On this question Hebrews 10 is quite clear and really needs no additional argument.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Those who apostatize from the New Covenant are subject to worst penalties than those who violated the Mosaic Covenant (which, according to Reformed Theology, is actually an administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works–the curses in Deuteronomy 28 are no less problematic in principle than any alleged problems with curses in the Gospel Covenant).

The teacher Meredith Kline used to teach that the New Covenant had both blessings and curses. In doing so he said nothing out of the ordinary because he was in agreement with many every other Reformed teachers. (I know this because his material on sacraments, thought I thought it was extreme in denying their essential graciousness, was still seminal to my own thinking.)

But then for reasons that are known only to him, Kline decided that any covenant with both blessings and curses had to be a “covenant of works.” Even if there wasn’t plenty in mainstream (i.e. non-Klinean) Reformed Covenant Theology to correct Kline, the author of Hebrews would still be enough.

But, to repeat, there is no need to use Hebrews to correct run-of-the-mill Reformed Evangelical Theology. Here’s a quotation defending baptism from the website of Third Millennium Ministries:

As a covenant sign, I came to believe that baptism symbolizes the entire covenant, not just one particular covenant blessing, and not even all covenant blessings alone. Rather, the implication would be that, like circumcision, it symbolizes both covenant blessings and covenant curses.

This almost seems to hold to the unnecessary early (and better) Klinean mistake of think that, because the sacraments imply the possibility of curses, we must not call them blessings. But a wedding is a covenant initiation which involves vows and the implied malediction on either partner being unfaithful. Yet, while every one entering marriage needs to soberly reflect on their obligations, that by no means makes a marriage anything less than an act of blessing and love. It certainly does not make marriage a covenant of works. A spouse is required to be faithful to her partner, but she does not earn the love in the relationship by doing so.

By the way, one can actually see how the Klinean concept of covenant affects marriage by looking at the Protestant Reformed Churches in America in which marriage is permanent no matter how much one partner violates the covenant. The offended party is never permitted to divorce and remarry. That is the only way that the graciousness of marriage can be upheld in this way of thinking. Otherwise, marriage becomes a “covenant of works.”

But even if I would tweak the point about baptism quoted above (maybe), it still shows that there is no problem affirming curses of the New Covenant. Likewise, John Frame writes:

God’s covenants are two-edged. Those who are faithful to the covenant receive blessings; those who are not faithful receive curse. Many in Israel falsely trusted in their covenant membership, as if being children of Yahweh they could sin with impunity. But God responded to them with devastation and exile, preserving the faithful remnant. In time it becomes evident that only Jesus is the perfectly faithful remnant. He bears the curse for his people — for all who are joined to him by God’s election (Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:4). Yet even under the new covenant there are those who attach themselves to God’s church who later prove to be devoid of true faith and outside of God’s electing love. Those receive exceptionally severe curses as those who rebelled against Christ in the face of intimate knowledge (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-31). Biblical writers never tire of presenting the enormous consequences of faith or unbelief: the rewards coming to God’s people, the dreadful judgments upon the wicked.

Summoning examples from the Reformed mainstream to substantiate an obvious Scriptural point seems almost blasphemous. The Bible teaches that there are covenant curses in the New Covenant that are distinctive from, because much worse than, the curses of the Mosaic Covenant. If the Reformed Tradition had taken the same path as the Grace Evangelical Society and propounded antinomianism, then that would be so much the worse for the Reformed Tradition. The Bible is completely clear on this issue.

Naturally, the elect never experience such New Covenant sanctions. Rather, they are given a persevering faith that avoids them. In fact, the New Covenant sanctions are means of their perseverance because, as the Westminster Confession states, saving faith reacts with fear of the consequences of unbelief as well as pursuing the blessings associated with faith. Among other things, justifying faith

believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come (ch 14, para 2).

Copyright © 2008

I want to talk to you today about the Church of Jesus Christ as Paul describes it in many places in his writings but especially in First Corinthians chapter twelve. To do that, I have also read Leviticus 9 in which fire from God himself came down to consume the sacrifices inaugurating the altar and the sacrificial system it was designed for.

It is important you realize that God himself lit the fire on the altar. The very next chapter describes Aaron’s priestly sons Nadab and Abihu trying to add their own fire and use it to offer incense. God responds by his own fire burning them up. God’s own fire was the only fire in the Tabernacle. The same is true of the Temple, as we read in Second Chronicles 7.1-3:

As soon as Solomon finished his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house. When all the people of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the Lord on the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the ground on the pavement and worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.”

So the fire starts with God’s own presence. No one offers God anything through his own accomplishments. God takes the initiative by coming to us and establishing a place where he dwells and where we meet with him.

How is this story relevant to what Paul says about the Church?

The relevance will become obvious if we think about how the altar looked to most Israelites most of the time. What did an Israelite see through most of the centuries of Israel’s history during the time of the Tabernacle and then during the time of the Temple later?

He saw a fire on the altar that looked just like any other fire. Yes, the first generation of the Tabernacle and the Temple saw fire come down and consume the sacrifices. Yes, they could swear to their children that they witnessed this great event, when God himself in his glory filled the structure and ignited the altar. But no one else after the actual event could ever know except to rely on the testimony of others.

Ultimately they had to rest on the testimony of Scripture about what happened. They could see the fire. They could see the priests regularly keeping the fire going. But determining where it came from was entirely a matter of trust. The fire was there to teach them to rely on God’s work and not man’s, but for all they could tell the fire was man’s work and not God’s.

And that is why I think our story from Leviticus is important for what Paul says about the Church, because the Church is not a man-made institution.

There are many institutions today that claim to be divine when they are only man made. The Mormons, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints, claim to be divine. The Watchtower Society, known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim to be from God. And we know that these are man-made institutions, not works of God’s Spirit. So the idea of a man-made institution is perfectly plausible.

And Christians can even come to view the Church that way. Sure, they know the truth, but they can be tempted to view the Church as a man-made institution that happens to confess the truth. The Church, in this view, is a help in confessing the truth and living the Christian life, but it is almost no better than the Christian family or some other Christian organization in that regard.

But the Apostle Paul tells us that God made the Church, not man. It is the body of Christ formed by the Spirit. “For in one Spirit,” Paul writes, “we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

We can think of two things here. First of all, Paul mentions baptism as the Spirits work. This has caused headaches in some parts and ages of the Church because baptism doesn’t seem like that special an action, just like that fire on the altar didn’t seem that special. But if the Church is formed by the Spirit, then the means by which people are added to the Church must also be used by the Spirit to build up that Church.

Secondly, certainly in speaking of the Spirit and the Church Paul’s readers would be reminded of Pentecost. Just as the fire came down on the altars in the Tabernacle and the Temple, so in Acts 2 we read about tongues of fire coming upon the disciples in the upper room. The similarity in the two events emphasizes the difference. Where once fire fell on things and people were driven away from the glory of God, at Pentecost the fire of the Spirit fell on people who were shown that God’s glory is now given to them.

And just as the Apostle Paul says that baptism makes you a part of a body that is different from your nationality or your social or economic society, so in that first sermon at Pentecost Peter offered the Spirit to people who needed to be separated from their natural corporate identity and made part of a new corporate identity.

Remember his words: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

So just as the first hearers of the preaching of the Spirit-formed Church needed to be rescued from that generation that had crucified Jesus, so everywhere the Gospel is preached, men and women are called upon to be separated from their natural identities as members of race and class and be given a new Spiritual identity by being added to the body of Christ in baptism.

That new identity, that new membership in the body of Christ, entails a new ethic. Paul has much to say about it in all his letters. Here he emphasizes that each member of the Church is a gift for the perfection of the Church.

This again requires us to actually believe that the Spirit is the source of the Church. First Corinthians 12.18-19: But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The new people who come into the church, the babies that are brought in, the people who have been in the Church seemingly forever—God promises that they have all come together for a reason: to form one body in the way he wants them to. It isn’t chance. It isn’t natural. It is God’s supernatural work through the Spirit.

And let us be clear: I am talking about the visible Church. Paul isn’t speaking of all the elect as a group throughout history, and he is not discussing here what is unique to the sincere believers as opposed to temporary believers. He is simply talking about the Church as we see it as a community and organization.

Vv. 24-28
God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

How can this not be visible? Paul is talking about a community in which the members are to help one another, to suffer and rejoice together. He wants his readers to avoid division in their Church community because God wants “no division in the body.” And if this were not enough, he says that church offices are gifts of the Spirit. Apostles and teachers are not invisible. They are offices in a visible community.

Somehow we have gotten the idea that anything associated with the Spirit must be intangible and immaterial. But nothing could be further from the truth. We first read about the Spirit in Genesis 1.2. The Spirit hovers over the dark, formless, void. What happens next? Does God make a bunch of invisible things? None are mentioned in the text of Genesis 1. No, he makes the physical world that we live in. That visible, tangible environment is the Spirit’s work.

And what is true of the first creation is true of the second creation. Just as the Spirit gave us gifts of trees and air, so in the second Creation he gives us Jesus and one another. The Spirit, remember, did not make Jesus into an immaterial ghost but rather transfigured his body and raised him from the dead. And likewise the Spirit forms true tangible communities and organizations, churches that make up his international Church.

We tend to assume that because the Spirit is invisible his work must also be invisible. Thus, it is natural for us to associate the Spirit exclusively with the invisible Church or with undetectable stuff in our hearts to the exclusion of anything else. But while there is no doubt that the Spirit can deal in unseen things, if we think that is all he does we are missing the point.

