christians
to a life of discipleship. The fact the unbelievers [i.e., unregenerate
people]
may have heard the message does not mean they were the ones addressed. The message was specifically
directed toward and applied to the disciples.
The message can conveniently be broken down into four
clauses: 29
Clause 1: For whosoever should want to save his psyche
Clause 2: will lose it.
Clause 3: But whosoever should lose his psyche on behalf of me.
Clause 4: he will save it.
29 Jerry Lee
Pattillo, An Exegetical Study of the Lords Logion on
the Salvation of the Psyche (Th. M. thesis, Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1978), p. 33.
If the saving of the psyche in clause 1 is physical, it must also be physical in clause 3, and if
it is metaphorical in 2, then it must be metaphorical in 4. It obviously cannot be physical in all four
clauses because then a man would be preserving and losing his physical life at
the same time (clause 1 and 2). The psyche can be saved in two
senses. The first (clause 1) refers to physical preservation. But the metaphorical sense (Clause 2) is
derived from a common usage of psyche where
it refers to the inner self within an
individual which experiences the joys and sorrows of
life, i.e., the person. The rich
young fool (Lk. 12: 19-23) stored up his goods so that his psyche could rest and be joyous. 30 To save the soul in this [Page 118] sense is to secure for it [millennial
as well as] eternal
pleasures by living a life of sacrifice now. We are apparently, according to Jesus, developing an inner character which will be
preserved (saved) [in the age to
come as well as] into eternity. There
is a connection between our life of sacrifice and our capability to enjoy and
experience [millennial as well as] eternal
fellowship with God.
30 For other passages where a similar thought is
expressed, see Mt.
6: 25; 12: 18; Lk. 14: 6; Mt. 26: 38; Mk. 14: 34; Heb. 10: 38).
Gaining the whole world refers to obtaining the
joys and pleasures of this world. This gain however, can only be
accomplished if a man is willing to forfeit his soul. To forfeit the soul
is metaphorical for forfeit true life now and reward in eternity.* The verse is an explanation and expansion of
Clause 2 above which was shown to be metaphorical, not literal. As mentioned above, it cannot be physical
because Clause 1 is physical in all other uses in the Bible.
[*NOTE. Since
all
regenerate believers are given - (through faith
alone in Jesus Christ as ones personal Saviour) - eternal life
as a free gift: (Rom. 6: 23. cf. Eph. 2: 8, 9 R.V.): it is
inconceivable that rewards for obedience to His precepts, can be
carried into eternal
life after the thousand years have
expired! (
So the danger is that, if a man does not become a
disciple [i.e., an
obedient and active follower of Christ], he will lose his soul. That is, he
will forfeit true life now and reward in
eternity. [See above note.] The fact that
the context is referring to rewards, and
not deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of
fire], is suggested by Mt. 16: 27: [He] will then
recompense every man according to his
deeds (NASB). Clauses 2 and 4 therefore refer to losing or
gaining of rewards [in the age
to come] for
discipleship.
The result of this saving of
the soul is, according to Jesus, the finding of real life now as
well. In fact, in the LXX the Hebrew
word Shalom 31 (peace, prosperity, well,
health, completeness, safety) 32 is often translated by the word soterios (saving). Jesus seems to have merged the ideas of physical preservation of life [now], and the finding of the meaningful and blessed
life [in the age to come].
31 AS, p. 438.
32 G. Lloyd Carr, shalom.
In TWOT, 2: 931.
Saving ones life (Clause 1) means what it means every
place else in the Bible, to preserve ones physical
life. There was a temptation
amongst Christs followers to avoid martyrdom and suffering to save their
lives. Paradoxically, when a [Christian] man
schemes [by lying or by compromising Gods responsibility
truths now]
to preserve his own life, he will lose the very thing he
really wants, happiness and blessing [in the future
after the first
resurrection (Rev. 20.)] (Clause 2). The paradox, however, is that a man who is willing to even die for Christ
(Clause 3) will find the very pleasures and blessings sought and an eternal* [* see note above] reward as well (Clause 4).
Keeping this in mind helps us
understand some passages which are fraught with theological difficulty.
Therefore get rid of all moral
filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in
you, which can save [sozo] your souls (Jas. 1: 21).
These [regenerate] believers
in which the word has been planted need [this future] salvation! The
Word of God is capable of saving them if
they will act on it.* The word seems to take a meaning
very close to sanctification.
[* See 1 Pet. 1: 5, 9, R.V. where this salvation of
souls (v. 9) has to do with our hope
that
is to be brought unto you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ (vv. 9, 15,
R.V.). The meaning here points toward
the time of resurrection of souls from Hades. See Acts 2:
27, 31- 34.]
[Page
119]
What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to
have faith but has no deeds?
Can such a faith save [sozo] him:
(Jas. 2: 14).
The form of the question requires a negative
answer. No, faith without works cannot
save!
If salvation in James refers to final deliverance from
hell [i.e., the lake of fire], only with difficulty can he be brought into
harmony with Paul, a harmony at the
expense of the plain meaning of the text. Works
[after one obtains initial
and eternal
salvation] ARE a condition of salvation [to
those who are eternally saved] according to
James. But what is the content of that salvation?
James takes us back to the teaching of his Master in 1:
21
when he refers to the saving of our lives [souls]. The Greek text reads: Humbly accept the implanted word which is
able to save your lives [sosai tas psychas
humon]. The expression save your lives [souls] is the same one used by the Lord Jesus in Mt. 16: 25. 33 That [future] salvation does require work and self denying
service to Christ. But it does not constitute final deliverance
from hell. Rather, it involves the preservation of physical life now, a victorious
perseverance through trials, and a glorious reward for our faithful service in
the future (Clause 4 above in Mt. 16: 25).
33 Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, First
Peter, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary,
ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Eaglewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), under 1: 7.
There is nothing here about a saving faith and one does not save in the sense
of final deliverance from hell [i.e, the lake of fire]. There is no perseverance in holiness taught. Nowhere
does James tell us that works are the inevitable result of
the faith that delivers from hell, nowhere,
unless salvation means deliverance from hell.
But then, if it does, James is teaching salvation
by works!
In 1
Pet. 1: 9 Peter
speaks of the salvation of our souls in a similar way. The entire passage is instructive and bears
comment.
His burden to encourage his readers [i.e., the elect (v. 1)] toward steadfastness in trials, (1: 6). Not only are
there external enemies, but there are internal enemies such as fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul (2: 11). This warfare against
their soul (Gk. psyche) is
severe, and they need victory in the battle; they need
deliverance, or salvation (Gk. soteria). Only by daily
obedience to the truth can their souls be purified
so that they can love fervently (1:
22).
Peters method of encouragement is to set their hearts
aglow with a vision of the great future. They have, he says, been born again to a living hope (1:
3). This birth is to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable (1: 4). This
inheritance is the
reward of the inheritance (Col. 3: 24) of
which Paul spoke. All are appointed to
this at spiritual birth but only those who persevere in
faith will obtain the intended goal.
He gently reminds them of this in the following verse when he says:
who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation
ready to be revealed in the last time (1:
5).
The salvation to be revealed is
the consummation of our [initial] salvation in
the glories of the messianic era.
This is the [Page 120] future tense salvation. Only
those Christians who maintain their faith [in this
scriptural truth] will experience protection now and [after
Messiah returns] have a share in
that great [millennial] future.
In vv. 5 and 7 the
word faith (Gk. pistis) is best rendered faithfulness,
34. The phrase are
protected refers to present protection
that the life of faithfulness to God provides.
Possibly the continuous aspect of the present tense could be pressed
here, i.e., are continually being protected.
Even though they are distressed by various trials (1:
7),
they rejoice in the prospect that, if
they remain steadfast, they will obtain
an inheritance. Indeed Peter says, praise and glory and honour at
the revelation of Jesus Christ
(NASB). First comes faithful
perseverance under suffering, then comes honour from
Christ at the revelation.
As they gaze at this future salvation, this wonderful [millennial] prospect,
they obtain benefits of that great future event now [and after the first resurrection].*
[*
See Rev.
20: 4-6. cf. Lk. 14: 14; 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; Heb. 11: 35b, etc.]
Obtaining the outcome of your faith the salvation
of your souls (1 Pet. 1: 9 NASB).
It is customary for Experimental Predestinarians to
understand salvation of your
souls as a reference to final
deliverance from hell [i.e., from the lake of fire]. However, the starting point for our
understanding should not be our system of theology but the usage
of the phrase [salvation of souls] in the Bible and the immediate context.
In the LXX the words are found in the same sense four
times. In Ps. 42: 11 Davids soul, i.e., life (Gk. psyche), is
in despair because enemies revile him and ridicule his belief in God in the
midst of his trials. Yet he turns to God
for help of my countenance, which in the LXX is salvation (Gk. soteria) of
my countenance. Salvation of a soul is assistance in the
midst of trials. In 1 Sam. 19: 5 David took his life (Gk. psyche) in his hand and killed Goliath, and this resulted in salvation (Gk. soteria) of all
We conclude, therefore, that this phrase is very similar
in meaning to save
a soul (Gk. sozo psyche) studied above.
In no instance does it mean go
to heaven when I die or final deliverance from hell [i.e., from the lake of fire.] The starting point for our [Page
121] understanding of this term
should be deliverance from enemies. Unless
there are contextual indications to the contrary, there is no reason to depart
from the universal sense.*
[* That is, saved from the power, grip, and effects of
physical Death: For thou wilt not
leave my [i.e.,
Davids] soul to Sheol [Gk. Hades]; neither wilt thou suffer
thine holy one [i.e.,
out Lord Jesus, the Christ] to suffer corruption (Ps.
16: 10,
R.V.).
he [i.e., King David in Ps.16: 10] foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that
neither was he left in Hades,
nor did his flesh see
corruption.
For David ascended not into the heavens
(Acts 2: 31, 34, R.V.).
See also Mt. 12:
40; 16: 18; Lk. 16: 23, 29-31; Rev. 6: 9-11,
R.V.). Note. The soul is the person. Christ, as a disembodied soul, was not left in Hades; and, at the time of His Resurrection,
His crucified body was reunited to
it, and not left lying motionless inside
Josephs tomb.]
That this is the intended meaning in 1 Pet. 1 seems to
be confirmed by the fact that they are receiving this salvation now (present
tense). That great future is being
experienced now. This is the present outcome of their faith. As they are steadfast and faithful, they
experience the benefits of the future salvation in the present. In other words, v.
9 has
sanctification and not justification in view.
It is not an act of faith which will give them victory but a life of
faith that is needed. Thus, the Greek
word pistis is best rendered faithfulness.
Some have objected that this cannot be true because
the next verse begins, As to this salvation, the prophets
(1 Pet. 1: 10). The salvation referred to in this verse is clearly the future salvation
of the soul and not its present salvation. Since the salvation on v. 10 refers
back to the salvation in v. 9, it is argued that the salvation in v. 9 must be
future as well. In this way some notion
of entrance into heaven is read into the
words. However, in v. 9 the
salvation is an extension into the present of the benefits of the future
salvation. So both verses are speaking
about the same thing. When the future
salvation is experienced in the present, it is a salvation from the present
enemies of the people of God. When
experienced in the future, it is the final and permanent deliverance from all
enemies. They are able now, however, to earn this salvation in the
future as a reward (Gk. komizo, receive) and have the benefits extend to the present.
This way of viewing the passage is widely held. Edwin Blum, for example, says:
For you are receiving [komizomenoi, a present casual participle], giving the reason for the paradoxical joy while stressing that the
anticipated salvation is even now in the process of realization. The goal [telos]
or consummation of faith is the salvation of your souls.
The soul is used in the Semitic biblical sense of
self or person. Therefore the
thought of this section closes with the believers enjoyment of the future
salvation in this present age. 35
35 Edwin A.
Blum, 1 Peter, in The
Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 11 vols.
To date (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976 -), 12: 221.
Selwyn, while also seeing an eschatological element in
1: 9, nevertheless observes that the salvation here is
present as well: The doctrine of faith issuing
[Page 122] in a salvation realized in part here and now is not uncommon
in N.T. 36 Hart insists, komizomienoi implies that already they are receiving what is due to them.
37
36
Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd
ed. (London: Macnillan, 1947) p. 133. He
cites Acts 14: 9;
15: 11; 2 Th. 2: 13; 2 Tim. 3: 15; Heb. 10: 39.
37 J. H. A. Hart, The First Epistle
General of Peter, in EGT,
5: 45.
What is the present expression of future salvation
which they are receiving? In what way
does steadfast faith bring salvation to their souls now? What is the salvation of a life (soul) in the
present? It is not
deliverance from hell [Gk. Hades] or entrance
into heaven! The battle in which their souls were engaged
and from which they needed deliverance was
the battle against fleshly lusts (2: 11), the battle for purity (1: 22), and the
battle for survival in the midst of trials (1:
6).
These are the enemies these readers face. As
they trust God and set their gaze on the great future and remain faithful to
Him now, they experience the salvation which consists in victorious
perseverance in trials and triumph over the pollutions of the [evil] age. They are by this means protected
(a military term, 1: 5) from their enemies.
A final illustration of a usage of this word salvation which seems to equate it with deliverance from the
enemies of the people of God in the present is found in Rom.
10: 1-14.
Old Testament prophecy has a wonderful richness. Crouched in oriental thought, it is often
mystifying to Western man. In what is,
perhaps, one of the most helpful expositions of prophetic interpretation ever
written, Willis Beecher has taught us that the prophetic mode of fulfilment is
one of cumulative fulfilment. 38
Simply put, it means that God is fulfilling His promises in many individual
historic events which will finally culminate in a complete fulfilment. There is a long line of fulfilment of many
predictions. Time cannot be taken here
to repeat his excellent discussion, but the Old Testament doctrine of the
salvation of the remnant provides a good illustration. Paul refers to this in Rom. 9 and 10.
38 Willis J. Beecher, The
Prophets and the Promise (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1905;
reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), p. 376.
Brethren, my hearts desire
and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation (Rom.
10: 1 NASB).
But what kind of salvation is in view? To answer that, we must turn to the preceding
and following contexts. In the preceding
context we discover that a deliverance
from temporal devastation was his meaning.
Quoting Isa. 1: 9, the
apostle directs our attention to the Assyrian invasion (ca. 722 b.c.). Unless the Lord leaves some survivors, the
nation will end up being completely destroyed like
39 Mt.
24: 2; Lk. 21: 5.
40 Mt. 23: 37.
The fact that Paul quotes Scripture related to
The following context (10: 2-8) does not define the salvation of vs. 1 (as
Experimental Predestinarians teach) but explains why they cannot experience
this salvation in daily life. It is
because they had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God and
therefore would not receive His free righteousness (10: 2). We conclude then that being saved in v. 1 refers to Gods promise of divine aid to His people
in time. It is His provision for victory over their
enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Passing over the next few verses for the moment, we
come to an unusual confession:
If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your
heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Rom. 10: 9 NASB)
This confession is unusual because it is the only
place in the New Testament where a condition in addition to faith is added for
salvation. The Gospel of John,
which was written expressly for the purpose that we might believe and as a
result be saved (Jn. 20: 30-31), never
mentions confession of Christ as Lord as a condition. If we must confess Jesus as Lord in order to
be saved, then a man could not be saved by reading Johns gospel!
A very simple solution to this difficulty is to return
to the definition of salvation in the immediate context. This salvation is not deliverance from hell
but is the same salvation mentioned in vs. 1,
divine aid to the believer as he struggles against his temporal enemies. This was the deliverance
Salvation in this verse has the same meaning it did in
v. 1 and vs. 9, Gods divine
aid to His people in time. Believing
with the heart results in final deliverance from hell, but confession of the
lordship of Christ is necessary for the kind of salvation mentioned here, salvation from present enemies. Instead of confession of Jesus as Lord being
the inevitable result of salvation as the Experimental Predestinarians teach,
Paul, to the contrary, says that salvation is the inevitable result of confessing
Jesus as Lord! But this is not a
salvation from hell. Just as a
confession of Jesus as Lord results in salvation, so
calling upon the name of the Lord has the same effect: For whosoever will call upon the name of the
Lord will be saved (Rom. 10: 13 NASB).
The phrases call upon the name of the Lord
and confess Jesus as Lord are parallel and compliment each other. Both result in salvation. But the salvation in view must
be determined by the immediate context in Romans and
the Old Testament citations. This verse (10: 13)
is a quotation from Joel
2: 32 and refers to the physical deliverance from
the future day of wrath upon the earth and the restoration of the Jews to
In the New Testament, calling upon the name of the Lord is something only those who are already justified
can do. A non-Christian cannot call upon
the name of the Lord for assistance because he is not yet born again. 41 Paul
says to the Corinthians: To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all
who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1: 2 NASB).
41 The following discussion follows Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1989), pp. 193-194.
Whenever Christians met in worship, they would appeal
to their divine Lord for assistance by calling upon His name. Christians were known by this title; they
were simply those who called upon the Lord (Acts 9: 14, 21).
Paul similarly urged Timothy to flee youthful lusts
and to pursue
righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who
call upon the name of the Lord (2 Tim. 2: 22). [Page 125] Peter exhorted the believers, And if you call upon the Father,
conduct
yourselves throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear (1 Pet. 1: 17 NKJV).
Stephen, as he was being stoned to death, called upon the Lord and asked him to receive his spirit (Acts 7: 59).
The pagans called upon their various gods for
assistance. But the early Christians called
upon the name of the Lord for divine help in time of need. The Romans called upon Caesar for assistance,
and by invoking that formula, a legal appeal to the highest authority was mane
by a Roman citizen. Paul himself used
this phrase when he said:
I stand at Caesars Judgment
seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have
done no wrong, as you very well know
I appeal to Caesar (Acts
25: 10-11).
The word appeal is the same Greek word
for call upon used in Rom. 10: 13.
The point is that to call upon the name of the Lord
was a distinctively Christian privilege. Non-Christians cannot call upon Him and to call upon Him is not a condition of
salvation from hell but of deliverance from enemies of Gods people.
Paul makes this explicitly clear in the next verse:
How then shall they call upon Him whom they
have not believed? And how shall they
believe in Him whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher? (
A
chronological sequence is intended here. An Israelite cannot hear unless first there
is a preacher. He cannot believe unless
first he has heard. And he cannot call
upon the name of the Lord unless he has first believed.
When a man believes, the result, Paul says, is [Christs imputed]
righteousness. He is delivered from
hell. When he confesses Jesus as Lord or
calls upon His name, he is saved and
delivered from all enemies of the people of God in time.
Therefore, we see an excellent illustration of
[Page
126]
Salvation of
a Wife
Another passage which has exercised much exegetical
ingenuity is found in 1 Tim. 2: 15.
But women will be saved [sozo] through childbearing - if they continue in
faith, love and holiness
with propriety.
This is certainly a novel approach for obtaining
deliverance from future wrath! The
meaning of sozo in this
passage is once again something like spiritual health,
a full and meaningful life. This fits
the context quite well. Paul has just excluded women from positions of teaching
authority in the church (1 Tim. 2: 9-14).
What then is their primary destiny?
They will find life through
fulfilling their role as a mother IF they continue in the faith,
love, and holiness with propriety. A
salvation which comes only to mothers who persist in faithful service is not
the faith alone salvation taught elsewhere.
For this reason many interpreters argue with Litfin and understand saved
as being preserved from insignificance by means of
her role in the family. 42 A woman will normally find her fulfilment and meaning
in life not by pursuing the male role
but by being a wife and mother. But
she must follow this vocation with faith and love.
42 A Duane Litfin, 1 Timothy, in BKC, 2: 736.
Salvation of
a Christian Leader
Similarly, in the same book Paul exhorts Timothy:
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save
[sozo] both yourself and your hearers (1 Tim. 4: 16).
Salvation in this passage is conditioned on watching ones life and doctrine and perseverance in this attitude. Yahweh exhorted Ezekiel along the same lines:
But if you warn the wicked man to turn from
his ways, and he
does not do so, he will die for his
sin, but you will have saved yourself (Ezek. 33: 9).
Both Timothy and Ezekiel are regenerate and justified
saints who are still in need of being saved, of finding spiritual wholeness, or
possibly, as one writer suggested, of continuous
preservation from surrounding evil, 43 Timothy is not
to neglect his gift (4: 14), and the
mothers are not to neglect their calling, [Page 127] motherhood. If both heed this injunction, they will
find a rich and rewarding experience of Jesus Christ in this life and a great
reward in the future. He will truly
save his life and the lives of many of his flock who observe his progress and follow his
example (4: 15).
Reigning
with Christ in the Kingdom
43 Girdlestone, p. 126. He feels Heb.
5: 9
refers to the same kind of salvation.
Often the Old Testament salvation has messianic overtones. It refers to the future re-gathering of the
nation of
It is possible that this is the thought behind our
Lords famous saying: But he
who stands firm to the end will
be saved [sozo] (Mt. 24: 13). The context refers to the terrors of the
future tribulation. While it is possible
that the meaning is simply, he who endures to the end will be delivered at the second
coming, that seems a bit tautologous and lacks encouragement. If the content of the salvation here is
positive, then a great motive for endurance has been provided. It may be preferable to view the
salvation here as a receipt of
the kingdom and right to rule there.
The condition of salvation
in this passage is steadfast endurance which does not yield under persecution
but perseveres to the final hour, i.e., either the end of the tribulation or
the end of life.
44
Then the King will say to those on his right, Come,
you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the
world (Mt.
25: 34).
The apostle says:
Therefore I endure everything for the sake
of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation [soteria] that is
in Christ Jesus, with eternal [Gk.
AIONIAN, i.e., in this context = age-lasting] glory (2 Tim. 2: 10).
While the majority of the commentators understand the
elect to refer to the unregenerate who have not yet
believed (but certainly will), there is a good reason to understand the term in
this context as a vital synonym for a regenerate saint. First of
all, in every usage of the term
applied to men, in the New Testament it always refers to a justified saint. Conversely, it never refers to someone who was elect in eternity past but who has not yet
entered into the purpose of [Page 128] their election, justification. 45 Cremer is emphatic on this point. He says that the view
decisively appearing in the N. T. [is] that the
eklektoi are persons who not only
are in thesi the objects of the
divine election, but who are so in fact,
i.e., those who have entered upon the state of reconciliation.
Thus oi eklektoi denotes those
in whom Gods saving purpose
of free love is realized. 46 There
appear to be no particular indicators against applying this consistent usage of
the term to 2 Tim. 2. 47 It is best to understand by the elect
Timothy and the faithful men of v. 2. Timothy is being exhorted to suffer in his
ministry to the faithful men just as Paul has been imprisoned for his ministry
to the elect. The idea of
Paul suffering for the sanctification and growth of the churches is a common
New Testament theme 48 and is easily seen in this passage as well.
45 The word eklektos
is used twenty-two times in the New Testament.
Jesus says that for the sake of the elect the days of the tribulation will be shortened (Mk. 24: 22). Paul
tells us the elect are the justified (Rom. 8: 33) and that they are Christians, chosen of God (Col.
3: 12). The Christian lady to whom John writes is the
chosen lady (2 Jn.
1: 13)
and the chosen of Rev.
17: 14
are faithful Christians. In some places
it begins to take the meaning commonly found in secular Greek, choice one, as in Rom.
16: 13. See MM, p. 196.
46 Hermann Cremer, Biblio- Theological
Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T & T.Clarke,
1895), p. 405.
47 Indeed, some of the commentators, perhaps struck by
this usage, have understood the term to apply to those
chosen for Christianity, both those already Christians and those not yet
converted (George A. Denzer, The Pastoral
Letters, in Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed.
Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Eaglewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), on 2 Tim. 2: 10. This would then require different meanings of
the word salvation, i.e., for the
unsaved, deliverance from hell, and for the saved, sanctification.
48 Cf.
Here then are [eternally] saved people in
need of salvation! The salvation in
view is necessarily sanctification or, perhaps, more precisely, victorious perseverance through trials
(1: 8; 2: 3, 9). Elsewhere in the Pastorals, salvation
has referred to aspects of sanctification so there is no reason why it cannot
have such a meaning here as well (e.g., 1 Tim. 2: 15; 4: 16). The setting is the dismal situation of
apostasy (in 1: 15, shortly to be identified, 2:
17-18). Paul reminds
Timothy that loyalty to the profession
of faith (v. 11)
does not go unrewarded (Rom. 8: 17; 2 Tim. 2: 12). If
they persevere, they will not only obtain
victory but eternal [Gk. aionian] honour (v.
