|
Abstract
Table
of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
|
Part II: The Crystallization of the
Theology of Grace
Chapter 10
The Perseverance of the Saints
continued
This
important truth is easily lost sight of. We see a Christian in
a time of suffering and imagine we can trace the effect to a
supposed cause, saying to our brother, "Well, it serves
you right." I have had this experience when my own brothers
in the Lord have spoken with unbelievable harshness, assured
in their own hearts that I was suffering the punishment of my
own disobedience. Yet these same people in the very next breath
would probably preach to the unsaved that the Lord Jesus assumed
responsibility for all the sins of believers and that thenceforth
there is no penalty. We have to learn to see both in our own
experience and in the experience of our brethren that when
calamity overtakes, neither we nor they are being punished. Sonship
itself is not in question; there is not the least possibility
of salvation being lost because of disobedience any more than
there is of salvation being won by obedience. The seeming penalty
is no penalty at all. It is allowed only as an exhibition of
the Lord's loving concern. It is the chastening of a child received
into the family of God forever, with whose perfecting He is graciously
concerned.
 pg
18 of 35 
But this does not mean that we are
free to disobey. There is a penalty in a manner of speaking,
but not in the legalistic sense. The penalty is loss of fellowship
both with the Lord's people and with the Lord Himself.
One
day we may perhaps be called upon to watch a rerun, as it were,
of our lives as God has seen them, and all that we have done
in self-will will be tested by a fire that will entirely consume
the dross. And how we shall rejoice to see it altogether destroyed
forever! We shall shed these old rags of self-righteousness with
enormous relief when we see them held up for comparison with
the spotless linen garment which the Lord is to provide for us
and which is the true righteousness of the saints (Revelation
19:8) � and then committed to the flames.
This
process of refining fire is set forth in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
"For other foundation can no man lay than that which is
laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build on this foundation
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's
work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because
it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's
work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he has
built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work
shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be
saved; yet so as by fire."
I
have known people who were fearful at the thought of coming before
the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10)
to have their lives tested in this way. But why should we be
afraid? Should we not rather rejoice at the thought that all
the garbage of our daily living will be utterly consumed, leaving
us only with what the Lord Himself has been able to realize of
his own nature and Person in our individual lives? That will
indeed be a day of great salvation!
The
wonderfully reassuring thing here is that even if a man's total
life work as a child of God should turn out to have been built
of dead things such as wood, hay, or stubble, so that his building
is wholly consumed by the flames, yet he himself is safe (1 Corinthians
3:15). He himself is beyond destruction even though all else
of his own doing should prove to be perishable.
There
are a number of rather similar passages in Corinthians. Apparently
the saints in that wanton city of Corinth were particularly subject
to the evil influences of their pagan environment. Some indeed
evidently became so corrupt that the Lord could no longer allow
them to remain in the world as
pg
19 of 35
part
of the living Body of Christ, and He took them home rather than
permit them to completely poison the Church's life. It will be
remembered that Ananias and Sapphira were taken suddenly home
(Acts 5:5 and 10) though their offense might seem to us scarcely
to warrant such a drastic penalty. But it should also be remembered
that when the Body of Christ was still an infant organism, very
small evils had a potentially much more serious consequence for
its well-being, magnified as they were in their potency for evil
by the very immaturity of the Christian church and by the small
size of its numbers. God therefore took what can best be described
as "heroic measures" to preserve the purity and vitality
of the Body of young believers by at once removing the corrupted
organs. Ananias and Sapphira were thus immediately taken home,
for at that stage of its development the Church could not sustain
such corruption in its fellowship. This is rather analogous to
emergency surgical intervention in the interest of the patient's
life.
This
swift action did not, however, constitute a revocation of personal
salvation, as will be apparent by a reference to a somewhat parallel
case recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:1�5 where Paul writes: "It
is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and
such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles,
that one should have his father's wife. And you are puffed up,
and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed
might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent
in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though
I were present, concerning him that has so done this deed, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together,
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of Jesus Christ."
So
here, then the Church of God had matured at least to this point,
that Paul was instructing the saints on how themselves to deal
with gross immorality among believers. The offender was to be
publicly delivered to Satan for his removal by death. And yet
Paul gave the Corinthians every assurance that although the physical
life of such a disobedient child of God was thus to be forfeited
his spirit was eternally secure, for he was a brother in the
Lord and safe in the salvation of his spirit despite the need
that his physical life be cut short. The object of this drastic
step was twofold: (1) to preserve the health of the local church
(1 Corinthians 5:6, 7); and (2) to prevent the individual himself
from a kind of spiritual reduction to near zero. Paul was not
recommending a form of capital punishment by human agency but
a special form of termination of life administered by Satan himself
who has the power of death (Hebrews 2:14). Such a drastic step,
which by some has been taken to mean that the individual's behaviour
might deteriorate to the point of complete loss of salvation,
clearly demonstrates precisely the opposite. A child of God who
progresses so far in his betrayal will be taken home before he
endangers his very soul!
pg.20
of 35
Such occasions were apparently not
infrequent in the earliest days of the Church. But not every
serious failure was a cause for such drastic surgery. Remedial
action of a less dramatic nature was often possible. As John
wrote: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not
unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them
that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not
say that he shall pray for it" (1 John 5:16). Clearly, there
were alternatives in some cases, but not in all. In this light,
we see at once that the reference here is not to a loss of salvation
but to a situation in which disobedience has proceeded beyond
the point where the offender will any longer benefit by chastening.
