39. Paul in Rome (Acts 28:1-31)

Introduction

When my wife, Jeannette, and I were in college years ago, we worked for a man who ran a business on an island, off shore from Seattle. On the weekends, we would work on the island, preparing and serving fresh salmon, cooked “Indian style.” It was the best salmon I have ever eaten. One weekend, a boat capsized near the island, and after the two men on board had spent several minutes in the chilly waters of Puget Sound they were rescued and brought to the island. They were chilled to the bone. To help them warm up, the two men were put beside the fire where the salmon were cooked. They were covered with blankets and hot rocks were placed around them. One of the men was out of his head. When this fellow came to, he looked into the fire and thought he was in hell.

I cannot help but think of this incident when I read Luke’s account of the landing of Paul’s shipmates on the island of Malta. Although Luke has omitted many of the particulars, we can probably reconstruct the events of that fateful day when the ship’s passengers all landed safely on shore. It seems that the swimmers first set out for shore. As they began to come on shore, some of those on the island must have seen them and rushed down to the shore to help. Those who had made shore would have been very cold. Their wet clothing and the wind must have made them miserable. It did not take long for some of the islanders to build a fire.

The second wave of survivors next began washing up on shore. These were the non-swimmers, who came floating in on pieces of wreckage. They would have needed help much more than the swimmers, but when they arrived, they would have been greeted with the warmth of the fire, already kindled and beginning to blaze. With 276 shivering passengers trying to get warm, this must have been a very good sized fire.

What was about to happen was, once again, to give Paul prominence among the passengers. Just as Paul had gained prominence on board the ship, now he would become prominent in the eyes of those who lived on this island. The sequence of events which led to this prominence is outlined for us by Luke in the first 10 verses of Acts chapter 28. Then, in the next verses (11-15), Luke will describe how Paul and the rest of those on board that ill-fated ship reached Rome safely. Finally, in the closing words of this great book (verses 16-31), Luke will tell of Paul’s meeting with the Jewish leaders in Rome, of the outcome of this meeting, and of Paul’s ministry in Rome for the next two full years.

The structure of this chapter can probably best be summarized in terms of its geography. Viewed from this perspective, there are three major divisions:

Paul’s ministry on the island of Malta (28:1-10)
Paul’s voyage to Rome (28:11-15)
Paul’s ministry at Rome (28:16-31)

To some, the Book of Acts ends very abruptly. There are a number of explanations for this apparent abruptness. I will endeavor to explain Luke’s ending in the light of his purpose in writing this work, and explore some of the implications which are vitally important to Christians of any age. Let us now turn our attention to the events of our text.

Ministry on Malta
(28:1-10)

Paul’s ministry on the island of Malta is the focus of the first ten verses of chapter 28. His ministry appears to be the result of two events: (1) Paul’s supernatural survival from a deadly snake bite; and, (2) the healing of Publius’ father. We will therefore look at these two miraculous events, and then consider Paul’s ministry among those living on the island of Malta.

From the sea, no one on board ship seemed to recognize where they had come to land (see 27:39), but once on shore they learned that they were on the island of Malta (28:1). The natives of the island quickly gathered on shore to assist the passengers as they made it to the beach. I would imagine that some of these natives went into the water, helping those who were exhausted, and especially those who were non-swimmers, to the beach. Here, they had kindled a large fire, to warm the shivering survivors. Not only were the passengers chilled from the cold waters of the sea, but it was raining as well. Beyond an initial warming, dry clothes, a roof over their heads, and a hearty meal were needed by all. Publius would provide these shortly.

But before turning his attention to Publius, Luke highlights one incident which occurred on the beach, an incident which brought Paul to prominence, and which may have had much to do with his ministry on Malta. This large fire may have been fueled by smaller materials, such as brush, roots, and twigs, as well as driftwood which had floated ashore. The may have required frequent refueling. One would not expect any of the passengers, cold, tired, and weakened from their two-week ordeal at sea, to have gone for more sticks. The natives had kindled the fire, and they were no doubt content to keep it going, but Paul nevertheless went for more sticks. This was typical of Paul, and of his lifestyle. He was a servant, and so he would be when the fire began to burn low. He neither wanted nor used any excuses for letting others do all the work.

When he gathered up the sticks and twigs, he ended up with more than wood. A viper was apparently lying dormant among the sticks, and did not come to life until the heat of the fire roused it. The viper fastened itself to Paul’s hand. Paul’s reaction was simple and decisive: he shook the creature into the fire. It is what Paul did not do that is most interesting to me. (1) He did not, in a moment of panic, fling the creature from himself, endangering others. This is what many people would have done. (2) neither did Paul (at least according to Luke’s report here) do anything “spiritual,” like kneel down to pray, or say some pious last words, preach a sermon, or call for a prayer meeting. He seems to have simply gone on with what he was doing. I must admit that it would not surprise me if Paul went back to gather up another arm load of sticks. Paul did not panic. He carried on as usual. He does not seem to act as though he was about to die, even though this was the norm for those thus bitten by this kind of viper.

Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that this viper was not venomous at all, based upon the fact that such snakes no longer are found on Malta—no great surprise for a small island, quite well populated. They would have us believe that both these “primitives” and Luke were in error. This is incredible, on both counts. First, Luke was writing under inspiration, in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. He could not have erred. In addition, Luke was a doctor, who may well have treated a number of snake bite wounds already. Doctors are not careless about the identification of snakes which might have a fatal bite.

These “primitives” (as some would refer to them) were far more knowledgeable about snakes than those “experts” who would tell us that the creature that bit Paul was non a poisonous snake. The natives who live and work in an area which has poisonous snakes know their snakes well. They don’t make mistakes about such matters. Their life depends upon it. In India and Africa, as well as in rural areas in the Southwest, the “natives” know their snakes. So, too, with the natives on Malta. The snake fastened itself on Paul’s hand. It did not strike, as a rattler would do. It clung, something like a coral snake. They knew what kind of snake the creature was, and what happened when it bit someone. They waited for a sequence of events they had seen too many times before. They waited for Paul’s hand to swell up, and then for him to die. This is what would have happened, without divine intervention.

God did intervene. Paul seemed to go on as usual, and time passed. It eventually became clear that Paul was not going to die, or even to be affected in any way by the snake bite. This should come as no surprise to the Christian, for Jesus had promised as much:

“And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly {poison,} it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:17-18).

And the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you. “Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:17-20).

If Paul’s miraculous deliverance from death is no surprise to the believer, it was a surprise to the natives, so much so that they concluded Paul must be a god. This was quite a change of mind, for only minutes before they had determined that Paul must be a horrible criminal, one whom “justice” would not allow to go unpunished. And so, even though he had escaped from death by the sea and the storm, “justice” was being administered through the bite of the deadly serpent (verse 4). Now, however, they concluded just the opposite. This man’s deliverance from death convinced those who witnessed this incident that he was divine.

Luke does not follow up on this incident in his record here. This does not mean that nothing happened. It means, I believe, that Luke chose not to report all that happened. He seems only to wish to show us the high regard in which Paul was now held, and the fact that signs and wonders were again in evidence. This prepares the way to the healing of the father of Publius, followed by the healings of many other ailing islanders.

Just because Luke does not describe what happened as a result of the snake incident does not mean that nothing of consequence occurred. I believe that Luke expects his reader to “fill in some of the blanks,” based upon what he has already written. For example, in the light of earlier material in Acts it is inconceivable that Paul allowed these natives to regard him as a “god.” In Acts chapter 12:21-23 Luke reported that Herod died for allowing the people to address him as a god. And later on in chapter 14 (see verses 8-18) Paul and Barnabas were appalled to learn that some of the people of Lystra were attempting to worship them as gods, going to great efforts to end this misconception and its resulting “worship.” The occasion was used as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to these natives. So, too, in Acts 28 I believe that Paul refuted the natives’ claim that he was a god, and I would be greatly surprised if he did not proclaim the way of salvation to these people.

Incidentally, this serpent incident was the perfect entre, the perfect lead in to the gospel. When Paul spoke to some of the Jews of Rome, later on in this chapter, he based his proclamation on the Old Testament, on the Law of Moses and the Prophets (verse 23). This was where they were coming from. This was the basis of their belief. But to have spoken to these pagans from the Law and the Prophets would, at this point in time, have been meaningless to them, since they were unfamiliar with the Old Testament revelation.

By means of the serpent incident, God opened the door for witness and proclamation to these Gentiles. Their theology is reflected in their explanations for Paul’s snake bite and for his miraculous preservation. They did not believe in a personal God, but in a more impersonal force or divine being, here spoken of as “justice.” If they had a kind of “natural religion” then God accommodated them by revealing His power through His prophet and apostle, Paul. Had this man escaped “justice,” the sting of death? So they to could escape the sting of sin—death—through faith in Jesus Christ. In a very “natural” (excuse the pun) way, God opened the door to evangelism by revealing something of Himself and of His gospel. I have little doubt that Paul capitalized on this opportunity, even though Luke chose not to give us the details. We know enough about Paul to predict with a fair degree of confidence, how Paul would have responded.

The incident with the serpent seemed to pave the way for an expanded ministry and prominence for Paul. Publius seems to have offered these 276 stranded, shivering souls meals and a place to stay for three days. This is genuine hospitality. After the three days, it seems that the people found winter accommodations elsewhere on the island. But during their three days at the home of Publius, Paul not only learned of the illness of Publius’ father, but determined that God’s power was available to heal him. Paul first went in to see the ailing gentleman, then prayed, then laid hands on him so as to heal him. Much as in the ministry of Jesus and of His apostles, this ministry was multiplied by the healing of many others who were brought for healing also.

It is important to see that Paul did not presume that God would heal through him, any more than He would deliver those on board ship, as though Paul could turn God’s power on and off, like a water faucet. Paul only acted when he was assured of God’s will in these matters. It was not until the angel of the Lord appeared to Paul that he assured the passengers of their safe landing, even though this ship was to be destroyed (27:21-26). I believe that Paul only laid hands on the father of Publius after he was convinced that God willed his miraculous healing.

The order of Paul’s actions is significant, in my opinion. He first went in to the man, then prayed, and then laid his hands on the man to heal him. I believe that his prayer was for the purpose of discerning God’s will with regard to the man’s healing. Only after he was assured that it was God’s will did Paul lay his hands on the ailing man to heal him. Paul’s God was a sovereign God, not under the control of Paul. As such, God was (and still is) always able to heal and to perform miracles; but He is not always willing to do so. Paul waited for God to give him the signal to go ahead, rather than to attempt to prompt God. Would that Christians today would do likewise, rather than claiming to have constant power, which they employ at their discretion.

Paul’s actions in this regard are consistent with those of our Lord, of other apostles, and with his own prior actions. Jesus Himself seems to have been attentive to whether or not it was God’s will and time for Him to heal and perform miracles:

And it came about one day that He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing (Luke 5:17).

The inference of this verse is that there were times when the power of the Lord was not present for performing healings, and that Jesus was sensitive and attentive to such times. Jesus healed and performed miracles when He was certain it was God’s time for doing so. He would not act independently of the Father, or seek to force Him to act in accordance with His own will (see Luke 4:1-11; John 7:1-9; 8:28-30). Paul also seems to have performed miracles, signs and wonders, only when it was apparent that it was God’s will to do so (see Acts 14:3). In addition to Paul’s sensitivity to God’s sovereign leading, Paul also took other related factors into account, such as the faith of those who would be healed (see Acts 14:9-10). God’s sovereignty therefore means that He is always able to heal and perform miracles, but that He is not always willing to do so. We do not manipulate God; He manipulates us!

And so it was that Paul concluded it was God’s will to heal the father of Publius, which opened the door for many other healings. Once again, Paul had come to the forefront; he had gained prominence. This took place through the sovereign workings of God, and it likely resulted in the proclamation of the gospel and the salvation of some souls. Luke does not tell us that Paul preached, or how he did so. Neither does he give us a “head count” of the “souls won.” Such statistics are unnecessary and often inaccurate. God was at work here. This is evident. And where God is at work the results are assured. As a matter of fact, an accurate understanding of the sovereignty of God assures us that for the Christian, God is always at work, for his or her ultimate good and most importantly for the advance of the gospel and of God’s purposes.

The islanders, grateful to God and grateful for Paul’s presence, showed their gratitude in a very tangible way—they gave all the passengers provisions for the final days of their journey to Rome. Once again, the presence of but one man—Paul (not to mention the other saints with him)—was a source of blessing for the entire gathering of those on board this ship. How the presence of but a few saints can be a blessing to the rest (see 1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

We are about to leave these islanders behind, as Paul and his fellow-passengers will board ship, headed for Rome. But let us leave these Maltese natives with a final thought. They rushed to the shore, thinking that they could be of help to these shivering passengers. What they were to learn shortly was that God had sent Paul and the gospel to help them. It was not long before those who rushed to the shore to help Paul were rushing to Paul for help from God. How marvelous are His ways!

Paul’s Voyage To Rome
(28:11-15)

Much ministry must have taken place in those three months that Paul and the other stranded passengers wintered on the island of Malta. When the seas were again open for sea travel, the passengers obtained passage on an Alexandrian ship, which had wintered there on Malta, and which was sailing for Rome. Luke not only tells us that this was an Alexandrian ship (undoubtedly a grain ship), but that it had “the Twin Brothers” for its figurehead. These “twin brothers” were the heathen gods who were believed to provide safety and success on the sea. In the shadow of God’s mighty hand in delivering Paul and all on board his ship, how paltry these two gods must have seemed to Luke. How futile such religion. The One True God is in charge of all, while the heathen make their “gods” to bolster their hopes for safety and success.⁵⁶⁶

In contrast to the detail with which Luke described the journey which ended in shipwreck (chapter 27), very little is said about the journey from Malta to Rome. Their route took them from Malta to Syracuse, Sicily’s major port city, on its southeastern coast. Here, they stayed for three days, before sailing on to Rhegium, a port on the very “toe” of the “boot” of Italy. When a south wind sprang up on the following day, they sailed on to the prominent Italian port city of Puteoli, where some brethren were found, and where Paul stayed for seven days (verse 14). This one week delay was apparently due to business which the Roman centurion had in this city. It allowed Paul time to enjoy the fellowship of previously unknown saints.

Paul’s Arrival and Ministry in Rome
(28:16-31)

Leaving Puteoli, Paul, his companions, his fellow-prisoners and the Roman guards traveled by land until they came to the famous Appian Way,⁵⁶⁷ which they followed to Rome. Brethren from Rome heard of Paul’s coming and came as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to met him and his party. Paul had written a very important epistle to these believers some time before, known to us as the Book of Romans. In this epistle, Paul spoke of his earnest desire to come to them, for ministry to them and from them (Romans 1:7-15). This must have been a joyous time of fellowship, but, once again, Luke passes by this “human interest” story, pressing on to a more important matter from the standpoint of his purpose in writing this account.

Luke has almost nothing to say about Paul’s relationship to the church in Rome. In fact, Luke has very little to say, in particular, about Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles in Rome. Instead, the chapter and the book ends with an account of Paul’s meeting with the leading Jews of Rome. Let us turn our attention to this meeting with the Jews, and with its immediate and longer-term outcome.

Although Paul had arrived in Rome, his appearance before Caesar would be delayed by the normal “red tape” paperwork and processes of government. Paul was kept in custody during this time of waiting, allowed to stay in a house, under guard by one soldier. This freedom appears to be the result of one or more factors. First, Paul was not yet a convicted criminal. The Romans had great difficulty even deciding upon what charges to press against Paul, let alone succeeding in convicting him. Second, Paul had won the confidence of at least Julius, the centurion commander of the Augustan cohort (27:1ff.). Paul was therefore granted a fair measure of freedom, being under a kind of “house arrest.”

This freedom did not allow Paul to travel about on his own, but it did give him the opportunity to minister to any who would come to him. Three days passed before Paul called for visitors. We do not know what happened in these three days, or why Paul waited to invite the Jews to his house. My best guess is that Paul wanted to meditate and pray about this matter, to be able to come to some conviction as to what he should do.

Paul determined to invite the Jewish leaders, so that he could explain the reason for his presence in Rome, and to open the door to proclaim the gospel to the unbelieving Jews there. Paul had at least two meetings with these Jews. On their first visit, Paul is not said to have presented the gospel to them. His first order of business was to explain his presence in Rome and to assure the Jews of his innocence and sincerity.

If Paul was to have a hearing with these Jews, he must first of all overcome the impressions which the Jews would have of him as a prisoner of Rome. Clearly in the New Testament one’s “walk” is to conform to his “talk,” so that the gospel was to be backed up by a godly life. You can well imagine how seriously Paul would be taken as a prisoner. With the pagans on Malta, God overcame Paul’s status as a prisoner by sparing him from certain death (by the snake bite) and by working signs and wonders through him (as a result of the healing of Publius’ father).

Here, Paul sought to vindicate himself by explaining the cause of his arrest, and the reason for his presence in Rome, before Caesar. Paul claimed that he had not violated any of the customs of the Jews, nor had he done the Jews any wrong. He informed these Jews that the Gentiles had, indeed, purposed to release him, and except for the protest of some Jews, he would have been set free (28:18-19).

The relationship between the Jews and the Romans seems to have been rapidly deteriorating. We know from Luke’s words in Acts 18:1-2 that Claudius had, for a period of time, expelled the Jews from Rome. The final rebellion of the Jews in Jerusalem would soon bring about the sacking of that city by Rome. The Jews of Rome were no doubt very sensitive about the presence of any Jew who might stir up trouble with the Romans. Paul therefore assured the Jews who assembled at his house that he was not in Rome to bring any charges against the Jews (28:19).⁵⁶⁸

The Jews dealt with Paul in what appeared to be an open-minded fashion. They responded by telling Paul that they had heard nothing specific about his case. They were honest in informing Paul that while they heard nothing against him, they were aware that the Jewish response to the gospel was uniformly unfavorable:

“But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere” (Acts 28:22).

They were, they insisted, open-minded and willing to listen to what Paul had to say to them about his views, in spite of his presence in Rome as a prisoner. And so a time was agreed upon when they would return, and when Paul could expound and explain his views on the kingdom of God (28:23).

And so they arrived on that appointed day, and from morning till night Paul proclaimed the gospel, in Jewish terms, based upon the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures, as found in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and as fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth (28:23).

Their response to Paul and to his gospel was, as usual, mixed. Some were persuaded by what Paul taught and believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Others did not. This, as usual, created another dynamic in the group. Rather than telling us that the unbelieving Jews polarized against Paul, Luke informs us that their was a polarization between the believing and unbelieving Jews. This group had come in unity. They were all willing to hear what Paul had to say. But when the gospel was proclaimed, it immediately began to divide these men. The believers and the unbelievers began to disagree with each other, to the point where is was senseless to continue on. This division is typical of the response of men to each other, when some believe the gospel and others reject it:

“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five {members} in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luke 12:51-53).

“Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him. And some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him (John 7:42-44).

Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them (John 9:16).

There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” (John 10:19-21).

Therefore they spent a long time {there} speaking boldly {with reliance} upon the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles (Acts 14:3-4).

And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided (Acts 23:7).

The day had come to a close. It was time for all to leave. But before the group left Paul had one more thing to say to them. These were, for those who refused to believe the Scriptures and to accept Jesus as their Messiah, Paul’s final words. Just as Paul turned to the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, so he found in the Old Testament Scriptures an explanation for the rejection of these Jews. He turned to the words found in Isaiah chapter 6:

25 And when they did not agree with one another, they {began} leaving after Paul had spoken one {parting} word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say, “You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; 27 For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes; Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I should heal them. “‘ 28 “Let it be known to you therefore, that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.”

There was a distinct parallel, a clear similarity, between Paul’s ministry to the Jews of his day, and Isaiah’s ministry to Judah and Jerusalem centuries earlier. Paul could therefore find in God’s instructions to Isaiah an explanation for the rejection of these Jews of his day, and also a corresponding word of warning to them, as well as comfort in his ministry, which did not produce the results he wanted.

You will remember in the context of Isaiah that the northern kingdom of Israel has already fallen to the Assyrians. In the light of this judgment, the southern kingdom of Judah is called to repentance and warned of a similar judgment. The people of Judah and Jerusalem have not listened to God’s admonition. The time for her divine discipline has drawn near. After seeing a vision of he glory of God, Isaiah is commissioned to preach to this disobedient nation, but in his commission God made it clear that his task was not to bring about repentance, but rather to bring about greater guilt, to fatten these rebellious people for judgment. Indeed, though he was to speak the Word of God to the Jews, the Word of God would only serve to dull their senses, rather than to quicken and convict them for their sin.

Paul saw the parallels between his ministry and that of Isaiah, and between the circumstances in Judah and Jerusalem in his day and in that of the prophet of old. He knew that God had spoken once and for all in Jesus, and that the Jews had rejected Him. He knew that his ministry would not be one of ushering in the kingdom of God, but one of preceding the coming day of God’s indignation and discipline. And so he pointed back to God’s words to Isaiah, as being also words to his own generation of Jews. Let them listen well to this ancient warning, for just as Judah and Jerusalem of Isaiah’s day were soon to go into a period of captivity at the hand of the Babylonians, so the Israel and Jerusalem of his day were to go into captivity at the hands of the Romans.

These words of Paul were the last words most of the unbelieving Jews would hear from him. But for the other Jews who believed in Jesus, Paul’s words on this day were only the beginning. Luke tells us that two full years would pass, with Paul continually ministering to all who came to him. This seems to have included both Jews and Gentiles.

Conclusion

The concluding words of the Book of Acts are sad, indeed, with regard to the fate of the nation Israel. In the first chapters of the Book of Luke, Jesus was introduced as the promised Savior who came to save His people, Israel, as well as to be a blessing to the Gentiles. But, as the gospel of Luke reveals, “His people” did not receive Him, but rejected Him. This was especially true of the Jewish leaders, and generally true of many other Israelites. There were those, of course, who did believe in Him.

