There is nothing better in this world than to be able to rejoice in God as your God and to know His love and favor. As we contemplate the wonder of Jesus Christ as our salvation, it leads us to "joy inexpressible" (1 Peter 1:8).
Sadly, I think that many today have confused our general American prosperity with the true assurance and joy that God gives to believers. In the recent Modern Reformation, Bishop William Willimon states, “In my experience, people on top, people in positions of economic power, always feel good about themselves and their world." I think this is a big part of our confusion about assurance. We think that because we have food, clothes, and shelter in relative abundance, we are fine with the Lord. This may be more or less blatant in particular individuals, but I think this is generally true. I have met very few people who were actually struggling with assurance.
This sort of assurance is dangerous. It is in reality generally a presumption. It makes us think that we are right with the Lord when we may not be. Such a mistake is deadly and eternally destructive.
How, then, can we distinguish true assurance from "American assurance"? I think that in reality it's quite simple. True assurance does not lead us simply to follow the way of the world. I've met many people who claim to be sure that they are saved and accepted by God but yet who do not seek the Lord, make no effort to know Him or seek His commands, and hardly have any interest in the Church.
For many of us, this sort of assurance and confidence might not be so blatant. We may think that we have spiritual joy when in reality it is simply the same worldly joy that unbelievers have that is a result of some good thing other than salvation. I think there is a simple test. Does that joy lead you to seek the Lord? Does that joy lead you to a greater desire to fellowship with Him? Does that joy lead you to desire heavenly things? If not, then it is probably not a true assurance and rejoicing in God.
And so what is this assurance? It is a true joy and confidence that we are accepted by God in Christ and are in God's favor. It works within us an inexpressible joy and causes us to desire to be with the Lord, fellowship with Him, and avoid that which would dim that joy (namely, sin and immoderate use of the world).
We can see that this is the case when we just consider an earthly analogy. If we experience joy in something, like a restaurant, it makes us want to go to that restaurant. We don't say, "That's a great restaurant, I never want to go there again." If we experience a delight and joy in someone, we want to be with them. We don't say, "I really enjoy my friend, and so I never want to see him again." So, it is with the Lord. If we have truly experienced the joy, delight, and acceptance of God, it leads us to want more.
How can we engender this assurance? First, we cannot have it unless we are actually converted and justified in Christ. Obviously, no one who is not accepted before God can rejoice in that acceptance.
Second, we should avoid those things that would dim that joy. This means both sin itself and immoderate use of the things of the world. An overindulgence in the things of the world will make us spiritually lethargic just as overeating will make us physically lethargic.
Third, we should meditate on Christ's atonement. This is the only ground for our hope. God forbid that we should boast in anything except the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14).
Fourth, we need to draw near to God. Many have not experienced the assurance and joy that they should because they have never really sought it. We must taste and see that the Lord is God.
This joy and assurance is a joy that is inexpressible. Rejoicing in God is unlike anything else in the world. We must seek it a unique way. The more we experience it, the more we will desire it. The more we desire it and seek it, the more God will give it.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Excellent Message on the Reliability of Scripture
Mark Dever is well-known as the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. He is a regular speaker at conferences, which often seem to also feature Al Mohler. What I did not know is that Dever was once a skeptic of the Bible. He now is an adamant defender.
In his talk on the authority and reliability of Scripture, he gives as good a presentation in one hour as I have heard. He speaks first about the reliability of Scripture. He notes that when people wonder whether or not the Bible is reliable, they usually mean one of four things. First, what about all the translations of the Bible? Second, are the Greek and Hebrew texts the same as those the Apostles had? Third, is the history accurate? Fourth, is what they claim true. He ably defends all four. His presentation is particularly powerful because of his agnostic background. I would encourage you to listen to the lecture yourself and give it to someone whom you know is struggling with these issues.
The second part of his speech is a defense of the authority of the Bible. Here he simply demonstrates that the Bible does teach that every word is the word of God and thus accurate. This is also a helpful review of the evidence.
Finally, he challenges us to make use of the time and freedom that we have to study the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is the authoritative and reliable Word of God, then it ought to be our greatest treasure and it ought to be read, studied, taught, and lived.
