Menu

Doctrines

The Gift of Faith

,

Question: Pat writes, “Hello again, it is I with yet another question. Is there a difference between ‘regular’ faith and the ‘gift’ of faith spoken about in, I believe, 2 Corinthians?”

Answer: You ask a good (and challenging!) question.

Joseph Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon, describes faith as “a firm and welcome conviction.” (That is good!) Every “believer” has this kind of faith, by definition. He is one who believes. And all true faith is a gift of God. Acts 18:27 speaks of “those who had believed through grace” (those who had, through the grace of God, become believers in Christ). Paul says of the Philippians, “To you it has been granted…to believe in Him” (Phil. 1:29). And in Ephesians 2:8, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Though in this latter case Paul likely means “that salvation is not of yourselves,” the point is similar. The ability to trust in God for salvation is sovereignly given, not generated by human effort (cf. Jn. 6:44, 65).

There are clearly different kinds of faith. Perhaps it is helpful to see these as mainly affecting, in turn, the individual’s mind, emotions, and will.

A) In The Mind. There is a kind of faith that involves an intellectual acceptance of facts. Theologian Charles Baker calls it Rationalistic Faith. Those with this level of faith know the truth, and may well accept the doctrinal realities about who Christ is and what He has done, but there is no transforming personal appropriation of the truth, no life application. James tells us “even the demons believe–and tremble” (Jas. 2:19). They know the power of Almighty God, and the certainty of their eternal destiny. The thought of it fills them with terror (cf. Lk. 8:30-31). They also know without a doubt who Christ is, but they do not bow the knee to Him in submission, and in sincere worship. Nor do they alter their aims and actions as a result.

B) In The Emotions. This is what we might call a transient enthusiasm, or in Baker’s words, Emotional Faith. It is the kind of belief that many in the crowds following Jesus had. There was a superficial acceptance of Him for a while, but with an absence of firm commitment based on spiritual insight. They exhibited an excited response to His miracles but with little substantive conviction toward Him (cf. Jn. 2:23-24). As a result, when the Lord began to speak of the cross, and the deeper truths of the spiritual life, “Many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him” (Jn. 6:66). These are represented in Christ’s parable of the sower by the seed that fell upon rock, where there was no depth of earth. “The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy [emotion]; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Lk. 8:13).

C) In The Will. In contrast to the two above that fall short, there is true biblical faith, a transforming faith, that might be described as “a belief that behaves.” The mind is involved with this faith too: It is rooted in sound doctrine, an understanding of the truth. So are the feelings: There is certainly an emotional response to the truth. But it goes beyond that. There is an appropriation of the truth that leads to decisive action, and a surrender of the self to God. It is this kind of faith James speaks of when he says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (Jas. 2:18). He goes on, “Faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:20), meaning any “faith” that does not lead to a committed response, and a change in the life, is a dead kind of faith, not the genuine article. And “without faith [genuine faith] it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb. 11:6).

It is this latter kind of faith that is involved at conversion (what is sometimes called saving faith) and in the continuing walk of the Christian life (where it has been called sustaining faith). “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7; cf. Col. 2:6-7).

George Mueller defined such faith as follows: “Faith is the assurance that the things which God said in His Word are true; and that God will act according to what He has said in His Word. This assurance, this reliance on God’s Word, this confidence, is Faith.” But from one believer to another there are variations in both the degree and consistency of faith. (George Mueller himself was a man of outstanding faith.) With the father who came to Jesus one day many of us would cry, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (Mk. 9:24).

The Gift Of Faith. Finally, God does grant to some a special and unique endowment of faith which is beyond the ordinary. Not all have this. And we should not beat up on ourselves because we do not have it! “God has dealt to each one a measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3), and we should seek to exercise what we have. But in the listing of various spiritual gifts in First Corinthians 12:9, Paul adds “to another faith by the same Spirit.” In other words, to another person is given the gift of faith by the Spirit of God, who “distributes to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11). It is likely this gift Paul has in mind when he speaks of “all faith so that I could remove mountains” (I Cor. 13:2). And perhaps it was evident in the life of Stephen, who is described as “a man full of faith” (Acts 6:5).

John MacArthur writes that this gift is “distinct from saving faith or persevering [sustaining] faith, both of which all believers possess. This gift is exercised in persistent prayer and endurance in intercession, along with strong trust in God in the midst of difficult circumstances.” This is the faith of the great pioneers of church history. Of George Mueller, mentioned earlier, who trusted God to help him feed thousands of orphans. Of missionaries like William Carey and Hudson Taylor. And of the godly men like Dwight Moody and others who founded Bible colleges and began great ministries and movements. They saw a need, as many did. They were deeply concerned, as many were. But they also had a God-given vision for what could be accomplished by His grace, and the holy boldness to launch out and attempt the seemingly impossible. We thank the Lord for this gift to the church!

Views of the Millennium (Revelation 20)

, , ,

Question: Glenn asks, “In Revelation 20 it refers to the 1000-year reign of Christ. Please explain the differences in the beliefs in those who are pre, post and amillennial?”

Answer: The word “millennium” is simply an English form of the Latin words mille annus, meaning a thousand years (taken, of course, from Revelation 20:4, “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”).

The Postmillennial View. That through the preaching of the gospel the world will eventually be christianized, bringing in a golden age (a millennium). Then the world will be fit for Christ’s return, and He will come back (“post” meaning after the millennium). This view was popular in the late 1800’s, when new inventions and discoveries signaled great progress. But two world wars dashed the hopes of most postmilliennialists that the world is getting better. There are relatively few of them today. And, of course, the view does not square with Scripture that teaches us “perilous times” will come in the last days, and “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse” (II Tim. 3:1-5, 13).

The Amillennial View. That there is no such thing as a literal, earthly millennium (“a” meaning no). To hold this view, most amillennialists “spiritualize” the many Bible chapters describing the earthly reign of the Messiah, applying them to the church today in some symbolic sense. For example, consider what Matthew Henry (an amillennialist) does with Isaiah 11:6-9. The passage speaks of the removal of the curse upon creation, and the harmony in the natural world during the earthly reign of Christ. It refers to the wolf and the lamb dwelling together, etc. But Henry says, “Unity or concord [is] intimated in these figurative promises…men of the most fierce and furious dispositions shall have their temper so strangely altered by the grace of Christ that they shall live in love with even the weakest and such as formerly were easy prey.”