As the Book of Acts begins, the Lord is described as departing from this earth, commissioning His apostles to carry on the work which He began. But once again, the Jews reject the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles, in spite of the evidences of God’s power at work through them. As Jesus was killed, so were Stephen and many others. Graciously, Saul was converted, from a persecutor of Christianity, to a proclaimer of Christ.

The Book of Acts is a description of the expansion of the gospel, from Jerusalem to the “uttermost part of the earth,” and from primarily Jewish listeners to many Gentiles as well. But as the gospel went forth from Jerusalem, the Jews persistently rejected the good news, and persecuted those who proclaimed the gospel. Now, at Rome, the majority of the Jews there reject the word of the gospel. The Jews have heard, and most have rejected the truth that Jesus was the Messiah, who came to the earth, took on human flesh, was rejected, crucified, and raised from the dead. Now, after nearly 40 years of grace, the time of God’s judgment draws nigh. The Book of Acts ends, not with the salvation of Israel, and with the establishment of the kingdom, but with the rejection of Israel, and with the ever nearing time of Israel’s captivity and suffering. There is, in this sense, a deep sense of sorrow as the Book of Acts draws to a close.

While Israel’s days are numbered, and we see this with great sadness, we also find the Book of Acts hardly ending at all, but rather it seems to be only a beginning. If the gospel has been rejected by the Jews, it is still being proclaimed and believed by the Gentiles. We who are Gentiles, who live some twenty centuries after the ending of Acts, find that what Jesus continued to do through the apostles, He is still doing today. If the Book of Acts ends one chapter in the history of Israel, it begins a whole new chapter in the history of the church. If the Lord Jesus was at work in and through the apostles in Acts, He is still at work in and through His church to this very day. It does not appear to be long before “the times of the Gentiles” will come to a close, and the return of the Lord Jesus to establish His kingdom will take place. Let each one who reads these words from the pen of Paul take heed. The day of judgment for all mankind draws near. Let each individual repent of his sin and trust in the solution for sin which God has provided in Jesus, who died in the sinner’s place, and who offers to all who would believe, the righteousness which God requires and the certainty of eternal life.

One final word about the supposedly “sudden and abrupt” ending of the Book of Acts. Many have noted the unusual ending of Acts. Some have explained this ending by suggesting that Luke intended to write yet another volume. I think that the ending of Acts is both beautiful, and enlightening. Consider with me the way that Luke ends this work as we conclude this message.

There are some very obvious facts that are not given to us in Acts before the book ends. We are not told of Paul’s fate, or of the outcome of his trial. We are not told of the fall of Jerusalem. We are left without any word on these matters, matters which we would very much like to know more about.

I am not inclined to believe that Luke omitted these things because they had not yet happened, though this may be the case. If they had not yet happened, they would take place very soon after the Book of Acts came to a close. Regardless of the reasons why more information is not included, it was not included, and this must be in accordance with the purposes of God, and especially His purposes for this book.

Luke does tell us that “two full years” passed, during which Paul was free to proclaim the gospel and to minister to all who came to him (28:30-31). The expression “two full years” suggests to me that Luke may have known the outcome of Paul’s trial, and also of the fate of Israel and Jerusalem. If so, he did not include them in his book. Why not?

I think I know the answer, an answer which should prove to be very enlightening to each and every Christian today. Luke’s purpose was not to provide us with a book that has a “happily ever after” ending. Much of our uneasiness with the ending of Acts is that we don’t have a fairy tale conclusion. What Luke does tell us, however, is that the gospel was proclaimed to the “remotest part of the earth” just as Jesus had said (see Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:6-8). It is the progress of the proclamation of the gospel which is foremost in Luke’s mind, and the Book of Acts makes this progress very clear.

What is not so clear is the fate of people. We are not told of the fall of Israel and Jerusalem. We are not told of the outcome of Paul’s trial. We are not told of the deaths of most of the apostles.⁵⁶⁹ Acts is not a biblical version of a “book of martyrs.” Acts is the account of the word of God through the Lord Jesus and through the church. It is the account of the progress of the gospel, and not a series of “human interest stories” on the lives of the apostles or other saints.

Our dissatisfaction (and that’s what it really is, in my opinion) with the ending of the Book of Acts is a reflection of our own distorted thinking and priorities. We are more “people-centered” than we are “gospel-centered.” To put it more bluntly, we are more “self-centered” than we are “gospel-centered.” The reason why we are so interested in Paul’s outcome is because we are so interested in our own safety and comfort. Paul was a gospel-centered man, and so were the apostles. They were not interested in their own comfort, security, or preservation from pain and suffering. They were eager for the gospel to be proclaimed, whether this meant life or death for them, and whether it meant pain or prosperity for them. Look at the following texts and take note of the “gospel-centeredness” of them, in contrast to the thinking and feelings of our own day and age.

When Paul thinks of his own future, he thinks not of safety, security, or of comfort, but of the progress of the gospel in terms of the salvation of the lost and the spiritual growth of believers:

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be put to shame in anything, but {that} with all boldness, Christ shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if {I am} to live {on} in the flesh, this {will mean} fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both {directions,} having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for {that} is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. And convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again (Philippians 1:18-26).

In speaking of his deliverance, Paul thought much more of his final deliverance, into the kingdom of God, rather than of any deliverance from suffering and pain in this life:

But the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him {be} the glory forever and ever. Amen (2 Timothy 4:17-18).

When Paul spoke to Christians concerning their conduct, he spoke with reference to the impact which their conduct would have on the gospel:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, {to be} sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, {with} purity in doctrine, dignified, sound {in} speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. {Urge} bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:3-14).

Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and {our} doctrine may not be spoken against. And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these {principles.} (1 Timothy 6:1-2).

Today, we seek to motivate Christians to obey Christian principles so that they can live happier, more successful lives. But Paul urged Christians to live in obedience to the Word of God so that the gospel would not be hindered.

And when Paul prayed or asked for prayer, it most often pertained to his boldness and clarity in proclaiming the gospel, not in his deliverance from suffering and difficulties:

Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as {it did} also with you; and that we may be delivered from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith. But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil {one.} (2 Thessalonians 3:1-3).

With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and {pray} on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in {proclaiming} it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:18-20).

May the sake of the gospel become our great desire, overthrowing the fleshly desires of self-interest and self-protection. May we, like Paul, see the salvation of the lost and the spiritual growth of believers as the task worthy of our suffering, pain, and even of death.

⁵⁶⁶“Ships, like inns, took their names from their figureheads. The ‘Heavenly Twins’ who formed the figurehead of this ship were Castor and Pollux, patrons of navigation and favorite objects of sailors’ devotion.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 501.

⁵⁶⁷“A few miles’ journey from Puteoli brought them on to the Appian Way, one of the great Roman roads of south Italy, named after Appius Claudius, in whose censorship it was planned (312 B.C.).” Bruce, p. 502.

⁵⁶⁸Paul did have accusations or charges against the Jews, just as Stephen did (Acts 7), but these were not legal charges, made under Roman law; they were spiritual charges, based upon the Old Testament revelation and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, the Christ. Paul’s charges against the Jews, as seen in 28:25-28, are for their hard-nosed unbelief and rebellion against God. The penalty of which he warns is not the wrath of Rome, but the coming wrath of God (albeit, expressed, in part, through the Roman’s destruction of Jerusalem).

⁵⁶⁹We are told of the death of James for a very practical reason: the death of James, the brother of John, as reported in Acts 12:2, was reported to indicate the seriousness of Peter’s arrest. If Herod would have had his way, he would have killed Peter. But God intervened, arranged for Peter’s miraculous escape, and in fact also arranged for the death of Herod instead.

40. The Holy Spirit in the Gospels (Appendix A)

The following is a more complete outline of the texts referring to the ministry of the Holy Spirit as found in the Gospels. This has been arranged topically, along with some of the Old Testament parallel texts:

The Holy Spirit and the Birth of John the Baptist

15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. 16 Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15-17).

5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).

80 And the child grew and became strong in {the?} spirit {Spirit?}; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel (Luke 1:80).

Inspired Utterances at the time of John’s Birth

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed … (Luke 1:41-42).

His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied … (Luke 1:67).

{Does the utterance of Mary in 1:46-55 not also qualify as a “spirit-filled” utterance, even though not stated specifically?}

The Holy Spirit and the Birth of Jesus
The Conception of the Christ Child

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

Inspiring the Praises of God at the Sight of the Christ

Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying …” (Luke 2:25-28).

{Would Anna, too, not be included, although not specifically stated to be “filled with the Holy Spirit”?—Cf. Luke 2:36-38}

John’s Baptism and Jesus

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering the wheat into his barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:11-12).

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8).

John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:16-17).

Malachi

4:1 “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. 3 Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,” says the Lord Almighty. 4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. 5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:7-9).

Jeremiah

“What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can consecrated meat avery your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice.” The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken. The LORD Almighty, who planted you, has decreed disaster for you, because the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done evil and provoked me to anger by burning incense to Baal (Jeremiah 11:15-16).

“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord; O house of David, this is what the Lord says: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?” I will punish you as your deeds deserve, declares the Lord. I will kindle a fire in your forests that will consume everything around you’” (Jeremiah 21:11-14).

Isaiah

In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!” In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. Then the Lord will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain (Isaiah 4:1-6).

Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp a fire will be kindled like a blazing flame. The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers. The splendor of his forests and fertile fields it will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away. And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few that a child could write them down (Isaiah 10:15-19).

The Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire (Isaiah 29:6).

See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire. His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray. And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail. The voice of the Lord will shatter Assyria; with his scepter he will strike them down. Every stroke the Lord lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm. Topheth has long been prepared; it has been made ready for the king. Its fire pit has been made deep and wide, with an abundance of fire and wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze (Isaiah 30:27-33).

Luke

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” (Luke 12:49-50).

The Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Jesus

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him (Matthew 3:16).

As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove (Mark 1:10).

And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22).

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’ (John 1:32-33).

The Holy Spirit and the Temptation of Christ

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1).

At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert (Mark 1:12).

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert (Luke 4:1).

The Holy Spirit as the Source of our Lord’s Joy

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure (Luke 10:21).

The Holy Spirit and the Ministry of Jesus

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside (Luke 4:14).

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed (Luke 4:18).

“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit” (John 3:31-34).

The Power of the Spirit in Jesus Was a Fulfillment of Prophecy

“Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations (Matthew 12:18).

“But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).

The Rejection of Jesus and Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

“And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32).

“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit” (Mark 3:29-30).

“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10).

Jesus’ Teaching on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit spoke through David in the Old Testament:

He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, … (Matthew 22:43).

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’ (Mark 12:36).

Men are Saved by Means of the Ministry of the Holy Spirit:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit … The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-6, 8).

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).

“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:8-11).

The Holy Spirit Would be Given to the Disciples and to all Those Who Believe:

If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13).

On the last and greatest day of the Feast {Tabernacles, v.2}, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37-39).

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17).

The Holy Spirit Would Facilitate True Worship:

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

The Holy Spirit Would Teach and Guide Believers:

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26).

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).

“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:15).

The Holy Spirit Would Give the Disciples the Words to Say When Put on Trial for Their Faith:

“For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:20).

“Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).

“For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Luke 12:12).

The Holy Spirit Would Represent and Manifest Christ to His Disciples After His Ascension:

“In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (John 16:16).

The Power of the Spirit Was to Play a Vital Part in the Fulfillment of the Great Commission:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

“You are witnesses to these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:48-49).

And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22).

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me; but you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:2-27).

Related Topics: Pneumatology (The Holy Spirit)

41. Saul’s Conversion and Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans (Appendix B)

In the foregoing, I have attempted to show how Paul’s conversion is evident in his writings and how this is consistent with not only his writings, but with the “gospel” as described by any or all of the gospel writers.⁵⁷⁰ As I was thinking through the writings of Paul, it occurred to me that Romans, a book which Paul penned, is a theology of the gospel. Romans does, from a theologian’s perspective, what Acts does from a historian’s perspective. And so I tried to think through the Book of Romans with the conversion of Saul in mind. Below is a summary of the results. I believe this is an excellent opportunity for further study, meditation, and development.

An Outline of
the Book of Romans

I. Introduction/Preface—1:1-18

The priority and the power of the gospel

II. Man’s Sin and His Need of Salvation—1:19 - 3:20

The guilt of the ignorant heathen
The guilt of the informed
The guilt of the Jew
Conclusion: All are Guilty

III. Christ: God’s Provision for Man’s Salvation—3:21 - 5:21

Christ’s gift to sinful men, who trust in Him by faith (3:21-31)
Old Testament confirmation—Abraham’s salvation by faith (4)
A salvation that does more than save, and through one Man (5)

IV. Sanctification—6:1 - 8:39

The necessity of sanctification (6)
The human impossibility of sanctification (7)
The divine means for our sanctification (8:1-27)
The certainty of our sanctification (8:27-39)

V. The Gospel, Israel, and the Gentiles—9:1 - 11:36

Divine election (9)
Human responsibility (10)
Israel’s final deliverance (11:1-32)
Praise (11:33-36)

VI. The Gospel and the Christians Obligation to Others—12:1 - 15:33

Spiritual gifts and living by love (12:1-21)
Submission and separation
Christian unity: The strong serving the weak (14:1 - 15:13)
Paul and the church at Rome (15:14-33)

VII. Personal Instructions and a Benediction—16:1-27

The study of the Book of Romans is a lifetime undertaking, but it is helpful to gain an overview of the entire book. It is my conviction that the Book of Romans is Paul’s theology of salvation.⁵⁷¹ I am further persuaded that the Book of Romans, in large measure, is a reflection of Paul’s own conversion. The salvation of which Paul speaks in very general terms is the same salvation which he has experienced in a very personal and dramatic way, the conversion described in Acts 9.

Romans 1:1-18

Paul’s introduction, found in chapter one, verses 1-18, is a reflection of his strong convictions concerning the gospel, based upon his own conversion and upon his own growth in grace and the truths revealed to him by God directly and through others. Paul is a man convinced of his mission. He is a “called apostle” (verse 1), which is an indirect reference to his conversion as recorded in Acts 9. The gospel is represented by Paul as the priority in his own life and also in the lives of those to whom he was writing (verse 8).

Paul was a man who was convinced that the gospel was to be his priority and the priority of all who believe in Christ. He was also convinced of the power of the gospel. A declaration of that power is to be found in our Lord’s resurrection (verse 4). But the gospel itself, the simple message of the crucified Christ, was viewed by Paul as “the power of God unto salvation.” No wonder he was content to preach Christ only, Christ simply, whether to Jews or to Gentiles. It was to the proclamation of this simple gospel that Paul devoted his life. Thus Paul’s preface introduced the subject of his work—the gospel—and also indicated its primary importance.

Romans 1:19 - 3:20

The Lord’s first words to Saul focused on his sin—of his persecution of the church. So too the premise on which Paul’s treatise begins is the sinfulness of man. One of the fundamental truths of the gospel is that men—all men, without exception—are sinners, not only undeserving of God’s favor but deserving of His eternal wrath. Paul begins with the ignorant, the heathen, in chapter 1, and then moves to the more enlightened, and finally to the Jew. In each case, however, the sin is the same in principle. God has revealed something of Himself to men, which they have chosen to reject and to replace with some “god” of their own. Paul’s conclusion is expressed in 3:9-20, using the words of several Old Testament texts. All men are sinners, who have resisted God and rejected His revelation. From head to toe (from their mouths to their feet), they practice this sin. The conclusion is that men cannot save themselves by their works, but can only condemn themselves. The law was not given as a means of salvation, but as a standard—a standard which all men fail to meet. Apart from divine intervention, man is hopelessly lost.

Romans 3:21 - 5:21

The righteousness of God, which is revealed in the wrath of God (cf. 1:18), is also revealed in the Son of God, who came to do for men what they could not do for themselves—obtain God’s salvation and blessings. The righteousness of God has been made available to men through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. He did meet the standards which were established by the law. He died, but not for His own sins. He died for the sins of men. In His death, the wrath of God has been satisfied. All men must do is to trust in His death for their sins. This salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.

Abraham (chapter 4) is proof that this principle of salvation by faith in God’s provision is the way in which God has saved men through the ages. While many Judaizers advocated salvation by law-keeping, Paul shows that Abraham’s salvation was both before the law (it came with Moses, much later on) and apart from his doing any work to merit it. Abraham simply believed God’s promise of a son, and this was reckoned as righteousness. This was years before the child was born and before he was circumcised. Abraham was saved by faith in that which God promised.

Chapter 5 turns our attention from the past to the future. Salvation is not a one-time experience, but it is a beginning of a whole new way of life. Thus, Paul reasons that if God saved us while we were still sinners, how much more will He do for those who are His children? The work of Christ not only procures our salvation; it also promises our sanctification. It not only saves us; it keeps us, so that we can be assured we will stand before God as righteous through His Son.

The question which might arise is this: “How is it that faith in one person (even Jesus) can save all who believe?” How can what one person does affect so many? Paul’s answer, in the second half of chapter five is this: “It was by one man—Adam—that all men became sinners; it is by one man (the second and last Adam⁵⁷² that the effects of the first “Adam’s” sins were overthrown. Indeed, the works of the second Adam were greater than those of the first. Thus, it is by one man, Jesus Christ, and by one alone, that men are saved.

How well Paul knew these truths experientially. When God exposed his sin, Paul recognized that he was hopeless, apart from some divine provision, a provision based upon the principle of grace, not works. He was confronted by Christ, by Christ alone, and it was in Him (alone) that Paul trusted for salvation. Paul came to see (as Philippians 3 indicates) that his works did not commend him before God, but rather served to condemn him. It was by grace and through faith in Christ that Paul was saved. It was a salvation by grace and through faith which Paul preached. And this he showed to be consistent with the Old Testament revelation.

Romans 6-8

In chapter 5, Paul has already alluded to the on-going implications and application of the gospel. It not only saves a man; it keeps him. It not only provides forgiveness of past sins; it gives power over sin in one’s life. If in chapter 4 Paul protects “grace” from the legalism of those who would introduce “works” into the gospel, in these chapters Paul seeks to protect the gospel from license. There were (and are still) those who would suggest that God’s grace, manifested in Christ, allows the “saved sinner” to continue to live in sin. God’s provision for sin is used as a promotion for sin.

Paul shows in chapter 6 that salvation requires a change in one’s practice. The gospel is that men enter into the work of Christ by faith. In Christ, we who believe have died to our sin, free from its guilt and condemnation. God’s wrath on this sin has been appeased (propitiated). But we also enter into the resurrection of our Lord, who was raised into newness of life. Just as Jesus was transformed in His resurrection, we must be transformed in the way we live. We who profess to have died to sin cannot (from a logical point of view) continue to live in sin. Sanctification (on-going growth and movement toward holiness) is an integral part of salvation. Sanctification is an imperative for the Christian, not an option. We cannot accept the gospel and reject its implications.

In chapter 7 Paul moves on to show that the sanctification which is necessary is also humanly impossible. The problem is not with the law. It establishes a standard with which Paul’s inner man agrees, a righteousness in which he delights, and to which he aspires. The problem is with the flesh. Sin is more powerful than the flesh, and thus what the new man aspires to do, it does not accomplish, and that which it seeks to avoid, it does. The dilemma is a distressing one. Who will deliver us from this body that is dominated by sin and by death?⁵⁷³

The solution to sin’s domination of our weak flesh is the gospel. Just as men are powerless to save themselves, so they are powerless to live in a way that pleases God. What men could not do for themselves, God has done. The solution is not death, but resurrection. Who can deliver us from these bodies of death? The same Spirit who delivered our Lord’s body from death (Romans 8:11). It is by walking in the Spirit that God’s standards can be met.

While the Christian has the power to live a life free from the dominion of sin, that freedom will not be complete until sin (and its founder and promoter, Satan) is removed from this earth, and the universe is made new—until the kingdom of God is established on the earth. Until this time, the saint will experience suffering and groaning, due to the effects of sin. The earth likewise groans. But in this time of groaning, the Holy Spirit helps us, interceding for us, expressing to God those unutterable things which cannot be put in words (Romans 8:18-27).

But if our salvation is, to some degree, incomplete, awaiting its full manifestation in the kingdom of God, it is nonetheless certain. The final verses of chapter 8 focus on the sovereignty of God and thus the certainty of our salvation. Those whom God has chosen⁵⁷⁴ have their destiny laid out, and they will be saved, and all these will reach that goal for which God has destined them.⁵⁷⁵ God has already made all the plans and the provisions, and thus the realization of His promises are sure. The completion of the salvation for which we still await is sure. When God is for us, there is nothing to prevent us from the full and final experience of His promises. With this confidence, there is nothing left to fear (Romans 8:28-39).

Chapters 9-11 deal with the relationship of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Why is it that so many Jews reject Christ and oppose the gospel? And why is it that the Old Testament promises of salvation through a Jewish Messiah are being welcomed by the Gentiles in greater numbers than the Jews? This is the problem which Paul seeks to explain in Romans 9-11.

The first thing Paul wants to emphasize is that God is in control (sovereign). These things are not happening by chance or through some failure of the plan, but rather they are the outworking of God’s sovereign election. God chooses to save some, and not others. That may be hard to swallow, but it is surely clear. The very objections which Paul raises in chapter 9 are those which would be raised if election were being taught—which it is! God owes no one salvation. If He gave men what they deserved, all would perish. But in His grace, He has chosen to save some. Those who are saved are tokens of His grace. Those who perish are tokens of His wrath. At this point in time, God has chosen to save many more Gentiles and fewer Jews. In His sovereignty, this is His prerogative. It is His purpose. It is all going according to plan.

This is not to say that because God is sovereign, men have no responsibility, no role in the salvation of others. Neither is it to say that the gospel should only be preached to the “elect.” The gospel is a universal offer of salvation to all who believe. And the gospel must be proclaimed in order for men to receive it. Thus, it is the responsibility of men to proclaim the gospel and of the church to send some (like Paul), forth with the gospel. The things which are taking place should come as no surprise, for God foretold Israel’s disobedience and rejection, as well as the salvation of the Gentiles.