The invisibility of the Spirit doesn’t mean he can’t be associated with visible things. It means just the opposite, that he is the reason behind visible things that you don’t see but must believe by faith. You see how that works? We can look at the Church and say that it looks pretty lame. We can easily think that it is just a human contrivance, the result of people agreeing with one another to form it. And we can say that the true Spiritual things are unseen.

But the Spirit’s hidden nature entails just the opposite. The Spirit is the hidden but essential cause of our life together. The fact that the Church looks like a natural human institution most of the time is exactly what we should expect, if the Spirit is invisible. Rather than the Church looking like an obvious miracle, it often looks normal. You have to trust that what the Scripture said is true. You have to receive the blessing of fellowship in the Church as a blessing sent to you by the Spirit for the building up of the body of Christ.

And that should tell us something about “Spiritual” blessings. It is common, I think, to find people who compare the blessings of Old Testament Israel to the blessings of the New Covenant church as a contrast in which the Israelites were promised earthly prosperity while we are promised “spiritual” blessings which are immaterial, like internal attitudes. So someone might think that a blessing of the covenant was sheep or a good year’s crops under the Old Covenant, while now a blessing would be inner peace, or maybe the joy down in our hearts.

But that’s not how the Apostle Paul explains it here. Paul tells us that each one of us, physical, embodied, people, are called and given by the Spirit to be a blessing to one another.

When Jennifer and I first went to seminary, we had no idea what we were doing financially. I think our strategy was to get there and hope we could figure something out. And when we arrived in Saint Louis, having quit our jobs in Nashville, the first thing we discovered was that fertility was inversely related to financial ability. God blessed us quite surprisingly with our first child.

One of the many ways our local church helped us was in providing a baby shower for Jennifer. And at that baby shower, we received a stroller. Not just any stroller. We received a really great high-end, easily collapsible stroller. It opened real smoothly with a loud audible click when it was fully open and ready to be used.

And every time I heard that click I heard God tell me that he loves me. You see, that stroller was given to us to supply a real need by our Church. And that wasn’t just some group giving something away. That was the body of Christ formed by the Spirit. There are many blessings we receive in Christ, many much greater than that stroller. But that stroller was still no less a gift from the Spirit. It was a result of the redemptive work of Christ communicated by the Spirit to His body the Church. That stroller was a Spiritual blessing. God blessed Old Testament Saints with livestock or crops. He blessed me with a luxury stroller!

In this life we all face many trials. We especially face them in the Church where the Spirit strives with us for our own good as well as life in general. But amid those trials, God sends us tokens of grace, at the very least. Don’t shut your eyes against those visible blessings by denigrating the Church. Paul is here concerned with making sure you realize each person has his place. My emphasis to day has been more on the general point, that the church as you see it in various churches, including your own, is truly the Spirit’s work and part of the body of Christ.

Notice, by the way, that Paul has no doubts about who belongs to this church. In a letter written to all the members he says, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” This is how we must regard and treat one another.

Let me close by pointing out how emphatically Paul puts this. I have been emphasizing that the Church is the Spirit-formed Body of Christ. But I haven’t yet said anything remotely as extreme as what Paul writes by the inspiration of God: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.”

Would you have ever dared write that way about the Church—to call it by the royal title of Jesus, “Christ”? Honestly, if you didn’t know this sentence was Scripture, wouldn’t you be tempted to rewrite it? Paul is clearly committed to the importance of the Church as Christ’s body through the mysterious power of the Holy Spirit. He wants you to know in no uncertain terms that if you love Jesus you have to love the Church and regard the members of the Church as gifts sent from the Spirit for the sake of the good of His Body.

Copyright © 2008

by Mark Horne

The principle to keep in mind is that we have to change ourselves first.

1. Participate in the Lord’s Supper Every Sunday in Worship
The Kingdom is again and again a feast. The Church is the beachhead of the Kingdom. Does Jesus ever tell a parable comparing the Kingdom to a lecture hall? Does he ever compare the Kingdom to a music concert? Then lets not stop up the Kingdom at the source. Lets get it right. Lets eat and drink.

2. Drink Wine in Church
Duh. How else would you worship a glutton and a drunkard? The Gospel is New Wine that bursts wineskins–not grape juice that sits there inert. You want to know if God can forgive a sinner like you. Get it in a cup and drink it down and you will know. That changes everything.

3. Sing the Psalms
By sing, I mean chant. Don’t remake the Psalms to fit a rhyme scheme. Sing the words that are there according to an accurate translation. What would happen if we did this? For one thing a ton of bad theology would be exorcised.

Arise, O Yahweh
O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
But you do see,
for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.
Yahweh is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land.

4. Pray the Psalms
Arguably this is redundant with the point above. But I want to stress that God wants us to pray things like:

judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness
and according to the integrity that is in me.
Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end,
and may you establish the righteous—
you who test the minds and hearts,
O righteous God!

There are people and whole churches who claim to be Bible-believing who think this is sinful to pray. You can’t change the world for God if you think He is really a Pharisee unless he has the help of your styleguide by which to edit his prayers.

5. Tell people in church that God has forgiven them.

Don’t preach that God forgives some people somewhere some time. Tell the professing Christians in front of you, and their children, when they confess their sins together, that God has wiped each one of their slates clean. The good news that is going to change the world is not that God forgives someone somewhere at some time.

(Yes, God forgives them at other times, including when they pray apart. But these things are not opposed. Rather, one helps the the other. Those who are trained to believe that God hears and forgives them will be encouraged to trust God for the same at other times and places.)

6. Believe the whole Bible and teach it like God really meant it.

Because saying, “You’re getting too much of your theology from the parables” mostly means, “Jesus was a stupid peasant who told misleading stories that we have to carefully strip down to a single point that we found in Paul’s Epistles”–or rather, “that we found in Westminster Confession” (or, “… the Councils of Trent” or whatever). I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that God isn’t blessing churches who don’t like the Bible.

7. Preach Jesus as King but Avoid Petty Politics

Jesus is Lord and he wants a visible unified entrance to the Kingdom (Church) as a witness to that fact. We have to obey what Jesus says, but we also have to recognize how divisions and arguments actually can undermine the theocratic Faith. So find some highly obvious points in the public square to harp on (i.e. abortion), but try not to get bogged down in minutia (don’t preach Christian libertarianism, socialism, or whatever from the pulpit).

8. Let the Great Commission be your commission

If you think you know what this means, go read it, and ask yourself what this says about being “born again,” “faith,” or “evangelism” compared to what it says about obedience, theocracy, baptism, and ongoing teaching/training of everyone.

9. Worship like the Bible matters

Does it not strike anyone as odd that, if you want to attend a worship service that took you systematically through Scripture, you would be better off in an Episcopal, formal Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox service rather than a Baptists, conservaitve Presbyterian, or “Bible Church” assembly? Is God supposed to speak to us in the Church or not? If not, how are we supposed to see anything change, let alone the world?

10. Live Corporately like Matthew 18 is in the Bible

I mention the whole chapter on purpose, by the way, because it is obviously focused on humility and forgiveness, and in that context gives directions for accountability and purifying the Church. I think that is important because, while not one church in a hundred includes Matthew 18.15-19 in their real canon, some that do can be so zealous (I’m using a euphemism) about it as to reinforce the temptation to neglect it. But it is in the Bible and it is an operating instruction from the Lord Jesus. So obey Him.

Copyright © 2007

While “forgiving oneself” is widely accepted in the secular world as a legitimate and needful thing to do, Christians are rightly suspicious. After all, God is the one who forgives. When we sin against other people, we need to seek their forgiveness, not our own.

Nevertheless after looking at Vine’s Expositiory Dictionary on “Forgive, Forgave, Forgiveness,” it seems perfectly plausible to me to talk about “forgiving yourself.” It may easily be misused or be premature, but I don’t see how it can be denied that Christians who do wrong not only can, but ought to forgive themselves–that is, to set themselves free, release themselves, from the guilt that they feel for what they did. (I’m not talking about letting go of false guilt here; I’m talking about simply ceasing to care or concern oneself with the real guilt of an evil deed that you have done.)

REASON #1: The Big Objection Fails–”We haven’t sinned against ourselves and thus we can’t forgive ourselves”

It is certainly true that people can talk about “forgiving themselves” in order to evade the fact that they have sinned against God and against other people. This rhetoric can be a sign that a person is so full of himself he understands neither sin nor forgiveness.

The objection overlooks two issues. First of all, we are made in the image of God to reflect his glory. When we sin we are damaging ourselves as well as others. Secondly, while I may be verging into the root word fallacy, as far as I can tell forgiveness means “release” or “sending away” or “looking with favor.” These can all be done in the case of considering someone who is convicted of their own guilt.

REASON #2: Grudges are not to be held

Suppose you had two friends, Brian and Nathan. One day Brian gravely sins against Nathan. Soon, however, Brian regrets what he did, owns up to it, and does all that is possible to make restitution. Nathan says he forgives Brian but you notice a real change in his behavior. When Brian is around Nathan will suddenly become sullen and withdrawn. Other times he will get angry. In both cases he is obviously reliving the incident. “How could you do that?” he will yell. “What were you thinking?”

As a Christian, I think you would know that you should try to help Nathan truly forgive Brian and cease bringing his past sins up before them.

So what if Brian and Nathan are the same person? If each person is to love his neighbor as himself, then how can it be right for someone to refuse to let go of his own past misdeeds and keep accusing himself when we all know it would be a total sin to keep bringing up the past misdeeds of someone else and keep accusing him?