I listen to quite a few lectures, and while most are profitable, few are exceptional. This is one of those exceptional lectures. Check it out.
In his talk on the authority and reliability of Scripture, he gives as good a presentation in one hour as I have heard. He speaks first about the reliability of Scripture. He notes that when people wonder whether or not the Bible is reliable, they usually mean one of four things. First, what about all the translations of the Bible? Second, are the Greek and Hebrew texts the same as those the Apostles had? Third, is the history accurate? Fourth, is what they claim true. He ably defends all four. His presentation is particularly powerful because of his agnostic background. I would encourage you to listen to the lecture yourself and give it to someone whom you know is struggling with these issues.
The second part of his speech is a defense of the authority of the Bible. Here he simply demonstrates that the Bible does teach that every word is the word of God and thus accurate. This is also a helpful review of the evidence.
Finally, he challenges us to make use of the time and freedom that we have to study the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is the authoritative and reliable Word of God, then it ought to be our greatest treasure and it ought to be read, studied, taught, and lived.
I listen to quite a few lectures, and while most are profitable, few are exceptional. This is one of those exceptional lectures. Check it out.
Monday, September 08, 2008
“Law” in Paul: Law Means Law
The Issue
Perhaps the greatest confusion in modern New Testament studies concerns Paul’s use of the word law. Many think that it refers to a legalistic spirit, the Pentateuch as a whole, the distinctive laws given to Israel, or something else.
This criticism is often based on a particular understanding of the Hebrew word for law, torah, which purportedly has a broad meaning of instruction. This is in contrast to the Greek word for law, nomos, which has the narrower meaning of law, in their view. Consider the following statement, cited by Westerholm in Perspectives: “To debase divine instruction (a concept which linguistically as regarding content, corresponds to Torah) by equating it with the narrow-minded word nomos (the law)—all of this is an absurd caricature which finds its source in Paul.” Why the word nomos itself would be narrow-minded, I am not sure. Nonetheless, these scholars obviously see Paul as a culprit in furthering the misunderstanding of this concept of law.
In this essay, I would like to simply point out what the law means in the context of Paul and the Old Testament. My thesis is simply this: for Paul and the rest of the Scripture, the primary meaning of law is a rule of human action, that is, what one ought to do. Moreover, this word refers primarily, not to the precepts of Sinai as a whole, but to the Decalogue or moral law. I am indebted to Westerholm for several parts of this essay, and I would commend to your reading on this subject Chapter 16 of Perspectives on Paul Old and New.
The Meaning of Torah in the Old Testament
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew word torah as nomos, which means law. According to some, this distorts the meaning of the Hebrew original.
This is not the case. Anyone can take a concordance and see that the primary meaning of torah is a rule of human action. The Hebrew word torah is used several hundred times, and it rarely, if ever, has the sense of instruction. I will take just a few examples: “He commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to observe the law (torah) and the commandment (2 Chr. 14:4).” Torah here is obviously well-translated with our English word law. In Leviticus, when the laws are given concerning what someone ought to do in particular instances, we read, “This is the law of such and such” (Lev. 7:1, 11:46, 12:7, 13:59, etc.). In the prayer in Nehemiah we read, “Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments and thy testimonies, wherewith thou didst testify against them” (v. 34). In all of these, the clear meaning of torah is a law of human action, what one ought to do.
We must make one qualification here. Because the major content of the Pentateuch and several of its books consists in laws, we also find that this word is used to describe the “book of the law” as a whole. As Westerholm points out, this is similar to calling the book of Exodus “Exodus” because one of its significant portions is the story of the exodus. It does not alter the meaning of the word exodus.
The Meaning of Nomos in Paul
Various writers, since they believe that Paul speaks too negatively of the law (again, nomos), have denied that Paul is referring to the revealed law of God at all. Others have said that his use of the law refers to the Mosaic system and revelation as a whole. Others think that Paul uses the word in the same way that they believe the Hebrew word is used, for instruction. None of these views is correct. Paul uses the Greek word nomos to refer to rules of human action, and this is in line with the true meaning of the Hebrew. Both the Hebrew and Greek words are rightly translated by our English word law.
