Essentially Justified

Actually, It's a Continuation of This Blog

2007-02-12T21:12:00.000-08:00

Come see it here.

Joy. Worship. Adoration.

2006-12-23T19:40:00.000-08:00

The response of the shepherds when angels announced to them the birth of the Savior was to go "with haste" to Bethlehem to see the Son of God born as a babe in a manger. Then they spread the word and "all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds."

The magi came from afar, the shepherds came from nearby; they all came in earnest. And they beheld the One Who is the "image of the invisible God." The eternal Lord of creation was born as a babe in swaddling clothes.

It's a birthday that will never be forgotten. Merry Christmas.

Why Those Men Were Wise

2006-12-10T20:29:00.000-08:00

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him."

-Matthew 2: 1-2

The wise men ("magi" in the NASB) did not equivocate in their word choice when they arrived in Jerusalem in the early part of the first century. Perhaps after a wearisome journey that may have lasted months or years they were in no mood to dissemble, but, unlike many today who strenuously avoid the mention the miraculous birth of the Son of God, and who seem to strive even more to avoid its mention at the very time of year we celebrate it, the wise men got straight to the point. In their short two-sentence inquiry they testified that the One Whose birth they came to recognize was the King, that He was Divine (hence, their intention to worship Him), that His birth was revealed in the heavens, and this revelation had been observed even in their distant country (they had seen His star in the east).

In addition, they acted on the knowledge they had received, making the arduous journey, bringing gifts to indicate reverence and worship, and speaking the truth they knew while searching earnestly for what they didn't know. They were apparently not familiar enough with the Scriptures to know they should look in Bethlehem, so they asked.

Their love for the truth is an example to the rest of humanity throughout the ages.

The Debate Continues...

2006-11-18T17:28:00.000-08:00

The Lordship salvation discussion continues here. There are multiple failures in the non-Lordship argument; indeed, it is difficult to read the New Testament with any consistency and come away with a conclusion other than submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as a condition of salvation. In Philippians 1: 6, Paul says, "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (NASB)." The faith that believes Christ died for our sins, rose to give us resurrection life, and imputed His righteousness to our account, also believes that God continues to work in us to accomplish His purpose. The sheep which trusts the Shepherd to rescue it also follows the Shepherd.

It's Not Your Kingdom

2006-09-30T19:22:00.000-07:00

Some call it Lordship Salvation, and that, I think, is an apt description. But I call it "salvation salvation". The faith that saves receives Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. To think that one could receive the free gift of righteousness and be forgiven of his sins, yet not submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ, is to hold to a notion that is not found in Scripture. God forgives; yes, but He does so only on His terms, and He does not entertain counter-offers. There is no option to say, "I'll take the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life, thank you very much," yet decline the command of the Lord when He says, "Follow Me." You want admission to the kingdom? Good, admission is free. But you have to submit to the King.

The apostle Peter, in his first epistle, exhorts believers to holy conduct (1 Peter 1: 14-16), then explains that "...you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1: 18-19 NASB). How can we be redeemed from our previous futile way of living and yet continue in that same lifestyle? We are called to a new life, a holy life (v.15). We are declared righteous as a free gift (Romans 3: 24) and are born again to a new life (Romans 6:4). We are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2: 8,9) and we become a new creation of God, created for the good works He prepared for us to walk in (Ephesians 2: 10).

This does not mean that Christians don't sin and it absolutely does not mean that we must (or even can) do anything to earn salvation. It doesn't mean that one must set things in order before calling on the Lord for salvation, or that a believer cannot stumble badly even though he has received salvation.

It does mean that the believer has been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light (Colossians 1: 13) and we now serve a new Master, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Signs in the Sky

2006-08-26T16:57:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I pointed out that Matthew 24: 15-31 refers to a time yet future, for one reason because the language in verses 21 and 22 describe a time of distress "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be", in which no life would be saved if the days were not cut short. Since this requirement was not met in A.D. 70, the prophecy in these verses is still awaiting fulfillment.

Another reason to interpret the passage in a futuristic sense, as I pointed out in this post, is the event known as "The Abomination of Desolation" did not occur in A.D. 70 and also awaits being fulfilled.