10), [i.e., millennial] reward at
the judgment seat of Christ.
Salvation in
the Book of Hebrews
Moving as he does in the Old Testament context, it is
to be expected that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews would use the word
soteria in a sense more akin to its Hebrew background. For him salvation is
participation with Christ in the future [thousand-year] kingdom rule. He
distinguishes his usage of the term from the meaning of final deliverance from
hell when he says:
[Page
129]
So Christ was sacrificed once to take away
the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin [Gk. choris, apart from sin], but to bring salvation [soteria] to those who are waiting [apekdechomai] for him (Heb. 9: 28).
The verb apekdechomai commonly
means to wait eagerly or wait patiently. 49 This salvation does not deal
with the removal of the negative (it is choris from sin, apart
from sin). Rather, it refers to a salvation which will come to those
Christians who are waiting eagerly for the Lords return. The
verse seems to precisely parallel Pauls anticipation of receiving the crown of
righteousness which goes to those who love His appearing (2 Tim. 4: 8 KJV).
The readers of the epistle would understand to what he is
referring. Indeed, the major theme of the book is to exhort them
to continue to wait patiently, to endure faithfully in the midst of their
trials:
49 See Phil. 3: 20; 1 Pet. 3: 20; 1 Cor. 1: 7.
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly
rewarded. You need to persevere 50 so
that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised (Heb. 10:
35-36).
50 Note Heb. 12: 1-3.
Some of the readers were considering throwing away
their confidence, returning to Judaism.
They would not be the ones waiting eagerly, who have laboured to enter into rest
(Heb. 4: 11), and who
have done the
will of God (10: 36), i.e.,
finished their work. His meaning becomes
transparent in Heb. 1: 14, Heb. 2: 3, and Heb. 2: 10.
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent
to serve those who will inherit
salvation [soteria]? (1: 14).
The fact that he is thinking in Old Testament terms,
quoting the Psalms, and anticipating this salvation as future
(will inherit) suggests that he is thinking of the messianic salvation
proclaimed by the prophets mentioned above. In 1:
8, 9, for example, he quotes the [millennial and] messianic Ps. 45, which
describes the
Surely, the immediate associations with the questions
from the Psalms would lead us to think of the future messianic kingdom and not redemption from hell. Furthermore, as argued in the previous chapter,
the verb to inherit always [Page 130] has the sense of to obtain by works in the New Testament;
therefore, this salvation is achieved by
works. That there is a salvation
which can be obtained by works is taught elsewhere in Heb. 5: 9. Believers do not inherit,
obtain by obedience, the salvation which is
from hell. But they do obtain by
obedience an ownership in the future consummation. To inherit salvation is simply to obtain
ownership with the King of His future kingdom. This is the
subject of 2: 5 ff.,
where he teaches regarding the co-reigning of our Captain and His many sons.
We are therefore justified in being sceptical of the
interpretation which says that salvation here is deliverance from hell. That is why F.F. Bruce says:
The salvation here spoken of lies in the
future; it has yet to be inherited.
That is to say,
it is that eschatological salvation which in Pauls words is
ready to be revealed in the
last time (1 Pet. 1: 5). 51
51 F. F.
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, 14: 25.
The salvation of which he refers is the object of Heb. 2: 5-18, the future reign of Davids Greater Son,
the Messiah, and of our participation with him in the final destiny of man, to
rule over the works of Gods hand. (2: 7-8).
It is commonly recognised that the warnings of Hebrews are parentheses in his argument. From 1:
4 to 2: 18 he is
presenting the superiority of Christ to the angels. It is not to the angels that the rulership
over Gods works has been commissioned but to Gods King Son and His companions
(1: 9; 2: 10). In the
middle of the argument he inserts a warning, Heb. 2: 1-4, in which
he exhorts them not to neglect this great future, the great soteria. Then in Heb. 2: 5 he picks up the argument he momentarily departed from
at the end of Heb. 1: 14. The for (gar) refers back to 1:
14:
For (gar) unto the
angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak (2:
5 KJV).
The subjection of the world to come is the soteria of which
we are speaking. He then gives an exposition of Ps.
8: 1-9 which is
in turn Davids exposition of the final destiny of man,
set forth in Gen. 1: 26-28. To inherit that salvation is simply to have a share
with Christ in ruling in that [thousand-year
coming] kingdom. This contextually is the great salvation which they are not to neglect: 52
52 See Thomas
Kem Oberholtzer, The Eschatological Salvation of Hebrews 1: 5-2: 5, Bib-Sac 145 (January-March 1988):
83-97.
How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation [soteria]
(Heb. 2: 3).
[Page
131]
The neglected salvation is not our final deliverance
from hell, that is not the salvation about which we are speaking. Rather, it
is the opportunity to enter into the final [millennial] destiny
of man, to reign with Christ over the works of Gods hands (Heb.
2: 8-9). 53 There
is something conditional
about entering into this salvation. It
is the salvation he has just mentioned in 1: 14. He
tells us there is a danger from which we cannot escape if we neglect [or
disbelieve] it. For the writer of the epistle
the danger to which he refers is not the loss of justification [by
faith], because by one sacrifice he has made perfect
forever those who are being made holy (Heb. 10: 14). Our eternal destiny is
secure. What is contingent is
whether or not we will be richly rewarded
and receive what
He has promised (Heb. 10: 36) which is achieved only through faith and patience* (Heb. 6: 12).
[*Literally: through faith and
long endurance are
inheriting the promises.]
The writer says that the Lord announced this
salvation. While one could think of the
Lords teaching to Nicodemus regarding salvation from hell, the context of Heb.
2: 5-10 suggests
another salvation:
But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. Do not be afraid,
little flock, for your
Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12: 31-32).
And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father
conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on the throne,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk. 22: 29-30).
Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth,
at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his
glorious throne, you who
have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel (Mt. 19: 28).
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near
(Mt. 4: 17).
The coming kingdom of heaven announced here by Jesus is none other than the predicted kingdom-salvation of the Old
Testament. It is the time of the restoration of the
kingdom to
54 Because
of
Such a salvation, joint participation with Christ in
the coming [millennial] kingdom rule, is contingent upon our faithful perseverance
and obedience. That is why he
says:
[Page
132]
Although he was a son, he learned obedience
from what he suffered and, once made perfect,
he became the source of eternal [Gk.
aionian]* salvation
[soteria] for all
those who
obey him (Heb. 5: 8-9).
[*NOTE Aionian,
used in this context of a believers obedience, should always be understood and
translated as age-lasting and not eternal
as shown in most English translations!
Compare Heb. 5: 8-9 with Jn. 3: 16, where aionian
life is correctly translated eternal or everlasting.
Always check the context to find the correct meaning
where aionian is used throughout the
scriptures.]
Here in no
uncertain terms he declares that this salvation is based on works of obedience
and not just on faith alone. There is nothing in the book of Hebrews which suggests that this is a description of all true Christians. This salvation is eternal
because it is final, complete and lasts for all eternity.* The
phrase everlasting salvation is evidently
borrowed from Isa.
45: 17. In both places the reference is not to
deliverance from hell but to the unending nature of the messianic kingdom. **
[*
See note above.
** It means Here as well as Beyond, and applies to a kingdom that comes to an End, as well as to one that has no End. For this reason, a great World-Period, or Age, is called an Olam. And World-Periods, or Ages, are called Olammim. And in order to express infinite time,
the reduplication is used, Ages
of Ages, Olammim Olammim.
It is therefore a false conclusion to say that because the term Le Olam, Forever,
is applied to the Messianic Kingdom,
therefore the Hebrews contradicted themselves, when they assigned to it limits at
the same time. Messiahs kingdom is
Temporal as well as Eternal, and in both senses, Olamic. The bondmans free covenant to serve his
master lasted forever. But that only meant till
Jubilee.
The Levitical economy was established to be forever, but that only meant
till the time of reformation. The Christian
Church is forever, in its present form, but that only means till He comes. True to this view, the Jewish Teachers ever held to a
Of this salvation Christ became the source
(Gk. aitia, the cause, author) 55 In what sense is He the cause
of the great future? It seems that His
death and resurrection made it possible, and His priestly ministry of comfort
and intercession makes it available
to those who obey Him. It is Christ as priestly helper, and not offerer
of sacrifice, that is in the forefront in this section of the epistle (5: 2, but
especially 4: 4-16; 2: 17-18). That kind of
priestly ministry is necessary to assist the heirs of salvation along the path
which their captain has gone (2: 10). The priestly
ministry of sacrifice for sins does not come into focus until the new major
section of the epistle, where he demonstrates that Jesus is superior to Aaron (7: 1-10: 39).
55 AS, p. 15.
The final reference to soteria in Hebrews is found in Heb. 6: 9:
Even though we speak like this, dear
friends, we are confident of better things in your
case - things that accompany salvation [soteria].
The things to which he refers are defined in the
following verses (6: 10-12): work
and love, diligence to the end, and faith and patience [i.e.,
perseverance]. Salvation is the victorious
participation with Christ in the coming [millennial] kingdom as it
is in Heb. 1: 14, which only those who persevere as
companions of the King will inherit.
The writer obviously expresses that his readers will persevere to the
end, enter into rest, and obtain these blessings.
Conclusion
Salvation is a broad term. However, only with difficulty can the common
meaning of deliver from hell be made to fit
into numerous passages. It commonly
means to make whole, to sanctify, to endure victoriously,
or to be delivered from some general trouble or
difficulty. Without question, the common knee-jerk reaction which
assumes that salvation always has eternal deliverance in view,
has seriously compromised the ability of many to objectively discern what [Page 133] the New Testament writers intended to teach. As a result,
Experimental Predestinarian views have gained wider acceptance than they should
have.
A similar
problem exists in regard to the
definition of eternal life. Once again a kind of instinctive response to
this word sets in. Without
further discussion or proof, that the term invariably means to be born again. As we shall see in the next chapter, this is not
always so.
* *
*
[Page
134 blank: Page 135]
CHAPTER
7
Inheriting
Eternal Life
INHERITANCE-REST OF HEBREWS
The positive
side of our great salvation is eternal life.
By this, of course, our Lord did not mean merely eternal existence but a
rich and meaningful life which begins now and extends [through
the millennium, and on] into eternity.
Given freely
as a Gift
All readers of the New Testament are familiar with the
tremendous gospel promise of the free gift of eternal life. That this rich experience was obtained by
faith alone was one of the key insights of the Reformation:
For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life
[zeon aionion] (Jn. 3: 16).
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my
word and believes him who sent me has eternal life [zeon aionion] and will
not be condemned; he has crossed over
from death to life (Jn. 5: 24).
For my Fathers will is that everyone who
looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life [zeon aionion],
and I will raise him up at the last day (Jn. 6: 40).
Eternal life can be ours, now, on the condition that we
believe in Him, and for no other condition.
Yes, eternal life is ours on the basis of faith alone.
Earned as a
Reward
The phrase eternal life (zeon aionion) occurs forty two times in
the New Testament. 1 Its common meaning of the free gift of regeneration
(entrance into heaven [and into A new heaven and a
new earth (Rev. 21: 1)] on the basis
of faith alone) is well documented.
However, many are not [Page 136] aware that in eleven*
of those forty-two usages (26 percent), eternal life is presented to the
believer as something to be earned or worked for! 2 For example:
1 A Concordance of the Greek Testament ed. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, 4th.,
ed., rev. H. K. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarl, 1963), pp. 30-31.
2 Mt. 19: 16; 19: 29; Mk. 10: 17, 30; Lk. 10: 35;
To those who by persistence in doing good
seek glory, honour
and immorality, he will give eternal
life [zeon aionion] (Rom. 2: 7).
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature
will reap destruction; the one who sows to
please the Spirit, from the Spirit will
reap eternal life [zeon
aionion] (Gal. 6:
8).
The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates
his life in this world will keep it for eternal life [zeon aionion]. Whoever serves me
must follow me; and where I am my
servant also will be. My Father will honour the one who serves me (Jn. 12: 25-26.).
And everyone who has left houses or brothers
or sisters or father or mother or children of fields for my sake will receive a
hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life [zeon aionion]
(Mt. 19: 29).
Just as there are two kinds of inheritance, two
dimensions to salvation, there seem to be two sides to eternal life. We must remember that eternal life in the
Bible is not a static entity, a mere gift of regeneration that does not
continue to grow and blossom. No, it is
a dynamic relationship with Christ Himself.
Jesus taught us that when He said:
Now this is eternal life [zeon aionion]:
that they may know you, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom you have sent (Jn.
17: 3).
He explained elsewhere that this life was intended to
grow and become more abundant: I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full (Jn. 10: 10). But growth is not automatic; it is
conditioned upon our responses. Only by
the exercises of spiritual disciplines, such as prayer, obedience, faith study
of the Scriptures, and proper responses to trials, does our intimacy with
Christ increase. Only
by continuing in good deeds that spiritual life imparted at regeneration grow
to maturity and earn a reward.
This is what the apostle Paul referred to when he
challenged Timothy to take hold of
eternal [aionian] life:
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of eternal life to which you were
called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses
(1 Tim. 6:
12).
[Page
137]
Possessing eternal life is one thing, but taking hold of it [in the
age to come)] is another.
The former is static; the latter is dynamic. The former depends upon God; the latter
depends upon us. The former comes through
faith alone; taking hold requires faith plus
obedience (6: 14). Those who
are rich in this world and who give generously will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm
foundation for the coming age, so that they may
take hold of the life that is truly life (1
Tim. 6: 19). Eternal life
is not only the gift of regeneration
but true life which is
cultivated by faith and acts of obedience.
This should not surprise us. On page after page of the Bible the richness
of our spiritual life is conditioned
upon our spiritual obedience.
Hear now, O Israel,
the decrees and the laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your father, is giving
you (Dt. 4: 1).
To live and to take possession of the land, while not the
same, are at least
related concepts. Recall the numerous references above to
obtaining the inheritance by taking possession of the land. Life,
too, is a result of our obedience. However, regeneration, the beginning of that
life, cannot be meant, so the fruition
or growth of it must be in view.
Keep the decrees and commandments, which I am giving you today, so
that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time (Dt. 4: 40).
A long and
prosperous life on earth is the reward for keeping the decrees. Surely the
consequences of such a life have eternal [aionian,
that is age-lasting] results
as well. Moses replies that it will:
Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me
and keep all my commands always, so that
it might go well with them and their children forever! (Dt. 5:
29).
Again he says:
Walk in the way that the LORD your God has
commanded you, so
that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land you will possess (Dt. 5: 33).
But is this life only material prosperity in the
Moreover, we have all had
human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should
we submit to the Father of our spirits and LIVE. Our fathers
disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in His holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it (Heb. 12: 9-11).
He explains that the life which comes from responding
to divine discipline is nothing less than a harvest of righteousness and peace and sharing in His
holiness. Yet the passage is a divine commentary on Dt. 8: 5 and Pro. 3: 11-12:
Know then in your heart that as a man
disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you (Dt. 8: 5).
In Dt. 30: 15-20 life and prosperity are associated and contrasted
with destruction. If they love
the Lord their God and walk in His ways and keep His commands, they will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are
entering to possess. If they follow other gods, they will not live
long but will be destroyed in the land they are entering. God sets before them life and death, blessings and cursing and says, Now chose life so that you and your children will live. The LORD is your life
(Dt. 30: 20). Moses is equating life with far more than
material prosperity. It is ultimately
fellowship with God and the rewards which come from that fellowship.
A similar thought is expressed in Lev. 18: 5 where they are told:
Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
As Lindsay has observed, life here refers to a happy and meaningful life, 3
3 F. Duane Lindsay, Leviticus,
in BKC, 1: 200.
Similarly, Hab. 2: 4 refers to the life of faith of the justified
believer:
But the righteous will live by faith.
The Hebrew word for faith, emunah, means firmness, faithfulness,
fidelity, 4 Its basic
sense is to be steady or have firm hands, be dependable, stable, etc. This meaning fits the context of Habakkuk as well.
Faced with the inexplicable tardiness of God in dealing with the corrupt
nation and the surprising [Page 139] revelation that He will bring an even more corrupt nation to judge
them, the prophet is instructed to be faithful, steady, and to endure. Thus, Blue comments: 5
4 Jack B.
Scott, emuna, in TWOT, 1: 52.
5 J.
Roland Blue, Habakkuk, in BKC, 1: 1513.
A righteous Israelite who remained loyal to
Gods moral precepts and was humble before the Lord enjoyed Gods abundant
life. To love meant to experience Gods blessing by enjoying a life of security,
protection, and fullness.
The meaning is uniquely appropriate to the readers of
the Epistle to the Hebrews who were similarly in need of patient endurance in
the face of many trials. For this reason
the author quotes it in application to their situation in Heb.
10: 38, But my righteous one will live by faith. The justified
man must live by faith from beginning to end; he should endure. 6 But if he shrinks back and denounces his
profession of faith, Gods judgment will be upon him. The judgment here is apoleia and can refer to either a temporal judgment, as the context
requires, 7 or eternal condemnation.
6 This view of the passage is taken by B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London:
Macmillan, 2d. ed., 1892; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 337: The just - the true believer - requires faith, trust in the
unseen, for life. Such faith is the
support for endurance. See also
Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of Hebrews (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1954), pp. 641-42.
7
Compare Heb. 10:
30 where the judgments mentioned are from Dt. 32: 36 and Ps. 135: 14 and
refer to Gods judgments on His people in time and not in eternity.
There is no reason that the reference in Rom. 1: 17 should be taken any differently. He has just explained that the gospel is
based upon faith from first to last (Rom. 1: 16). It is there
appropriate to quote a passage which refers to the continued endurance in faith
of the sanctified man to demonstrate that last part of the life of the
justified man.
It might seem that Paul uses the quotation slightly
differently in Gal. 3: 11:
Clearly no one is justified before God by
the law, because,
The righteous will live by faith.
Can a verse intended by the original author to apply
to faithful endurance in the life of the justified be used to refute the notion
that justification itself could be obtained by law? The question answers itself. Of course it could. Surely if a Christian man is to live his
Christian life by faith, how could the initiatory event by
which he entered that life be based on works!? 8
8 Eadie takes the same view: The
statement, he is justified by faith is the inference, inasmuch as he lives by
faith - life being the result of justification, or rather coincident with it.
(John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the
Galatians [
[Page
140]
The Old Testament doctrine of the afterlife and
rewards is very vague.* That the rich life promised on
the basis of obedience could result in rewards in heaven is only faintly
intimated (Dt. 5: 29). But the idea that obedience could be related
to the acquisition and growth of a rich spiritual (as well as material) life is
clear. We should not therefore be
surprised to find such an equation in the New Testament.
[*For
more scriptural teaching on this subject, see R. Govetts book: Hades.]
And we do find that equation in the references to
eternal [aionian]
life being conditioned upon obedience.
As long as we remember that eternal life is fundamentally a quality of
life in relationship to God, this should not cause us any difficulty with the
numerous passages which stresses justification by faith alone. It is extremely important to note that in every place where eternal
life is presented as something which can be obtained by works, it is
contextually always described as a future [age-lasting]* acquisition. Conversely,
whenever eternal life is described as [a free gift of God (Rom.
6: 23,
R.V.)]
- as something in the present, it is obtained by faith alone.
[*NOTE. The Greek language, from which our English
versions have been translated, does not contain a word for eternal. A person using the
Greek language thinks in the sense of ages; and the way this language is normally used in the New
Testament to express eternal, apart from textual considerations, is through the use of
the Greek words eis tous aionas ton aionon,
meaning, unto [or,
with respect to] the ages of the ages (ref. Heb. 13: 21; 1 Pet. 4: 11; Rev. 1: 6; 4: 9, 10 for several examples of places where these words are used,
translated forever and ever in most versions).
Another less frequent used way to express eternal in the Greek New Testament, apart from textual considerations, is
through the use of the shortened form of the preceding - eis tous aionas, meaning
unto [or, with respect to]
the ages (ref. Rom. 9: 5; 11: 36; 2 Cor. 11: 31; Heb. 13: 8 for several examples of
places where these words are used, translated forever in most versions).
The word from the Greek text translated eternal in Heb. 5: 9 is aionios. This is the
adjective equivalent of the noun aion, referred to in the preceding
paragraph in its plural form to express eternal. Aion means an aeon [the word aeon
is derived from aion] or an era, usually understood throughout the Greek New
Testament as an age.
Aionios,
the adjective equivalent of aion, is used
seventy-one times in the Greek New Testament and has been indiscriminately
translated eternal or everlasting in almost every instance
in the English versions. This word though should be understood about
thirty of these seventy-one times in the sense of age-lasting rather than eternal; and the occurrence in Heb. 5: 9 forms a case in point.
Several good examples of other places where aionios should be
translated and understood as age-lasting are Gal.
6: 8; 1Tim.
6: 12;
Titus 1: 2;
3: 7.
These passages have to do with running the present race of the faith in view
of one day realizing an inheritance in the [millennial] kingdom, which is the hope set before
Christians.
On the other hand, aionios can be understood in the
sense of eternal if the text so indicates.
Several good examples of places where aionios should be
translated and understood are John
3: 15, 16, 36. These passages have
to do with the life derived through faith in Christ because of His finished work at
Textual considerations must always be taken into account when properly
translating and understanding aionios,
for this is a word which can be used to imply either age-lasting or eternal;
and it is used both ways numerous times in the New Testament.
Textual considerations in Heb. 5: 9 leave no room to question exactly how aionios
should be understood and translated in this verse. Life during the coming age,
occupying a position as co-heir with Christ in that coming [millennial] day, is what the
Book of Hebrews is about. (Dr. Arlen L.
Chitwood, from his book: Let us go on,
(pp. 25-26.).]
In Gal. 6: 8, for
example, eternal [Gk.
aionian] life is
something earned by the sower. If
this passage is speaking of final salvation from hell, then salvation is based
on works. A man reaps what he sows. If
we sow to please the Spirit, we will reap (future tense) eternal life. Paul calls it a harvest if we do not give up. Eternal [Gk. aionian] life is earned
by sowing to the Spirit and persevering to the end. It is
what we get if we do good works.
There is nothing here about the inevitability of this reaping. It depends upon us. We will reap, Paul says, if we do not give up. Eternal life
is no static entity but a relationship with God. It is dynamic and growing and has
degrees. Some Christians have a more intimate
relationship with their Lord than others.
They have a richer experience of eternal life. Jesus Himself said, I came to give life more
abundantly (Jn. 10: 10).
In this sense it is parallel to physical life. Physical life is received as a gift, but then
it must be developed. Children often
develop to their full and physical life to flourish; we must also be obedient
to our parents. Whenever eternal life is
viewed as a reward in the New Testament, it is presented as something acquired
in the present. No one can receive it as a reward, i.e., experience it to a more
abundant degree, until he has received eternal life freely as a gift to begin
with. 9
9 Mt.
19: 29 is to be explained in the same manner. The eschatological harvest is in view, at
which obedient men [saved by grace] will reap.
Bearing this in mind will help solve another
interpretive difficulty: the problem of
[Page
141]
To those who by
persistence in doing good
seek glory, honour
and immortality, He will give
eternal [Gk. aionian] life (2: 7).
But for those who are self-seeking and who
reject the truth and follow evil,
there will be wrath and anger (2: 8).
But glory, honour and peace for
everyone who does good; first for the Jew, then for
the Gentile (2: 10).
The section is introduced by a general principle: God
will reward each man according to his works.
It is then applied to the regenerate in 2: 7 and 2:
10 and
to the unregenerate in 2: 8, 9. The literary structure of the passage makes 2:
8-9 parallel and 2: 7 and 2:
10
parallel.
The main problem in the passage, of course, is that vv.
7 and 10
promise eternal life on the basis of works, which is in complete contradiction
to Paul in 3: 10-22 - a
contradiction IF eternal
life means go to heaven.
This difficulty has been keenly felt by all
interpreters of the epistle. In general,
three different solutions have been suggested.
Hodge 10 and Haldane 11 propose that Paul is speaking hypothetically. In other words, if there were anyone who by
persistence is doing good sought eternal life, God
would reward him with heaven for his efforts.
However, Paul has stated elsewhere that there is none who seeks God and
none who does good (Rom. 3: 12). Therefore,
these commentators conclude that this is a hypothetical offer of heaven.
10 Charles Hodge, St. Pauls Epistle
to the Romans (Reprint ed., Edinburgh, 1964) on 2: 7.