In considering Paul's use of nomos (law), we begin by noting that there is some ambiguity in Paul's use (similar to what we noted in the previous section). That is, he can use the word law to describe the Pentateuch, the time of the Old Testament, or the Old Testament Scripture as a whole. However, his ordinary use of the word refers to the laws or rules given at Sinai.
To see the meaning of the word for Paul, consider Romans 2 where Paul rebukes the Jews for boasting in the law, since they do not keep it. He says that they are instructed out of the law (nomos). And what is this instruction? It relates to commandments, rules, or laws as can be seen from verses 21-23. This law (nomos) is one that can be “kept” (v. 25), “fulfilled” (v. 27), and “done” (v. 13). Thus, Paul uses the term law for rules or laws of human action.
This same use of the word law is found elsewhere in Paul's writings. In Galatians, Paul says that those who are circumcised become debtors “to keep the whole law” (5:3). He also says that those who are circumcised to not “keep the law” (Gal. 6:13).
Romans 7:7-12 is very helpful here. In Rom. 7:9, Paul says, “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Here the words "law" and "commandment" are used nearly interchangeably (cf. 7:12). A specific law is also mentioned here, “You shall not covet.” Once again, it is clear that Paul uses the word law to describe a rule of human action, what one ought to do. Law does mean law.
Nomos Chiefly Means the Decalogue
From the history of the giving of the law at Sinai, we can see that God set the Ten Commandments apart from all the other commands. It was the Ten Commandments alone that God Himself spoke to the people of Israel. The rest He gave through an intermediary, Moses.
For Paul, as well, it is the moral law or the law of the Ten Commandments that is chiefly in view when he speaks of the law. This can easily be observed from his explanation of its precepts in Rom. 7:7-12 and Rom. 2:21-23 as well statements that love fulfills the commandments, which certainly refers to the Decalogue and not to the ceremonial or political laws of Israel (Rom. 13:8-10).
Of course, this does not mean that the other laws are absolutely excluded. Rather, it means that the fundamental law given to Israel is also the law that is written on the heart of the Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15). Note that Paul goes on in Rom. 2 to explain that the law gives the Jews the ability to instruct the Gentiles in their common duties.
The result is as Westerholm notes, “Paul does not see the position of the Jews under the Sinaitic covenant as fundamentally different from that of Gentiles: all are subject to God’s demands for righteous behavior” (302, fn. 13). Since they are all subject to God’s demands, they are also all subject to God’s curse and thus also to a salvation that is obtained by Christ taking the curse upon Himself.
Consequences
The significance of this point may not be immediately apparent to some, but this is a crucial issue for several reasons.
1. This makes clear that when Paul excludes the works of the law from our salvation, justification, and sanctification, he is not merely excluding a particular type of work but all moral works whatsoever that we would do for our salvation. If we say that law means something other than law, then we can easily end up bringing obedience to laws back into the work of our salvation.
2. In a similar way, we must understand that the law requires perfect obedience. There may be mercy for someone who breaks the laws, but the law as such can never declare mercy or anything other than duty and its consequences. For example, if there was a law that said you did not have to drive the speed limit on Tuesdays, this would not mean that the law no longer required perfect compliance. Rather, it means that there is no law that you have to follow the speed limit on Tuesdays. Laws as such can never ask anything other than perfect fulfillment.
3. This also makes clear that when Paul is speaking against the law, he is not speaking against the Old Testament as such. Rather, he is speaking against thinking that our obedience to the law can effect justification, sanctification, or salvation. This is true both of the laws of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
4. The law/Gospel distinction is legitimate. Since the law can only tell us what to do, it cannot give a sinner any good news. The good news is that the law is fulfilled for us and in us by Jesus Christ. While God may give the laws in the context of speaking to His redeemed people as to the rule of holiness, this does not mean that these laws as laws are any more efficacious in effecting salvation. We must not make obedience to the commands of Jesus or Moses (which are actually fundamentally the same) the basis of our justification or the power for our sanctification, which they can in fact never be!
5. Ironically, this also removes antinomianism. When law is seen as something other than rules of human action, the attempt is often made to get rid of rules for human action from the Christian life together. On the contrary, when we understand that law is law, we also recognize that rules of human action remain rules of human action, even when we cannot do them or have not done them. The moral law remains the rule of human action, which we can only fulfill by the power of the Spirit. The law itself simply gives us no resources to sinners for fulfilling its commands.