All that remains is to take him home, in order that his spirit
may be preserved. Thus Paul in Romans 8:13 warns the Roman Christians
likewise: "If you live after the flesh, you shall die: but
if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you
shall live." He is speaking here of a physical body and of physical
life, not of the salvation of the soul. Gross disobedience could
bring death: better to amend one's ways and live.
Moreover,
while some of the actions of the saints may not have been unduly
injurious to themselves, it did happen that younger Christians
patterning their lives along similar lines were going much farther
in departing from godliness, and endangered themselves fatally
as a consequence. So Paul wrote (Romans 14:14, 15): "I know,
and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean
of itself: but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to
him it is unclean. If your brother be grieved with your meat
[i.e., with what you feel free to indulge in] then you walk not
charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died." The meaning of this warning is clear enough.
Behaviour which to a more mature Christian is inoffensive may
appear in a different light to a weaker brother who is thereby
led astray. Such a brother may turn into license what for the
stronger Christian is only an expression of liberty in the Lord,
and he may so fatally corrupt his own spiritual life that the
Lord will find it necessary to take him home. Thus, what we allow
ourselves as being harmless in our own spiritual life may become
the cause of a weaker brother's destruction.
So
did Paul write also to the Corinthians in another passage (1
Corinthians 8:9-11): "But take heed lest by any means this
liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.
For if any man see you which have knowledge sit at meat in the
idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him that is weak be
emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and
through your knowledge shall the weaker brother perish, for whom
Christ died?" The circumstance behind this warning was a
commonplace one in those days. When a sacrifice was taken to
any one of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire, it
had to be the best meat obtainable. The meat was given to the
priests who appear to have taken only a portion of it to lay
on the altar fire to be consumed. It was their privilege to
pg.21
of 35
sell
the rest of the meat in a kind of open market which was called
the "Shambles." The money from this went into the coffers
of the temple to pay its expenses. This meat, thus offered to
the public at a very reasonable cost, was naturally the best
meat that could be purchased, and many people took advantage
of it � including, evidently, some Christians. They were
not condoning the offering of sacrifices to pagan deities who
were no gods at all, but merely taking advantage of an inexpensive
source of good meat. But weaker brethren, only recently saved
out of paganism which produced this supply of meat, not unnaturally
mistook the motives which prompted Christians to buy it, perceiving
only that they were thereby contributing to the maintenance of
the worship of idols. Their conscience being defiled when, in
spite of their doubts, they continued to follow the example of
more mature Christians, the quality of their spiritual life was
undermined, sometimes with fatal consequences.
If
we the Lord's children see a brother behaving in this dangerous
way, we are encouraged to make some effort to correct him if
possible. Most of us are reluctant to do this, all too aware
of our own spiritual frailty. Nevertheless James wrote (5:19,
20): "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and
one turn him again; let him know, that he which turns the sinner
back from the error of his way shall save a soul from death
and shall hide a multitude of sins." Once again there is
no question of personal salvation being at stake but of turning
an erring brother back from a course of action which can have
only fatal consequences for his life here on earth if he persists.
Peter
reiterates this warning to believers among his brethren, the
Jewish Christians, when he writes (2 Peter 2:1): "But there
were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall
be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in destructive
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them and bringing
upon themselves swift destruction." The use of the word
destruction seems harsh but it is common in Scripture
in this context. We have seen it in the passage in Romans 14:15
where we are warned to "destroy not him . . . for whom Christ
died." Similarly in 1 Corinthians 3:17 Paul says, "If
any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for
the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." All these
passages refer not to pagans but to believers, to the saints
who denying their Lord were in danger of being removed and taken
home prematurely for the sake of the Body of believers whose
spiritual life they endangered.
Many
passages refer to this circumstance by implication; but we do
not recognize them when we are reading the New Testament, for
we seldom observe the circumstance itself today, now that the
Church is worldwide and perhaps less endangered as to its continuance
by personal disobedience of individual members. Yet such verses
are everywhere to be observed. Consider Hebrews 12:9: "We
have had fathers of our flesh who corrected us,
pg.22
of 35
and
we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection
unto the Father of spirits, and live?"
It
appears that in Corinth the Lord's people were in the habit of
meeting for a kind of Communion Breakfast. Some were making it
not so much a memorial of the Lord's death, which it was intended
to be, as an occasion for merrymaking and indulgence in purely
carnal appetite. Paul wrote to them to remind them that what
they were supposed to be celebrating was the Lord's death (1
Corintians 11:23-26) and that by eating and drinking unworthily
they were guilty of sacrilege. "Let a man examine himself,"
Paul wrote, "and so let him eat of that bread and drink
of that cup. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and
drinks condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep"
(1 Corinthians 11:28-30). Now, what does this last observation
signify? It signifies that by their improper attitudes as the
Lord's people, many were spiritually enfeebled, and many others
had already been taken home by the Lord and were now asleep in
Jesus.