That the Lord transforms lives is quite true. The question is whether Isaiah meant that! And I would argue that he did not. The biggest problem with amillennialism is its inconsistent method of interpretation. It treats most of Scripture literally. But when it comes to many prophecies concerning Israel it resorts to “spiritualizing” (allegorizing). But then the question comes: Which Scriptures should be taken literally, and which should not? And who decides? (Matthew Henry decided those are “figurative promises,” but who gave him that right?) As the old interpreters used to say, “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

The Bible can best be understood with a consistently literal interpretation, duly taking into account figures of speech. (See the article regarding the interpretation of prophecy on the website.) There are approximately 1,000 individual prophecies found in the Word of God. To date, around 500 (or half) of them have been literally fulfilled. That can give us confidence that a plain, natural meaning is intended by the prophets. For example, was Christ literally born in Bethlehem as Micah predicted (Mic. 5:2)? Or are we to treat “Bethlehem” in some spiritual or symbolic way, rather than as a literal town?

The Premillennial View (the position of this website). That Christ will come back, visibly, bodily, before (“pre” meaning before) the millennium, ushering in a golden age of peace and plenty on the earth. There is an enormous amount of Scripture describing His earthly reign from the throne of David, and the nature of life on earth at that time. A consistent treatment of the Scriptures (as even some amillennialists will admit) will lead one to be a premillennialist. A good book summarizing the arguments for this position is Ryrie’s little volume The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.

Legalism and License

,

Question: Bill asks, “Can you please explain the difference between legalism and license?”

Answer: In Christian teaching, license is a moral distortion of liberty. It is the notion that living under grace gives us the freedom (or even the right) to do whatever we want and be free from any binding standard. (This is called “antinomianism.”) It argues that since Christ has paid the penalty for all our sins, we are free to live as we please. But of course that is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Christian liberty is not a license to do as we wish, but the power to do as we ought. Though the epistles recognize our freedom in Christ, that is balanced with the fact that:

A) If we truly love God we will want to do only those things that please Him (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; I Jn. 2:5). Since God hates sin and cannot abide it in His presence (Hab. 1:13), why would we want to grieve Him (Eph. 4:30) and hinder our fellowship with Him (Ps. 66:18; Isa. 59:2)?

B) In showing Christ-like love to others–which we are to do (Jn. 13:34), we will want to avoid those things that could harm them. To act in such a way as would cause others to stumble into sin is hateful and wrong (I Cor. 8:9, 11-12; I Pet. 2:16; cf. Rom. 15:1-2).

C) Sin is still dangerous and destructive, if allowed into our lives as Christians. It can still enslave us if we let it. Instead, we should be living in a way that is edifying to ourselves and to others (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Gal. 5:13; cf. Eph. 4:29).

James speaks of “the law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25; 2:12), I believe he is referring to the entire Word of God, as applied under Grace. The Law of Moses called for strict obedience, but did not, in itself, provide the power to obey. The Law was thus a frustrating burden, a yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1). Under Grace, we are given a new nature (II Pet. 1:3-4), and indwelt by the Spirit of God (I Cor. 6:19; Rom. 8:9). This is the spiritual and universal aspect of God’s “New Covenant” with Israel (Jer. 31:33; 32:40; Ezek. 36:26-27), made possible by the shed blood of Christ (I Cor. 11:25). We have, by this means, a new sensitivity to God and His will, and a new power to do what is right. That is liberating!

It is not that the Christian life is without standards. God’s righteous standard is eternal (Isa. 51:6, 8). Rather, we now have a new desire and a new power (by God’s Spirit) to live lives that are pleasing to Him. But that brings us to the matter of legalism. Charles Ryrie, in his fine book, Balancing the Christian Life, says, “Legalism is not the presence of laws….Legalism may be defined as a fleshly attitude which conforms to a code for the purpose of exalting self” (p. 159). Put a slightly different way, It is not “legalistic” to have moral standards. Legalism is the belief that God’s acceptance needs to be earned by our good works. It involves a failure to understand and appreciate the grace and love of God.

This addresses the motivation for Christian living. When Christ died upon the cross, He paid the penalty for all the sins of all mankind for all time (Isa. 53:6; I Jn. 2:2). If one lays claim to Christ’s Calvary work as His own, that is all that is necessary. There is no longer any outstanding payment in the way of our full acceptance by God. We are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). Each and every believer is a “son and heir” in the family of God (Gal. 3:26; 4:7). Our standing before God is anchored in grace, His unmerited favour (Rom. 5:1-2).

In that exalted position, we live to please God, not to earn something that is already ours, but to express our appreciation for it. In this sense Law and Grace are complete opposites. (Under Law, Doing leads to Blessing; Under Grace, Blessing leads to Doing.) There is a word that is used some two dozen times in the epistles. It is the word “beseech” (plead, entreat). It perfectly reflects our new standing. The Law said, “Do this and you will be blessed.” Grace says, here are all the blessings, free and clear, guaranteed in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Now, won’t you please show Him how much you appreciate that? Won’t you please obey Him in response to His gracious gift?

That is the thrust of verses such as: Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God [because of the great work of salvation described in the earlier chapters], that you present your bodies a living sacrifice…” And Second Corinthians 6:1, “We then [because of what is described in 5:21], as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain…” And Ephesians 4:1, “I therefore [on the basis of the great work of God described to this point in the book]…beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called.”

Salvation and Baptism: Is baptism necessary for salvation?

, ,

Question: What is the meaning of the words of Ananias to Paul, after the latter met with Christ on the Damascus Road: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Does this means that water baptism cleanses away sin?