Perhaps the greatest confusion in modern New Testament studies concerns Paul’s use of the word law. Many think that it refers to a legalistic spirit, the Pentateuch as a whole, the distinctive laws given to Israel, or something else.
This criticism is often based on a particular understanding of the Hebrew word for law, torah, which purportedly has a broad meaning of instruction. This is in contrast to the Greek word for law, nomos, which has the narrower meaning of law, in their view. Consider the following statement, cited by Westerholm in Perspectives: “To debase divine instruction (a concept which linguistically as regarding content, corresponds to Torah) by equating it with the narrow-minded word nomos (the law)—all of this is an absurd caricature which finds its source in Paul.” Why the word nomos itself would be narrow-minded, I am not sure. Nonetheless, these scholars obviously see Paul as a culprit in furthering the misunderstanding of this concept of law.
In this essay, I would like to simply point out what the law means in the context of Paul and the Old Testament. My thesis is simply this: for Paul and the rest of the Scripture, the primary meaning of law is a rule of human action, that is, what one ought to do. Moreover, this word refers primarily, not to the precepts of Sinai as a whole, but to the Decalogue or moral law. I am indebted to Westerholm for several parts of this essay, and I would commend to your reading on this subject Chapter 16 of Perspectives on Paul Old and New.
The Meaning of Torah in the Old Testament
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew word torah as nomos, which means law. According to some, this distorts the meaning of the Hebrew original.
This is not the case. Anyone can take a concordance and see that the primary meaning of torah is a rule of human action. The Hebrew word torah is used several hundred times, and it rarely, if ever, has the sense of instruction. I will take just a few examples: “He commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to observe the law (torah) and the commandment (2 Chr. 14:4).” Torah here is obviously well-translated with our English word law. In Leviticus, when the laws are given concerning what someone ought to do in particular instances, we read, “This is the law of such and such” (Lev. 7:1, 11:46, 12:7, 13:59, etc.). In the prayer in Nehemiah we read, “Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments and thy testimonies, wherewith thou didst testify against them” (v. 34). In all of these, the clear meaning of torah is a law of human action, what one ought to do.
We must make one qualification here. Because the major content of the Pentateuch and several of its books consists in laws, we also find that this word is used to describe the “book of the law” as a whole. As Westerholm points out, this is similar to calling the book of Exodus “Exodus” because one of its significant portions is the story of the exodus. It does not alter the meaning of the word exodus.
The Meaning of Nomos in Paul
Various writers, since they believe that Paul speaks too negatively of the law (again, nomos), have denied that Paul is referring to the revealed law of God at all. Others have said that his use of the law refers to the Mosaic system and revelation as a whole. Others think that Paul uses the word in the same way that they believe the Hebrew word is used, for instruction. None of these views is correct. Paul uses the Greek word nomos to refer to rules of human action, and this is in line with the true meaning of the Hebrew. Both the Hebrew and Greek words are rightly translated by our English word law.
In considering Paul's use of nomos (law), we begin by noting that there is some ambiguity in Paul's use (similar to what we noted in the previous section). That is, he can use the word law to describe the Pentateuch, the time of the Old Testament, or the Old Testament Scripture as a whole. However, his ordinary use of the word refers to the laws or rules given at Sinai.
To see the meaning of the word for Paul, consider Romans 2 where Paul rebukes the Jews for boasting in the law, since they do not keep it. He says that they are instructed out of the law (nomos). And what is this instruction? It relates to commandments, rules, or laws as can be seen from verses 21-23. This law (nomos) is one that can be “kept” (v. 25), “fulfilled” (v. 27), and “done” (v. 13). Thus, Paul uses the term law for rules or laws of human action.
This same use of the word law is found elsewhere in Paul's writings. In Galatians, Paul says that those who are circumcised become debtors “to keep the whole law” (5:3). He also says that those who are circumcised to not “keep the law” (Gal. 6:13).
Romans 7:7-12 is very helpful here. In Rom. 7:9, Paul says, “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Here the words "law" and "commandment" are used nearly interchangeably (cf. 7:12). A specific law is also mentioned here, “You shall not covet.” Once again, it is clear that Paul uses the word law to describe a rule of human action, what one ought to do. Law does mean law.