Such
sudden judgments are not limited to the New Testament. The Old
Testament had witnessed the same kind of thing on a number of
occasions, as will be observed by reference to Genesis 38:9,
10 (the case of Onan): Numbers 16:30-32 (the case of Korah);
and 1 Chronicles 2:3 (the case of Er). But such illustrations
seem to differ slightly in purpose for they were probably judgments
imposed with dramatic suddenness upon men who were not the Lord's
people. Such seems to have been the case also with Herod in Acts
12:21-23.
But
all other New Testament examples cited are clearly identified
as having reference to members of the household of faith and
as such cannot be viewed therefore as penal in nature. They were
corrective in the sense that the offenders were prevented from
destroying themselves further; in the final analysis they were
carried out in mercy, not in anger, their contemporaries having
been encouraged to warn them of their own personal danger and
to turn them back before it was too late. Even in the worst situation,
where the saints are specifically called upon to commit a wilfully
disobedient brother to Satan for the destruction of his body,
it is still clearly said to be a measure intended to preserve
his spirit in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:5).
Many passages commonly used to demonstrate that a child of God
can carry his disobedience to the point of being lost eternally
demonstrate precisely the opposite. The Lord's sudden action
is not a final judgment but the emergency operation of a spiritual
surgeon who quickly removes the gangrenous organ to save the
patient's soul.
There is no doubt that we can and do grieve the Holy
Spirit, whose presence within us secures for us our awareness
of sonship in the family of God (Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6;
Ephesians 4:30), and assures us of the Lord's presence within
(1 John 3:24). These are the assurances that are partially forfeited
pg.23
of 35
when
we are disobedient, but such grieving of the Holy Spirit does
not mean we surrender our actual sonship or the Lord's presence
within. As David said (when he had proved himself capable of
murder in consequence of his coveting Bathsheba): "Restore
unto me the joy of tyour salvation" (Psalm 51:12). And when
he besought the Lord not to take away his Holy Spirit from him
(verse 11), we must remember that the Old Testament saints did
not enjoy the uninterrupted presence of the Holy Spirit as we
do. With them the Holy Spirit came and went. It is not until
John 14:16 that the promise of his abiding presence was given.
In this respect the Old Testament experience was different, as
is evident from such passages as 1 Samuel 10:6�10 and 16:14;
though we find a contrast in 1 Samuel 16:13.* Evidently the Lord
did not deal with all Old Testament saints in the same manner,
nor did He deal with them as He deals with us in this present
age. What David recognized was the danger of losing his sense
of fellowship with the Lord, not of losing his relationship;
the joy of his salvation, not his salvation per se. The
good works of the Lord's children are not to preserve a relationship
which would otherwise be lost, but to maintain a fellowship �
which is a very different thing.
Yet
we are not left without responsibility, for it is our responsibility
to maintain that fellowship both with the Lord and with the Lord's
children. What a blessing it is that we do not have the responsibility
of maintaining our relationship as members in the family of God!
If we did, we would be in a constant state of being disowned
and being reinstated, a most unsatisfactory kind of life to be
termed "more abundant" (John 10:10).
We
must see from the implications of these many references that there is
a real sense in which by forsaking our walk with the Lord we may become
fruitless, cut off from the vine (John 15:4). We do indeed have a responsibility
to walk in the light and not to be so habitually disobedient as to fail
entirely to exhibit the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 5:4).
We are to demonstrate actively in our lives the expected fruits of our
salvation (Philippians 2:12), and in times of grave persecution to remain
a faithful witness to the end (Matthew 24:13), thus avoiding any danger
of becoming "disapproved" in our discipleship (1 Corinthians
9:27, where the Greek has adokimos, ( )
the antonym to the Greek dokimos, ( )
which means "approved," as
* The reference is to David.
"And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day
forward." Does this mean "and never left him?"
If it does, David's prayer in Psalm 51:11 was heard ("take
not thy Holy Spirit from me") and the Holy Spirit never
did depart from him. In this case David cannot be made an example
of those who lose their salvation. as has been done by Arminians.
The same would be true of Peter, who is similarly used as an
example, for did not the Lord pray that his faith would not fail
(Luke 22:32)? Clearly he had his time of serious doubts, but
surely not to the point that the Lord's prayer for him was refused!
pg.24
of 35
in Romans
14:18; 16:10; 2 Timothy 2:15, etc.). It is in this sense that
we save our life, though we may be sacrificed to the world.
*
We cannot leave this subject without
giving some thought to two classic passages of Scripture which
are considered powerful weapons in the arsenal of those who would
argue against the Eternal Security of the believer. I have in
mind Hebrews 6:1�6 and Luke 15:11�32. Let us look at
the Epistle to the Hebrews first for here we read the frightening
words, "It is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
of the Holy Spirit . . . if they should fall away, to renew them
again unto repentance."