11 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the
Epistle to the Romans (Reprint ed., Edinburgh, 1974) on 2: 7.
John Murray objects by pointing out that the principle
of being rewarded for doing good is found in many other passages of Scripture as
well. 12 If the solution proposed by
the interpreters quoted above were to be applied to Romans 2: 6-16, then not only this
passage but these other passages would have to be interpreted after this
pattern. But examination of these other
passages will show the impossibility of this procedure. 13
Furthermore, Paul does not seem to be speaking hypothetically. He
is making a specific assertion. He is not talking about what God would do if
we perfectly obeyed but what he actually will do.
12 He cites Mt. 16: 27; 25: 31-46; Jn. 5: 29; 1 Cor. 3: 11-15; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Gal. 6: 7-10; Eph. 6: 8; Col. 3: 23.
13 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, 6-1:63.
[Page
142]
14 Ibid. See also the
recent commentary by Cranfield, who thinks the
reference is to goodness of life, not however as meriting Gods favour but as
the expression of faith. It is to be noted that Paul speaks of those who seek glory, honour
and incorruption, not of those who deserve them
(C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., The
International Critical Commentary
[Edinburgh: t. & T. Clark, 1975-79], p. 147).
A persons habitual conduct, whether good
or evil, reveals the condition of his heart.
Eternal life is not rewarded for good living; that would contradict many
other Scriptures which clearly state that salvation is not by works, but is all
of Gods grace to those who believe (e.g., Rom. 6: 23; 10: 9-10; 11: 6; Eph. 2: 8-9; Titus 3: 5). A persons doing good
shows that his heart is
regenerate. Such a person, redeemed by
God, has eternal life. 15
15 John
Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 152.
It may be true that a persons habitual conduct reveals the condition of his heart,
but the text is not addressing that issue. According to Paul, eternal life is rewarded for good living. How else could he say it: God will render to every man according to his deeds (Gk. erga, works, 2: 6)? Shouldnt
we let this stand?
Once the consistent use of eternal life in the future
as a reward to works is accepted, a much simpler solution is evident. It is absolutely true in Pauline thought that
no unjustified man can obtain eternal [Gk. aionian] life on the basis of works. But it
is also true that the justified man can!
As
In this future time, the time of the day of Gods wrath when His righteous
judgment will be revealed (2: 5), God will judge all men, Christian and non-Christian,
on the basis of their works. The general
principle in v. 6
is that each person, saved [i.e., obedient as well as the disobedient Christians*] and unsaved, will be rewarded according to their works
in this future day. This principle is
taught all over the New Testament; Christians and non-Christians will have
their lives examined. The Christian will stand before the
judgment seat of Christ where he will be judged according to his works:
[* Surely The thousand years of suffering the loss of the
inheritance in Messiahs coming Kingdom, will be time enough for disobedient
Christians to lament and reflect on the manifested glories, privileges, and
joys that could have been theirs when Jesus returns to resurrect the holy dead!
(1 Thess. 4: 16; 1 Pet. 1: 9-13; Rev. 20: 4-6, R.V.).]
[Page
143]
For we must all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad
(2 Cor. 5:
10).
The non-Christian
- [and the Christian not accounted
worthy to attain to that age
(Lk.
20: 35,
R.V.)] - will
stand [after resurrection] before the Great White Throne where he will be
judged according to his works:
[* This is because judgment must
begin at the house of God: and if it begins first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?
(1 Pet. 4: 17, R.V.) Note the context: Peter is addressing regenerate
believers here! See also the
time when this judgment takes
place in Heb. 9: 27, R.V.) -
it is after the time of death, and
before the time of Resurrection!
Oh then, Christian, work on! Your footing is firm, march on boldly! Work
for Christ; for there is reward in
the [first] resurrection, reward
in the resurrection of the just. Each shall receive his reward,
according to his
own labour.
Christ is coming, and shall pay the labourers their wages. The reaper of Gods farm shall rejoice with the sower of Gods field
in the early [millennial] day. (Quoted from R. Govetts Christs Resurrection and Ours, pp. 185-86.)]
Then I saw a great white throne and him who
was seated on it.
And I saw the dead, great and
small, standing before the
throne, and books were
opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
recorded in the books (Rev. 20: 11-12).
[And the sea gave up the dead which were in
it; and death and Hades gave up the dead which
were in them: and they
were judged every man according to their works. And death and Hades
were cast into the lake of fire.
And if any was not found written in the
book of life, he was
cast into the lake of fire (Rev.
20: 13-15 R.V.]
As will be discussed in the pages to follow, the outcome of the Christians judgment is either reward or the loss
thereof. The outcome of the
non-Christians judgment is always the lake of fire because his works are not
adequate to redeem.
The Christian who perseveres
in doing good works can obtain the
reward of eternal [Gk. aionian] life given to him freely at justification through
faith alone. It is true that no
unjustified man can obtain rewards in heaven by works, but the regenerate saint
can. The unjustified can never earn
honour, glory, and peace, but the justified can if he shows persistence in doing good (2:
7).
Conclusion
The Reformed doctrine of perseverance in holiness has
often based its scriptural appeal upon many of the passages in the preceding
chapters. John Murray, for example,
appeals to many of these verses to prove that, just
because a person professed faith in Christ, that does not mean he is truly
saved. The way we can tell if a man is
truly saved, according to
16 John Murray, Redemption -
Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 152.
[Page
144]
If salvation, eternal life, and inheritance always refer to final deliverance from hell
and entrance into heaven, then scores of these passages can only be interpreted by
foisting upon them the meaning
required by a theological system. It
is therefore circular to appeal to these same verses, as
Experimental Predestinarians are sometimes bemused by
the fact that in the Partaker position distinctions
crop up everywhere. They are
concerned that any view which has two kinds of heirs, two kinds of eternal [aionian]
life, two kinds of salvation, and two kinds of resurrection is intrinsically
unlikely. Surely, they think, a hidden
agenda is working behind the scenes, which introduces numerous distinctions
which do not appear to be natural (a term
they often use in reference to their interpretations).
No doubt they would also be bemused to note many other
distinctions as well:
1. Two kinds of heaven (Gk. ouranos) - the sky and the abode of God.
2. Two kinds of teachers (Gk. paideutes) - those who insert and those who correct.
3. Two kinds of children (Gk. pais) - the boy, youth, or maiden, and the servant slave or
attendant.
4. Two kinds of people (Gk. demos) - a crowd or a business assembly.
5. Two kinds of righteousness (dikalosune) - conformity to the divine will in purpose, thought,
and action (i.e., imparted righteousness) and justice or even forensic legal
righteousness (imputed righteousness).
6. Two kinds of cleanness (katharos) - physical and ceremonial.
7. Two kinds of time (kairos) - due measure, fitness, proportion or a fixed and definite
period.
8. Two kinds of hearts (kardia) - the body organ and the focus of personal life.
9. Two kinds of fruit (karpos) - the fruit of the vine and the works and deeds of
believers.
10. Two kinds of swords (machaira) - a large knife used for sacrificial purposes and a
dagger.
11. Two kinds of wages (misthos) - a wage earned by a hired worker and divine reward.
12. Two kinds of mysteries (mysterion) - that which is only known to the initiated and a secret
of any kind.
13. Two kinds of law (nomos) - the Old Testament in general and a usage or custom.
14. Two kinds of ways (hodos) - a path or road and a journey.
[Page
145]
15 Two kinds of houses (oikos) - a physical dwelling and a group of people, i.e., a
household.
16. Two kinds of crowds (ochios) - a multitude of people and the common people.
17. Two kinds of hope (elpis) - any hope in general and a specifically religious people.
18. Two kinds of commands (entole) - a charge, injunction, or order and a tradition.
19. Two kinds of messages (epistole) - a simple message and a letter.
20. Two kinds of work (ergon) - employment and deed. 17
17 All the definitions in this list are taken from AS,
except for demos, which comes from AG. P. 178.
Words are constantly being used in different ways in
different contexts. To be bemused at distinctions betrays a wooden concept of language
typical of many Experimental Predestinarians with their penchant for the
illegitimate totality transfer. If the
word means one thing here, it must, they say, mean the same thing in the
passage they use to support their system.
The interpretations discussed above were based instead
on the method of biblical rather than systematic theology. Our approach has been to base our conclusions
upon philosophy, semantics, and immediate context. The approach is exegetical rather than
theological. This is in no way intended
to disparage the queen of the sciences, systematic
theology, but to acknowledge the obvious; it must be based on exegesis.
Making all soteriological references to these words
refer to our entrance into heaven requires, if we let the text speak plainly,
that the entrance into heaven be based upon works. But if these words refer to something else,
something conditional in the believers experience - his victorious
perseverance and subsequent reward no theological
exegesis is necessary to make them consistent with the Reformation
doctrine of justification by faith alone.
* *
*
[Page
178 blank: Page 148]
Chapter
8
Justification
and Sanctification 1
It is taken as
axiomatic, even obvious, to Experimental Predestinarians that a life of works
is the necessary and inevitable result of genuine faith and conversion. In other words, justification and
sanctification are distinct but inseparable.
Considerable attention is given to this point in their standard theology
texts and will be analyzed in what follows.
While no one would argue while this is Gods intent,
that we should walk holy and blameless before Him in love, such a walk
depends upon our responses to Gods love and grace. While justification is based on
faith alone and is a work of God, sanctification is uniformly presented in
Scripture as a work of man and God (Phil. 2: 12-23) and is achieved by faith plus works. No
useful purpose is served by continuing to teach that Christ does it all and that our growth in grace is His work
alone. The confusion and unreality which these teachings have produced are now
legendary.
Yet in their misguided attempts to preserve at all
costs the sovereignty of God (the Predestinarian
aspect of their teaching), they have all but eliminated the contribution made
by the new man in Christ to his own sanctification. Indeed, to even speak this way would cause
them to cringe with fears that ancient Pelagianism
1 is creeping into the evangelical church. The inseparable unity of sanctification and
justification is argued on many grounds.
1 In the
conflict with Augustine, Pelagius, who stressed free will and moral ability,
was the loser. Experimental
Predestinarians seem to like the use of this term. It gives them a sense of connection with
history and with a battle in which they were on the winning side.
The Greater
Righteousness
Recently the writer was privileged to spend a week at
a seminar taught by one of the most
articulate Experimental Predestinarians theologians in the
[Page
148]
For I say unto you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will
by no means enter
the kingdom of heaven (NKJV).
After explaining that the righteousness of the scribes
and Pharisees was not all bad but was, in fact, very scrupulous in spite of its
externals, he concluded that, unless our lives manifest a practical
righteousness which is quite high, were not truly Christians at all and will be
shut out of the kingdom on that fateful day. 2
2 This view is expounded by Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), P. 208 and Arthur Pink, An Exposition on the Sermon on
the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), pp. 61-66.
Now, not only is this interpretation highly unlikely,
but imagine the bondage it would put upon the average Christian. How would anyone possibly know if his
righteousness did, in fact, exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? Assurance of salvation
would be impossible unless the standards of the Pharisees were reduced to
something less than what God requires.
At the end of the lecture the speaker was asked, Are you more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees? If he said no, then he would have no
assurance, and the Bible says assurance is possible now. If he said yes, then one could only be
sceptical of his integrity.
His somewhat hesitant answer was that their
righteousness was, perhaps, not so high after all. Only by reducing it could he escape the
dilemma. But this will not do. In spite of their hypocrisy, their standards
were high and, in many cases, very pure and noble. If a higher righteousness than theirs is
characteristic of all who are Christians, then it would appear that the very few
of any are regenerate, so virtually no one can be sure that he is! How much better must we be? If we assume they were foul, 3 then it would not take much to improve on their
righteousness. If we assume their error
was that they only practiced part of the law, then if we practice more than
part we exceed their righteousness. It
is impossible for us to fulfil all the law.
But these assumptions wouldnt result in any great improvement in
Christian behaviour at all.
3 Pink. P. 66.
There is no doubt that the Lord is
contrasting the righteousness necessary for entrance into the [millennial] kingdom with
the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees.
* But what is the point of the
contrast? It is not a contrast between
two levels of human righteousness but between two human and divine righteousness. This is [Page 149] evident when the Lord specifies that the
righteousness He requires is not just superior to that of the scribes and
Pharisees but must be perfect:
[*That is, Christs imputed righteousness
(which every regenerate believer received at the time of initial
faith), needs to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens. Nothing can exceed
Christs righteousness! There is
an undisclosed standard of His disciples righteousness here; and that is to
encourage them to obey the precepts He taught them throughout this Sermon. The whole of the sermon is specifically directed at Christs disciples.
The following is taken from R. Govetts The Sermon on the Mount, pp. 50-54:
1.
What is our righteousness, - we ask?
2. What that of the
Scribes? How must it exceed
theirs, that we may enter millennial joy? Righteousness
is conformity to law. It is doing, with
intention of heart, what the law requires.
Our righteousness is either (1) imputed, received by faith; or (2) practical,
the acted holiness of a sanctified life.
It is either anothers or our own.
(1) Imputed righteousness is not in question here. Jesus
is not calling unbelievers to faith, but believers to action. Imputed righteousness must already be
possessed, ere we are disciples: and it is disciples the Jesus is addressing. This
threatening of our Lord is the immediate consequence of the elevation of the
standard.
We must then, in order to enter the millennial
kingdom, admit the superior tone of the commands of the Sermon on the
Mount. This comes first, as the doctrinal
basis of our obedience. We shall
not in our conduct obey, what we do not in understanding and heart admit.
2. We must next obey,
or carry out in our lives the new commands.
This is the practical superstructure.
Thus will our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes.
The teaching of the Scribes was their instruction in righteousness. If they had arrived at perfection, it had
been perfection of justice. Denying the
new standard, of course they refused to act it out. Thus both their creed and their practice
would exclude them from the kingdom.
But the Saviour warns disciples, that their
righteousness must exceed this righteousness.
It must exceed the old righteousness in these two great points.
He who would attain the kingdom, must own,
that Jesus heightened, and rightfully, the demands of the law and the prophets;
and must conform his conduct thereto. His (1) standard, and (2) his practice must both be above those
of the Scribes. If we own no higher
standard than the Decalogue, our practice will not exceed that of some of the
Scribes and Pharisees
An example of a disciple throwing aside the
righteousness of the law, taking a higher standard, and seeking a loftier prize, is given us in Phil. 3. There you have imputed righteousness
accepted, as setting a man at the starting-post: ver. 3-9.
Then suffering and holiness are desired, as the way to the first resurrection, and the prize (verses 10, 14): That I might know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made
conformable unto His death: if
by any means I might attain onto the resurrection from the dead. (Greek)
He teaches us next, that the moral
part of the law is elevated by Himself: and He assures
us, that an ignoring of this, a consequent lower standard, with a practice
reaching only to the height of the old covenant, will exclude, not
from eternal life, but from His millennial kingdom.
Both Jesus disciples of that day and the
Pharisees observed, and were taught to observe, the ceremonial law. In that, therefore, the difference
would not lie. It must then be found in
this, - that Jesus elevated the demands of the moral, beyond Moses: and
the disciples were to (1) own this righteousness of Jesus, and
(2) to obey it. In our Lords
closing words, we find this truth confirmed.
Jesus again demands [in verse 21] both
these as necessary to enter the [coming millennial] kingdom:- Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven [lit. of the heavens] but he that doeth
the will of My Father which is in heaven (Mt. 7: 21). ]
Therefore you shall be perfect just
as your Father in heaven is perfect (Mt. 5: 48 NKJV).
Only a perfect righteousness is good enough. Our Lord is evidently giving us a veiled
reference to the justifying righteousness which is imputed to the believer on
the basis of faith alone:
For He has made Him to knew no
sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
(2 Cor. 5:
21 NKJV).
Only through justification can we be as perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect. Only through
justification can we have a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of
the scribes and the Pharisees. Surely
Boyce is correct when he insists that Jesus was
saying that if a man was to get to heaven he must somehow have a different and
better righteousness than these men were showing. And this meant tat he must turn his back on
human goodness altogether and receive instead the freely goodness of God.5
5 James
Montgomery Brown, The Sermon on the
Mount: An Exposition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), p. 99.
Both Are
Part of the New Covenant
Quoting the New Covenant of Jeremiah, Robert Dabney
argues that both justification and sanctification are included in the New
Covenant: 6
6 Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in
Systematic Theology (1878; repront ed.,
This is the covenant
I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord, because
they will all know me, from the least to
the greatest (Jer. 31: 34).
Dabney was struck with the words, I will put my law in their minds and write
it on their hearts. However, he neglects to quote the next verse
which helps us to know WHEN this
will be fulfilled:
No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord,
because they will all know me, from the least to the greatest (Jer. 31: 34).
Now it is obvious that v. 34 is in no
way fulfilled at the present time.
Certainly it is not true that all know the Lord and that there is no
longer a need for [Page 150] personal evangelism.
The New Covenant was certainly inaugurated at the cross, and we enter
into some of its benefits at the time we believe. But
its final fulfilment has not yet taken place and indeed will not until the
coming [millennial] kingdom and
the eternal state. Similarly, the ultimate writing of His law
upon our hearts and minds will be characteristic of the believer when he has achieved the goal or his
justification, glorification. Complete sanctification comes when we receive our resurrection
body and not before.
A Disciple
Does the Will of God
It is quite common for Experimental Predestinarians to
quote the numerous passages referring to discipleship in the Gospels as proof
that a man who is truly a Christian, i.e., a disciple, is one who works and
does not fall away. John Murray, for
example, says in reference to Jn. 8: 30-32, He [Jesus] set up a criterion by which true disciples might be distinguished, and that criterion is continuance in Jesus
word. 7 This is true.
However, a concordance study of the word mathetes, disciple, shows that being a disciple and being a Christian are not necessarily synonymous terms:
7 John
Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 151-52.
As He spoke these things, many came to believe
in Him. Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed in
Him, If you abide in My
word, then you
are truly disciples of Mine (Jn.
8: 30-32 NASB).
Some background on the nature of discipleship is
helpful for understanding its meaning in the Gospels. The basic meaning is a learner or student. 8
Included in the idea of disciple was the notion of physical
adjacency. 9 In its uses in secular Greek and among the Jews,
physical proximity of the student to the teacher was implied in the meaning of
disciple. An itinerant rabbi, like
Jesus, was constantly on the move. To be
His disciple in a literal way was to be His follower. The word to follow occurs about eighty
times in the Gospels, and while sometimes it simply means to believe, 10 it often describes the relationship between the
earthly Jesus and His men. They
literally [when called upon by Him] had to leave their occupation, 11 their parents,
12
and follow Christ till death. The disciple could not be above his master, 13 and
as the master travelled, the disciple followed.
8 See Mk. 9: 31; Jn. 12: 42; Lk. 10: 23.
9 G. G.
Hawthorne, Disciple. In
ZPED, 2: 130.
10 E.g., Jn. 10:
27.
11 Mk. 1: 18-19.
12 Mk. 10: 29.
13 Mt. 10: 24.
[Page
151]
It is probable that the stringent demands placed upon
disciples during Jesus life reflect this background. One must, in order to be a disciple, be
willing to leave family and follow him (Lk. 14: 26).
Disciple is never used outside of the Gospels and Acts, and
probable, according to
14
To say every Christian is a
disciple seems to contradict the teaching of the New Testament. In fact, one could be a disciple and not
be a Christian at all! John
describes men who were disciples [i.e., followers] first and who
then placed their faith in Christ (Jn. 2: 11). Judas was
called a disciple, but he was apparently not saved* (Jn.
12: 4). This alone alerts us to the fact that Jesus did not always equate being a disciple
with being a Christian.
[*That is, Judas was not saved for the future Day
of reward! See Judas
Was a Regenerate Believer. All of our Lords disciples were regenerate
believers, and saved eternally through faith alone! If this was not the case, Jesus would not
have chosen Judas to be one of them! He was numbered among us, and obtained the lot
of this service (Acts 1: 17). Compare Num. 14: 20-24; 16: 14 with 1 Cor. 5: 5; 6: 8, 9; 1 Pet. 1: 5, 9-11; 2 Pet. 3: 8, 9,
etc. ]
Conversely, a man could be a Christian and
not a disciple. Correcting
this danger is the intent of most of the passages cited by the proponents of perseverance
to teach that all who would become Christians must accept the terms of
discipleship to do so. In point of fact,
these exhortations to become disciples are often addressed to those who are
already [regenerate] Christians or to mixed audiences. When Jesus calls a man to become
a disciple, He is in no instance asking him to accept the free gift of eternal
life. Instead,
He is asking those who have already believed to accept the stringent
commands of discipleship and find [in the age yet to come, (Lk.
20: 35)] true life.
It is impossible* to
become a Christian and at the same time harbour
ideas that one is going to continue
in sin.
Becoming a Christian involves repentance, a change of perspective about
sin, i.e., agreeing with Gods perspective about it, that it is sin. Becoming a Christian involves looking to the
cross for forgiveness. Now it is
biblically, psychologically, and spiritually impossible to look to the cross
for forgiveness and have Gods viewpoint about sin,
and at the same time cherish ideas of intending to persist in some known sin in
the life. But that is a completely
different thing from saying that, in order to become a Christian, one must
commit himself to turning from all known sin, hate his father and mother, and
be willing to die for Christ! The
presence of a purpose to continue in sin is incompatible with saving faith, but
the absence of a lordship commitment is not.
[* This is not strictly true, for there are numerous
instances, where God has recorded throughout the Bible, where the Lords
redeemed people did in fact continue in sin! See for example, Sauls persecution of David,
Peters denial of Christ, and the incestuous and ungodly behaviour of those within the church at
Joseph and Nicodemus were saved, but they were secret
disciples (Jn. 19: 38-39). They feared
the Jews and would not publically declare themselves as disciples
of Christ. Nevertheless, John
acknowledges them as secret believers.
[Page
152]
Many disciples left Jesus (Jn.
6: 66). If they were
not really Christians, the Experimental Predestinarians must acknowledge that
being a disciple is not the same thing as being a Christian (or else give up
their doctrine of eternal security!), and if they were Christians, then being a
Christian does not inevitably result in a life of following Christ. When Paul and Barnabas went to
Furthermore throughout the Gospels Jesus challenges
people who have already believed in His name (i.e., who are saved) to become disciples. If being a disciple is a condition for
becoming a Christian in the first place, why does Jesus exhort those who are
already Christians to become disciples (Jn. 8: 31-32)?
Now, if being a disciple is not necessarily the same
as being a Christian, then it is not logically or exegetically consistent to
select passages that refer to discipleship and assume that they refer to the
conditions for becoming a Christian or to the characteristics of all who are
truly born again. One writer argues, The word disciple is used consistently as a synonym for
believer throughout the book of Acts.
On this basis, he concludes, Any distinction
between the two words is purely artificial. 15 But then he appears to contradict himself and says, It is apparent that not every disciple is necessarily a true
Christian. 16 So, apparently, this writer has concluded that a
distinction between the words is not purely artificial but is grounded in the
New Testament itself. But if the words disciple
and believer are synonymous, then every disciple is a true
Christian, and if they are not synonymous, then every true Christian is not
necessarily a disciple. It is clear, as
even that writer is forced to admit, that they are not synonymous. 17
15 John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1988), p. 196.
16 Ibid., p. 196 n. 2.
17 As will be
discussed in chapter 10, The Possibility of Failure, it is
theologically impossible to hold this view of discipleship because the Bible teaches the existence of the permanently carnal Christian who
persists in his rebellion to the point of physical death.
Many writers commit the illegitimate totality
transfer. They gather the Gospels where
certain characteristics or conditions of being a disciple are enumerated, and
then they import these conditional nuisances into the semantic value of the
word itself. This now pregnant term is
carried back into various passages of the New Testament in service of a
particular doctrine of lordship salvation and perseverance. The
meaning of a word is determined by its context.
The usage elsewhere helps establish the range of possible meanings but
not the meaning in the particular passage under consideration.
[Page
153]
Some feel that there is no
more definite statement on discipleship in the New Testament than Mt.
10: 32-39. Apart from the fact that in Acts the
word matetes is used of believers, this is one of the few proofs
given that all Christians are disciples:
But whosoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him
before My Father who is in heaven (NASB).
He who loves father or mother more than Me
is not worthy of Me (NASB).
He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost
his life for My sake shall find it (NASB).