God is not finished with Israel, however. He has, for a time, blinded Israel, as a judgment for their rebellion and sin. How Paul must have identified with this blindness. Nevertheless, their “fall” is not final nor fatal, for God’s calling of the nation Israel is irrevocable (11:29). He will finish what He promised and what He has purposed. When God has accomplished His purposes through the Gentiles, He will give sight to this blind people, and they will be saved and serve the purpose for which God called them. Israel’s future is still a bright one, as dim as it might look at present. God will finish what He started with Israel too.

How Paul could identify with this! As previously said, Paul was a kind of personification of this truth. He was a kind of first-fruits of this promise. His salvation was promise of things to come.

Romans 12-16

The final chapters of the Book of Romans have to do with the Christian’s duty to others. All Christians, like Saul, were saved to serve God, as “living sacrifices.” God has given each their own gifts, which they are to use for the edification of others. The principle which should govern our relationships is that of love. God has given the saints specific strengths. These strengths are not to be the occasion for our looking down on those who are weaker but to enable us to minister to the weaknesses of others.

There is much to say about these last chapters, but the point is that Paul believed salvation was to be more than just an individualistic experience; it was to be one which brought men into a proper relationship with God (first) and then with their fellow men. Paul’s relationship with others was radically transformed by his conversion, and so should our own be. The gospel establishes a relationship with God, with His body, the church, and with the world.

How much Paul’s conversion, his own salvation, is reflected in his theology of salvation, as laid down in the Book of Romans. No wonder the conversion of this rebel is given so much attention in the Book of Acts. It is the foundation for many of the epistles—particularly those of Paul.

⁵⁷⁰It is worthy to note that in the Book of Acts, while there are many different “preachers” and a number of accounts of conversions, the gospel is always the same. While Saul’s conversion (and subsequent growth and ministry) was indeed independent of the apostles, his message was the same as theirs. There is but one gospel, that which is consistently preached by all true apostles: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Israel’s Messiah. He came to the earth as man and God, in one Person, manifested God to men, was rejected by them, was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. He died for man’s sins, and all who trust in Him as God’s provision for salvation will be saved.

⁵⁷¹This assumes, correctly in my opinion, that salvation is viewed by Paul and others as something far bigger than merely an initial experience of salvation; it is an introduction to a new life. This is consistent with the invitation of Jesus, which was not only to “believe in Him” (which, of course, is a very important element -- cf. John 6:29), but to “follow Him.”

⁵⁷²Remember that the word “Adam” means “man” (cf. Genesis 2:20, NASB, marginal note).

⁵⁷³Incidentally, this text helps to put the account of Luke in Acts into perspective. Once Paul was saved, the struggle of the Christian life was not instantly over. This struggle (Romans 7), with its solution (Romans 8), is depicted in Romans.

⁵⁷⁴The word here is “foreknown,” which here does not mean, “to know about ahead of time,” but rather “to choose or determine ahead of time.” In Romans 11:2 Paul spoke of Israel as those whom God had “foreknown,” a reference to their election (cf. Romans 9). Of course God knew “about” Israel, but the point is that He knew (= chose, cf. Genesis 18:19) Israel. God would not give up on the people He had chosen. This same sense is found in 1 Peter 1:20, where Christ is said to have been “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Christ was not “known about” by God; He was chosen by God to be the Savior. The word “foreknown” is a reference to God’s sovereignty. What a comfort that is! If our eternal fate rested in our hands (a denial of God’s sovereignty), we would be in desperate straits. But since our fate rests with God, we are secure, for our salvation is secure. That which God began, God will finish (Philippians 1:6).

⁵⁷⁵A word of clarification here about the terms which are found in Romans 8:28-29. Foreknow refers to God’s choice of those whom He will save, whom He will rescue from their sins. Predestined refers to the plan which God lays out for those whom He has chosen. It is like selecting someone to be given a free trip to Hawaii. Foreknowledge would be the selection process. Predestination would be the planning of the trip and the making of the accommodations. The calling is the carrying out of the choice and the plan, the execution of the process. Justification is the payment, the provision for the plan. Glorification is the culmination and the completion of the plan.

III. How We Got the Bible

The Reliability of the Bible

(Most of the material in this section is adapted from a chapter in I’m Glad You Asked by Kenneth Boa and Larry Moody (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1982). Consult this book for answers to the twelve basic objections to Christianity.)

A host of questions can surface when the issue of the accuracy of the Bible is raised:

Isn’t the Bible full of contradictions and errors?

The Bible has been copied and translated so many times--hasn’t this process led to errors?

How can you be sure that the Bible is the same now as when it was written?

Didn’t the church arbitrarily decide which books should be included in the Bible and which books should be rejected?

So many people have different interpretations of the Bible--what makes you think that yours is correct?

How can you place your faith in a book that condones genocide and slavery?

Doesn’t the Bible make a number of claims that are scientifically inaccurate?

In most cases, those who reject the reliability of the Bible do so because of false impressions they have gained from sources other than the Bible. Most people’s knowledge about the Bible is derived almost completely from second-, third-, and fourth-hand sources. It is not surprising, then, that so many people think that the Bible says, “God helps those who help themselves,” or, “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” Many are also convinced that the Scriptures teach that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe. Another common misconception is that the books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe or that our earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries A.D. Also, most people have somehow been given the impression that the English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and that fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process. College courses often undermine the authority of the Bible by falsely claiming that the Old Testament is merely a derivative of earlier Babylonian and Assyrian myths and law codes. People frequently say that the Bible is loaded with contradictions, but very few can think of any when asked. The few who can will usually mention the stock objections they were taught, like the two “contradictory” creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. It is a rare person who has personally examined the text to see if the alleged contradiction is really there.

In many cases, when someone says, “I don’t believe the Bible,” it is helpful to ask, “Do you understand the message of the Bible? Many will acknowledge that they do not, and those who think they do will almost invariably present a distorted picture. You can graciously point this out and say, “I think that you owe it to yourself to have a correct picture of the basic message of the Bible before you decide to accept or reject it.” This can open the door to a clear presentation of the Gospel, and the discussion can go from there. This approach is most appropriate when the objection to the Bible is vague or being used as a smokescreen. If a person has honest intellectual difficulties about the Bible, give direct answers whenever possible. The information in this section is designed to help you do this.

The Reliability of the Biblical Documents

This can be demonstrated by combining three lines of evidence: the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of biblical content.

The Bibliographic Test

This test examines the transmission of the text of the Old and New Testaments from the original autographs to the present day. The three aspects of this test are the quantity, quality, and time span of the manuscripts.

1. The quantity of manuscripts

In the case of the Old Testament, there is a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel’s turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).

The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.

2. The quality of manuscripts

Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed. As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style. While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.

3. The time span of manuscripts

Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them. The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175- 225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.

To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents. It is especially interesting to make specific comparisons between the New Testament and other writings:

AUTHOR	DATE	EARLIEST	TIME SPAN	NUMBER	ACCURACY
Homer	ca. 850 B.C.			643	95%
Herodotus	ca. 450 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 1,350	8	not enough copies
Euripedes	ca. 440 B.C.	ca. A.D. 1100	About 1,500	9	not enough copies
Thucydides	ca. 420 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 1,300 years	8	not enough copies
Plato	ca. 380 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 1,300 years	7	reconstruct
Aristotle	ca. 350 B.C.	ca. A.D. 1100	About 1,400 years	5	reconstruct
Caesar	ca. 60 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 950 years	10	reconstruct
Catullus	ca. 50 B.C.	ca. A.D. 1500	About 1,600 years	3
the Livy	ca. 10 B.C.			20	original
Tacitus	ca. A.D. 100	ca. A.D. 1100	About 1,000 years	20	original
New Testament	ca. A.D. 60	ca. A.D. 130	About 100 years	14,000	99.5%

The Internal Test

The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, “What claims does the Bible make about itself?” This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.

A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, much of the Bible was written by men who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe” (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life . . . that which we have seen and heard we declare to you” (1 John 1:1,3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Pet. 5:1). The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by men who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke’s two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).

The External Test

Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. Notice, for example, the chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel’s first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.). The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extrabiblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gave us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts. We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and secondcentury writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud. The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. The section above on archaeology and the Bible shows that while archaeology does not prove the authority of the Bible, it has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the nineteenth century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the twentieth century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.

Conclusion Concerning Reliability

The Old and New Testaments pass the bibliographic, internal, and external tests like no other ancient books. Most professional archaeologists and historians acknowledge the historicity of the Bible and yet many theologians still embrace prearchaeological critical theories about the Bible. The evidence strongly supports the accuracy of the Bible in relation to history and culture, but in many cases it has been overlooked or rejected because of philosophical presuppositions that run contrary to the Scriptures. This leads to a double standard: critics approach secular literature with one standard but wrongly use a different standard when they examine the Bible. Those who discard the Bible as historically untrustworthy must realize that the same standard would force them to eliminate almost all ancient literature.

We have already seen that Christ cannot be dismissed as a mythical creation of the early church. The evidence supports the historical reliability of the gospel accounts about Jesus. Because of this, a solid case can be built for the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection, in turn, authenticates Jesus’ divine claims about Himself. Because Jesus is God, His testimony concerning the Scriptures is true, and He bore witness to the complete authority of the Word of God. Thus, the historical reliability of the New Testament affirms the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrected Christ affirms the divine authority of the Scriptures.

Uniqueness of the Bible

The argument for the reliability of the biblical documents demonstrates that the Bible is trustworthy. The case is strengthened even more by the uniqueness of the Bible and the beneficial effects of the Bible.

The uniqueness of the Bible supports its claim to be the revealed Word of God. We saw at the beginning of this Companion that the Bible is unique in its production, preservation, proclamations, and product.

The Bible is unique in its production. It is a unity out of diversity, not just an anthology of stories, poetry, and letters. The Bible is a harmonious and continuous message from beginning to end, a self-consistent whole whose main theme is the person and work of Jesus Christ. The scarlet thread of redemption runs from Genesis to Revelation. But consider the incredible diversity which produced such a unity! (1) Diversity of authors. There were more than 40 authors who contributed to the Bible, including a king, a herdsman, a fisherman, and a tax collector. They cover the range from educated to uneducated, from rich to poor. The Bible was written in three languages on three continents under all types of conditions. (2) Time span. The Bible was written over a span of about 1,500 to 1,800 years. (3) Literary form. The Bible includes narrative history, poetry, biography, drama, exposition, letters, parables, prophecies, sermons, narrative stories, and wisdom literature. In spite of this diversity and the controversial topics addressed in the Bible, the books of the Bible can be interwoven into a composite whole. If ten people with similar backgrounds were selected today to write independently on a few controversial topics, the composite result would probably look like a crazy quilt of contradictory concepts.

The Bible is unique in its preservation. We have just seen how the quantity, quality, and time span of the biblical manuscripts set them apart from other ancient literature. The Scriptures have survived through time, persecution, and criticism. There have been numerous attempts to burn, ban, and systematically eliminate the Bible, but all have failed. Critics have often sounded its death knell, but the corpse never stays put. The Bible has been subjected to more abuse, perversion, destructive criticism, and pure hate than any other book. Yet it is an anvil that has worn out many hammers; it continues to stand the test of time while its critics are refuted and forgotten. No other book has enjoyed such popularity--the Bible has been copied and circulated far more extensively than any other book in human history. It has been translated into more languages than any other literature as well (portions now exist in over 1,700 languages).

The Bible is unique in its proclamations. Its prophetic character stands alone in its content, completeness, detail, and accuracy. More than one fourth of the Bible was prophetic at the time of writing. The Bible;s sweeping scope is also unparalleled as it boldly moves from eternity to eternity and touches the heights of heaven and the depths of hell. It is a progressive revelation which outlines God’s plan of the ages for all creatures, including men and angels. Its revelation of God as the triune, infinite, and personal God is unique, and so is its message about man (originally created perfect; the fall; man’s sinfulness) and salvation (faith in Christ, not human merit; directly confronts and solves the problem of sin; God Himself became a man and died to redeem sinners). The Bible’s strong historical emphasis also sets it apart from the scriptures of other religions.

Beneficial Effects of the Bible

The Bible is unique in its product. The message of the Bible has shaped the course of history, thought, and culture in a way unparalleled by any other book. Its influence on the philosophy, morality, law, politics, art, music, literature, education, and religion of Western civilization is beyond estimation. It has also had a phenomenal impact on the lives of untold millions of people through the centuries. Its redemptive message has consistently given help, joy, and meaning to everyone who has personally embraced it.

The German poet Goethe wrote, “Belief in the Bible, the fruit of deep meditation, has served me as the guide of my moral and literary life. I have found it a capital safely invested, and richly productive of interest.” The great philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed, “The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.” And the English philosopher John Locke wrote, “It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter.”

Even if a person acknowledges the reliability of the Bible, he may still have some specific intellectual problems that must be cleared up before he can embrace the authority of the Bible. Most of these obstacles fit in the following seven categories: the problem of inspiration, science and the Bible, ethical problems in the Bible, apparent errors, canonicity, the miracles in the Bible, and interpretation. We will look at the last of these in the section on interpreting the Bible (section V).

The Problem of Inspiration

A person may grant the reliability of the biblical documents but balk at the idea that they are divinely inspired. The Bible’s repeated claim of verbal inspiration by God does not by itself prove such inspiration any more than similar claims made by the Koran or the Book of Mormon prove the inspiration of those books. But if all other lines of evidence point consistently to the reliability of the Bible, the Bible’s selftestimony of divine inspiration must be taken seriously. Similarly, if Jesus Christ fulfilled hundreds of messianic prophecies and rose from the dead, His testimony concerning Himself and the Bible cannot be lightly dismissed.

1. Biblical Claims

Referring to “The law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16), Jesus made this unqualified statement: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). He said that “all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44), and that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35; also see Matt. 4:4; 5:17- 18; 15:4). Paul also affirmed that the Scriptures are “God-breathed” (inspired): “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16; also see 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 3:16). Peter referred to this divine-human nature of Scripture when he wrote, “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21; also see 3:16).

2. Fulfilled Prophecy

No other book in the world contains the kind of specific prophecies found all throughout the pages of the Bible. There is no comparison, for example, between the Oracles of Nostradamus and the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ. Other so-called prophecies are so vague and cryptic that they could be “fulfilled” in any number of ways. But the prophecies of the Old Testament are often so detailed that their fulfillments were obvious--so clear, in fact, that many critics have attempted to assign later dates to some of these prophets (e.g., Isaiah 40-66 and Daniel) to make the prophecies come after the events. The Old Testament prophets gave both short- and long-term prophecies, so that the undisputed fulfillment of the short-term predictions would authenticate the validity of the long-term predictions which could not be verified for many years. Thus, God designed fulfilled prophecy to be an open demonstration of the divine origin of the Scriptures.

Messianic prophecy

Messianic prophecy is quite specific, yet it was all written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. (the Septuagint), so it is obvious that the Hebrew Bible was written before this time. When these messianic prophecies are combined, the prophetic doorway becomes so narrow that only one person can fit through. Some 300 Old Testament predictions were literally fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, and these messianic predictions make no sense apart from His life. A messianic impostor might have been able to engineer the fulfillment of a few of these prophecies, but the vast majority would be beyond his reach. Jesus’ sinless character, miraculous ministry, and resurrection could be matched by none other than the Messiah. Jesus knew the Scriptures thoroughly and frequently claimed that the whole Hebrew Bible (“the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms,” Luke 24:44) pointed ahead to Him. “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27; also see Matt. 5:17; 11:10; 21:42; 26:56; Luke 4:20-21; 22:37; John 5:39,46-47; 15:25). The New Testament writers likewise claim that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies. “Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ’” (Acts 17:2-3; also see Acts 2:24-36; 3:18; 8:32-35; 10:43; 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Heb. 1:8-9,13; 10:5-17; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2:6-8). The most explicit and powerful of all messianic prophecies is Isaiah 52:13-53:12, written seven centuries before the birth of Christ. This song of the Suffering Servant reveals that Messiah would suffer sinlessly (53:4-6,9), silently (53:7), and as a substitute to bear the sins of others (53:5-6,8,10-12). Messiah will be scourged, pierced, “cut off from the land of the living,” and placed in a rich man’s grave at His death. But after His death He will be “exalted and extolled” (52:13). This is a clear portrait of the rejection, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. (Jewish scholars since the twelfth century have attempted to identify the Servant of this passage with Israel, but the nation is distinguished from the Servant in 53:8, and Israel never suffered sinlessly nor silently as this Servant does.) The following list of Old Testament predictions and New Testament fulfillments regarding the life of Christ demonstrate how thoroughly His coming was foretold:

1. Born of a woman (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 4:4).

2. Born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25).

3. A descendant of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:18; Matt. 1:1; Gal. 3:16).

4. From the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; Luke 3:23,33).

5. Of the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12; Jer. 23:5; Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32).

6. Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4-7).

7. His way prepared by a forerunner (Isa. 40:3-5; Mal. 3:1; Matt. 3:1-3; Luke 3:3-6).

8. Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2; Matt. 3:16-17).

9. Preaching ministry (Isa. 61:1-3; Luke 4:17-21).

10. Speaking in parables (Ps. 78:2-4; Matt. 13:34-35).

11. Healing ministry (Isa. 35:5-6; Matt. 9:35).

12. A prophet (Deut. 18:18; John 6:14; Acts 3:20-22).

13. A priest (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:5-6).

14. Time of His appearance and death (Dan. 9:24-27: Luke 19:44).

15. Triumphal entry (Zech. 9:9; John 12:12-16).

16. Betrayal price (Zech. 11:12-13; Matt. 26:15; 27:7-10).

17. Abandoned by His disciples (Zech. 13:6-7; Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:50).

18. Silent before His accusers (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12-14).

19. Beaten and spat upon (Isa. 50:6; Matt. 26:67).

20. Mocked (Ps. 22:7-8; Luke 23:35).

21. Hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22:16; John 19:16-18).

22. Crucified with transgressors (Isa. 53:12; Mark 15:27-28).

23. Lots cast for His garments (Ps. 22:18; John 19:23-24).

24. Cry from the cross (Ps 22:1; Matt. 27:46).

25. No bones broken (Ps. 34:20; John 19:31-36).

26. Pierced in His side (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34,37).

27. Buried with the rich (Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60).

28. Resurrection and exaltation (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 52:13; 53:10-12; Acts 2:25-32).

29. Ascension into heaven (Ps. 68:18; Acts 1:9; Eph. 4:8).

30. Seated at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1; Heb. 1:3).

General prophecy

Nonmessianic or general prophecy also supports the supernatural origin of the Scriptures. In many cases these prophecies are so graphic and accurate that higher criticism has assigned dates to some books and portions of books that are later than those claimed by the books themselves, because they assume that such prophecy is not possible. The accumulating evidence is generally in favor of the earlier dates, but even if we grant the later dates, many powerful examples of prediction and fulfillment in Old Testament prophecy remain.

Ezekiel’s prediction of the destruction of Tyre (Ezek. 26) claims to have been given in the sixth century B.C., but higher critics date it in the fifth century B.C. According to this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar would besiege and destroy the city (26:7-11), many nations would come against it (26:3), the ruins would be scraped from the site and thrown into the sea, leaving a bare rock (26:4,12,19), the site would become a place for fishermen to spread their nets (26:5,14), and the city would never be built again (26:13-14). These specific predictions have been fulfilled in surprising detail. The ancient city of Tyre was a prominent Phoenician seaport that consisted of two parts, one on the mainland at the coast, and the other on an island about a half mile off the coast. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the mainland city for 13 years (585-573 B.C.) and finally destroyed it, but the island city remained intact. This remaining portion continued until Alexander the Great overthrew it in 333 B.C. by building a causeway from the coast to the island. To build this causeway, he literally scraped the ruins and debris from the old mainland site (26:4) and threw them “in the midst of the water” (26:12). This left the old site “like the top of a rock” (26:4). “Many nations” (26:3) came against the restored island city, including the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, the Romans, the Moslems, and the Crusaders. But the mainland city was never rebuilt (26:14), and today it remains a bare rock upon which fishermen spread their nets to dry (26:5,14).

Other remarkable examples of the accuracy of Old Testament prophecies include the details about the overthrow of Nineveh (Nahum 1-3), Babylon (Isa. 13-14; Jer. 51), Ammon and Moab (Jer. 48-49; Ezek. 25), Philistia (Jer. 47; Zeph. 2), Edom (Isa. 34; Jer. 49; Ezek. 25; 35), Memphis and Thebes (Ezek. 30), and the desolation and restoration of Palestine (Lev. 26; Ezek. 36).

The biblical claims for its divine inspiration, combined with the forceful evidence of fulfilled messianic and general prophecy, make a strong case for the inspiration of Scripture, especially when these lines of evidence are built upon the case for the historical reliability of the biblical documents developed earlier in this section.

The Problem of Science and the Bible

The most frequently raised scientific issue is the question of evolution. Everyone who believes the Bible accepts the fact that God is the Creator of the universe. But while evangelicals agree on the who, they do not all agree on the how of creation. Many believe that this is a young earth and that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. Others believe that these days are figurative, and that God directly intervened at various points in the long evolutionary process. The question here is not who is right, but how to deal with the issue of evolution when the non-Christian raises it as an objection to the existence of God or the reliability of the Genesis creation account. The most basic issue is nontheistic evolution versus creation by God, not the age of the earth.

The nontheistic evolutionary model assumes that nonliving systems generated life by means of time plus chance, and that microevolution (small changes) leads to macroevolution (large changes, as in the microbe-to-man theory). The philosophical problem with this model is that it makes the effects (complexity, life, intelligence, personality) greater than the causes (disorder, nonlife, random interactions and mutations, and impersonal events).

There are also scientific problems with nontheistic evolution. It offers no workable mechanism that will account for the first living cell, let alone the complexity of the human brain.

The chemical production of a first living cell would have to follow this sequence: (1) Random atoms must be formed into amino acids. (2) These amino acids must link together to form chains (polypeptides). (3) These chains must become long (hundreds of amino acids) and they must form in an ordered sequence, since there are 20 kinds of amino acids. This will produce a simple protein molecule. (4) More complex proteins must be produced. (5) Very long and highly ordered molecular chains known as DNA must be formed and maintained. (6) An enormously complex chemical factory must be produced, complete with special protein formations, enzymes, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a cell wall, etc. This single cell must be able to reproduce itself and carry on all the functions of life. Without a rational ordering agent, every step but the first would require nothing short of a statistical miracle, even under the most ideal circumstances. Many people argue that, given enough time, even the most improbable events become probable. This sounds reasonable only until specific numbers are used. Consider George Bernard Shaw’s argument that if a million monkeys constantly typed on a million typewriters for a long enough time, one of them would eventually pound out a Shakespearean play. Assume a million monkeys typing 24 hours a day at 100 words a minute on typewriters with 40 keys. If each word of the play contained four letters, the first word would be typed by one of the monkeys in about 12 seconds. However, it would require about five days to get the first two words (eight letters) on one of the typewriters. How long would it take to get the first four words? About 100 billion years! No one could imagine the amount of time which would be required to produce the first scene.

Beginning with the first step, many evolutionists assume a primordial earthly atmosphere with no oxygen so that amino acids could be formed. However, the very atmosphere that could produce them would immediately lead to their destruction (due to ultraviolet light penetrating this oxygen-free atmosphere) unless they were protected. Unfounded assumptions must be multiplied to overcome this problem.

On the next level, let us assume an ideal environment with a primordial soup full of amino acids and the proper catalysts, with just the right temperature and moisture. Some estimate that under these favorable conditions the chances of getting dipeptides (two amino acids bonded) would be about one in 100. But the chances of tripeptide formation would be about one in 10,000. To get a polypeptide of only ten amino acids, the probability would be one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 quintillion). Yet the proteins in the simplest living things have chains of at least 400 amino acids on the average.

To make matters worse, all proteins are built of amino acids that are exclusively “left-handed” in their molecular orientation. Left-handed and right handed amino acids are mirror images of each other, and their chances of formation are about the same. Although both kinds can link with each other, the first living systems must have been built with left-handed components only. Some scientists have evoked natural selection here, but this only applies to systems that can already reproduce themselves. Without an intelligent ordering agent, we have only chance to explain this amazing phenomenon. For a chain of 400 left-handed amino acids, the odds would be roughly equivalent to tossing an ordinary coin and coming up with tails 400 times in a row. The chances for that would be approximately one in 10¹²⁰ (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes). All this for one protein molecule, and hundreds of similar molecules would be needed in the first living system.

None of this accounts for the fact that the 20 kinds of amino acids operate like letters in an alphabet, and they must link in a meaningful sequence to form a usable protein. A random sequence of amino acids would be utterly useless. DNA is far more complex than any of this, and it too is built out of a highly organized alphabet. The letters are molecules called nucleotides. A cell contains a chain of about three billion pairs of these nucleotides (each gene has about 1,200 nucleotide pairs). The order of these nucleotides or bases is crucial because every triplet of bases along this immense chain is a word. Each word stands for one of the 20 kinds of amino acids. Using these words the DNA can literally create any kind of protein that the cell needs.

The amount of time required to synthesize even one gene (a paragraph of these words) has been calculated by some scientists using absurdly generous assumptions. Using a variation on a well-known illustration, suppose a bird came once every billion years and removed only one atom from a stone the size of the solar system. The amount of time required for the stone to be worn to nothing would be negligible compared to the time needed to create a useful gene by chance, even accounting for chemical affinities and an ideal environment. Shaw’s monkeys would long since have pounded out the words of Shakespeare!

But none of this can compare to the far greater complexity of a living cell. Even the simplest living system would require elaborately coded information, growth, reproduction, stability, adaptability, environmental response, and metabolism. Yet evolutionists demand spontaneous generation of life through chemical interaction because they think the only other option would be a miracle. In reality, a miracle cannot be avoided. The only question is whether life appeared out of the primordial soup or by the living God.

In addition, none of the above considers the fact that every chemical reaction along the way from amino acids to life is reversible. This means that whenever a higher point of complexity is reached, it is unstable compared to its environment and may break down into its components. A polypeptide bond of four amino acids can easily break down into four separate amino acids.

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that all natural processes cause a net increase in entropy (disorder) and a net loss of useful energy. Any system left to itself will decay and degenerate. Free energy from the sun can cause slight increases in complexity, but the breakdown rate soon matches the buildup rate. The only way to build structures as complex as protein is to have an already existing machine that can translate raw energy into a more highly organized form. Solar energy may be plentiful, but it is useless for building complex systems unless such systems already exist. Life comes only from life, complexity only from complexity. Faith in an original spontaneous generation of life goes against all experience and evidence. It has been said that “teleology is a lady without whom no biologist can exist; yet he is ashamed to be seen with her in public.” Design requires a designer, and this is precisely what is lacking in nontheistic evolution. Of course, the subject of evolution entails other matters such as mutations and natural selection, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and fossil men. These are not trivial matters, but the most basic issue is that the impersonal mechanism of evolution will not by itself produce life or personality. Whether or not God superintended any kind of evolutionary process is an entirely different issue, and those who accept the Genesis creation account are divided on this matter. Scientists who acknowledge the authority of Scripture do not have a uniform view of the age of the earth, and they interpret the fossil evidence and the geological strata in different ways. On the other hand, the speculations of some nontheistic evolutionists sometimes stretch beyond the limits of the scientific method as they conceive scenarios that are clearly contrary to the biblical world view. Forgetting the tentative nature of science, they make confident assertions about the genesis of life and man. But even if a theory demonstrates how something might have happened, this is a far cry from proving that it really did happen this way.

We must also remember that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but when it does touch on scientific matters, it has proven to be trustworthy. In the past, two problems have contributed to misunderstanding about the scientific validity of the Bible. The first is the erroneous scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible by the church. The most notable error is the teaching that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. Some writers delight in referring to the trial of Galileo for his “heretical” notion that the sun may be the center of the solar system, but the Bible cannot be blamed for this blunder. The second cause of misunderstanding is that the Bible uses phenomenological language. That is, it describes nature as it appears to the eye. Thus, it speaks of sunrises and sunsets (“Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end; and there is nothing hidden from its heat,” Ps. 19:6). But this does not teach that the sun rotates about the earth any more than today’s scientist means this when he uses the term “sunrise” and “sunset.” Others say that the Bible is in error because it says that pi is equal to 3 instead of 3.14. They base this on 1 Kings 7:23 where a laver ten cubits in diameter is given a circumference of 30 cubits. Comparing 7:23 with 7:26, however, it appears that the circumference was measured by using the inside diameter. The biblical phrase “the four corners of the earth” has been misunderstood to mean that the earth is flat with four literal corners. But Scripture uses this phrase figuratively, referring to all directions (Isa. 11:12; Ezek. 7:2; Rev. 7:1; 20:8).

When the Bible makes positive statements about the workings of nature, it is quite accurate, often running contrary to the erroneous concepts that were held in the time it was written. Job 36:27-29 gives an excellent description of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. The statement about the earth in Job 26:7 was also far ahead of its time: “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Other biblical statements about astronomy, biology, and medicine (e.g., the quarantine and sanitary laws of Leviticus) are equally remarkable.

Ethical Problems in the Bible

Two of the major ethical difficulties people have with the Bible are genocide and slavery. The Bible presents the greatest set of ethical standards the world has ever known, focusing on love for God and one’s neighbor. This makes God’s genocidal command to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Canaan in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 (cf. Josh. 6:21) especially perplexing. There is no simple solution to this problem, but it can be substantially reduced by looking at it from several biblical perspectives: (1) It is easy to become so earthbound in our view of life that we forget that the author and giver of life has every right to take it away. (2) The sixth commandment is best translated “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). This did not prohibit the taking of human life in fulfillment of the divine command for social justice in Israel (capital punishment) or for national defense. (3) The command to annihilate another nation (the Canaanites) was completely unique in Israel’s history. (4) Israel at this time was a theocracy, and there is no parallel for this in world history. (5) As a redeemed nation, the children of Israel were to be distinct from all other nations. The idolatry and immorality of the Canaanites would have defiled them if Israel coexisted with them (Deut. 20:18). (6) God used the Israelites as His rod of judgment upon the Canaanites because of their gross immorality and wickedness. Archaeological discoveries confirm that Canaan at this time was overrun with religious prostitution, infant sacrifice, bestiality, and other abominations. Thus, the seeming cruel removal of the unrepentant Canaanites was not unlike the removal of a cancerous tumor.

Concerning the problem of slavery, here are three observations: (1) Slavery as we now understand it is quite different from the kind of slavery permitted in the Bible. Slaves were to be treated with human dignity and respect (Job 31:13-15), and if their masters violated their basic rights or abused them, they were to be set free (Exod. 21:26-27). If a slave ran away from his master, he was not to be mistreated or even returned (Deut. 23:15-16). Slaves were also allowed to participate in Israel’s worship. (2) The institution of this system of slavery was a cultural phenomenon, designed to make the perpetuation of the patriarchal family unit economically feasible. This is foreign to our own culture, but it would be wrong to absolutize our own cultural values. (3) Although the New Testament also allowed for slavery, the epistles make it clear that all believers have an equal standing before the Father (Gal. 3:28). The reality of Christ was to transform every human relationship, and Christian principles cried out against the abuses of slavery. Some people are troubled about the wrath of God and blood sacrifices. God is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a holy and righteous God. These divine attributes are found from Genesis to Revelation, and they are complementary, not contradictory. His love is a holy love, and His wrath is never capricious but always directed against sin and its dehumanizing results. The values of our society have become so diluted and distorted that the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin have become foreign concepts to many. Concerning blood sacrifices, the New Testament makes it clear that they all pointed ahead to Christ, the Lamb of God sacrificed for the sins of the world. His crucifixion provided the greatest demonstration of both the love and the wrath of God that will ever be known.

The Problem of Apparent Errors

Almost all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible are due to differences in the perspective of the biblical writers when there is more than one account of a particular event. Close examination consistently reveals that the accounts supplement one another and that they can be harmonized. We see this in the alleged discrepancy in the gospels concerning the number of angels at Jesus’ tomb. Matthew and Mark report that one was there, but Luke and John speak of two. But if two angels were there, certainly one was there, and the one mentioned by Matthew and Mark was evidently more prominent. This is an example of selective reporting (all reporting is selective), and the same thing happens in other places (e.g., Mark and Luke mention only one demoniac who met Jesus near Gadara, but Matthew mentions two).

Another favorite example of a biblical contradiction relates to Genesis 1 and 2. Some claim these are two contradictory creation accounts, but they can be harmonized when we notice two things: (1) Genesis 1 is a general survey of the six days of creation, and Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation. (2) The name Elohim is used consistently in Genesis 1, because it emphasizes God’s work as Creator, while the name Yahweh is used throughout Genesis 2 to underline the covenant relationship He establishes with man. There are three basic causes for apparent errors in the Bible: sources, text, and interpretation.

(1) The biblical and extrabiblical sources are incomplete, and this can lead to the appearance of error. The section above on archaeology and the Bible illustrates how the Bible appeared to be in error regarding such things as the Hittite empire, Belshazzar as king of Babylon, and the Philistines in the patriarchal period. Until these biblical statements were confirmed by archaeological discoveries, it appeared that the Bible was in error. The problems were caused by incomplete sources, not biblical deficiency.

(2) Errors have crept into the biblical text through scribal mistakes and modernization. For example, 1 Kings 4:26 states that “Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots,” but 2 Chronicles 9:25 says that “Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots.” The exaggerated figure in 1 Kings is a common type of scribal error due to similarity in numerical notation (also compare 2 Sam. 10:18 with 1 Chron. 19:18).

(3) Faulty interpretation of the biblical text and extrabiblical data can also cause the appearance of error. The King James Version of 2 Kings 23:29, for example wrongly interpreted the Hebrew text to mean that Pharaoh Neco of Egypt “went up against” the king of Assyria. The text simply says “went up to,” and this agrees with the Assyrian records which say that he went up to aid the Assyrians against the Babylonians. (Keep in mind that our English Bibles are direct translations from the original languages. A comparison of several translations often helps one gain a clearer understanding of the text.)

It would be wrong to say that all biblical discrepancies have been resolved, for a small number of problems still remain. But the increasing historical and archaeological evidence has consistently been in favor of the Scriptures, and these problems should continue to diminish.

The Problem of Canonicity

How can you be sure that the people who decided which books should be included in the Bible were right? Couldn’t the church councils have been mistaken? This objection reflects a misunderstanding about the nature of canonicity. The word canon means rule or standard, and it came to be used of the collection of books that conform to the standard of divine inspiration. Inspiration determines canonicity; the early church simply recognized these inspired books and rejected those books which did not bear the mark of inspiration. Thus, the church discovered the canonical books but did not determine them.

The canonical books of the Old Testament were divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44), and these had been recognized long before the time of Christ. Some books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were disputed for certain reasons by a few rabbis, but the rabbinic council at Jamnia in A.D. 90 confirmed these long-recognized books. Some confusion was caused when, at some point, the Apocryphal books were added to the Septuagint, but these were not regarded as canonical by the Jews or the early Christian church. Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus never quoted from them, and neither did Jesus or any of the New Testament writers. It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 (during the Counter-Reformation) that the Roman Catholic Church gave full canonical status to the Apocrypha.

The Apocryphal books were written more than 200 years after the time of Malachi, the last Old Testament prophet. Unlike the books of the Old Testament, they do not claim to have the prophetic stamp, and they do not manifest the authority and power of God. They are marred by doctrinal errors, subbiblical morality, and historical inaccuracies, and they were not originally received by the people of God. The New Testament canonical books were progressively circulated and collected, and these 27 books were given official recognition by the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). All of these books passed the test of apostolic origin (e.g., Mark was an associate of Peter and Luke was an associate of Paul), apostolic date (first century), and apostolic doctrine.

The Problem of Miracles

This relates to the problem of science and the Bible because many object to the miracles of the Bible on scientific grounds. One objection is that miracles violate or contradict natural laws. However, it would be more accurate to say that since miracles are empowered by something higher than nature, they supersede the ordinary processes or laws of nature. Just as an airplane flies because the principle of aerodynamics overcomes the law of gravity, so a higher (supernatural) principle overcomes a lower (natural) principle for the duration of the miracle. Another objection is that miracles would destroy the regularity of nature. The scientific method is built upon the assumption that we live in an orderly universe. But if divine interventions can take place at any time, anything can happen, and order is replaced by confusion. This objection is based on a misunderstanding of the biblical teaching on miracles. The Bible affirms that the universe is orderly because it has been created and sustained by an intelligent Designer. God has instituted what we call the laws of nature, but He is not bound by them. He sometimes chooses to supersede them in order to reveal something about Himself to man. An examination of the Bible, however, shows that these sovereign interventions or miracles are unusual, not commonplace events. In fact, a miracle by its very nature must be a unique event that stands out against a background of ordinary and regular occurrences. Thus, it is just as devastating to the concept of miracles to believe that we are surrounded by them as to say that there are no such things. Because miracles are accomplished by a supernatural agency, there is no natural explanation for how they happen. But our inability to explain them certainly does not mean, therefore, that they cannot take place. The real issue is whether God exists. If so, miracles are possible. Granted the existence of God, the issue is not scientific or philosophical (can miracles happen?), but historical (have miracles happened?). The best historical evidence for miracles is the work of Jesus Christ, especially the miracle of His resurrection from the dead. All the attempts to find naturalistic explanations for the historical facts related to the resurrection have failed. The direct evidence concerning the tomb and the appearances, combined with the circumstantial evidence like the changed lives of the disciples, make a strong case for the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptures do not give us details about how God caused the ten plagues to ravage Egypt, nor do they tell us how Jesus turned the water into wine or how He raised the dead. But it is clear that a supernatural agency was involved, and if God created the universe, He is certainly capable of accomplishing these things in the enactment of His redemptive purpose. Thus God could easily appoint a sea creature and arrange to have it near the ship at the time Jonah was thrown into the Mediterranean Sea. There is no basis or need to allegorize the account of Jonah. Certain whales and sharks are capable of swallowing a man whole, and a few people have actually had such an experience and lived to tell about it. (James Bartley, for example, was removed alive from the gullet of a sperm whale in 1891 a day and a half after being swallowed. The whale had overturned Bartley’s harpooning boat and his shipmates presumed he had drowned.) Whether God used an existing creature or created a new one for the purpose of delivering His prophet Jonah is irrelevant, for God has the power to do both.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)

The Spiritual Feast of Fasting (Isaiah 58:1-12)

Related Media

This is an audio-only sermon on fasting.

Passage: Isaiah 58:1-12

A Christmas Message in an Unexpected Text -- Fasting and the Incarnation (Isaiah 58-61; Matthew 2; Philippians 2:1-8)

Related Media

December 19, 2004¹

Introduction

I should probably begin by explaining the process by which this message came about. I had been invited to speak at the National Missions Conference of the Indian Evangelical Mission in Nasik, Maharashtra, India. The theme of the convention was “Prayer and Fasting.” I chose to focus on the topic of fasting, a subject and practice which has been somewhat “foreign” to me. My third and final message was from Isaiah chapter 58, a passage which I had come to look upon as perhaps the most definitive text on fasting in the entire Bible.

In teaching that message I had to grapple with something that had always puzzled me. I could not see the relationship between the first 12 verses of Isaiah 58 and the 2 concluding verses (vss. 13-14). What did observing the Sabbath have to do with fasting? The answer came to me as I was preparing to speak at that missions conference in India. It was not until I returned home from my travels in Asia that I began to see the connection between Isaiah 58 and the following chapters in Isaiah. This led me to a further connection with Matthew’s account of our Lord’s birth and Paul’s teaching on the incarnation. Imagine it – a Christmas message that starts in an Old Testament passage on fasting and keeping the Sabbath!

I am going to ask for your indulgence as I attempt to teach this lesson, because these connections between Isaiah 58, fasting, and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will not be immediately apparent. It is my intention to demonstrate these connections by the end of this lesson.²

Let us first read the passage:

1 “Shout loudly! Don’t be quiet!
Yell as loud as a trumpet!
Confront my people with their rebellious deeds;
confront Jacob’s family with their sin!

2 They seek me day after day;
they want to know my requirements,
like a nation that does what is right
and does not reject the law of their God.
They ask me for just decrees;
they want to be near God.
3 They lament, ‘Why don’t you notice when we fast?
Why don’t you pay attention when we humble ourselves?’
Look, at the same time you fast,
you satisfy your selfish desires,
you oppress your workers.
4 Look, your fasting is accompanied by arguments, brawls,
and fist fights.
Do not fast as you do today,
trying to make your voice heard in heaven.
5 Is this really the kind of fasting I want?
Do I want a day when people just humble themselves,
bowing their heads like a reed
and stretching out on sackcloth and ashes?
Is this really what you call a fast,
a day that is pleasing to the Lord?

6 No, this is the kind of fast I want.
I want you to remove the sinful chains,
to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke,
to set free the oppressed,
and to break every burdensome yoke.
7 I want you to share your food with the hungry
and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people.
When you see someone naked, clothe him!
Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood!
8 Then your light will shine like the sunrise;
your restoration will quickly arrive;
your godly behavior will go before you,
and the Lord’s splendor will be your rear guard.
9 Then you will call out, and the Lord will respond;
you will cry out, and he will reply, ‘Here I am.’
You must remove the burdensome yoke from among you
and stop pointing fingers and speaking sinfully.
10 You must actively help the hungry and feed the oppressed.
Then your light will dispel the darkness,
and your darkness will be transformed into noonday
11 The Lord will continually lead you;
he will feed you even in parched regions.
He will give you renewed strength,
and you will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring that continually produces water.
12 Your perpetual ruins will be rebuilt;
you will reestablish the ancient foundations.
You will be called, ‘The one who repairs broken walls,
the one who makes the streets livable again.’

13 You must observe the Sabbath
rather than doing anything you want on my holy day.
You must look forward to the Sabbath
and treat the Lord’s holy day with respect.
You must treat it with respect by refraining from your normal activities,
and by refraining from your selfish pursuits and from making business deals.
14 Then you will find joy in your relationship to the Lord,
and I will give you great prosperity,
and cause crops to grow on the land I gave to your ancestor Jacob.”
Know for certain that the Lord has spoken (Isaiah 58:1-14, NET Bible).³

The Structure of the Text

Verse 1 sets the stage for the reader. It informs us that this chapter will be an indictment against Israel on account of her sins. This is an especially important fact when we come to verses 2-5. If not read in the light of verse 1, verses 2-5 could be viewed as a description of sincere religious devotion in the form of fasting. Now we know that there must be something very wrong, very sinful, with Israel’s fasting. We should be looking for the explanation of this in verses 2-5. Indeed, we will find out why Israel’s fasting was offensive to God. Verses 6-12, on the other hand, go on to describe the kind of fasting which is pleasing to God. Verses 13 and 14 then turn to the subject of observing the Sabbath. We can outline the argument of Isaiah 58 in this way:

Verse 1	God indicts Israel for her sins
Verses 2-5	Phony Fasting: Fasting which offends God
Verses 6-12	The kind of fasting in which God delights (and to which He responds)
Verses 13-14	The Sabbath and fasting

Isaiah 58:1
Israel is Confronted Because of Her Sin

“Shout loudly! Don’t be quiet!
Yell as loud as a trumpet!
Confront my people with their rebellious deeds;
confront Jacob’s family with their sin! (Isaiah 58:1)

Verse 1 is important because it sets the theme and the tone for the entire chapter (and beyond). The first verse informs the reader that this chapter is an indictment of Israel for her sins. The hypocrisy of Israel’s religious rituals is soon to be revealed. The nation’s sins in relation to fasting and the Sabbath are the reason why her prayers remain unanswered. This chapter is a call to repentance, not an exhortation to try harder. This is a very important observation as we approach verses 2-5, because they could otherwise easily be misunderstood.