To
understand this warning we need some knowledge of the background
of those to whom these words were addressed. And it is important
first of all to understand what it meant to a Jew at that time
to "believe in Jesus Christ." For this passage has
particular reference to "the doctrine of Christ" (Hebrews
6:1), or, as this would be understood by the Jewish people, "the
doctrine of the Messiah" (the definite article being
present in the original Greek).
On
many occasions during the Lord's earthly ministry we learn that
people who called themselves, or who are referred to as, disciples
or believers not infrequently became offended at his words and
walked no more with Him. It is almost certain that some of these
who were once "believers" became his most bitter enemies.
What then was meant by the word believer in such a context?
It
should be realized that the identity of the Lord Jesus presented
a number of real problems to the Jewish people. The Lord Himself
acknowledged
* The question of having one's
name taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19) is a difficult
one to resolve. For the Lord said that whoever committed sin
of any kind would have his name taken out of the Book of Life
(Exodus 32:33). This implies that every man born into this world
has his name entered in a Book of the Living (a kind of register
of all viable births?) to begin with. Presumably all who die
before reaching the age of accountability never have their names
removed from that Book; and since the Calvinist's position is
that such children dying in infancy are to be counted among the
elect, Election involves a name's being indelibly inscribed in
the Book of Life. Then what of those who are among the elect,
and who achieve maturity by passing beyond the infant stage?
Are their names indelibly inscribed? When they reach the age
of accountability and are disobedient, for all become sinners
(Ephesians 2:3), then what happens to their names in the Book
of Life? Are their names merely left inscribed because they are
among the elect, even though they ought really to be removed?
Or is this "accounting system" a different kind of
accounting system, one that is written in the language of eternity
and not in the language of time? There is nowhere in Scripture,
to my knowledge, any indication that the names of the elect of
God are ever removed from the Book of Life. Perhaps they were
written in before the world began (Luke 10:20?), as though they
formed part of the stated contract between the Father and the
Son as a record of those who would be given to the Son by the
Father � and for whom the Son died. Is there perhaps more
than one Book of Life: one for the non-elect, from which names
are expungeable, and the other for the elect, from which names
are never expunged (Revelation 20:12-15)?
pg.25
of 35
that
the intense hatred which finally built up against Him was based
in part on a genuine misunderstanding and confusion as to his
identity. When Jesus on the cross said, "Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), it was
not merely an expression of supreme charitableness; there was
an element of truth in it. They did not know what they were doing.
Their action was not only morally wrong, it was also a profound
mistake. Peter, under inspiration, acknowledged this as part
of the truth when he said, "And now, brethren, I realize
that through ignorance you did it, as did also your rulers"
(Acts 3:17). And Paul likewise in 1 Corinthians 2:7, 8 said:
"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden
wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which
none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it,
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Even the
Jewish authorities admitted when it was too late that they had
made a mistake. This prompted them to desire Pilate to make doubly
sure that the tomb was sealed "lest his disciples come by
night and steal Him away and say unto the people, He is risen
from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first"
(Matthew 27:64). This does not excuse them, because their real
reason for having the Lord crucified was that they hated Him.
Even so, it does show that coupled to their hatred of Him for
personal reasons was a genuine doubt about Him on messianic grounds.
From
their study of Old Testament prophecies the Jews had concluded
that when the Messiah came He would free them from all their
enemies (Luke 1:71). At that moment their most oppressive enemy
was the Roman authority. All other oppressors except the Egyptian
Pharaohs had been Semitic like themselves. The Roman oppressors
were Gentiles, the lowest of all people in their estimation.
The Messiah was to come as a Conquering King, setting the people
free from the invaders of their land and liberating their glorious
capital city, at the same time bringing healing and prosperity
to the whole nation. But in the background, less distinct and
less dramatic, one was to come whom they identified as the Suffering
Servant, a mediator between themselves and Jehovah; one who would
die for their sins (Isaiah 53), die for the nation (John 11:50),
being "cut off, but not for himself" (Daniel 9:26).
If a single Person was to fulfill both roles, it was difficult
to reconcile how the King could also be the Suffering Servant,
how the one who conquered could also be the one so abused as
to be scarcely recognizable (Isaiah 53:2-4). It seemed impossible
that one who was to lead their armies to victory and set them
at the head of the nations, sitting in glory upon the throne
of David forever, could be the one who was to be "brought
as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isaiah 53:7). Were there, then,
really two separate Saviours: a Lamb who would "save his
people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21) and a Lion who would
deliver the nation from its enemies (Luke 1:71)?
The
secret, of course, lay in the resurrection. But the Old Testament
had
pg.26
of 35
attached
remarkably little importance to the fact of resurrection and
it was not therefore a solution the Jews were likely to look
for. Indeed there are only a few intimations with respect to
Messiah that the resurrection would play a vital role in his
ministry. For example, Psalm 16:10 ("You will not leave
my soul in hell") seems to be a reference to the Messiah;
but an even less specific passage in Isaiah 53:10 ("He shall
prolong his days") does not seem to have been recognized
at all. Yet the resurrection of the Lord was the missing key
and, as though to emphasize this in prospect, the Lord Himself
increasingly made reference to the fact that after three days
He would rise again. But his words were lost even upon his closest
disciples, because they shared the traditional biblical wisdom
of their own day. In point of fact of course, Messiah was to
be both the Lamb of God and the Conquering King, fulfilling the
two roles perfectly by dying as the Lamb and rising again to
become the King.