The man who has lost his life is in the
context the man who suffered physical death for the cause of Christ. The preceding context contains an exhortation
to those already disciples (10: 1) to persevere in the midst of sufferings. They are warned that some will be put to death (10: 21). Surely
physical death is not a condition of becoming a Christian. The man who finds life is not the man who
finds regeneration. The disciples to
whom He was speaking were already regenerate!
The life he finds in co-heirship with the Messiah in the future [millennial] reign of the servant kings and true meaning and
significance of this life now (cf. Mk. 10: 28-31). Seen in this light, the passage says nothing
about either the conditions for becoming a Christian or the necessary evidence
of all who claim to be born again.
No doubt the warning to the unfaithful, I will deny him before My Father, has led some to the erroneous conclusion that our
Lord is speaking of [initial] salvation.
Certainly, they feel, a true Christian would never be denied before the
Father. Unless, of course, Jesus is
teaching precisely that in this passage!
The passage is, after all, addressed to disciples, and these regenerate men need to be warned. If it is necessary and inevitable that all
who are born again will persevere to endure martyrdom, why warn them? There is no danger to such men. A warning which everyone obeys
to avoid a denial which no one experiences is superfluous! There
is real danger here, but not danger of finding out they are not saved or that
they have lost their salvation. The
danger is the possibility of being denied a part in the co-heirship with the
coming Messiah! 18
18 For parallel ideas in the danger of the true believer
being denied before the Father, see 1 Cor. 3: 15, saved through fire;
2 Cor. 5:
10, recompensed for
deeds
whether good or bad; 1 Jn. 2: 12, shrink away from Him
in shame at His coming; 2 Tim. 11: 12; if we deny Him, He will deny
us; the warning passages in Hebrews;
Mt. 25: 12, I do not know
[i.e., honour] you; and Mt. 23: 30, and cast out the
worthless slave [a true believer, he is a servant of his master] into the darkness outside; in
that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. See discussion elsewhere under the passages
cited.
[Page
154]
The merger of these terms has often been given birth
to a theology of legalism, doubt, and harsh judgmental attitudes which has
virtually eliminated the grace of God as a basis for personal fellowship with
Christ. All depends on the believers
willingness or intent to abandon all, yield at every point, submit totally, and
the like. Instead of the wonderful
freedom of grace, a burdensome introspection has resulted which has made
assurance of salvation impossible. In
addition, the terms of the gospel offer itself have been severely
compromised. Non-Christians are
virtually being asked to become holy as a condition of becoming Christians. The preparatory law
work was prominent in Puritan theology.
But, most importantly, the conditions for becoming a
disciple are different from those for becoming a Christian. One becomes a Christian, according to Jesus,
on the basis of faith alone (Jn. 3: 16). We are justified freely (Rom. 3: 24) and
receive regenerate life without cost (Rev.
22: 17). But to become a disciple, something in addition to faith is needed, works. A disciple is one who does the will of God (Mt. 12: 49), who denies
himself, leaves his family, and follows Jesus around
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his
father and mother, his wife and children, his
brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple. Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14: 26-27).
In the same way, any of you who does
not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14: 33).
Now if being a disciple and being a Christian are the same thing, as some Experimental Predestinarians
maintain, then are they not introducing a serious heresy into the gospel? In order to become a Christian, one must not
only believe in Christ, but he must also (1) hate his father, mother, wife,
children, and his own life; (2) carry his cross; (3) be willing to follow Jesus
around Palestine; and (4) give up everything.
Can any amount of theological sophistry equate these four conditions
with the simple offer of a free gift on the basis of believing? Being a disciple and being a Christian cannot
be the same thing! If we are justified freely,
how can the enormous costs of being a
disciple be imposed as a condition of that
justification? 19
19 When MacArthur says this is a paradox, the writer would certainly agree. It appears to be not only a paradox but is irreconcilable contradictions (p.
140).
The most famous discipleship passage in the New
Testament makes it quite clear that becoming a disciple and becoming a
Christian are two separate things. The
Great Commission is to make
disciples. In explaining how this is to [Page
155] be done, three activities are
specified: going, baptising, and teaching. Going
means to go to them and explain the gospel.
Baptising identifies those who have responded publicly as new
converts. Teaching
is simply instruction in the Christian life.
So there are three things involved in the production of a disciple: (1)
the man must trust Christ; (2) he must be baptised; and (3) he must be taught to obey all that
Christ taught. If being a disciple
is the same as becoming a Christian, then in order to be [eternally] saved, we must trust in Christ, be baptised, and must
obey the commands of Christ. In other
words, [this] salvation is by works.
In the passage which
In this controversy section Jesus is in conflict with
the Pharisees in the temple in
Controversy
with the Pharisees
John
8:
12-59
Controversy
with the Pharisees Aside to Those Who Believe Continuation of Controversy
8:
12 30 31 32 33 56
After listening to Him for a time,
some of the Jews, according to v. 30, believed on Him. The expression in Greek is episteusan eis auton. In every other place in Johns gospel where
it is used, it always refers to genuine not spurious faith. It is virtually a technical term John uses
for being saved.
Yet to all who received him, to those who
believed in his name, he gave
the right to become children of God, children
born not of natural [Page 156] descent, nor of human
decision or of a husbands will, but born
of God (Jn. 1: 12-13).
Everyone who believes in him may
have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
(Jn. 3: 15-16).
Whoever believes in me, as the
Scripture has said, streams of living
water will flow from within him (Jn.
7: 38).
Examples could be multiplied. 20 Since
these men in Jn. 8 believed on Him on the authority of Jesus Himself, we
may say they were born again and have eternal life. Now in Jn. 8: 31 Jesus turns to the Jews who had believed in Him (those mentioned in the preceding verse who had believed
on Him) and says, If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine (NASB). 21 Abide in the Word of Christ is the condition for becoming a
disciple. He basically says in an aside
to these new believers, It is good that you have
believed and are born again. Now, abide
in My words and be a disciple! It is to those who have already believed that
He introduces a conditional
relationship with Himself. Later in Jn.
15
Jesus will expand on the concept of abiding and explain that it is the condition of fruit bearing in the Christian life and
that it is characterised by obedience to His commands and love
for the brothers in Christ.
21 This aside is used
by John to help explain how Jesus words were being misconstrued. John did this often in his gospel, and these
other examples illustrate what he is doing here. See in 2: 21; 8: 22; 11: 13.
The Lord now turns back to His critics in v.
33. They, having heard His aside to those new
Christians, respond in anger. They claim
they are children of Abraham, but they are not willing to believe on Him as these others did. It is to these critics, not to those who have
just believed that Jesus addresses the stinging rebuke, You belong to your father the
devil (Jn. 8:
44). It is these critics, not the believers of v.
30,
who picked up
stones to stone Him (Jn. 8: 59).
We conclude then that the distinction between being a
Christian and being a disciple has good foundation in the thought of the New
Testament.
The Tests of
1 John
Few passages of the New Testament have been the subject
of more controversy and imaginative theological exegesis than the so-called tests of 1 John. Despairing of an exegetically sound
exposition of these passages which could emerge naturally out of the words
themselves, interpreters of all theological [Page 157] backgrounds have resorted to bringing in their
theological system to explain the passages.
How does one deal with such absolute statements as, No one who is born of God
sins, because his seed abides in Him; and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God (1 Jn. 3: 9)? Advocates of
the Reformed doctrine of perseverance apply this sword in two ways. They are, we are told, tests of whether or
not a man is truly born again. Once
again, the experiment with introspection is conducted. The believer is commanded to look within, to
fruits in the life, and not to Christ to examine the basis for his
justification. But second, and by
implication, since only those who pass these tests are born again, justification
and sanctification must necessarily and inevitably be connected.
In order to properly interpret the tests of life in 1 John, three introductory
considerations must first be settled: to whom was the epistle written,
Christians or professing Christians; what was the nature of the Gnostic heresy
being confronted; and what is the intended purpose of the book?
The Readers
of 1 John
Some have maintained that the readers of this epistle
were understood by John to be a group of professing Christians of whom, in some
cases at least, the apostle doubts their regeneration. For reasons explained elsewhere 22 this
is intrinsically unlikely. Is it not
better to take Johns statements in the epistle at face value? He says of his readers that they are little children whose sins are forgiven for His names sake (1 Jn. 2: 12). He calls them fathers who have known Him from the beginning, and he writes to the young men who have overcome the evil one and in whom the word of God abides (1 Jn. 2: 13-14). They
are specifically contrasted with the non-Christian Gnostic antichrists who departed from them.
Furthermore, these people have received an anointing, the Holy Spirit (1
Jn. 2: 20). The
anointing, he says, abides in you and you have no need for anyone to teach you, because His
anointing teaches them (1 Jn.
2: 27).
22 See chapter 10, The
possibility of Failure.
In the clearest possible terms the apostle affirms the
regenerate state of his readers when he says, I have not written to you because you do not
know the truth, but because you do know it. He is
confident that the truth is presently abiding in them,
and he wants it to continue
to abide in them (1 Jn. 2: 24). He
specifically affirms of them that we should be called children of God; and such we are (1 Jn. 3: 1). Furthermore,
they are now children of God, and when Christ returns, he affirms of his readers
that they shall
be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He
is (1 Jn. 3:
2).
They are, he says, from God and have overcome antichrists, because greater is He that is in you than he who is
in the world (1
Jn. 4: 4). In contrast to
[Page 158] his regenerate readers,
the next verse refers to those who are from the world. His understanding of the saved state of his
readers is further clarified when he says of them, These things I have written
to you who believe in the name of the Son
of God (1 Jn. 5: 13). For John, when a person has believed on the name of
the Son* of God, he is born again (Jn. 3: 15-16). In fact, one who has believed in the Son of God has overcome the world (Jn.
5: 5). Finally,
while the world lies in the
power of the evil one, we know that we are of God (1 Jn. 5: 18).
[* [For] in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts
4: 12, R.V.).]
Throughout the epistle he uses the term we 23 and includes himself in the same spiritual state and facing the same
spiritual dangers as his readers.
23 1:
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 2: 1.
Any system of interpretation which ignores these plain
statements in the interests of fitting a theological scheme must ask, How else could John say it? If he wanted to assert that his readers were
in fact born again in contrast to the world, how could he make it clearer?
The Gnostic
Heresy
The readers were plunged by false teachers who
had introduced an incipient form of Gnosticism into the church. It is still impossible to draw final
conclusions as to the nature of the heresy apart from specific references in
the text of 1 John itself which strive to refute it. One of the key
heresies, however, was that there was a mixture
in God of good and evil, light and darkness, and therefore the new creation in
Christ could similarly have a mixture and still be holy. This justified the Gnostic notion that sin
was permissible for the Christian. John
reacts in horror to this notion by saying God is light, and in Him there
is no darkness at all (1 Jn. 1: 5). In the Greek
text the sentence structure seems to require an emphatic reading, God is light, and in Him there is absolutely no darkness, not any whatsoever! 24 He may be responding to a particular Gnostic notion
of God in this passage.
24 The phrase
at all (Gk. oudemia) is sitting in a commonly emphatic position. Apparently the author wants to emphasise
Gods complete separation from any kind of darkness.
What was Gnosticism?
It is impossible to classify the varieties, but at its core was an
attempt to combine Christianity with various pagan and Jewish
philosophies. It seems to have come from
two basic sources: Alexandrian philosophy and Zoroastrianism. 25
25 John
Rutherford, Gnosticism, in ISBE, 2: 1241-42.
Alexandrian philosophy is seen in the attempt by Philo
to expound the Old Testament in terms of Platos thought. A line was drawn between God and the material
world. God does not exert any direct
action on the material world; He [Page 159] operates only through intermediaries - angels and demons. The soul existed before birth and is now
imprisoned in the flesh. In order to be
saved, we must break out of the flesh.
In the ancient eastern philosophy of Zoroastrianism
the world was viewed as battleground between the good and the evil
spirits. It was a dualistic view of the
cosmos, common in many eastern faiths.
Gnosticism took the Greek opposition between spirit
and matter and the Persian dualism as the basis of its system.
The essential question for the Gnostic was, What is the origin of evil?
he did not ask, What must I do to be saved? but What is the origin of evil? In the answer to his question redemption was
to be found.
1. The initiated have a special knowledge. They were more enlightened than ordinary
Christians.
2. There is a strict separation between matter and
spirit, and matter is essentially evil.
3. The demiurge is the source of evil. He is the creator of the world and is
distinct from the supreme Deity.
Intermediate beings between God and man formed the universe and were
responsible for evil. This, of course,
only located the source in the demiurge but does not explain how it got into
him in the first place.
4. Denial of true humanity of Christ. His sufferings were unreal.
5. Denial of personality of supreme God and of the
free will of man.
6. Teachings of asceticism and antinomianism.
7. Combination of Christianity with pagan thought.
8. Old Testament Scriptures were a product of a
demiurge, or inferior creator of the world, the God of the Jews. 26
26 Ibid., 2: 1241.
These teachings led, paradoxically, to both asceticism
and antinomianism. The ascetic side
developed from the thought that, if matter and spirit are [Page
140] completely separate and matter
is evil, then sin and evil are inherent in the material substance of the body,
and the only way we can achieve perfection is to punish the body. By the infliction of pain and the
mortification of the flesh, the region of pure spirit may be reached, and we
may become like God.
The antinomian expression of Gnosticism developed in
the following manner. If the soul and
body are separate entities and have nothing in common, then let the soul go its
own way, the way of the spirit, and let the body go its own way as well. If the soul and body are completely extinct
and separate, then nothing that the body does can corrupt the soul, no matter
how carnal and depraved. 27 Ignatius said of them, They give no heed to love, caring not for the
widow, the orphan or the afflicted, neither for those who are in bondage, or
for those who are released from bonds, neither for the hungry nor the thirsty. This sounds strikingly like certain
references to their teaching in 1 John (2: 9; 3: 14; 4: 7-8). In 1 John
many of these tendencies are evident:
27 Ibid., 2: 1242
1. Higher knowledge - John refers to them claiming to
be in the light, abiding in Christ, and knowing God, and yet they
are without love and obedience. Only by walking as Jesus did can we claim to
be abiding (2: 6).
2. Its loveless nature - They had only intellectual
head knowledge and no love for the brethren.
3. Docetism - God cannot have contact with
matter. Therefore, the incarnation of
the Supreme God is not possible (1 Jn. 2: 22-23). Jesus only appeared to have a human body.
4. Antinomianism - The Gnostics alleged that sin was a
thing indifferent in itself. It made no difference to the spiritual man whether he sinned
with his body or not. 28
28 Ibid., 2: 1243.
It is not certain what the precise form of Gnosticism
was which John confronts. However, from
other references in his writings and those of Polycarp, we can be certain of
some of its broad outlines. In the book
of Revelation John alludes to Satans so-called deep secrets (Rev. 2: 24). This phrase, to know
the depths (deep secrets) was common in
the Ophite sect. From this language we may, I think, infer the existence of
an Ophite sect, boasting of its peculiar gnosis, 29
Gnosticism, before reaching its full development, was fully [Page
161] represented by the Ophite sects
or systems. They were so named because
of the word ophis, serpent, to which they
paid honour as the symbol of intelligence.
They held that the creator of the world was an
ignorant and imperfect being, Ialdaboth, the Son of Chaos; and that it was a
meritorious act when the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to disobey Him.
30 Some of these sects even chose as heroes persons whom the Bible
condemns, such as Cain and the men of
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid., 2: 1246.
We know from Polycarp that the apostle heatedly opposed
Cerinthus, a well-known Gnostic heretic of the first century. Polycarp says that they encountered each
other at
Thus, the Ophites ascribed
the origin of the working of evil to God. 32 That is why John calls their depth
the depths of Satan. He is being
sarcastic.
In addition, the Gnostics taught that the supreme God
was without personality and was pure spirit.
He was the unfathomable Abyss. The fullness deity, pleroma, flows out from him in emanations, or aeons, all of which are necessarily imperfect, each of these emanations or aeons or angels [was] more spiritual than the grade immediately below it. 33 At
the end of the chain is the world of man.
Life continues to be unfolded in such a way
that its successive grades sink farther and farther from the purity of God, the
life is feebler the nearer they come to matter, with which, at length, they
blend. Such, according to Gnosticism, is the origin
of evil. 34
34 Ibid.
It is
against the background of the notion of an imperfect Creator, a demiurge with a
mixture of good and evil, that Johns rebuke must be seen. This is the message we have
heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all (1
Jn. 1:
5). There
is no blending of good and evil in God!
[Page
162]
These things I have written to you who
believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have
eternal life (1 Jn. 5: 13 NKJV).
According to the Experimental Predestinarian
interpretation, then, John writes to give believers several tests by which they
can reflect upon whether or not they are saved.
If they pass these tests, then they are truly saved. However, such a view of the purpose of the
epistle demands entirely on the interpretation of the tests. Are these tests of life, tests of whether or
not one is born again, or tests of whether or not one is walking in fellowship
with God? One cannot assume
the former, which is the very point in question, and then use it to determine
the meaning of the purpose clause. To do
so is to argue in a circle. In a word,
are they tests of regenerate life, or are they tests of abundant life?
The above verse is written to those who believe, that is, to regenerate
people. How do born again people acquire
assurance that they are born again? It is not by reflecting on their works. Rather, as the immediate antecedent to these things says, the
one who believes in the Son of God has
the witness in himself (1 Jn. 5: 10). He who
believes has the Son, and he who has the Son has
the life (5: 12). The exegetical basis for taking the
antecedent to these things as being the immediately preceding context (rather
than the whole book) is that Johns usage elsewhere of the same phrase always
locates the antecedent in the immediately preceding context. 35 In
addition, in Jn. 5:
24 John makes it plain that the only
condition for knowing that you have eternal life is that you have believed, and it is belief alone that is the subject of the
preceding 5: 9-12.
35 See 2: 1, which refers to 1:
5-10, and
2: 26,
which refers to 2: 18-25. Because
2: 1
refers only to 1: 5-10 and not to all of chapter
1, it will not do to protest that this cannot parallel 5: 13 because
only chapter 1 had been written before 2: 1. The phrase I am
writing found in 2: 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 does not seem to refer to all the preceding,
but to the immediate, verses he is writing.
What then is the purpose of the writer in writing 1 John? It is found where one would
often find a purpose statement on a book or letter, in the opening paragraph (1 Jn.
1: 3).
What we have seen and heard we proclaim to
you also, that you may have fellowship with us, and indeed our
fellowship is with the Father, and with
His Son Jesus Christ (NASB).
His purpose in writing to these regenerate people is
so that they may walk in fellowship with
God! As Braune puts it, The manifest purpose of the Apostle [is] to preserve
readers in the fellowship with God. 36
36 Karl Braune, The Epistles
General of John, in Langes, 12: 15.
He is not writing to test their salvation; he is
writing so that his joy may be made complete (1
Jn. 1: 4). His joy was
present; it had begun because they had [page 163] been born again.
But he wants to complete this joy by seeking them walk in fellowship.
The completion of the joy does not refer to his desire to obtain
assurance that they are really saved, but as the apostle himself explains, I have no greater joy than
this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth (3 Jn. 4). He
wants to rejoice that his saved children are
walking in the truth!
Jesus used the term in the same way when He addressed
His regenerate disciples: If you love Me, keep My
commandments.
These things I have spoken
to you, that My joy may
be in you, and that your joy may be made full
(Jn. 15: 11-12). To have ones
joy made full is not to become a Christian but, being a Christian
already, to act like it!
How can we know they are walking in the truth, and how
can they know it in the face of the confusion introduced into their midst by
the Gnostics? The Gnostics were maintaining that a child of God could have sin in his
life and still be in fellowship, abiding in Christ! The remaining portions of the book present
several tests of whether or not a Christian is walking in fellowship with God, tests by which the falsity of the
Gnostic teaching could be discerned.
They are not tests of whether or not these born again children are
really Christians.
The Tests of
Fellowship with God
If we really know Him, we obey Him. The Gnostics
claimed to know God, and yet their indifference to sin in the body led
them to disobey Gods commands. How can
such people claim to know God? John says:
And by this we know that we have come to
know Him, if we keep His commandments. The man who says, I have
come to know Him, and does not keep
His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not
in him; but whoever keeps
His word, in him the love of God
has truly been perfected.
By this we know that we are in Him. The one who says he
abides in Him ought
himself to walk in the same manner as He walked (1 Jn. 2: 3-6 NASB).
Whosoever does not love does not know God, because God is love
(1 Jn. 4:
8).
Experimental Predestinarians have used these passages
to prove their doctrine of perseverance in holiness. True Christians, i.e., those who know God,
are those who keep His commands and who have love for their brethren. The absence of obedience or love in the life
of a man is, on the authority of these verses, proof that he is not a Christian
at all. He does not know God.
[Page
164]
But for John in this passage, knowing God is to walk
in fellowship with Him. It does not refer to the entrance into eternal
life at justification but to the continuing experience with Christ called
fellowship. What is in focus here is
not whether or not they are regenerate but whether or not Gods love has been perfected in them. Gods love
cannot be brought to completion in one who does not have it at all! In fact, in 2: 4 and 2: 6 John equates knowing God with abiding
in Him. 37 He is not discussing their
justification; he is discussing their walk (1 Jn. 2: 6).
37 As will be discussed below, the abiding relationship refers to our walk of fellowship and not our experience of
regeneration.
Johns usage here is illustrated by his usage in Jn.
14. There he quotes Jesus as saying to Philip:
If you had known Me, you would have known
My Father also; from now on you know
Him, and have seen Him (Jn. 14: 7 NASB).
Philip naturally wants to know the Father. But Jesus says:
Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not
known Me, Philip?
(14: 9 NASB).
What did Jesus mean when He said that Philip did not
know Him? Of course Philip did know
Jesus in a saving sense. He had believed and followed Christ (1: 43). But he did not know Him in some other sense.* He did not seem to know how fully the
Son of God had manifested the Father. This
knowledge comes only as the disciples obey Him (14: 21). In other words, we come to know Him in a
deeper sense by means of obedience.
[* See for example, how Paul states his desire to all the holy ones in Anointed Jesus (Phil. 1: 1), relative to the
resurrection out of the dead ones
(Phil. 3:
10, a literal Greek translation.)]
This is the same as Johns thought expressed as having
fellowship with
Him in 1 Jn. 1: 6-7:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth, but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another (NASB).
It is also called having His joy in them and having their joy
be made full in
Jn. 15: 11. It is something which is experienced by those
who are already regenerate, the disciples in this case.
A Christian who claims to know God but in whose life
there is no evidence is a liar. He may or may not be a Christian, but he
definitely does not know God. As
John puts it, the truth is not
in him.
But can the truth be not in a truly regenerate
person? There are good reasons to
believe that this passage is directed at
the regenerate and not just those that profess to be so but are not. In the [Page 165] opening verses of the epistle John says, And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce
to you (1:
5).
The we manifestly refers to the apostles. Therefore, the next verse must also include
the apostles when he states, If we say we have fellowship with Him, and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth
(1: 6). It is possible for an apostle to lie and not
practice the truth! It is therefore possible, according to
John, for the truth to not be in a regenerate person. This
requires that truth does not refer
to the seed of life but to active application of truth in daily experience. Truth
can either be in us or not in us depending upon whether we are obeying. For the truth to be not in us simply means that we are not practicing
the truth (1 Jn. 1: 6, 8, 10).
Does everyone who is born again manifest love? The
answer is obviously no. That is why John goes on to say
that everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (1 Jn. 4: 7).
There is a difference between being born again and
knowing God. Knowing God is a matter of
degrees, while being born again, like physical birth, is an absolute transition
from hell [or Hades (Lk. 16: 23; Acts 2: 27: 34, R.V.] to
heaven. The word know has the same latitude in Greek that it does in
English. A wife complains, Even though we have been married for ten years, he does not know me. Her meaning is not that they
have never become acquainted but that her husband never took the time to know
her in the sense of intimate fellowship. If a
Christian claims to know God experientially but does not obey Gods commands,
he is lying. John continues
by saying that we know we are in
Him and abide in Him by walking
as He walked (1 Jn. 2: 5-6). His
meaning is simply that we know Christ in our experience; our experience is
Christ-like, only if we are walking like Jesus walked.
For John, one gets to know God by fellowshipping with
Him and abiding in that fellowship. The
loveless Cerinthus and his Gnostic followers were legendary for saying that
they knew God, yet they did not demonstrate practical love. Obviously, anyone who is born again can in
one sense say he knows God. But John is
not speaking of an absolute knowing but a developing
relationship manifested in gradually increasing works of love for the brethren. When viewed that way, there are
certainly some [regenerate] Christians
who do not know God, who are not walking in fellowship with Him, even
if, like the Gnostics, they claim to be.