A third reason to understand this passage as indicating events still anticipated is the language in verses 29-31, which describes a scenario which did not take place in A.D. 70, nor at any time as yet. Therefore the reader of this passage, upon arriving at verses 29-31, is faced with two choices. One is to conclude that since we have not yet seen the sun darkened, the moon not giving its light, the stars falling from the sky, the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky, and the elect gathered from one end of the sky to the other after the sound of a great trumpet, we must still be waiting for the events of these verses to be realized. "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn." That is still future. "...and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Future.

A second choice the reader has is to interpret the verses in a nonliteral way. I previously offered some comments here about why I do not agree with this way of viewing the passage. I want to talk a little more about that in this post.

The events described in Matthew 24: 29-31 do not present any difficulty when considered in the context of the Second Coming and the events immediately preceeding it. We know the Second Coming is a literal future event, these verses obviously describe that event. The context of Matthew 24 does not suggest that suddenly the reader should shift gears in verse 29 and begin applying an allegorical hermeneutical method here after reading the passage in a literal sense up to this point. Those verses in the Olivet Discourse (such as Luke 21: 21-24 in a parallel passage) which do refer to 70 A.D. were literally fulfilled, as was Matthew 24:2. So one question that must be asked before accepting a nonliteral view of Matthew 24: 29-31 is: What is it about the context of this passage that would compel an allegorical view of those scriptures? It seems the only reason to resort to allegory at this point in the passage is to force the verses to conform to a first-century fulfillment, but hermeneutics should be about letting the Scripture shape the doctrine rather than imposing a predetermined viewpoint on the verses.

Another way of interpreting Matthew 24: 29-31, Isaiah 13: 6-13, Zephaniah 1: 14-18, various passages in Revelation, etc. (and this method of interpretation frustrates me even more than taking these passages allegorically!) is to assign them to a category of hyperbole that is supposedly "typical" of "catastrophic" prophetic language. I see no validity in this hermeneutical method whatsoever, and I certainly don't believe it is the intent of these passages. I want to empasize here that I don't consider this the same method as the allegorical or metaphorical, even though I also disagree w/ those modes of looking at these verses. The difference is that at least the allegorical method concedes there must be a point to the language and a satisfactory allegory indicated by the words. The method I call the "hyperbole" method seeks no point other than to try to avoid the task of expositing the verses.

In addition to the context itself, the historical example of those Biblical prophecies which have been literally fulfilled, and the lack of a compelling allegorical interprepretation, another reason that I believe these verses in Matthew 24: 29-31 should be taken literally is the disciples have come to Jesus in private to answer their eschatological questions. They sought clarification and details, so it seems that if verse 29 was a parable, this would be stated, especially since, at the time, the Olivet Discourse was a private teaching.

Finally, we know the Second Coming, described in Matthew 24: 30-31, is going to happen literally. But it did not happen in the first century and has not happened yet. As we see in this passage, when it happens, it will be cataclysmic. Literally.

Doctrine-Starved

2006-07-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

Made-to-order fare might be a good idea in the fast-food industry, but the made-to-order philosophy should be ditched at sermon time in church. The congregation needs to hear what the congregation needs to hear, and this is not always what it wants to hear. Hopefully, as the listeners in the pews continue to be spiritually fed and to grow and mature in their faith, what they want to hear will increasingly resemble what they need to hear. But the preacher needs to heed Paul's words to Timothy and "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you." (1 Timothy 4:16, NASB).

The Greek work for teaching here, didaskalia, is translated "doctrine" in the KJV. In verse 13 Paul urges Timothy to "...give attendance to reading (i.e., the public reading of Scripture), to exhortation, to doctrine" (KJV). Significant portions of the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are devoted to the importance of sound doctrine and the pastor's responsibility to teach from the Scriptures to the church assembly. Sadly, many pulpits today have the congregation on a steady diet of stories, anecdotes, and rambling platitudes rather than Scriptural exegesis. It is my opinion that a faithful, scriptural exposition of the Biblical text is generally the most important function a church can provide on Sunday morning. This is not to say that other things are not also important in church, but preaching from the word (yes, preaching!) should not take a back seat when the church bells ring.