Answer: Though Paul’s conversion is described first in Acts 9:1-19, this (i.e. Acts 22:16) is the only place where these words of Ananias are recorded. Various attempts have been made to explain the seeming implication that water baptism effectually cleanses sins. But the New Testament makes it clear that it is the blood of Christ that does that (I Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5). What then is the meaning here?

1) Some (Charles Ryrie and others) try to avoid the problem by re-translating–”having arisen, be baptized; and wash away your sins, having called on the name of the Lord.” However, though this accurately reflects the meaning of the Greek original, it does not explain why baptism precedes cleansing–especially when there are other indications that Paul was saved (and cleansed) before this.

Paul (then called Saul) had already demonstrated faith in, and submission to Christ, on the Damascus Road (Acts 22:10). And he was filled with the Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 9:17-18). Further, Paul heard the gospel not from Ananias first, but from Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12). In other words, there is every indication that Paul received Christ as Saviour and was filled with the Spirit and cleansed of his sins before his water baptism.

2) It may be helpful to consider his baptism as being more Jewish than Christian. Water baptism was used by the Jews to initiate proselytes to Judaism, and John the Baptist used it as a symbol of repentance, in preparation for Christ’s coming. The church, thoroughly Jewish in the early days, would be untaught about the truth of being positionally “in Christ” and the union with Him that is expressed by Christian baptism.

Rather, they would attach to baptism something of its former significance. Note Paul’s emphasis on the Jewishness of this event (Acts 22:3, 12, 14). The only ones in Acts who are told to be baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38), or similar words, are Jews.

The nation of Israel had rejected their Messiah. “His blood be on us and on our children,” they’d said (Matt. 27:25). By a public baptism conducted by church leaders, individual Jews were openly disassociating themselves from their Christ-rejecting nation, and identifying themselves with Him.

Baptism thus was a sign of their repentance of the specific sins related to the death of Christ and of any prior opposition to His work through the church. In effect, it took them off Jewish ground and put them on Christian ground–though a full understanding of this only came gradually. For Paul, his baptism likely testified outwardly to a repudiation of his former hateful actions against Christ and the church.

It is only when we move away from the early days, and past the official introduction of Gentiles into the body of Christ, that we see a greater emphasis on positional truth in connection with baptism. Today, believer’s baptism by immersion signifies the individual’s identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and a determination to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).

Paul certainly never saw it as essential for salvation. He baptized very few individuals (I Cor. 1:14-17), which would be strange if he believed they couldn’t be saved without it!

Lord of All: Is Christ Lord of all?

,

Question: How can Jesus be the God of all people? He Himself said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 15:24).

Answer: This is a case of needing to distinguish God’s program from His Person. And needing to distinguish the steps in His program from His ultimate goal.

His Program and His Person

As to God Himself, He is One God in three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Each of the three Persons of the Trinity is fully God, and worthy of equal honour with the others, yet there is only one God. Each Person of the Trinity has a unique function and ministry, yet there is only one God.

We should not reject this truth simply because there is nothing we can see in nature that parallels it, or that can fully illustrate it. God is infinitely transcendent; He is utterly supreme and unique. Nothing, and no one else is like Him.

triquetra

One of many attempts to illustrate the Trinity is a figure called the triquetra, seen above. It is one figure, with three distinct points, yet no point can exist without the others. They are all three interconnected and each is equal to the others.

That is helpful. But the triquetra fails to deal adequately with the uniqueness of each Person in the triune Godhead. As you see from the drawing, the points are all exactly the same, which is not true of the Persons of the Trinity. For example, Jesus Christ is both God and Man, but the Spirit of God is not a Man.

The difficulty of explaining these truths was not lost on the Bible’s authors. John was a Jew who was taught there is only one true God (Deut. 6:4). Yet he wrote of Christ, whom he called “the Word” (cf. Jn. 1:14), and said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it: “In the beginning <before all time> was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.”

Your problem of confusing God’s program (what He does), with who He is, can be illustrated by something that happened to Queen Victoria, long ago. It was the custom of the queen to go for walks in ordinary clothes, with a faithful servant following some distance behind.

On one such occasion she came upon a flock of sheep, driven by a boy who rudely shouted, “Get out of the way, you stupid old woman!” The queen smiled, and said nothing. But when her servant passed by he informed the lad he’d been speaking to her Majesty the Queen. Totally unrepentant, the boy responded, “Well, she should dress like it!”

You seem to be asking that everything the Lord does must be clearly and evidently God-like, from your point of view. But would you have recognized Christ’s deity if you were there to see Him hanging on a cross, or watched as they buried His lifeless body in a stone cold tomb? Not likely. Even His disciples didn’t at first.

However, the Bible assures us of the deity of Christ over and over. He is “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).

A number of times Christ is also said to be the Creator of all things (cf. Col. 1:16-17). The Lord Jesus Himself said, “All should honour the Son just as they honour the Father” (Jn. 5:23), and He took to Himself the “I AM” name of Jehovah God (Exod. 3:14) : “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (Jn. 8:58).

His Program and His Goal

Now, let’s think about my second point. That we must distinguish the steps in God’s program from His ultimate goal, and we must allow Him, as the sovereign Lord of all, to do what, in His infinite wisdom, He knows is the best way to reach that goal.

There is no doubt that God has favoured Israel in a unique way, above all the other nations on earth (Deut. 7:6). Four thousand years ago, He chose Abraham, and promised to make of his descendants a great nation, with a land of their own–a land that would be theirs in perpetuity (Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15).  Through Israel came the inspired Word of God (Rom. 3:1-2), and through them came Christ, the living Word (Rom. 9:5; cf. Matt. 1:1).

The Lord calls the nation “Israel My glory” (Isa. 46:13), something said of no other people. Of Israel it was said, “He who touches you touches the apple [pupil] of His [God’s] eye” (Zech. 2:8)–meaning something especially valued by the Lord. And Israel is the special focus of the narrative in much of the Bible, from Genesis 11:27 (about Abraham’s ancestry), all the way through to the early chapters of Acts.

In the Gospels, the Jews are still the focus on God’s plan. Even in the promise of Jesus’ birth to Joseph it is said, “He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That, of course, does not mean He was not going to save others too. But this was a message important to a believing Jew. (To say that the allies liberated Paris from the Nazis in the Second World War does not mean they did not also liberate France and other nations of Europe.)