REASON #3: God forgives us to restore us to service.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised (Second Corinthians 5.14, 15). Jesus is the one who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2.14). God does not forgive us so that we can be paralyzed with guilt for the rest of our lives.

If a husband sins against his wife in some serious way, he should repent and seek forgiveness. What he should not do, having robbed this woman of a godly husband for some time, is continue to rob her to the husband he promised to be for her by burying himself in guilt. God wants us to serve him wholeheartedly. Constant self-accusations, when God has already forgiven us, are ways we effectively make ourselves A.W.O.L from his call to us. It defeats the whole point.

REASON #4: No one has the right to condemn those whom God justifies, including those whom God justifies.

Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Romans 8.33,34). The answer to the rhetorical question, “Who is to condemn?” is no one.

What if you were a first-century Christian and someone who had lost a son or daughter to the persecutions of a zealot named Saul of Tarsus? Wouldn’t you have to tell that person that he must forgive the Apostle Paul? Then isn’t it just as appropriate to tell a Christian condemning himself over some sin to do the same?

REASON #5: The temptation to condemn oneself must be met with the exhortation to forgive oneself.

To put succinctly what has already been mentioned, we all know that people can make themselves useless by constantly condemning themselves. While it is important for someone who has been denying his true wrongdoing to eventually come to this point, once a person has been forgiven he must stop the self-condemnation and resume his productive calling serving God and others. If we can speak of a person “condemning himself,” as we all do, then we can speak of a person “forgiving himself.” (Again, I can see ways in which this fact could be misused, but that doesn’t change the facts.)

REASON #6: Condemning others is a way of boasting and trying to exalt oneself, and this is no less true in condemning oneself.

When I meet someone who shows an obvious need to condemn and belittle others for their sins, real or imagined, I suspect that their is a real drive in that person to pass themselves off as superior. We certainly see this in the religious elitists that Jesus had to deal with in the Gospels.

But when a person insists on condemning himself and berates himself and is angry with himself for a longer time than is needful or healthy, we tend to think that the only problem is too much virtue–his conscience is so sensitive and he is so sorry.

But is that really it?

Maybe what is actually happening is the person is trying to show that, even if he did sin, he can now demonstrate how good and worthy and superior he is by being more severe with himself than anyone else is. Being pharisaical with oneself is as sinful as being pharisaical with anyone else. If God tells us to restore people gently (Galatians 6.1), then that includes ourselves.

REASON #7: God wants us to be productive with his gifts rather than burying them by not using them in gratitude.

Jesus told a parable of three stewards and the money they were given at least a couple of times (Matthew 25.14-30 / Luke 19.11-27). The final servant of the three does nothing but return what he had been loaned, having nothing to show for the time he had it. He did not even get bank interest to return with it. As a result, he was condemned.

What if this steward had justified his unfaithfulness by saying, “Master, I know I have done bad things and I was too busy flagellating myself to really figure out how to use your money.” Would he have been excused?

God wants use to use his gifts, not get sidetracked by self-condemnation. That’s why he tells us that we are forgiven.

REASON #8: Refusing to forgive oneself is a slander against God

What the unproductive steward actually said to his master is

Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.

That’s a rather breathtaking insult. Would anyone really ever say such a thing?

I suspect the point is that, when you reject God’s gifts or are too fearful to use them, that is what you believe and are communicating about God. To continue to condemn oneself rather than forgive oneself is to claim that God is really still condemning you and his promises to the contrary are not trustworthy.

REASON #9: If we trust God’s promise to bestow a positive verdict on our service the only rational response is to forgive ourselves and press on in new service to Him.

God does not promise to say to us at the Last Day, “Well, even though you’ve constantly sinned, I’ve forgiven you through Christ so I’ll let you in anyway.” Rather, he promises to say something like, “Well done, good and faithful servant! Enter into the joy of your master.”

Continuing in self-condemnation, rather than pursuing new service to God with a sincere and confident heart, demonstrates a lack of trust that God will do what he promises. But God is trustworthy. Be at ease.

This was originally published as HIStory in the column, “A Pastor’s Perspective” in Ligonier Ministrie’s Tabletalk Magazine. I am not sure of the date but it was probably published in 1999 or 2000

Copyright © 2007

Quick! What’s the basic message of the Bible? Summarize it in as few words as possible and say what first comes to mind.

Here’s how I would answer the question:

Boy meets girl.

The Wedding & the Water

No, I am not joking. We see it in the happy ending of Revelation, which shows us a wedding between Christ and the church and tells us that they live happily ever after. We see it in Adam and Eve all the way back in Genesis 2, which–as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5–refers fundamentally to Christ and the church. When we read in Luke 2 of how the Spirit will overshadow Mary, we realize that the description of the Spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis 1 involved the same theme. From beginning to end , this theme of boy meets girl pervades all of the Bible.

Twice in Genesis, once in Exodus, and oncein an incident reported in both Joshua and Judges we see a man coming together with his wife in association with a well or spring of water. Agraham’s servant meets Rebekah, the future wife of his master Isaac, at a well. She gives him a drink and waters his camels, demonstrating that God has chosen her to be the bride. Jacob meets the shepherdess Rachel at a well. He rolls away the stone that is blocking the spring and then waters all her flock. Moses meets his future wife Zipporah at a well. He defends her and her sisters (who all “just happen” to be Shepherdesses, just like Rachel was) from bullying shepherds, then waters their flock. Caleb offers his daughter Achsah to the man who defeats the Canaanites in Kirjath Sepher. Othniel captures the city and wins the bride. In receiving her, he also gains some land grants from her father. Due to her petitioning her father, the grant is expanded to include springs of water.

We Should Expect John 4 if We Read the Rest of the Bible Carefully

So when Jesus meets a woman at a well, in Samaria, what are they going to talk about? Even if you have never read John 4, the asnswer should be inescapable. When Jesus meets this woman at a well, they are going to discuss her marital status. Indeed, Jesus rescues her from a much more dangerous threat than bullying shepherds.

There is much else to support this basic biblical theme. Space would fail if I were to mentions the Song of Solomon, the role of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs, and the way Proverbs culminates with the portrayal of the ideal wife. Neither could I list here all the times Jerusalem or Israel is called God’s wife, setting us up for the identity of the church as the bride of Christ.

Twin Truths

There are two things we have to keep in mind if we are going to understand the Bible as God’s literary master piece. First of all, we must keep in mind the doctrine of providence: God is in complete control of everything that happens in history. As we read about the events recorded in the Bible, we must apply this doctrine by bearing in mind that not only what God is said to have done in these events, but also the events themselves, are part of His message. God could have brought about Jesus’ meetin with the woman at the well in some other place, but he predestined it to take place there. It is not simply what Jesus said that reveals god, but the entire situation in which Jesus acts.

Second of all, we must keep in mind the doctrine of inspiration. Every word, every jot and tittle of Scripture, is the very Word of God. It is not merely the overarching truths that are inspired but the words used to express them. With the woman at the well, John could have summarized what Jesus said about the Spirit without quoting the metaphor of water or mentioning the well where He spoke. He could have overlooked what Jesus said about her marital history. But by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John set down those statements.

Never Choose Between Truth and Meaning in the Details

If we remember these twin truths, we should be able to navigate between two common errors. Many conservative evangelicals, who (rightly) affirm the inerrancy of the scriptureal record of events, treat the events themselves as virtuously meaningless. The fact that the same things keep happening is simply ignored. Liberals, on the other hand, sometimes do much better at seeing the meaning in events, but they treat the Scriptures as a fictionalized account that cannot be trusted for historical veracity. For conservatives, the woman at the well really happend, but her encounter with Jesus is important only in that it gave Jesus a chance to say some things He could have said almost anywhere else. For liberals, the woman at the well fits nicely into the themes and theology of the Bible, but her encounter with Jesus probably never really happend. Rather, it is the work of a novelist.

But if we acknowledge that God is the great novelist, then we need never choose between meaning and truth. God is more creative than any human being and can make His novel work better than any merely human book. But God is also all-powerful and sovereign over history. Thus, God can make history by His novel. Therefore, He can make a truthful Bible work better than fiction, even while remaining completely truthful.

Trusting the Author for the Happy Ending

As characters in God’s novel, we usually don’t see how our problematic lives can possibly be leading to the kind of tidy plot resolutions that we find so satisfying in a narrative. But the Bible can function as a corrective to our lack of faith. As we see what a well-woven tale the Bible is, how it is all true, and what its story is about, we can believe that our own stories will make sense because they are tied to that story. We have to trust the novelist to finish his work and vindicate his graciously chosen protagonists.

Ultimately, He is going to win the girl.

Copyright © 2007

The Covenant Vision of the Heidelberg & Westminster Catechisms Regarding Children and Baptism

7 POINTS ABOUT THE TEACHING OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES

Mark Horne

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

1. WE TEACH CHILDREN TO BELIEVE IN JESUS BY TEACHING THEM THEY ARE CHRISTIANS WHO BELONG TO HIM.

According to the Heidelberg Catechism, the person being catechized is a Christian, is saved, is loved by God, and is going to inherit eternal life. There is no discussion about some mysterious group of unidentified people in history (“the elect”) who one might or might not belong to.

2. WE TEACH CHILDREN TO BELIEVE WHAT GOD TELLS THEM IN THEIR BAPTISMS

Indeed, the catechized person is taught that baptism assures him of this fact:

Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, adding thereto this promise, that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?

Answer: It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ’s blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives.

