Announcement To The World: It Is Finished!

The gospel is an announcement to the world of an accomplished fact. What God set out to do for mankind, He accomplished. The apostles declared this from the time of Pentecost (Acts 2) and beyond.

Salvation is available on the basis of a single condition: faith (or “belief”). Belief is not just intellectual assent that something might be true. Belief is a commitment of the will. It is the difference between walking alongside a pool of water (seeing it is there) and jumping into the water (experiencing the water personally). God acted; we are to respond to His action by saying yes and jumping into the new life God has for us. Those who respond with faith in Jesus Christ, God’s Son, receive a firm assurance of security (1 John 5:13), a secure new identity in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and a true knowledge of God as seen through all that He has done through Christ’s finished work on the cross.

Six terms describe how our relationship with God is made new because of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ—Propitiation, Reconciliation, Redemption, Forgiveness, Justification, and Sanctification. These 6 relationship changes are the direct result of Christ’s finished work on the cross so they are often called “words of the cross.” We will cover them one at a time.

Word Of The Cross #1 Propitiation: “God’s Holy Wrath Is Fully Satisfied.”

It comes up time and time again. Women who know Christ and have trusted in Him for salvation and new life struggle with the notion that God is still angry with them because of something they’ve done in the past. Maybe that is how you feel.

Do you wonder if you have a flawed understanding of salvation? Is salvation just getting eternal life when you die? From what are Christians saved? When you study the New Testament, you see that we are saved from many things, including ourselves and our own flawed righteousness. But, the main emphasis is that we are saved from the wrath of God.

What does that mean? And, how does understanding that give you confidence that God is no longer angry with you or at you?

What Is The Wrath Of God?

In Colossians, Paul described God’s response to all evil and sin as righteous, holy wrath (Colossians 3:6). We must not project our experience with human anger onto God and assume that “His is the same, only bigger.” God’s wrath is not a mood or a fit of temper. God’s disposition toward sin and evil is as constant and unrelenting as His love and goodness. He hates and rejects evil with a perfect and holy anger. He will never bend or compromise with it. His own nature demands that He judge it through action. To preserve His creation God must destroy whatever would destroy it (Romans 1:18-20). Every wrathful judgment of God in the history of the world has been a holy act of preservation.

God hates sin. It incurs His anger. You can probably recall a time when you incurred the anger of someone you love and needed to make some kind of restitution to “appease” their anger. The act of appeasement leads to that person now being satisfied because restitution has been made, so the relationship can be restored. That is what God did for us. Romans 3:25 says that God presented Christ as a sacrifice of propitiation for our sins. Propitiation is an old word meaning “to appease, satisfy.” Some translations use the words “sacrifice of atonement” or “atoning sacrifice” instead. The concept of God’s satisfaction is the same.

God’s Wrath Is Fully Satisfied

God took action. God’s holy wrath against all sin is fully satisfied by Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross. Because of that, God is able to extend mercy to every believer in Christ without compromise with evil. This is truth for you to know and claim.

Romans 5:9 says this, “Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from God’s wrath.”

There is no longer any sacrifice that anyone can ever do to appease God’s wrath against sin apart from what Christ has already done. Picture an empty altar—never again used. Jesus did the appeasement for you. It’s done, finished!

God Is No Longer Angry At You

Because you have trusted Christ and are now found in Christ, you can dwell on the FACT that God is no longer angry at your sin—ever! You CAN KNOW and live with confidence that God is SATISFIED…NO LONGER ANGRY at your sin because you believe in His Son.

Word Of The Cross #2 Reconciliation: “Our Relationship With God Is Restored.”

At some point in our lives, we all experience a personal relationship that is broken. You can probably think of one such conflict right now. Broken relationships cause pain and often leave us confused about how we can possibly fix them.

Most people want to be reconciled so that the relationship can be restored in some fashion. How sad it is when a broken relationship continues to remain broken and isn’t reconciled. What joy we experience when we see a broken relationship repaired and healthy again!

Reconciliation is certainly a reason for rejoicing, especially in our relationship with God! But, what does it take for reconciliation?

The Broken Relationship Restored

As Romans 3:23 describes, all people have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Before Christ, our problem was a state of alienation (separation) from God because of sin (Isaiah 59:2). There was an impassable barrier between us. A broken relationship. Some kind of reconciliation needed to be done. We couldn’t do it on our part—no matter how many good works we did. There was always that chasm created by sin between us and God.

BUT GOD did something about that! I love those two words in the Bible, “But God.” Whenever it looks absolutely hopeless for us humans, God steps in and does the exact thing we need. God restored the broken relationship by reconciling us to Himself through Jesus’s death.

To reconcile means to re-establish friendship between two parties, to settle or resolve a dispute, and/or to bring acceptance. Wow! Did we need that!

What was God’s motivation to repair the broken relationship? It was love.

But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Romans 5:10 says that God loved us so much that even while we were God’s enemies, He did what was needed to reconcile us to Himself through the death of His Son.

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)

Jesus Christ has fully paid mankind’s debt, removing the barrier between God and men. A bridge has been built through Jesus Christ. As we cross over this bridge by our faith in Jesus, our relationship with God is restored. God stands eagerly welcoming anyone who will believe the good news and come home (repent, Luke 15:7-10). And, even more than that, Jesus presents us holy and blameless in God’s sight. Reconciliation is a present reality for every Christian and is worthy of our rejoicing!

Living In The Present Reality Of Reconciliation With God

Because this reconciliation extends to everyone who chooses to receive it by faith, God has given us the ministry of reconciliation. We are to announce to others that they can have what we have in a restored relationship with the God who loves them.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

The same power of reconciliation is available to you through Christ for your relationships. If you are in the midst of a relationship that is broken and in need of reconciliation, pray that God would work His mighty hand in the relationship and provide you with His wisdom in pursuing reconciliation.

Restored…No Longer Broken

You CAN KNOW and live with confidence that the barrier of sin has been taken away and a bridge has been built between you and God because of Jesus’s finished work on the cross. This was God’s act of reconciliation offered to you because you believe in His Son. Your relationship with God is RESTORED…NO LONGER BROKEN.

Word Of The Cross #3 Redemption: “Purchased Out Of Bondage To Sin.”

Bondage. No one likes being in bondage. Whether it is to a person, a contract, a debt, or something controlling your life, bondage stinks. It stifles. It discourages. It makes you a slave of whatever is holding you “in chains.” Every person who is in bondage longs to be released from those chains.

Did you know that every human being born on this planet is born into bondage? I don’t care how much money or status you have. You were born into bondage. Bondage to what? Colossians 1:13 calls it “the kingdom of darkness.” Romans 6:15-18 describes it as being a “slave to sin.” The slave master “sin” calls the shots. Obedience comes too easily. It’s a trap. But, you are released from that trap the moment you trust in Jesus Christ.

The Bible calls this “redemption.” We sing songs about being redeemed. But, do we really understand what that means?

What Is Redemption?

The concept of redemption refers to recovering ownership by paying a stipulated sum. Or, it can mean to set something or someone free from bondage by paying a ransom, such as for a kidnapped person or releasing a slave to become free. Either way, a price is paid.

Biblical redemption is based on an understanding of the pain of slavery—a common practice in the Roman Empire at the time. Nearly 50% of the people were slaves—1 out of every 2 men, women, and children! The readers of the New Testament were very familiar with the hopelessness of being owned by a slave master, the buying and selling associated with the slave market, and the only two ways out of the miserable cycle, one of which was death. The other way was for you to be bought by someone and then set free. Jesus did that for us.

Jesus Christ Set You Free.

Jesus declared that He came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). It is through Christ’s blood (the purchase price) that we are redeemed. We are redeemed from the slavery of sin and from the empty way of life handed down to us by our forefathers.

Redemption represents an important change in our relationship with God. Before Christ, we were in a state of slavery to sin and to death (spiri­tual & physical). Biblical redemption means that we have been purchased by the blood of Christ out of slavery and released into freedom to serve God in obedience.

The life of slavery to sin leads to someone offering their bodies to impurity and ever-increasing wickedness, free from the control of righteousness with no benefits, only shame. The end result is death.

The life of freedom leads to someone offering their bodies to God and His righteousness leading to holiness, lavished grace and eternal life. Their life is characterized by hearts under obedience to God.

Released…No Longer In Bondage

God chooses to redeem us. It is an extension of His love and His purpose for us.

• God redeems us to rescue us from the dominion of darkness and bring us into the kingdom of the Son He loves (Colossians 1:13-14) where we have forgiveness of sins.
• God redeems us from all wickedness to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, eager to do what is good (Titus 2:13-14).
• God redeems men and women from every tribe, language, people, and nation (Revelation 5:9-10) to be a kingdom and priests to serve Him.

When God redeems you, you become the possession of a loving, merciful God and can live in the security of your freedom from bondage to sin. And, here’s the best part. You have a new master now with greater power living inside of you—the Spirit of God Himself—who can give you freedom from any entrapping sin. Claim that freedom now. Choose to obey the Spirit inside you who will lead you and empower you to say “no” to sin.

Bask In The Freedom

You CAN KNOW and live with confidence that you, as a believer, have been purchased by the blood of Christ out of slavery to sin and released into freedom as God’s act of redemption.

Are you experiencing the freedom from slavery to sin in your life right now? If not, do you have confidence that you do not have to listen to the voice of your old slave master sin? You have been RELEASED…NO LONGER IN BONDAGE.