As you point out, Christ’s primary ministry, at first, was to “the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). And when Jesus sent to disciples out to minister, they too were sent only to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6). Even the early Christians, after Pentecost, preached the gospel only to the Jews, at first (Acts 11:19).

However, the gospel of grace, salvation through the finished work of Christ, is “for the Jew first and also for the Greek [the Gentile]” (Rom. 1:16). “Jesus Christ–He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), not just Lord of the Jews.

When the Jews rejected and crucified their Messiah-King, the gospel message was extended to all nations. The disciples, whose ministry was restricted before, were then given a wider mission: “You shall be witnesses to Me…to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) The Great Commission is to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:18-20).

Why would the Lord favour one nation above all others as He did? I’m not sure of all the reasons–and He owes me no explanation for that. We do know that God blessed the nation of Israel and equipped them to be a witness for Him to the ancient world. “‘You are My witnesses,’ says the LORD, ‘and My servant whom I have chosen'” (Isa. 43:10). However, through disobedience and unbelief, and habitual idolatry, Israel failed in this task.

Today, the church is the spiritual body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), made up of all nations treated on an equal basis (Gal. 3:26-28). It is a body, not with an earthly citizenship and kingdom, but a heavenly citizenship and kingdom (Phil. 3:20). And the church has taken up the work at which Israel failed: to witness to a dying world.

This wider work was part of God’s plan from the beginning. Even in His covenant with Abraham we see it: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed'” (Gal. 3:8).

So, you see, though He had, and still has, special blessings in store for Israel as a nation, in fulfillment of His covenants, God had the salvation of all nations on His heart and in His sovereign plan, even then. But we must allow Him to work in His own way, while rejoicing in what He has done for us personally.

Two Parts or Three: Are humans two-part beings (spirit and body) or three-part beings (spirit, soul and body)?

,

Question: Are human two-part beings (spirit and body), or three-part beings (spirit, and soul, and body)?

Answer: This has long been debated. I have always taken a tripartite position, though there actually may be a way in which both views are correct, depending on how you look at it. Some of what is below is, I believe, indisputably biblical. But, admittedly, I also venture into the area of the theoretical. I think the ideas are logical, and possible, but cannot be dogmatic about them.

The words for spirit (ruwach in Hebrew, and pneuma in Greek) are found many times in the Bible, as are the words for soul (nephesh in Hebrew, and psuche in Greek). The Hebrew and Greek words have a greater variety of meanings than soul and spirit do in English, allowing for different uses. For example, both ruwach and pneuma can mean wind or breath, as well as spirit. And there are times when they seem to be used generally or interchangeably, to represent the immaterial part of man.

However, there are several Scriptures which suggest a distinction between the soul and the spirit. In his letter to the Thessalonian Christians, Paul prays, “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it” (I Thess. 5:23-24).

Unlike the NKJV (above) which omits the word “and” between spirit and soul, it is there in the Greek original: “your spirit and soul and body.” Interestingly, the original KJV of 1611 retained the double “and,” so why it was dropped from the modern revision I’m not sure.

There is great specificity in that description–your whole (entire, complete) spirit and soul and body. It will not do, I believe, to say the Apostle is simply throwing a bunch of words together to emphasize that he’s speaking of the entire being. If we believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, each word is important.

A similar thing is done in the Great Commission, in dealing with the Persons of the Trinity. It is not, “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person is given His unique place: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, italics mine). There can be no mistaking the distinct identity and equal importance of each One.

Kenneth Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the Thessalonian passage has: “May the God of peace Himself consecrate you, every part of each one of you, to His worship and service, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved in their entirety blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The uniqueness of the soul and the spirit is indicated in other texts as well. Hebrews 4:12 tells us, “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit.” That is, it is able to identify and distinguish between spiritual needs on the one hand, and psychological (mental/emotional) needs on the other.

Without question, there is a material part of man, and an invisible, immaterial part, those two. Or, to put it more precisely, man is body and man is spirit, a physical being and a spirit being. This, in itself, is quite unique. The angels are exclusively spirit beings, though they can take on a physical appearance when they choose to. Animals do not, as far as we know, have an eternal spirit. Only man is both body and spirit.

We come, then, to the way in which man can be seen as both a two-part and a three-part being. Yes, we are both material and immaterial beings, body and spirit. But I would argue that we have a soul as well. A simple way to distinguish the three is to say:

    ¤ Through our spirits we have God consciousness
    ¤ Through our souls we have self consciousness
    ¤ Through our bodies we have world consciousness (by our senses)

Picture the spirit and the body as two circles. If we bring them together so that they partly overlap, in the area of overlap we have a possible way to portray the place of the third aspect of our being, the soul. My view is that the soul is the psychological part of us, involving our intellect, emotions and will. But if that is so, how then is it connected to the spirit?

Consider what happens at death, when the spirit leaves the body? Does the soul disappear or cease to exist? Or, to put it another way, are our eternal spirits unable to think, feel or decide? That would be nonsense. But what if the mind is more than a physical organ inside our skulls. Is it possible we have a mind as well as a brain? The answer, it seems to me, is that the mind is to the spirit as the brain is to the body. The brain is a physical organ, capable of directing the physical body. But the mind is an eternal entity, more related to the spirit. The two are integrated in us, but are not the same thing.

To see the distinction, it’s helpful to view the difference between the unregenerate and born again person. The Bible tells us that the unsaved person is spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph.  2:1, 5). Not that the spirit is extinct–since it is eternal. But it is utterly alienated from God, insensitive to God, and powerless to respond appropriately to Him (Rom. 3:11). That means the unsaved person (the “natural” man) is soul-directed, not God directed (I Cor. 2:14). “These are sensual [psuchikos or soulish] persons…not having the Spirit” (Jude 1:19).