Isaiah 58:2-5
Phony Fasting

2 They seek me day after day;
they want to know my requirements,
like a nation that does what is right
and does not reject the law of their God.
They ask me for just decrees;
they want to be near God.
3 They lament, ‘Why don’t you notice when we fast?
Why don’t you pay attention when we humble ourselves?’
Look, at the same time you fast,
you satisfy your selfish desires,
you oppress your workers.
4 Look, your fasting is accompanied by arguments, brawls,
and fist fights.
Do not fast as you do today,
trying to make your voice heard in heaven.
5 Is this really the kind of fasting I want?
Do I want a day when people just humble themselves,
bowing their heads like a reed
and stretching out on sackcloth and ashes?
Is this really what you call a fast,
a day that is pleasing to the Lord? (Isaiah 58:2-5, emphasis mine)

Rightly understanding verse 2 is crucial to the interpretation and application of our text. While the NET Bible renders it precisely, it is possible for the reader to miss the subtle meaning that is conveyed here. A look at this verse in the NIV may prove helpful:

² For day after day they seek me out;
they seem eager to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that does what is right
and has not forsaken the commands of its God (NIV, emphasis mine).

The New Living Translation (NLT) of verse 2 is even more of a paraphrase, but it certainly conveys the sense of the text:

² Yet they act so pious!
They come to the Temple every day and seem delighted to hear my laws.
You would almost think this was a righteous nation that would never abandon its God.
They love to make a show of coming to me and asking me to take action on their behalf (NLT, emphasis mine).

The first sin that God exposes with regard to Israel’s fasting is hypocrisy. They wish to appear pious, but they are not. Israel was play acting; their religious celebrations were not genuine. They sought to give the impression that their hearts were right with God, and that they were sincerely seeking to know His will, so that they could walk in it. As one reads these verses in Isaiah, he cannot help but think of our Lord’s words of warning regarding the rituals of alms-giving, prayer, and fasting in Matthew 6:1-18. I am also reminded of Jeremiah 42:1-43:7, where the army officers who remained in Judah sought to learn God’s will from Jeremiah, with assurances that they would obey His instructions. But when they heard God’s word through Jeremiah they rejected it, fleeing to Egypt and forcing the prophet to go with them.

Israel’s fasting accompanied their prayers for national restoration and blessing, but these prayers were not answered. The Israelites protested, because they assumed that God was obliged to answer prayers that were offered with fasting:

3 They lament, ‘Why don’t you notice when we fast?
Why don’t you pay attention when we humble ourselves?’ (Isaiah 58:3a)

Israel’s fasting was manipulative, as well as hypocritical. They assumed that any prayer offered with fasting must be answered. Fasting was a way to get God to do what they wanted. But God did not give them what they prayed for, and they felt cheated. Why was God ignoring their petitions? In the following verses God answers their question, explaining why their fasting is not only phony, but futile:

Look, at the same time you fast,
you satisfy your selfish desires,
you oppress your workers.
4 Look, your fasting is accompanied by arguments, brawls,
and fist fights (Isaiah 58:3b-4a)

We used to use the expression, “Heads I win; tails you lose.” That certainly applies to Israel’s fasting. You would assume that when one fasts they do without food. That did not seem to be the case with Israel. Isaiah indicates that while fasting they were satisfying their selfish desires. That is hypocrisy. The appearance is that they are sacrificially doing without food; the reality is that they are satisfying themselves. Appearances don’t match reality. One gets the impression that the external indications of fasting were worn publicly as a badge of spirituality and sincerity, while privately food is ingested in abundance. Let’s just say that these Israelites weren’t losing any wait as a result of their prayer vigils.

It may be that Israel’s hypocrisy is a bit more subtle. The prophet indicts Israel because they “satisfy their selfish desires” at the same time that they fast. That is, they indulge themselves at the same time they are doing without. It may be that they are doing without one thing, while indulging in some other pleasure. One could, for example, satisfy a deep desire for self-approval and praise by actually giving up food, but in such a way as to gain the approval and applause of others -- something he desires even more than food. I suspend one fleshly appetite in order to indulge in another, which is hardly what fasting is about.

Israel’s sin is worse than simple hypocrisy, as the last part of verse 3 indicates. Those who were fasting were satisfying their own desires while at the same time their workers were suffering oppression. I believe that Isaiah is telling us that those who fasted were gaining at the expense of their workers. They were seeking God’s blessings by prayer and painless fasting, while at the same time they were oppressing their own workers. How could they ask God to give, while they were taking from those who needed it most?

It only gets worse as you continue to read the indictment against Israel. Their fasting is hypocritical; it is also detrimental to others (their workers). In addition, it somehow results in violence – in fist fights. How could this be? Let me pose a hypothetical example. Let’s suppose that I owned a large company, with many day laborers. I declare a “week of prayer and fasting,” asking for God’s blessings on my company. I shut down the company for a week. During that week I take my family on a vacation, where we “live it up.” But during that week my employees go without pay, because they cannot work. My workers become so enraged that they literally riot, and thus all kinds of violence results. My “week of prayer and fasting” is harmful to others, profitable for me, and repulsive to God.

The last thing that is wrong with Israel’s fasting is that it was merely an outward ritual, without the reality. Fasting is a symbolic act, and thus the ritualistic act may be an empty one if the heart is not reflected by the ritual. Fasting is a symbolic profession of humility and dependence upon God, but God said that Israel’s rituals lacked reality:

5 Is this really the kind of fasting I want?
Do I want a day when people just humble themselves,
bowing their heads like a reed
and stretching out on sackcloth and ashes?
Is this really what you call a fast,
a day that is pleasing to the Lord? (Isaiah 58:5)

When we turn to our Lord’s indictment of ritualistic fasting, prayer, and alms giving in Matthew chapter 6, His words serve as a commentary on our text in Isaiah 58:

16 “When you fast, do not look sullen like the hypocrites, for they make their faces unattractive so that people will see them fasting. I tell you the truth, they have their reward. 17 When you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others when you are fasting, but only to your Father who is in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:16-18).

We are also reminded of our Lord’s scorching words against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Matthew chapter 23:

27 “Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

And so according to our text Israel’s fasting was phony in three ways. First, it was not really a time of self-denial, but a time of self-satisfaction. Second, fasting was done at the expense of others. Third, fasting was an empty external ritual, without any of the reality it was intended to symbolize. No wonder God did not answer the prayers that accompanied this kind of fasting.

The Kind of Fasting God Desires
Isaiah 58:6-12

6 No, this is the kind of fast I want.
I want you to remove the sinful chains,
to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke,
to set free the oppressed,
and to break every burdensome yoke.
7 I want you to share your food with the hungry
and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people.
When you see someone naked, clothe him!
Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood!
8 Then your light will shine like the sunrise;
your restoration will quickly arrive;
your godly behavior will go before you,
and the Lord’s splendor will be your rear guard.
9 Then you will call out, and the Lord will respond;
you will cry out, and he will reply, ‘Here I am.’
You must remove the burdensome yoke from among you
and stop pointing fingers and speaking sinfully.
10 You must actively help the hungry and feed the oppressed.
Then your light will dispel the darkness,
and your darkness will be transformed into noonday.
11 The Lord will continually lead you;
he will feed you even in parched regions.
He will give you renewed strength,
and you will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring that continually produces water.
12 Your perpetual ruins will be rebuilt;
you will reestablish the ancient foundations.
You will be called, ‘The one who repairs broken walls,
the one who makes the streets livable again.’

Verses 6-12 focus on the correction of the fatal flaws of fasting that were described in verses 2-5. The kind of fasting that delights God is that fasting which comes from the heart and seeks to serve others, to their benefit. Isaiah assures Israel that fasting for the benefit of others will result in God hearing their prayers and granting their petitions for restoration and the return of divine blessings. It is these two elements (fasting in a way that pleases God, and God’s response to Israel’s petitions) that dominate verses 6-12.

Verses 6 and 7 describe the kind of benefits fasting should bring to others. Godly fasting should remove the chains of bondage, so as to set free the oppressed (verse 6). Fasting is self-denial with a higher purpose in mind. Merely doing without food for a short time in order to indulge later is hardly noble. Doing without food so that you can give it to those in need is noble. Somehow the “fasting” of the people of Israel was of no benefit to others, but rather to their detriment. Let the hungry be fed by the righteous doing without. Let me do without for those who truly are without. This is what touches the heart of God. I should also be touched by the needs of the homeless (verse 7). It is then that Israel’s “light” will brightly shine, and God will guide them as He did at the exodus (verse 8). Then God will hear and respond when His people call out to Him (verse 9).

Since I preached this sermon hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States, wiping out countless homes and businesses. The city of New Orleans became a virtual ghost town. Our state (Texas) became home for thousands of refugees. It provided the opportunity for Christians to take Isaiah literally and seriously.

Verses 9-12 reiterate the same message, thus emphasizing its importance, and certainty. God’s people must remove “the burdensome yoke” and stop finger-pointing accusations (verse 9). They must feed the hungry (verse 10a). Then their darkness will turn to bright light (verse 10b). Then God will lead and feed His people, renewing their strength and providing the rains necessary for life and prosperity (verse 11). Then God will rebuild their ruins (verse 12).

I think that the inference is clear. As Israel seeks to accomplish the designated tasks for the benefit of others God will likewise work for the benefit of those who sacrificially meet the needs of others. God deals with His needy people in the same way that they deal with those in need.

A Perplexing Passage
Isaiah 58:13-14

13 You must observe the Sabbath
rather than doing anything you want⁴ on my holy day.
You must look forward to the Sabbath
and treat the Lord’s holy day with respect.
You must treat it with respect by refraining from your normal activities,
and by refraining from your selfish pursuits and from making business deals.⁵
14 Then you will find joy in your relationship to the Lord,
and I will give you great prosperity,
and cause crops to grow on the land I gave to your ancestor Jacob.”
Know for certain that the Lord has spoken (Isaiah 58:13-14).

I must confess that the last two verses of Isaiah 58 have always perplexed me. Fasting is never specifically mentioned, only the Sabbath. What does observing the Sabbath (verses 13-14) have to do with fasting (verses 1-12)? These concluding verses are not misplaced. Indeed, since they are the concluding verses to the chapter, they must bring home and specifically apply the teaching of verses 1-12. In the first 12 verses, those who fast properly are assured that God will hear their prayers and will once again prosper their land. In verses 13 and 14, those who keep the Sabbath are assured the same thing. There must be a connection between verses 1-12 and verses 13-14, but what is it? I believe it is this: keeping the Sabbath is a form of fasting.

According to verse 13 observing the Sabbath is also fasting. Fasting is the setting aside of certain desires and satisfactions for the fulfillment of higher desires and satisfactions. Fasting is setting aside some of my personal pleasures, so that I might serve others, freeing them from bondage and meeting their physical needs. Now, fasting is not viewed in terms of one’s relationship to his neighbor (verses 6-12), but rather in terms of one’s relationship with God.

The connection between verses 6-12 and verses 13-14 is to be found first in terms of the self-gratifying pleasures that are subordinated to a higher goal, and second in terms of the benefits that result. The Sabbath is not merely a mandatory cessation of our daily labors (though it is that); the Sabbath is the setting aside of our pursuit of certain earthly pleasures in order to better pursue the higher goal of finding pleasure in God.

Fasting is not a negative activity, but rather a positive one. It is the subordination of our fleshly desires for the pursuit of higher pleasures. It is the subordination of our fleshly desires so as to minister to the needs of others (Isaiah 58:6-12). It is the subordination of our fleshly desires in order to take pleasure in God (Isaiah 58:13-14). The Sabbath is not a day to dread, a duty to shun, a time when “God won’t let us do what we want to do.” The Sabbath is the day we should look forward to, the day when we can lay aside lesser matters and focus our attention and affection on God. If our hearts are right before God, keeping the Sabbath should be more than a duty; it should be our delight.

Then you will find joy in your relationship to the Lord (verse 14a).

These last two verses of Isaiah chapter 58 really help me understand the “Sabbath controversy” in the gospels. Jesus was accused of being a Sabbath-breaker when He healed on the Sabbath. Let’s consider this example in Matthew chapter 12:

1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pick heads of wheat and eat them. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is against the law to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry— 4 how he entered the house of God and they ate the sacred bread, which was against the law for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are not guilty? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:1-8, emphasis mine).

If keeping the Sabbath is a fast, then it is the setting aside of self-serving activities so that I can better love God and others. The self-righteous Pharisees thought of the Sabbath only in terms of what one must not do on the Sabbath. Isaiah 58 speaks in terms of what one should do when fasting. Jesus showed compassion toward His disciples by allowing them to eat on the Sabbath. This is consistent with Isaiah 58:

7 I want you to share your food with the hungry and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people. When you see someone naked, clothe him! Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood! (Isaiah 58:7, emphasis mine)

10 You must actively help the hungry and feed the oppressed. Then your light will dispel the darkness, and your darkness will be transformed into noonday (Isaiah 58:10, emphasis mine).

Far from breaking the Sabbath, Jesus was fulfilling what it was meant to be – a time for serving God and for serving others. The Pharisees interpreted the Sabbath legalistically; Jesus interpreted and applied the Sabbath in terms of its intent.

Israel’s Hope: Not More Effort, But Messiah
Isaiah 59-61

I hope the reader will understand that the scope of this message will allow only a cursory handling of the next chapters in Isaiah. Chapter 58 began with an indication that the chapter was an indictment of Israel for her sin. Israel’s fasting was flawed, and served as evidence of why God did not hear or heed Israel’s prayers for restoration. When we turn to chapter 59 we are reminded that Israel’s pitiful condition is not to be explained by any failure on God’s part, but rather by Israel’s sin:

1 Look, the Lord’s hand is not too weak to deliver you;
his ear is not too deaf to hear you.
2 But your sinful acts have alienated you from your God;
your sins have caused him to reject you and not listen to your prayers (Isaiah 59:1-2).

Isaiah 59:3-15 describe Israel’s sinful condition as the cause for their trials and tribulations (which are an outworking of divine judgment). Isaiah then summarizes Israel’s hopeless and helpless condition:

The Lord watches and is upset, for there is no justice. 16 He sees there is no advocate; he is shocked that no one intervenes. So he takes matters into his own hands; his desire for justice drives him on (Isaiah 59:15b-16).

Israel is hopelessly bound by her own sins. There is no way that any Israelite will be able to attain to God’s standard of righteousness by the works of the law.⁶ Worse yet, there is no one who is worthy to intercede for Israel.⁷ Therefore, God Himself intervenes and comes to the rescue and deliverance of His people:

17 He wears his desire for justice like armor,
and his desire to deliver is like a helmet on his head.
He puts on the garments of vengeance
and wears zeal like a robe.
18 He repays them for what they have done,
dishing out angry judgment to his adversaries and punishing his enemies.
He repays the coastlands.
19 In the west, people respect the Lord’s reputation;
in the east they recognize his splendor.
For he comes like a rushing stream
driven on by wind sent from the Lord.
20 “A protector comes to Zion,
to those in Jacob who repent of their rebellious deeds,”
says the Lord.

21 “As for me, this is my promise to them,” says the Lord. “My spirit, who is upon you, and my words, which I have placed in your mouth, will not depart from your mouth or from the mouths of your children and descendants from this time forward,” says the Lord (Isaiah 59:17-21).

Our Lord Himself intervenes in human history, bringing about a deliverance that no mere man could achieve. You may recognize the words of verse 17 as those taken up by Paul in Ephesians 6:14. Israel was, so to speak, dead in her transgressions and sins (compare Ephesians 2:1). What she could not do, God Himself did in the person of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

And so it is that Isaiah can respond in the following chapter:

1 “Arise! Shine! For your light arrives!
The splendor of the Lord shines on you!
2 For, look, darkness covers the earth
and deep darkness covers the nations,
but the Lord shines on you;
his splendor appears over you.
3 Nations come to your light,
kings to your bright light.
4 Look all around you!
They all gather and come to you—
your sons come from far away
and your daughters are escorted by guardians.
5 Then you will look and smile,
you will be excited and your heart will swell with pride.
For the riches of distant lands will belong to you
and the wealth of nations will come to you.
6 Camel caravans will cover your roads,
young camels from Midian and Ephah.
All the merchants of Sheba will come,
bringing gold and incense and praising the Lord. . . .
9 Indeed, the coastlands look eagerly for me,
the large ships are in the lead,
bringing your sons from far away,
along with their silver and gold,
to honor the Lord your God,
the sovereign king of Israel,
for he has bestowed honor on you (Isaiah 60:1-6, 9, emphasis mine).

I cannot read these verses without thinking of Matthew chapter 2 and its report of the coming of the magi, to worship the King of the Jews. They were guided by a great light, and they brought “gold and incense.” I believe that Isaiah’s description of Messiah is given to prepare us for Matthew’s account.

Now look at these verses in Isaiah chapter 61:

1 The spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has chosen me.
He has commissioned me to encourage the poor,
to help the brokenhearted,
to decree the release of captives,
and the freeing of prisoners,
2 to announce the year when the Lord will show his favor,
the day when our God will seek vengeance,
to console all who mourn,
3 to strengthen those who mourn in Zion,
by giving them a turban, instead of ashes,
oil symbolizing joy, instead of mourning,
a garment symbolizing praise, instead of discouragement.
They will be called godly oaks,
trees planted by the Lord to reveal his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the perpetual ruins
and restore the places that were desolate;
they will reestablish the ruined cities,
the places that have been desolate since ancient times (Isaiah 61:1-4, emphasis mine).

The first verses of this chapter are those which our Lord Himself cited as proof of His identity as Israel’s Messiah:

16 Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and the regaining of sight to the blind,
to set free those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read” (Luke 4:16-21, emphasis mine).

Let us first consider these verses in Isaiah chapter 61 in terms of Isaiah chapter 58:

6 No, this is the kind of fast I want.
I want you to remove the sinful chains,
to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke,
to set free the oppressed,
and to break every burdensome yoke.
7 I want you to share your food with the hungry
and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people.
When you see someone naked, clothe him!
Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood!
8 Then your light will shine like the sunrise;
your restoration will quickly arrive;
your godly behavior will go before you,
and the Lord’s splendor will be your rear guard (Isaiah 58:6-8, emphasis mine).

Isaiah chapter 59 makes it clear that no one can live up to the standard declared in chapter 58. That is why God Himself must act to deliver lost men (59:15b-16). Chapter 61, cited by our Lord Himself in Luke chapter 4, informs us that Jesus is the Messiah, God Himself come to save lost and sinful men. It is He alone who can “remove the sinful chains” and “tear away the ropes which bind us” (Isaiah 58:6). We should not be surprised to find our Lord feeding the hungry, as He did in the feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14) and the 4,000 (Matthew 15). It is He whose coming was signaled by a great light. He is the light of the world (John 8:12).

Conclusion

At first glance, Isaiah chapter 58 appears to have little relevance to Christians today, but with some reflection we can see this is not true at all. Paul wrote these words to the Colossians:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days— 17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ! (Colossians 2:16-17)

The Old Testament is filled with imagery that speaks of the coming Messiah. There was the manna in the wilderness, which we know foreshadowed the “true bread,” our Lord Jesus (John 6:30-33). The Passover Lamb was a picture of our Lord Jesus as well (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7). Now we find that the Sabbath was also a prototype of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath, when He actually fulfilled it.

Similarly, consider that our Lord Jesus was the fulfillment of fasting. True fasting was the setting aside of certain privileges and pleasures in order to pursue higher pleasures. Refraining from eating was true fasting when it was done for the glory of God and when others benefited from it. Refraining from the normal pleasures of life was fasting when God was glorified and others were served.

Have you ever thought of our Lord’s incarnation as a form of fasting on His part? Think of this familiar text in that light:

4 Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well. 5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, 6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. 8 He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death —even death on a cross! 9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow —in heaven and on earth and under the earth— 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:4-11).

When we fast (in regard to eating) we cease to eat for a certain period of time, so that we may devote ourselves to something even greater. Often fasting might be done so that one can devote himself to prayer. But think of how our Lord “fasted” in order to come to this earth to provide the only means by which men may be saved. As the Second member of the Godhead, our Lord possessed honor and glory in fellowship with the Father. He was served by the angels and lived in the comfort and bliss of God’s presence. Think of all He set aside as that which He chose to do without (as a fast) so that we could receive the blessing of salvation. No one will ever “fast” to the degree that He did, and no one will ever be blessed to the degree lost sinners are blessed, as a result of what He set aside and what He endured.

Most often, Christmas is a time of self-indulgence. As we celebrate Christmas this year, let us think of Jesus as the ultimate example of fasting, and let us choose to walk in His steps, voluntarily setting aside certain fleshly pleasures in order to be of great spiritual blessing to others.

¹ This is the edited manuscript of a message delivered by Robert L. Deffinbaugh, teacher and elder at Community Bible Chapel, on December 19, 2004. Anyone is at liberty to use this edited manuscript for educational purposes only, with or without credit. The Chapel believes the material presented herein to be true to the teaching of Scripture, and desires to further, not restrict, its potential use as an aid in the study of God’s Word. The publication of this material is a grace ministry of Community Bible Chapel. Copyright 2005 by Community Bible Chapel, 418 E. Main Street, Richardson, TX 75081.

2 I do not wish to imply that this will be a thorough exposition of the texts dealt with in this message. At best this lesson will be an overview of the main points of these passages, and an attempt to show the connections between them.

3 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. It is available on the Internet at: www.netbible.org.

4 I prefer the more literal reading, “doing your desires,” as indicated in the footnote of the NET Bible.

5 Literally, “from finding your desire and speaking a word.” See the footnote in the NET Bible.

6 Compare Romans 3:20.

7 There is no Moses, who would intercede for Israel and dispel God’s wrath, as Moses did in Exodus 32-34 and at other times.

Representing Christ to a Postmodern World

Related Media

Introduction

A Peanuts cartoon depicted a conversation between Linus and Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was confused and disillusioned by his failing beliefs when Linus comforted him with these timely words: “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.” I also recently heard a religious leader on television state that if the bones of Christ were to be discovered in Palestine today, this would not alter his Christian faith; his faith was not bound by objective truths.

Surveys are becoming emphatically more clear that the majority of our culture believes that truth is relative.¹ It has been clear for some time now that our world is going through a major cultural shift. The illustrations stated above are all too common in today’s postmodern² society. We have moved from a world of absolutes, objectivity, and dogmatism to one of relativism, subjectivism, and tolerance. The greatest commandment in this postmodern society is this, thou shalt tolerate one another. Springing forth from this relativistic epistemology,³ tolerance has become preeminent. As one writer has put it, “Tolerance has become so important that no exception is tolerated.”⁴ A person may have his or her religion, and may believe it, but he or she has no right to try to persuade another of his or her belief. Why? Because what you are saying is that your belief is superior to their belief. This is the supreme act of intolerance, the primary postmodern taboo.

It is not my purpose here to outline and detail the rise of postmodernism as many others have sufficiently done.⁵ Neither it is my purpose to critique postmodernism as a movement. What I shall attempt to do is to give the Christian some practical direction on how to represent Christ in a postmodern world.

I shall deal with three primary issues with which the Christian needs to wrestle. The first of these is the issue of tolerance. This is the question: How are we to react to a culture whose battle cry is tolerance? Are we to join in? Does the Bible have anything to say about whether we are to tolerate each other and in what ways? Secondly, we need to briefly and practically tackle the postmodern idea that all truth is relative. Many churches are joining hands with our culture and embracing this view of relativity. Others compensate by rejecting any notion of relative truth whatsoever, claiming that all truth is objective. What does the Bible have to say about truth and relativity? Are there truths that are relative as the postmodern claims? Or is all truth absolute and objective? And third, among the truths that are objective (assuming that there is objective truth), what are the essentials and non-essentials? The early Church during the Diocletian persecutions (AD 302-305) was forced to begin to define the canon of Scripture.⁶ The Romans were arresting and killing Christians who possessed Scriptures. Nobody wanted to give up his life for a book that was not inspired; it was not worth dying for. In our postmodern age, it is more important than ever to define what truths are worth dying for. We need to be able to distinguish between what is essential for the Christian faith and what is non-essential.

Christian Tolerance?

Often when false claims are promoted, the reaction is to defend the truth by going to the opposite extreme. The early church, when battling with Pelagius’ false view of anthropology, in order to defend the doctrine of depravity (as they should have done), went to the opposite extreme and promoted the doctrines of purgatory and limbo to account for the children who, although depraved, could not exercise faith.⁷ Many Calvinists in the 17th century countered the Arminians by emphasizing God’s sovereignty to such an extent that they seemed to support the idea that God was the author of sin and evil. Often times it is human nature to counter false beliefs by promoting equally false beliefs of the opposite extreme. If you don’t believe me, just think to the last argument you had with your spouse where he or she told you that you were overreacting to a situation. You respond by stating that you were NOT overreacting and that you NEVER overreact. It may have been true that you were not overreacting in that instance, but it is probably not true that you NEVER overreact. In order to prove what you believe to be a false statement to be false (“you are overreacting”), you offer an equally false statement in its place (“you NEVER overreact”). It is the classic pendulum effect. We all do this in many ways. But tragically, today this is often the result when Christians counter a postmodern relativistic epistemology. When we hear that the culture is stating that there are no absolute truths, it is our tendency to clinch our fists and promote objectivity at all costs. When we find that tolerance has become the most important virtue of a godless society, it is our tendency to throw out tolerance all together.⁸ But what does the Bible have to say about tolerance? Are we to tolerate each other?

This question must be asked more exactly before its answer can benefit our present study. Two different groups of people need to be in focus: (1) those who are part of the body of Christ (the Church) and believe in absolute truth⁹ and (2) those who are outside the body of Christ and have bought into the postmodern fad of relativity. There is a difference between asking “Are we to tolerate the sin of a Christian?” and “Are we to tolerate the sin of a non-Christian?” We will meet the challenge of the non-Christian first; then we will move on to the Christian.

Tolerance of those outside the Church

Practically speaking, the only truth that the postmodern believes is that there is no truth, or at least no objective access to that truth. We are all confined to our own ideas of what is right or wrong, true or false. But whatever our conclusions may be, they are merely our opinions, and our opinions are no better than those of another. Therefore, to the postmodern, all of us are imprisoned behind the unbreakable walls of this subjective reality, and therefore we must all “tolerate” each other. It is not uncommon to hear statements like this: “If you believe that the Bible is God’s Word, that is fine and good, but you must also tolerate the person who believes in the Quran or any other religious literature they may choose.” But here is where the problem arises: What do the postmoderns mean by “tolerate”? Do they mean that we are simply to live together without killing each other? Do they mean the same as the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of what it means to tolerate: “To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit”? Do they simply mean that if I have a neighbor who adheres to a belief system other than mine, that I am supposed to live at peace with him, not prohibiting or oppressing him? If this is the case, I agree. I am “tolerant” and should be. I concede that, at least in this case, the postmodern objective is good because I do not have the authority or power to prohibit anyone from believing whatever they choose. If this is the case, then all is well.

But in reality, this is not what typical postmoderns mean when they cry for “tolerance.” They are not asking people to simply tolerate and get along with the opposing belief. The fact is that they are asking people to compromise their beliefs. They are asking me to concede that my neighbor’s beliefs are just as true as mine, to forfeit my notion of objectivity, and to surrender my view of exclusivism. The result would accomplish nothing less than to render a death blow to my belief in the Scriptures. What they are implying when they push their definition of “tolerance” is that people should never stand up for their beliefs, if standing up for them means stating that their beliefs are the only true beliefs—that they are exclusive. They are not asking people to tolerate the homosexual, but to change their belief that homosexuality is wrong for everyone. But, again, this is not asking someone to be tolerant; it is asking someone to compromise his or her beliefs and convert to the postmodern faith. This is something that the Christian cannot do.

Christians should join hands with the postmodern in this cry for tolerance if tolerance means that we live at peace with those of other faiths, not prohibiting them from believing something unbiblical—that is God’s job. But, of course, this is not what they are asking. By tolerance, the postmodern means that we compromise the objectivity of God’s Word. By tolerance, the postmodern cries for us to stop reaching out to others with the Gospel. By tolerance, the postmodern demands that we approve of their lifestyles. By tolerance, the postmodern is essentially asking us to give up our faith. This we cannot do.

The first step in understanding and reaching out to the postmodern non-Christian is for us all to be able to understand and compellingly argue that it is not tolerance that they want, but compromise.

Tolerance of those Within the Church

As I stated earlier, it is important for us to separate what it means for us to be tolerant to those outside the Church from what it means to be tolerant to those within the Church. We have already concluded that we are to tolerate those outside the Church, as long as tolerance means that we live at peace with those of different beliefs than ours. But how is it different within the Church? Does the Bible have anything to say about tolerance among believers?

The answer is “yes.” In chapter four of his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul begins to tell his readers how they are to live the Christian life. Speaking on the importance of unity, Paul states, “Therefore, I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3, emphasis added). Here Paul tells us that one of the primary ways the Church preserves unity is by showing tolerance. The participle “avnecomenoi” here has the meaning “to endure, bear with, to put up with.”¹⁰ The King James often translates it, “to suffer with.” This word is used by Christ when He cries over Israel, “how long shall I put up with you” (Matt 17:17, emphasis added). It almost always carries a negative connotation. In 2 Maccabees 9:12, it is used of an unbearable stench; the smell was said to be intolerable. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul is telling the Church that it will sometimes be necessary to tolerate the “stench” of one another. This presupposes something negative about the ones we are to tolerate. Someone may have a repulsive personality—Paul tells us to endure them! Another has a bad temper—bear with them! Someone differs with you in some non-essential doctrine—tolerate them! Let’s face it, when we all get to heaven we will all find out that we were wrong about a few things. Some more than others, but we will all have some surprises.

So, the question is not whether we, as Christians, are to show tolerance to fellow believers, but to what extent are we to be tolerant? Is there a difference in tolerating a Christian who smokes a pipe and tolerating a Christian who is involved in a homosexual relationship? Should we distinguish between tolerating one who is a non-cessationist and one who denies the Trinity? These are the issues that will inevitably arise when discussing the issue of tolerance in a postmodern society. The first thing that we, as Christians, need to establish is that some type of tolerance is mandated in Scripture. We will shortly decide what this tolerance looks like and how it plays out.

Christian Relativism?

Before we can begin to define the ways in which Christians are to be tolerant, we must first fit another piece into the puzzle. This piece is the issue of relativism. Again, relativism is at the heart of the postmodern epistemology. It is not uncommon to hear one say, “Christ is my way to God, but I don’t push my beliefs on others.” Or, “Western Christianity has no right to push its beliefs on others who are perfectly comfortable with their religion and have been for hundreds of years.” Relativism is the idea that truth is contained only in the eye of the beholder. Like the Peanuts cartoon I referred to earlier, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.” To the relative postmodern, all truth is contingent upon the situation, culture, or language of the person. With relativism, a moral truth can be true and binding for one person, while for another it is not. Having an abortion may be wrong for one person and right for another. Likewise, the true relativistic postmodern may claim that two conflicting statements can both be true at the same time. For example, one may claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and another could claim that He is not the Son of God. To the postmodern, both of these statements could be true at the same time. The law of non-contradiction is not binding to the relativist. A new law has taken its place, the law of relativism.

This proposal from the postmodern that all truth is relative has again caused the Church to be on the defensive. The tendency for the Christian is to fight absolute relativism with the opposite extreme, absolute objectivism. Absolute objectivism believes that all truths are objective in the same way absolute relativism believes that all truths are relative. Objective truths are just the opposite of relative truths. They do not depend upon the situation, culture, language, or any other variable. Objective truths are truths that exist in and of themselves. They are true even if nobody believes them to be true. An example of an objective truth may be the fact that I have daughters named Katelynn and Kylee or that the sun shines. These are truths that exist independently. They do not need anything to affirm them in order for them to be true. As Christians we emphatically affirm the existence of objective truths. It is one of the bedrocks of Christianity. It is because of the objective truth of the atonement that you and I can have access to God. It is because of the objective truth that God created us that we exist. There is no room for relativity in these matters. It is our job to defend many of these objective truths at all costs. But this is usually where we, and our extremist nature, often take things too far. While it is our job to defend certain truths at all costs, it is not our job to defend all truth at all costs. In order to counter the one who believes that all truth is relative, we may state that all truth is objective. But is that true? Is all truth objective?

Paul, writing to the Romans, deals with a situation that is relevant to our question. Young believers were often convinced that it was wrong to eat foods that were considered unclean. Paul emphatically states that all foods were clean: “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14a). Paul was saying that it was OK to eat ham! This is the objective truth, right? Not quite. The objective reality was that all foods were clean, but there was a relative situation which determined whether or not it was right or wrong to eat these foods: “But to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14b). Therefore, if someone thought that it was a sin to eat ham, but did it anyway, this was a sin to him. Not because God would be angry that the person ate what was unclean, but because he consciously believed it was wrong and therefore rebelled against his conscience and God. Not only this, but Paul goes on to state that whatever is done without full conviction that it is right is sin (v. 23). This means that if I believe that wearing brown slippers is a sin, but I do it anyway, it becomes sin for me. Not that wearing brown slippers is wrong, but because I am in conscious rebellion against God. Likewise, if I believe that listening to a certain type of music on the radio is wrong but I do it anyway, to me this is wrong. But while it is wrong for me, it may not be wrong for the person in the passenger seat next to me who has no conviction whatsoever that it is wrong. In this situation, the postmodern is correct—the truth, right or wrong, is relative. It is relative upon whether or not the person was acting against their conscience. For one person it was wrong to listen to the music, for the other it was not. For one person it may have been wrong to eat ham, for another it was not. There are many other situations like that just described which occur in our lives everyday. The point that I am trying to make is that truth is sometimes relative. We as Christians need to realize this if we are to speak intelligently to a postmodern world.

But how does one tell which truths are relative and which are objective? It is not always easy. There are some things that are not clearly spoken of as right or wrong in Scripture. Therefore, the person must prayerfully revert to his or her own conscience for guidance. But the reality is that the Scriptures speak truthfully and objectively in the principles that they cover. All Christians are subject to the truth of God’s Word—no exceptions.

Emphasizing the Essentials

Now we return to the question of tolerance within the Church. To what extent are we to tolerate the objective sinful behavior of a believer? What beliefs are the sine qua non (without which, not) of the true Christian? In other words, bare minimum, what does a person have to believe to be saved? This is one of the most important exercises that we can endeavor to accomplish in representing Christ to a postmodern world. We must recognize the difference between the essentials of the Christian faith and the non-essentials. Concerning salvation, we need to be able to state exactly what the Bible says is essential for salvation — what exactly is the content of what a person needs to believe to be saved. Does one simply have to “believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31)? If so what does that entail? What does one have to know about Christ? Does he have to know that He is God? Does he have to believe that Christ vicariously took his place on the cross? Does he have to believe and turn from his sin? Or does he just have to believe, as the thief on the cross did, that Christ was the messianic King going to His Kingdom? What about the Holy Spirit? Must one believe in Him before he or she is born again? Do you have to believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, the Second Coming of Christ, or the existence of Hell? The list could go on and on. The question is this: Are these all doctrines that the unbeliever must accept before he or she is considered a believer? There is not time here to fully exhaust this vital study. I apologize, but it is not my intention to define exactly the essentials for salvation.¹¹ There are many, even within evangelicalism, who disagree as to what exactly is essential and what is not. My intention is to put forth the relevancy of this subject. It is extremely important that we categorize just exactly what the Bible says about salvation.

Likewise, it is also important for us to determine what is essential for sanctification. Is it essential that people hold to the correct eschatology (understanding of the future things) for them to grow in Christ-likeness? If so, how important is it? Is it essential that a believer be baptized? How essential is it if a believer continually neglects to share the Gospel? This list could also go on and on. And again, it is not my purpose to bring you to a conclusion on these matters. It is my purpose, however, to help you to understand the importance of struggling with these issues and to have a grid through which to filter them. It is to this we now turn.

Take a look at the attached quadrant chart. It is a key to understanding what we are talking about. I have found it to be very useful in many situations. It is very simple, yet extremely helpful in creating a mental grid through which one can filter many of these issues. It has two broad categories, each divided into two sections. Following are the category definitions. Observe the patterns on the chart as you read.

1. True Relativity: Everything that exists on the left side of the quadrant is truly relative. It is either completely independent of right or wrong, or the right or wrong is determined by the situation.

a. Situational Relativity: The right and the wrong of those in this category are dependent upon the culture, time, situation, or some other variable. Women not wearing a head covering (1 Cor. 11:5) is a good example. While the women who did not wear a head covering were expressing an underlying sinful principle, the wearing of the head covering itself was not right or wrong. Its sinfulness was dependent upon the cultural expression. The same sin may be expressed in our culture but in a different way.

b. Autonomous Relativity: This category contains those that are truly relative. There is no right or wrong. This category is filled primarily with opinions and autonomous customs that are not related to right or wrong. One’s opinion on the best song is an example of something that is autonomously relative. There is no one correct answer that exists by itself — it is always relative.

2. True Objectivity: All that is on the right side of the quadrant is the objective side. Everything on this side has a definite right or wrong. There is always an objective truth that is true no matter whether one believes it. It is not dependent upon time, culture, or any situation. It exists as true or false in and of itself. All biblical principles and doctrines belong on this side.

a. Essential Objectivity: In our current chart, this category contains only those that are essential for salvation.¹² This should contain only those truths which you believe a person must accept to be considered a true Christian.

b. Non-Essential Objectivity: This category contains both doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues which are not necessary for one’s salvation. A good example might be whether one believes in the cessation of the gift of tongues. Tongues either ceased or they did not cease. The truth is objective. But at the same time, it is non-essential because it is not necessary to believe one way or the other as a prerequisite to salvation.

Read the categories carefully. After you have finished, construct your own chart. Keep it with you for a few weeks. When issues arise, decide the category in which you think they belong. Be critical of yourself. This chart is extremely valuable in understanding that these categories exist. It is not an ironclad never-failchart that you can use in all situations. In fact, your chart will probably look different from mine in some areas. The value of this chart is to express the necessity of thinking about these areas more deeply. We live in a postmodern culture in which people live their lives on the left side of the quadrant (relativism). We have a Church that wants to counter by living on the right side (objectivism). By becoming familiar with the principles of this chart, we will be able to express truth in a more relevant fashion.

Another key value of this chart is to better place emphasis where emphasis is due. Many Christians overly stress their views (many of which are relative) on certain issues to an unbelieving postmodern, giving them the wrong impression. We express our opinions about having a glass of wine, rock-and-roll, or some other area just as emphatically as we would the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We do so as if we believe that convincing someone that rock-and-roll is wrong is the same as convincing them of the Gospel. We must understand that convincing someone of any area outside of the objective essential will not save them. That is a big problem within the Church — we major in the minors. We will argue all day long with the unbeliever about the theory of evolution and never tell them about Christ. We never even give them a chance to believe what is most important. Let me make this clear: There is nothing wrong with discussing or even debating the non-essentials, but we must keep in mind that the non-essentials do not save. They can be used as primers and springboards for the Gospel, but they cannot replace it. We must get to the Gospel in every witnessing opportunity we have. Eleven of the twelve sermons in Acts contain the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The only one that did not was Stephen’s, and if it were not cut short, he surely would have presented the risen Christ to the Sanhedrin. It is imperative that we emphasize the Gospel; it is the only message that contains eternal life.

Look and see what is the matter with this paragraph. It is taught in writing class that you do not emphasize too many words. You save your emphasis for times that really matter. If you emphasize too much, then when you come to a word or a statement that you really want to stress, you have no stronger way to express your emphasis. All the emphases will look as if they carry the same importance.

This is precisely what the Church does with many issues and doctrines. We may emphasize some non-essential so much that when we come to the things that are really important, we have no more stress left—it is called overstatement. Strunk and White, in their excellent book on writing, The Elements of Style, warn concerning overstatement:

“When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm.”¹³

If too much emphasis is placed on the non-essentials, this does not make the non-essentials more important, but it makes the essentials less important. We end up destroying the “object of our enthusiasm”— the Gospel of Christ. Once this happens, the unbelieving postmodern may then accept the essentials only because they have taken on a lower status of relativity. We have to continually ask ourselves what things we have placed in italics in our lives and if they deserve to be there. Most people’s lives are filled with opinions, pet peeves, disputes, and hang-ups. When the unbelieving postmodern looks at you, what would he say that you have in italics in your life? We should have very few things that we greatly emphasize in order to save our stress for the things that really matter. We can give no greater honor to Christ than to emphasize the things that He emphasized.

Conclusion

Can we tolerate the postmodern? What are the issues which we are to tolerate? These are questions that have not yet been fully answered. Tolerance is a difficult issue, and interrogation of some of the more specific issues must be postponed for now. It is my prayer that interest in learning and teaching the essential fundamentals of the Faith has been stirred within. Progress has been made. We understand that tolerance is a mandate within the Church. We also understand that the Bible teaches that there are many situations in which truth is relative. These steps are vital to our witness to a postmodern culture. If we are to evangelize in the world today, we need to be relevant. We do not panic when someone says that truth is relative, we explain that they are right, but only some truth is relative. When they cry for tolerance, we cry with them, and explain to them the difference between tolerance and compromise.

Having done this, it is important to remember that we, as believers, will still be rejected. As Christ said, “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you;…” (John 15:20). What we, as Christians, need to make sure of is that we are being persecuted for the right thing. We do not want to give the unbeliever any more reason for rejecting Christ then he or she already has.

How do we represent Christ to the postmodern? We approach them like we do any other unbeliever of any time, or culture, or language — we hand them the crucified and risen Savior. We bring them the essential.

¹Subjective, pluralistic, and pragmatic also accurately describe our culture, but for this study we will primarily use the term relative and its cognates assuming a tight relationship between all the terms.

²This term will be further defined as we proceed in our study. Most briefly, “postmodern” describes a current trend within our culture that began in the late 20th century that is relativistic in its thinking concerning truth and knowledge.

³Epistemology describes the way we understand the nature and grounds of knowledge.

⁴Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1999) p. 23.

⁵See Millard Erickson, Truth or Consequences (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001); Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000); J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); J. Richard Middleton & Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stronger Than it Used To Be (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995). Also see Walter Truitt Anderson, Reality Isn’t What it Used to Be (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1990).

⁶John Hannah, Our Legacy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001) p. 41.

⁷See Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984) who states that Augustine was the “true father of purgatory” (p. 61).

⁸Please understand that I am not demoting the Christian’s need to stand for truth. Christianity is not a religion that can exist without the doctrine of absolute truth. I commend many within the Church today who have been equipping Christians to stand up for absolute truth. I am simply attempting to place a buffer between the extremes so that we can stay faithful to the truth of Scripture in a relevant way.

⁹I am not implying that all Christians believe in absolute truth. In fact, I believe that there are a lot who don’t. In my ministry to single adults, both young and old, I am having my eyes opened to the truth of Stanley Toussaint, a former professor of mine at Dallas Seminary, who taught me that “the sins of the culture become the sins of the Church.” The postmodern philosophy of the culture is beginning to flood our pews.

¹⁰BAGD, 65

¹¹Although it seems clear that the most vital of all the essentials is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul seems to have made that abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4, emphasis added).

¹²This quadrant could also be used for the things that are essential for sanctification.

¹³Strunk and White, Elements of Style, (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon), 7.

Français

Lesson 2: Blessed, We Bless (Ephesians 1:3)

Related Media

I read recently of a treasure-hunting company that found a sunken galleon with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of coins. Of course, no sooner had they announced their find than some government claimed that the treasure really belonged to them, not to the finders. But, I’ve often thought that searching for lost treasures would be a fun job.

The Christian life is really a treasure hunt as you progressively discover the vast wealth that already is yours because you are now in Christ. From the moment He saves you, God bequeaths on you, as Paul puts it, “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” Verse 3 is the opening topic phrase of a long sentence (in Greek) that runs down through verse 14. Some Greek scholars have called it one of the most complex Greek sentences in the entire Bible to sort out, as Paul piles phrase upon phrase to explain what some of those spiritual blessings are.

Throughout eternity we will go on discovering the riches of God’s grace, which He lavished upon us (1:7-8). We are spiritually rich in Christ beyond our capacity to imagine. One of the most important things for your spiritual growth is to ask God to open the eyes of your heart so that you will know “what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints” (1:18).

But, why does God lavish His blessings upon us? Is it all about us or is it about Him? One of the most important truths in Scripture to grasp is that God is passionate about His glory. John Piper explains this in many of his books, but especially in God’s Passion for His Glory [Crossway Books], half of which is a reproduction of Jonathan Edwards’ treatise, “The End for Which God Created the World.” It is not an easy book to read (I have read it twice now), but it is worth grappling with! Edwards argues that because God is infinitely perfect, He must seek His own glory, because to seek the glory of any being or thing less perfect than God would be sin. For any creature, self-glorification is sin. But, because God is infinitely perfect, He would be unrighteous if He did not glory in that which is perfect, namely, in Himself.

So, why does God bless us with every spiritual blessing in Christ? It is so that we may in turn bless and glorify Him, the giver of every good and perfect gift. Blessed by God, we bless God.

Because God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, we should bless God.

To bless God as we should, we need to understand how He has blessed us.

1. God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

Paul will unpack that idea in 1:4-14, but today we will just seek to understand and apply verse 3.

A. The gospel begins with God, not with us.

From cover to cover, the Bible is a book that reveals to us who God is. It begins (Gen. 1:1), “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It ends with the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the supreme manifestation of God to us. As He told His disciples (John 14:9), “He who has seen Me has seen the Father ….” Because God is a spirit, invisible in the brightness of His glory from our fallen human eyes, we cannot know Him through human philosophy or intuition. If we are to know Him, He must reveal Himself to us, which He has done in Christ.

The Bible shows that we must be radically God-centered. As Paul exclaims (Rom. 11:36), “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” And so Paul begins this magnificent unfolding of the gospel by being radically God-centered. Note the repetition of God and Jesus Christ in these opening verses: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God”; “in Christ Jesus: (1:1). “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (1:3). He continues (1:4), “He chose us,” (1:5) “He predestined us,” “through Christ Jesus to Himself,” “His will,” (1:6) “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” Work your way through the rest of this long sentence and notice how radically God-centered it is.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones observes (God’s Ultimate Purpose [Baker], p. 13), “Much of the trouble in the Church today is due to the fact that we are so subjective, so interested in ourselves, so egocentric. That is the peculiar error of this present century.” He goes on to argue that the message of the Bible is to bring us back to God, to humble us before Him, so that we can see our true relationship to Him in all of His glory. He argues (ibid.), “We must not start by examining ourselves and our needs microscopically; we must start with God, and forget ourselves.”

When God opens your eyes to get a glimpse of Him in His glory, majesty, holiness, power, and wisdom, like Isaiah, you are instantly humbled in the dust to cry out (Isa. 6:5), “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” That glimpse of God shows you why you need the Savior. So we must begin by some understanding of who God is.

B. The gospel begins with God blessing us.

You do not understand the gospel if you think that you can bring anything or contribute anything to God in order to gain salvation. This is one of the greatest errors that keeps people from receiving God’s blessing of salvation: they think that they must be a good person or do some sort of good works in order to earn a place in heaven. But the good news is that you come to God just as you are and receive everything from Him as His gift. That is the meaning of the word, grace. If you do anything to deserve it or earn it, it is not grace. God’s grace means that He justifies the ungodly, on the basis of faith alone, not works (Rom. 4:4-5).

This goes back to the matter of God’s glory. If we could contribute anything toward our salvation, then we could share in the glory. But, if it all comes from God on the basis of His grace, then He gets all the glory. The giver gets the glory. So we can only come to God empty-handed, deserving His judgment, but pleading for grace through the merits of Jesus Christ. God is pleased to pour out the blessings of salvation on those who acknowledge that they do not deserve it. Then He gets all the glory. So we must come to God as those who are needy, asking Him to bless us.

C. The God who blesses us with salvation is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why does Paul use this designation of God in this context? (He uses a similar phrase in 2 Cor. 1:3; see, also, 1 Pet. 1:3.) I’m sure that there is much more here than I understand, but in part, Paul uses this designation to focus on the fact that while He was on this earth, the Lord Jesus, the eternal Son of God, depended on the Father for His every need. In His humanity, Jesus knew the Father and leaned upon His all-sufficiency for every need to show us how we should live in dependence on the Father.

Also, Jesus is the one and only mediator between the Father and us (1 Tim. 2:5). All that we receive from God, we must receive through the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ becomes our heavenly Father when we come to Him through His Son. The Son of God is eternally God, but He laid aside His glory and took on Himself the form of a servant, becoming obedient to death on the cross to secure our salvation (Phil. 2:5-11). Thus all spiritual blessings come to us through the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, through the obedience of the Son of God to His God and Father.

This means that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. If good people can earn their salvation by their good deeds, then the Son of God did not need to leave His glory in heaven and come in obedience to the Father to die on the cross. Any system of salvation apart from Christ and the cross is false. It diminishes what Jesus Christ did for us, shedding His blood to secure all the blessings of heaven for us, even while we were yet sinners.

D. God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, not necessarily with every physical or material blessing on earth.

A modern heresy teaches that it is God’s will for all of His children to be healthy and wealthy in this life. The false prophets of this cult live in huge mansions, drive expensive cars, and indulge themselves in every flagrant luxury that they can, luring their gullible followers with promises of the same. It is completely anti-Christian! While God promises to meet our basic physical needs, He knows that our deepest need is spiritual, to be rightly related to Him. So He blesses us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

Our lives on this earth are short and uncertain, at best. But, we will spend eternity either with God in heaven or in hell under His judgment. As the story of the rich man and Lazarus illustrates (Luke 16:19-31), it is far better to live in dire poverty and suffering in this life and have eternal riches in heaven than to live in luxury in this life and spend eternity in the agonizing flames of hell. Or, as the apostle John puts it after telling us not to love the world or the things in the world (1 John 2:17), “The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”

You may be thinking, “But isn’t this impractical? What good are spiritual blessings to me if I can’t live comfortably in this life? Isn’t this just ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’? Aren’t those who focus on heavenly blessings not much earthly good?”

Hardly! In fact, precisely the opposite is true. C. S. Lewis saw this when he wrote, “The Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have begun thinking less of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at heaven and you get earth thrown in; aim at earth and you get neither.” (Source in Lewis unknown; cited on: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/ articles/onsite/Hardly! In fact, precisely the opposite is true. C. S. Lewis saw this when he wrote, “The Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have begun thinking less of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at heaven and you get earth thrown in; aim at earth and you get neither.” (Source in Lewis unknown; cited on: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/ articles/onsite/sermonmanuscripts.html.)

Or, as Paul commands (Col. 3:1-2), “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.” Our treasures or blessings are all in Christ, in the heavenly places. Our greatest need is spiritual and we have every spiritual blessing in Him.

If you’re still thinking, “But this is so impractical,” keep in mind that when Paul wrote this, he was in prison. Every time he moved he could hear and feel the heavy chains clanking around his wrist and his ankle. He could have been depressed and complaining about his circumstances. He could have said, “I don’t need spiritual blessings right now! I need to get out of this stinking cell and have my physical needs met!”

But, instead, he breaks into this doxology, praising God for giving him every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. If understanding those blessings could sustain Paul in a Roman prison and give him the buoyant hope that he exudes in all of his letters, then this stuff is about as practical as you can get! It will sustain you in whatever difficulties you face.

E. God’s blessing us with every spiritual blessing in Christ shows us the all-sufficiency of Christ for our every need.

All blessings come to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Apart from Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5), but in Him we have every spiritual blessing. In Him “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” and “in Him you have been made complete” (Col. 2:3, 10). God’s “divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3).

Either these promises are pious platitudes that are of no practical value (as “Christian psychology” often insinuates), or these and many other Scriptures show us that God has given us in the person and work of Jesus Christ all that we need to face life’s problems. He has given us His Holy Spirit to indwell us and to produce in us the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23). These qualities describe an emotionally or psychologically whole person. Most of those qualities have a relational aspect, so that the person with these qualities will be able to get along harmoniously with others. These qualities are promised to every person who walks by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:16).

In other words, God does not say, “My Spirit will produce love in all of you, except for those who have never been loved and who have an anger problem. You’ll need therapy to work through your anger.” Or, “I will give joy to everyone except those who are clinically depressed. They may need Prozac if they want My joy.” He does not say, “Every Christian can experience My peace, except for those with an anxiety disorder. They’re going to need the insights of Carl Rogers to get through this thing!”

I’m not saying that counseling is wrong or that the use of psychotropic drugs is always wrong (although they should not be the first resort). I am saying that psychology has infiltrated the church and its effect has not been to direct hurting people to their spiritual blessings in Christ, but rather to human wisdom on how to cope with trials apart from reliance on God and repentance from sin. I have heard supposedly Christian psychologists say that to give Bible verses to a hurting person or to tell him to trust in God is worthless and even cruel advice! A Christian counselor should direct you to the all-sufficient Lord Jesus Christ and your spiritual riches in Him.

And I’m saying that before you take a drug to get over your problem, make sure that you have allowed your problem to drive you to greater dependence on Christ as your all in all. I read last week the story of a Christian woman suffering from severe anxiety and depression. Without even probing for the causes of her problems, her pastor told her to go to a doctor and get an anti-depressant. She followed his advice and felt better within a few weeks. But she did not confront the sin in her life that was at the root of her troubles. It was only years later when she started attending a church where sin is called sin and people are held accountable that she saw her own sin, confessed it, and began to be truly healed in Christ. (For more on Christians and psychology, I have two articles on the church web site.)

God directs trials into our lives so that we will learn not to trust in ourselves, but in God and His mighty power (2 Cor. 1:8-9). He uses trials to make us examine ourselves in a deeper way, so that we will root out any selfishness, pride, or sin. If we try to solve our problems without digging deeper into the treasure house of our riches in Christ, we have missed God’s purpose in sending those trials. So make it your lifelong quest to understand and be satisfied with Jesus Christ and all that God has made Him for your soul.

F. These blessings are for everyone that personally knows the Lord Jesus Christ.

Note the emphasis in these verses on “us”: He has blessed us in Christ (1:3). He chose us in Him (1:4). He predestined us to adoption as sons (1:5). He freely bestowed His grace on us in the Beloved (1:6). In Him, we have redemption and forgiveness according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished on us (1:7-8). He made known to us the mystery of His will (1:9).

Who is “the us”? It is all of us who have come to know God’s abundant grace through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, these blessings are not just for some super-saints. Rather, they are God’s gracious gift to every child whom He adopts into His family. While some of His children do not know and enjoy the blessings of their inheritance in Christ, they are just as much heirs as those that do enjoy these riches. So every Christian should diligently seek to discover, enjoy, and apply these vast riches in Christ Jesus.

To the extent that you understand and enjoy these riches, you will bless God for them.

2. Because God has blessed us with every blessing in Christ, we should bless God.

Paul uses the word “blessed” in two senses in this verse. When he says that God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing, he means that God has freely bestowed His good gifts on us in the person and work of His Son on our behalf.

But when we bless God, we cannot give Him anything that He lacks, because He has no lack. So our blessing God means to speak well of Him, or to praise Him for His glorious attributes and for His gracious actions toward us in Christ (Ps. 103:1-5). We thank Him for all that He is to us and for all that He has done for us and for all that He promises yet to do for us throughout eternity. We bless Him by joyfully giving back to Him what He has first given to us, namely, our time, our talent, and our treasure.

When my children were little, they liked to bless me with some sort of gift on my birthday or at Christmas. Where did they get the money to buy me a gift? They got it from dear old dad! I gave them what they needed and they took my gift and returned it to me as their gift or blessing. I blessed them, but they also blessed me by their gifts.

So we bless God by offering up “a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.” We bless God when we “do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:15-16). We bless God when our hearts overflow with joy in Him because of His abundant grace towards us in Christ.

Conclusion

Martyn Lloyd-Jones states (ibid., p. 49), “there is no more true test of our Christian profession than to discover how prominent this note of praise and thanksgiving is in our life.” To what extent do you find praise, adoration, thankfulness, and joy in God welling to the surface in your daily life? I’m not talking about glibly going around saying, “Praise the Lord” all the time. I am talking about heartfelt joy and satisfaction in Christ that floods into your soul. It should not be a rare experience!

If it is not as frequent as it ought to be, spend time meditating on Scriptures such as Ephesians 1 or Romans 8, which tell of the spiritual riches that are ours in Christ. Meditate on the Psalms, which are filled with the praises of God in the midst of life’s difficult trials. Allow your trials to drive you to a deeper experience of the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ for your soul. Make it your lifelong quest to “count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus [your] Lord” (Phil. 3:8). Being blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, bless the God who has so blessed you!

Application Questions

Why is it important to view trials as an opportunity to discover more of the riches of Christ for your soul? Why is grumbling in trials wrong (Phil. 2:14-16)?
Some will argue, “If psychology helps people with their problems, what’s wrong with that?” Your answer? (See my article, “Christians and Psychology: Some Common Questions Answered.”)
Why is the “health and wealth” gospel heretical?
When (if ever) should a Christian use prescribed psychotropic drugs? What guidelines apply?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation), Equip

Lesson 3: He Chose Us (Ephesians 1:4)

Related Media

Do you rejoice in the doctrine of God’s sovereign election? Do you consider it a precious blessing from Him? You should because Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did! When he exclaimed (1:3), “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,” the first blessing he goes on to mention is (1:4), “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world….” We cannot praise God properly for His great salvation if we deny or dodge the truth of His choosing us.

There are many professing Christians who openly deny the doctrine of election. They always claim to be “moderate” or “balanced” in their views! Many others give a brief nod to the doctrine, but they quickly skirt around it because it is divisive and difficult to understand. But I would agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones (God’s Ultimate Purpose [Baker], 1979, p. 84) and long before him, John Calvin (John Calvin’s Sermons on Ephesians [Banner of Truth], 1973, p. 25), who both pointed out that dodging what the Holy Spirit has put in Scripture for our understanding is sin. It is our business to come to grips with the inspired Word and allow it to speak to our hearts in the manner that God intended.

In order to do that, we must approach this truth with the right spirit before the Lord. If we come proudly to debate and prove that we are right (no matter which side we are on), we approach it wrongly. Rather, we must come with submissive hearts to God and His Word, asking Him to open our eyes to truth that the natural man cannot understand. If we come contending against God’s sovereignty because we think that it denies our free will, the words of Paul rebuke us (Rom. 9:20), “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” God put this truth front and center for our encouragement and upbuilding in the faith. But we must come with submissive, teachable hearts.

When you take Ephesians 1:3-4 together, Paul is saying:

One of the greatest spiritual blessings that God has given to us is that He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him.

Without any argument or apology, Paul begins enumerating our blessings in Christ by stating that God chose us and He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ (1:4-5). Limiting ourselves to verse 4, note first:

1. The doctrine of God’s choosing us for salvation is one of His greatest blessings because it guarantees our salvation.

What does election mean? Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology [Zondervan], 1994, p. 670, italics his) defines it as: “Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.” The Greek verb translated “chose” means, “to select or pick for oneself” (all Greek lexicons). Note three things that stem from our text:

A. No one is ever capable or inclined to choose God unless God first chose him.

Election is unconditional in the sense that God did not base His choice on His foreknowledge of whether certain people would choose to believe in Christ. If He had done so, it would be a denial of His grace, because then their salvation would be based on something which they did in and of themselves. But Scripture is clear that salvation is totally by God’s grace (unmerited favor; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11-18; 11:5-6).

Also, if God’s choosing us were based on His foreknowledge that we would choose Him, then He really didn’t choose us at all. Rather, He only would have responded to our choosing Him by then choosing us. But this would make God’s plan of salvation depend on the choices of fallen sinners, rather than on His purpose and glory. It would be puzzling as to why Paul plainly states, “He chose us,” if in fact, it were the other way around.

As Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out (ibid., p. 83), there are only two possibilities: Either God chose us according to His good pleasure, “entirely apart from anything we have ever done or said or thought.” Or, He chose us because He foresaw that we would choose Him. He says, “There is no third possibility.” (Norman Geisler tries to propose a third alternative in Chosen But Free [Bethany House], pp. 53-55. But he misrepresents the Calvinist view, never deals with the biblical meaning of foreknowledge, and uses faulty argumentation throughout. James White, The Potter’s Freedom [Calvary Press], capably refutes Geisler on this point in chapter 2, “Determinately Knowing.)

Also, as Calvin points out (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], on Eph. 1:4, p. 198), “We were all lost in Adam; and therefore, had not God, through his own election, rescued us from perishing, there was nothing to be foreseen.” In other words, God would not have foreseen any lost people choosing of their own free will to be saved, because Scripture is clear that by nature we all were “fast bound in sin and nature’s night” (Charles Wesley, “And Can it Be?”). As Paul drives home (Rom. 3:10-12), “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.” Scripture also piles up metaphors such as being spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), blind (2 Cor. 4:4), deaf (Matt. 13:14-15), lame (Luke 14:21), hardened (Eph. 4:17-19), and enslaved (John 8:34-36; Rom. 6:6), to show that as sinners, we had no inclination or ability to choose Christ or believe in Him.

Invariably, those who deny God’s sovereign, unconditional election also have to deny that sinners are unable to come to Christ by themselves (theologians call this, “total depravity”). They try to argue that God has given “prevenient” grace to all, so that they are able to respond to the gospel invitation. Otherwise, they say, it would be a sham for God to command men to believe in Christ when He knows that they are unable to do so.

Such reasoning fits with human logic, but not with the revealed Word of God. Jesus plainly stated (John 6:65), “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” No one can means, no one is able. Clearly, the Father did not grant this to everyone, or Jesus’ statement would be needless. Jesus also said (Matt. 11:27), “no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Knowing the Father depends on the Son of God choosing to reveal Him to the individual, which He does not do for everyone. But, what are the very next words out of Jesus’ mouth? “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Jesus saw no contradiction between saying, “No one can know or come, unless I will it; therefore, come!” Neither should we! When Paul says, “God chose us,” we pervert Scripture if we twist it to mean, “We first chose God.”

B. It is only through Christ and what He did for us, not through anything in us, that we may be saved.

Paul says, “He chose us in Him.” As we saw in verse 3, all of the blessings that we receive from God come to us “in Christ.” Calvin explains (Commentaries, p. 198, italics his), “if we are chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves…. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy.”

I regret having to detract from such glorious truth to refute error, but because error floods into the church, I must. Some say that verse 4 does not teach that God chooses individuals, but rather that He chose Christ and those who believe in Him, not individually, but in a group sense. Thus we make ourselves part of “the elect” when we choose Christ.

It should be evident that such teaching is only trying to dodge the plain meaning of the words of inspired Scripture. “He chose us” is not ambiguous! The “us” refers to persons or individuals in the church. There is no hint of Paul meaning, “What I’m really saying is that God only chose Christ and then we chose Him, so God really didn’t choose us.” Paul adds, “He chose us in Him,” to show that all of the spiritual blessings we receive center in Christ.

Spurgeon put it this way (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit [Pilgrim Publications], 1986, 38:355): “God called us in Christ. He justified us in Christ. He sanctified us in Christ. He will perfect us in Christ. He will glorify us in Christ. We have everything in Christ, and we have nothing apart from Christ.” Again, the point of these words, “in Him,” is to take our thoughts away from anything in ourselves and to focus us on the merits and love of our Savior, who gave Himself for us. Although we must believe to be saved, salvation is not to be traced to our faith or to anything else in us. Rather, salvation is to be traced to God’s eternal purpose through Jesus Christ and all that He did for us. We were not chosen because of anything in us, but rather we were chosen in Him. Bless His name!

C. The blessing of salvation is part of God’s eternal plan to glorify Himself.

Paul adds that God chose us “before the foundation of the world.” He adds this time element because in this extended sentence (1:3-14), he is talking about God’s plan for the ages to glorify Himself through His plan of salvation. It is inconceivable that the all-wise Creator of the universe would create the world and place people on it without some sort of predetermined plan for the ages! We would say that a builder who tried to build a house without any sort of plan in mind beforehand and without any ability to accomplish his unplanned house was inept and crazy. Surely, then, God did not create the universe without a plan and the ability to carry out that plan. He would not leave such an important plan dependent on the rebellious will of humans.

And, when man fell into sin, God didn’t say, “Oh no, now I have to modify My plan!” If He had done so, then He would be a changeable being, not the immutable Sovereign of the universe. And, if He is not sovereignly in control of all events who knows whether He may have to change His plan again in the future? How could we even know whether His promises and plan would finally prevail, if He is not sovereign over all things, including the evil deeds of men?

This phrase, “before the foundation of the world,” is there for our comfort and assurance, so that we will bless God for His choosing us. It means that you were not an afterthought in the mind of God! It means that He set His love on you long before you ever existed or even before the world existed! It means that your name was written in the Lamb’s book of life before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 17:8)! If your salvation depends on your choice of God, you can never be assured of it. But if it depends on God’s choice of you before He created the world, then it is a sure thing. The God who planned it before the world began will bring it to completion.

Some argue that if God chose us for salvation apart from anything that we do, it will lead people to say, “Then we can live as we please.” But our text shows that this is not so.

2. The doctrine of God’s choosing us for salvation is one of His greatest blessings because it guarantees our becoming holy and blameless before Him.

First, we must deal with a technical difficulty: do the words, “in love,” go with what precedes or with what follows? Many scholars understand the words to go with the preceding, “that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love” (KJV, NJKV; although the NASB, ESV, and NIV put the words with what follows). Taken this way, “in love” would refer to our love for God and for one another as a manifestation of God’s choosing us. The reasons for connecting the phrase with the preceding words are (Harold Hoehner, The Bible Knowledge Commentary [Victor Books], ed. by John Walvoord & Roy Zuck, 2:617), “(1) In this context the modifying phrases always follow the action words (vv. 3-4, 6, 8-10). (2) The other five occurrences of ‘in love’ in Ephesians (3:17; 4:2, 15-16; 5:2) refer to human love rather than divine love. (3) Love fits well with holiness and blamelessness, for this would denote a balance between holiness and love.”

On the other hand, to connect the words “in love” with what follows fits well with God’s predestining us “to adoption as sons … according to the kind intention of His will.” In other words, God’s predestining us was not a mechanical, arbitrary process, but rather, it stemmed from His great love (Rom. 5:8). So it is difficult to decide. Both are true biblically: God’s choosing us will result in our growth in love; and, His choosing us stems from His special love for His elect (Eph. 5:25; John 13:1; Deut. 7:7-8).

God chose us “that we would be holy and blameless before Him.” Paul connects God’s calling or choosing us so that we will be holy in at least two other texts. In 2 Timothy 1:9 he writes that God “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” And, in Romans 8:29-30 he writes, “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

By the way, the word “foreknow” in the New Testament does not mean simply to know in advance. In that sense, God foreknows everyone who has ever lived. Romans 8:29 (also, Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; Acts 2:23) refers to God’s advance choice to know certain individuals in a relationship of love. Clearly, Paul is distinguishing those on whom God set His purpose to save from the rest of humanity. Thus God’s foreknowledge contains the concept of His foreordination of people and events.

God chose us to be holy and blameless. Both of these words look at our sanctification, but from slightly different angles. To be holy is to be set apart to God from all sin and from the evil influences of this world. We are to be distinct from the way that the world thinks and distinct from the values of those who are enslaved to greed and various lusts. Blameless means to be without spot or blemish. Paul says that Christ’s aim for His church is (5:27) “that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” To be blameless is to have integrity. It means that you are the same in private as you are in public. You think and act the same when no one is watching as you do when the eyes of others are upon you.

Paul adds that we are to be holy and blameless before Him. That is the key, to live all of your life openly before God, knowing that (Heb. 4:13) “all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” You live in the presence of God (“coram deo”). You have fellowship with the living God, knowing that He knows your every thought, word, and deed. Therefore, you quickly confess any sin and appropriate His cleansing blood (see 1 John 1:1-10).

While it is true that we will never be completely holy and blameless before God as long as we are in this body of sin (Rom. 7), if we are God’s chosen people, we will be growing in holiness. And, however you interpret the phrase “in love,” the essence of holiness is love, because “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). Love is the supreme virtue of the Christian life (1 Cor. 13). It leads the list of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

Sometimes we wrongly picture a holy person as being somewhat relationally challenged. We may think of a hermit or monk, who distances himself from others and hardly speaks to others. But biblical holiness requires that we love one another, especially in our families and in the local church. We treat others as we would want to be treated. Paul links God’s choice of us with our holy, loving behavior in Colossians 3:12-13: “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.”

Conclusion

I originally thought that I should deal in this message with some of the common objections that are raised against the doctrine of election. But to do so would detract from the apostle’s aim for our text. (You may read many such defenses of election by going to monergism.com, under the subject, “Election.”) Paul does not debate the matter or apologize for it or tiptoe around it. He states it as plainly as language could put it: “He chose us.” That is one of the greatest spiritual blessings that God has given to us because it guarantees our salvation and our holiness. You won’t experience the joy of that blessing if you fight with God’s Word over it.

In his wonderful book, A Pastor’s Sketches ([Solid Ground Christian Books] vol. 1, p. 244, italics his), Ichabod Spencer, a Brooklyn pastor in the first half of the 19th century, tells of a pastor who had preached on the sovereignty of God. After the service, a well-educated woman came up to him and thanked him for his sermon. She said, “O sir, it has done me good. All my life I have been troubled with the doctrine of election. I have studied it for more than twenty years in vain. But now I know what has been the matter,--I have never been entirely willing that God should be God.” Spencer concludes, “And when you are entirely willing that ‘God should be God,’ election will trouble you no longer.”

I found that to be true in my experience about 40 years ago. I thought that I was fighting Paul in Romans 9:18, where he argues, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” Paul next anticipates the argument of those who fight against the doctrine of election (Rom. 9:19): “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’” In other words, if God sovereignly chooses those whom He saves and passes over the rest in their sin, how can He blame unbelievers for not believing? I used to go around and around with Paul, thinking, “Come on, Paul, answer that question!” I thought that his answer was a cop out.

Then one day it was as if God tapped me rather strongly on the shoulder and said, “You’re not fighting with Paul. You’re fighting with Me! I did answer the question. You just don’t like My answer!” His answer is (Rom. 9:20), “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?”

I realized that I had not been willing to let God be God. I repented and submitted to what God’s Word plainly teaches (Eph. 1:4): “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.” The doctrine of election became a source of joy and comfort in my Christian life. I pray that you will let God be God, submitting to His Word that is given for your joy in Christ, so that you will rejoice in the doctrine of election!

Application Questions

How can a person know if God has chosen him/her for salvation?
Why is the doctrine of election essential if we want to glorify God? How does the denial of it detract from His glory?
One main argument against election is that if God only chose to save some, He doesn’t love everyone. Your response?
Some Christians say that we should avoid doctrines such as election, because they are so controversial. Why is this wrong?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Lesson 4: Predestined to Adoption (Ephesians 1:5-6)

Related Media

I read an article recently about a trend among well-off or retired Americans to spend their own money to travel to needy parts of the world to work as volunteers. The woman writing the article had spent two weeks at an orphanage in Romania. She spent her time giving focused attention to some handicapped children who are hardly ever touched, cared for, or loved. One woman who stayed on after the other volunteers went home reported that the children were mostly neglected, left with squalid diapers and no one to give them any attention. Because most of the children in the orphanage have physical or mental handicaps, they are not sought after for adoption.

Before you and I met Jesus Christ, we were in far worse condition than the worst of these poor orphans. Even if we were decent, moral, responsible people in the eyes of the world, from the standpoint of God, who is absolutely holy, we were like newborn infants who had been thrown into a field. We were filthy and squirming in our blood, left to die (this is God’s description in Ezek. 16:2-6). Our sins, whether pride, lust, greed, selfishness, anger, or whatever, rendered us abhorrent in God’s holy sight. There was no merit in us, that He would choose us to be His children. And yet, to the praise of the glory of His grace, “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will” (1:5)!

That is the amazing spiritual blessing that Paul wants us to contemplate in these verses. He is saying,

The fact that God blessed us by predestining us to adoption as His children should cause us to praise Him for the glory of His grace in Christ.

Praising God for the lavishness of His grace is Paul’s theme here. He begins this section by exclaiming (1:3), “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” He concludes this first section by directing us back to praising God, the source of our blessings (1:6), “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” Central to the apostle’s thinking is that God chose us (1:4) and predestined us (1:5) to these amazing blessings. Thus any teaching that subverts or diminishes God’s sovereignty in our salvation also subverts or diminishes the praise that is due to His name. When we understand that God chose us and predestined us to be His children, we will be caught up in wonder, love, and praise.

1. God blessed us by predestining us to adoption as His children (1:5).

The Bible uses two similar, yet different analogies to picture our salvation from different angles. One is that of regeneration, or the new birth. We become God’s children by being born spiritually into His family (John 1:12-13; 3:1-8). Yet at the same time, we are also God’s adopted children. The emphasis in regeneration is that we receive new life from God. The emphasis in adoption is that we receive a new legal standing and relationship with God because He chose us to be full members of His family. Note four things:

A. Adoption is both a present reality and yet a future promise to be fulfilled.

Adoption was a relatively rare practice in ancient Israel, but it was a common practice in the first century Greco-Roman world. The adopted son was taken legally into his new family and assumed all of the rights and responsibilities associated with that new family.

Theologically, Paul is the only New Testament writer to use this term (Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). In Romans 8:15-17, Paul writes about the present reality of our adoption: “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” The picture here and in Galatians 4:5-7 is that of moving from the status of slaves to that of sons and heirs. Thus we presently enjoy all of the privileges of being members of God’s family.

Yet, in Romans 8:23 Paul writes of a future aspect of our adoption: “And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” So on the one hand, we enjoy our new standing as children in God’s family, being able to call Him “Father.” And yet, on the other hand, our adoption will not be finalized until we get our new resurrection bodies when Jesus returns.

B. God’s predestining us to adoption means that our relationship with Him is based on His sovereign, loving purpose and thus is secure.

The word “predestined” does not imply impersonal, deterministic fate. It means to mark out or decide beforehand and refers to God’s plan for the ages. It is reasonable that an all-wise God had a plan in mind before He created the universe. Being God, He has the inherent ability to carry out His plans. Part of His plan to glorify Himself was to reach down to the gutters of sin and adopt certain miserable street urchins to be His own sons and daughters. There was nothing attractive or desirable about us that prompted God to adopt us into His family. To the contrary, we were repulsive to God because of our sin. But His great love took pity on us and snatched us out of the gutter. He cleaned us up, clothed us with His righteousness, and brought us to His house and banquet table, where we enjoy every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

Whether the phrase “in love” goes with verse 4 or with verse 5, there are several other verses that connect God’s choosing us for salvation with His love. Note just two (others are, Col. 3:12; Rom. 9:25): in 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Paul says, “knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul repeats to the same church, “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”

In our text, Paul states that God predestined us to adoption “according to the kind intention of His will.” “Kind intention” is a single Greek word that means “good pleasure.” It means that God chose us and predestined us to be His children apart from any cause in us, but rather simply because it pleased Him to do so. It excludes any personal merit as the basis for God’s action.

The practical point of this truth, that God “predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,” is that it gives us solid assurance of salvation. If we are saved because of any goodness or merit or faith that stems from our corrupt hearts, then we are on shaky ground, because we never know if we have enough of whatever it is to qualify us for salvation. But if our salvation stems from God’s choice and purpose, which He determined before He created the world, then we have a sure foundation. And, if you ask, “How can I know that I am one of God’s elect?” let me answer in John Calvin’s words (Sermons on Ephesians [Banner of Truth], p. 47): “How do we know that God has elected us before the creation of the world? By believing in Jesus Christ.” Related to this is the third truth in verse 5:

C. God’s predestining us to adoption is through Jesus Christ, not through anything in us.

Everything that we have from God is in Christ and comes to us because He was willing to go to the cross to secure our salvation. God blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ (1:3). He chose us in Christ (1:4). He predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ (1:5). He freely bestowed His grace on us in Christ, “the Beloved” (1:6). He redeemed us in Christ (1:7). He purposed all of these blessings “in Him” (1:9). We obtained an inheritance in Him (1:10-11). It is all in and through Jesus Christ and not at all in or through anything in us. So, He gets all the glory!

D. God’s predestining us to adoption means that we now enjoy all of the privileges and responsibilities of being God’s children.

It always brings a loving father great joy to watch his children light up with delight when they open a birthday or Christmas gift. Or, sometimes, just because you love your kids, you surprise them with a gift for no other reason except that they are your kids. Even so, the heavenly Father delights to pour out His blessings upon His chosen, adopted children. Here are just a few (for more, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology [Zondervan], pp. 739-742):

(1). We are now in a close, personal relationship with our loving Father.

“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself” (1:5). A wealthy businessman could adopt some poor children from an orphanage and give them everything that money can buy. But what if the businessman were too busy with his many enterprises to spend any time with the children? No doubt, their physical situation is better than it was when they were in the orphanage. But every child craves to know and be loved by his father.

God not only bestows on us all the wealth of His spiritual blessings in Christ; He also brings us into an intimate relationship with Him, where we now know Him as “Abba! Father!” Abba was a Hebrew term of endearment meaning, “Daddy,” or “Papa.” While I’m uncomfortable addressing God as “Daddy” (it always strikes me as a bit too irreverent), the glorious truth is that we can draw near to His loving arms and know that He will receive us as His beloved children! Adoption emphasizes our new relationship with our heavenly Father.

(2). We are heirs with Jesus Christ.

As we saw in Romans 8:17, in the context of adoption, “and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” God’s riches are our riches, not in the sense of the heretical “prosperity gospel,” but in the sense that He will supply our needs “according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19). Because our physical bodies are frail and life is short, our greatest needs are spiritual and eternal. In that sense, God has given us the gift of eternal life in Christ and throughout eternity we will discover the riches of our inheritance in Him. Related to this…

(3). Our eternal future is secure.

If a poor orphan were adopted by a multimillionaire, we would say, “He’s fixed for life.” He would have everything he ever needs as far as material comforts go. Being adopted by God means that we are fixed for eternity. God has written us into the will, so to speak. Because He did it totally by His grace and not at all because of anything in us, it is certain that He will keep His promises.

(4). We are brothers and sisters in God’s forever family.

Adoption brings us into a new relationship with all of God’s children, no matter what their national or economic background. It is always a wonderful experience when I’ve been able to visit other countries to meet people I’ve never met before and instantly feel the bond of love and brotherhood that we share in Jesus Christ. In Christ, racial and economic barriers are abolished. The local church should reflect the racial and economic makeup of the community. Also, the local church should function as a family, with young and old being together, caring for one another, and learning from each other. As family, we should enjoy hanging out with the saints, getting to know one another and sharing in the things of God.

Much more could be said, but I need to move on to the practical application of our adoption:

2. Being adopted by God should cause us to praise Him for the glory of His grace in Christ (1:6).

Verse six goes all the way back to verse 3, showing that all of God’s spiritual blessings in Christ lead to the praise of the glory of His grace. But verse 5 shows that one such blessing is God’s predestining us to adoption as sons and daughters. Note four things:

A. Anything that robs God of His glory in our salvation is not from Him.

The Hebrew word translated glory has the literal meaning of “weight,” and thus points to God’s worthiness, reputation, and honor. The Greek word comes from a word meaning to think or seem. Thus it has the idea of God’s reputation. His glory is the revealed magnificence or splendor of His attributes and presence.

Here Paul focuses on one attribute that evokes our praise, the glory of God’s grace, His undeserved favor. If we mix any of our merit, worth, or works with His grace, we pollute it and detract from His glory. As Calvin wrote (The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Westminster Press], ed. by John McNeill, 3:13:2), “we never truly glory in him unless we have utterly put off our own glory…. whoever glories in himself, glories against God.”

As Paul implies in Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” the essence of sin is to fail to glorify God. So the main goal of our salvation, which rests on God’s choosing and predestining us, should be to bring us to a realization of the glory of God, where we boast only in Him. Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, where three times he repeats, “God has chosen.” Then he adds that it is by God’s doing that we are in Christ Jesus (1:30) and concludes (1:31), “so that, just as it is written, ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.’”

B. To praise God properly for the glory of His grace in Christ, we must remember what we were before His grace found us.

We can never truly appreciate God’s grace until we get the biblical perspective on the depths of sin from which God rescued us. As Paul will go on to say (Eph. 2:1-3), we were dead in our sins, sons of disobedience, and children of wrath. To use the adoption analogy, we were not clean, well-mannered, bright, attractive children with great potential when God picked us for adoption. Rather, we were dirty, defiled, disobedient, disrespectful, and defiant. There was nothing in us to draw God towards us. Rather (Rom. 5:8), “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

C. To praise God properly for the glory of His grace in Christ, we must recognize the extravagance of His grace.

Paul piles up words to emphasize how extravagant God’s grace is. The phrase, “His grace, which He freely bestowed on us,” is literally, “His grace, which He graced on us.” (The KJV translation, that we are “accepted in the Beloved” is more of a paraphrase.) Paul goes on to talk about (1:7-8) “the riches of His grace which He lavished on us.” Later, when describing how God raised us from spiritual death, Paul says (2:4-5), “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”

Then, in case you missed it, two verses later he says (2:7), “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Did you still miss it? He repeats (2:8-9), “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” How can anyone, much less an entire branch of Christendom, read these verses and then teach that we must add our good works to what Christ has done in order to be saved? Our salvation is entirely due to God’s extravagant grace. All the glory and praise goes to Him alone!

D. To praise God properly for the glory of His grace in Christ, we must see that He gave His beloved Son for our salvation.

Paul says (1:6) that God freely bestowed His grace on us “in the Beloved.” Why does Paul use that designation of Jesus Christ here? There could be several reasons. The eternal love that exists between the Father and the Son is a perfect love. When the Father adopts us into His family, we are drawn into this circle of infinite, perfect love (John 15:9). In Jesus’ great prayer for His disciples just before the cross, He prays (John 17:23), “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” What a staggering thought, that the Father loves us even as He loves His own Son! So Paul calls Jesus “the Beloved” to show that we are now in this relationship of love with the Father and the Son.

Also, Paul may call Jesus “the Beloved” to show the great price that God paid to adopt us as His children. Jesus was supremely God’s beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased (Matt. 3:17; Col. 1:13; Luke 20:13). Yet the Father and the Son were willing to interrupt this perfect relationship of love so that the Son could go to the cross and endure the wrath of the Father on our behalf! As Paul writes (Rom. 8:32), “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?”

Sometimes people ask, “Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without Jesus needing to die? If someone offends me, I can just forgive him. Why couldn’t God do that?” The answer is, because God is absolutely holy and you are not! God’s holiness and justice demand that the penalty for sin be satisfied. His love moved Him to send His own Son to pay that penalty as the substitute for all who believe on Him. Because the Son of God paid the price, the Father is free to adopt us who were sinners into His family. He covers us with the robe of Christ’s perfect righteousness, giving us the full standing as His children and heirs. Amazing grace!

Conclusion

There is a story in the Old Testament that is difficult to understand, unless you view it in light of the cross. God promised to give Abraham a son, but He withheld the fulfillment of that promise for over 25 years, until Abraham was 100 years old. Finally, Isaac, the son of the promise, was born. You can imagine how much the old man loved his son! He doted on that boy as he watched him grow. But then, when Isaac was probably in his teens, God told Abraham to do something that is utterly shocking (Gen. 22:2), “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

How could God do that? It goes against His commandment, that we should love one another! It is incomprehensible to any loving parent how God could command such a thing! It is equally shocking that Abraham proceeded to obey God without any word of complaint or any request for an explanation! He didn’t know yet that God would provide the ram as a substitute.

Why is that incident in Scripture? It’s there to show us in graphic, emotional terms what the Father did for us by not sparing His own Son to secure our salvation. We should keep the wonders of His redeeming love before us every day. “In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (1:5-6)! Praise God for the glory of His freely bestowed grace!

Application Questions

Some say that the doctrine of predestination is just a divisive theological debate with no practical value. Why is this not so? What are several practical implications of this truth?
Why is it crucial to insist that even saving faith comes from God, not from us? What is at stake?
Can someone who insists that salvation depends in part on us consistently believe that our salvation is eternally secure? Why/ why not?
What are some other practical benefits of God’s adopting us?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

You are here

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

39. Paul in Rome (Acts 28:1-31)

Introduction

Ministry on Malta (28:1-10)

Paul’s Voyage To Rome (28:11-15)

Paul’s Arrival and Ministry in Rome (28:16-31)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

40. The Holy Spirit in the Gospels (Appendix A)

The Holy Spirit and the Birth of John the Baptist

Inspired Utterances at the time of John’s Birth

The Holy Spirit and the Birth of Jesus The Conception of the Christ Child

Inspiring the Praises of God at the Sight of the Christ

John’s Baptism and Jesus

Malachi

Jeremiah

Isaiah

Luke

The Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Jesus

The Holy Spirit and the Temptation of Christ

The Holy Spirit as the Source of our Lord’s Joy

The Holy Spirit and the Ministry of Jesus

The Power of the Spirit in Jesus Was a Fulfillment of Prophecy

The Rejection of Jesus and Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

Jesus’ Teaching on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE

41. Saul’s Conversion and Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans (Appendix B)

An Outline of the Book of Romans

I. Introduction/Preface—1:1-18

II. Man’s Sin and His Need of Salvation—1:19 - 3:20

III. Christ: God’s Provision for Man’s Salvation—3:21 - 5:21

IV. Sanctification—6:1 - 8:39

V. The Gospel, Israel, and the Gentiles—9:1 - 11:36

VI. The Gospel and the Christians Obligation to Others—12:1 - 15:33

VII. Personal Instructions and a Benediction—16:1-27

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE

From the series: Bible Companion Handbook PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

III. How We Got the Bible

The Reliability of the Bible

A host of questions can surface when the issue of the accuracy of the Bible is raised:

The Reliability of the Biblical Documents

The Bibliographic Test

1. The quantity of manuscripts

2. The quality of manuscripts

3. The time span of manuscripts

The Internal Test

The External Test

Conclusion Concerning Reliability

Uniqueness of the Bible

Beneficial Effects of the Bible

The Problem of Inspiration

1. Biblical Claims

2. Fulfilled Prophecy

Messianic prophecy

General prophecy

The Problem of Science and the Bible

Ethical Problems in the Bible

The Problem of Apparent Errors

The Problem of Canonicity

The Problem of Miracles

From the series: Bible Companion Handbook PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

The Spiritual Feast of Fasting (Isaiah 58:1-12)

A Christmas Message in an Unexpected Text -- Fasting and the Incarnation (Isaiah 58-61; Matthew 2; Philippians 2:1-8)

Introduction

The Structure of the Text

Isaiah 58:1 Israel is Confronted Because of Her Sin

Isaiah 58:2-5 Phony Fasting

The Kind of Fasting God Desires Isaiah 58:6-12

A Perplexing Passage Isaiah 58:13-14

Israel’s Hope: Not More Effort, But Messiah Isaiah 59-61

Conclusion

Representing Christ to a Postmodern World

Introduction

Christian Tolerance?

Tolerance of those outside the Church

Tolerance of those Within the Church

Christian Relativism?

Ministry on Malta
(28:1-10)

Paul’s Voyage To Rome
(28:11-15)

Paul’s Arrival and Ministry in Rome
(28:16-31)

The Holy Spirit and the Birth of Jesus
The Conception of the Christ Child

An Outline of
the Book of Romans

Isaiah 58:1
Israel is Confronted Because of Her Sin

Isaiah 58:2-5
Phony Fasting

The Kind of Fasting God Desires
Isaiah 58:6-12

A Perplexing Passage
Isaiah 58:13-14

Israel’s Hope: Not More Effort, But Messiah
Isaiah 59-61