Eternal salvation is an either-or affair: you either
have it or you do not. Whoever believes
in Christ has eternal life [at the time of their initial faith]. Belief occurs at a point in
time; it is not a process. Fellowship with Christ, however, is a
process. Knowing Him
experientially is not all or nothing.
There are degrees. Our fellowship with Christ is not something that happens at a point of
time; it is a process which continues over a lifetime and varies in intensity proportional
to our obedience.
The apostle Paul used the word know
in a similar sense when he said, I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His [Page
166] sufferings (Phil. 3: 10). Paul already knows Christ in the sense of
possessing justification, but he wants to know Him intimately, to have
continual fellowship with Him.
Also in 1 Cor. 8: 1-3 (NASB) the apostle says:
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all
have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love
edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is
known by Him.
The carnal Christians at
What a beautiful thing, at the end of life, to be
known as a man who really knew God and who was truly Gods friend! (Jas. 2:
23).
True
Christians never depart from us. In 1 Jn. 2: 19-20 the
apostle declares, They went out from us, but
they did not really belong to us.
For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
Lloyd-Jones says, The
fact that they had gone out proves that they had never really belonged; they
were merely within the realm of the church, and appeared to be Christian.
38
38 Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of
Chapter 8: 17-39, The Final Perseverance of the Saints
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 285.
Jones is identifying us with all
Christians. However, elsewhere in the
epistle John distinguishes between us, i.e., the apostolic
circle, and you, the believers
to whom he is writing. For example, in 1:
3 he
says, We proclaim to you what
we have seen and heard. And in 1: 5 he asserts, This is the message we have heard from Him
and declare to you that you may have fellowship with us. Finally, he
says, We [i.e., the apostles] are from God, and whoever knows God
listens to us; whoever is not from God does
not listen to us [like Cerinthus
and other false apostles] (1 Jn. 4: 6). It would seem then that the us of
2: 19-20, to be
consistent with Johns usage elsewhere, is
not to be equated with the readers but with the apostles. In other places where this contrast is found,
the us is [Page 167] understood as the apostolic circle.
Experimental Predestinarians often correctly point out that the we of
1: 3, 5, where it
refers to the apostles, is also used of all Christians. This, however, misses the point. When we or us is contrasted with you, it always distinguishes
the apostolic circle from the larger body of Christians. And this appears to be the situation in 2:
19
where the us is placed in contrast once again to the larger body
of Christians in v. 20, you.
The fact that these antichrists departed from the
apostolic circle is proof that they were never truly of the apostles even
though they, like Cerinthus, claimed to be true apostles. If they were true apostles, they would have joined
with John and listened to him.
If these false teachers had left the church to which
the readers belonged, it is difficult to see why they would be a problem. What would be the need to refute them? They would no longer be there troubling the
believers. If, on the other hand, they
had left the apostolic circle and yet
were claiming to be rooted in it and from
There is no statement here that true believers
will persevere to the end. Nor is there
the statement that, if a man departs from the faith, this proves he was never a
Christian in the first place. What is taught is that, if these so-called
apostles were really apostles, they would have listened to the apostle John and
would have continued in fellowship with the Twelve.
There is no
sin at all in the new creation. If God is imperfect, if the creator is a demiurge possessing mostly good and some evil, then sin
may be a matter of some indifference.
For this reason he says, in
Him is no sin (1 Jn. 1: 5). It is very
emphatic in Greek, no sin, none at all! as if he were countering this Ophite heresy of the
imperfect God. If
there is a mixture in God, who is at the bottom end of the emanations from the
Deity. That new man in Christ
then, instead of being the perfect sinless creation of a perfect God, the
Gnostic could reason, there is also a mixture of evil and good in the creation
which emanates from Him, the new man in Christ, who is at the bottom end of the
emanations from the Deity. That new man
in Christ then, instead of being the perfect sinless creation of a perfect God,
is a blend of good and evil. Sin is therefore not of great concern.
Seen in this light, Johns absolute statement makes
good sense:
No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, let no
one deceive you; the one who
practices righteousness is righteous, just as
He is righteous; the one who
practices sin is of the devil; for the
devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God
appeared for this purpose, that He might
destroy the works of the devil.
No one born of God sins, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God (1 Jn. 3: 6-9 NASB)
[Page
168]
It is better to take the statements as they stand, as
absolutes. Then it is saying anyone born of God does not sin even one time, not at all. Yet since he has already said that a man who
says he never sins is a liar (1: 8), he must be viewing the sinning Christian from a
particular point of view. The anyone
refers to the person as a whole and not a part of him. The Christian, viewed as a man born of God,
and particularly as abiding in Christ, does not sin even once. For the Gnostics, a man could be abiding in
Christ and yet sin could still be in his life because sin was from the body and
was a matter of indifference. John
counters that sin is never a part of the abiding experience. The reason he does not sin even once is
because Gods seed abides in
him.
Gods seed is the regenerate new
nature given to each believer when he is born again (Jn.
1: 13). Certainly
the parallel holds in physical life.
When we are born, we inherit the nature of our parents. Jesus Himself in describing the born again
experience made it analogous to physical birth (Jn. 3). Elsewhere Paul refers to this perfect new
nature as the new
self (Eph. 4:
24),
or new man
(Col. 3: 10).
This means that sin cannot be a product of regenerate
life, as the Gnostics maintained. So when anyone sins, he is responsible for it; but the
source of it cannot be the seed of God in him. That seed cannot ever result in the Christian
committing even one act of sin.
John is saying that the believer, from his capacity as
one born of God and who is abiding in Christ, cannot sin. If he
sins, it is not an expression of the character as the new creation. It is as if someone says, The president cannot break the law. Now it is acknowledged that as a man he can,
but in his position as president he cannot.
If he does, that is not an expression of his character as the
president. If someone says, A priest [or
Protestant Bible teacher] cannot commit fornication,
one cannot deny that as a man he can commit it; but priests, functioning as
priests [or Protestant
Bible teachers], do not do these things. The Bible uses language in a similar way, A good tree cannot produce bad fruit (Mt. 7: 18). Of course a
good tree can produce bad fruit, but not as a result of what it really is, a good tree. Also
Jesus said, men cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them (Mk.
2: 19). They can
fast, but to do so is incongruous and unnatural. 39
39 H. Bonar, Gods Way of
Holiness (
Similarly, when John says, No one born of God sins, he is saying that the person, as a man born of God,
does not sin. If he sins, it is not an expression of who he is as a man who has been
born of God. It is not compatible with abiding in him
(1 Jn. 3:
6).
We are not ascribing to John the teaching that a part
of a man, such as his new nature, cannot sin but that the total, responsible
man, as a born one, cannot sin as an
expression of who he is as the new creation of God. If he sins,
it is not an expression of who he is in Christ; if the president breaks the
law, it is not an [Page 169] expression of who he is as president; and if the priest [a
Protestant ordained teacher] fornicates, it is not an expression of who he is as a
priest [or ordained Protestant].
Similar notions are found in Pauline thought. Paul says, I have been circumcised with Christ; and it is no longer I who
live, but Christ 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 delivered Himself up for me (Gal. 2: 20). If a Christian sins, his sin cannot be an
expression of who he really is, because his true life
is that of Christ in him.
But if I am doing the very thing I do not
wish, I am no
longer the one doing it, but sin which
dwells in me. I find then a principle of evil is present in
me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur
with the law of God in the inner man, but I
see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my
members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free
from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our
Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of
God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin (Rom. 7: 20-25 NASB).
Paul in some sense understands that the true Paul, the
real Paul, I myself, does not
serve sin. If when he sins, the true
Paul, the inner man, the new creation in Christ, is not the one doing
it, then who, we might ask, is doing it?
The answer is, of course, the
whole person is doing the sin and is responsible for it. However, the source of that sin is in the flesh
and is not in the new creation in
Christ, the regenerate new nature. 40 The first step toward victory over sin is to be
absolutely convinced as Paul and John are, that it is completely foreign to our new
identity in Christ.
40 See chapter 9
for a brief discussion of the terms nature, person, ego, and new man and how they relate together in biblical
psychology.
But according to the Gnostics, sinning can be a
possible expression of the born-again person, and this is the precise heresy
which John is trying to counteract. To
him an imperfect demiurge can create an imperfect new creation. Furthermore, sin was a matter of the body
anyway and not of the spirit and could be ignored because the spirit was the
only thing of importance. Since there is
a strong separation between spirit and matter, the sins of the body, according
to the Gnostics, do not corrupt the spirit.
This interpretation allows us to take the absolutes seriously and fits
well with the context and is explainable in light of the Gnostic heresy being
refuted.
The new creation, being the product of a sinless and
perfect parent, cannot sin even once.
The Gnostics, seeking a mixture of sin in God, allowed that the new
creation (i.e., born again Christian) inevitably sinned and this was not [Page
170] a matter of great
significance. The Gnostics could derive
no justification for antinomianism from the notion of an imperfect God and a
resultant imperfect new creation. The
same phrase is repeated in 1
Jn. 5:
18
with the qualifying thought, the
one who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one cannot harm him:
We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born
of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him (NASB)
When the Christian is viewed as one born of God, the reference is evidently to his new identity as a
new man in Christ. The new man is
sinless (Eph. 4: 20; Col. 3: 10), and no sin in the life of the Christian ever comes from
who he really is, a new creation. In 1 Jn.
3: 9 the immediate reason for the absolute absence of sin
from the new creation was because
His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God. Now John explains the ultimate reason for the
total absence of sin from the new man in Christ. It is due to the protective activity of THE one born of God.
Who is the one born of God? The Christian is described as one born of God,
but the verb is in the perfect tense.
The second reference to one born of God employs the aorist tense and suggests that Christ is the one doing the keeping.
41 This would be consistent with Johns view that Jesus was Gods only begotten Son (Jn. 1: 14). The keeping ministry of Jesus Christ
absolutely prevents sin in the new creation.
41 See David Smith, The Epistles of
John, in EGT, 5: 198.
We are also told that the Satan cannot touch
him. It is obvious that the Satan can touch the new man and the Christian as
a whole. A particular kind of influence
from Satan must be in view. A
satisfactory explanation is the Christian is never touched by Satan in the sense of coming under his power to
lead him to damnation and hell. This
verse is simply the fulfilment of the Lords prayer, My prayer is not that you take them out of
the world but you protect them from the evil one (Jn. 17: 15), and While I was with them, I
protected them and kept them safe by the name you gave Me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction
so that Scripture would be fulfilled (Jn.
17: 12). The loss
from which they are being kept is destruction, or hell. So Johns meaning is that the Christian, as
an expression of who he really is, does not sin even once but, on the contrary,
or in fact, is being kept from eternal
damnation, the normal consequence of all sin, by Jesus Christ Himself. Thus, Jesus Christ not only keeps the new man
from any sin at all but also protects him from ever going to hell. It is a strong verse for eternal security.
The alternative impression of this passage, followed
by some Experimental Predestinarians and reflected in the translation of the
New [Page 171] International
Bible stresses the present tense of the word to sin. The NIV translates, no one born of God will continue to sin. Thus, these
translators, and many Experimental Predestinarians, see John as saying that the
Christian may sin once in a while, but he will not continually sin. If he does, this simply proves he is not a
Christian at all.
However, as is well known, because the present tense
does not have a form of punctiliar action, one cannot tell by looking at the
Greek form whether sin at a point in time (no sin at all!) or sin as a
continual practice is meant. The
durative force of the present tense requires contextual justification. Such a force in this context leads to
absurdities which Johns Gnostic opponents would readily accept. In fact, the verb cannot take a durative
sense in other passages, such as 1: 7-10 or 2: 1-2, 42 and
it makes contextual nonsense in 1 Jn. 3: 1-10. The Gnostics argued that one could sin and
have fellowship with God. The present tense interpretation agrees and
could hardly be a refutation of Gnosticism.
It says that a man can sin a little and have fellowship. So little sin will not destroy fellowship,
but a lot will. The Gnostics would laugh
at such a refutation of their arguments.
Furthermore, the reason he does not sin is because Gods seed is in him and he cannot sin. On the
present tense view, the seed of God is powerful enough to prevent habitual sin,
but it is not powerful enough to prevent a little sin. Surely this cannot be Johns meaning. Neither can we say that the seed is only
powerful enough to prevent the sin of unbelief but not powerful enough to
prevent moral sins of other kinds. That
would only mean that the seed of God could prevent a Christian from denying
Christ but not from daily acts of sin which are each a denial of Christ by life,
if not by works. Yet the Gnostics would
have favoured that view of the seed. It
kept them from believing in Christ, which they did anyway, but it did not
interfere with committing some acts of sin.
42 It would be incorrect to say Johns meaning in 1: 8 is really
if we say that we do not continually have sin we
deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Pressing such a distinction between continual
and non-habitual sin leads to the absurd conclusion that John means that if we
are sinning non-habitually then we are not deceiving ourselves and the truth is
in us.
John Murray argues against the present tense
interpretation on two grounds: (1) The meaning of habitual
is not precisely defined; and (2) it leaves too much room for a loophole which contradicts
the incisiveness of Johns teaching. It
allows that the believer might commit certain sins, but not habitually. [Page
172] This
would contradict the decisiveness of such a statement that the one begotten of
God does not sin and cannot sin. 43
43 John Murray, Collected Writings
of John Murray, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:
283.
John concludes his discussions by saying, By this the children of God
and the children of the devil are obvious, (1
Jn. 3: 10a
NASB).
By placing a colon after are obvious, the NIV
translators are signifying that the referent of this
is the following statement: Anyone
who does not do what is right,
is not a child of God; neither is anyone who does not love his brother (Jn. 3: 10b). In most other cases in 1 John the phrase in this, en touto, refers to the item following and not the item preceding. 44 The
verse becomes a bridge between his
discussion of righteousness and the expression of it in practical love in the
following section.
44 See 2: 3, 5; 3: 16, 19, 24; 4: 2, 10, 13.
The Greek text reads, By this are the children of God and the children of the devil
revealed (Gk. phanera). He is referring
to the following statement, Anyone who does not do what is right is not of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. Earlier he
said, He who
does what is right is righteous, just as he is
righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil (1 Jn. 3: 8).
When a Christian is of the devil, John
means that, when he commits even one sinful act, in the doing of that act, the source of it was Satan. He has just said that a Christian is not
permitted to sin at all, not even once.
Now he continues as if to say, In fact, the
absence of sin in the life of a Christian is one way he reveals by his actions that
he is a Christian. Furthermore, the
presence of sin in the life of a non-Christian is how he reveals that he is a
non-Christian. However, when a
Christian sins (and John believes he can and will, 1
Jn. 2: 1),
in that act he is behaving like a child
of Satan. Who he really is is not
being made evident. To use Pauls
phrase, he is walking like a mere man (1 Cor. 3: 3).
One way the
regenerate nature can become obvious or evident to others is through righteous
actions. A child of God reveals his true nature when
he performs such actions. The child of
the devil, on the other hand, reveals his true nature when he sins. When a Christian sins, even once, he is not revealing the presence of his new
nature within. The Gnostics, no
doubt, would have been somewhat indifferent to the idea that righteous
behaviour revealed the presence of a [Page 173] new nature within and that unrighteous behaviour
revealed that the person was a child of Satan.
The presence or absence of sin revealed nothing to them; they were
indifferent to it.
But note that John does not say what the Experimental Predestinarians say. He
does not say that the presence of sin in the life of a Christian proves that he
is not a Christian at all. He says
only that, when a Christian does not do what is right, in that act he is not of God, ek tou theou (1
Jn. 3: 10b). In other
places in Johns epistle, when that purpose stands by itself, as it does here,
it means that he is not of God in the
sense that the source of his behaviour is not of God, not that he is
unregenerate. For example, the
apostle in reference to the apostolic band says, We are of God
. ek tou theou (1 Jn. 4: 6). He means their source of authority is God. 45 In a
similar way we might say today, That man is of God
or We really feel the suggestion is of God or
It seems evident that this situation is of God.
45.See also
4: 1, 3, 6, 7.
John knew that Christians sin. What he does say is that, when a Christian
sins, there is no evidence, at least in
that act, of his regenerate nature; it is, in effect, concealed. The only way others can tell whether or not
we are born again is if we reveal it by our actions. If we
do not reveal it by our actions, that does not mean we are not born again, but
it does mean that our true identity is not evident.
Love for the
brethren. John introduces the idea that true
Christianity expresses itself in love for other Christians and that hatred of a fellow Christian is
incompatible with the Christian faith.
He does not say that a Christian who hates his brother is not a
Christian, but, rather, that he abides in death and that he
does not have eternal [Gk. aionian] life abiding in him:
We know that we have passed out of death into
life, because
we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates
his brother is a murderer, and you know that no
murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 Jn. 3: 14-15 NASB).
The phrase passed from death unto life is
found elsewhere in John:
Most assuredly, I say to you,
he who hears My word and believes in
Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall
not come into judgment, but has passed from
death into life (Jn. 5: 24 NKJV).
It is possible that passing from death into life in
both passages refers to the experience
of regeneration. John is saying that
we know (Gk. oida,
recognise) that we are regenerate by the fact
that we have love for our brothers in Christ in our hearts. Here in no uncertain terms, love for the
brothers is an [Page
174] evidence of sonship! But this in no way proves the Experimental
Predestinarian assertion that justification and sanctification are inevitably
united. The passage does not say what
Experimental Predestinarians say. It
does not say that an absence of love is proof that one is not a son, only that
he is abiding in death, i.e., living in
the sphere from which he has been delivered. It does not say that, if a man is born again,
he will always manifest love. It does
say that the presence of love is a way
he can recognise his regeneration.
As will be discussed in chapter 12, the work of the Holy Spirit in our
life is a secondary confirmation to our hearts that we are born again but is
not the basis of our assurance.
Johns favourite term for an intimate walk with Christ
is abide. This term is
his word for something conditional
in the believers relationship with Christ, fellowship with the family. The conditional nature of the abiding relationship
is brought out where Jesus says, If you keep My
commandments, you will abide in My love
(Jn. 15: 10 NASB). His foremost command, which must be obeyed if
we are to abide in Him, is the command which John discusses in 1 John, the command to love one
another (Jn. 15: 12). Only
if we love one another, do we remain in friendship (fellowship) with Christ! You are My friends, if you do what I
command you (Jn. 15: 14 NASB).
And the one who keeps His
commandments abides
in Him, and He
in him (1 Jn. 3: 24 NASB).
By this statement John signals clearly that the abiding relationship is conditioned on obedience, in contrast to the regeneration experience
which comes through faith alone (1 Jn. 5: 10-11).
We conclude that the abiding relationship is not the regeneration experience. Rather, it refers to the degree of intimacy
and fellowship with the Lord possible for those who continue to obey His commands.
For John, Jesus Christ is the eternal life which abides
in us (see 1: 2). To have Christ abiding in us (1 Jn. 3: 15, i.e., eternal [Gk. aionian] life) is not the same thing as being saved. It is
a conditional relationship referring to Christs being at home in the
heart of the obedient Christian who loves his brother. It must also
be remembered that these commands are to be fulfilled for a mans Christian brother. If the man
is not a Christian, then his term is inappropriate.
Can a true Christian hate his brother? Of
course he can. The phrase one who hates his brother is an articular present participle in Greek, which
normally does not have a durative sense.
Thus, it is grammatically doubtful to claim that this is the mans
habitual life-style. Rather, it may refer only to incidents of murder or hatred at a point in his
life.
David is a good example of a justified man who not
only hated but followed up the murder in his heart in reality by killing Uriah
the Hittite (2 Sam. 12:
9).
Even Peter acknowledges that it is possible for a true Christian [Page
175] to suffer as a murderer
(1 Pet. 4:
15), and who has not felt anger in his heart at some time and is thus, on the
authority of Jesus, a murderer (Mt. 5: 21-22)?
When we harbour anger in our heart, John says, we are,
in effect, murderers, and we abide in death, the very sphere from which we were
delivered when we became Christians. We
walk as mere men
(1 Cor. 3:
3),
i.e., as if we were still in an unregenerate state. We are carnal Christians who are walking in darkness (1 Jn. 2: 11) and are in danger of losing our reward (2 Jn. 8) and shrinking
back in shame at the judgment (1 Jn. 2: 28). Jesus Christ is not at home in such a
heart. He does not abide there.
The Mark of
the Beast
During the reign of the Antichrist, terrible
persecution will come upon all believers.
The World Leader will require that all receive a mark on their right
hand or forehead, and without this mark they will not be able to buy food for
their families (Rev.
13: 16-17). Anyone who receives this mark is proven to be
unregenerate and will be therefore condemned (Rev. 14: 9-11). For a
believer who can never accept the mark, some degree of faithfulness is evident.
It is clear from the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt.
25: 1-13) and the fact
that it is stated that during tribulation the love of the many will grow cold (Matt.
24: 12), that there
will be unfaithful Christians during this time, and some will live to the end. How can one have a sufficient degree to avoid
coldness and rebuke and loss of reward when the King returns? Like the unpardonable sin, the sin of
accepting the mark is frightening.
Unfaithful, cold Christians will not accept this mark for three reasons;
(1) some may be afraid to; (2) they will be prevented from it; (3) or they will
die before accepting it. One thing the
carnal Christian fears is hell and he knows that if he accepts this mark, it is
proven that he is unregenerate. So many
believers will remain cold, go underground, and live out of fellowship with God
but will refuse the mark. It is not the
love of Christ that causes them to say no, but fear that He will carry out His
threats. Since they are elect, God will either work in their hearts or circumstances
so that they avoid accepting the mark, or He will take them to be with Him
before they do.
The entire period involves special circumstances of
divine and human wrath, the deceptions of Satan, and a removal of the
restraining influence of the Holy Spirit against sin in the world. To grant a special work of God during these
times to prevent true believers from accepting the mark of the beast in no way
justifies the inference that the doctrine of the sinners perseverance in
holiness is scriptural.
* *
*
[Page
176 blank: Page 177]
Chapter
9
Justification
and Sanctification 2
Many other
arguments are sometimes offered for the teaching that the New Testament
connects justification and sanctification as an inseparable unity.
The New
Creation
Experimental Predestinarians are impressed with the
fact that Paul says any man in Christ is a new creation:
Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature;
the old things passed away; behold new things have come (2 Cor. 5: 17 NASB).
From this Iain H. Murray concludes, So Calvinism says that Christs work for
us - that is the legal,
forensic side of salvation - is never without Christs work in us.
Wherever there is a true change in a mans relation to God there is also
a change in his subjective, moral, personal state. Thus, on this understanding, faced with the
question, Do I belong to Christ? the Christian is permitted to argue, Yes I
do belong to Christ because I find in myself changes which He alone can work
and changes which only His un-bought love prompted Him to work. 1
1 Iain H.
What is the new creation? While some, like Iain Murray, have
interpreted this to refer to subjective internal moral renewal, it may be fair
to say that this is by no means the prevalent view. 2 The fact that Paul connects the new creation with our
being in Christ points us to a positional status rather than an
experiential one. 3 As Martin Lloyd-Jones says, We
must differentiate between what is true of our position as a fact and our
experience.4 By
position, Lloyd-Jones [Page
178] means what the Christian is as a new man. The crucifixion of the old man (
2 See, for example, George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 179, where he rejects the idea that this passage
should be interpreted in terms of subjective
experience.
3 The new creation is commonly interpreted as a kind of
prophetic anticipation, an assurance here and now of something which will happen
experientially in the last day. Then we
are perfect. See H. H. Esser, Creation, NIDNTT, 1: 385.
4 D.
Martin Lloyd-Jones, The New Man: Exposition of Romans
6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 2
5 Ibid., p. 61.
The new creation of the heavens and the earth (Rev. 21: 1; Isa. 65: 17; 66: 22) does
not refer to a renovation of the old creation, but a new order. Peter
tells us to look for the total destruction of the present order (2 Pet. 2: 12) and the creation of a new heavens and a new
earth (2 Pet. 3:
13). Similarly, the old Man
was crucified. He no longer exists, and
we are a new man in Christ.
The new man in Eph.
4: 24 is
the regenerate self (Col. 3: 3-4). He is in
no sense the old self made over or improved. 6 The new self is Christ formed
in the Christian. 7 He is the new nature untied with the ego.