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, Matt.28:19. And “he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”, Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism “the washing of regenerations” and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16.

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism “the washing of regeneration,” and “the washing away of sins”?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water.

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

3. WE TEACH CHILDREN TO TRUST NOW AND TO KEEP TRUSTING JESUS RATHER THAN WAIT FOR A “CONVERSION.”

Notice that nothing whatever is written or implied about the expectation of a future violent conversion experience in later years. No, the redemption is promised to them no less than to adult believers. The Heidelberg Catechism teaches the catechized child that he is a Christian. It teaches each boy and girl that his or her guilt has been dealt with by grace so that they should live a life of faith and grattitude. Since, in the Reformed churches, these children have been baptized, it is clear that the catechism is not speaking from its own authority (i.e. the authority of the author or of the denomination that uses the catechism) but from God’s own authoritative message in baptism.

4. WE, PRESBYTERIANS, ALSO HAVE CHRISTIAN CHILDREN.

People often claim the Westminster Confession and Catechisms are substantially different on this point, but that is a myth. While the documents contain different emphasis at different places, as we will see below, Westminster is substantially similar to Heidelberg.

5. WE TEACH CHILDREN JESUS IS THEIR REDEEMER SO THAT THEY TRUST HIM TRULY.

Like the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Catechisms teach the persons catechized to regard themselves as Christians and chosen by God’s grace. “What does the preface to the ten commandments teach us?” asks the Westminster Shorter Catechism. And the answer is given for the catechumen to say by memory, “The preface to the ten commandments teaches us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.” The word, “redeemer,” has already been used in the document:

Question 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

Answer. God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a redeemer.

Question 21. Who is the redeemer of God’s elect?

Answer. The only redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.

6. WE TEACH CHILDREN THEY HAVE BEEN RESCUED FROM SPIRITUAL SLAVERY.

To say that God is “our redeemer” is to say by faith that we belong to Jesus Christ. The Larger Catechism expands on this meaning of the preface to the decalogue, saying that it reveals, “that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

Here we see the same covenantal dynamic as we found in the Heidelberg Catechism in which guilt, grace, and grattitude are personally applied to the person being catechized. The person catechized is supposed to obey God’s law because he has bee delivered from spiritual slavery by Christ his redeemer.

7. WE TEACH CHILDREN TO DEVELOP BY FAITH ALONE IN WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GRACE ALONE.

It is especially interesting that when the catechisms want to anchor the person being catechized we find no instruction to look back to one’s effectual calling. Rather, it is baptism that is held out as the point in one’s biography which one should hold on to and grow in:

The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body (WLC 167).

The sacraments, of which baptism is the initiating one, are Christ-appointed holy ordinances, “wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers” (WSC 92).

CONCLUSION

What I concluded about the Heidelberg Catechism applies just as well to Westminster: Notice that nothing whatever is written of implied about the expectation of a future violent conversion experience in later years. No, the redemption is promised to them no less than adult believers. The Westminster Catechisms teaches the catechized child that he is a Christian. It teaches each boy and girl that his or her guilt has been dealt with by grace so that they should live a life of faith and grattitude. Since, in the Reformed churches, these children have been baptized, it is clear that the catechisms are not speaking from it’s own authority (i.e. the authority of the author or of the denomination that uses the catechisms) but from God’s own authoritative message in baptism.

Mark Horne

When the apostle says, “Without faith, it is impossible to please God,” he speaks of adults, various example of whom he in the same place commemorates and whom alone the proposed description of faith suits (Hebrews 11.1). Now it is different with infants who please God on account of the satisfaction of Christ bestowed upon them and imputed by God to obtain the remission of their sins, even if they themselves do not apprehend it and cannot apprehend it by a defect of age (15.14.7, vol 2, p. 585).

Nevertheless, while Christian infants don’t have or need adult faith in order to be saved, there is some change inaugurated in elect children within the covenant which grows and flowers over time—one which involves the beginning of faith at an infant level: “Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586).

While Turretin’s major work was a massive three-volume theology that dealt with opposing views, his nephew, Benedict Pictet, publicized his positions in a much shorter and simpler Christian Theology. Pictet deals with the possibility of infant faith under his discussion of infant baptism. (pp 418-420). He divides baptized infants into four classes.

1. Those who grow up unbelieving and impenitent. For these “baptism sets forth nothing and seals nothing.”
2. Those who grow up unbelieving and impenitent until they are thrity or forty years old. For these, “baptism does not disclose or put forth its efficacy before they are actually converted.” (I have no idea why Pictet is so specific about the age. If I was forced to guess I might throw out the possibility that Pictet thinks that someone who is rebellious at the age of twenty may merely be a backslidden rather than a confirmed unbeliever. But again, I am guessing.)
3. Those who grow up as believers. In these, “while reason unfolds itself, piety and faith are discovered, corresponding with the good instruction of their parents. For such covenant children growing up believing, “we may say, that baptism has been efficacious, that God has forgiven their original sin, and given them such a measure of the Spirit, as renders them capable of embracing the offers of the gospel, when reason begins to dawn upon their minds.”
4. Those who die in infancy. In the case of such infants, “we cannot doubt but that baptism … is a public and authoritative declaration on the part of God, that he has forgiven them original sin, and granted them title to life; since infants cannot be saved without forgiveness of sins and sanctification.”

It is in regard to his third class that Pictet elaborates on the possibility of infant faith. It is clear from his discussion that he regards these children, not as converted in youth, but as brought into a saving relationship with Christ while yet infants. He writes:

But should anyone say, he cannot comprehend the operations of the Holy Ghost in these cases; we reply that the thing ought not to be denied, merely because we do not comprehend it. It is not more difficult to conceive the idea of the Holy Spirit restoring the faculties of the infant, and rendering them capable of receiving evangelical objects, as soon as reason shall dawn, than it is to conceive the idea of original sin, which is nothing else but the depravation of those faculties, inclining them to objects of sense. If we can conceive of the principle of evil before any act of it, why not the principle of good before any act of the same? If Adam had not sinned, his descendants would have been naturally innocent; and why cannot it be conceived, that the Holy Spirit places infants, who are born sinful, in some state of regeneration? The cause of our corruption is the proneness of the soul to follow the motions of the body [Note: I doubt that this account of the nature of original sin is correct. –MH]: why then should we not conceive, that the Holy Spirit prevents the soul from following those motions, and gives it the power of directing them aright?

While Pictet thinks these considerations are relevant to infant baptism, he doesn’t think that the regeneration of elect infants invariably occurs at the time of baptism. He replies to such ideas that

they may obtain all spiritual blessings from the very moment of their birth, but that these may be confirmed in baptism, which is the seal, pledge, or earnest of them; the infant, indeed, knows not what is taking place, but when he arrives at years of discretion, then he recognizes it, and from the knowledge of it, possesses every motive to holiness. Some infants are regenerated in the womb, and before baptism, others in baptism, others after: we assign no particular period.

Mark Horne

While I think Zacharias Ursinus’ thinking would be profitable to consider, I am not recording his reflections in order for readers to come to agreement with his position as a whole. Rather, my interest is twofold. First, I think the way the Heidelberg Catechisms is used as a “proof” of the pedigree of the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to believers is sometimes irresponsible. Second, I think the rhetoric used to describe the importance of the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ has sometimes also reached irresponsible levels. Was Zacharias Ursinus a defender and teacher of the gospel, or the preacher of “another Gospel”? In both cases it seems to me that zealous defenders of the doctrine are actually undermining their own credibility in many cases. –M. H.

Heidelberg Catechism #60:

How are thou righteous before God?

Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

As the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus taught that Christ’s righteousness was imputed to believers. He expounded on what was entailed or meant by this doctrine in several places in his lectures on the Catechism, and approved a commentary from those notes.

Here are some comments from Ursinus on queston 61 of the Heidelberg Catechism which deal with the nature of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness:

The righteousness with which we are here justified before God, is not our conformity with the law, nor our good works, nor our faith; but it is the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the law in our stead; or the punishment which he endured in our behalf; and therefore the entire humiliation of Christ, from the moment of his conception to his glorification, including his assumption of humanity, his subjection to the law, his poverty, reproach, weakness, sufferings, death, &c., all of which he did willingly; yea, whatever he did and suffered to which he was not bound, as being righteous, and the Son of God, is all included in the satisfaction which he made for us, and in the righteousnoss which God graciously imputes to us, and all believers. This satisfaction is equivalent to the fulfilling of the law, or to the endurance of eternal punishment for sin, to one or the other of which the law binds all. “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” “Ye are complete in him.” “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” “With his stripes we are healed.” “He was bruised for our iniquities.” “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” “Being justified freely, by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.” “Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” “We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” “He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” ” The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 Cor. 2: 2. Col. 2: 10. Rom. 5:19. Is. 53: 5, 6. Luke 22: 20. Rom. 3:24, 25; 4:7; 5:9, 10. 2 Cor. 8:9. Gal. 3:13. Eph.1:7. 1 John 1:7.) Christ fulfilled the law by the holiness of his human nature, and by his obedience, even unto the death of the cross. The holiness of his human nature was necessary to his obedience; for it became our mediator to be holy and righteous in himself, that he might be able to perform obedience, and make satisfaction for us. “For such an High Priest became us, who is holy,” &c. (Heb. 7: 26.) This obedience now is our righteousness, and it is upon the ground of this that God is pleased with us. The blood of Christ is the satisfaction on account of Which God receives us into his favor, and which he imputes unto us, as it is said, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son Cleanseth us from all sin, [emphasis original here] both of commission and omission. The shedding of his blood is the complement of his satisfaction, and is for this reason called our righteousness.