“Redeemed how I love to proclaim it. Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Redeemed through His infinite mercy, His child and forever I am.” (Fannie Crosby, 19th century hymn writer)

Word Of The Cross #4 Forgiveness: “Your Guilt Has Been Taken Away.”

Like the woman washing Jesus’s feet with her tears in Luke 7, many of us carry the guilt of our sins with us like a heavy burden, weighing us down. The continual reminder of our sins keeps us from experiencing freedom and from enjoying the relationship with God that we have by faith in Jesus Christ.

We don’t just need a teacher. We need a Savior who comes in and does for us what we can’t do for ourselves: forgiveness.

All of our debt of sin before God is enormous; we are incapable of ever paying it back. You and I need to understand how complete and continual is God’s forgiveness of us. And, we need to know how to deal with any recognized sin in our lives so that we won’t continue to carry that burden of guilt.

What Is Forgiveness?

In the Bible, the term “forgiveness” means “to send off or send away.” Our sin is transferred to a substitute, Jesus, and taken away. People in Old Testament times were accepted by God and received eternal life in the same way as we are today: by faith in the merciful grace of God. For daily living, however, they had to bring their animal sacrifice to the priest. Their sin was transferred to that sacrifice, and they received forgiveness for their sins up to that point.

God promised His people that one day forgiveness would no longer be a temporary solution, but it would be complete and permanent. That happened on the cross through Jesus.

Jesus Christ Set You Free From The Burden.

As Paul declared in Colossians 2,

“When you were dead in your sins…God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; He has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-14)

Once you place your faith in Jesus Christ, whatever you have done that was wrong in God’s eyes from the time you were born through the time of your death has been canceled. Taken away. All of it. Past, present and future. Nailed to the cross.

It’s even better than that! Paul writes in 2 Corinthians,

“that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.” (2 Corinthiasn 5:19)

Since your sins have been taken away, God is longer counting them against you. You are forgiven based on your faith alone. Sins are applied to Jesus who takes them on your behalf. FORGIVENESS: “Your guilt has been transferred to a substitute and taken away.”

Once you have trusted in Jesus, Ephesians 1:7 says that forgiveness is something we possess as believers. We receive God’s forgiveness for all our sins (past, present, and future) from the moment we place our faith in Jesus Christ. That is very important for you to know. Forgiveness is complete and continual.

Although our God does not hold our sin against us any longer, and His grace is continually forgiving us of sin, that does not give us permission to intentionally sin. Intentional sin does not fit with who you are as a forgiven Christian with a new life to enjoy. But, as long as you live in your earthly body, you will be tempted to sin. Sin will happen—whether intentionally or unintentionally. And, though our God is no longer counting our sins against us, we still must deal with the consequences of any sinful behavior.

As an already forgiven Christian, the biblical process for dealing with recognized sin is to remember first that your identity is child of God, then agree with God that you have sinned against Him, mourn your sin and depend on the Holy Spirit to help you obey God in the future. Then, trust in Him to help you overcome the consequences of any sinful choices you have made in a way that brings glory to Him.

Forgiven…No Longer Burdened

Dwell on the FACT that Jesus will cleanse your conscience from guilt. Will you take Him at His word? If there is any past sin for which you are still feeling guilty, claim God’s complete forgiveness today. Now, choose to believe you are FORGIVEN…NO LONGER BURDENED by your sin. Allow Jesus to cleanse your conscience from any residual guilt. Every time you think about it again, thank God for His amazing gift!

Word Of The Cross #5 Justification: “Declared Righteous In God’s Eyes.”

As a teen, I wrestled with the notion that I was not good enough to please God. I could never measure up to His standards of perfection. I was always guilty of not doing something right, of falling short of whatever it was He expected of me.

Then, I heard some good news when I committed my life to Christ and chose to follow Him. God declared me “not guilty” of all my sin. Not guilty? All my sin? Really?

Yes, dear believer, God declares you “not guilty” of all sin, once and for all, based on your faith alone in His Son. It is an amazing plan that is totally based on His grace towards you, not anything you have earned by your own efforts.

And, this one decision made by God the Judge on behalf of every Christian is one of the most important aspects of our relationship with God. The word used to describe it is this: Justification. And, the truth wrapped up in this one word has rocked the world for centuries.

What Is Justification?

Justification is a legal term that literally means, “to declare righteous, to declare not guilty.” English New Testaments use “justified” and “made righteous” interchangeably, but both mean just about the same thing. Justification represents an important change in our relationship with God. Our problem before Christ was our need for perfect acceptability before a holy God. We could never reach that on our own.

Justification is God’s act as Judge where He declares a guilty sinner to be totally righteous in His sight on the basis of Christ’s finished work on the cross and that person’s faith in Christ. This is possible because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ fully honored and satisfied the righteous demands of a holy God (“propitiation”).

Justification involves both a negative and positive aspect. Negatively, justification is the removal of guilt from the offender (“forgiveness”). Positively, justification is the addition of righteousness to the one who believes (Romans 5:17). This is called the “Great Exchange.” Paul describes it clearly in 2 Corinthians,

God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Jesus Christ Took Your Sin; God Declares You Righteous.

God not only declares you “not guilty” of all sin through your faith in His Son, He also gives you a new status called “righteousness before God.” That’s the end result of JUSTIFICATION: “The believer in Jesus Christ is declared righteous before God.”

It is not your own righteousness that does it. You receive this righteous status by faith alone and not depending upon any works that you do to earn acceptability in God’s sight, even after you are saved. The amazing thing is that God does this while we are still capable of sinning. When God looks on you, He sees His Son’s righteousness taking the place of your sin—even your sin after you’ve been a believer for a long time.

Picture an accountant’s spreadsheet dedicated to your life. On the left side of the page is the heading “your sins;” on the right side of the page is the heading “Christ’s righteousness.” When you sin (intentionally or unintentionally) for the rest of your life, God replaces that sin on the “your sins” side with Christ’s righteousness and puts your sin on His side—your sin is taken away (forgiveness). It is a continual balancing. Your sin never stays on your side of the page because God declares in 2 Corinthians 5:19 that He is “not counting men’s sins against them.” You are forever declared “not guilty” in His sight. Isn’t that great news?!

But, Wait, There’s More…

According to Romans 5:1-2, we now have peace with God as a benefit of being justified. We are no longer enemies but are reconciled to Him as saved ones. We are no longer alienated from God as enemies in our minds because of our evil behavior. Instead, we are now presented as “holy in His sight,” without blemish and free from accusation.

In Galatians 3:26-27, Paul declares that every believer is a child of God by faith and, therefore, clothed with Christ. When God looks on you and me, He sees Jesus and His righteousness, not all of our faults. It is an amazing plan that is totally based on His grace toward us, not anything we have earned by our own efforts.

Righteous…No Longer Guilty

If you are still wrestling with the notion that you are not good enough to please God, remember that no one can ever be good enough on his or her own merits to please God.

In Philippians 3:2-9, Paul considered his birth status, education, pursuit of knowledge, and zeal to get rid of Christians as evidence that he had plenty of reasons to convince himself that he was a “righteous” Jew and that God should have been pleased with his efforts.

But, after knowing Christ, Paul declared all those things that he once thought were in his favor to be rubbish, a loss rather than a win when it comes to faith. Instead, Paul discovered that knowing Jesus Christ as Lord was far better. He now preferred to be found in Christ with the righteousness that comes through faith, not by his own efforts. All Paul had to do to gain his new righteous standing before God was to trust in Jesus Christ as His Savior and Lord. That is true for you as well.

Dwell on the FACT of your justification—being declared righteous so that you are now perfectly acceptable to a holy God based on your faith in His Son. How do you feel about this? When you are tempted to think that God could not possibly accept you because of your weaknesses and guilty past, declare this to yourself: “I am declared righteous in God’s eyes because of my faith in Jesus Christ.” You are RIGHTEOUS…NO LONGER GUILTY in God’s sight.

Word Of The Cross #6 Sanctification: “Set Apart As God’s Possession For His Exclusive Use.”

I was once an up-tight perfectionist. Yes, I admit it. My whole self-image depended upon being perfect in grades, piano performance and whatever got me awards for achievement.

Yet, my flaws kept getting in the way of getting straight A’s one six weeks so that I missed out on the “straight A’s” award for that school year. I was horrible in athletics so PE was my nemesis. Then, in college, physics knocked me down big time. I just couldn’t see how to get the answers to those problems.

My flaws were ever before me, and I sobbed when I couldn’t achieve perfection, which happened a lot. My self-image was tied to a losing cause.

Then, Jesus entered my life and showed me a new way to look at myself—through what He did for me on the cross. When my eyes stopped looking at me and my flaws and started looking at Him and my value in His sight, that burden of performance and perfectionism just rolled off my shoulders. It was the greatest relief I ever felt!

And, perfectionism has never controlled my life since then (although that tendency to evaluate myself and what I do with critical eyes remains latent in my personality). Through my faith in Christ, God looks upon me as already perfect, as flawless as the most perfect diamond. The Bible calls this Sanctification.

What Is Sanctification?

Like propitiation (word #1), sanctification is a word we don’t use in our daily vocabulary. To be sanctified means to be made holy. To be “holy” means to be “set apart for special use.” Because the two words—sanctified and holy—are so closely connected, they are used interchangeably in our English translations. They mean the same thing, though.