But what happens with the new birth? We are given new spiritual life, the life of the Spirit, who comes to indwell us (Jn. 6:63; I Cor. 6:19). Through Him, and by His illumination of the Word of God, our thinking is transformed (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23), and we gain “the mind [or understanding] of Christ” (I Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5). It’s not that our physical brain ceases to function or stops gathering data through our senses. But it is further equipped and enabled to function in a new dimension.

In addition to the input from our physical senses, we now are able to view life from God’s point of view, and are empowered respond to it accordingly. When we die, the body (including the brain) perishes, but the transformed mind, finally perfected (I Jn. 3:2), continues to exist as a part of our eternal spirits.

Some of the above is admittedly theorizing beyond the scope of what Scripture reveals, or what it reveals only dimly. It may not satisfy those who are convinced otherwise. But I’ve tried to show a legitimate way in which both the two-part and three-part views of man can be integrated, and both be correct.

Life After Death: Do people go to heaven when they die?

,

Question: Do people go to heaven when they die?

Answer: Thanks for the question. It’s quite a broad subject, so I’ll try to look at it from several different angles.

About Human Spirituality

Your question implies at least the possibility of something beyond what we see and know in this mortal life, a spiritual and eternal world beyond our own material and temporal one. That thought, that there must be more beyond this life, is common to man. The Bible tells us God “has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end?” (Ecc. 3:11).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary says of that text: “People have a longing or desire to know the extra-temporal [beyond the present world] significance of themselves and their deeds or activities” (p. 984). 

It seems there’s a kind of inborn sense of…something…but a definite knowledge of it remains out of reach It’s a world that seems misty and mysterious, and it’s often the realm of wild imaginings, fearful superstitions, and even the deceptions of demonic spirits (I Tim. 4:1).

“The natural man [a human being born physically into this world, but not born again by the Spirit of God] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit [in the Scriptures]” (I Cor. 2:9-10).

The unsaved person does not have the ability to grasp spiritual things, or the spiritual power to live a life pleasing to God. But sinners can be saved by God’s grace, through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Jn. 3:16). When we are, we’re also born again by a work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:12-13), and indwelt by the Spirit (II Cor. 1:21-22), who becomes our Teacher, illuminating the Scriptures so we can understand them (Jn. 16:13-14).

Thus the boundaries of our understanding depends somewhat on our spiritual condition. Not that I’m saying we as Christians fully understand our infinite God and His ways. But we are equipped to grow in our understanding and application of the Bible, over time, and are encouraged to do so (I Pet. 2:2; II Pet. 3:18).

False and True Choices

But what of those who do not have God’s life within them, and His provision to grasp spiritual matters? How do they describe life after death? There are many answers to that. Here are several.

1) The atheist says, there is no God, and no eternity up ahead. Dead is dead–it’s the end of existence. But God says the one who clings to that notion is a fool (Ps. 14:1). All of the Bible proclaims a life beyond the grave.

Job, in his time of terrible suffering asks, “If a man dies, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14). And he answers with a strong belief in the resurrection and an afterlife: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26).

Jesus also taught the truth of a future resurrection: “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:31-32). And Christ declared that He was going to heaven to prepare a place for us to live there with him (Jn. 14:3-4; cf. Jn. 17:24).

2) The religions of the world offer no such hope. Buddhism speaks of a future Nirvana. The word literally means a blowing out, as one would extinguish a candle. After death, they say, we enter some kind of permanent state, but there is no personal God. In contrast, God’s Word says His plan is: “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7).

3) And what of Hinduism? Hindus believe human beings are reincarnated, over and over–either as animals, or different human beings–trying to solve the issues of this life. Some of them believe in a kind of god to go to; others think that in the end each human personality will be dissolved in the abyss of Brahman.

4) Primitive Spiritism speaks of joining our ancestors, but they claim to know little about the future world, other than seeing it as just as full of trouble and pain as this one. (How sad!)

And let’s include here a couple of erroneous beliefs held by some professing Christians, relating to the afterlife.

5) Some believe in what is called “soul sleep,” teaching that the dead lie in grave awaiting resurrection, and that they are totally insensible (unconscious), aware of nothing. Among those who believe this, much is made of the fact that in a few places death seems to be described as a sleep (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 11:11-13; I Thess. 4:13-14). But I believe that is picture language, intended to convey a couple of things.

First, it is simply describing the appearance of things–much as we describe sunrise, though we know the sun does not rise. In reality, the earth revolves, and it appears to us that the sun rises. In a similar way, a dead person often looks much like a sleeping person. Second, the power of God is such that He can raise the dead even more easily than we would arouse someone from sleep, so it’s a way of emphasizing the power of God.

The dead are not unconscious in the grave. Moses and Elijah met with the Lord Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and talked with Him, and Peter certainly saw all three (Matt. 17:2-4). To the dying thief who believed on Him Jesus said, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise [heaven]” (Lk. 23:43).

Our own experience in death, as believers, will be to be “absent from the [mortal] body and to be present with the Lord [in heaven]” (II Cor. 5:8), instantly going from one world to the next. Paul described death as “to depart and be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23).

6) Some teach that the unsaved will simply be annihilated after death, and cease to exist, that only the saved are immortal. But that too is wrong.

Not only the saved, but also the unsaved will be raised bodily from the dead in the day of resurrection (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 5:25-29). At that time, the unsaved will be judged before God’s Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-12), and condemned to eternal punishment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

Jesus describes this as a place of “everlasting fire” originally prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), and a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48). Both the punishment of sinners and the blessing of the saints are “forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10; 22:5).

7) The Christian gospel contrasts with all of the theories of man. The Word of God is plain. For us, as Bible-believing Christians, the future is described in First Thessalonians 4:14-17. If we die before Christ returns, we’ll come back with Him (which obviously implies we will have been with Him in heaven before that). If we are alive when He comes, we’ll instantly receive our glorified resurrection bodies and join the other saints (I Cor. 15:51-53). Our future with the Lord is assured. Through Christ, we have the gift of “eternal” life (I Jn. 5:11), a life of blessing in His presence. It would not be truly eternal if it ended at the grave.

Women Teaching Men: Should women be permitted to teach a mixed group of men and women?

,

Question: [Referring to First Timothy 2:12] Is it biblically correct for a woman to “facilitate” a Sunday School discussion group of mixed male and female attendants? Is there really a difference between teaching and facilitating, or is it just renaming sin to make compromise more attractive?

Answer: It sounds like a semantical attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too–like describing a woman speaker in a church service as “sharing,” rather than preaching.

However, having said that, I’m not sure I would object too strenuously–though some feel much more strongly about it than I do. The key is whether or not the one “facilitating” is understood (by her, and the membership) to be under the authority of the elders. Then, it might be possible to allow it, though I don’t feel it’s ideal.

I commend you for your zeal, and for your desire to do what’s right. But perhaps it will be helpful to take a closer look at the Scriptures involved, and at the nature of your personal stand. I realize there are many who would agree with you. But there are also many who would not. That suggests it may not be quite the “black and white” issue you suppose. Here are a few thoughts.

I believe the church should adhere to the fundamental (foundational) doctrines of the apostolic faith. We are to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). As to what those fundamentals are, they certainly include: the divine inspiration of the Scriptures; the deity and virgin birth of Christ; His death for our sins and His bodily resurrection; and salvation by the grace of God, through faith in Christ, apart from any works.

I would not feel right identifying myself with or supporting a church that denies the doctrines of the Word of God at this level. To do so would, I believe, violate the principle of separation given to us in Second Corinthians 6:14. The question is whether having a woman teach a mixed Sunday School class is an issue of the same magnitude as (for example) defending the deity of Christ. I don’t believe it is.

That’s not to say it’s unimportant. But if we put every single truth in the Word of God on the same level, and determine that we will not have fellowship with anyone who does not agree with us on every single point, we will never find a church to satisfy us. And if every Christian were to live by the same code, the fellowship of the people of God would become hopelessly fragmented, and the fulfilment of the Great Commission severely hindered.

I’m not saying we should surrender our personal convictions. But there have to be some limits on those things for which we’ll “go to the wall.” It’s possible to have good fellowship with a group of people without being in complete agreement with them. However, let me add, it’s not healthy to join a group for the purpose of undermining their beliefs or policies, launching a campaign to argue them into agreement with us. That creates a very divisive spirit.

Now, let’s take a look at First Timothy 2:12.

Does it absolutely, and without any question, rule out having a woman teach an adult Sunday School class made up of men and women? Does it mean that, without question, to do so would be a sin? And should we conclude, therefore, that it would involve a sinful compromise to attend any church that allows it? It sounds as though you’d answer “Yes,” to each of these questions, but I’m not so sure that’s a valid conclusion.

Were there situations in the early church where women taught men? Sure there were. We know, for example, that Priscilla was involved, with her husband Aquila, in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). And, of course, few would oppose having women teach other women, or children (cf. II Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15; Tit. 2:3-5).

Then, there was the gift of prophecy exercised by women. That gift involved the communication of inspired truth, in the days before the written Word of God was completed. By its very nature, it seems to imply teaching men, not just women. Yet four daughters of Philip were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). And Paul seemed to accept women prophesying, as long as they wore a head covering–symbolizing, in that day, their submission to God and His appointed leaders in the church (I Cor. 11:5).

As to the First Timothy text, there is some evidence that Paul is dealing narrowly with women taking the position of an authoritative teaching elder, something which he, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says is unacceptable. It is certainly out of place for a woman to take the lead in settling questions of doctrine or practice in the church.

Here are the views of several Bible commentators concerning the text in question.

Charles Ryrie. “Women may teach as long as they do not usurp the place of leadership and authority of men in the church.”

Kenneth Wuest. “I do not permit a woman to be a teacher [in an official position exercising authority over the man in matters of church doctrine or discipline]” (Expanded Translation).

Gleason Archer. “Women workers, no matter how gifted and talented, are not to have ecclesiastical authority over men….They are not to have the authority of ordained minsters or pastors in the leadership of the work of the local church.” 

John MacArthur. “Paul is forbidding women from filling the office and role of the pastor or teacher.”

This seems to fit the meaning of the text that I suggested as at least a possibility. That what is being prohibited is women taking inappropriate authority, teaching in an authoritarian way, without the proper submission to the elders who have the oversight and rule of the local church (I Tim. 3:1; Heb. 13:7, 17).

The Lord provides gifted men to serve in the local church. The same individuals are called three different things in the New Testament. They are “elders” (Greek presbuteros), not necessarily elderly, but experienced and mature. They are pastors (Greek poimen)–meaning shepherds of the flock. And they are bishops or overseers (Greek episkopos).

And one further note on the use of the word “pastors” in Ephesians 4:11. A number of commentators believe “pastors and teachers” describes not two gifts but one, indicating the officially appointed pastor-teachers of the congregation.

The three descriptors are used interchangeably (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; I Tim. 3:1; 5:17; Tit. 1:5, 7; I Pet. 5:1, 2). These are mature men called of God and confirmed by the congregation. They are given overseeing authority in administration, and in preserving and protecting the church’s doctrines and policies. These men should have the final say as to who teaches, and what they teach.

It’s well to keep in mind that (as far as we know) the early church had no such thing as a graded Sunday School program. Staffing such an agency may, in fact, raise questions that never came up in the early days. But if it’s permissible for a woman to teach a mixed adult Sunday School class, it should be understood that she is under the authority of the elders. If they rule that she is teaching error, they must take action, either to correct or remove her.

Now, am I saying that the interpretation I’ve suggested for the verse in First Timothy is the one and only possible one? No. But there is certainly enough support for it among conservative evangelical scholars that I’d hesitate to insist on another view being the one and only. I’m not convinced it’s a “sin,” for a woman to teach a mixed adult class, but that it’s one of those areas where good people differ, and we should avoid offense wherever possible.

None of us has a corner on the truth. I’ve tried for over fifty years to study God’s Word and interpret it correctly. But I still do so each day with humility, realizing that I may have missed something. I continue to learn, and I encourage you to do the same. Some day we’ll know. For now, we’re learning and seeking more knowledge as we go along.