Faith Alone

2006-07-15T20:10:00.000-07:00

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

-Romans 4:4-5

The one who works gets wages when accounts are settled. He gets what he is owed. The Greek MISTHOS, translated reward in the KJV, is rendered wage in the NASB: "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due." The term wages (plural), is used in the ESV, NIV, RSV, and NKJV. Wages represent an obligation being fulfilled on the part of the one paying them. They have been earned.

One interesting point in this part of Paul's discussion of faith alone is the context in which Paul is using Abraham as his example. He cites an event in Abraham's life in which faith was accounted to the patriarch as righteousness, and the event was several centuries prior to the Law of Moses and was even prior to the time in Abraham's life in which the rite of circumcision was given. Therefore, one cannot dismiss Paul's rejection of works-based righteousness as only applying to works related to the commandments in Leviticus or the Mosaic Law. Paul here is excluding any meritorious deeds whatsoever as being beneficial to qualify mortals for righteousness. If righteousness can be earned, then it has not been freely given; it is not "reckoned of grace." Paul's point is that righteousness is not earned.

Some argue that they have no problem with righteousness being attained by grace through faith, but claim that righteous deeds must accompany that grace and faith, to participate, by coordinated effort, in the sinner becoming righteous. These see grace to the sinner as moving him from a state of helplessness to a state in which he is able to cooperate in his salvation by adding works of merit to his faith and being "helped along" by grace. This view fails to grasp the utter helplessness of the sinner to do anything to even assist in his redemption. Paul completely shatters the notion of even a works-supplemented justification throughout his epistles, and especially in Romans 3, 4, and 5.

In fact, Romans 4:5 completely rules out the possibility of any merit on the believer's part at all, even in a cooperative effort. The believer of verse 5 "worketh not" in the attainment of righteousness. He has not believed and worked, he has not worked, only believed. He was not justified after supplementing his faith with works; rather, he believed "on Him that justifieth the ungodly," and "his faith is counted for righteousness." Not faith and works, faith alone. Because God does not justify those who "earn" it, He "justifieth the ungodly". He justifies those who not only don't deserve it, but who were previously ungodly and were formerly working to contravene His purpose.

Now, for a word concerning the place of works in a believer's life . In Romans chapters 3, 4, and 5, Paul's rejection of works applies only to their lack of value or benefit in the sinner being declared righteous and being saved. Genuine, saving faith always encompasses a repentance from sin and submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Once saved, once justified, good works will flow in the believer's life as God works in and through the one He saved. Ephesians 2:10 asserts, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." These good works don't save, they characterize the life of the saved. Paul explains this at length in Romans chapters 6-8 and 12-15.

It Starts with an Event...

2006-07-06T19:21:00.000-07:00

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains; let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let him which is in the field return back to take his cloak.
-Matthew 24: 15-18

Two posts previously when we examined the superlative magnitude of the tribulation depicted in Matthew 24: 21-22, I pointed out that, as severe as the torment in Jerusalem in A. D. 70 was, it did not meet all the conditions given in these two verses. This scripture is therefore still awaiting fulfillment. Matthew 24:21 emphatically states the predicted tribulation will be the most severe in the entire history of the world, before or after; verse 22 indicates that no flesh would be saved unless those days were cut short. Thus, in both scale (global vs. local) and severity (the worst travail ever vs. a time of great distress), verses 21 and 22 anticipate a future end-time cataclysm of unique proportion which will far exceed the events in A. D. 70.

In Matthew 24: 15 a sign is given to indicate when this Great Tribulation prophesied in verses 21 and 22 will be on the verge of starting. An event described as "the abomination of desolation" is the signal which demands a response so urgent (verses 16-18) that the inhabitants of Judea are warned to flee to the mountains without even the delay it takes to return inside the house from outside or to backtrack and retrieve a coat.

When Titus led the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, Matthew 24: 2 was literally fulfilled and the temple was completely dismantled. Luke 21: 20-24 was also literally fulfilled; Jerusalem was, in fact, surrounded by Gentile armies and was "trodden down", many of its citizens fell "by the edge of the sword" and others were "led away captive into all nations." However, the parallel passage in Luke must be seen as a harmonization of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 with Luke providing additional specific details about the first-century invasion of Jerusalem and Matthew and Mark giving more information about the end-time tribulation. All three gospels predict both the first-century and end-time tribulation events spoken about in the Olivet Discourse. But Luke 21: 20-24 does not refer to "the abomination of desolation", does not speak in superlative terms about the time of distress anticipated in the coming invasion, and, while warning the inhabitants to flee "...when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (21: 20 NASB)," it doesn't forbid taking a minute to return to the house from outside. Instead it warns those in rural areas not to return to the city. I believe it is a mistake to view Luke 21: 20-24 as a reference to the same event as Matthew 24: 15-22 and Mark 13: 14-20.