Sanctification represents another important change in our standing with God. Our problem before Christ was our need to be separated from the world and separated to God. This is accomplished through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as all believers are turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:17-18).

God demands that we be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16). But, here’s the best news: God makes us holy in His sight by our faith in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:10). His love chooses to do that for us. It absolutely amazes me that God looks upon me and calls me holy in His sight. Doesn’t that amaze you?

But, sanctification is more than just having a different status before God. We have a different purpose as well. Every believer has been set apart as God’s special, beloved possession for His exclusive use. To be set apart for special use is similar to using fine china and silverware for special occasions. It is the opposite of ordinary and common. Dear Christian, you are God’s special, beloved possession—called by Him to be dedicated to His service. You have a valuable purpose. How sweet is that!

You Place Your Faith In Jesus; God Declares You His Saint.

Sanctified ones are called “holy people” and “saints” in the New Testament, depending on the translation. You can see how Paul described the believers in the first couple of verses of most of his letters—i.e., Romans 1:7, 2 Corinthians 1:1, and Ephesians 1:1. Translators use various English words to represent Paul’s intended meaning, usually “saints,” “holy ones” or “holy people.” All of those are translating a derivative of the Greek word hagios, “holy,” meaning separated from sin and dedicated to God.

All believers are called “holy ones” based on their faith in Jesus Christ. You as a saint are identified by position, what God declares to be true about you. Every believer, including you, is one of God’s saints, totally loved and accepted by Him. You are considered a saint of God by His declaration, not because of your behavior. Although some particularly influential Christians have been titled “Saint” through the years as an honor for their service to God, this in no way negates the truth that every believer is a saint in God’s eyes.

Believers are made holy by Christ’s death on the cross in their relational status before God. Remember all those words we have already studied? You have been redeemed, reconciled to God, forgiven, justified and completely accepted by God because of what Jesus has already done for you on the cross. All of that contributes to God declaring you holy as one of His saints by faith in Jesus Christ. That is your status before God. Perfected…no longer flawed in His sight.

But, Wait, There’s More…

Believers are also “being made holy” in their thoughts, words, and actions by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is ongoing from the moment of salvation until the Lord comes or the believer dies, when our “being made holy” is complete (Philippians 1:6). The goal of the Spirit’s work is to transform us into the likeness of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18) so that we become in thought and behavior what we are in status—holy as God is holy.

Perfected…No Longer Flawed

Dwell on the FACT that God declares you holy because of your faith in Christ. You are set apart by Him, for Him. In His eyes, you are perfected, no longer flawed. This is your status before God because of your faith. Your behavior matches your position when you submit to the Spirit’s work to intentionally separate you from what God calls sin and then commit yourself to being used for His purposes throughout a typical day as you care for your household, be a parent or grandparent to children, work for an employer, interact with people around you, and spend your leisure time.

These Gifts Are Yours, Sister!

Because of the cross, you can dwell on the FACT that God was fully satisfied by Jesus’s finished work on the cross. God is no longer angry at your sin because you believe in His Son. You can dwell on the FACT that the barrier of sin has been taken away and complete reconciliation between you and God is possible because of Jesus’s finished work on the cross. Your relationship with God is restored. You can dwell on the FACT that you, as a believer, have been purchased by the blood of Christ out of slavery and released into freedom as God’s act of redemption. You have a new master with greater power living inside of you, the Spirit of God Himself, who can give you freedom from any entrapping sin.

You can also dwell on the FACT that you are completely forgiven of your sins and that Jesus promises to cleanse your conscience from guilt. You can dwell on the FACT that you have been declared righteous (justified) and are now perfectly acceptable to a holy God based on your faith in His Son. And, you can dwell on the FACT that God declares you holy because of your faith in Christ. You are sanctified—set apart by Him, for Him.

Mankind’s disease was sin. Because of this disease, we were: 1) never able to make ourselves well, 2) in bondage to the disease, 3) alienated from the one who could heal us, 4) carrying the guilt of having the disease, 5) experiencing cumulative effects of the disease, and 6) unable to live a purposeful life. Jesus’s finished work on the cross removed all these effects of the disease so that “by His wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24)—truly healed!

An understanding of Christ’s finished work on the cross is the basis for a firm knowledge of our identity in Him—a founda­tional truth for successful Christian living. It was totally God’s work to make sinners acceptable again in His sight. Our proper response is to trust and rest in His work, and to continually offer Him thanks from grateful hearts along with our willing service.

Now that you have a more complete understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross on your behalf—how does that make you feel? Believe it, sister. Embrace it. Relish in it. Bask in it. Anchor your hope in it.

As Paul writes in Colossians 3:12, you are dearly loved!

Reflect And Respond To God About What He’s Shown You.

Kindness has been taken to mean genuine caring or an action of goodwill. It is often employed in association with showing tenderness or caring. Kindness occurs in several scriptural texts. Interestingly, a biblical account dealing with Israel’s departure from Egypt shows that the Jewish people were not very kind as they left behind their experience of being held captive. As the psalmist points out,

When our fathers were in Egypt
they gave no thought to your miracles;

they did not remember your many kindnesses,
and they rebelled by the sea, the Red Sea.

Yet he saved them for his names’ sake,
to make his mighty power known. (Ps. 106:7-8; cf. vv. 9-12)¹

As Futato explains, “They forgot God’s many acts of kindness. They forgot all that he had done for them in the past. They forgot, in particular, his saving grace that had brought them out of Egypt. … That the memory of what God had done did not produce within them the response of obedience.”²

It is somewhat difficult for a person to show kindness when he or she has been treated wrongly or maligned. Yet, the Lord Jesus displayed true kindness as his contemporary kinsmen nailed him to the cross: “Jesus said, ‘Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing’” (Lk 23:34). What a consistent testimony Jesus displayed, even as he suffered crucifixion without cause, for being treated this way: “Jesus … addresses God as Father … and asks him to forgive them (the executioners) … on the grounds of their ignorance.”³ Indeed, even in facing a wrongful sentence of death, Jesus displayed the scriptural standard of being kind, whatever the circumstance.

“Kindness” is mentioned twice in Psalm 109. In this rather unusual Psalm, the psalmist asks the Lord to repay the “wicked and deceitful men” with the same sort of evil which they have employed (vv. 6-20). In this Psalm, the psalmist wishes that no one will show “eternal kindness” to a wicked person (v.12) because such a person “never thought of doing kindness” (v. 16). “He charges them on two counts. First, their words are untrustworthy. … Second, the deceptiveness of the wicked comes out of hearts of “hatred” (v. 3).⁴ Was David returning evil for evil? Not likely. But he does implore God to give them what they deserve.

Such stands in a distinctive contrast to David’s remarks in Psalm 141:5, where he mentions that if he really has done something needing correction, “Let a righteous man strike me – it is a kindness; let him rebuke me – it is oil on my head.”

How vastly different are David’s words in the closing verse of Psalm 18, where he concludes his psalm with praise to the Lord:

He gives his king great victories;
He shows unfailing kindness to his anointed,
To David, and his descendants forever. (v. 50)

Not only was this true for David, God’s “anointed”, but to David’s descendants. In an interesting comment, Franz Delitzsch adds, “The praise of Jahve, the God of David, His anointed, is, according to his ultimate import, a praising of the Father of Jesus Christ.”⁵ Such a standard serves as a standard for all believers!

It is of further interest to note the proverbs that speak of kindness. For example, in Proverbs 11:16 (cf. 11:19) we read that “a kindhearted woman gains respect, but ruthless men gain only wealth.” How far better than wealth is that which comes from kindness (cf. Pr. 12:16b). Yet, as the psalmist in Psalm 55:22-23 observes, the cares of life can bring sustenance to the righteous, “

But you, O God, will bring down the wicked
Into the pit of corruption;

Bloodthirsty and deceitful men
Will not live out half their days. (v. 23)

May we as believers today be challenged to show kindness in all that we do so that others can see the loving kindness of our Lord and Savior in our lives as we live for Him daily. The hymn writer reminds us that:

In loving kindness Jesus came
My soul in mercy to reclaim,
And from the depths of sin and shame
Thru grace He lifted me.⁶

---

¹All scripture reference is from the NIV.

² Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms”, in The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, Il., Tyndale House, 2009), VII:338.

³ I. Howard Marshall, “Commentary on Luke” in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, eds. I Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 867.

⁴ Willem A. Van Gemeren, “Psalms” in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), V:805.

⁵ Franz Delitzsch, “Biblical Commentary on the Psalms” 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), I:269.

⁶ Charles H. Gabriel, “He Lifted Me”.

Introduction¹

For 40 days after His resurrection, the risen Lord Jesus appeared to men in very convincing ways. He particularly ministered to His disciples, for they would play a key role in His on-going ministry in and through the church. He spoke with them about the kingdom of heaven and told them to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit. He commissioned them to be His witnesses when they were clothed with power from on high. Then Pentecost came, and the Spirit came in great power. Peter’s preaching produced 3,000 converts. As a result of the healing of the man who was lame from his mother’s womb, Peter seized another opportunity to preach the gospel to those who had gathered.