Jesus is God: Some Biblical Evidence

,

Question: The following query comes from Ireland. “Why you believe that Jesus is God? Or the Son of God?”

Answer: You ask an excellent question–and an important one. Whole books have been written on the subject. My answer must necessarily be shorter than that! However, I will try to give you some of the evidence for the deity (the Godhood) of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A) What the Old Testament says about the coming Messiah.

The promised Messiah of the Old Testament (Mashiyach in the Hebrew language), is the Christ of the New Testament. The latter title (Christos is Greek for Messiah) is used of Jesus over 500 times from Matthew to Revelation. So what does the Old Testament prophesy about Him? And how do the two Testaments connect? Here is a brief sampling.

1) “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel [literally meaning, God with us]” (Isa. 7:14).

This title is applied to Christ in Matt. 1:21-23, as an angel announces to Joseph the coming birth of Jesus to Mary: “‘She will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.’ So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.'”

2) “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isa. 9:6-7).

As to the prophecy concerning Messiah’s future earthly reign (which I believe occur place at His return) Mary was told that it was her Son Jesus who would have a right to the throne of Israel–the throne of David (Lk. 1:31-33). Note: In calling Christ “Father” (Isa. 9:6) the prophet is not confusing Him with God the Father. The term could be translated Father of Eternity, likely designating Him as the One who is the Source of eternal life for us.

3) “Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS [in Hebrew, Jehovah Tsidkenu]” (Jer. 23:5-6).

In the New Testament, we are told that it is “Christ Jesus, who became for us…righteousness” (I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21).

4) “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2).

In the New Testament, the Jewish priests and scribes readily identify this as a prophecy concerning the birthplace of Christ (Matt. 2:4-6). But notice also how the coming One is described. He is said to have lived eternally (“from everlasting”) before He was born.

5) “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isa. 6:1-3).

As you likely know, when the word “LORD” is spelled with all capital letters (in the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Bible) it translates the Hebrew Jehovah (or Yahweh). That name is a form of the verb to be, and declares (among other things) that God is the self-sufficient One. It is as though He says by the title–used over 5,000 times in the Bible–”I don’t need anyone or anything to support My existence: I just AM.”

And in the context Jehovah God warns Isaiah that He will bring a judgment of spiritual blindness on the people, since they have rejected Him and His Word (Isa. 6:9-10). That has a bearing on how the New Testament makes use of the passage. In John’s Gospel, the writer quotes the Isaiah passage and says (italics are mine, for emphasis):

“These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them. But although He [Jesus] had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?’ Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him” (Jn.12:36b-41).

The logical antecedent of “His” and “Him” in vs. 41 of John is “Jesus” in vs. 36. This shows that, in the vision Isaiah received of the LORD (Jehovah God), the One he saw was none other than the preincarnate Christ. No wonder the Lord Jesus was able to say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9).

B) What the New Testament writers say concerning the identity of Christ.

1) Notice how three Gospel writers speak of Him as they begin.”The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ [the Messiah], the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1).”The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk. 1:1).”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1).

We quickly discover that John is using “the Word” as a title for Christ. In vs. 14 he says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Thus Christ is clearly identified as God in vs. 1.

This same title, “the Word,” is used of Him concerning His second coming. “Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God” (Rev. 19:11-13).

2) On one occasion, the Jewish leaders challenged the Lord Jesus as to His identity. Observe the following exchange:

Christ says, “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM'” (Jn. 8:56-58).

They fully understood that Christ was taking to Himself the “I AM” name of God (cf. Exod. 3:13-14), which is why they took up stones to kill Him (Jn. 8:59).

3) Then there is the exchange between the risen Christ and Thomas.

“After eight days His disciples were again inside [the upper room], and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, ‘Peace to you!’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'” (Jn. 20:26-29).

4) Of Christ’s ascension it is said, “Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Lk. 24:51-52).

The followers of Christ worshipped Him at the time of His ascension back into heaven. In contrast, the angels (created spirit beings) refuse to be worshipped by human beings. For example, “Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, ‘See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God'” (Rev. 22:8-9).

5) “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. By Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).

And the writer is speaking of the One “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,” who is Jesus Christ, and presenting Him as the Creator of all–including angels.

6) “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:8-9).

7) “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory” (I Tim. 3:16b).

8) “But when He [God the Father] again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He says: ‘Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom'” [Heb. 1:6-8).

9) Terms such as “begotten” and “only begotten” are used in connection with Christ not to suggest He had a beginning. Rather the words were used in Jewish culture as a declaration of rank.

To be the “only begotten” of a human father meant one was the heir and future head of the clan. In Heb. 11:17-18, for instance, Abraham’s son Isaac is called his “only begotten,” when we know that Ishmael was a son born to him earlier. However, Ishmael was not the heir of the covenant promises made with Abraham. Isaac, though younger, outranked him. King David is also called God’s “firstborn” in the same sense of first in rank (Ps. 89:20-21, 27).

C) What Christ Himself says on the subject.

1) The many “I AM” statements of Christ show that He identified Himself as Jehovah God, the centre and source of all things. He said, “I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35)….”I am the light of the world” (Jn. 9:5)….”I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:35)…. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6).

2) Jesus says, “I and My Father are one” (Jn. 10:30).

And the Greek word for “one” there is not masculine–which it would be, if Jesus meant He was the same person as the Father. Rather, the word is neuter, so the statement means Christ is one in nature or kind with the Father. It is a claim to deity.

The Jews certainly understood this, because it says, “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?’ The Jews answered Him, saying, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'” (vs. 31-33).

3) At a well in Samaria, “The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He'” (Jn. 4:25-26).

4) Before His death, the Lord Jesus prayed to His heavenly Father, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (Jn. 17:5).

5) “Then He [Jesus, after His resurrection] said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me'” (Lk. 24:44).

Think of what a bold claim this is! Christ is saying that from beginning to end the Old Testament is about Him!

6) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).

This is part of what is sometimes called The Great Commission. Notice how Christ carefully words the authorization for Christian baptism. The construction of the sentence, “The Father and…the Son…and…the Holy Spirit” implies the equality of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Also, for Christ to promise to be with believers always, to the end of the age, is surely a claim to omnipresence–an attribute of deity, that God can be present everywhere at once.