When
John came preaching, he was sent to prepare the people for their
King and for the coming Kingdom. This was his identifiable mission.
In this role the Jewish people as a whole visualized him as fulfilling
the position of the forerunner of the Messiah. When he suddenly
appeared in the wilderness the people were excited and full of
hopeful expectation. The nation's servitude under the Roman heel
would surely soon be at an end, and they flocked to hear him
and to ask what they must do to qualify for a place in the victory
parade. This was really their motive: not repentance and sorrow
for their sins, but eagerness to be on the winning side. Evidently
John himself did not at first actually know the identity of the
Messiah. He heard the call to prepare the way but he had not
yet any certainty as to who the Messiah was. It seems unlikely
that he could have anticipated that the Messiah was none other
than a relative of his, his own mother being Mary's cousin. He
may in fact have had little if anything to do with Jesus since
very early childhood, thirty years before. Thus as he watched
day by day while the people came out of the city to hear him
preach and to be ceremonially cleansed by baptism, he one day
received a message from God that the Suffering Servant was about
to come to him for public identification. Perhaps he was surprised
at this since the one he was really expecting and hoping for
was not a Suffering Servant but the Messiah. Yet John obediently
adjusted his natural expectations and accepted the new reality.
When the time came he unhesitatingly identified the One whom
he had looked for as the Messiah as, in fact, the Lamb of God
instead (John 1:29, 36).
In later months, when John found himself in prison,
he had time to reflect upon what was happening as he observed
the Lord's mighty acts and saw the majesty of his Person; and
he seems to have begun to wonder whether Jesus Christ might not
also be the Messiah. Could Messiah and the Suffering Servant
be one and the same individual?
So
John sent a message to Jesus from prison: "Are you he that
should
pg.27
of 35
come
[i.e., the Messiah] or do we look for another?" (Matthew
11:3); and the Lord sent word back to him that he should be reassured
by the miracles of healing � the sight of the blind was restored,
the lame were walking, the deaf were hearing, and even the dead
were raised, all of which were clearly hallmarks of the Messiah
according to Isaiah 35:3-6. And I think we must assume that John,
like many of his contemporaries, believed on the Lord Jesus in
this sense, even though he may have wondered why he himself was
not at once set free from his imprisonment.
Meanwhile
the Jewish authorities and great numbers of the common people
had been struggling with the same problem, trying to make up
their minds. There were all kinds of divisions among them as
is clear from many passages such as John 7:43; 9:16; and 10:19.
Moreover, many of the rulers "believed" also, including
Nicodemus � in this sense (John 3:2; 12:42). One might say
that this kind of faith was more like wishful thinking than firm
conviction. Could this man, seemingly so meek and gentle, and
often completely "retiring," really be the stuff of
a Messiah who would successfully challenge the authority of Rome?
Yet they were all impressed both by the regality of his presence
and by his miraculous powers. Even the claims which He made for
Himself were so stupendous that it seemed doubtful any ordinary
man would dare to make them. Everywhere He went He was fulfilling
messianic promises of healing, and the people swung back and
forth between conviction and doubt, never quite able to make
up their minds and dreading the consequences of making a mistake.
Preconceived
ideas of what Messiah would be like proved a serious barrier
to recognition for they were coloured almost entirely by ambition
for power, not by any desire for holiness. The Jewish leaders
genuinely imagined that they themselves would form Messiah's
inner circle, but here his inner circle was composed of unlearned
and ignorant men drawn almost entirely from the wrong strata
of religious society.
In
short, at one moment the Jewish authorities "believed"
He was the Messiah and the next moment they doubted whether He
could possibly be. They were both divided among themselves and
within their own hearts. And, as is often the case, they were
remarkably handicapped by ignorance of the Scriptures and of
the circumstances surrounding the Lord's background, about which
they were in a good position to be knowledgeable. Had they taken
the trouble to inquire, the Temple records would have told them
that Jesus was not a Galilean but a Judean from Bethlehem, and
of the lineage of David through both Mary and Joseph. Yet in
John 7:52 they disqualified Him by assuming He was from Galilee,
and at the same time demonstrated their ignorance of the facts
of history by suggesting that Galilee was the one place from
which one should not expect a great prophet to arise. But in
point of fact Elijah, the greatest of Israel's prophets, and
Jonah, their greatest prophet to the Gentiles, were both from
Galilee. Nicodemus
pg.28
of 35
beautifully
illustrates the genuine confusion which existed in the minds
of many of the Jewish religious leaders at that time.
Consequently it is very important to understand that
when we are told "many of the Jews believed on Him,"
they were not necessarily exercising saving faith,* faith in
a personal Saviour as we commonly think of such faith, but messianic
faith, confidence that their dreams of national liberation were
about to be realized in the Person of Jesus Christ. They witnessed
his miracles, and enjoyed the fruits of them. Hundreds were healed
of diseases or were blessed with restored vision or hearing,
and some of them recovered loved ones from the grave. Never in
human history was any community so largely freed of disease as
these people who lived round about Jerusalem in our Lord's time.
Here was encouragement indeed to this kind of faith, and yet
the One through whom these blessings came seemed constantly to
fall short of their ideal by his forthright repudiation of their
religious standards and of their own station and importance.
Above
all, his refusal to challenge the Roman authorities while at
the same time advising the Jews to pay their taxes completely
baffled their sense of propriety. Could this possibly be Messiah?
What had looked promising developed into a more serious situation
when it appeared that it was really the authority of the Jewish
leaders that was about to be overthrown. As his miracles increased
in magnitude, climaxing with the raising of Lazarus and the general
acclaim of the common people which followed, it was felt the
time had come to settle the issue once for all. The simplest
course was to turn Him over to the Romans as a captive. If He
then vindicated his
* It was possible for a Jew
to express such faith that he would be accepted into the fellowship
by the believers and even be baptized as a Christian. and yet
that man's faith was not a saving faith. This seems to be true
of Simon who is sometimes called Magus (being one of the Eastern
Magi) and sometimes Magnus (after the Vulgate rendering of Acts
8:9). According to Acts 8:9�24 this man's profession of faith
was accepted by Philip and the Christians of Samaria. And he
was baptized as a believer. Whether Simon was a Jew or not, he
was certainly living amongst Jews in Samaria and, like the Jews,
was greatly impressed with signs and wonders. The word denoting
Simon's amazement at the signs which accompanied Philip's ministry
is the same word which is used to express the amazement of the
Samaritans at Simon's sorcery. It tells us something about the
nature of his faith.
Subsequently,
when Peter came to confirm the believers by the laying on of
hands and when these believers experienced a special outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (as was normal at that point in the Church's
development), Simon at once tried to buy from Peter rights to
the same power. Peter's response was immediate "Your money
perish with you . . . You haveneither part nor lot in this matter
for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore
of this your wickedness. . . . For I perceive that you are in
the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity" (verses
20�23). Simon's trembling response was not a turning to his
God for forgiveness, but an entreating of Peter to act on his
behalf. It seems almost certain from those circumstances that
though Simon had faith, it was not a saving faith. He had the
same kind of faith that many of the Lord's earlier followers
had who later turned entirely against Him. The writer of Hebrews
10:39 may well have had this in mind when he wrote, "Not
of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe
to the saving of the soul."
pg.29
of 35
messiahship
by some mighty act leading to Rome's destruction, there would
be no question as to his identity, and their own position would
be secure. If He allowed Himself to be taken and shamed before
his own disciples and before the nation, the claims He had been
making would clearly be invalidated, especially if they could
get Him crucified. Any other kind of death might turn Him into
a martyr and make a hero of Him. Crucifixion would demonstrate
publicly that He was not merely repudiated of men but cursed
of God (Galaians 3:13) and therefore totally disqualified as
Messiah.
And it worked out as the Jewish authorities planned.
He was seized by the Romans, disgraced by public trial, mercilessly
abused by a mob of soldiers � and all this entirely
without the slightest resistance. His presentation before the
people by Pilate, shamed, disfigured, ridiculed, and apparently
helpless, must have struck the people like a thunderbolt. The
greater our expectations, the more devastating is the shattering
of them. Even his own circle of personal friends was demoralized
in utter amazement at the sudden turn of events. Their faith
in Him as the promised Messiah collapsed.
After
the "tragedy" was all over, the two disciples on the
way to Emmaus summed up the general feeling of all the disciples
when they said, "We trusted that it had been He who should
redeem Israel" (Luke 24:21). This was their faith, and it
had been shattered by events. Pragmatic Peter said simply, "I
go a fishing" (John 21:3); and his companions in disillusionment
said, "We also go with you." It was the end of a dream.
It
is true that the Jewish authorities had engineered it all, and
they had achieved his repudiation, which was precisely what they
intended. Yet there are indications that they were as disappointed
in the success of their own plans as the common people were disappointed
in the failure of theirs. The common people really had believed
Jesus was truly the Messiah, and when He had ridden into Jerusalem
in a manner precisely fulfilling the predictions of Zechariah
9:9, their excitement had been intense. "All the world"
seemed to have gone with Him (John 12:19), and no doubt the Romans
were as disturbed by it all as were the religious authorities
themselves, though for a different reason.
We
know only too well the rest of the seeming tragedy and the unforeseen
triumph which followed the resurrection. But though his triumph
was public enough in the sense that thousands of Jews became
true believers in Him as the Lamb and were wonderfully
saved, yet it was not a public triumph in a national sense, for
Israel remained officially unconvinced of his identity as Messiah.
Pride would not allow them to admit their appalling error publicly,
though there were undoubtedly great numbers among the officials
who had witnessed his miracles and had joined in the general
acclaim only to find their hopes dashed in the events of the
crucifixion. These now witnessed the joy and exultation of thousands
whose faith had suddenly been re-established and who were turning
their world upside down, daily
pg.30
of 35
flooding
the Temple precincts with their manifestations of joy. Yet the
hated Romans were still there, still masters of the land, still
exacting from them onerous taxes and many demeaning services.