Acts 3 ends somewhat abruptly, for we are not yet given any indication of the impact of Peter’s message in the temple precincts. Acts 4 begins with a strong and sudden reaction, especially from those who were Sadducees. This is the first instance of opposition and persecution in the Book of Acts. It should not, however, come as a surprise, to us or to the apostles. Jesus had forewarned the disciples that persecution was coming. Men would react to the apostles and their teaching because they had rejected Jesus and His teaching:

18 “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they obeyed my word, they will obey yours too. 21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me” (John 15:18-21).²

11 “But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say” (Luke 12:11-12).

12 But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. 13 This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. 14 Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your defense. 15 For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict (Luke 21:12-15).

Among other things, our text has much to teach us about opposition and persecution. But there is much more to it than that, as I hope to demonstrate in this lesson. Let us listen carefully to the words of our text, for it clearly declares the gospel, and it models the boldness and confidence which we should have as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission.

A Mixed Response
Acts 4:1-4

1 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 [greatly annoyed]³ because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening). 4 But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Luke begins by describing the response of the opposition to the preaching of Peter. The priests, the commander of the temple guard, and the Sadducees all “came up to them,” “greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” These seem to be the folks who would have been present at the time Peter began to preach to the crowd. Most likely, they embraced the theology of the Sadducees. This means that they did not believe in the supernatural, in angels, or in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8).

Two things “greatly annoyed” these Sadducees. First, they were annoyed that these unauthorized men were teaching the people in the temple precincts. In the minds of the priests and the Sadducees, this was their turf, and they had not authorized anyone to come and preach there without authorization. It was like setting up business without obtaining a permit to do so. The religious establishment had a monopoly on what took place here.

Secondly, the establishment was “greatly annoyed” because of the content of the teaching that was done on their turf. They were distressed because the resurrection of the dead was being taught. This was something the Sadducees did not believe, and thus they did not want the people taught that the dead would rise. Even more than this, Peter and John were proclaiming the resurrection of the dead “in Jesus” (verse 2). The dead would rise again, Peter and John proclaimed, because Jesus had risen from the dead. The implications of this were staggering to those Sadducees who had rejected Jesus and taken part in His death.

Because of the intensity of their opposition, I believe the rendering “came up to them” in verse one is an understatement. They came stomping up⁴ to Peter and John, seizing them and putting them in jail for the night. It was already evening, so they would hold them in confinement until they could hear their case in the morning. We might therefore expect that when these religious leaders authoritatively pushed their way through the crowds, seized Peter and John, and led them off to jail, that those in the crowd would be reluctant to identify with Jesus and His apostles. Such was not the case, however. In spite of the opposition, Luke informs us that many more came to faith as a result of this miracle and the preaching of the apostles, preaching for which they were arrested. Now there are 5,000 men in Jerusalem who have come to faith.

In Acts 2:41, Luke informs us that 3,000 people came to faith on the day of Pentecost. Here, Luke tells us that the number of believers has grown to 5,000 men. Thus, the total number of believers would seem to be even greater than 5,000. It is possible that more came to faith in Acts 4, in spite of the opposition, than came to faith in Acts 2, where there was no opposition. The lesson here should be clear: opposition to the gospel does not hinder evangelism when the gospel is boldly and clearly proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Challenge and a Bold Response
Acts 4:5-12

5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest’s family. 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man—by what means this man was healed— 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone [Psalm 118:22]. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:5-12).

Observations

Our first observation in these verses is that this is the account of a closed door confrontation. In Acts 2 and 3, the gospel is proclaimed in the open. Here, Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin to give account for their preaching. Either Peter or John must have been the source of some of this information, but even they were not present when the members of the Sanhedrin conferred privately, behind closed doors (Acts 4:15-17). Some information in this account would therefore appear to have been divinely revealed. No doubt, the church, composed primarily of new believers, looked on with great interest as Peter and John were seized and hauled off to jail and then brought before the Sanhedrin the next morning to stand trial. They must have waited with great interest to learn what had happened, and the outcome of it all.

Our next observation should be the identity of those who opposed Peter and John in verses five and six of our text. Luke is very specific as to the identity of those before whom Peter and John stood:

5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest’s family (Acts 4:5-6).

These are the very same men who, just a couple of months earlier, had Jesus arrested, tried Him before the Sanhedrin, and then demanded that He be executed.

57 Now the ones who had arrested Jesus led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, in whose house the experts in the law and the elders had gathered. 58 But Peter was following him from a distance, all the way to the high priest’s courtyard. After going in, he sat with the guards to see the outcome. 59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were trying to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put him to death (Matthew 26:57-59)

1 Early in the morning, after forming a plan, the chief priests with the elders and the experts in the law and the whole Sanhedrin tied Jesus up, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate (Mark 15:1; see also Luke 22:66-23:1; John 18:12-28).

These are the most powerful Jews in all of Israel. Acts 4:5-6 is the “Who’s Who” of Judaism in that day. These are men who would settle for nothing less than the death of Jesus. There was no reason to assume that they were not just as committed to kill those who preached the resurrection in Jesus.

A third observation is that I believe our text indicates the Jewish religious leaders did not immediately recognize Peter and John as disciples of our Lord. Notice carefully the way Luke has written verse 13:

When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13, NET Bible).

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus (Acts 4:13, NASB, emphasis mine).

The imperfect tense is used to convey past action in a variety of ways. Here, I believe the translators of the NASB have rightly captured the inference of the imperfect tense when they rendered, “began to recognize,” rather than merely “recognized.”⁵ We must remember that the top religious leaders would have had little or no direct contact with the disciples of Jesus. They fled at the time of our Lord’s arrest (Matthew 26:6). It was even necessary for the religious leaders to have Judas present to identify Jesus at the time of His arrest (Acts 1:16; Matthew 26:48). It would thus appear that initially Peter and John were simply viewed as two unauthorized men, authoritatively teaching that the dead are raised on account of Jesus. Peter’s preaching was so powerful and so skillful that they would not have known he was not trained in a religious school. They seem shocked to learn who Peter and John are.

Fourth, I believe that the intent of the Jewish religious elite was to so intimidate Peter and John that they would be permanently silenced. We should recall from the gospel accounts that the religious leaders had great authority, and that the people (even those in leadership) greatly feared them:

11 So the Jewish leaders were looking for him at the feast, asking, “Where is he?” 12 There was a lot of grumbling about him among the crowds. Some were saying, “He is a good man,” but others, “He deceives the common people.” 13 However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish leaders (John 7:11-13).

20 So his parents replied, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 But we do not know how he is now able to see, nor do we know who caused him to see. Ask him, he is a mature adult. He will speak for himself.” 22 (His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. 23 For this reason his parents said, “He is a mature adult, ask him.”) (John 9:20-23)

42 Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue (John 12:42).

38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus (but secretly, because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he went and took the body away (John 19:38).

Peter and John were abruptly interrupted and hauled off to jail. The next morning they were brought before the highest Jewish court in the land. This was the court that found Jesus guilty of blasphemy and which managed to accomplish the crucifixion of Jesus, even though Pilate was intending to release Him (Acts 3:13). They purposely put Peter and John in their midst, so that they were encircled by their accusers. It was all about intimidation. They employed “shock and awe” tactics, expecting to silence these two, just as they had silenced countless others who disagreed with them.

Fifth, observe how they carefully crafted their question to Peter and John: “By what power or by what name did you do this?” (verse 7) They carefully avoid naming the miracle, even though it is an undisputed fact (verses 14-16). Neither do they mention Jesus, His resurrection, nor their teaching on the resurrection. I believe their hope is that Peter and John will “get the message,” recant, and slip away in silence.

Sixth, we should observe that Peter’s response is that of a man who is “filled with the Holy Spirit” (verse 8). I take it this means that God gave special enablement to Peter at that moment to answer the accusations of the enemies of the cross. This is just as our Lord had promised:

12 But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. 13 This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. 14 Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your defense. 15 For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict (Luke 21:12-15).

Seventh, observe that there is an implied link between the power of the apostles and the resurrection of Jesus. Peter makes it clear that the lame man was healed in the name of Jesus. He also makes it clear that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Who could doubt the power of one who was raised from the dead? I am fascinated by Herod’s response to the reports of Jesus’ words and deeds after the death of John the Baptist:

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead! And because of this, miraculous powers are at work in him” (Matthew 14:1-2; see also Luke 9:7-9⁶).

Herod is no saint, and no theologian. Yet somehow he concludes that Jesus is really John the Baptist raised from the dead. John the Baptist performed no miracles in his earthly ministry (John 10:41), and yet when Jesus began to minister in great power, Herod assumed it was John, raised from the dead. I find that fascinating.

Peter Turns the Tables

Are these fellows ever in for a surprise! Peter and John do not cower in fear, but courageously turn the tables on their opponents. The very things that appear to give the Sanhedrin the advantage suddenly work against them. First, Peter points out the incongruity between their actions and the religious leaders’ reaction. Since when is it a crime to do something kind for one in need? What charges can possibly be made against them for helping a lame man to walk? (It is the Jewish leaders who “do not have a leg to stand on” here!) Next, Peter’s response raises the question of why they are brought for trial before such an esteemed group. The Supreme Court of the United States does not hear traffic cases, so why is the Sanhedrin ruling on the actions of Peter and John?

These men have made it abundantly clear to Peter and John that they are “in charge.” They are the leaders. Peter begins by acknowledging this fact: “Rulers of the people and elders . . .” (verse 8). The fact that they are leaders makes their guilt even greater. These men were the leaders who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and orchestrated His death:

10 “Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone” (Acts 4:10-11).