The questions, How can a rational creature be righteous before God? how can man, being a sinner, be just before God? and whether a rational creature can merit any thing at the hands of God? are to be distinguished from each other. We reply to the first question, that a rational creature may be just before God by an inherent conformity with the law, as the angels, and those that are blessed. To the second question we reply, that man as a sinner can be regarded as righteous only on the ground of the imputation of Christ’s merits; and this is the question of which we speak when treating the subject of justification. That man cannot be declared righteous upon the ground of his works is evident from this, that his works are unholy before his justification–that after his justification they are also imperfect, and that if they were perfect as they will be in another life, they could nevertheless, not satisfy for those sins which are past, and which still stand against us. To the third question we answer that man can merit nothing from God, for it is said, “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.’” (Luke 17:10.) Nor is the obedience of Christ meritorious in this respect, as though it added anything to God, but it is called meritorious on account of the dignity of his person, because he who suffered was the Son of God.

Ursinus explains “the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the law in our stead” as “the punishment which he endured in our behalf.” For Ursinus, the righteousness sinners receive in Christ by faith is a righteousness from Christ’s “passive obedience.” He does call it “obedience” to be sure, but nowhere do we find this obedience to be anything other than his willing suffering. When Ursinus calls Christ’s obedience meritorious, he immediately defines that obedience as suffering: “it is called meritorious on account of the dignity of his person, because he who suffered was the Son of God.”

Out of context, Ursinus’ mention of “subjection to the law” could be used to refer to “active obedience.” But that is obviously not what Ursinus meant. He says what he means several times: he means sufferings.

How “subjection to the law” would count as passive obedience in Ursinus’ mind is readily explained in his comments on the creed’s “He suffered” as found in question 37 of the Heidelberg catechism. His sufferings included “the temptations of the devil; ‘He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.’ (Heb. 4:15.)” (p. 213). Ursinus’ makes an initial comment on Christ’s sufferings that show how far active obedience was from his mind:

The passion or suffering of Christ is place immediately after his conception and nativity; 1. Because out entire salvation consists in his passion and death. 2. Because his whole life was one continued scene of suffering and privation (emphasis added).

Finally, Ursinus does deal with Christ’s active obedience in relationship to his passive obedience and this is what he says about it:

Q16: Why must He be a true and righteous man?
A16: Because the justice of God requires [1] that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others.[2]

1. Rom. 5:15
2. Isa. 53:3-5

It behooved our Mediator to be man, and indeed very man, and perfectly righteous…

Thirdly, It behooved him to be a perfectly righteous man, one that was wholly free from the least stain of original and actual sin, that he might deservedly be our Savior, and that his sacrifice might avail, not for himself, but for us: for if he himself had been a sinner, he would have had to satisfy for his own sins…

If the Mediator himself had been a sinner he could not have escaped the wrath of God, much less could he have procured for others the favor of God, and exemption from punishment: neither could the passion, and death of him, who did not suffer as an innocent man, be a ransom for the sin of others.

Ursinus then quotes Second Corinthians 5.21 as one of his prooftexts that only a righteous man could have suffered to obtain “exemption from punishment”: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

In the next paragraph (bottom p. 86 to top of 87), Ursinus writes that “The man Christ was perfectly righteous, or has fulfilled the law in four respects,” which he then enumerates. The third fulfillment in the law is its fulfillment in us by his Spirit. The fourth fulfillment is his correct teaching of the law that frees it from errors that were being taught. Regarding the first two fulfillments, he writes:

1. By his own righteousness. Christ alone performed perfect obedience, such as the law requires. 2. By enduring punishment sufficient for our sins. There was a necessity that this double fulfillment of the law should be in Christ: for unless his righteousness had been full, and perfect, he could not have satifisfied for the sins of others; and unless he had endured such punishment as has been described, he could not thereby have delievered us from everlasting punishment. The former is called the fulfilling of the law by obedience, by which he himself was conformable thereto; the latter is the fulfilling of the law by punishment, whe he suffered for us, theat we might not remain subject to eternal condemnation.

Finally, Ursinus’ view of the requirements of the Law would lead us to expect him to find it impossible to conceive of a need for both Christ’s passive and active obedience imputed to the same person. He wrote:

This satisfaction is equivalent to the fulfilling of the law, or to the endurance of eternal punishment for sin, to one or the other of which the law binds all (emphasis added).

In Ursinus view one either needs to be perfectly obedient or one needs to have suffered eternal punishment. Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed the Law in order to qualify as a representative sufferer. He suffered an eternal punishment so that we could be counted as perfectly obedienct since the curse of the Law would have nothing more to do with us.

By Derrick Olliff

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you [sing.], unless one [sing.] is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.], ‘You [pl.] must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you [sing.] the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you [sing.], We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you [pl.] do not receive Our witness. If I have told [aorist] you [pl.] earthly things and you [pl.] do not believe [present], how will you [pl.] believe [future] if I tell [aorist] you [pl.] heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:1-16)

In Protestant circles, the meaning of the first half of John 3 is well known. In this passage, Jesus taught Nicodemus about the necessity of personal regeneration. The subject is thought to be about how individuals are saved. They are “born again”–transformed in the inner man so that those who formerly rebelled against God are now faithful to him (principally by believing in Jesus). Without addressing the whole subject of “inner transformation,” I would like to present a different reading of what Jesus meant by being “born again.” (I think this phrase should really be translated “born from above” but this will not affect what follows.)

I don’t think the typical Protestant interpretation of the first half of John 3 does justice to what Jesus said because it contains two errors. The first error relates to whom the passage is addressed. The standard Evangelical view sees this need for regeneration being directed to individuals in general. Instead, I believe that the object of rebirth being spoken of here was the nation of Israel. The second error relates to the subject at hand. I don’t think the subject in this passage is the kind of inner transformation that Protestants usually talk about. Jesus was not here giving a timeless description of how an individual is inwardly transformed from one who hates God to one who loves God. Rather, He was describing the historical fulfillment of specific things promised under the old covenant. He was talking about a transformation from the old covenant order to the new covenant order.

To begin with, we should notice an unusual point of grammar in the text. An individual came to Jesus by night to talk to him, and the whole conversation was between Jesus and this one man. But in verse 7, Jesus shifted from the singular “you” to the plural “you.” “Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.], ‘You [pl.] must be born again.’” This change would have been noticeable to Nicodemus because either the pronouns are different words (unlike the English word ‘you’) or the verbs are conjugated differently.

I believe that when we consider who Nicodemus was, the shift in grammar shouldn’t seem all that strange. In the quotation, we find that Nicodemus was both a “teacher of Israel” (v. 10) and a “ruler of the Jews” (v. 1). In other words, he was a representative of Israel. Along these lines, the trouble he had with Jesus’ words reflected the general unfaithfulness and unbelief within Israel at that time. The unbelief mentioned in verse 12 was Israel’s unbelief, and it was ultimately Israel as a nation (not simply individuals qua individuals) that needed to be born again. The text begins with Jesus’ telling the individual ruler and representative of Israel that he needed to be born again, but this was functionally equivalent (as the plural grammar in verses 7 and 12 show) to Jesus talking about Israel’s need for regeneration. So we can understand verse 7 as saying, “Do not marvel that I said to you Nicodemus, ‘Israel must be born again.’” And though verse 11 tells us that Jesus was talking to the individual Nicodemus, verse 12 tells us that He was actually talking to and about Israel (all of the 2nd person pronouns in verse 12 are plural).

This identification of the object of rebirth as national Israel becomes quite explicit when we notice that Jesus was not talking about something new. He incredulously asked the teacher, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (3:10) Jesus was not only talking about something that Nicodemus should have known from the OT Scriptures, it was something that should have been rather obvious to him. But if we search the scriptures for references to a water/Spirit regeneration, we will not find anything related to the general, personal, inner transformation of individuals as individuals. Instead, we will find that there are only two OT passages that directly describe what Jesus was talking about, and those passages record the specific promise of Israel’s national rebirth/restoration.

The first passage is from the prophet Isaiah.

Yet hear me now, O Jacob My servant,
and Israel whom I have chosen.
Thus says the Lord who made you
and formed you from the womb, who will help you:
“Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
and you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
For I will pour water on him who is thirsty,
and floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My spirit on your descendants,
and My blessing on your offspring;
they will spring up among the grass
like willows by the watercourses.” (Is. 44:1-4; emphasis added)

The second passage is from the prophet Ezekiel.

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them….‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt. The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by. So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’…

The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”

Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath [or “spirit” throughout this passage] to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”

So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them.

Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”’” So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army.

Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’” (Ezek. 36:22-27, 33-35; 37:1-14)

What the prophets proclaimed here is not a general, timeless description of how the thoughts and desires of individuals get transformed via a personal conversion. This is not a generic picture of an unbeliever who gets converted to trust in God. Rather, it is a promise and prediction of a specific event that would happen to the nation of Israel. Throughout the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the prophets presented Israel with the judgments of God. The nation had apostatized from God. But along with this judgment and desolation, God would provide a new birth for the nation.