6 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15; Eph. 2: 10; Col. 3: 10.
7 Gal.
2: 20; 4:19; Col. 1: 27; 1 Jn. 4: 12.
The new nature is a new metaphysical entity, created
perfect by God at regeneration. It is a
creation. In Eph.
4: 24 we learn that the new man was created kata theon, according
to the standard of God, in
righteousness, and in hosiotes, holiness, piety of truth. It appears that this new self is as perfect
as God is. The fact that it has been created
means that it has no sin in it. God
would not create something with sin in it.
Does this mean that the person is perfect? No.
The person, the ego either lives in
his new capacity or his old. The person
always has both and is always sinful.
But when viewed from the single perspective of the person as united to
the new creation, i.e., the new man, he is perfect. That union, that identity,
is man as God intends man to be.
However, no person will ever live
life as the perfect new creation until his old nature is experientially as well
as forensically gone at resurrection.
Finally, in Col. 3: 10 we
are told to put on the new man
which is being renewed. 8 The new
self is being renewed in knowledge in
the image of the creator. 9 How can a perfect new man in Christ be renewed? The renewal is into
knowledge (eis) and kata according to the image
of God. The new man while without sin is
not mature. In the same way, Jesus, who
was perfect, was made [Page
179] perfect (Heb. 2: 10) through
suffering. Like Jesus the new man, who
really is in Christ, is renewed through
suffering (2 Cor. 4: 16). 10
8 Or Seeing you have put on the
new man.
9 renewed = anakainoumenon,
from anakainoo, the same word is
used in 2 Cor. 4:
16, inwardly we are renewed day by day. Paul refers to the new creation in Gal. 16: 15 where he says that only walking consistently in
the rule of the new creation.
10 Lk.
2: 52: Jesus grew in wisdom and stature.
Paul refers to the perfect new creation in Christ when
he says:
So now, no longer am I the one doing it,
but sin which indwells me (Rom. 7: 17 NASB).
But if I am doing the very thing I do not
wish, I am no longer
the one doing it, but sin which dwells
in me (Rom. 7: 20 NASB).
His meaning is transparent when seen in this
light. The sin in the believers life is
not a product of the new creation! The
new creation is sinless and created according to righteousness. Sin is no longer part of our new
identity. Lloyd-Jones finds further
evidence for the perfect, sinless, new man in Christ in these verses. He notes that Paul will say, I am not doing this or that,
it is this sin that remains in my members that does so. Sin is no longer in me,
it is in my members only. That is the
most liberating thing you have ever heard.
Our old self is gone, we should never think of ourselves in those terms
again. 11
11 Lloyd-Jones, The New Man, p. 83.
This helps explain Johns perplexing statement in 1 Jn. 3: 9, No one born of God sins. The new
man in Christ cannot sin; he is sinless.
John is speaking of the believer
from the viewpoint of the new creation, and sin, he says, cannot come from that.
Therefore, when Paul says that we are now a new
creation in Christ, he is not saying that we have been experimentally
transformed and will inevitably manifest a life of good works. In fact, he
repeatedly asks us to act like who we really are. He tells us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and to present ourselves to God as those alive from the dead
(Rom. 6: 13). He commands us to
put on the new man. 12 His meaning is that we are to be in
experience what we already are in Christ. If it is automatic and inevitable that this
will happen, why command it?
More to the point, nowhere does
the Bible assert that, just because a man is a new creation, he will act like
who he is in Christ to the final hour.
12 Eph. 4: 24 and Col. 3: 10.
The Christian
Cannot Live in Sin
Any discussion of the relationship between Gods free
gift of the justifying righteousness of Christ and the life of works which
should follow cannot ignore the central passage on the subject, Rom. 6. Experimental Predestinarians quote it often in support
of their view.
[Page
180]
As generally recognised, the context begins with 5:
20,
where Paul concludes that sin produces more grace to cover it up. He
marvels at the grace of God! as might be expected, however, such a doctrine is open to
the charge that it logically leads to a life of licence. Paul puts the words of the imaginary objector
into his epistle and opens Rom. 6 with the complaint: What shall we say, then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (Rom. 6: 1). His
opening statement should have alerted the Experimental Predestinarians to their
misunderstanding of the passage. He is
not discussing whether or not it is possible for a believer to continue in sin but whether or not such a lifestyle is logically
derived from the premise that grace abounds where sin increases.
His answer to this objector is one of horror, May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Once again,
he does not say, How could those who died to sin have
the capability (he does not use dunamai,
to have ability or capacity) to live in sin.
Whether or not true believers
have this capacity to fall into sin is not Pauls question. He is
refuting the notion that a life of sin is a logical outcome of the gospel of
grace. Pauls response will be to
insist that such a life-style is in no
way a logical deduction from his doctrine.
There are three arguments which Experimental Predestinarians
derive from this passage (Rom
6) to justify their notion that
sanctification necessarily follows justification. First, they are struck with the words dead to sin. A decisive breach with sin has occurred. Secondly, Paul assures his readers that sin shall not have dominion over them. And finally,
the contrasts between what they were prior to becoming Christians and what they
are now in Christ (6: 15-23) imply,
it is thought, that Christians cannot be characterised by the things of the old
man.
Dead to Sin
Central to the understanding of this important passage
is the significance of the concept death to sin. Many answers
have been given as to its real meaning.
While some have argued that it means death for sin and teaches that we
died for our own sins in Christ, 13 most have concluded that a break with sins power,
and not sins penalty, is in view. What
is the nature of this death?
13 Shedd, Commentary on
Romans (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1879; reprint ed.,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), p. 146.
Some teach that Pauls meaning is that our death to
sin is positional. By this they mean this is a truth not
necessarily experienced but absolutely true in the reckoning of God. It is true
truth. 14 Just as we did not experience dying with [Page
181] Christ, we did not experience
our death to sin. The practical effect of this positional death to sin is that we are no
longer obligated to obey it as our master.
14 Watchman
Nee, The Normal Christian Life (Fort Washington, PA: Christian
Literature Cruseade, 1961).
John Murray likes the word actual
instead of positional in regard to Rom.
6:
And this victory is actual or it is nothing. It is a reflection upon and a deflection from
the pervasive New Testament witness to speak of it as merely potential or positional. It
is actual and practical as much as anything
comprised in the application of redemption is actual and practical. 15
15 John
Murray, Redemption Acconplished and Applied
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 142.
He says this victory over the power of sin was
achieved once and for all and is not achieved
by a process, nor by our striving or working to that end. Yet he differs from perfectionism in three
ways:
1. They (perfectionists) fail to recognise that this
victory is possessed by everyone who is born of God.
2. They portray it as freedom from sinning or freedom
from conscious sin,
but the Bible says it is a freedom from the power and
love of sin.
3. They say this victory is a second blessing
separable from the state of justification.
Murray hardly makes it clear how an actual, practical,
and real break with sin, achieved once for all, can leave us with the daily
struggle. The terns used in Rom.
6 describe,
as
16 Ibid., p. 145.
He is therefore admitting that it is not real,
practical, nor actual once and for all in our
experience. Could we even say, then, it
is potential in our experience? Now that
is what many mean by positional truth.
[Page 182]
There is a total difference between
surviving sin and reigning sin, the regenerate in conflict with sin and the
unregenerate complacent to sin. It is
one thing for sin to live in us: it is another for us to live in sin. It is one thing for the enemy to occupy the
capital; it is another for his defeated hosts to harass the garrisons of the
kingdom. 17
17 Ibid.
This is great rhetoric, but does it really say anything? Apparently our death to sin was sufficient to
overcome reigning sin, but our union with Christ was not sufficient to overcome
reigning sin. Where is the difference
between reigning sin and remaining sin found in Scripture? Is there really any difference between sin
living (i.e., expressing itself in life) in us and our living in sin? The fact that as believers we are no longer
complacent to sin does not mean that sin is not very much alive and is incapable
of taking the capital again if we do not submit to the Lord of the kingdom.
But why does Paul say, How can we who died to sin, continue to live in it? Paul is refuting an
objection. His statement is very
definite and absolute. He is not saying we partially died but that
we completely died to sin. If this
death is an experiential death, then a serious problem develops. Who in the Calvinist tradition claims that
his experiential death to sin is absolute and total? Only by watering down Pauls absolute
statements to say that we died to sin a little bit experientially and that we
become more and more dead as we mature can this passage possibly be harmonised
with the Experimental Predestinarian doctrine of perseverance. Yet the passage is not saying that. We died to sin (absolute); indeed, our
relationship to sin is as total as severance and death as that of Jesus Himself
which is absolute (
Therefore, we must ask, Is
this death to sin actual in our experience or actual in the reckoning of
revelation? The fact that Paul
says in 6: 7 that
the man who has died is justified from
sin implies that for Paul this death to sin is legal, forensic, and positional,
and not automatically real in experience; it is absolute, not partial. The Greek word dikaloo is his normal word for the legal justification of the
sinner. 18 It is a forensic and not a real
in experience term. In fact
after pages of adjectives describing our decisive
breach with sin,
18 AG, p. 196.
19 John Murray, Definite
Sanctification, in The Collected Writings of John Murray,
2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977).
[Page
183]
Death to sin is real in our position but not necessarily real in life. Pauls commands to present ourselves to
righteousness is to reckon ourselves dead to sin certainly imply that we might
not necessarily do this. As Howe put
it, If the believers death with Christ described in Romans 6: 1-10 is actual, then
exactly what is meant by Romans 6: 11? If death means cessation
of existence actually, then why does
Paul urge believers in that verse to
reckon (count, consider as true, realise, believe) themselves dead to sin. 20 We should do this, but there is the possibility of
negligence. However, IF we do this, we will be
successful, because we present ourselves as those who are alive and because sin will not have dominion.
20
Sin Will Not
Have Dominion
When Paul tells his readers that sin will not have dominion
over you (Rom. 6: 14), John Murray concludes that this means that
sanctification inevitably follows from justification. But is it not obvious that this
victory is conditioned on what he has just said? It will not have dominion in the future if
we do what Paul says we should do reckon and yield right now. This is a promise of success if we
apply the God-appointed means, and not a statement of reality irrespective of
those means.
The text
does not say that sin does not have dominion.
It says that sin will not have dominion (kyrieusei,
future tense, in contrast to the aorist and perfect tenses of the context), IF we reckon and
yield. If we do not reckon and
yield, then sin can have dominion in the life of a believer. The fact that we have died to sin does not automatically mean we will reckon
and yield. It means that, if we do
reckon and yield, we will be successful.
If sins lack of dominion is automatic, regardless of
our choices, then why does Paul continually, in this very context, set choices
before them? For just as you presented
your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your
members to righteousness, resulting in sanctification (6: 19). It is true
that they became
obedient from the heart (6: 17), but now they must continually make
choices regarding which master they will serve, sin or Christ. The victory is that they no longer have to
obey sin, and if they chose not
to, they will be successful. But if they do not so chose, they will not be
successful, and sin will have dominion over them.
Paul is refuting a logical argument against
grace. It logically follows, the
objector says, that we should continue to sin to make more grace abound. Paul says this is illogical, but not
impossible. He asks, Do you not know? He appeals to
an intellectually apprehensible fact of divine reckoning. It is illogical [Page 184] because grace not only includes the forgiveness of
sin but the removal of sins legal dominion and the impartation of life. Because we are united with Christ in His
death, sin no longer has the legal right to rule us. Since we are united with Him in resurrection,
we have new life within us which gives us the power to overcome it. Because we died to sin, we no longer have to
sin, and since we live in Christ, we no longer want to sin. A man who does not have to do what he does
not want to do does not normally do it.
Thus the objection is fully answered.
The fact that a man could subsequently quench the [Holy] Spirit, become carnal, stop growing,
or fall away does not strengthen the objectors case. Logically, the gospel does not lead to a
continuance in sin but cessation from it.
Any gospel which breaks a man from sins power and gives him new life
and motivation not to sin is not subject to the charge that it logically
results in licence, even if an individual Christian resists the positive
influences of grace.
Slaves of
Righteousness
The fact
that a man may not reckon and yield is proven by the existence of the commands
to do so. If obedience is automatic and real, then there is no more need to command it than there
is to say Be human,
It is in this light that the contrasts in the latter
half of the chapter must be seen. They
were slaves of sin, but now they have become obedient from the
heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed (Rom. 6: 17). They were slaves of sin
and are not slaves of
righteousness (Rom.
6: 18). They have been freed from
sin and enslaved to God (Rom. 6: 22). Paul
explains that we are only slaves of the person we obey.
Do you not know that when you present
yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of
the one who you obey, either of sin
resulting in death, or of obedience
resulting in righteousness (Rom.
1: 16 NASB).
Paul is speaking in general terms, enunciating
principles which apply to Christians or Non-Christians. Slavery to sin leads to death, and obedience
leads to moral righteousness. Death for
the non-Christian is, of course, eternal and final. For the Christian, death is temporal judgment
and spiritual impoverishment as in Rom. 8: 13. The righteousness here comes as a result of obedience, and
therefore we may conclude that moral, and no forensic, righteousness is in
view. Paul has said earlier
that, if Abraham
was justified by works, he has something to boast about and to the one who does not work, but
believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness
(Rom. 4: 2, 5). Forensic righteousness comes by faith
alone; this
righteousness comes by works of obedience.
[Page 185]
These Roman Christians had not only received the righteousness of Christ through faith alone,
but in addition, they had submitted themselves to the lordship of Christ
subsequent to saving faith and had become obedient from the heart. The obedience was producing moral righteousness:
But thanks be to God that though you were
slaves to sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching
to which you were committed (Rom.
6: 17
NASB).
They were already committed to the form of teaching, the gospel [of Gods grace]. They were already Christians. But in
addition to being Christians, they became obedient from the heart, that is,
they submitted to Christs lordship.
They became obedient to truth they had already committed themselves to:
And having been freed from sin, you became slaves of
righteousness (v. 18 NASB).
Not only had they committed themselves to the truth of
the gospel, and therefore become personally freed from sin, but they heeded
Pauls injunction to present themselves as those alive from the dead, and
your members as instruments of
righteousness to God (v. 13). In other words, they had become experiential slaves of
righteousness. They had become obedient Christians who obeyed from the
heart the truth that they were taught.
I am speaking in human terms because of the
weakness of your flesh. For just as you
presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness,
resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as
slaves to righteousness, resulting in
sanctification (v. 19).
When they were non-Christians, they were slaves to
impurity. Now they are Christians, and Paul wants them to keep on presenting (Gk. present durative implied by
context) their members to righteousness.
If they do, they will be sanctified.
This further substantiates the observation that the righteousness referred to in v. 16 is moral righteousness and not forensic
justification. This righteousness is a product of sanctification. It is not
automatic that they will keep on presenting themselves as slaves. They have made a good beginning, and Paul
wants them to continue it:
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in
regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things
of which you are now ashamed. For the outcome of those things is death
(vv. 20-21 NASB).
When they were non-Christians, they received no
benefits from their profligate life-style.
The result of it was death, both eternally and in the sense of [Page
186] spiritual impoverishment and
wasted life (e.g., 7: 9). He does not
want them to return to that:
But now having been freed from sin and
enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting
in sanctification, [lit. Gk. trans.: your fruit in
sanctification] and
the outcome, eternal [Gk. aionian] life* (v. 22 NASB).
[* That is, aionian in this context, should be translated and understood as age-lasting.]
They were positionally freed from sin when they became
Christians (vv. 1-14). They
became enslaved to God when they chose, after that, not to go on presenting the members
of [their] bodies to sin (v. 13). They are freed
by the act of Christ; they were enslaved as a result of their own act of presenting. The former is positional and unconditional, and the latter is experiential and conditional.
Some have been impressed with the fact that Paul says
we are enslaved (passive voice, Rom. 6: 22) to God, as if this is something which is an
experiential state intrinsic to Christian experience. However, just as freedom from sin is not
automatic unless we reckon and yield, neither is slavery to righteousness
experienced unless we obey. The fact
that the word enslave is in the passive voice is inconsequential. It is a restatement of v.
16, Do you not know
that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves (active voice) you are slaves of the one you obey? The second clause, you are slaves to the one whom you obey, is equivalent to saying, You are enslaved to God.
Of course we are all in one sense, servants of our new
master. But we are not necessarily obedient servants unless we chose to be. Paul had already made it clear this slavery
to righteousness is a personal choice, and
nowhere does he say it is the necessary and inevitable outcome of their
regeneration. He says, Present your members as slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6: 19).
If
we continue to present ourselves for His service and continue to enslave
ourselves to Him, then, and only then, will we receive the benefit,
sanctification and eternal [Gk. aionian] life. As discussed elsewhere, eternal life is both a [free] GIFT to FAITH and a REWARD* in the future. In this
verse it is the reward to sanctification and obedience in the future. In the next verse, however, it is the inception of eternal life,
the [free] gift to saving FAITH which is in view:
[* Caps. Are mine.
In other words,
the Greek word aionian, can be
translated eternal (i.e., meaning for the ages of the ages,
- the free gift of God through faith alone,
(see Rom. 6: 23, R.V.); or it can also mean age-lasting - a REWARD in the future! i.e., after
the time of RESURRECTION and
during the AGE
yet to come. (See Lk. 20: 35. cf. Heb. 11: 35; Lk. 14: 14,
etc.). The context will always indicate
the correct translation and intended meaning of the word.]
For the wages of sin id death, but the free gift of
God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 23 NACB).
In the preceding verse (v.
22) eternal [Gk. aionian] life was not a gift, but was the outcome
of service to Christ and progressive sanctification and obedience. Paul is not
summarizing his whole discussion with general principles. Death for the Christian is the wage of sin:
[Page 187]
When tempted, no one would say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be
tempted by evil nor does he tempt anyone; but each
one is tempted when by his own evil desire he is dragged away and enticed. Then after desire
has conceived, it gives birth to
sin; and sin, when it is
full-grown gives birth to death (Jas. 1: 13-15).
For both James and Paul, in these apparently parallel
passages, death is the spiritual impoverishment or sin unto death
which can come upon a carnal Christian.
It is a simple truth that Christians, freed from the
slavery of sin, have entered into the slavery of another. But our service as slaves to a new master is
not automatic and inevitable. We must be
good and obedient slaves. The
possibility that we may not be is why he commands, Present your members as
slaves to righteousness, resulting in
sanctification (Rom. 6: 19). If we do not obey that command, we may be slaves, but we are not acting
like it, and we will not be sanctified!
We conclude there is nothing in Rom.
6
which requires the interpretation that a true Christian will persevere in good
works up to the point of physical death.
We do learn that a true Christian should do this, will be successful if he pursues it, and is obliged to do so because he is
a slave to his new master. But nowhere do
we learn that he always will do or that
he will persist in doing so to the end of live.
Faith
without Works is dead
When James said, Faith without works is dead
and A man is justified by
works, and not by
faith alone (Jas. 2: 24), he no doubt was completely unaware of the volumes
which would be written in the history of the church which would attempt to
harmonize his words with those of the apostle Paul. He would also, I think, be surprised to learn
that many would misconstrue his words to mean that those who have true saving
faith will necessarily evidence this by a life of works and that, if they lack
works, this proves their faith is dead, i.e., not saving faith.
What is Dead
Faith?
The first question to ask in understanding this
passage is to consider what James meant when he used the term dead faith. 21 The use of the term death to describe what can happen to Christians is not uncommon in the Bible:
[Page
188]
For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die;
but if by
the spirit, you are
putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live (Rom. 8: 13 NASV).
In each of these passages the notion of death included
a rather obvious point - they were once alive!
Normally, death is preceded by life, and in common biblical usage this
is true also. There is no reason to
assume that James viewed it any differently.
The dead faith to which James
refers was most probably alive at one time, or it could not have died! This is not pressing the metaphor beyond its
intent. It is an explicit implication of
this same metaphor used elsewhere in the New Testament as the above passages
reveal. Even the non-Christian, born
dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1), was once
alive in Adam. Just as we all died in
Adam, we were all once alive in Him (1 Cor. 15: 22; Rom. 5: 12). Death came to all
men because all sinned. If we all sinned in Adam, we were
obviously alive in some sense in order to do so. Whether we lived federally or
representatively in Adam is not important here, but Reformed theologians of all
persuasions have agreed that Paul teaches we were once alive in Adam and we
died in him.
But furthermore, James seems to say he precisely
intends this idea by the analogy he uses, For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works
is dead (Jas. 2: 26). The body dies,
according to the Bible, when the [animating] spirit
departs (Jn. 19:
30). Just as the body dies when the spirit departs, even so faith dies when
our works [of righteousness] depart!
Just as the spirit is the
animating principle which gives the body life, so work is the animating
principle which gives faith life.
There is no question that in the absence of works our
faith becomes useless and dead. Our Christian experience deteriorates into a mere dead orthodoxy which is
evident in many Christian churches.
This is the danger which James addresses. This view of the passage has long been held
by other expositors. It was the view of
Origin, Jerome, and of the Roman Catholic Church. 22
22 Richard Chenevix Trench, Notes on
the Miracles and Parables of the Lord, 2 vols. In 1 (a.d.;
reprint ed.,
Salvation is
NOT by Faith Alone
With this in mind Jamess comments about the inability of faith alone to save a man
take on new meaning:
[Page
189]
What use is it, my brethren,
if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that
faith save him? (Jas. 2: 14 NASB).
The Greek
construction requires a negative answer to Jamess question. Faith alone cannot save, can it? No, something
else is needed - works. At this
point the apparent conflict between James and Paul caused Luther to say that
the doctrine of justification in James made it an
epistle of straw.
As discussed in
chapter 6, Luthers difficulty was caused by the fact that he always equated salvation with salvation
from hell. But as Sellers correctly
observed, Death from sin, then, could be physical
death, for believers or unbelievers. It
could be spiritual death - separating a believer from fellowship with God.
23 In James, to be saved refers to salvation
from physical death, the death-producing consequences of sin. 24 In other
words, salvation is the finding of a
rich and meaningful experience! It
is true that faith alone will save us from hell, but faith which is alone will not save us from a dead and carnal
spiritual life.
23 C. Norman Sellers, Election
and Perseverance (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle, 1978), p. 105.
24 As
discussed in chapter
5, the phrase save a soul
never means deliverance from hell.
It is evident that James is using the term salvation
in a sense when we consider the context in
which this statement is placed. In Jas. 1: 13-16 James describes the deathly consequences of sin
in the life of a [regenerate] believer:
Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted
by God; for God cannot be
tempted by evil, and He Himself does
not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed
by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when
sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived my beloved brethren (Jas. 1: 13-16 NASB).
It is the beloved
brethren who are in danger of experiencing the deathly consequences of [wilful] sin.*
These Christians who are alive are in danger of
losing the vitality of their faith and experiencing death. as he says later, Faith without works is dead, but it was
once alive.
[* See Heb. 10: 26-39, R.V.]
In view of the possibility of death in our Christian
life, what shall we do to prevent this catastrophe? James responds by saying:
Therefore putting aside all filthiness and
all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls*
(Jas. 1: 21 NASB).
[* See Acts 2: 27. cf.
Acts 2: 31;
Lk. 16: 23, R.V. Hades is in the heart of the
earth (Matt. 12: 40, R.V.): it is not synonymous
with Heaven!
The salvation of souls at the end of your faith, takes place at the time of Resurrection: (1
Pet. 1: 5,
9, R.V.)!]
These are beloved brethren who have been
brought forth by the word of truth in whom the Word has been implanted.
They are saved people in the [Page
190] sense of final deliverance from hell.
However, these saved people need salvation. The
salvation is the salvation
contextually defined as a deliverance from the death-producing effects of sin
and a lack of good works in their lives. He goes on to say that to receive with
meekness the ingrafted word is simply to
apply the Word of God to our lives by acts of obedience:
But prove yourselves doers of the Word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves (Jas. 1: 22 NASB).
But one who looks intently at the perfect
law, the law
of liberty, and abides by it,
not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be
blessed in what he does (Jas.
1: 25).
It is quite likely that James is thinking on Old
Testament terms here. Frequently,
Solomon, for example will contrast the life-enriching benefits of righteousness
with the death-producing effects of sin:
A truly righteous man attains life,
But he who pursues evil goes to his death (Prov. 11: 19).
The term life and death are contextually defined in Prov.