Here is Peter’s bold and direct answer to the question these leaders have raised. By whose power⁷ has this man been healed? He was healed by the power of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene.⁸ This Jesus is the One they, as Israel’s religious leaders, crucified. God raised Jesus from the dead. And it is through the name of Jesus that this man, who was lame for “forty years,” now stands before them. Whether the healed man was arrested with Peter and John, whether he was summoned independently, or whether he came on his own, we are not told. But we do know that he “stood” there in their midst. He was healed, and Jesus did it!

Peter now draws upon the prophecy of Psalm 118:22.

This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone (Acts 4:11).

The scope of this message will not allow me to pursue the broader implications of Peter’s citation of Psalm 118, but it seems to me that there are elements in that psalm beyond verse 22 (the verse cited) which are relevant to Peter and his situation.⁹

What is relevant is that this psalm prophesies not only that Messiah will be rejected, but that He will be rejected by “the builders,” the leaders of the nation. What is also relevant to Peter’s situation, standing before the Sanhedrin, is that God has made the Messiah the chief cornerstone. The opposition of the Sanhedrin is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. They thought they were in control, and they wanted Peter and John (and the rest who followed Jesus) to know this. But the psalmist declares that God is in control, for their rejection of Messiah was the fulfillment of God’s purposes. Their rejection failed to achieve what they had hoped, for instead of being rid of Messiah, they must now deal with Him as the One who sits at the right hand of the Father, waiting for His signal to return to the earth to deal with His enemies (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34-35).

Verse 12 is the knockout punch of this brief word from God to Israel’s leaders:

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The lame man was healed in the name of Jesus, the same Jesus the Jewish religious leaders rejected, the same Jesus God raised from the dead. It is in this name and this name only—the name of Jesus – that men must be saved. There is salvation in no other name. If these men would be saved, they must repent; they must change their minds about Jesus. They must embrace Him as God’s Messiah and trust in Him for salvation. To reject Jesus, therefore, is to reject God’s only means of salvation. To reject Jesus is to embrace eternal damnation. Here is true authority. No wonder Peter does not fear these men, even though they are laboring to intimidate him.

We might sum up Peter’s response in this way: “There are three things you ought to know. First, Jesus the Nazarene is the source of the power that has accomplished this man’s healing. This is the same Jesus you rejected and crucified, but God raised Him from the dead. Second, what you did was foretold in the Old Testament, specifically in Psalm 118:22. Third, the One you rejected is the only One through whom you must be saved. He is the only way to heaven.

Truth or Consequences
Acts 4:13-22

13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14 And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this. 15 But when they had ordered them to go outside the council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What should we do with these men? For it is plain to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable miraculous sign has come about through them, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to keep this matter from spreading any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” 21 After threatening them further, they released them, for they could not find how to punish them on account of the people, because they were all praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man, on whom this miraculous sign of healing had been performed, was over forty years old (Acts 4:13-22).

If there ever was a time for the claims of our Lord’s resurrection to be silenced, it was here and now. All these men had to do was to produce His body and that would have been the end of it. By divine revelation, Luke takes us beyond the appearances the religious leaders wish us to see to the reality of the situation. Luke takes us behind closed doors to overhear the conversation of these men after they put Peter and John outside, so that they could talk among themselves. They were taken aback by the boldness of Peter and John. Never before had they seen men stand up to them as these two had done. Peter and John were not intimidated. The religious leaders thought they held the keys to the kingdom and that by excluding men from the synagogue they were condemning them to eternity in hell. Now they are told that Jesus is the key to heaven, and they have rejected and crucified Him.

Because of the boldness of Peter and John and the irrefutable message they proclaimed, no one would have imagined that they were men without formal theological training. To hear them speak was to be impressed with both content and delivery (remember, Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit as he spoke). It was only when the religious leaders began to inquire about the identity of these two men that they learned, to their amazement, these were simple fishermen and not highly trained clerics. It was at this time, I believe, that the religious leaders became aware that these two men were disciples of Jesus. In other words, Jesus was not only responsible for the miracles performed by their hands, but He was also the explanation for their great knowledge and skill in proclaiming the gospel.

If this were not enough, they were painfully aware that the man who stood with Peter and John was the man who was lame from his mother’s womb. A great miracle had been performed in their midst. Jesus was given the credit for it. How could these religious leaders possibly punish the two apostles for what they had done, when the crowds were on their side praising God for the miracle that had been performed? The only thing they could do at this point in time was to instruct the apostles not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, threatening them with punishment if they persisted to proclaim Jesus (Acts 4:18).

Peter and John made it clear they had no intention of being silent. In fact, they declared that it would be impossible for them not to speak of those things of which they were witnesses (Acts 4:20). One must be careful not to misinterpret the apostles’ words in verse 19:

“Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide” (Acts 4:19).

They are not saying, “We don’t know whether to speak about Jesus or not, so you tell us; you be the judge.” They are saying, “There is no way that we can be silent about the things we have heard and seen regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Whether this is a crime that you must punish is a matter for you to decide. Either way, we will continue to preach Jesus.”

Several things should be said about the apostles’ response to the religious leaders’ threats. First, this instance of “civil disobedience” (if that is what you wish to call it) is the exception and not the rule. The rule is that we should obey those in authority over us (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Second, their disobedience is selective. In other words, they do not feel free to disobey in any and every way, but only in those specific instances where obedience to men would be disobedience to God. Third, their attitude is still one of submission. They do not seek to overthrow these leaders. They do not speak abusively to them, or of them. They are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. Fourth, they are honest and forthright about what they intend to do. Let all those who advocate civil disobedience take note of what Peter and John are doing here, for it is a model for us all.

There is really nothing the Sanhedrin can do other than to utter threats and let the apostles go. How ironic. This confrontation did not silence the apostles; it left the religious leaders speechless. They had nothing more to say. They surely didn’t want to talk about this to anyone.

Notice one more thing about what happened when the Sanhedrin faced off with the apostles. The religious leaders had no evidence on their side; all the evidence was in favor of the apostles. The Sanhedrin could not refute the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. They could not explain away the incredible miracle that had just taken place. They could not refute the words of Peter and John. All the evidence was against them, and yet they only became more resolute in their opposition to the truth. These men did not believe. This was not because the evidence was lacking; it was in spite of the fact that all of the evidence supported the apostolic preaching of the cross. Men don’t fail to believe for lack of evidence; they refuse to believe in spite of the evidence:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles (Romans 1:18-23, emphasis mine).

The enemies of the cross were not interested in knowing the truth and following wherever it led them. They were intent on covering up their error and containing the damage resulting from what they had done wrong. In other words, they rejected truth because they cared only about immediate and earthly consequences.

A Pious Response to Persecution
Acts 4:23-31

23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather, ‘Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot foolish things? 26 The kings of the earth stood together, and the rulers assembled together, against the Lord and against his Christ.’ 27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously (Acts 4:23-31).

You can imagine that there was great concern in the church over the fate of Peter and John, and likely over the implications of their fate for the church. Peter and John were arrested, jailed, and then put on trial (of some sort) before the highest religious court in the land, the same court that condemned Jesus to death. What a joy to see Peter and John emerge from their “trial” without a scratch. It must have been amusing for them to hear the apostles’ report of what took place in that meeting.

What fascinates me is the word “they” in verse 24: “When they heard this they raised their voices to God with one mind. . . .” “They” refers to the saints, not to the apostles. Peter does not give them a sermon on facing persecution (though he will teach on this subject in his first epistle, First Peter). These folks praise God with one heart and mind, and they petition God for the right things. Let’s first consider their praise.

Notice that the praise offered up by the church is grounded in Scripture. They cite from two of the Psalms. The church first praises God as the Creator:

23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them” (Acts 4:23-24).

This most likely is a reference to Psalm 146:6, but there are many texts which speak of God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth.¹⁰

The question is, “What does God being the Creator have to do with the persecution of the saints in Jerusalem?” There are many ways that the creation theme is employed in the Bible, but for the church in Jerusalem, the primary biblical truth that sustains them is a realization that God is sovereign, even in their suffering. Look at the entire psalm from which this citation seems to be drawn:

1 Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord, O my soul!
2 I will praise the Lord as long as I live!
I will sing praises to my God as long as I exist!
3 Do not trust in princes,
or in human beings, who cannot deliver!
4 Their life’s breath departs, they return to the ground;
on that day their plans die.
5 How happy is the one whose helper is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
6 the one who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who remains forever faithful,
7 vindicates the oppressed, and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord releases the imprisoned.
8 The Lord gives sight to the blind.
The Lord lifts up all who are bent over.
The Lord loves the godly.
9 The Lord protects those residing outside their native land;
he lifts up the fatherless and the widow,
but he opposes the wicked.
10 The Lord rules forever,
your God, O Zion, throughout the generations to come!
Praise the Lord! (Psalm 146:1-10)

The psalmist exhorts us to put our trust in God, rather than in men. It is God who can and who will protect us. Mortal men come and they go, but God is eternal. God made the heavens and the earth. There is nothing outside of His control. There is nothing beyond His power. The Lord particularly looks after the needy and the oppressed. Why, then, should the saints in Jerusalem fear mere men who rage against the gospel, when their all-powerful God is with them?