Isaiah began by calling Israel “Sodom” and “Gomorrah” (1:10). Israel had become one of the pagan nations. God had created the vineyard of Israel but it had brought forth wild grapes and would be destroyed (5:1-7). This would be the death of Israel (9:13-19). But God would deliver Jerusalem with a new exodus (31:4, 5). The people would mourn and desolation would come upon the land until God poured out the Spirit from on high and the wilderness became a fruitful field (32:12-15). This would in fact be the “gospel”: the good news that God would return to Israel and restore her (40:9-11). This new exodus/creation would make the old one pale in comparison (43:16-20). God would pour His water and Spirit upon His people so that they would grow again (Is. 44:1-4), and the mysterious servant “Israel” would bring salvation to the nation of Israel and to the world (49:1-7). This was the gospel of the kingdom of God. The Lord would return to Israel to restore her and to reign (52:1-10).

Ezekiel told the people that God would make Judah’s land more desolate than a wilderness (6:14). The end had come for Judah; she was going to die (7:5-8). God would perform a new Passover. The remnant would be marked on the forehead and passed over, but the rest of Judah–the new Egypt–would be killed (9:3-7) and God would leave His people (10). Samaria had played the adulterous harlot and would therefore receive the death penalty at the hands of Assyria (23:5-10). Judah had also played the adulterous harlot, and she would likewise receive the death penalty at the hands of the Babylonians (23:11-25). Both would be stoned and killed (23:44-47). But the desolate land of Israel would be reborn and re-inhabited (36:1-12). God would gather His scattered people back to the land, sprinkle clean water on them to cleanse them, and put a new spirit within them (36:22-28). This would be the resurrection of Israel (37:1-14).

This is why Jesus was so incredulous with Nicodemus. Any Jew should have known this story rather well. For a teacher of Israel to be ignorant of this was a bad sign. At any rate, we should see that Jesus was not talking about individuals per se but about Israel as God’s chosen nation. It is of course truth that a nation is made up of individuals, but the point here is that the texts focus on and discuss the nation as a whole instead of focusing on individuals. Neither was Jesus giving a general description of a transformation that happens in numerous times and places. Rather, He was talking about a single promised event–the OT gospel promise that God would restore wayward Israel. Jesus told the teacher and ruler of Israel that Israel needed to be reborn of water and the Spirit before she could see or take part in the promised gospel of the kingdom of God.

There is one more important point that should be made about John 3. No one would describe the standard Evangelical doctrine of rebirth as an “earthly thing.” In Protestant circles, being “born again” is clearly a “heavenly thing.” Yet in His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus did in fact call the rebirth an earthly thing. Notice again what verse 12 says. “If I have told [aorist] you earthly things and you do not believe [present], how will you believe [future] if I tell [aorist] you heavenly things?” Nicodemus was in real trouble. If he had been told about earthly things that were easily found in the scriptures and yet did not believe, how would he believe when Jesus told him of heavenly things that were perhaps not so clear in the scriptures? Thus, Jesus had told the teacher of earthly things but He had not yet told him of heavenly things. And what were the “earthly things” that Jesus told Nicodemus about? Up to that point, Jesus had only talked about the rebirth. But how could He refer to such a “spiritual” concept as an “earthly” thing?

I believe this helps to show from another angle that Jesus wasn’t talking about the same thing that Evangelicals talk about when they use “born again” language, but we should notice what happens after verse 12 to fully answer this question. That verse contains the first use of the word ‘heaven’ in the conversation. But then Jesus when on to use the word three times in the very next sentence! “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (3:13). He then proceeded to talk about the Son of Man being “lifted up.” When we consider the gratuitous use of the word ‘heaven’ just after Jesus made a distinction between earthly things that had been mentioned and heavenly things that had not yet been mentioned, we should have no trouble seeing verse 13 and following as the “heavenly things.”

I believe that we now have what we need in order to really understand what Jesus was saying. In verses 3-11, Jesus told Nicodemus about “earthly things”–the necessity of Israel’s promised restoration from sin and exile. Beginning in verse 13, He taught the teacher about “heavenly things”–the Son of Man who would die, rise again, and ascend to heaven as the Lord of all.

What we have here is nothing less than a description of the promised new heavens and new earth (Is. 65:17-25). This was the goal of all of the restoration work mentioned throughout Isaiah. Israel and the nations were corrupt, and God would judge and destroy them. This would be a cataclysmic “de-creation” of the world (e.g., Is. 13:9-13; 24:1-6, 17-23; 34:4). But after this “death” of the world, God would bring life from the dead. God’s suffering Servant would bring salvation to Israel and to the world (Is. 42:1-9; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12; 56:1-8). Israel would be reborn and restored, and this would include life for the world. After destroying the old heavens and earth, God would create them anew.

This restoration was what Jesus was talking about. The suffering Servant had come to give His life so that new life would be breathed into Israel and the world. It is the promised new heavens and earth. The heavens are new because a man, the “Son of Man”, now rules over all from heaven. This had never been the case before Jesus took our nature upon Himself, died, and was resurrected and exalted to be the King of kings (Phil. 2:5-11). The earth is new because Israel has been raised from the dead. And as the prophets promised, this new earth includes the ingathering of the nations into the covenant. The new covenant in Jesus is the new heavens and new earth.

There is one final point that should be made here. If this rebirth of water and Spirit was a specific promise to Israel, can we identify when it occurred? I believe we can. Jesus came to fulfill this promise, but something quite important had to happen first.

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:37-39).

The promise of a water/Spirit restoration had not yet come to Israel, because Jesus had not yet given His life as the ransom and been resurrected from the dead. (Here again we can see that this is not referring to a generic, timeless transformation of individuals from unbelief to belief but instead to a specific historical event that was to come.) But 50 days after Jesus’ glorification, the stage was set. Many Jews from all over the Roman Empire were in Jerusalem for Pentecost when “there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2). The Jews “were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4) and began to speak in other languages. Peter then explained that this was the “last days” effusion of the Spirit prophesied by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:14-21). He then proclaimed that it was the resurrected Jesus who “poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Many were convicted and asked what they should do. Peter replied that they should “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38, 39)

This was the rebirth that was promised by Ezekiel and described by Jesus. God had promised this water/Spirit resurrection of Israel, and on the Pentecost after Jesus’ glorification, He kept His word and began to breathe life into Israel’s dry bones. The waters of baptism, quickened by the Holy Spirit, begot many faithful Jews into the kingdom of God by uniting them to the King and to His body (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 6:3-5; I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26, 27). And throughout Acts, we are told of the effects of this event as the Pentecostal rebirth of Israel spread first to many Jews (“the promise is to you [Jews] and to your children”) and then on to the nations as the prophets had foretold (“the promise is to… all who are afar off”, e.g., Acts 10:44-47; 19:2-6).

Now having said all of this, I would like to conclude with what I am not saying. I am not denying the existence of personal transformation. When someone who formerly hated God comes to love Him, something obviously happened to his “deepest” desires, motivations, etc. The change may have been dramatic (e.g., conversion of a mafia hit man) or not (e.g., the child born into a Christian home who never knows a day when he doesn’t love God) and it may have been sudden (e.g., the “lightning strike” experience) or not, but such transformations do occur. God does convert people who hate Him into people who love Him; He does transform people’s strongest desires.

And in line with what has just been said about the spread of Pentecost in Acts, we can see the transformation of individuals today as that which flows from the creation of the new heavens and earth. There is a clear analogy between Israel’s rebirth/resurrection and our own (with both flowing from the foundational resurrection: the resurrection of Jesus). And so the Bible presents discussion of more personal application in passages like Eph. 2:1-6 and I Pet. 1:22, 23. The new creation order is as follows. Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven to claim His inheritance as Lord of all. He is the “firstborn
from the dead” (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). He then sent the Sprit to breathe new life into Israel. This new life then flowed to the nations. And this objective shift in the world-order provides the conceptual theme of rebirth/resurrection that we can then apply to individuals. (E.g., notice the order in Ephesians. Eph. 1:19-23 describes Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. Then Eph. 2:1-6 describes our resurrection and ascension.)

But the point of this paper is that in John 3, Jesus was not giving a general description of such individual transformation. Rather, He was describing the specific, historical rebirth that God promised would happen to Israel. Technically speaking, the nation had come back into the land after the Babylonian captivity. But in a real sense, it was still in exile. It was captive to Rome, and it was full of unfaithfulness and rebellion. Israel was a nation of dry bones and she needed the cleansing water and life-restoring Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, the promised new heavens and earth. This event had not yet occurred when Jesus talked to Nicodemus, and it would not occur until after Jesus–the true Servant and Israel of God–had been resurrected. He was the firstborn from the dead, and from that rebirth came Israel’s rebirth and life for the world.

Back in 1990 I preached my last two sermon at Christ the Sovereign Covenant Church in Auburn Washington. I had been preaching through Genesis I decided not to simply preach the next passage but went to Philippians 2.5-11. Nevertheless, it seemed quite natural to tie the passage back to the fall of Adam. I later preached the Philippians sermon at a Baptist Tent Revival Meeting in Minco, OK (and those notes are the ones I’ve reproduced below).

PARANOIA WILL DESTROY YOU: Genesis 2.25-3.7

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they (G)knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Have you ever had the classic dream where you show up for class or for work and everyone is staring at you? You find it odd and wonder what is making them look at you in such a strange way. Then you glance down and realize that you forgot to get dressed that morning. You’re naked!

That feeling of sudden shame due to the realization of exposure and vulnerability is basic to our passage this morning. It begins with the declaration that Adam and Eve were both naked yet unashamed. It ends with them scrambling to find some innovative way to cover themselves. We have here a clear movement from confidence to shame – from oneness to alienation. Adam and Eve now find they need barriers between one another. They will also need barriers between themselves and God.