Nomos Chiefly Means the Decalogue
From the history of the giving of the law at Sinai, we can see that God set the Ten Commandments apart from all the other commands. It was the Ten Commandments alone that God Himself spoke to the people of Israel. The rest He gave through an intermediary, Moses.
For Paul, as well, it is the moral law or the law of the Ten Commandments that is chiefly in view when he speaks of the law. This can easily be observed from his explanation of its precepts in Rom. 7:7-12 and Rom. 2:21-23 as well statements that love fulfills the commandments, which certainly refers to the Decalogue and not to the ceremonial or political laws of Israel (Rom. 13:8-10).
Of course, this does not mean that the other laws are absolutely excluded. Rather, it means that the fundamental law given to Israel is also the law that is written on the heart of the Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15). Note that Paul goes on in Rom. 2 to explain that the law gives the Jews the ability to instruct the Gentiles in their common duties.
The result is as Westerholm notes, “Paul does not see the position of the Jews under the Sinaitic covenant as fundamentally different from that of Gentiles: all are subject to God’s demands for righteous behavior” (302, fn. 13). Since they are all subject to God’s demands, they are also all subject to God’s curse and thus also to a salvation that is obtained by Christ taking the curse upon Himself.
Consequences
The significance of this point may not be immediately apparent to some, but this is a crucial issue for several reasons.
1. This makes clear that when Paul excludes the works of the law from our salvation, justification, and sanctification, he is not merely excluding a particular type of work but all moral works whatsoever that we would do for our salvation. If we say that law means something other than law, then we can easily end up bringing obedience to laws back into the work of our salvation.
2. In a similar way, we must understand that the law requires perfect obedience. There may be mercy for someone who breaks the laws, but the law as such can never declare mercy or anything other than duty and its consequences. For example, if there was a law that said you did not have to drive the speed limit on Tuesdays, this would not mean that the law no longer required perfect compliance. Rather, it means that there is no law that you have to follow the speed limit on Tuesdays. Laws as such can never ask anything other than perfect fulfillment.
3. This also makes clear that when Paul is speaking against the law, he is not speaking against the Old Testament as such. Rather, he is speaking against thinking that our obedience to the law can effect justification, sanctification, or salvation. This is true both of the laws of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
4. The law/Gospel distinction is legitimate. Since the law can only tell us what to do, it cannot give a sinner any good news. The good news is that the law is fulfilled for us and in us by Jesus Christ. While God may give the laws in the context of speaking to His redeemed people as to the rule of holiness, this does not mean that these laws as laws are any more efficacious in effecting salvation. We must not make obedience to the commands of Jesus or Moses (which are actually fundamentally the same) the basis of our justification or the power for our sanctification, which they can in fact never be!
5. Ironically, this also removes antinomianism. When law is seen as something other than rules of human action, the attempt is often made to get rid of rules for human action from the Christian life together. On the contrary, when we understand that law is law, we also recognize that rules of human action remain rules of human action, even when we cannot do them or have not done them. The moral law remains the rule of human action, which we can only fulfill by the power of the Spirit. The law itself simply gives us no resources to sinners for fulfilling its commands.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Putting Prayer Back in Church
It has always amazed me how much uproar there is over prayer in public schools. Why? Because we are concerned to put it where we can't but not concerned to put it where we can. Most Christians pray a couple minutes a day, at best. If we have a Superbowl Sunday event, the whole Church comes out. If there is a prayer night, a mere handful come out. We live in an utterly prayerless age.
Before we are concerned about putting prayer back in schools, we should be diligent in putting it back into our lives and Churches. Why should we expect the society to be concerned about prayer when the Church hardly seems to be?
One way for us to get back to a proper sense of prayer is by reading older works on prayer. Johannes Vanderkemp, a Dutch Reformed preacher from the 17th century (when else?), has left us some very helpful thoughts on prayer in his superb two volumes of sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism (buy it here or download it here). I encourage you to read the sermon on Lord's Day 45 for yourself, but I will highlight here a few of the key points.
1. We must recognize the difficulty of the work. Our day is not the only day in which Christians find it hard to pray. It is difficult because of our sinful flesh and sinful dispositions. "There is no work, for which we are less qualified, than praying in a suitable manner to the Lord" (401).