The second text they cite is also from the Psalms, this time from Psalm 2:

1 Why do the nations cause a commotion?
Why are the countries devising plots that will fail?
2 The kings of the earth form a united front;
the rulers collaborate against the Lord and his chosen king.
3 They say, “Let’s tear off the shackles they’ve put on us!
Let’s free ourselves from their ropes!”
4 The one enthroned in heaven laughs in disgust;
the sovereign Master taunts them.
5 Then he angrily speaks to them
and terrifies them in his rage.
6 He says, “I myself have installed my king
on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 The king says, “I will tell you what the Lord decreed.
He said to me: ‘You are my son!
This very day I have become your father!
8 You have only to ask me,
and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the ends of the earth as your personal property.
9 You will break them with an iron scepter;
you will smash them as if they were a potter’s jar.’”
10 So now, you kings, do what is wise!
You rulers of the earth, submit to correction!
11 Serve the Lord in fear! Repent in terror!
12 Give sincere homage! Otherwise he will be angry,
and you will die because of your behavior, when his anger quickly ignites.
How happy are all who take shelter in him! (Psalm 2:1-12, emphasis mine)

What is interesting about the use of this psalm in our text is that it originally spoke of the folly of Gentile kings plotting against the Lord and His Christ. The church understands that the psalm likewise applies to the Jewish leaders who conspired together against Jesus Christ. In effect, they are no better than Gentiles when they reject Jesus as the Messiah. As the psalm goes on to say, God laughs at the futile efforts of men to resist Christ because He has installed Him as His king. The best thing those who have foolishly resisted Him can do is to repent and seek His favor, lest He return and destroy them. How appropriate this is to the situation at hand.

The saints spoke of Jesus as God’s “servant” (Acts 4:27). Surely this is a reference to Him as the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah. Once again the opposition of wicked men to Jesus is seen as part of God’s sovereign plan, accomplishing what He had foreordained long beforehand (Acts 4:27-28).

The saints did not ask for God’s vengeance upon their opponents. Neither did they ask to be delivered from all suffering and adversity. Instead, they prayed for boldness to proclaim the gospel, and for His attesting signs and wonders which would manifest the presence and power of Jesus in their midst (Acts 4:29-30). Then, after they prayed, the place where they were staying shook, and all were filled with the Holy Spirit. The manifestation of the Spirit was courageous proclamation of the gospel (Acts 4:31).

Conclusion

This is a great text, with many applications and implications for us. Let me highlight a few of them.

First of all, the opposition of the Jewish religious leaders to the apostles is a virtual rerun of their opposition to the ministry of Jesus. Notice the similarities between our text in Acts 4 and Luke’s account of the opposition to Jesus as recorded in Luke 20:

1 Now one day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up 2 and said to him, “Tell us: By what authority are you doing these things? Or who it is who gave you this authority?” 3 He answered them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell me: 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven or from people?” 5 So they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From people,’ all the people will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they replied that they did not know where it came from. 8 Then Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by whose authority I do these things.” 9 Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. 10 When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. 11 So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one, and threw him out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” 17 But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” 19 Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour, because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people (Luke 20:1-19, emphasis mine).

Luke even uses some of the same words when describing these two instances of persecution. Luke introduced the Book of Acts with these words:

1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen (Acts 2:1-2).

The inference is that what Jesus “began” to do and to teach, the apostles continue to do and to teach after His ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Just as the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem opposed Jesus, so they opposed the apostles. This was just as Jesus had indicated before His death:

18 “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they obeyed my word, they will obey yours too. 21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me” (John 15:18-21).

There is one significant difference between the gospels and Acts, however. In the Gospels, the disciples fled when things got rough, and Peter even denied His Lord. Here, the apostles stand firm, boldly proclaiming the gospel.

As the argument of the Book of Acts unfolds, I believe we can see a crisis ahead. On the one hand, the Jewish religious leaders have closed their eyes to the truth and have determined in some way to silence those who would preach Christ and the resurrection. On the other hand, the apostles have been transformed by the events that have taken place in the past few months, and especially by the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They are no longer afraid of the Jewish religious leaders, or of any retribution they might mete out because of their preaching about Jesus. Both the church and the Jewish religious leaders have become strong in their resolve. A confrontation is coming soon.

Second, the opposition of the Jewish religious leaders provides Peter with the opportunity to demonstrate his own repentance. One way of defining repentance would be to say that it is a change of mind which would result in a different decision if you had the opportunity to do it all over again. This was the case with Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 37-45.¹¹ Joseph orchestrated a situation in which his brothers could relive (so to speak) their decision to betray him, but this time, it was his younger brother Benjamin whom they must embrace or deny. When Judah offered himself in his younger brother’s place (Genesis 44:18-34), it was clear that he had truly repented of his earlier sin (Genesis 37:25-28). Only when this repentance was evident could Joseph truly enter into fellowship with his brothers (Genesis 45).

As I was preparing to teach this text, it occurred to me that our Lord was exceedingly gracious to Peter to give him this opportunity to stand firm in his commitment to Jesus. In the Gospels, Peter had spoken with great confidence concerning his commitment to Jesus. He had assured Jesus that he would be true to Him, even unto death (Luke 22:33). Jesus knew better; we do too. At the time of His arrest, Peter fled from His Lord¹² and later denied Him three times. Peter had great remorse for doing so (Luke 22:62). What a gracious thing it was for God to give Peter this opportunity to face greater opposition and danger and to stand fast in his faith. Now, instead of denying His Lord, He boldly proclaimed Him to be God’s Messiah and the only means of salvation.

Third, we should learn something from the early church about our response to persecution. The church (which was composed primarily of new believers) was not shocked by the opposition of the religious leaders. They did not find suffering for the sake of Jesus an unexpected surprise. They did not pray for it to end, or for their adversaries to be banished to hell. They rejoiced. After Peter and John were released, the church joyfully praised God and asked for the gospel to be advanced. They were convinced that God is sovereign, and that any opposition was in accordance with His will.

I would like to suggest another factor in their joyful celebration in the face of opposition. Because they believed in the sovereignty of God, they were assured that their persecution was a sure sign of the progress of the gospel. I see similar themes elsewhere in Scripture:

3 Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance, character, and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? 11 Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation (Romans 5:3-11).

18 For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. 19 For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly but because of God who subjected it—in hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children (Romans 8:18-21).

11 For we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal body. 12 As a result, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you. 13 But since we have the same spirit of faith as that shown in what has been written, “I believed; therefore I spoke,” we also believe, therefore we also speak. 14 We do so because we know that the one who raised up Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus and will bring us with you into his presence. 15 For all these things are for your sake, so that the grace that is including more and more people may cause thanksgiving to increase to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not despair, but even if our physical body is wearing away, our inner person is being renewed day by day. 17 For our momentary, light suffering is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison 18 because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:11-18).

10 My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already attained this—that is, I have not already been perfected—but I strive to lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me (Philippians 3:10-12).

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body—for the sake of his body, the church—what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1:24).

3 We ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith flourishes more and more and the love of each one of you all for one another is ever greater. 4 As a result we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and afflictions you are enduring. 5 This is evidence of God’s righteous judgment, to make you worthy of the kingdom of God, for which in fact you are suffering. 6 For it is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. 8 With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed—and you did in fact believe our testimony (2 Thessalonians 1:3-10).

12 Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you (1 Peter 4:12-14).

Suffering for the sake of Jesus and the proclamation of the gospel is a privilege, for which we should rejoice. It is also grounds for rejoicing because it demonstrates the power of the gospel and anticipates the victory our Lord has won at Calvary, which will be fully realized at His return. Opposition to the gospel often begins with intimidation, but when that fails to accomplish the desired end (silencing those who proclaim the gospel), then persecution comes. Persecution is the result of failed opposition on a lower level. We see this a little later on in the Book of Acts with the persecution of Stephen:

8 Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9 But some men from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, as well as some from Cilicia and the province of Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. 10 Yet they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 They incited the people, the elders, and the experts in the law; then they approached Stephen, seized him, and brought him before the council. 13 They brought forward false witnesses who said, “This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. 14 For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:8-14).

In the end, the only way to silence Stephen was to kill him. They tried to oppose him by debate, and this failed, so they intensified the level of opposition to persecution, and then death. My point is that when we are persecuted, we should rejoice, just as the early church did, because they saw this as a sign of victory, not of defeat.

Fourth, power and authority are found in the name of Jesus. I was impressed when I discovered how often our Lord instructed His disciples to ask and to serve in His name. In our text, Peter is very specific in his choice of words; he makes it very clear to all that this lame man was healed in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. This is what Peter reaffirmed to the religious leaders who were members of the Sanhedrin. The New Testament epistles also speak of doing all in the name of Jesus:

And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17).

Somehow I have tended to react to ending every prayer, “in Jesus’ name,” but God has used this text to exhort me to do so, every time I pray. It has also encouraged me to minister in His name, being sure that others know it is by His power or to His glory that ministry is done.

As we approach the Christmas season, we can observe the many ways our culture is seeking to remove the name of Jesus from our conversation and communication. Merry Christmas has all too easily become “Happy Holidays.” Let us not cease to name the name of Jesus, for it is He who is to be preeminent (Colossians 1:18), and only in His name can men be saved.