11 as abundant life and carnality, to
use contemporary terms. In a series of
contrasts he defines death as being trapped by evil desires (Prov. 11: 6); physical
death and loss of hope (11: 7); overwhelmed with trouble (11:
8); destroying ones neighbour (11: 9);
destruction of a city by evil actions (11: 11); a lack of judgment and a deriding of ones
neighbour (11: 12);
and a lack of guidance resulting in the fall of a nation (11: 14). Life, on the other hand, is defined as having
a straight way (11: 5); being delivered from evil snares (11: 6); being
rescued from trouble (11: 8); giving blessing to a city (11: 11); and
sowing righteousness (11: 18).
Contrasts such as these define life and death not as entrance into
heaven and final commitment to hell but as relative qualities of life
now [and after resurrection in the age to come (Heb. 6: 5, R.V.)]*, qualities which
are dependant upon faith-vitalizing property of good works. 25
[*
See Lk. 20:
35-36,
R.V.]
25 See also Prov. 10: 27; 12: 28; 13: 14; 19: 16.
Salvation here is the deliverance from the spiritually
impoverishing consequences of sin and the experiential blessing of God
now. In Solomons terms it is rescue
from trouble or the trap of evil desires.
It is not final deliverance from hell.
The parallelism between Jas. 1: 21-27 and 2: 14-26 enables us
to see how these passages explain each other.
In 1: 21ff. James tells us we will be saved by being
doers and not just hearers of the word.
In 2: 14-16 we can now see that his meaning is the
same. They will be saved in the
sense of finding deliverance from the spiritually impoverishing consequences of
sin, not by faith alone, but by faith plus their works of obedience.
[Page
191]
James makes it clear that this is what he means by
salvation in his closing words:
My brethren, if any among you
strays from the truth, and one turns him
back, let him know that he
who turns a sinner from his error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a
multitude of sins (Jas. 5: 19-20 NASB).
Just as it is possible to save
one in whom the Word has been implanted (Jas.
1: 21),
it is also sometimes necessary to save one who is of the brethren
and is among us. A man who is
already saved in the sense of final deliverance from hell needs only to be
saved from [the grip and power of] death. The death here may be the sin unto death referred to in 1 Cor. 11: 30 and 1 Jn. 5: 16. 26 Certainly this is the ultimate consequence of Divine
discipline brought upon the sinning Christian. But short of
that, the life of the sinning Christian can only be characterised as
spiritually dead.
26 See Charles Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Translation (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1978), p. 1863). As pointed
out in chapter 5, it always has the meaning in every other use in the LXX or
New Testament.
We conclude that the word saved
in James does
not refer to final deliverance from hell [i.e., the lake of fire]. It
refers, instead, to deliverance from the terrible consequences of spiritual impoverishment
and ultimately physical death, which can come
upon the regenerate person if he fails to vitalize his faith with a life of
works. Divine
discipline is certain, but
loss of [eternal] salvation is not
under consideration.
James is well within the theology of the Old Testament
when he warns against the shortening of life which occurs when a man lives a
life of debauchery or bitterness or sin.
Indeed, his point has been commonly observed by mankind throughout the
ages and confirmed my modern medical science.
Most of our ailments have psychosomatic origins. Emotional stress brought on by a life of
guilt and bitterness is, perhaps, the major cause of physical death in the
Western world.
The words of an objector are now introduced. The objectors comments apparently extend
down to Jas. 2: 19. At the outset we must insist that these are
the words of someone taking the opposite point of view from James. James introduces his opponent with the phrase
but (alla) someone will say. This is the
normal way of introducing the opposition, and thus Jamess objector does not
share Jamess views but in some way disagrees with them. 27 James
calls him a foolish man, who is claiming that faith without works is
perfectly acceptable.
27 Johnstone attempts to make the objector
and James agree with one another and unite in opposition to a man without works
in the church. His main argument is that
the words of the objector seem to agree with Jamess view expressed elsewhere. See Robert Johnstone, Lectures
Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of James (Oliphant
Anderson & Ferrier, 1871; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978),
p. 210.
[Page
192]
But someone will say, You have faith;
I have deeds.
Show me your faith without deeds,
and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
believe that - and shudder
(Jas. 2: 18-19).
You will notice in v. 18 how the NIV places the
question marks, we
understand the whole verse to be spoken by the objector, not just the first
sentence.
From that perspective we note that the objector says
he has good works, deeds, and acknowledges that James has faith. But now the objector challenges James to show
him his faith without deeds. The
objector knows that James feels this cannot be done. The only way faith can be revealed is by a
life of works. But then the objector
says he will show James his faith by his works, which, the objector implies,
likewise cannot be done!
When the objector says, I will show you my faith by what I do, he is not
saying this is possible. He is saying it is as impossible as showing
faith apart from what you do. This
involves turning the objectors apparent meaning in this phrase upside down. The justification for this is that he is an objector, and he must be saying something different
from James, not agreeing with him. Lange
clearly states the problem:
Difficulties have been found: (1) In
Jamess introducing this proposition as the expression of another person and
not as his own; and (2) on his introducing it by
alla (but).
28
28 J. P. Lange and J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Epistle General of James, in Langes 12: 83.
This difficulty may be removed with the simple assumption
that the objector is being sarcastic. When he says, I will show you my faith by what I do, he is being
insincere. He is really saying, You can no more show me your faith without works than I can
show you faith by means of works.
Dibelius cites several illustrations from Greek diatribe which
illustrate this debating technique. 29 The Ad Autolycu 1.2 a Christian apologist named
Theophilus writes. But even if you should say, Show
me your God, I too might say to you, Show me your
Man and I also will show you my God. It was impossible for Theophilus
to show his opponent his God, and similarly, it was
impossible for the opponent to show Theophilus his
29 Martin
Dibelius, James, rev. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Michael A
Williams, ed., Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (
[Page
193]
In other words, the
objectors point seems to be that there is no connection between faith and
works at all. Even if one produced the
works to keep talking about, it would not prove anything. Just as James cannot show his faith apart
from his works, the objector claims he cannot show his faith by means of his
works. There simply is, according the objector, no necessary relationship
between faith and works at all.
The objector continues his attempt to prove that there
is no connection between faith and works by appealing to the fact that demons
believe and they have no [good] works:
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even demons believe
that - and shudder
(Jas. 2: 19).
When the objector says, Good
(Gk. kalos poieis), his meaning is
not Good for you but literally, You are doing good works. The same
phrase is found in v. 8, If you really keep the
royal law of Scripture, Love your neighbour as
yourself, you are doing right (Gk. kalos poieite). This meaning of the phrase is found in several
places in the New Testament. 30 The objector is therefore saying, James, you believe in God and you are doing good works. The demons also believe in God, but they
shudder. The conclusion is, there is no necessary connection between faith and good
works.
30 Lk.
6: 27; Mt. 12: 12; Jas. 4: 17.
Such an argument is ludicrous, and appropriately
James calls him a foolish
man and tells him that faith, unless it is vitalised and matured by a life of
works, is not vital. The objector apparently imagines that faith
alone is adequate for an abundant life [now and in the
future]
and for all the fulfilment of all obligations to God. However,
James counters, faith is useless as for as Christian sanctification and
practical victory (salvation) through trials is concerned (2:
20; cf. 1:
21; 2: 14). There is a connection between faith
and works but not
the connection imagined by the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.
As proof of the
worthless nature of a faith apart from works, James now cites the
illustration of Abraham:
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered
righteous [Gk. justified by works] for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together,
and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God,
and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called Gods friend. You see that a
person is
justified by what he does and not be faith alone (Jas. 2: 21-24).
[Page
194]
Jamess readers knew that Abraham had been
declared righteous before God long before he offered Isaac on the altar.
The offering of Isaac occurred in Gen.
22: 9 but
he had been declared righteous prior to Gen.
15: 6. A different
kind of justification was in view in Gen. 22, a justification before men. This
justification was based upon [Abrahams] works. Abrahams faith was strengthened, matured,
and perfected by his obedience. To use Jamess words, it was
made complete (eteleiothe, matured, perfected)
by what he did. Abraham was already [eternally] saved [by his faith in
the works of Another: by what his Lord and Saviour
would do], but
the vitality and maturity of his faith could only be accomplished by [his
own righteous]
works. Such an obedient response resulted in his being called Gods friend. Similarly, Jesus said, You are My friends,
if you do what I command (Jn. 15: 14).
There was no question about the disciples regenerate state, but there was a
question about whether or not they would continue to walk in fellowship with
their King and be His friend.
When James says in 2: 24 that we are justified
by works, he is not disagreeing with
Paul. He is simply saying that justification by faith is not the only kind of justification there
is. Justification by faith secures our
eternal standing, but justification by works secures our temporal fellowship. Justification by faith secures our vindication before God; justification by works secures our vindication before men. It is
by works that our justification by faith becomes evident to others and is of
use to others, including orphans, and those who are hungry, cold, or thirsty.
Jamess point then is not that works are the necessary
and inevitable result of justification [by faith]. Rather, he is saying that, if works do not follow our justification, our faith will shrivel up and
die. We are
in danger of spiritual impoverishment, death. Nor does he say that the failure to work* [to
please God]
will result in the loss of our [eternal] salvation.
This is not a passage to prove the inevitable connection between
justification [by faith] and
sanctification at all! Rather, it proves
the desirable connection.
[* see 1 Cor. 15: 58,
cf.
15: 23,
R.V.]
By Their
Faith You Shall Know Them
Probably the most commonly recognised statement of
Jesus though to support the Reformed doctrine of perseverance is his famous
warning, By
their fruits ye shall know them (Mt.
7: 16). The assumption
is made that Christ means by this that one can discern whether or not another
person is truly a Christian by examining the evidence of good works in his
life. If there is good work (fruit)
present, it must be a good tree, i.e., regenerate. If good character qualities are not obvious,
then the tree must be bad, i.e., unregenerate.
This initial impression is reinforced by Christs stinging rebuke to
these false teachers, I never
knew you, and His explanation that only
one who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven will enter the kingdom of
heaven (Mt. 7:
21). Such
an interpretation obviously contradicts the clear teaching elsewhere that
entrance into the kingdom of heaven is based upon faith alone. In order to resolve this difficulty, [Page
195] Experimental Predestinarians
offer the seemingly plausible explanation that, since all true believers
persevere in holiness to the end of life, it is certainly true that only those
who do the Fathers will enter the kingdom.
All true believers will do this, and if a person fails to do this, this
proves he was not a Christian at all. 31
31 See
This writer believes that a careful reading of the
passage will reveal that another
interpretation of Jesus famous words is more plausible:
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide,
and the way is broad that leads to destruction and many are
those who enter by it. For the gate is small,
and the way is narrow that leads to life and few are those
who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
sheeps clothing, but inwardly are
ravenous wolves (Mt. 7: 13-15).
This passage about false prophets who appear in
sheeps clothing occurs at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. Although the sermon was directed at the
disciples (Mt. 5:
1), apparently when Jesus went up to the
mountain, the multitudes followed and perhaps overheard at least the conclusion
of the sermon. We can imagine that Jesus
addresses this portion to the multitudes as well as to His intimate followers.
The references to entering by the gate, the sheep, and
the wolves immediately suggest a common theme in Jesus teaching found
elsewhere - entrance into the sheepfold:
I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did
not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through
Me, he shall be saved, and shall
go in and out and find pasture.
The thief comes only
to steal, and
kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly. I am the good
shepherd; the good shepherd
lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hireling
and not a shepherd, who is not the owner
of the sheep, behold the wolf
coming, and leaves the sheep
and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and is not concerned about the
sheep (Jn. 10: 7-13 NASB).
The gate simply refers to an entrance,
whether to Hades. 32 a city, 33 the temple, 34 a private home, 35 or, as Matthew uses it here in harmony with John, a
sheepfold.
32 Mt. 10: 16.
33 Lk.
7: 12; Acts 12: 10.
34 Acts
3: 10.
35 Acts 10: 17.
[Page
196]
The wide gate leads to destruction, and the narrow
gate leads to life. The gate is small and the way is narrow, which leads to
life. We are reminded of another claim of Jesus, I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me
(Jn, 14: 6). He is the door, the way, the entrance through
which we must pass if we want to enter the sheepfold, the kingdom of
heaven.
The wide gate reminds us of the many rival religious
claims. The Hindus, the Moslems, and the
Jews all enter through a different gate, a gate which leads not into the
sheepfold but to destruction.
But there are false
prophets who would lead the sheep to
the wrong gate. These men come in sheeps
clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. The hireling in John did
not protect the sheep from these false prophets or wolves. Who are they?
In times of religious excitement, such as the time of the teaching of
Jesus, there is often an outburst of religious extremism. It is unlikely that the Lord has the
Pharisees in mind. In fact, they are
probably the hirelings who did not protect the people against such
extremism. 36 The Pharisees were not viewed as prophetic,
charismatic, nor as innovators but, rather, as preservers of the status
quo. These men were reminiscent of some of todays television evangelists
who claim to prophesy, cast out demons, and heal
in Jesus name but who later are revealed to be ravenous wolves,
living in sexual immorality and in million dollar homes, bedecked with
jewellery, and driving expensive automobiles.
Yet what a person is on the inside is not obvious, and thus a test is
needed to determine his nature.
36 Dead
orthodoxy can offer little protection because it is not as attractive as the
alternatives.
You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
(Mt. 7: 16 NASB).
To what does the fruit refer? In Mt. 7 the specific fruit is unspecified, but the parallel
passage in chapter 12 suggests that the
doctrine of the false
teachers was in view, and not
their life-style:
And whosoever shall speak a word against the
Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit,
it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or, in the age to come. Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree bad,
and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood
of vipers, how can you,
being evil, speak what
is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man out of
his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what
is evil. And I say to you, that every careless [Page 197] word that men shall speak, they shall render
account for it in
the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be
justified, and by your words
you shall be condemned (Mt. 12: 32-37 NASB).
In Mt. 7 their life-style outwardly seems to indicate
they are Christians. They are called
sheep; they look like Christians; they perform miraculous works in Jesus
name. They do some of the works that
Christians do. Therefore, the reason
that Jesus never knew them is not that their outward behaviour is corrupt. Rather, it is because they have not done the will of My Father who is in heaven. Some of the
most gentle and kindly men are workers of many good works, and yet they are not
regenerate. It would be impossible to
discern them by their works. Only their teaching reveals who they are.
Lange, Calvin. Jerome, and
others viewed the fruit as the false
teaching of false prophets. 37 Lange points out that the fruit in view is not that of ordinary professors of Christianity
but of false teachers. Their fruit is their destructive doctrine. These are no doubt related at points to their
character and may often be revealed by behavioural abnormalities, but frequently that is not obvious for many
years, and sometimes never in this life.
What is obvious is what they say. Even though their character is clothed in
sheeps garments, and they are gentle and meek in their outward appearance, their incorrect [prophetic] teaching is
evident to all.
37 J. P. Lange, Matthew,
in Langes, 12: 144.
We should not be surprised that Jesus tells us that the teaching of a false prophet is the fruit
by which we can discern his true identity.
By asserting this, He is aligning himself firmly with Moses and the
prophets who continually stressed that the way one discerns a true prophet from
a false one is by giving attention to what he says:
If a prophet or a dreamer arises among you
and gives you a sign or a wonder,
and the sign or wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go after
other gods (whom you have not
known) and let us serve
them, you shall not listen
to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love
the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. You shall follow the
Lord your God and fear Him; and shall keep His
commandments, listen to His voice,
serve Him, and cling
to Him (Dt. 13: 1-4 NASB).
Moses commands his readers to listen to what these false prophets say and to compare it with the
commands and voice of the Lord, the
Torah, and not to pay any attention to what they do. In fact, these false prophets, according to
Moses and like those in Mt. 7, performed
signs and wonders. Observing the works of a false prophet is not how we determine his true
identity.
[Page
198]
Isaiah, when faced with a people who sought to help in
mediums, gave similar advice:
And when they say to you, Consult the mediums
and the spiritists who whisper and mutter, should
not a people consult their God?
Should they consult the dead on behalf of the
living? To the law and to the testimony. If they do not speak
according to this word it is because they have no dawn (Isa. 8: 19-20 NASB).
The teaching of these false prophets is to be compared
to the law and to the testimony. If they
do not speak according to this word, that is, if their fruit reveals they are not true prophets, it is
because they have no [divine
prophetical] revelation.
The idea that a false prophet can be discerned by
comparing what he says with Scripture is widespread in the Bible, 38 and
it is surprising that the Lords
comments about fruit are not always read in this light. The fruit
by which we may discern these false prophets is their doctrine - [i.e., their prophetic teachings]. Their works were good. They looked and acted like sheep and even
performed miracles. An examination of [their
miraculous] works
would have led to the wrong conclusion.*
38 See Jer. 16; Gal. 1: 6-9; 1 Jn. 4: 2ff.
[*When we read of the behaviour of those within the church at
It should also be noted that Jesus says, By their fruit ye shall know them. It is not professing Christians in general who
are the subject of discussion but men who openly announce
themselves as [regenerate Christian] prophets and who claim to do miraculous works in
Jesus name. The passage has nothing to do
with the notion that we can test the reality of the faith of a professing [and
regenerate]
Christian by examining his good works.
The Lord continues:
Not everyone who
says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will
say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord,
did we not prophesy in Your name,* and in Your name
cast out demons, and in Your name
perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practise
lawlessness (Mt. 7: 21-23 NASB).
[*
NOTE. The words Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your
name, would suggest that many of those addressed here
are in fact regenerate believers: but their prophetic
message,
(relative to the saints Resurrection and their entrance into the kingdom of heaven), was incorrect and contrary to
the teachings of their Lord and His apostles!
They are described by Paul as Men who
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the
resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Let everyone that nameth the name of the Lord depart from
unrighteousness (2 Tim. 2: 18-19, R.V.).]
They now call Him Lord, even though they never
confessed Him as God during life. We are
reminded once again of the wide gate, entered
by many religious leaders and their followers. They all thought they were performing works
in behalf of the one true God, but they did not acknowledge Christ as that God [who
will return
to claim His inheritance
here, (Psa. 2: 8)]. Now confronted with Him at the judgment, they
do confess Him as Lord, but it is too late.
[Page
199]
What does it mean to do the
will of My Father who is in heaven?
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds
the Son and believes in Him, may have
eternal [Gk. aionian] life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day (Jn. 6: 40 NASB).
For all
their outward gentleness and show of Christian profession and miraculous works,
this is one thing these false teachers never did. They never believed on Christ [or His teachings of an intermediate
place and state of the souls of dead in Hades (Mt.
12: 40; 16: 18; Lk. 16: 23, 30; Lk. 23: 43; 24, cf. Acts 2:
27, 31, 34.)], nor trusted Him for their [souls]* personal salvation. Perhaps
they mouthed some of the Christian truths in order to maintain their position
with their sheep, but they themselves never inwardly accepted the meaning. Or, perhaps, they never professed Christ at all here on earth but were followers of another religion
altogether. Their resistance in the heart to acknowledging Christ as God was at root a moral problem they could have
done something about had they chosen to.
Because they
resisted [His prophetic
truths], they were ravenous wolves, but
one day they will confess Him as Lord, although their opportunity for salvation
[ready to be revealed at the last time.
the
salvation of souls (1 Pet. 1: 5, 9,
R.V.)] has forever passed! Jesus will
look at them and say, I never knew you.**
As He said in the parallel passage, I am the good
shepherd, and I know My own, and My own know Me
(Jn. 10: 14).
[*
See Heb.
10: 39ff.
cf.
Jas. 1: 21, R. V.
** That is, Christ didnt know
them relative to the subject being discussed their false prophetic
teachings There is no evidence here to
suggest the Lord didnt know them as His redeemed people, saved eternally
through faith in Him, and having received the free
gift of God [which] is eternal life
(Rom.
6: 25b,
R.V.)!]
Only
Believers Go to Heaven
In support of their contention that justification and
sanctification are inextricably related, Experimental Predestinarians often
point to the passages in which we are told whoever
believes in Him (Jn. 3: 16) will
have eternal life. This implies, they say, that a person who has believed in the past and
then has stopped believing will not go to heaven because only believers go to heaven.
Now we would certainly want to doubt the salvation of
any person who has believed in Christ in the past and then, for some reason, no
longer believes. Furthermore, such an
individual, even if he is regenerate, can have no assurance of his salvation
because faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, and if he no longer believes the things hoped for, he no longer has faith or assurance.
As argued elsewhere, it is possible for a truly
born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing. 39 He
is called a carnal Christian and will be subject to severe divine
discipline. If this is not possible,
then the warnings are empty of meaning, as will be discussed in chapter 10. However, Experimental Predestinarians are
often impressed with the fact that in many of these verses the present tense of
the verb to believe is used or the participle is an articular present
participle meaning the one who
believes. The fact that these verbs are in [Page
200] the present tense, they say,
implies that Jesus meant that whoever continues to believe has
everlasting life.
39 See Chapter 12, 13, and 19.
Thus, the simple offer of the gospel on the basis of
faith has become, for the Experimental Predestinarian, something entirely
different. When Jesus said, Whoever believes in Him will
have everlasting life, we are
told that His true meaning was whoever believes in
Him and continues to believe in Him up to the point of physical death and who
also manifests evidence of having truly believed by practical works of holiness
persevered to the end of life has everlasting life. The woman at the well, even Nicodemus, the
teacher of
The argument from the articular present participle is
simply wrong. While it is true that the
present tense can sometimes carry a durative force (continue),
it is not intrinsic to the tense and must be established from the context. It is merely a substantive.
The adherents of perseverance are reading into the
tern believe the meaning believe at a
point of time and continue to believe up to that point of physical death. This is not only foreign to normal Greek
usage but to usage in English as well.
We might say, Whoever believes that
Rockerfeller is a philanthropist will receive a million dollars. At the point of time a person believes this,
he is a millionaire. However, if he
ceases to believe this ten years later, he is still a
possessor of a million dollars.
Similarly, if a man has believed in Christ, he is regenerate and in possession
of eternal life, even if he ceases to believe in God in the future.
The verses which promise heaven on the condition of
belief simply do not logically imply that the real condition is that you
continue in belief up to the end of life.
The notion that the present tense requires the sense he who continually and habitually believes has eternal life
is not only contrary to the normal conventions of my language but is not
supported by Greek grammar. For example,
Nigel Turner comments, Thus in Greek, one seldom
knows apart from the context whether the present indicative means, I walk or I
am walking. 40 Although the present is a tense which takes the
durative Aktionsart (kind of action, durative or punctiliar) the Aktionsart is often difficult to determine in the present
because of the lack of a punctiliar stem in the indicative which does not
indicate past time. 41 Often the present has a punctiliar meaning. 42
40 James Hope
Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek,
2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), vol. 3: Syntax by Nigel Turner,
p. 60.
41 Ibid., p.64.
42 E.g.,
Mt. 5: 22, 28; 14: 8; 26: 63; Mk. 2: 5; Mt. 9: 2; Your sins are forgiven; Lk.
7: 8; 12: 44; Jn. 5: 34; 9: 25; Acts 8: 23; 9: 34: He heals you,
not is continually healing you; 16: 18; 26: 1.
[Page
201]
Turner calls attention to the fact that the present
articular participle the one
who believes is often used where we would expect aorist. 43 Action (time or variety) is irrelevant and the participle
has become a proper name. 44
43 Turner, Syntax, p. 150.
See esp. Mk. 5:
15-16, ho daimonizomenos, even after his
healing.
44.
Ibid., p. 150. see
also Heb. 7: 9; Phil. 3: 6. He cites several examples of this aoristic punctiliar
use of the articular present participle: Mt.
26: 46; Mk. 1: 4; 6: 14, 24; Jn. 8: 18; 6: 63; Acts 17: 17; Rom. 8: 34; Eph. 4: 28; Jn. 1: 29: the sin bearer; Gal. 1: 23; Mt. 27: 40.
Perhaps 1 Th. 1: 10, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come, is relevant here.
The intent is to describe deliverance from the tribulation wrath. He is not saying that Jesus is the One who
continually delivers us from the tribulation wrath. A deliverance once accomplished does not need
to be habitually repeated.
In his discussion of the articular present participle
J. H. Moulton makes a similar point. 45 This form has in fact, he says, become a noun and not
a verb at all. For example, the destroyer of the temple of Mt. 27: 40 is not the one who continually destroys the temple. It even has a conative sense, the would-be destroyer of the temple. It is used as a noun, and nouns do not have
Aktionsart. John the Baptist is called, ho baptizon, the
baptizer (Mk. 6: 14, 24), not the one who continually baptizes people.