2. Nevertheless, prayer is very valuable. It is one of the greatest works of the Christian.
3. When we consider the manner of prayer, we must begin by trying our best to have an exalted understanding of God.
4. Closely connected with this, we must have an understanding of our own need and misery. "Our hearts must be deeply sensible of what we need, of the misery to which we are subject, that we are unworthy of, and have forfeited all things, that the soul, urged by her need, may humbly prostrate herself before the Lord, and may seek his grace" (393). This is true especially because we actually are extremely needy. We are totally dependent on God. "Man is exceedingly needy, he is destitute of everything, he possesseth nothing in himself that can afford him sanctification, but he must seek all things out of himself from the Lord by prayer" (393).
5. This last point is especially difficult. As Vanderkemp points out elsewhere, man is extremely miserable, yet he will not mourn. Vanderkemp at one point asks his hearers to consider whether they have ever prayed in the right way. "Hath any active desire to enjoy the Lord ever possessed your minds? Doth your misery affect you so, that it afflicts you, and causes you to cry to God (404)?" He condemns those who have simply prayed in a casual way or not at all. He asks them to seriously consider their position. In order to provoke them to consider their ways, he gives an illustration:
Such a consideration would help us to see the real gravity of prayer.
6. Finally, he makes a note about the general content of prayer. If people do pray, they generally pray for physical needs. Most prayer requests relate to physical ailments. While we ought to pray for such things, our prayer lives are out of balance. Vanderkemp, following the general content of the Lord's Prayer says that our prayers should be more for things of the soul than those of the body, more for the things that relate to God than those that relate to us, and more against sin than against the chastisement for sin.
Vanderkemp's sermon is a powerful corrective to the casual prayers we so often pray and the prayerless lives that we often lead. We should take prayer as seriously as we take anything else in the world, if not more so. But it often gets last place. God has opened the door. He is willing to hear us through Jesus Christ. How can we not enter and speak to the Lord of glory? "It shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear" (Is. 65:24).
Before we are concerned about putting prayer back in schools, we should be diligent in putting it back into our lives and Churches. Why should we expect the society to be concerned about prayer when the Church hardly seems to be?
One way for us to get back to a proper sense of prayer is by reading older works on prayer. Johannes Vanderkemp, a Dutch Reformed preacher from the 17th century (when else?), has left us some very helpful thoughts on prayer in his superb two volumes of sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism (buy it here or download it here). I encourage you to read the sermon on Lord's Day 45 for yourself, but I will highlight here a few of the key points.
1. We must recognize the difficulty of the work. Our day is not the only day in which Christians find it hard to pray. It is difficult because of our sinful flesh and sinful dispositions. "There is no work, for which we are less qualified, than praying in a suitable manner to the Lord" (401).
2. Nevertheless, prayer is very valuable. It is one of the greatest works of the Christian.
Prayer is like Jacob’s ladder, by which we climb up to heaven, and like the wings of an eagle, by which we mount up to heaven: by prayer we are with Paul caught up into the paradise of God, the third heaven; we enter in through the inmost veil; we see him who is invisible; we speak to God as a man speaks to his friend, we walk with him, we cleave to him, and acquaint ourselves with him; by prayer we can shut and open heaven with Elijah, overcome God with Jacob and with Moses restrain his anger so that he will not consume Israel. What think ye Christians, have ye not a desire to such a great work, and will ye not give yourselves wholly to it (408)?
3. When we consider the manner of prayer, we must begin by trying our best to have an exalted understanding of God.
The mind must know through the Spirit the one true God, who hath revealed himself in his word, from that word, in all his adorable perfections, that the soul, affected with lively apprehensions and contemplation of God, to whom she speaks, may possess and be actuated with reverence and a believing confidence in prayer (393).
4. Closely connected with this, we must have an understanding of our own need and misery. "Our hearts must be deeply sensible of what we need, of the misery to which we are subject, that we are unworthy of, and have forfeited all things, that the soul, urged by her need, may humbly prostrate herself before the Lord, and may seek his grace" (393). This is true especially because we actually are extremely needy. We are totally dependent on God. "Man is exceedingly needy, he is destitute of everything, he possesseth nothing in himself that can afford him sanctification, but he must seek all things out of himself from the Lord by prayer" (393).