Fifth, our text has a very clear and concise declaration of the gospel:

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Look no further than Jesus for salvation. Look to no other than to Jesus for salvation. It is by faith in His name that we must be saved. What does this mean? It means that we must acknowledge that apart from Jesus, we will never be able to earn our way to heaven. It means that by means of His death, burial, and resurrection, the punishment for our sins has been paid. It means that His righteousness can be ours, if we accept it. Among all of the good things we find in our text, don’t forget that it all begins when you acknowledge your sin, and when you accept the salvation which Jesus offers freely to all who believe.

Sixth, take note of what happens when men and women are filled with the Spirit. To be filled with the Spirit does not mean that we become exempt from the trials and tribulations of this life. Indeed, those who are Spirit filled may experience greater trials and testings than others. They will likely experience persecution (see 2 Timothy 3:12). Spirit-filled Christians may not experience health and wealth. But what Spirit-filled Christians will experience is joy in their faith and boldness in their witness. At least that is what we find in this text.

Finally, I want you to take note that it is not the Holy Spirit who is prominent in our text; it is Jesus. If there is any book of the Bible in which the presence and power of the Holy Spirit is emphasized, it is the Book of Acts. And yet it occurred to me that here in our text, where the Spirit’s work is so evident, the Spirit Himself is not the center of attention. It is not the Spirit’s task to glorify Himself; it is the work of the Spirit to glorify Jesus:

26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me, 27 and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27).

13 “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you” (John 16:13-14).

There is a chorus that we sometimes sing. It begins, “Father, we love you. . .” and this stanza ends, “Glorify Thy name, Glorify Thy name, Glorify Thy name in all the earth.” The next stanza says the same thing, but now it is the Son of whom we sing. My problem comes in the third stanza. Is it right to sing that the Spirit should glorify His name? I think not. His mission is to glorify the Son, just as the Son’s passion is to glorify the Father (see also John 7:18; 8:49-50, 54; 12:28; 12:31-32; 14:13; 15:8; 17:1, 4).

As I close, I think that American Christians are beginning to experience intimidation for the sake of the gospel. This should not silence us. And when it does not, persecution will follow, here, as it has elsewhere. We should expect persecution, and when it comes, we should rejoice in it, because it has come as part of the divine plan, and it is an indication that victory is ahead. May God give us boldness to proclaim the name of Jesus to a lost and doomed generation.

---

¹ Copyright © 2005 by Community Bible Chapel, 418 E. Main Street, Richardson, TX 75081. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 8 in the Studies in the Book of Acts series prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on December 11, 2005. Anyone is at liberty to use this lesson 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.

² 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.

³ I have chosen to replace the word “angry,” chosen by the translators of the NET Bible, and to replace it with the expression “greatly annoyed,” which is indicated in a footnote as an alternative rendering. This term is found elsewhere only in Acts 16:18, where it is rendered “greatly annoyed.”

⁴ This term literally means to “stand over.” With the exception of three occurrences in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy, the term is only found in Luke and Acts. Every time it is employed in Luke, it describes a more intense or dramatic “coming up” or “appearing.” It is used of the appearance of the angel of God in Luke 2:9. It is used of Anna’s dramatic appearance in the temple in Luke 2:38. It describes Jesus as “standing over” Peter’s mother-in-law when He commanded her fever to leave her (Luke 4:39). It is used to describe the time when the Jewish religious leaders “confronted” (the same word, in the NASB and NKJV) Jesus for His teaching in the temple. It is used of the dramatic return of our Lord, which may catch some unprepared in Luke 21:34 (and here the NET Bible renders the word, “come down upon”). In Acts 6:2, the term is used to describe the approach of the religious leaders who drag Stephen off to trial, after which they will kill him.

⁵ While the NET Bible does not render it this way in verse 13, it does render the imperfect tense in this way in verse 7: “After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, ‘By what power or by what name did you do this?’” The NASB renders verse 7 in the same way.

⁶ In the Book of Matthew, the emphasis falls on Herod, who interprets the miracles of Jesus as evidence of John’s resurrection. Luke informs us that Herod was not alone in this conclusion. A number of people thought the same thing.

⁷ I understand that doing something in Jesus’ name is to do it in His power.

⁸ I was fascinated to find how often Jesus is identified as the Nazarene. Those who sought to arrest Jesus were looking for “Jesus the Nazarene” (John 18:7). The sign on the cross identified Jesus as “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19).

⁹ For example, the psalmist speaks of the Lord’s help when nations surrounded him and pushed him violently (Psalm 118:10-14). Does Peter see any parallels to his circumstances, surrounded by these Jewish religious leaders? He speaks with assurance that he will live and not die, and thus he will proclaim the works of the Lord (Psalm 118:17-18). Is Peter speaking of his confidence that these men will not succeed in killing him? I wonder. This psalm would be a source of great comfort to one suffering persecution.

¹⁰ Here are a few references to God as the Creator for your consideration and study: Genesis 1:26; 2:4; 5:1-2; 6:6; 7:4; 14:19,22; Exodus 20:11; 30:17; Deuteronomy 4:32-40; 5:8; 32:6; 2 Kings 19:45; 2 Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 74:17; 89; 104:14, 24, 30; 115:15; 124:8; 134:3; 135:7; 139:13, 15; 146:6; 148:5; Proverbs 8:26; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Isaiah 13:13; 27:11; 37:16; 40:18-31; 41:20; 42:5-13; 43:1-7, 15; 44:24; 45:4-18; 48:7; 54:5, 16; 57:16, 19; 65:17-18; 66:22; Jeremiah 10:11-12; 27:5; 31:22; 32:2, 17; 51:15; Ezekiel 28:15; Amos 4:13; Habakkuk 3:6; Malachi 2:10; Acts 14:15; 17:24, 26; Revelation 4:11; 14:7.

¹¹ The story of Joseph and his family actually continues to the end of Genesis, but these chapters focus on the point I am seeking to make.

¹² We should not forget that it was Peter who drew his sword at the time of our Lord’s arrest, removing the ear of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10). He was willing to die with Jesus, it would seem, but he could not cope with our Lord’s surrender to death at the hands of His enemies.

The appearance of this important volume on the return of the Lord just at the time of the completion of the study of “Premillennialism and the Tribulation” will be of such special interest to readers of Bibliotheca Sacra that it justifies an interruption of the series for this review. Dr. George E. Ladd, Professor of New Testament History and Biblical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, in this his second book in the field of eschatology, ably presents a spirited defense of posttribulationism. According to Dr. Ladd himself, “The central thesis of this book is that the Blessed Hope is the second coming of Jesus Christ and not a pretribulation raptures” (p. 11, italics his). Dr. Ladd is recognized as a New Testament scholar and on occasion he has contributed articles to Bibliotheca Sacra. In offering this review, no personal criticism or discourtesy to the author is intended. The reviewer is convinced that the arguments of the book do not sustain adequately the posttribulational position, but Dr. Ladd is entitled to be heard. He has marshaled with unusual force the traditional arguments for the posttribulational theory. It is not too much to say that this is one of the best studies in support of posttribulationism which has appeared in book form for some time and will probably strengthen the cause of posttribulationism in contemporary conservative theology.

A number of important assumptions are basic to the point of view presented. While Dr. Ladd plainly champions posttribulationism, he explicitly assumes the premillennial interpretation of Scripture. This is clear from this volume (cf. p. 13), as well as from his earlier work, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God. The principal appeal is made to the Scriptures themselves which are everywhere considered infallible and authoritative. Dr. Ladd stands with the conservative theology of orthodoxy, and it would be most unfair to charge him with theological liberalism. It should be obvious that liberal scholars do not debate pretribulationism versus posttribulationism. Though the premillennial point of view is assumed, the dispensational interpretation of Scripture is rejected. The view is advanced that the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament have a dual fulfillment, i.e., both in the church and in Israel. In this regard, his point of view is similar to covenant theology in its definition of the kingdom of God and the church. In contrast to covenant theology, however, the futuristic interpretation of the Book of Revelation is held which, Dr. Ladd states, was promoted by Darby and his Plymouth Brethren associates after centuries of neglect. His rejection of a clear distinction between Israel and the church as well as opposition to other dispensational teachings undoubtedly is a major causal factor in his rejection of pretribulationism. This is recognized by the fact that the author spends an entire chapter refuting dispensationalism as a step in his argument against pretribulationism.

The arguments for posttribulationism are presented on a high level of courtesy to opponents. This is quite in contrast to Alexander Reese’s The Approaching Advent of Christ, and some other posttribulational books, which heap invectives upon pretribulationists. Dr. Ladd almost overdoes his courtesy to opponents, going so far as to omit references to persons and works with which he disagrees, thereby making impossible any tracing of quotations or allusions. A few unfortunate quotations fall below this standard of courtesy. Though less comprehensive than some older works and tracts, this volume, nevertheless, provides a solid basis for examination of the posttribulational view. It is evident that the author is concerned with the charge sometimes made by pretribulationists that posttribulationism is a departure from true Biblical interpretation. He endeavors to demonstrate instead that posttribulationism is a time-honored doctrine dating from the early fathers and held by men of God through the centuries. His point is that pretribulationism is an unproved innovation based upon inference alone.

The author states as his purpose in writing the book: …this book is sent forth with the earnest prayer that it may be used by the Holy Spirit to bring a better understanding to a difficult subject and to promote Christian liberty in the interpretation of prophetic truth” (pp. 13-14).