7) Further, omniscience (all-knowingness, another attribute of God) is claimed for Christ. He knows the very thoughts of others (Lk. 6:7-8; 11:16-17; Jn. 4:16-18, 29).

D) What the plan of salvation tells us about His identity

I have included reference to the humanity of Christ here because I believe some of the confusion as to His identity relates to this. As noted above, many Scriptures state or imply the deity of Christ. However, others clearly show His humanity. There is no contradiction. He was not only fully God, but also fully Man–a Being absolutely unique in all the universe.

If we just take verses dealing with His human nature, we might come to the conclusion that He was an ordinary man (who could, for example, get weary and thirsty, cf. Jn. 4:5-7). But these must be balanced with the many texts which indicate He is far more. He is eternally the God-Man.

It is in keeping with Jewish culture that Jesus is called “the Son of God” (Matt. 4:6; Rom. 1:4, etc.) “Son of” to the Hebrew reader meant having the nature of. But as Man, Christ also presents Himself repeatedly in the Gospels as “the Son of Man”–One having the nature of man (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 12:8; 20:18, etc.). (You can see a similar use of the father-son concept in Christ’s condemnation of the Jewish leaders as being “of your father the devil,” Jn. 8:44.)

The Bible teaches that God the Son came to this earth as Man in order to save lost sinners (Matt. 1:21; Lk. 19:10). The Bible states that we are all condemned and in danger of eternal judgment because of sin (Jn. 3:18; Rom. 6:23a). Our only hope was for a substitute to take sin’s punishment in our place. But if all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), there is no one who does not deserve punishment for his own sins. Thus none qualifies to die in place of others.

That is why the perfect Son of God became Man. To die as our sinless Substitute, to suffer on the cross in our place (II Cor. 5:21). He had to be Man to die. But He had to be God to triumph over death (cf. Jn. 10:17-18). Now we, through personal faith in what He did for us on Calvary, can be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life (Jn. 3:17-18, 35; Rom. 6:23b; Eph. 1:7).

Legalism and License: What’s the difference?

In Christian teaching, license is a moral distortion of liberty. It is the notion that living under grace gives us the freedom (or even the right) to do whatever we want and be free from any binding standard. (This is called “antinomianism.”) It argues that since Christ has paid the penalty for all our sins, we are free to live as we please. But of course that is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Christian liberty is not a license to do as we wish, but the power to do as we ought. Though the epistles recognize our freedom in Christ, that is balanced with the fact that:

A) There is a vast difference between legalism and license. If we truly love God we will want to do only those things that please Him (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; I Jn. 2:5). Since God hates sin and cannot abide it in His presence (Hab. 1:13), why would we want to grieve Him (Eph. 4:30) and hinder our fellowship with Him (Ps. 66:18; Isa. 59:2)?

B) In showing Christ-like love to others–which we are to do (Jn. 13:34), we will want to avoid those things that could harm them. To act in such a way as would cause others to stumble into sin is hateful and wrong (I Cor. 8:9, 11-12; I Pet. 2:16; cf. Rom. 15:1-2).

C) Sin is still dangerous and destructive, if allowed into our lives as Christians. It can still enslave us if we let it. Instead, we should be living in a way that is edifying to ourselves and to others (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Gal. 5:13; cf. Eph. 4:29).

James speaks of “the law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25; 2:12), I believe he is referring to the entire Word of God, as applied under Grace. The Law of Moses called for strict obedience, but did not, in itself, provide the power to obey. The Law was thus a frustrating burden, a yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1). Under Grace, we are given a new nature (II Pet. 1:3-4), and indwelt by the Spirit of God (I Cor. 6:19; Rom. 8:9). This is the spiritual and universal aspect of God’s “New Covenant” with Israel (Jer. 31:33; 32:40; Ezek. 36:26-27), made possible by the shed blood of Christ (I Cor. 11:25). We have, by this means, a new sensitivity to God and His will, and a new power to do what is right. That is liberating!

It is not that the Christian life is without standards. God’s righteous standard is eternal (Isa. 51:6, 8). Rather, we now have a new desire and a new power (by God’s Spirit) to live lives that are pleasing to Him. But that brings us to the matter of legalism. Charles Ryrie, in his fine book, Balancing the Christian Life, says, “Legalism is not the presence of laws….Legalism may be defined as a fleshly attitude which conforms to a code for the purpose of exalting self” (p. 159). Put a slightly different way, It is not “legalistic” to have moral standards. Legalism is the belief that God’s acceptance needs to be earned by our good works. It involves a failure to understand and appreciate the grace and love of God.

This addresses the motivation for Christian living. When Christ died upon the cross, He paid the penalty for all the sins of all mankind for all time (Isa. 53:6; I Jn. 2:2). If one lays claim to Christ’s Calvary work as His own, that is all that is necessary. There is no longer any outstanding payment in the way of our full acceptance by God. We are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). Each and every believer is a “son and heir” in the family of God (Gal. 3:26; 4:7). Our standing before God is anchored in grace, His unmerited favour (Rom. 5:1-2).

In that exalted position, we live to please God, not to earn something that is already ours, but to express our appreciation for it. In this sense Law and Grace are complete opposites. (Under Law, doing leads to blessing; Under Grace, blessing leads to doing.) There is a word that is used some two dozen times in the epistles. It is the word “beseech” (plead, entreat). It perfectly reflects our new standing. The Law said, “Do this and you will be blessed.” Grace says, here are all the blessings, free and clear, guaranteed in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Now, won’t you please show Him how much you appreciate that? Won’t you please obey Him in response to His gracious gift?

That is the thrust of verses such as: Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God [because of the great work of salvation described in the earlier chapters], that you present your bodies a living sacrifice…” And Second Corinthians 6:1, “We then [because of what is described in 5:21], as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain…” And Ephesians 4:1, “I therefore [on the basis of the great work of God described to this point in the book]…beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called.”

Load More