5. This last point is especially difficult. As Vanderkemp points out elsewhere, man is extremely miserable, yet he will not mourn. Vanderkemp at one point asks his hearers to consider whether they have ever prayed in the right way. "Hath any active desire to enjoy the Lord ever possessed your minds? Doth your misery affect you so, that it afflicts you, and causes you to cry to God (404)?" He condemns those who have simply prayed in a casual way or not at all. He asks them to seriously consider their position. In order to provoke them to consider their ways, he gives an illustration:
What think ye, if ye once saw your deplorable condition, that none of your sins were yet forgiven, that God did yet behold you in anger, that ye were unable to do what is necessary for you to do, in order to be saved, that, that ye had never yet prayed aright, that ye cannot pray so, and that therefore if ye die as ye are at present, ye must perish: would ye not be urged by your danger to retire, and enter into secret, to fall upon your knees, and cry to God for grace (405)?
Such a consideration would help us to see the real gravity of prayer.
6. Finally, he makes a note about the general content of prayer. If people do pray, they generally pray for physical needs. Most prayer requests relate to physical ailments. While we ought to pray for such things, our prayer lives are out of balance. Vanderkemp, following the general content of the Lord's Prayer says that our prayers should be more for things of the soul than those of the body, more for the things that relate to God than those that relate to us, and more against sin than against the chastisement for sin.
Vanderkemp's sermon is a powerful corrective to the casual prayers we so often pray and the prayerless lives that we often lead. We should take prayer as seriously as we take anything else in the world, if not more so. But it often gets last place. God has opened the door. He is willing to hear us through Jesus Christ. How can we not enter and speak to the Lord of glory? "It shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear" (Is. 65:24).
Monday, September 01, 2008
God Declares Wicked People Righteous
The word to justify is generally better translated, "to declare righteous." It is the opposite of the word "to condemn," which means, "to declare guilty" (Rom. 8:33-34). Since the word justify means "to declare righteous" it can actually be said that people "justify" God (Lk. 7:29). Obviously, someone does not make God righteous, and they do not transfer God into the covenant. Instead, they simply declare that He is righteous. They acknowledge what He is.
In Rom. 4:5, it is said that God justifies the ungodly. In Rom. 5:8-9, it is said that sinners are justified by the blood of Christ. It is not surprising that someone would declare God to be righteous. It also would not be overly surprising for someone to declare sinful people to be righteous. After all, there are miscarriages of justice every day. What is surprising is that God declares the wicked to be righteous.
This is all the more surprising because God actually said that He would not do this. "I will not justify the wicked" (Ex. 23:7). Moreover, He condemned judges who did this. They were not to declare the wicked righteous or innocent, they were also not to declare the innocent to be wicked or guilty (Prov. 17:15).
Before we go on, we should meditate on what amazing thing this is. God takes people who are idolaters, adulterers, murderers, and blasphemers and declares them to be righteous, having done all that is necessary and not having done anything worthy of punishment! This should certainly be the best news that a sinner can receive!
Now, because God justifies sinners, Paul (and others) use the language of being justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), apart from the law (Rom. 3:21), to those who believe (Rom. 3:22), freely (Rom. 3:24), one who can have no confidence in his works (Rom. 3:27-28), without working (Rom. 4:4), and without deeds of righteousness (Tit. 3:5). It is, in the words, of Westerholdm, extraordinary righteousness. It is the not the normal righteousness whereby someone does what is right and then is declared to be righteous on that basis. It is someone who has not done what is right and then is declared to be righteous.
Of course, we're left with a nagging doubt. Many people would be offended by such statements. How is that God can do what He said (in other respects) that He would not do? How can He say that sinners are righteous when they're not? How can He declare people who have committed racial crimes, murderers, and slanderers righteous? How can God be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus? It would seem that this would make God unjust.
The answer is that Jesus makes the difference. How is that God can be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus? Paul answers, "God set forth Jesus as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom. 3:25). There is a righteousness from God (Rom. 3:21-22, cf. Phil. 3:9). There is a payment or redemption in Christ Jesus to God's justice (Rom. 3:24). We are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9). It is because He became sin for us that we can become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ has intervened so that we who are ungodly can be declared righteous.