Those fig leaves — those barriers — represent what has in fact already happened in the process of listening to Satan and eating the forbidden. Sin involves turning away from God and naturally leads to separation from him. And here we see that separation first affects Adam and Eve themselves. They need clothing in regard to each other because they are alienated from each other.

How have they become alienated from each other? What have they done to each other?

Well look at verse 6: “she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” What is the import of that tiny prepositional phrase, “with her”? Is the Bible taking the time to explain to us that when Eve went and found her husband and gave him the fruit, that at the time she handed it to him that he was “with her”? I don’t think so. That’s useless and redundant information. By telling us that Adam is with Eve, the Bible is dropping the bombshell that Adam isn’t unaware of Eve’s conversation with Satan. He is right there. He is standing by silently while Eve is being tempted to disobey God’s law and eat the forbidden fruit.

What is going on? Adam witnesses Eve’s conversation with the serpent and says nothing. Bear in mind that Eve was not present when God forbade them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. All she heard God say was that they could eat from every tree. Adam must have taught her that they were prohibited at the time from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet Adam does not speak despite the fact that he, not Eve, is the expert on what God actually said.

But that’s not all. He remains silent and then watches Eve take and eat the forbidden fruit. Only after he sees that she is still alive does he take some from her and eat himself. Instead of loving his wife, Adam is using her as a guinea pig in a grand experiment. He is the original abusive husband.

As the Apostle Paul states in 1 Timothy 2, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” Adam was self-conscious about what he was doing. He was created first. He heard the prohibition. Eve was created after and had to learn about the prohibition second hand. She was deceived in a way that Adam wasn’t. Adam stood by and offered Eve no support. He waited until she ate and lived before he ate.

No wonder, then, that Adam and Eve can no longer be exposed to one another. Eve sinned and shared her sin with her husband. Adam silently allowed Eve to sin and ate after she took the risk. Though he was the one who had heard God’s command, he was silent in the face of the serpent’s temptation.

So that is the state of alienation in which Adam and Eve ended up.

But how did they get there?

What was the mental process that they used to decide to eat the forbidden fruit?

Quite simply, it is this: God hates us and has a horrible plan for our lives. That is one of the most tragic aspects of the Fall. Adam and Eve decided to believe the serpent’s story. And what was that story? Verse 5: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

In verse 4 Satan claims that God was lying when he said that Adam and Eve would die if the ate the fruit of the tree. And verse 5 is his explanation for God’s alleged lie. “God is trying to keep you down. The creator of the universe is worried that you might get too great, Eve, so he is lying to you in order to make you less than what you could be. God is worried about you advancing yourself too high, Adam, so he has made something up to cause you to fear for your life. The god who made you has surrounded you with a web of deceit in order to make sure you are never his equal.”

This is an incredible lie that Satan is telling Adam and Eve. God raised them up from the dust, but Satan is saying that he is trying to make them stay in the dust. God made Adam and Eve to be like God, made in his image, but Satan is saying that he is trying to prevent them from being like him. God gave Adam and Eve eyes for seeing but Satan is saying that God is trying to keep them blind because he is restricting them from the fruit that can open their eyes.

I think it might be helpful to look at Satan’s proposal from the standpoint of Adam and Eve’s self image. According to Luke 3 Adam was God’s son. But according to the worldview set forth by the serpent, Adam had an abusive, tyrannical father. According to John 14.18, Jesus promised the disciples that he would not leave them as orphans. But that is precisely what Satan is saying about Adam and Eve: They are orphans. The have no father they can trust.

That fundamental mindset is what moved Adam and Eve from a state of unity and unashamed exposure to one of alienation and shame. They decided that they were on their own without God and without hope in the world. God had made them king and queen of creation, but they decided to believe that they were prisoners within creation.

Do you see the irony? Because Adam and Eve sinned they lost their standing before God. God created them as his son and daughter, but they sinned and thus were disinherited and in a sense disowned. God created them holy, but they sinned and thus became unholy. God created them rightly related to him – in a word, justified before him – but they sinned and became condemned before him.

But they lost all those things precisely because Satan convinced them that they never had those things. As I’ve mentioned, Satan convinced Adam and Eve that they were already orphans. Satan convinced them that holiness of character was a farce since consecration to God’s service was merely slavery and obedience to his commands was simply a way God was exploiting them. Finally, Satan convinced them that they had no right standing with God because God had been deceiving them from the beginning.

It is a mystery to me how Adam and Eve could have believed something so false. I don’t understand how they could deceive themselves so much as to believe that God hated them and had a horrible plan for their lives. But I do know that since our first parents imagined such things of God and his treatment of them, it has now become human nature to be suspicious of God. Paranoia is prevalent throughout the human race – cosmic paranoia that imagines God is out to get us.

And it is not simply more common because of a human propensity to distrust God resulting from the inward corruption that began in the first sin. Obviously, all sort of new desires and inclinations are now part of human nature because of our inborn hostility to God that originated in original sin – that’s why it’s called original sin, after all. But I’m speaking of something else very closely related but distinct.

Think of it. In the midst of paradise, Adam and Eve became suspicious and distrustful of God – suspicious and distrustful of his attitude and actions toward them. In the midst of the Garden of Eden, having been given license to all of creation (minus one tree) Adam and Eve actually thought that God was holding back from them. That he was doing things that were ultimately not in their best interests.

Think of the way things are now. We are all guilty before God. We are under his wrath and curse. We are destined to eternal punishment unless we repent and believe – unless we cease being suspicious of God and trust him. How much more powerful then, is the temptation to believe that God’s rules are simply ways to keep us in poverty and misery. The serpent’s whisper that God does not want our eyes open, that he does not love us, that he means us harm, is now a deafening shout. Satan has a lot more evidence to point to.

That is one of the basic temptations for believers. The Gospel says that Jesus has suffered the curse in our place and been given resurrection life – a life he promises to share with all who trust God. Trust God. Trust Jesus. Don’t let anyone tells you that he means you ill.

Think of the exiles in Babylon separated from God’s presence in the Temple, separated from the Holy City Jerusalem, separated from their inheritance of God’s promised land. By every definition from their upbringing they thought themselves cursed by God. But what did God’s prophet Jeremiah tell them on God’s behalf?

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens, and eat their produce. 6 ‘Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. 7 ‘And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.’ 11 ‘For I know the plans that I have for you,‘ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. 12 ‘Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 ‘And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

The author of Hebrews has to deal with Christians suffering persecution for their faith who are tempted to return to Judaism. This would not have simply been a decision in their minds for comfort rather than God’s favor. Part of the temptation would have been to interpret the persecution as a sign that God was not on their side anymore, that in leaving Judaism they had departed from the true faith. But the author of Hebrews offers them a different interpretation:

7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Justification by faith is a Protestant shibboleth. Rightly so! But it is often simply a form of words without much content. Why is faith so important to justification? One simple reason that you need to remember from our text this morning is that condemnation came through unbelief. And that unbelief involved specifically doubting God’s intentions toward us.

That’s probably why Jesus, speaking to a generation in the promised land suffering under pagan oppression and a corrupt priesthood, went out of his way to assure them of God’s attitude toward them even while he was exhorting them to repent or else face judgment.

25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? 26 “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 “And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life’s span? 28 “And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. 30 “But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith?

11 “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 “Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 “Therefore do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows.

In the midst of suffering, persecution, and poverty, that is how Jesus presented God as trustworthy.

We must trust God. That is what faith means. Adam and Eve needed clothing. In baptism, God has clothed us in Jesus Christ – Galatians 3.27. But we don’t see anything visibly different. We have to trust God that he has taken care of our nakedness and sin and that we will be clothed with visible glory at the resurrection.

But that’s not all; we must encourage one another to trust God. Think of how many times we are told to forgive one another.

Accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us into the glory of God
Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.

Why all this? Part of the reasons is that we each need the assurance that God has indeed forgiven our sins despite the adversity around us and our consciences within us. If Adam and Eve can be tempted to doubt God in paradise, how much more can we be tempted to do so now? But the Church is now God’s sanctuary and we should be helping one another believe that God loves us by loving one another. We should be helping one another believe that God forgives us by forgiving one another.

Just a couple of verses later in Genesis chapter 3 we can read Adam’s condemnation of Eve as if she was to blame for his sin. That’s not the way it should be in the church. We’re supposed to support one another, cover over offenses in love, or when necessary forgive one another, and even restore one another. In that way, we are ministering grace to one another. If we do that, we will find it much easier to trust God to forgive us and save us.

But there is always the temptation to deal with the problem of guilt and doubt another way. Another way to believe that one is close to God is to find others who you can regard as farther away from God and compare yourself to them. Churches can become gathering points for people who regard themselves as more important than others, because of some real or imagined criterion of sanctification. Every good thing can be abused in this way. Reformed theology can be used as a tool to exalt oneself as above others. Evangelistic zeal can serve the same purpose. There are a host of lifestyle issues, some perhaps good ideas for some people and most of which are bone-headed, but all of which are a stench in God’s nostrils when used, as they often are, to practice a form of pseudo-spiritual one-upmanship which one another.

When we play spiritual one-upmanship in the Church, we are following in the path of Satan, the accuser of brethren, and we are playing Satan’s role in Genesis chapter 3 by misrepresenting God. Think about it: we have been each commissioned as priests to represent Jesus Christ to one another. We can be so commissioned because, as Isaiah prophesied, Jesus was willing to be oppressed and afflicted yet did not open his mouth. When we open our mouths, or role our eyes, or shake our heads, when a brother or sister in Christ somehow falls short of our most obscure scruples, we are making a statement for Christ. That is an inescapable consequence of being Christ’s representative. And it is a false statement. We are misrepresenting Jesus. We are misrepresenting God.