The attention to detail in Matthew's and Mark's accounts cannot be overlooked; especially given the precise fulfillment of the predicted 70 A. D. invasion. The reference to the abomination of desolation is emphasized in both accounts, with the caveat that when it occurs, it will immediately preceed (very immediately) the greatest travail the world has ever known or will ever know again. So one indication that it has occurred will be that the greatest tribulation in world history will follow right after it. The Lord Himself provides two additional clarifications to assist the reader in understanding the meaning of the reference to the abomination of desolation: First, it is an event spoken of in the Old Testament book of Daniel. Secondly, the reference involves a location--the abomination of desolation will be standing "in the holy place (Matthew 24: 15)", "where it ought not (Mark 13: 14)".

The Greek reference to the abomination of desolation language of Matthew 24: 15 and Mark 13: 14 is found in the Greek Septuagint in Daniel 9: 27, 11:31, and 12:1. It is also found in the non-canonical but historically reliable book of 1 Maccabees (1: 54), which describes the fulfillment of Daniel 11:31, when Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" desecrated the temple at Jerusalem in 167 B. C. The book of 1 Maccabees provides an account in which the regular temple service was suspended, idolatry was set up in the temple, pig's blood was sacrificed there, and the altar profaned. So offensive was the desecration that after Judas Maccabees' army liberated the temple, the priests would not use the same altar, but replaced it before restoring the regular temple proceedings. Josephus also records the abomination of desolation committed by Antiochus IV, and sees it as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

But like many Old Testament eschatological Scriptures, the reference was both to a short-term future occurrence and an end-time ultimate fulfillment. The sacrilege by Antiochus IV reveals a foreshadowing of what the event would be expected to resemble when ultimately fulfilled. And at the time of Jesus' Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, its ultimate fulfillment had not yet come.

When it does, it will signal impending worldwide travail to the superlative degree.

The Lamb

2006-06-17T13:12:00.000-07:00

Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as He walked, he saith, "Behold the Lamb of God!"

John 1: 35-36

In this narrative the apostle John relates the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus, and the apostle tells us that John the Baptist referred to Jesus as "the Lamb of God". The chapter also indicates that the previous day the Baptist had called Jesus "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."(v.29). The reference to Christ as the Lamb of God designates that Jesus fulfills the entire Old Testament sacrificial system. By offering Himself on the cross, He accomplished what the previous Temple sacrifices could only foreshadow: He became the propitiation, or expiation, or atoning sacrifice, for our sins (1 John 2: 2). He was the Sacrifice which once and for all satisfied God's holy demand for justice. Hebrews 9: 22 points out that "without the shedding of blood" there "is no remission" of sins, and Hebrews 10: 1-2 establishes that the only acceptable sacrifice is the Lamb of God Himself, Jesus Christ. It is His precious blood which has redeemed us from sin and death (1 Peter 1:19, Romans 8:3).

In fact, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews goes into great detail in chapters 9 and 10 to show that the sacrificial system of the Levitical priesthood was never intended to be the solution for sinners in need of redemption: " For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near." (Hebrews 10: 1 NASB).

Rather, the Levitical requirements demonstrated graphically that the Law requires justice which must be satisfied even when forgiveness is offered, and that no sacrifice from man can ever atone for sins or satisfy justice. Hebrews 10: 11 depicts the Temple priest standing daily, "ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices which can never take away sins;" (NASB), indeed, Josephus records that in the last days before the temple's destruction in the first century, at one passover more that 250 thousand sacrifices were offered in a two-hour period! And yet, as the writer of Hebrews points out, not only did the temple sacrifices never truly remit sins, but after the perfect sacrifice offered by Christ, any further temple offerings were invalid because The Lamb of God had come and fulfilled all that the previous offerings had foreshadowed of Him (Hebrews 9:28, 10: 12,14, 18). He alone could satisfy the demand for justice in His atoning sacrifice offered at the cross.

The Old Testament sacrifices are a constant reminder throughout that era that the remission of sins would require payment, and that to be propitiatory, the sacrificial offering would have to be worthy and be sufficient to satisfy justice. The cross of Jesus both demonstrates and fulfills this requirement for all eternity. Those who recoil at the idea that the penalty for sin must be paid by an innocent Substitute have not come to appreciate how difficult the forgiveness of sins is to accomplish. Those who have been ransomed by the Lamb will praise Him in glory (Revelation 5: 8-14).

Superlatives

2006-06-09T21:31:00.000-07:00

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

-- Matthew 24: 21-22

The NASB describes the great tribulation of verse 21 as "...such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall." The NIV calls it "...unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again." The same superlative language is used in Mark 14: 19. The Old Testament book of Daniel (12: 1) refers to a time of distress "...such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time..."

Many claim that this prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Titus invaded Jerusalem. But were its conditions satisfied then, or does it refer to a time yet future? Note the literal precision of Matthew 24: 2, which was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Why would the nature of the prophetic word transform from literal to hyperbolic within a few short verses? It wouldn't.

Yet in A.D. 70, while there was certainly distress and tribulation, it was not a time of distress "unequaled from the beginning of the world...and never to be equaled again." It was not a time in which all flesh was on the verge of extinction. And those days were not suddenly cut short.

The events of Matthew 24: 21-22 are yet future. How far in the future, nobody knows except the Lord. They precede the Lord's return to earth to cut short the time of distress and rescue believers who are on the earth at that time.

That is what Matthew 24: 15-31 tells us. We just have to read what it says.

Unstoppable

2006-05-29T19:53:00.000-07:00

Death in vain forbids Him rise,...Christ hath opened Paradise,...

--Charles Wesley, "Christ the Lord is Risen Today"

Perhaps the greater mystery than that the Son would rise is that the Son could die. He prophetically explained His sovereignty over both events in John 10: 17, 18: "...I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again..." So absolute is the Son's power over death that the apostle Peter, in his famous sermon on the Day of Pentecost, proclaims that it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Christ (Acts 2:24).

Jesus' resurrection, while it astounded earth, was expected and anticipated by heaven. Luke records that the angels at the tomb on Resurrection Morning asked the Lord's followers, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24: 5-7). The event could not be stopped; death had no power to hold Jesus Christ in the grave. The One Who called Himself "the Resurrection and the Life" in John 11:25 could not be bound to the tomb nor imprisoned by its walls. All the stones on earth and all the soldiers in the Roman army could not stop the Son of God from coming forth.

And, as the apostle Paul points out in Romans 8: 11, "...if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you."

And this is very good news.

The Sacrifice

2006-04-14T21:30:00.000-07:00

And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

-Matthew 27: 46

It was not when men spat in Jesus' face and beat Him with their fists and slapped Him which caused Him to cry out. It was not the Roman scourging which ripped His flesh from His back which caused Him to cry out.

It was not the thorn wreath smashed into His scalp. Nor the grating of the rough wooden cross on his shoulder as He bore it up the hill. It was not the parched, agonizing strain to the top of Golgotha or the spikes mercilessly pounded into His hands and feet. It was not the shock of the cross' vertical support slamming to rest in place, jarring and likely separating His shoulders. It was not the constant searing pain as He pressed his feet on the spike which supported His weight in order to stretch His ribcage to take in air.

There was nothing that men or any other created being could do to make the Son of God cry out.

His distraught cry came at that forlorn time of separation from the Father--the only separation the Father and the Son had known from all eternity. This was the event which had been contemplated with sheer dismay in the Garden the night before. This was that duration of the crucifixion in which the Lamb of God suffered the Father's just and holy anger for the sins of those He came to redeem.

He became the propitiation for our sins, and He paid our sin-debt in full. It was a costly price to pay, as Matthew 27: 46 shows.

Hallelujah. What a Savior.

The Agony Before the Atonement

2006-04-13T19:38:00.000-07:00

The words of Mark 14:33-36 provide a glimpse of how difficult our redemption was to accomplish. The passage reveals a struggle which is incomprehensible, and which underscores the fact that in atoning for our sins, Jesus Christ bore for us the very wrath and punishment from God which we deserved to have fall on us.

Heretical attempts to redefine Christ's death on the cross as merely a "moral example" ring hollow when confronted with the intensity of the Lord's battle in the Garden of Gethsemane. The struggle depicted in the parallel passages of Mark 14:33-36, Matthew 26:37-39, and Luke 22:42-44 indicate a challenge of such magnitude as can only be explained by the fact that full payment for the sins of believers was made by Jesus at the cross. He did not simply present an example of justice; He absolutely satisfied justice for us. He did not just provide an example of suffering; He suffered in our place the very judgement that we deserved.

Mark 14:33 says that in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus "began to be sore amazed and very heavy;" (the NKJV renders it "...troubled and deeply distressed."). In Mark 14:34, Jesus describes His state as "exceedingly sorrowful unto death: ...". What is it, one must ask, that could grieve the Son of God to the point of death? What could so agonize Him that His anguish would produce blood in His sweat (Luke 22:44)? It was not the physical pain and torture He would endure, as excruciating as that was. It was not the scorn of those who put Him to death, or of those who mocked Him while He suffered. Nor was it the sorrow of loved ones who would see Him die.

Nothing less than the prospect of the Father's holy wrath, which Jesus would vicariously and voluntarily suffer in full measure for elect sinners, could elicit the level of profound bereavement He experienced in the Garden. Only the anticipation of enduring the wrath of God the Father, as Jesus did on our behalf, could bring such distress to God the Son in the Garden. Those who attempt to promote any myth that the atonement was something other than Christ suffering the punishment due believers for our sins are at a loss to explain what else could so distress the Son of Man that He would pray, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from Me; nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36).

If one's sensibilities are offended that our sins could only be forgiven by being fully paid for by our innocent Substitute, then one doesn't comprehend the gravity of sin or the magnitude of our forgiveness from God, Who is holy and absolutely just.

The agony of Gethsemane forecasts the depths of the atonement at Calvary. And it puctuates in advance Peter's assertion in Acts 4:12, after Christ's death and resurrection, that "...there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Prophetic Language

2006-01-22T15:49:00.000-08:00

"And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."

-Mark 9: 9-10

The same Greek word rendered "questioning" here is translated "disputing" in Acts 6:9 and "disputed" in Acts 9: 29. The implication is there may have been a vigorous debate between the three disciples who were descending the mountain where they had seen Jesus transfigured before them, with Elijah and Moses beside Him. But what were they debating? According to the Greek text, the subject of their discussion was, "What is it: rising from the dead?" The disciples' hermeneutical difficulty with Jesus' prophetic word appears to have manifested because they seemed not to accept its most obvious meaning: the literal one. This is punctuated by their complete surprise when, in fact, Jesus did rise from the dead, just as (what do you know) He said!

We don't know the nature of any interpretive alternatives they may have proposed to each other during this discussion; the text does not elaborate. Perhaps someone in the group warned against attaching a "wooden literal meaning" to the words of Jesus. Perhaps it was hypothesized that prophecy typically employs catastrophic language with poetic hyperbole and that a more ordinary meaning than actual death and resurrection could be found. Maybe the disciples sought to settle upon an allegorical interpretation for the words. Maybe they explored numerous possibilities other than the obvious.

When Jesus prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew 20: 19), he meant it literally; in fact, a wooden literal interpretation of His words would be accurate even to the literal wood of the literal cross. We read of how often He prophesied His death and resurrection to the disciples, for example, in Mark 8: 31, where Peter responded by rebuking Him, and in Mark 9: 31, where the text says the disciples didn't understand.

Why didn't they understand? Did they rule out the possibility of a literal interpretation, not only of Jesus' multiple prophecies, but also of such classic Old Testament passages as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53: 3-12?

The statement in Matthew 20: 19 requires no exegesis; it "interprets" itself. So if Jesus' prophetic words in Matthew 20: 19 and Mark 9: 9 are literal, why (you know where this is going, don't you?) would His words in Matthew 24 not be literal as well? Yes, including verses 21-31. For that matter, if Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53: 3-12 are to be taken literally, and they are, then why not Isaiah 13: 6-13? Do the rules for interpreting prophecy change between the 13th and the 53rd chapter of Isaiah? Is it because verses like Isaiah 13: 10 and Matthew 24: 29 indicate events too supernatural and spectacular for one's sensibilites? Well, the physical resurrection of Jesus was supernatural, spectacular...and literal. The prophecy given at the time of Mark 9: 9-10 is now a historical event.

Rather than impose an allegorical or "hyperbolic" eisegetical straightjacket on Matthew 24, why not let Christ's words speak for themselves? Hermeneutics is both an art and a science, and its proficiency should be developed by the believer. But it all begins with "hearing" the message.

Beyond Containment

2006-01-15T18:17:00.000-08:00

When we consider the omnipresent nature of God, most of us probably do so in the context of Psalm 139:7-10. We understand that God, as Creator, is separate and distinct from creation, yet is present everywhere in it.

In contemplative moments, we consider God's majestic, expansive Presence in terms of some of the anthropomorphic statements in the Bible that refer to Him. Isaiah 40:12 depicts God measuring the oceans, seas, and waters of the earth in the hollow of His hand, and using His hand to measure the expanse of the heavens. Psalm 95:4 describes how the deep places of the earth are encompassed in the hand of the Creator.

Isaiah 66:1 says,

"Thus saith the LORD, 'The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?' "

When we meditate on God's transcendent nature, most of us probably think of God on His throne in heaven. Verses such as Psalm 11:4, Hebrews 9:24, and others show that God does manifest His glorious Presence in this way.

But in the same way that God's glory in the earthly temple at Jerusalem did not indicate a limitation upon the omnipresence of God, we should not mentally restrict God to a spatial limitation in considering that He sits on His throne in heaven. Nor should we conceive that His attribute of being omnipresent refers to being present everywhere only in creation. God is transcendently omnipresent. He exists beyond the confines of creation. King Solomon recognizes this in 2 Chronicles 2:5-6 as he determines to build the earthly temple:

"And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build Him an house, seeing the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him? Who am I then, that I should build Him an house,...?"

In 2 Chronicles 6:18 (see also 1 Kings 8:27) Solomon says,

"But will God in very deed dwell with men on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house which I have built!"

Solomon is acknowledging in these verses that all of creation, including the highest heaven, is not big enough to encompass God's transcendent Presence. Psalm 113:4 says that God's glory is above the heavens, and Psam 113:6 indicates that God condescends, or humbles Himself, just to behold the things in heaven or earth. Hebrews 7:25,26 indicates that Christ, the High Priest Who saves us, is exalted above the heavens.

So we see that while God condescends to reveal Himself to His creation and deigns to interact with His creation, His glory infinitely transcends the things and beings that are made, and He is exalted above even the highest heaven.

He is transcendently omnipresent.

Justified by Faith

2006-01-03T19:52:00.000-08:00

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

-Romans 3:28

The free gift of Christ's righteousness, at the price of His blood, is applied to us by faith. Alone. Apart from the deeds of the law (the Greek word here, translated "deeds", is "ergon", which means "work"). Paul is clear in this statement, and in his expanding comments in Romans 4, that justification is received by faith alone; it is not earned or merited, it is not enhanced by ritual or fleshly effort. The only work that can save is the perfect, all-sufficient work of Christ at the cross. To trust in any other work is futile. To rely on any other means of salvation is hopeless.

Justification comes by genuine faith which is marked by characteristics which distinguish it from the impersonation of faith, such as acknowledgement without commitment or enthusiasm without doctrine. The one with true faith knows Who he believes, what he believes, why he believes. He will spend this life and all eternity developing that knowledge, but has sufficiently apprehended the truth and has entrusted belief, if with only a nascent kernel of wholehearted reliance, upon Christ and His work. And thereby is the new believer credited with the very righteousness of Christ, absolutely without merit on the part of the recipient.

Again, the distinction between true faith, the faith that saves, and counterfeit faith, which deceptively feigns the genuine, is revealed in the characteristics. True faith is a repentant faith; the counterfeit stubbornly clings to sin and rebellion. True faith surrenders to God (Romans 12:1) and endeavors to be transformed by God (Romans 12:2); the counterfeit has no desire to even be modified, let alone transformed.

True faith follows Jesus Christ. Not for a season, but forever.

True faith may stumble at times, may be weak, may even be encumbered by sin and distraction (Hebrew 12:1). But it stays the course. It endures. It does not desert. It does not abandon the truth (1 John 2:19). The difference between the true and the counterfeit is the difference between investing all one's hope and trust in the Lord of creation and committing all to Him, or merely acknowledging that, "well, maybe I'm open to a few things I could change as long as it isn't too much."

As we see in Romans 3:28, 4:5, and 5:1; in order to be justified by grace, faith is essential.

A Costly Gift

2005-12-17T18:42:00.000-08:00

Justification is a gift (Romans 3:24). By definition, a gift comes without cost to its recipient. In this case, it comes at tremendous cost to the Giver. The price of the believer's justification is described in Romans 5:9. We are justified "by his blood," that is, the blood of Christ.

The very magnitude of the cost reveals the utter vanity of any delusion that our redemption could be a cooperative effort between God and us. It is either accomplished entirely by Him or would remain undone. The precious expense paid by our Lord should not be dishonored by hopeless attempts to procure salvation through other means. If one escapes judgement, it is only in Christ. No feeble human effort by the sinner can augment the perfect work Jesus completed at the cross for the eternal life of those who come to Him. No alternate religious path, however devoutly or earnestly pursued, that avoids the provision by Jesus Christ at the cross, can gain salvation.

And the cost of our redemption also confirms the futility of any demand upon the eternal Judge of all men for forgiveness that is not based on Christ's substitutionary atonement. God is merciful, but He is merciful on His terms. This is why the gift of justification is essential.

Justification is a Gift

2005-11-27T10:42:00.000-08:00

In the New Testament, righteousness and justification derive from the same Greek word. To be "justified" means to be declared righteous.

Justification is no small matter; it is an essential aspect of the gospel. The Bible divides humanity into two groups of people--those who are unrighteous, and those who are justified, or declared righteous, as a free gift (Romans 3:23, 24).

Without this gift, or imputation of righteousness, which has not been earned by the mortal recipient, we languish in an abyss of despair over impending judgement. It is not as though a few of us have done a pretty fair job on our own but just need a little help scaling that last bluff before the peak. It is not simply a case of "nobody's perfect".

Romans 3:10 explains, without qualification, that "there is NONE righteous,..." then, just in case the reader doesn't get it, proceeds to explain in verses 11-18 just how unrighteous everybody really is. In Ephesians 2:1-4 Paul's unflattering assessment of the human condition is "dead", and those not justified by grace are referred to as "children of wrath".

Paul does not really break new ground in these descriptions, as he points out himself in Romans 3:10. The Romans 3 passage quotes from various Old Testament Scriptures, including Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3. The prophet Isaiah offers his concurrence in 64: 6-7, indicating that even the so-called "righteous" deeds of corrupt human effort are like a filthy garment. Whoa. But what about that little spark of goodness we've been told exists in every human? Sorry, Isaiah had his lips purged by a burning coal back in 6:7 and now he can only tell the truth.

Also, Jesus declares in Luke 18:19 that NO ONE is good--except God. Since Jesus is God, He is good, and His righteousness can be freely given to those who believe in Him (Romans 3:24, 5:9).

Jesus atoned for the sins of the elect on the cross. He paid the penalty we owed, and suffered, as our Substitute, the wrath and punishment we deserve. But our faith in Him results in more than forgiveness for sins, as immense and vital as that gracious provision is.

It also results in the gift of righteousness, a foreign righteousness, undeserved, freely given to those who were previously the very opposite of righteous. This righteousness is given by the God Who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5), not because of human works, efforts, or deeds, but by faith (Romans 3:28).

It is the very righteousness of Christ Himself, Who perfectly and flawlessly kept the entire Law, perfectly obeyed every commandment down to the last stroke of the last letter, and lived every second without any blemish in deed, thought, or motive. He fulfilled every obligation and every requirement. He never did any wrong and never failed to do any good.

It is a gracious credit to the believer's moral account which had previously been infinitely overdrawn but now has been infinitely and eternally credited with righteousness.

All this to explain why I call this blog "Essentially Justified".