What did it all signify? Meanwhile, though the disciples were
telling the people that the old sacrificial system was at an
end, the religious authorities had repaired or replaced the rent
veil of the Temple, and the whole elaborate system had once again
been restored and was going on exactly as before.
How
was it all to be reconciled? Was this man really the Messiah
or not? And their daily disputations and arguments, which apparently
continued for years until the Romans finally destroyed the city
and the Temple in A.D. 70, left many of the Jews half-believing,
half-doubting, never certain of their own position, still having
no personal faith in the Lord Jesus as Saviour. Their "doctrine"
was not about a Saviour at all, but about a Messiah; it was "a
doctrine of the Messiah" (Hebrews 6:1) which absorbed their
attention, and it did not pertain to the matter of personal salvation
for the individual (Hebrews 6:9).
Whoever
wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews addressed himself to this problem.
"Therefore," he wrote, "leaving the question relating
to the doctrine about the Messiah, let us go on to perfection
of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God,"
that is, of saving faith. It was quite possible for these half-believers
to stop short, even after many of them had personally experienced
the wonders of the Lord's active ministry among them by being
themselves healed, a ministry which was a foretaste of what would
happen when the Kingdom of God was finally established, a demonstration
of "the powers of the age to come" (Hebrews 6:5). As
persecution began to cull their ranks and many were called upon
to suffer the consequences of premature defiance of Roman authority,
these one-time messianic believers, persisting in their half-faith
by returning to the Temple sacrifice and separating themselves
from true believers in Jerusalem, had in effect rejoined the
screaming crowds who had demanded the Lord's crucifixion in the
first place. They were crucifying the Lord a second time (Hebrews
6:6). Such Jewish "believers," while saying they believed
the Lord Jesus to be the Messiah after all, yet resorted once
again to the old sacrificial system and thus demonstrated their
lack of any saving faith and of any true comprehension of the
role the Lord Jesus had played as the Lamb of God. It was these
who were now by this Epistle being warned not to make this fatal
mistake but to abandon the old sacrificial system altogether
and to cast themselves upon the Lord alone for their personal
salvation. This is the burden of verses 9�12: "Beloved,
we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany
salvation [i.e., not just messianic promises], though we
thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and
labour of love which you have shown toward his name, in that
you have ministered to the saints and do minister. And we desire
that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full
assurance
pg.31
of 35
of hope
to the end: that you be not slothful but followers of them who
through faith and patience inherit the promises."
And
the alternative? In the nature of the case there is only one
alternative � "a certain fearful looking for judgment."
If after experiencing all these things and concluding that the
Lord is truly Israel's Messiah, they should now refuse this work
as a personal Saviour also, there simply remains no more sacrifice
for sins (Hebrews 10:26), and they are hopelessly lost. There
is no other destiny except certain judgment (Hebrews 10:27).
Messianic faith is in vain unless they also have a saving faith.
This
is the background of this ominous passage which has caused so
many saints to tremble, needlessly fearing that their salvation
might be in jeopardy. In actual fact a passage such as this one,
having specific reference to Hebrew "believers" rather
than to Gentiles, and specifically addressing itself to a rather
unique and soon to be ended situation, cannot be safely applied
with the same force outside of the circumstances which occasioned
its writing. It belongs to us now as an essential part of the
Word of God to complete our understanding of a particular situation,
but it must be read and understood in the context of its intention.
It has to be remembered that the Jewish people of that day expressed
two rather different kinds of faith, faith in a national Messiah
and faith in a personal Saviour. Mary rejoiced in God her personal
Saviour (Luke 1:47) while Zacharias rejoiced in a national Saviour
(Luke 1:71). John in prison undoubtedly recognized the fulfillment
of Isaiah 53. What he needed to be assured about was the fulfillment
of Isaiah 35. The disciples, and Peter in particular, saw the
Lord as the Messiah: "You are the Messiah" (Matthew
16:13�16, 21, 22). Of this they were sure at that time. The
Jewish authorities were not so sure: "Are you then the Messiah?"
(Mark 14:61). We must therefore distinguish between the faith
which had messiahship as its object and the more personal faith
which had as its object the work of the Suffering Servant. The
messianic issue was constantly to the fore in everyone's mind
as witnessed, for example, by the events of John 4:25-42, where
the nub of the controversy was not, "Is this man a Saviour?"
but, "Is this indeed the Messiah?" (verse 42). And
this was the object of the faith expressed in verses 39�41.