When we stand before God's throne, how are we, sinful and wicked people, going to be declared righteous by a just and holy god? By all rights, we should not be! But God has given us what we do not deserve by giving Christ what we deserved. The result is that all who believe in Him are declared to be righteous, perfect and worthy of eternal life. Through Jesus Christ, all those who believe the message of the Gospel receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness (Rom. 5:17).
This is the foundational doctrine of the Christian Church. Without it, there can be no hope at all. As John Calvin said, "It is the principal ground of religion...For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared" (Institutes, III.xi.1). And praise God we can know. The vilest offender who truly believe that moment not only receives pardon but is declared to be righteous by a just and holy God solely for the sake of the death, obedience, and merits of our glorious Savior Jesus Christ.
In Rom. 4:5, it is said that God justifies the ungodly. In Rom. 5:8-9, it is said that sinners are justified by the blood of Christ. It is not surprising that someone would declare God to be righteous. It also would not be overly surprising for someone to declare sinful people to be righteous. After all, there are miscarriages of justice every day. What is surprising is that God declares the wicked to be righteous.
This is all the more surprising because God actually said that He would not do this. "I will not justify the wicked" (Ex. 23:7). Moreover, He condemned judges who did this. They were not to declare the wicked righteous or innocent, they were also not to declare the innocent to be wicked or guilty (Prov. 17:15).
Before we go on, we should meditate on what amazing thing this is. God takes people who are idolaters, adulterers, murderers, and blasphemers and declares them to be righteous, having done all that is necessary and not having done anything worthy of punishment! This should certainly be the best news that a sinner can receive!
Now, because God justifies sinners, Paul (and others) use the language of being justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), apart from the law (Rom. 3:21), to those who believe (Rom. 3:22), freely (Rom. 3:24), one who can have no confidence in his works (Rom. 3:27-28), without working (Rom. 4:4), and without deeds of righteousness (Tit. 3:5). It is, in the words, of Westerholdm, extraordinary righteousness. It is the not the normal righteousness whereby someone does what is right and then is declared to be righteous on that basis. It is someone who has not done what is right and then is declared to be righteous.
Of course, we're left with a nagging doubt. Many people would be offended by such statements. How is that God can do what He said (in other respects) that He would not do? How can He say that sinners are righteous when they're not? How can He declare people who have committed racial crimes, murderers, and slanderers righteous? How can God be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus? It would seem that this would make God unjust.
The answer is that Jesus makes the difference. How is that God can be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus? Paul answers, "God set forth Jesus as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom. 3:25). There is a righteousness from God (Rom. 3:21-22, cf. Phil. 3:9). There is a payment or redemption in Christ Jesus to God's justice (Rom. 3:24). We are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9). It is because He became sin for us that we can become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ has intervened so that we who are ungodly can be declared righteous.
When we stand before God's throne, how are we, sinful and wicked people, going to be declared righteous by a just and holy god? By all rights, we should not be! But God has given us what we do not deserve by giving Christ what we deserved. The result is that all who believe in Him are declared to be righteous, perfect and worthy of eternal life. Through Jesus Christ, all those who believe the message of the Gospel receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness (Rom. 5:17).
This is the foundational doctrine of the Christian Church. Without it, there can be no hope at all. As John Calvin said, "It is the principal ground of religion...For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared" (Institutes, III.xi.1). And praise God we can know. The vilest offender who truly believe that moment not only receives pardon but is declared to be righteous by a just and holy God solely for the sake of the death, obedience, and merits of our glorious Savior Jesus Christ.
Concluding the Debate on Future Justification
Gal. 5:5 speaks of believers awaiting righteousness in the future; but according to Rom. 5:9, they have been justified and will be saved from the coming wrath (cf. 5:1; 9:30; 1 Cor. 6:11). Just as Adam’s disobedience brought death and condemnation on all human beings—a sentence under which they now live, though it will be definitively pronounced at the last judgment—so Christ’s obedient death brought righteousness and life to all believers, a liberation they now enjoy and one that will be confirmed at the last judgment” (emphasis his, Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives, p. 274, fn. 29).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