45 James Hope
Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek,
3 vols. (Edinburgh: t. & T. Clark, 1963), vol. 1: Prolegomena
by James Hope Moulton, p. 126.
The timeless nature of the present participle is
stressed by Robertson. 46 In discussing Mk. 6: 14, for example, he says, it
is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the general
description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. It is actually used of him after his death.
Agreeing with Moulton he observes, The participle with the article sometimes loses much of its
verbal force. 47
46 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman, 1934), p. 1111.
47 Ibid., p. 892. Acts
2: 47, tous sozomenous, and Gal. 4: 27, he ou tiktousa, he ouk obinousa.
Similarly, Jay acknowledges, The
participle with the article practically becomes a noun: oi kakos echontes
virtually means
the sick.. 48 The intent is not to say, those who are always
and continually sick.
48 Eric G. Jay, New Testament
Greek: An Introductory Grammar (London: S.P.C.K., 1958), p. 164.
While it is horrible to contemplate, possible apostasy and cessation of belief
is a very real danger set before the readers of the New Testament, particularly
the book of Hebrews. Though it is possible that a man who
professes belief [Page 202] once and then rejects the faith is not a true Christian, it is also theoretically possible that he is genuinely born again. Even though Robert Shank would not agree, it
is definitely true that saving faith is the act of a
single moment whereby all the benefits of Christs life, death, and
resurrection suddenly become the irrevocable possession of the individual, per
se, despite any and all eventualities. 49 It is not his eternal destiny
but his opportunity to reign with Christs metochoi in the coming [millennial] kingdom.
And he
who overcomes and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority
over the nations (Rev. 2: 26).
49
Arminian Robert Shank makes this statement in objection to the view of saving
faith advocated here (Robert Shank, Life in The Son: A
Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance [Springfield: Westcott
1961], p. 195).
The Implied All
There are a number of passages which ascribe to the
saints, in apparently inclusive terms, the benefits of the future kingdom. For example:
Do you not know that the saints will judge
the world (1 Cor. 6: 2).
Then the righteous shall shine forth as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father
(Mt. 13: 43 NASB)
You have made them to be a kingdom of
priests to serve our God, and they will reign
on the earth (Rev. 5: 10).
And to her it was granted to
be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the
fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints (Rev. 19: 8 KJV).
Experimental Predestinarians read these passages to
mean that all
the saints will judge the world,
that all the righteous will shine forth, and that all members of the bride are
arrayed with righteous acts.
It is obvious, is it not, that the word all must be read into these texts? The word is not there, and there is nothing
in the contexts in which these passages are found which requires that it be there. It is true
that the saints will judge (reign), but Paul elsewhere clarifies that only those saints who are
faithful will reign with Him (2
Tim. 2: 12). Only those saints who overcome will have authority over the nations.
Furthermore, it is clear that not all believers will
function as priests:
Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all
nations you will be my treasured possession.
You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
(Ex. 19: 5-6).
[Page
203]
Only those believers who obey Him are priests. It was and is Gods intent that we all attain
to that privilege both here and in the coming kingdom, but to say that a disobedient believer has obtained that is contradicted by
common sense and by the passage above.
With this the writer of the Hebrews agrees:
We are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast (Heb. 3: 6).
Being part of Christs priestly house is not automatic
to all Christians. It is the intent, the
ideal, but it is actual
only in the lives of those faithful Christians who persevere in holiness.
It is true that the righteous will shine, but nowhere
does it say that all of them will. Furthermore, to be righteous in Matthew does not
always mean to be in possession of the forensic legal righteousness of Christ,
as in Paul, but to possess a righteous life. 50 It
cannot be proved that justifying righteousness is in view in this passage. Only
those saints who live righteous lives will shine in the [millennial] kingdom. The unfaithful will not. 51
50 See for
example, Mt. 1:
19; 5: 45; 9: 13; 10: 41; 13: 17; 20: 4; 23: 28, 29; 23: 35.
51 The shining could simply refer to the glory of the resurrection
body which will, of course, be manifested by all saints [who will have glorified and immortal bodies of flesh and bones (Lk.
24: 39) after
the First Resurrection, (Rev. 20: 4-6).]
As for the claim that the wedding garment is for all the saved, this is simply a misreading of the
text. The text says only that the
wedding garment, i.e., righteous acts, adorns the bride as a whole and not each
individual saint of which she is composed.
Each saint makes various contributions (righteous acts) to the brides
wedding garment, and some may or may not make any at all. There is nothing in the passage which teaches
otherwise.
Another passage which is sometimes thought to be all
inclusive is 1 Cor. 4:
5:
Therefore do not go on passing judgment
before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things
hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of mens hearts; and then each mans praise will come to him from God (NASB).
Pauls statement in this verse has led some
Experimental Predestinarians to the conclusion that all who are saved will be
rewarded [the same way].*
When Paul says, Then each
mans praise will come to him from God,
they understand this to mean each man without exception will receive
praise. Yet Paul has just said that some will enter eternity with their work burned up (1 Cor. 3: 15). He
evidently does [Page 204] not intend to teach that all without exception
will receive praise. Instead, he is
telling us that each man who has earned
praise will receive it [for others, after
the Judgment Seat of Christ, will not!
(Heb. 9: 27; 10: 35. cf. Eph. 5: 5, R.V.)].
[*
Keep in mind: A Christians behaviour
will always determine the nature of the
recompence of reward, (Heb. 11: 26, R.V.).
The disobedient Christian will not be rewarded the same as the obedient
Christian. See Col.
3: 24-25. cf. 2
Tim. 2: 5,
R.V.).]
Christians
Have Crucified the Flesh
Now those who belong to Christ have crucified
the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal. 5:
24 NASB).
It is common to understand this passage as saying that
all true Christians have crucified the flesh.
This is, of course, true.
However, the event referred to is not self-crucifixion of the believer
but the co-crucifixion of the believer with Christ at the point of saving
faith. There is nothing here about a
believers determination to subdue the flesh as a part of saving transaction. It simply refers to the positional
crucifixion of the flesh mentioned in Gal. 2: 20 and
The fact that this is in the active voice rather than
in the passive voice as in the other passages has led some to believe that the
self-crucifixion of the believer is involved.
However, Paul elsewhere unexpectedly uses the active when the passive is
meant (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:
22) and the verb crucify
is never used of the self-mortification of the believer. In Gal. 6: 14 it is
positional crucifixion. Furthermore, the
text refers to the crucifixion of
the flesh, not a daily struggle with it.
The word connotes a decisive death and not a continuing battle. The aorist
tense is not to be translated are crucifying
the flesh but have crucified. The event occurred in the past and was completed and decisive. This makes the notion of an experimental
crucifixion intrinsically unlikely here.
In view of the fact that nowhere else in the Bible is the experimental
crucifixion referred to and that in many places our once-and-for-all
co-crucifixion with Christ is found in the Pauline theology, it seems best to
take it this way here.
How did they bring about this crucifixion? They did it by believing in Christ. When they did this they took an action which
resulted in the crucifixion of the flesh by joining themselves with Christ and
His death, burial, and resurrection. 52
52 It is also possible to take the phrase belong to Christ as a genitive of source and not of
possession. The Greek is of Christ. This would mean that those who are of
Christ in their behaviour crucify the flesh. Some
Christians are, and some are not. Paul
does not use the genitive of Christ in the
sense of source elsewhere (1 Cor. 1: 1, 12; 11: 1; 2 Cor. 1: 1; 3: 3; 4: 4; 5: 14; 10: 7 [see v. 2]; 11: 13; 12: 9). From this perspective then those who crucify the flesh are those
Christians who are led by the Spirit and who walk by the Spirit.
[Page
205]
He Who Began
a Good Work
Reflecting with joy on the spiritual vitality of his
church at
[I thank you] for your fellowship [koinonia] in the
gospel from the first day until now, being
confident of this very thing, that He
who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ
(Phil. 1:
5-6 NKJV).
Some Experimental Predestinarians have understood this
to teach that God will continually work to sanctify all who are truly born
again until the point of physical death or the return of Christ. The lack of the continuing transformation of
life is then proof that a man is not born again. Final failure is not possible according to
this verse, they say.
However, as many commentators acknowledge, the good work
to which Paul refers is probably not sanctification or regeneration 53 but financial
contributions or a more general assistance and partnership, including financial
help, in the cause of Christ. 54 This was their fellowship in the gospel (v.
5) for
which he thanks them now and also later in the letter (4:
15-17). The sense of
financial contributions fits the context of
the epistle well. Elsewhere, Paul speaks
of fellowship (Gk. koinonia)
in terms of financial aid, 55 and he certainly refers to this in 4: 15-17 where he
uses the verb form of koinonia, to share.
53 This is grammatically unlikely. It involves taking the accusative, the gospel, and rendering it as a genitive, yielding
something like, on account of your participation of
the gospel.
54 John Eadie,
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the
Philippians [
55 E.g.,
Rom. 12: 13; 15: 26; 2 Cor. 8: 4; 9: 13; Gal. 6: 6; 1 Tim. 6: 18; Heb. 13: 16.
If this is the meaning, then
56 Gerald F.
Hawthorne, Philippians, in Word Bible Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983),
p. 19.
57 Ibid., p. 21.
Rather, he insists, it is the sharing of their
resources to make the proclamation of the gospel possible.
[Page
206]
The completion of this good work would then be
either (1) its continuation; (2) its consummation in being rewarded at the day
of Christ; or (3) its achievement of its final aim - multiplied fruit in the
lives of others through Pauls defence and confirmation of the gospel, 58
Indeed, Paul tells them that as a result of their contributions they have
become partners with him in this defence and confirmation (v. 6). It is easy to see how this latter kind of completion could be carried on until the day of Christ. It is
difficult to see how Paul could be teaching that their financial
contributions could continue until that time. Paul is saying, I
am sure that God will finish
what He started. Your financial sacrifices has not been and will not be in
vain. God will complete it.
58 The result of the cash gift in the lives of others is
alluded to in 1 Cor. 9: 13 where the result of
giving was that men would praise God.
In other words, like many missionaries who followed,
Paul is assuring his supporters that the good work of giving which they began
will be completed by God with
significant impact for Christ through Pauls ministry to others. God will take their contributions and use
them mightily!
Conclusion
All of the major passages supporting the teaching that
justification [by faith] and sanctification [by good works] are
necessarily united have been examined. None of these passages require the meaning that sanctification
necessarily will follow justification. Since none of them require this meaning and
since the rest of the New Testament warns true Christians that they may not
complete their sanctification in this life, it appears the Experimental
Predestinarian view of perseverance [in holy living] is falsified.
In conclusion, one passage which will be discussed
many times in these chapters appears to have conclusive bearing on this
subject. Paul speaks of the believers work as a building which is composed of
either wood, hay, and stubble or gold, silver, and precious stones.
The former refers to the works
done by believers in the flesh, and the latter to works done by believers
walking in the Spirit. One day - [in the
future, and before
the first resurrection (See Heb. 9: 27; Heb. 11: 35;
Rev. 20: 4-6. R.V.), - at the Judgment Seat of Christ, for
apart from us they should not be made perfect,
Heb. 11: 40ff.)] - a
fire will be applied to this building and will reveal the materials of which it
is composed. The wood, hay, and stubble will burn up, and
only the gold, silver, and precious stones will remain.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each mans work. If
what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss, he
himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames (1 Cor. 3: 13-15).
The apostle describes a man whose entire building is
consumed by the flames; it is all burned up.
That can only mean that there was not one work worthy of reward he performed
during his entire life. Yet, Paul says,
he will be [Page 207] saved. Here then is a complete
refutation of the Experimental Predestinarian assertion that justification and
sanctification are inevitably connected.
True Christians are warned against the possibility
of such a failure. In passage after passage the writers of the
New Testament challenge us with a great danger.
Unfortunately, our Experimental Predestination friends have taught many
that the warnings do not apply to true Christians. They are only addressed to those who have
professed Christ but have not possessed Him in the heart. This
has in no small way contributed to the general loss of a sense of final
accountability observed in many of our churches. This
will be the subject of the next chapter.
A Note on That faith in James 2:
14
A few comments need to be made about the translation that faith, representing the Greek definite article and noun he pistis. This
construction has yielded three common translations: faith
(NKJV), such faith (NIV), and, as quoted above, that faith. What is the correct
translation, and what significance does it have?
First, it must be said that any one of these
translations can be justified on the basis of Greek usage. The NKJV represents the generic use of the
definite article. Such
and that are essential equivalents, reflecting and
demonstrative of previous reference usage. 59
59 For discussions of the use of the definite article in the
Greek New Testament, see C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of
New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (London: Cambridge University Press,
1959), pp. 106-17; Turner, Syntax,
pp. 165-84; and DM, 135-53.
The translations such and that
have led some to the idea that James is referring to two different kinds of
faith, a faith that saves and a faith that does not.
In Greek, as with many languages, the article is often
left untranslated, since in these cases its presence is meant to give the noun
a generic sense. On the other hand,
context often compels the translation of the article by its usual the. This, the careful exegete must ask the
question, when considering this verse, Why the article translated that
here? Most would admit that the
translation the faith does not fit well, but translating it in its other
normal manner, faith without the article, definitely does not clash with
the context and indeed makes very good sense in context. Why not then leave it that way? Are the reasons for the translation that
contextually or linguistically compelling?
Or is it the reflection of a theological bias?
[Page
208]
A study of the occurrences of pistis with and without the article in the book of James
reveals that the word faith occurs sixteen times, including 2:
14. In eleven instances (including 2:
14) it
occurs with the article, 60 and in five it occurs without it. 61
60 1: 3; 2: 1, 14, 17, 18 (two times), 26;
5: 15.
61 1: 6; 2: 5, 14, 18, 24.
In four instances the article is left
untranslated. In none of the other
instances where the article is translated is the translation that
or any other word except the. Although
this does not make it impossible that the article in James 2: 14 could still be translated by that, it does make it highly unlikely,
with the burden of proof resting on the shoulders of those who translate it
that way, especially if a theological point is going to be made on the basis of
this translation.
Therefore, the most grammatically and contextually
justifiable translation, faith, shows James
making a simple point: faith alone cannot save a man.
* *
*
[Page
209]
Chapter
10
The
Possibility of Failure
The Reformed
doctrine of perseverance not only lacks scriptural support for its view of sanctification,
it also flies in the face of the numerous warnings against falling away
repeated in nearly every book of the New Testament. Arminian theologians have pressed the warning
passages vigorously upon their Calvinist friends, and in the judgment of this
writer, with telling force. Unless it is
possible for a true believer to fall away, it is difficult to see the relevance
of these passages which seem to be directly applied to him by the New Testament
writers. 1
1 As will be argued elsewhere, the term fall away does
not refer to falling away from eternal salvation. It refers, rather, to a falling away from the
path of growth, or forfeiture of eternal [Gk. aionian] reward.
It is possible that the widespread acceptance of the
Reformed view of perseverance is due, in part, to the
fact that certain verses which seem to support it are given more attention than
those which seem to deny it. When
plausible refutations of a few problem passages
have been offered in the theology text books, an implication is made that the
remaining passages can similarly be explained.
What many are not aware of, however, is that the entire New Testament is
replete with passages which argue convincingly and decisively against the
doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
The New
Testament Warnings
In order to set the Experimental Predestinarian
difficulty in the full glare of the New Testament witness, it will be helpful
at this point to peruse a few of these so-called warning passages and sense their
importance for this discussion.
Few passages have entered more frequently into the
discussion of perseverance than Jn. 15: 6:
[Page
210]
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as
a branch, and dries up;
and they gather them, and cast
them into the fire, and they are burned
(NASB).
The difficulty for the Experimental Predestinarians is
that Jesus is referring to branches which are in Me, who do not bear fruit (15: 2). It seems to be possible for men in Christ
to be unfruitful and be cast into the fire and burned.
Speaking to the Colossians, the apostle Paul warns:
And although you were formerly alienated and
hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He
has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and
beyond reproach - if
indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away
from the hope of the gospel which you have heard (Col. 1: 21-23 NASB).
There is a real danger here, a danger of
not being presented before Him! On the Reformed premises, there can be no
real danger because all true Christians will continue in faith and will not be
moved away from the hope of the gospel.
He warns them further about the danger of not holding fast to the head (2: 19) and of being taken
captive through philosophy and empty deception
(2: 8).
The salvation of the Corinthians seems to be conditioned
on their holding fast:
Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you
received, in which also you
stand, by which also you
are saved, if you hold fast the word which
I preached to you, unless you believed in vain (1 Cor. 15: 1-2 NASB).
Young Timothy is challenged to guard against the danger of wandering from the faith:
For the love of money is a root of all sorts
of evil,
and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith,
and pierced themselves with many a pang. But flee from these
things, you man of God; and pursue
righteousness, godliness,
faith, love,
perseverance and gentleness. Fight the good fight
of faith; take
hold of the eternal [Gk. AIONIAN]
* life to
which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many
witnesses (1 Tim. 6: 10-12 NASB).
[* Note the
context here where aionian is translated eternal! Do we
have to fight in order to take hold of a life
which we previously received as a free gift of God? (Rom. 6: 23, R.V.)]
Paul apparently does not feel that perseverance is the
necessary and inevitable result of saving faith. Otherwise, why would he warn this regenerate
man of the danger of wandering from the faith and need to exhort him to fight [Page
211] the good
fight? On Experimental Predestinarian premises all
true Christians will necessarily and inevitably fight the good fight, and they
will not wander from the faith. They
will persevere in faith up to the point of physical death.
According to James, it is possible for a true
Christian to stray from the truth:
My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and
one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his
way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of
sins (Jas.
5: 19-20).
The sinner to which James refers is evidently a Christian
brother. The conditional clause implies that it is no means inevitable that he
will always be turned back.
Likewise, the apostle Peter makes it clear that true
Christians can fall:
Therefore, my brothers,
be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if
you do these things, you will never fall, and you
will receive a rich welcome into the eternal [Gk. aionian] kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ (2
Pet. 1: 10-11).
The conditional
participle, if you do (Gk. poiountes), holds forth a real danger to the [neglectful] readers of this epistle. They might fall and forfeit
their rich welcome into the eternal
kingdom. Earlier, he suggested that they can become ineffective and unproductive in their
knowledge of Jesus Christ (1:
8). In fact, he
teaches the need to have certain
character qualities manifested in increasing measure and then teaches that true Christians may not have this increasing measure of growth
and are nearsighted, blind, and forgetful of their being cleansed from former
sins (1: 8-9). Yet
according to the Experimental Predestinarians, true Christians will always have
an increasing measure of growth and will never permanently fall.
The danger of falling away is repeated later in the
same epistle:
His [Pauls] letters contain some
things that are hard to understand, which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
the other Scriptures to their own destruction. Therefore,
dear friends, since you
already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and
fall from your secure position. But grow in grace
and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3: 16-18).
Once again the danger of falling away is something
real for true Christians. Ignorant and
unstable people have distorted the epistles of Paul, and this act [Page
212] resulted in their destruction. That the same result can come
upon these dear friends seems to be stated when he warns them not to be carried away by the error of
lawless men and fall from your secure position. Why should this warning be
addressed to these dear friends, if in fact it was not possible for them to
experience this danger?
Consistent with the other passages studied, the
apostle Jude affirms a similar danger:
These are men who divide you, who followed mere
natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.* But you,
dear friends, build
yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep
yourselves in Gods love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to
bring you to eternal [Gk. aionian] life (Jude 19-21).
[* See Acts 5: 32
and The Personal Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
by G. H. Lang.]
In contract [to disobedient Christians
and] to
the non-believers, who do not have the Holy Spirit and who have caused
division, these dear friends are warned that they must keep themselves in Gods love. If being kept in Gods love is the necessary
and inevitable result of regeneration,
why are they commanded to keep themselves?
Surely the command implies that
they may not. And if they may not,
then the Experimental Predestinarian position is fiction.
The danger of failing to abide in Him is clearly in
the mind of the apostle John when he writes to his little children, i.e., his regenerate sons and daughters in the
faith:
If what you heard from the beginning abides
in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the
Father.
And now little
children, abide in Him,
so that when He appears, we may
have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming
(1 Jn. 2: 24-28 NASB).
We continue to abide in Him only if we heard from the beginning He abides in us. Failure to continue to abide is very real,
not hypothetical, and will result in
shrinking away from Him in shame at His coming.
According to the apostle, there is a danger that a
Christian can die:
Therefore, brothers,
we have an obligation - but it is
not to the sinful nature, to live according to
it. For
if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but
if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (Rom. 8: 12-13).
It goes without saying that the possibility that a brother
could live according
to the sinful nature is assumed.*
[* On the
contrary, we have experienced it at various times in our own lives; and we witness it in the
lives of others who are members within Gods Church!]
[Page
213]
In the same book Paul issues another emphatic warning,
a warning against the possibility of being cut off:
Granted. But they [
[* The question
begging to be asked here is: - Cut off from what?
The editor of this website believes it will be from the
glories that should follow (1 Pet.
1: 11,
R.V.): which be given to overcomers and those who suffer
for Christ and for the truths which He taught.
Search and see how many are mentioned throughout His inspired Word.]
In no uncertain terms Paul affirms a real danger of
being in some sense cut off if we fail to
continue in His kindness.
In this famous passage the apostle himself
acknowledges the possibility of failure:
Do you not know that in a race all the
runners run, but only
one gets the prize?
I beat by body and
make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for
the prize (1
Cor. 9: 24,
27).
He warns them, by inference, concerning the danger of similarly being disqualified.
In 1
Cor. 10: 1-21 Paul warns the
Corinthians against the danger of failure.
The whole passage is instructive.
As demonstrated earlier, the majority of the Israelites were born again,
and yet the majority did not persevere
in holiness. Consider:
So if you think you are standing firm, be
careful that you dont fall. No temptation has
seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful;
He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are
tempted He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it
(1 Cor. 10:
12-13).
He tells them that the experience of the forefathers
was intended as a warning for us [who are regenerate believers today] (10: 11). It is clear
that he has [genuine] Christians in
view, and not mere professors in Christ, because he promises them the assistance
of God in standing up to temptation.
Few verses seem to have impacted popular consciousness
as frequently as Pauls famous warning about falling from grace:
Stand firm, and do not let
yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words!
I Paul, tell you
that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ
will be of no value to you at all.
You who [Page 214] are trying to be justified by
law have
been alienated from Christ: you
have fallen away from grace (Gal. 5: 4).
Marshalling his full authority as an apostle, he tells
these Galatians that it is possible for true believers to fall from grace,
come under the yoke of slavery, and become alienated from Christ! These strong
words fly directly in the face of the Experimental Predestinations claim that
true believers cannot fall and could never become alienated from Christ because
they will persevere in faith to the end of life.
The possibility of failure to continue
is stressed by Paul in the famous passage where he worries that they may have
laboured for nothing.
Therefore, my dear friends,
as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now
much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation an fear and
trembling
in order
that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labour for nothing
(Phil. 2:
12-16).
These are dear friends who previously
have always obeyed. They are
born again. Yet there is a possibility
of their failure to continue to work out their salvation, resulting in the apostles labour among them being for nothing. There is nothing inevitable
and necessary about their perseverance.
Can a true Christian fail to persevere and thus
forfeit the prize?
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility
and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize (Col. 2: 18).
A true
believer can, by his life, deny the faith and become worse than an unbeliever:
If anyone does not provide for his relatives
and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an
unbeliever (1 Tim. 5: 8).
This person who denies the faith is contrasted with
the unbeliever. Clearly,
Paul is saying that a [regenerate] believer can be described in this way.
The love of
money can cause true Christians to wander from the faith:*
[* The faith referred
to here is not saving faith but faith in the age to
come Heb. 6:
5, which is yet future and after
the time of resurrection (Lk. 20: 35; Rev. 20: 4-6, R.V.).]
People who want to get rich fall into
temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men
into ruin and destruction. For the love of
money is the root of all kinds of evil. Some people,
eager for money, have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs (1 Tim. 6: 9-10).
[Page
215]
The people to whom
Paul refers include those who have wandered away from the faith, i.e., those who have faith but are not in some
way persevering in it. The result of
this is many griefs. In contrast to
those Christians who wander, Timothy is told to take hold of eternal [Gk. aionian] life to which he was called (1 Tim. 6: 12).
[
to be
continued, D.V.]