On
the way to Emmaus this truth comes out very clearly when the
two travellers so specifically express their shattered hope that
Jesus might have been the national Messiah, "He who should
have redeemed Israel" (Luke 24:21). The Lord had responded
by saying, "Ought not the Messiah to have suffered these
things before entering into his glory?" (Luke 24:26). Perhaps
because they did not recognize their need of a personal Saviori,
a need which required that one should suffer death in their place,
what happened to Messiah was totally beyond them. They were still
missing the key, his bodily resurrection. Reconciling what seemed
to be two mutually exclusive roles, that of the Lamb and that
of the Conquering King, was the basic
pg.32
of 35
problem
facing every Israelite. Even the prophets themselves had the
same problem (1 Peter 1:9-11): "Receiving the objective
of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation
the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied
of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,
when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Messiah, and
the glory which should follow." Paul's concern when
preaching to the Jewish people was to provide a key to this reconciliation
(Acts 17:3): "Opening and alleging that Messiah must needs
have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus,
whom I preach unto you, is Messiah." It is all of a piece;
a believer in Israel was not necessarily a believer in the sense
in which we use the term today, yet in many cases there were
true believers in the terms of reference under which the Lord
presented Himself to them as the hope of Israel. Yet this was
only half of the belief that was essential to personal salvation,
and the Epistle to the Hebrews was concerned with providing the
grounds for encouraging that faith to progress to perfection.
Such half-believers were unsaved, and those who went part way
and turned back were not fit for the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).
This seems clearly to be the explanation of the seeds which fell
by the wayside and at first responded with enthusiasm, as many
of the Jews did, but afterwards were offended or frightened away.
John puts the matter thus: "If they had been of us,
they would have continued with us" (1 John 2:19). They did
not persevere to the end, and they were not saved.
I
believe we witness even today something analogous. There are
many whose lives are chaotic, powerless, and meaningless. We
present to them a Lord who will straighten everything out, and
in their desperation they are at once encouraged to look to Him
for help. The question of a personal Saviour from the penalty
of sin never enters this kind of Gospel message. It is not "look
to the Saviour for forgiveness and restoration to the family
of God whom you have outraged by your disobedience" but
"take Him on board as the perfect Captain and make your
life a success." This message offers a kind of "Gentile
Messiah" rather than a personal Saviour: accordingly, the
initial response results in a marvellous sense of relief. But
later, things don't work out precisely as anticipated and "the
sow that was washed turns back to its wallowing" (2 Peter
2:22). It happens again and again. It is a tragedy. The true
child of God has quite another experience. We, too, get dirty
and need cleansing daily, a fact which implies in some measure
a return to our former wallowings. But there is this vital difference,
as the Lord said to Peter, "'If I wash you not, you hast
no part with Me.' Simon Peter saith unto Him, 'Lord, not my feet
only, but also my hands and my head.' Jesus saith unto him, 'He
that is washed needs only to wash his feet, but is every whit
clean: and you are clean'" (John 13:8�10). The all-over
washing we receive in Him is "once for all"; it is
only that our daily walk
pg.33
of 35
soils
our feet. Only our feet need cleansing every day if we walk in
his fellowship unbroken. For the rest, we are clean in his sight
� forever, in this sense eternally sanctified (Hebrews10:14).
It is important today, as it was when the Epistle to the Hebrews
was written, not to make the mistake of presenting the Saviour
to be accepted as Lord before we have presented the Lord to be
accepted as Saviour.
The
second famous passage is the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke
15:11-32). And this requires but little comment if careful attention
is paid to the precise wording. The key here becomes apparent
as soon as we ask, What was the son's estimate of his own position
relative to his father when he was in "the far country"?
He was still a son, his father was still his father. In the depths
of his anguish he said to himself, "How many hired servants
of my father have bread enough and to spare, and I perish
with hunger! I will arise and go to my father and will
say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before
you, and am no more worthy to be called your son. . ."
Note
that he did not say, "I am no more worthy to be thy
son," but, "I am no more worthy to be called
your son." Not for one moment did he question his own sonship,
not for one moment did he imagine that his relationship had been
severed. What had suffered was fellowship, not relationship.
Even his self-righteous brother who had remained at home recognized
this continuing relationship: "As soon as this your son
came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you have killed
for him the fatted calf." When the father rejoiced at the
return of his prodigal son and said, "This my son was dead,
and is alive again: he was lost, and is found," he cannot
surely have meant what we often bend this to mean, for the son
himself had assurance of the continued relationship before he
began his return journey. Once redeemed, always redeemed �
this is the position reflected in both the Old Testament and
the New. As Isaiah 44:22 puts it: "I have blotted out, as
a thick cloud, your transgressions, and, as a cloud, your sins:
return unto Me; for I have redeemed you." The last phrase
here assures us that although we may have wandered away our redemption
is a completed fact. We are not invited to return in order that
we may be redeemed but because we have already been redeemed
once for all.
What
a wonderful assurance such security of sonship brings to us,
his often wayward children! Once saved, always saved. Praise
God!
So
there they are: the five Points, the five great asseverations
of the Pauline-Augustinian-Calvinistic system of Reformed Faith
which together constitute a satisfying, defensible, coherent,
and thoroughly biblical confession that is realistic with respect
to man's powers, position, and need, and
pg.34
of 35
honouring
to God in its unqualified adherence to the principle of Sovereign
Grace.
We
have now to see how this Sovereign Grace of God was, and will
be worked out in the life of the nation Israel, and in the personal
life of every individual who is called to be a member of God's
blameless family.
pg.35
of 35
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|