But God is trustworthy. His attitude is one of love and his intentions are kind toward us. He has shown through Jesus our Lord that even in the most severe abandonment he is bringing about a glorious deliverance. The curse leads to life, death to the resurrection. Don’t be like Adam and Eve. Trust God and love your brothers and sisters in Christ. Pray that he will help you in the midst of the unbelief that you and I both struggle with. Pray that God will empower you to demonstrate the belief he has given to you by acting like God does. God will give you the Spiritual power you need. God is trustworthy.
—–
EXTENDED BODY:

A BETTER ATTITUDE THAN ADAM: Philippians 2.5-11

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus “every knee will bow,” of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is a passage about Jesus Christ, and it is a great passage for showing that he is both human and divine. But while Paul’s belief in Christ’s humanity and divinity is certainly evident here, that is not the purpose of this passage. The purpose is not to say that Christ is both true man and true God. Rather, the purpose is to present a true vision of what true man is and what true God is. Paul is not merely saying that Christ is human and divine, but what it should mean to be human and what it should mean to be divine.

What is man? Or rather what should man be? Who is God? Those are the issues that Paul is addressing.

Looking at what many consider a hymn in verses 5 through 11, we see first a death and then an exaltation. Paul is obviously speaking here of Christ’s resurrection. In chapter 3 verses 20 and 21 Paul again speaks of Christ’s exaltation and he is obviously speaking of the resurrection — his and ours:

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Christ the New AdamNow Paul has spoken about this exaltation of Christ before. First Corinthians 15 is all about the resurrection and Christ’s exaltation over all things. For example:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.

Now in this passage, we not only have a direct reference to Adam, but Paul invokes Psalm 8 as a description of the exaltation of Jesus even though Psalm 8 is about the creation of Man:

3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.

When Paul says of Jesus reigning in heaven that God “has put all things in subjection under his feet,” he is quoting from Psalm 8.6, “you put everything under his feet.” Paul is speaking of the dominion given to Jesus in his resurrection using a passage that speaks of the dominion given to man (literally in the Hebrew: Adam) at his creation.

My point in briefly exegeting part of First Corinthians 15 is simply this: When Paul speaks of Jesus that “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus “every knee should bow,” of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,” he is placing Jesus in categories that come from Genesis 1 and 2 and other Hebrew Scriptures which refer to Genesis such as Psalm 8. Jesus is given a greater dominion than Adam, but in being given a dominion, Jesus is unmistakably being compared to Adam. That’s the way Paul and his readers would be thinking. We find the author of Hebrews, to mention another example, using Psalm 8 as a prophecy of the dominion given to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Adam Grasped but Christ Did Not
Now, in one sense, linking this passage to Adam simply reinforces the idea that this passage is about the incarnation.

But it is also an application of the incarnation which not only affirms Christ’s humanity but confronts our own ideas about humanity, and which not only affirms Jesus’ deity but which confronts our own ideas about the nature of deity.

In the first place, if we see in this passage categories from Genesis 1 and 2 and other passages like Psalm 8, then it might be profitable to ask if maybe we don’t have something here that addresses Genesis chapter 3. After all, Adam wanted to be exalted, but ended up being cast down.

And how did Adam think he could be exalted?

Adam thought he could gain equality with God by grasping at the forbidden fruit. The second Adam had a different attitude. He was happy rather to become human for our sakes.

Repentance & Holiness
And remember, this is more than just an example. We not only have in Christ an illustration of how we should think and act, but a principle of life that empowers us to think and act that way. Christianity is not simply a new law but a new life — the life of Jesus Christ imparted to his people through the Holy Spirit. Paul affirms in verse 1 of this chapter and throughout the letter that he is writing to those who are “in Christ” and who share in the communion or “fellowship of the Spirit.”

But this new life does not operate automatically as Paul himself says in verses 12 and 13 – “work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” So Paul gives the Philippians a number of exhortations before and after this passage that are both positive and negative; for example: “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself.”

It is worth pointing out that Paul’s portrayal of the humiliation and the exaltation of Jesus are related to these two sorts of exhortations, the negative exhortations that tell us to stop sinning and the positive exhortations to do good things. Paul goes on in Philippians to relate Christ’s death and resurrection to his own Christian walk.

I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

You see the Christian life involves both negative and positive actions — it means avoiding sin (negative) and doing what is right (positive). Actually, since we are all enmeshed in the old Adam as well as the new, it means more than that — it means repenting from sin and endeavoringf after holy living. And the death and resurrection of Christ, his humiliation and exaltation empower us to both of these activities. Paul says the same things to the Romans:

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

I could read the whole chapter, which is devoted to explaining how our life is dependent on the death and resurrection of Christ — his death giving us repentance and his life giving us righteousness.

As long as we remain in this mortal flesh, our life will have to be a life of self-renunciation and repentance as well as one of righteous living. As J. I. Packer puts it in his book on Rediscovering Holiness, we must grow down in order to grow up in Christ Jesus.

The Key to Christian Unity
And notice how here in this passage, the self-renunciation as well as the holy living is shown to be the key to Christian unity. “Do not look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” Think of Adam blaming Eve all because he wanted equality with God. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and we all share in that innate desire to put ourselves before God and others. And it is only by putting our selves to death through a life of repentance that we can hope to live out the life of Jesus our Lord. Only then can we hope to display the unity for which Christ says we are supposed to be known.

I stress this corporate dimension of repentance and holiness, not only because the Bible stresses it, but also because repentance and holiness as concepts can be so effectively used by Satan to destroy the unity in the Spirit which Paul so greatly desires. If we think in holiness in purely personal terms as a private possession — a personal achievement even if we know better than to call it that — then such alleged holiness can become a source of pride and factionalism.

Christ has revealed who we are as God’s true humanity in him. To live after the pattern of the new Adam will mean putting others first. It will mean covering over other peoples’ sins against you in love. It will mean being willing to be wronged and suffer rather than start a contention. And it will mean a great deal more.

The Apostle Paul does not say that we must regard those who have good jobs, or those with well-behaved children, or those who know more about eschatology or Church polity as more important than ourselves. He doesn’t even say we should regard Presbyterians or Baptists or Pentecostals or Methodists as more important than ourselves. No, he says, “with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself.” The person who you think has the least going for him or her: that person is your test case. Will you have the mind of Christ or the mind of Adam?

And, of course, if you are aware of people who are more mature in Christ than you, then you too face a test: honest humility or resentment? To resort to the language of Romans 14, both the “strong” and the “weak,” must regard others as more important than themselves.

Christ’s Theology Better than Adam’s
I’ve been talking about humanity, but let’s not forget how this passage speaks of God. It affirms that Christ is God, even to the point in verse 10 of quoting Isaiah 45.23 as referring to Jesus.

And that brings us to a point of contention in verse 6, when Paul writes that Jesus “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” There has been a lot of ink spilled on what exactly is meant by the Greek word translated as “to be grasped” in the NASB. The best argument I know of, that fits best in the passage, is that it means to be taken advantage of. It should read “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be taken advantage of.” Or as the NRSV puts it: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.” Jesus did not regard his equality with God as something to be used for personal gain.

Earlier, in contrasting Adam and Christ, I may have given the impression that the center of the contrast was that Adam tried to seize divine prerogatives and Jesus didn’t. That is how some scholars would interpret the verse. But that won’t work. Jesus always had equality with God. Equality with God is not something Jesus could take because he already had it. No, the contrast is not between two people wanting equality with God. Rather, the contrast is between man trying to exalt himself to become God and God willingly humbling himself to become man — even a condemned man.

Remember, Satan told Adam and Eve that God was exalting himself at their expense. God lied to you about the tree, he said, because he didn’t want to have any equals. That was Adam’s theology when he decided to eat the fruit — a theology of cosmic paranoia — a theology that said that God hates us and has a horrible plan for our lives because he has lied to us about this tree to keep us down. Jesus reveals how entirely backwards Satan’s lie really was. God’s divine status doesn’t mean he exalts himself. It means he humbles himself for the sake of others.

Jesus did not abandon his deity in his humiliation. On the contrary, he revealed it. That’s the scandal of the cross, that it reveals God — the true God, who serves others and puts their interests before his own.

Adam acted selfishly and in so doing thought of God as self-serving. If you are going to imitate Christ you need to acknowledge the God whom Christ has revealed. Your are to be Christ’s ambassador, you are to be God’s ambassador. That means your life needs to display the true God. People are dying for want of the true God. Paul’s whole message is tied up in the identity of the true God. The cross reveals that the true God does not take advantage of his status but rather serves.

God doesn’t want you to deny the gifts he has given you. If your job gives you clout, then thank God. If your children are a testimony of grace, then praise the name of the Lord. If you’ve learned something true and valuable, then don’t forget it. But never use it for personal advantage. Rather serve others and regard them as more important than yourself. If you do that, you’re imitating God; if you don’t, you’re denying him.

H. L. Mencken, the famous journalist and critic from Baltimore in the first half of the twentieth-century, once wrote an essay about why he never moved to Europe, unlike many of his cultured friends. Basically, he said, you need two things to be happy. For one thing, you need to be able to support yourself without expending two much effort. The U.S. is much better than Europe for that purpose. The second thing you need is continual affirmation that you are superior to most of the people around you. And America provides for that need in ample abundance. That was a major support of Mencken’s happiness – looking down on other people.

Well, Mencken was an atheist. Are we? Or do we believe in the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord?