Having already established that prayer is necessary and has real effect, John now instructs his readers in something that they should pray for, or rather, someone they should be lifting up in prayer—the true brother in Christ committing a sin. Pastor Daniel comments on John’s letter by stating, “If I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, I must be faithful to pray for God to save them from sin.” So how is it then that believers should further show their care for one another? 1) Love one’s brothers and sisters, 2) pursue real relationships with them, 3) don’t ignore the sin in their lives, 4) plead for God to grant life to them, 5) utilize biblical means to encourage them, and 6) don’t minimize sin (sin of the accuser or the accused).

Summary by Seth Kempf, Bethany Community Church Staff

As he began wrapping up his letter, John gave a bit more good news to his readers, in some ways he reiterated certain messages he had already put forward. But this news was that sin would not have the victory over those born of God. They were under His protection and had been given minds to know and remain with the true One—Jesus Christ. They had “eternal security,” a phrase that might be misunderstood or misapplied, but an important Christian doctrine nonetheless. Pastor Daniel highlights the good news John was proclaiming by stating, “Jesus Christ completely rescues us from sin’s curse of death and absolutely secures eternal life for us.”

Summary by Seth Kempf, Bethany Community Church Staff

Editor's Note: For part two of this two part article Click Here.

Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon

The scene was familiar: a church filled with joyful Christians, singing well-known hymns, praising God with arms outstretched, enjoying beautiful, bountiful fellowship with each other.

There was one significant difference, though, between this gathering and one you probably attend. All the participants were either homosexual or “gay affirming.” Plus, they’re on a mission to change your mind and your congregation’s theology about homosexuality.

It’s being called a new Reformation, but this is a reformation we do not need. These people are organized, serious, and single-minded—and you need to be ready for them, because and they are coming to your church.

The Reformation Project (TRP), founded by Matthew Vines, is one of a number of organizations¹ in this movement hosting conferences around the country.² Their mission: “We are dedicated to training LGBT³ Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity through the teaching of the Bible.” ⁴

TRP’s statement of faith is standard Evangelical fare, including a commitment to “the inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God…the Triune God…[Jesus’] death for our sins, His resurrection and eventual return…and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.”

Their conferences engage all the relevant Scriptures and standard challenges to the gay-friendly view. Drawing from the writings of legitimate scholars, they teach the conferees hermeneutics and theology combined with tactically clever and rhetorically compelling talking points. Then they role-play the responses in a winsome and attractive way. It’s essentially a Stand to Reason for revisionist pro-gay theology.

TRP’s approach adds a clever twist, though. Vines knows that an appeal to Scripture alone will not convince today’s Christian. Believers also need a subjective prod.

To make his view most appealing, then, Vines wants to make sure every non-gay-affirming Christian has a pleasant encounter with a gay person, especially a “gay Christian”⁵—to overcome what might be called the “ick” factor—the discomfort many feel about homosexuality chiefly because they have no gay family or friends.

This personalized approach is powerful. It’s easy to stigmatize and demonize the unfamiliar. Even stalwart fundamentalists, though, frequently change their view once they discover, for example, a family member identifies as gay.⁶

“Not that Kind of Homosexuality”

The current revisionist approach seeks to simplify an apparently complex textual issue by making a single, uncomplicated point: The kind of same-sex behavior condemned in the Bible is not what modern-day LGBT Christians practice.

This is the “cultural distance argument,” the claim that ancient same-sex behavior was exploitive, abusive, and oppressive—completely unlike the caring, committed, covenantal unions promoted by gay Christians today. Scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality, then, apply only to the harsh and unjust practices, not to loyal, loving, same-sex intimacy.

Author Kevin DeYoung sums up the revisionist approach nicely in his recent critique:

The issue was not gender (whether the lovers were male or female), but gender roles (whether a man was overly feminized and acting like a woman). The issue was not men having sex with men, but men having sex with boys. The issue was not consensual same-sex sexual intimacy, but gang rape, power imbalances, and systemic oppression. The revisionist case can take many forms, but central to most of them is the “not that kind of homosexuality!” argument. We can safely set aside the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual behavior because we are comparing apples and oranges: we are talking in our day about committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships, something the biblical authors in their day knew nothing about.⁷

Thus, on this view the Bible does not prohibit homosexuality per se, only abusive forms of homosexuality like pederasty, master-slave exploitation, promiscuity, rape, victimization, etc.

We have two general responses to this claim before we address the biblical case directly.

First, this conclusion is based on a selective use of the historical evidence from ancient Near East culture. Examples of exploitive sexuality abound in the literature, to be sure. However, a variety of non-abusive homosexual practices show up in the record, too—including all of the “loving” variations we witness today (except, notably, “gay Christians”). There are even references to nascent notions of what we would now call “sexual orientation.”⁸

As it turns out then, in the ancient Near East “committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships” did exist, in addition to the exploitive forms. Why, then, presume the biblical texts merely forbid the second, but not the first? By what logic can biblical passages be said to inveigh only against the “abusive” practices and not homosexual conduct itself?

Second, Scripture nowhere makes this not-that-kind-of-homosexuality distinction. There’s not the slightest hint in any biblical passage that condemnation of homosexuality is based on—and therefore limited to—coercive or oppressive, same-sex activity. Instead, the Scripture consistently makes a different point, one emphasized with every passage in question. To see that point clearly, though, we need to go back to the beginning.

“From the Beginning…”

Two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth based an argument about marriage on a simple observation about the created order: Humans are made male and female. They are gendered. When confronted with the revisionist teaching on marriage of His own day, Jesus said:

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Matt. 19:4-6)⁹

Jesus answered a question about divorce by going back to the beginning, to God’s original intention for marriage: one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. That was Jesus’ view.

Contrary to common assertion, then, Jesus did have something to say about homosexuality. From the beginning God had designed, intended, and endorsed marriage and sex (“one flesh”) solely for long term, monogamous, heterosexual unions. Indeed, gendered human bodies reflect that purpose: men and women designed to function together, to fit each other physically in a complementary way.

Simply put, the man was made for the woman and the woman was made for the man. Reject that function and replace it with another, and you reject God’s own good purpose for sex.

Sam Allberry, himself a Christian managing same-sex attraction, put it this way: “What was going on with Adam and Eve explains what has gone on ever since. The perfect ‘fit’ between the two of them is the foundation for every human marriage since. The account is not just about their union, but every marriage union.”¹⁰

Not surprisingly, then, the six sexual activities prohibited in the Bible—adultery, fornication, rape, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality—each involve sex with someone other than one’s spouse. This point deserves repeating: All forms of sex condemned in Scripture have a common characteristic: sex other than between a husband and his wife.

Jesus spelled out the natural, normal sexual/marital relationship with crystal clarity. Inside marriage, sex is sacred; outside marriage, it is defiled. God gives sexual freedom only to husbands with wives—not to friends or co-workers, not to casual dates, not to long-term sweethearts, and not to same-sex partners in any kind of relationship—exploitive and abusive, or loving and committed.

Man was made to function sexually with a woman, and a woman with a man, to accomplish a natural purpose—“be fruitful and multiply”—that could not be fulfilled in same-sex unions.¹¹ This was God’s intention “from the beginning.” It was the way God wanted it. It is still the way it’s supposed to be. And this is the theme we find— explicit or implicit—with every passage condemning homosexuality: man abandoning the natural function of God’s purpose for sex.

It’s time now to look at those passages.

A Tale of Two Cities

TRP conference “Talking Point #6” characterizes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah¹² this way: “Sodom and Gomorrah involved a threatened gang rape, not…loving relationships based on mutuality and fidelity.” According to Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV), the cities’ residents “were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and the needy.” Jude’s reference in verse 7 to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after “different flesh”…“likely refers to the attempted rape of non-human beings, angels.”

On TRP’s take, then, homosexuality itself was not a problem, only sexual violence and social injustice. Are they right? Of course, the above explanations are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. Here’s the key question, though: Does the biblical record indicate that homosexuality was a factor at all in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Three observations make it clear that the revisionist approach is not an adequate explanation.

First, there was no rape, only an expressed intention that was not fulfilled. Thus, according to the revisionist view, God annihilated two entire cities in part because a gang of ruffians hoped to sexually assault two men they never actually touched. This seems odd. It’s hard to believe that merely attempting a crime—even one as despicable as rape—would bring annihilation. I think we can eliminate that option.

Second, Jude 7 says, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them…indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (sarkos heteras). Yes, sex with angels would be strange, but there is absolutely no indication the men of Sodom—or even Lot—knew the visitors were angels. Further, the strange-flesh sex was happening in neighboring cities as well. More angels? Doubtful. The “strange flesh” that appealed to the sexual appetites of the men of that region clearly was not angelic flesh. Eliminate that option, too.

Third, nothing that happened at Lot’s house that night could have been the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah—neither attempted gang rape, nor sex with angels, nor anything else that took place that evening. Why? Because God had sent the angels to visit judgment before those incidents ever happened: “We are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Gen. 19:13).¹³

Something terrible had been going on for so long in the those two cities and beyond that God’s judgment was a fait accompli before the angels even arrived—meant as a vivid example of Divine wrath towards any people tempted to mimic their godless habits.¹⁴ What was this behavior? Both Peter and Jude tell us clearly.

Peter says Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men,” and, “by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds” as they “indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority.”¹⁵ Jude says that those who, in the entire region of Sodom and Gomorrah, “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

The sin, therefore, was some kind of ongoing, sensuous behavior Lot saw and heard in which men, driven by corrupt desire contrary to right principle, rejected what was proper in order to pursue flesh that was odd, unusual, abnormal and “strange.” There is only one characteristic of Sodom’s assailants that fits this description: their homosexuality. Curiously, neither Peter nor Jude even hint at any other problem, meaning sexual sin eclipsed everything else.

The references to strange flesh, to the corruption of their sensuality, to actions contrary to right principle, and to a pursuit of fleshly appetites in a way not proper, all signal an abandonment of God’s expressed purpose for sex established in His original, created order emphasized by Jesus. In this, they despised His authority by exchanging the proper for the perverse, triggering the most severe judgment anywhere in biblical history outside of the flood.

Wait, revisionists interject. Ezekiel never mentions homosexuality. Correct, he doesn’t use that word. He uses another. Ezekiel says they “committed abominations before Me” (16:50), the very word used of homosexuality in our next passage.

“Old” vs. “New”

In “Talking Point #7,” TRP material states, “The prohibitions of Leviticus do not apply to Christians…. The New Testament teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled the Law…which is why its many rules or regulations have never applied to Christians.”

Of course, both of these statements are true as far as they go. The New does supersede the Old, including a number of peculiar regulations that seem only for Jews during that unique era (constraints on mixing wool and linen together come to mind).¹⁶ But we have to be careful here.

Though the Mosaic Law has never applied to Christians the way it applied to Jews in the theocracy, it would be a serious mistake to conclude that none of the prohibitions in the Law have any moral relevance for believers today. Yes, Christ fulfilled the Law, but perversion is still perverse, and wickedness is still wrong, whether it be adultery, rape, incest, or bestiality—or any of a number of evil acts all condemned by Moses in the “old” Law.

Does the fact that “Christ is the end of the Law” liberate us now from every moral constraint? Of course not, and I know TRP would agree. That’s why their points about “New” vs. “Old” are irrelevant to our issue. The real question about homosexuality is this: Do the Mosaic prohibitions of same-sex behavior reflect temporal provisions for Jews in the theocracy, or do they reflect universal moral concerns for everyone? Let’s look at the passages in question:

Leviticus 18:20-23 “You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech….You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it….it is a perversion.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

Pay close attention to the context here. The “abomination” of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 is grouped with condemnation of adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality. Keep reading and you’ll see that this grouping is no accident. These were the very behaviors that brought judgment on the Canaanites to begin with (18:24-26)— people who also were gentiles “not under the Law.” Nevertheless, this did not exonerate them. They still were “spewed out” for their wickedness.

Note also that the prohibition of homosexual behavior is unqualified—no exceptions for loving, consensual, committed relationships. And both participants were punished here (20:13)—unlike rape where only the abuser was penalized (Deut. 22:25-26)—so this passage couldn’t merely be prohibiting coercive, abusive sex.

Whenever a man lies with another man the way he should be lying with a woman, something is terribly wrong. He is exchanging the first for the second. He is rejecting the woman who was “fit” for him for a man who was not. Once again, the created order is subverted—God’s original purpose for sex is distorted and corrupted. The result: a “detestable act.”

The point of citing Leviticus on homosexuality, then, is not to impose Torah requirements on New Testament believers. Rather, it’s to show that any behavior twisting or maligning God’s original intention for sex is evil in any era.

This exact point is made with crystal clarity in our next passage on homosexuality—found in a New Testament epistle written to Christians under the new order.

Reconstructing Romans

In Romans 1, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep-seated rebellion against God resulting in unqualified condemnation. New interpretations cast a different light on the passage, though.

Under TRP’s “Talking Point #8” we find: “The same-sex behavior Paul condemns is characterized by lustfulness, disrespect, and selfishness, not love and commitment.”

This, to put it mildly, is pure invention. Even a cursory reading of the passage reveals that Paul is not discussing the conditions under which homosexuality is practiced, but the practice itself. This passage is worth quoting at length:

For since the creation of the world [God’s] invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. (Rom. 1:20-28)

The same theme implicit in the earlier passages is explicit here. The Greek word kreesis, translated “function” in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to BAG, the standard Greek language lexicon, the word means “use…relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.” ¹⁷

Paul is not talking about natural desires here; he is talking about natural functions. He’s talking about plumbing. He is not talking about what one wants sexually or the nature of the sexual relationship (abusive, exploitive, unloving, etc.), but how human beings are built to operate. Our bodies are intended by God to function in a specific way sexually. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.

This point is unmistakable when one notes precisely what homosexual men abandon according to verse 27. Paul says the error of homosexuality is man forsaking the “natural function of the woman.” He abandons the female built by God to be man’s sexual complement. He rejects the sexual companion God designed for him. Thus, he abandons God.

Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is what Paul calls a “degrading passion” (v. 26).

Note the other words Paul uses of same-sex behavior (including, notably, lesbianism): a lust of the heart, an impurity that is dishonoring to the body (v. 24); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); unnatural (v. 26); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).

There’s only one way the point of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God, which is precisely Paul’s point. According to the apostle, homosexual behavior (among other sins) is evidence of active, persistent, willful rebellion against the Creator (v. 32). For those defending their homosexuality, God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse” (v. 20).

There is not the slightest hint in any of what Paul writes in Rom. 1 that he restricts his condemnation of homosexuality to “same-sex behavior…characterized by lustfulness, disrespect, and selfishness, not love and commitment.” That is fabrication. Homosexual conduct is wrong because it rejects the natural sexual complement God has ordained for man: a woman. That was Paul’s view, and if Paul’s, then God’s view, too.

Scripture follows an unmistakable pattern regarding homosexuality. God establishes a certain sexual order, then man rebels, rejecting it for something else. He goes after strange flesh. He beds a man the way he’s supposed to bed a woman. He exchanges God’s truth for a lie, abandons the natural function of the woman, and burns with unnatural desire towards other men.

The revisionist “reformation” has more to say on the Bible and homosexuality. We will answer those points in Part 2 of this series. (forthcoming)

Editor's Note: For part one of this two part article Click Here.

---

¹ E.g., Soulforce, the Gay Christian Network, and The Marin Foundation.

² The conference that co-author Alan Shlemon attended in Washington, D.C. had more than 300 attendees.

³ LGBT stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.”

⁴ This and other citations are taken from the Reformation Project D.C. Conference 2014 Program, unless specified otherwise.

⁵ I think this phrase is misleading, so I’ve added scare quotes in this instance.

⁶ Two of the theological leaders of this movement, Evangelical ethicist David Gushee and theologian James Brownson, have family members who identify as gay or lesbian.

⁷ Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 80.

⁸ For details, see DeYoung, 83-86, citing, among others, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed., Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Ancient Documents (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).

⁹ All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

¹⁰ Sam Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay? (United Kingdom: Good Book Co., 2013), 15.

¹¹ Current reproductive technologies notwithstanding. Medically subverting God’s purpose does not nullify it.

¹² Find the full account in Gen. 18:16-19:29.

¹³ See also Gen. 18:20.

¹⁴ Gen. 18:17-19, 2 Pet. 2:6, Jude 7.

¹⁵ 2 Pet. 2:7-10.

¹⁶ Deut. 22:11.

¹⁷Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 885-6.

Editor's Note: Due to a recording glitch the audio for this message is not available.

September 6, 2015

Years ago the British agnostic Thomas Huxley had to leave early one morning to go from one speaking assignment to another, so he got into a horse-drawn taxi to go from his hotel to the train station. He assumed that the hotel doorman had told the driver of the carriage that they were to go to the train station. So when he got in, he simply said to the driver, “Drive fast.”

Off they went. After a short while, Huxley, who was familiar with the area, realized that they were actually going in the opposite direction from the train station. He yelled to the driver, “Do you know where you’re going?” Without looking back, the driver replied, “No, sir, but I’m driving very fast.”

Obviously, it doesn’t do much good to go fast if you’re going in the wrong direction! Yet, many people, even Christians, are like that. They’re going full speed, but they haven’t stopped to evaluate where they ought to be going. Before you know it, life has whizzed by, but you haven’t spent it aimed in the right direction. As Christians, we all would agree that to live properly, we must live in line with God’s purpose.

Our text brings us to John’s purpose statement for writing his gospel. First, he illustrates his purpose with the story of Thomas having his doubts cleared up as he sees the risen Lord Jesus Christ and exclaims (John 20:28), “My Lord and my God!” Then John states his purpose plainly (John 20:30-31): “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” To sum up:

The aim of the gospel is that we would believe in and worship the risen Savior.

Thomas moved from doubting Jesus’ resurrection to believing in and worshiping Him as his risen Lord and God. John wants all his readers to come to that same point of belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. Or, to put it another way, John wants us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that we may have life in His name. All who have life through believing in Jesus’ name worship Him as Lord and God. But to come to that place, we have to join Thomas in overcoming the enemy of faith called “doubt.”

1. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, analyze and overcome your doubts.

We all struggle at times with varying degrees of doubts, which cloud our faith in the risen Savior. Thomas, though, has the distinction of being “doubter-in-chief”—everyone knows him as, “Doubting Thomas.” That may not be entirely fair, in that Luke 24:11 tells us that when the women first brought reports of Jesus’ resurrection, none of the apostles believed them. But Thomas’ persistent doubts put him at the head of the pack.

There are different kinds of doubters. Some use their doubts as a cover so they can go on sinning. They smugly say that they’re being “intellectually honest” or they “can’t put their brains on the shelf.” But they aren’t interested in getting those doubts cleared up, because they don’t want to submit to Jesus as Lord. Doubting gives them an aura of intellectual honesty, but when you peel away the veneer, their doubts really serve only as a cover-up for their sins.

Others—and I would put Thomas in this category—hate their doubts. Their doubts make them miserable. They want to believe, but they’re plagued by honest questions. They can’t just close their minds, and take a leap of faith. They need credible answers to clear up their doubts.

In previous messages, I’ve gone into more detail than I can here about the reasons for Thomas’ doubts (see “Dealing With Doubt,” [04/04/1999]; “Overcoming Doubt,” [04/16/2006]; and, “Defeating Doubt,” [03/31/2013]). But to summarize, I think that Thomas’ doubts stemmed from at least four factors.

A. Personal failure coupled with Thomas’ personality triggered his doubts.

After promising their loyalty, all of the disciples had deserted Jesus on the night He was arrested (Mark 14:31). But Thomas had been outspoken in his loyalty. Shortly before, when Jesus wanted to go to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead, the disciples objected that it was too dangerous. But Thomas said (John 11:16), “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.” He was a pessimist, but at least he was loyal. But then he had joined the others in running away when Jesus was arrested. That failure, coupled with Thomas’ rather gloomy personality, plunged him into depression and doubt when he failed Jesus.

We’re all wired differently and so it’s important to know yourself so that you can be on guard against your weaknesses. Usually our areas of greatest strength are also our areas of greatest weakness. A man like Thomas, who is loyal and conscientious, who takes commitments seriously, is also more prone to depression and doubt when he fails. So if you’re struggling with doubts, think about whether your doubts may stem from a recent failure.

B. A lack of understanding fueled Thomas’ doubts.

None of the disciples understood Jesus’ repeated disclosures that He was going to be killed in Jerusalem and rise again the third day. They pictured a conquering and reigning Messiah, not a suffering and dying one. So when Jesus died, they didn’t understand what was going on. John (20:9) acknowledges that even after seeing the empty tomb, they still didn’t understand the Scripture that Jesus must rise again from the dead.

Some of my bouts with doubt have stemmed from not understanding the Scripture. Maybe it’s a difficult doctrinal matter. Sometimes it’s because I don’t understand the ways of God. In John 6:60, we saw that many of Jesus’ wider company of disciples turned away from Him when He taught some hard things about eating His flesh and drinking His blood and about the doctrine of election. On that occasion, Jesus asked the twelve if they would turn away also. Peter gave the great answer (John 6:68-69), “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” I’ve come back to that answer many times when I’ve struggled with doubt due to a lack of understanding. Jesus is the truth. Where else can I go?

C. Deep disappointment and shock over Jesus’ suffering nurtured Thomas’ doubts.

Thomas especially seems to have been shocked about the grisly details of Jesus’ suffering and death. His fixation on Jesus’ wounds (John 20:25) shows how deeply it affected him. He couldn’t get those gory details out of his mind. He probably was thinking, “I knew that this would happen!” And yet at the same time, he was disappointed and shocked when it did happen.

When God doesn’t work in the way that you had thought He should or answer your prayers as you had hoped, you’re susceptible to doubt. That’s especially true when you or a loved one goes through a time of suffering or a shocking experience. Your confusion and shock can plunge you into a sea of doubts.

D. Isolation from other believers deepened Thomas’ doubts.

We don’t know why Thomas was absent that first Sunday night when Jesus appeared to the other disciples. But a likely reason was his depression over the crucifixion. The last thing he wanted at a time like that was to be around other people. So he wandered off by himself to brood over the horrible events of the previous few days.

Thomas’ doubts probably grew even deeper when he heard the other disciples tell him that they had seen the risen Lord (John 20:25). Think how you would feel if you missed church because you were depressed and doubting and we all told you, “Hey, you missed a blessing last Sunday! We all felt that Jesus was right there in our midst!” Great! That really encourages you, doesn’t it!

Thomas may have thought, “Why would the Lord appear to them when I wasn’t there? Doesn’t He know that I’m wrestling with doubts? Why didn’t He appear to me?” That line of thinking could have led to thoughts like, “It just isn’t fair! He must not love me!” Those thoughts would have led to deeper doubts.

But even though you’re depressed and other believers may bug you, you still need to hang out with the saints. While our faith must be personal, it should never be isolationist. Your hand only functions when it’s connected with the rest of your body. It’s the same spiritually: you won’t overcome your doubts brooding by yourself. You need to gather with the church for worship and teaching. In that context, the Lord often manifests Himself in a way that will alleviate your doubts. Jesus didn’t appear to Thomas while he was off brooding by himself. He only revealed Himself when Thomas was gathered again with fellow believers. So the first step toward believing in and worshiping the risen Savior is to analyze and overcome your doubts.

2. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, experience His abundant grace.

As we saw (John 20:19, 21), Jesus’ first words to the fearful disciples was, “Peace be with you,” which He repeated so that they would get it. He could have reamed them out for their fear and slowness to believe, but He spoke graciously to them.

If Jesus rightly could have chewed out the ten, Thomas really deserved a scolding! He had adamantly rejected the testimony of the other disciples. Then he put the Lord to the test by demanding to touch Jesus and feel His wounds. And yet when Jesus appeared again to the disciples on the following Sunday evening, Jesus graciously said the same thing (John 20:26): “Peace be with you.” As I said last week, it was the usual Jewish greeting, but in these circumstances, it was far more than just a greeting. The risen Lord was extending His grace to these men who had failed.

Then He piled on more grace when He invited Thomas to touch His hands and His side. True, Jesus both rebuked and exhorted him by saying (John 20:27), “Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” But the rebuke stemmed from love. It didn’t negate the abundant grace that Thomas experienced. We don’t know whether Thomas actually did it. At that point, he didn’t need to touch Jesus, because He knew that He really was alive. I’m inclined to think that Thomas didn’t touch Him, since Jesus replied (John 20:29), “Because you have seen Me [not touched Me], have you believed?” Although Jesus rightly could have disowned Thomas as a disciple, He lavished His grace on him.

Thomas’ spontaneous confession, “My Lord and my God,” takes us back to John 1:1, 14, & 16: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth…. For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” Thomas knew that Jesus was God and also that He was full of grace toward him in spite of his sinful doubts. And now he was awash in the riches of Christ’s grace.

Have you experienced God’s abundant grace in Jesus Christ? You taste it first when the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin and you realize that you rightly deserve God’s judgment. But then He opens your eyes to the good news that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, including you (1 Tim. 1:15). And you hear the great news that He doesn’t save sinners after they’ve worked hard to clean up their lives and earn it. Rather, He saves sinners by His grace through faith in Him (Eph. 2:8-9).

I recently had a lengthy email exchange with a man who was reading my sermons online. He took issue with my teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. He argued that we must add baptism and obedience to faith. He cited James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Although I have a sermon on that text explaining how James and Paul are not at odds, he kept insisting that we are not saved by faith alone. I asked, but he never answered, “How many good works do you need to pile up before you’re saved?” Does one get you in? Two? Two thousand? When does the scale tip so that you will get into heaven? I also told him, “There is no good news in your ‘gospel,’ which is no gospel at all.” But there is wonderfully good news if any sinner can believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and be counted righteous in God’s sight (Rom 4:5)!

But then after believing in Jesus, we’ve all failed miserably, as Thomas did when he doubted the resurrection. We’ve all sinned repeatedly when we knew better. What should we do then? Do we need to do penance? Do we need to crawl on our knees on broken glass to demonstrate our contrition? Do we need to join a monastery or convent and deny ourselves common comforts to merit forgiveness? No, because then grace would not be grace (Rom. 11:6). We should mourn over our sins, because they grieve our Savior. We should confess our sins to the Lord (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:4; 1 Cor. 5:2). But when we do, He promises to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). So as Paul told Timothy (2 Tim. 2:1), “Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” Experiencing His grace leads you to believe in Him and to worship Him!

3. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, go back to the foundational truth of His resurrection and stand there.

As Paul emphasizes (1 Cor. 15:17), Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the foundation of our faith: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” As we’ve seen (my message on John 20:1-10), there is solid historical evidence that Jesus is risen. In fact, we can be thankful for Thomas’ doubting the resurrection, because his entrenched doubt never would have changed to solid belief unless he had been convinced by the strongest proof. Tradition tells us that he later went to India and was martyred there. He never would have given his life in service to Christ if he had been unsure about Jesus’ resurrection.

Here’s how this applies: After you trust in Christ as your Savior and Lord, you will still face doubts over difficult problems in the Bible and in the world. Sometimes I struggle with how a loving God can allow all of the evil that goes on in this world. How can He allow little kids to be abused or sold into the sex trade or murdered? I struggle with the fact that millions live and die and then face judgment without ever hearing about the Savior. I struggle with the doctrine of eternal punishment. The list could go on.

But if Jesus is truly risen from the dead, then His claims are true and all of those issues become of secondary importance. I can work on them over time. Some problems I may not resolve until I meet Jesus in glory. But I can trust in Him because He was raised bodily from the dead and that fact is attested to by many faithful witnesses whose lives were dramatically changed when they saw Him. So I rest my faith on the sure foundation of His resurrection.

Maybe you’re thinking, “If I could have been there with Thomas and seen Jesus risen from the dead, it would be easier to overcome my doubts. But I’ve never seen Him.” For you, Jesus speaks to Thomas the words of verse 29: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” That’s us! Jesus pronounces a blessing on us who believe the apostolic witness. If you’re struggling with doubt, go back to the foundational truth, substantiated by many eyewitnesses, that Jesus is risen. It gives you the footing to work on the problems that cause your doubts.

So, to believe in and worship the risen Savior, analyze and overcome your doubts; experience His abundant grace; go back to the foundational truth of His resurrection and stand there. Finally:

4. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, see Him for who He is and see yourself for who you are.

Throughout the Bible, worship happens when people get a glimpse of who God is and at that same moment, inevitably they see who they are in His holy presence. When Isaiah saw God on His throne surrounded by angels proclaiming (Isa. 6:3), “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory,” Isaiah instantly cried 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 was a moment of profound worship.

When Peter had fished all night and caught nothing and Jesus, who was in the boat, provided the miraculous catch of fish, Peter’s spontaneous response was (Luke 5:8), “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” Peter saw who Jesus was and who he was and the result was worship. Later, when Jesus instantly stilled the raging waves that threatened to sink their boat, the disciples were fearful and amazed. They said to one another (Luke 8:25), “Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” They saw Jesus’ mighty power and their own weakness, and they worshiped Him.

Here Thomas has the same experience: He sees the risen Lord Jesus, who in His resurrection body could appear to them behind locked doors. He hears Jesus quote what Thomas had said to the other disciples when Jesus was absent. He instantly realized that not only was Jesus risen, He also was omniscient! At the same moment, Thomas recognized his own sinful unbelief in doubting the resurrection. He spontaneously cried out, “My Lord and My God!” He now was believing in and worshiping the risen Savior.

Some (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claim that Thomas was exclaiming in shock something like the common American expression, “O my God!” But that is to take the name of the Lord in vain and Jesus surely would have rebuked him. And, like Peter when Cornelius fell at his feet and worshiped him (Acts 10:25-26), Jesus would have said, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” But rather, Jesus commended Thomas’ worship as an example of the faith that all should have. We all should believe in and worship Jesus personally as “my Lord and my God.”

Conclusion

How can you get this understanding of who Jesus is and who you are, so that you worship Him? It doesn’t come from a mystical or miraculous vision, but rather from the Holy Spirit giving you understanding and insight into God’s Word. I once heard John MacArthur tell about a pastor friend of his who told John that he saw Jesus every morning while he was shaving. John incredulously asked, “And you keep shaving?” If the man really saw Jesus, like John (in Rev. 1:17) he would fall at His feet as a dead man!

God reveals Jesus to us through His Word. When the risen Savior spoke to the disciples on the Emmaus Road, we read (Luke 24:27), “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” Later, probably on this occasion when He revealed Himself to Thomas and the other disciples, we read (Luke 24:45), “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” As you read the Scriptures, ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to your soul. (I’m assuming that you do read the Scriptures frequently!)

Finally, note that faith is Christ is not vague: it has definite doctrinal content. John wants us to believe specifically that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He wants us to believe that the risen Jesus is “my Lord and my God.” If Jesus is anything less than the eternal Lord and God, it would be a horrible sin to worship Him. If He truly is Lord and God, it would be a horrible sin not to worship Him.

Application Questions

1. What causes you most to struggle with doubt? How can you overcome these doubts?
2. An unbeliever tells you, “I’d like to have your faith, but I have too many intellectual problems with Christianity.” Your reply?
3. Some say that grace is the balance point between legalism and license. Why is this wrong? Will too much grace lead to sin?
4. Discuss the implications of this profound statement: “It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.” (John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Westminster Press], 1:1:2)

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2015, All Rights Reserved.

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