The first third of the book is devoted to the historical argument for posttribulationism, somewhat of an anomaly for a work featured as a “Biblical study.” He endeavors to prove that a posttribulational return of Christ was the historic hope of the church from the beginning. An extended chapter devoted to “The Rise and Spread of Pretribulationism” traces pretribulationism to the Plymouth Brethren movement in the early nineteenth century. The argument is designed to prove (1) that pretribulationism was unknown until the nineteenth century; (2) that honored men of God have been posttribulationists; (3) that pretribulationism started as a heresy and not through sound Biblical studies. The familiar point is made, with thorough documentation from eight of the early fathers or writings, that pretribulationism was unknown in the early church and never appeared in any form until it was made known in a special revelation given to an erratic individual, Edward Irving, about 1826. Dr. Ladd claims that it was immediately accepted by Darby and his associates and widely proclaimed.

Posttribulationists will find in this section of the book a forceful and comprehensive statement of one of their best arguments. As Dr. Ladd himself concedes, however, “Let it be at once emphasized that we are not turning to the church fathers to find authority for either pre-or posttribulationism. The one authority is the Word of God…” (p. 19). It should be clear that citation from eight fathers over a period of three hundred years is not unquestionable proof that the entire early church was posttribulational. The historical argument is more of a psychological than a theological one. Truth cannot be proved simply by counting scholars, even ancient ones. Dr. Ladd is obviously selective and considers only the facts which support his thesis.

While the evidence supports the conclusion that some of the fathers were posttribulational, the discussion does not sufficiently account for the doctrine of imminency as it appeared so commonly in the early church. Pretribulationists who are familiar with the early fathers have never claimed that they were explicitly pretribulational. The fact is that the early fathers were not at all clear on many details of their eschatology and, though their premillennialism seems firmly established, most contemporary premillenarians would disagree with many features of the eschatology of the early church.

A fair statement of the facts seems to be that some of the early fathers were explicitly posttribulational, that is, they regarded the tribulation as future and the coming of the Lord as following the tribulation. It seems also clear that none of the early fathers were explicitly pretribulationists as there is no extant writing which develops this subject in the way it was later explained by Darby and his associates. In many respects, the theology of the early church was immature and it took centuries of controversy to settle the major points of theology. It should be obvious that a difficult matter like pretribulationism would not be settled in such a context. In the fifth century, when the early church had established its theological basis sufficiently to deal further with eschatology, there was already so much departure from premillennialism that there was no valid basis for such discussion. It remained for the Protestant Reformation to restore the authority of Scripture and for others later to restore premillennialism and futurism as a whole, including a proper doctrine of the church. This context was essential to the pretribulationism of the nineteenth century.

In describing the rise of pretribulationism, Dr. Ladd rightly devotes considerable attention to the return of futurism which includes the teaching that the great tribulation is still future and that most of the Book of Revelation is prophecy rather than history. Pretribulationism in its modern form is traced to a series of meetings beginning in 1825 from which the Brethren movement developed. Dr. Ladd attempts to divide prophetic interpretation into two types, “the traditional futurism, and Darbyism or Dispensationalism” (p. 41). He endeavors to show that from the beginning there was severe disagreement on the pretribulation issue and quotes B. W. Newton and S. P. Tregelles as contending sharply against the pretribulational followers of Darby.

Pretribulationists will regard the charge of Tregelles that pretribulationism had its sole origin in an “utterance” in Edward Irving’s church as unfair. Whatever similarity there may have been between the teachings of Darby and Edward Irving, it is hardly sufficient to account for the wide acceptance of pretribulationism by the Plymouth Brethren. A better explanation is that the rise of futurism and the return to solid Biblical studies and literal interpretation of prophetic Scriptures, which characterized the Brethren movement, led to the pretribulational teaching. Ladd’s attempt to explain away the widespread acceptance of pretribulationism is a weak section in his book. He claims pretribulationism was accepted as a reaction to postmillennialism. It is rather that pretribulationism was based on exposition of the Scripture and was attended with spiritual power and blessing as it was proclaimed.

Dr. Ladd is correct in asserting that pretribulationism did not receive unanimous approval. It was to be expected that some leaders would follow posttribulationism. Most of the chapter on “The Rise and Spread of Pretribulationism” cites those who abandoned pretribulationism for posttribulationism. The argument is designed to demonstrate that pretribulationism does not stand up to careful study. The evidence given, however, makes it clear that in each instance there had never been a clear understanding of the true basis for pretribulationism. They were obviously superficial followers of pretribulationism. The attempt to show that there was a trend away from pretribulationism in the last two centuries, however, is eloquently refuted by his own presentation of the wide acceptance and current vitality of the doctrine. If pretribulationism was unknown before 1825 and has become widespread in the last two centuries, it is evident that no trend toward posttribulationism is thereby established. The logic of his argument that some outstanding leaders have abandoned pretribulationism for posttribulationism is, of course, faulty. On the same basis, one could prove that modern liberals are right in their rejection of orthodoxy. It would follow also that Philip Mauro, whom he cites as giving up pretribulationism, was also right when he abandoned premillennialism entirely and became its outspoken critic. If a departure from an accepted doctrine is its own justification, then unbelief and apostasy are justified and faith refuted. There is no scholarly evidence to support a trend either toward or away from pretribulationism. Even if a trend could be established, it would not prove the trend correct.

The historical treatment concludes with evidence showing that the fundamentalist movement within the Northern Baptist Convention was not specifically either premillennial or pretribulational. Dr. Ladd as a Baptist evidently resents the charge that posttribulationism is a violation of good Baptist doctrine. In this he is correct, for the historic Baptist church has never been identified specifically with either view, though premillennialism and pretribulationism have been the majority view among contemporary Baptist fundamentalists.

The lengthy consideration of the historical background of pretribulationism is summarized by the author as proving three things: (1) that the early church was posttribulational; (2) that pretribulationism “arose in the nineteenth century among the Plymouth Brethren whence it came to America…” (p. 61); (3) that “many devout men who first accepted this teaching were later, upon mature study, compelled to reverse themselves and admit they could not find this doctrine in the Word of God” (p. 61). As has been pointed out, pretribulationists do not claim that their teaching was specific in the early church but rather that the questions involved were not formally considered by the early church. The teaching of the Plymouth Brethren on the pretribulation rapture was a refinementof the doctrine of the imminence of the Lord’s return which had been held in one form or another from the beginning. The fact that some men who first embraced pretribulationism abandoned the doctrine is offset by the many equally devout and scholarly men who were won over from the other position to accept the pretribulational hope of the Lord’s return. It is certainly significant that pretribulationism is widespread today and is found particularly in those who have specialized in the study of the prophetic Word among premillenarians. The fact is ignored by the author that the real reason for pretribulationism is the rise of literal and futuristic interpretation of prophecy. He himself admits plainly that the historical argument is by no means final, but that the real question is what the Bible teaches.

The remaining two thirds of the book is devoted largely to Biblical argument. Dr. Ladd begins the Biblical study with consideration of the vocabulary of the blessed hope, namely, the three Greek words, coming or presence (parousia), appearing (epiphaneia), and revelation (apokalpsis). The argument assumes that these three words must refer to one event only, namely, the second coming after the tribulation. The meaning of these words, along with many other technical terms such as Day of the Lord,

Day of Christ, and the end, is frequently debated by posttribulationists and pretribulationists. The usual posttribulational argument is that all these words must refer to a specific event at the end of the tribulation. Some pretribulationists attempt also to make some of these terms specific such as the use of coming (parousia) for the rapture only and revelation (apokalpsis) for the second coming after the tribulation only. Some also hold that appearing (epiphaneia) refers specifically to the rapture. The more common view among pretribulationists, however, is that none of these words are technical words in themselves but must be invested by the context with their specific meaning, In other words, coming is not a specific coming except as it is made specific by the context.

The common expressions “first coming” and “second coming” of Christ illustrate the necessity of describing which coming is meant. If it is justifiable to use the same word, coming, for the Lord’s birth in Bethlehem and for His return to the earth, there is no valid reason why the same word could not be used for the rapture before the tribulation and the coming after the tribulation. The argument presented is that the fact that these important words are used both of the rapture and of the coming of the Lord after the tribulation proves that they must be one event. For instance, his contention regarding the word coming

(parousia) is that it is used of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and of the second coming after the tribulation in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. He concludes that the two events must therefore “take place at the same time” (p. 63). His conclusion, however, is valid only if it is true that the word coming could not refer to two future comings.

His argument is, therefore, an obvious begging of the question, that is, assuming what one is trying to prove. If the Scriptures were attempting to present a rapture before the tribulation and a coming after the tribulation as well, what other words could be used than the words coming, appearing, and revelation? At the rapture Christ evidently comes for His church, appears to them, and is revealed in His glory to them. At the second coming to establish His kingdom after the tribulation, He also comes, appears to the whole world, and is revealed as King of kings and Lord of Fords. To argue from these common words, which in themselves are not doctrinal, is fallacious reasoning whether used by the pretribulationists or posttribulationists. It is strange that in this chapter dealing with these expressions Dr. Ladd takes no note whatever of pretribulational objections to this argument, nor does he attempt to counter the apparent conclusion that he is assuming what he is trying to prove. The pretribulational point of view is certainly not obscure or unknown, as it is stated in one of its common forms in the Scofield Reference Bible (p. 1212, note). the rapture. The first explicit reference to the rapture is found in John 14:3, a passage which says nothing of a preceding tribulation and which states plainly that the immediate destination of the church after the rapture is heaven, not the millennial earth. The Johannine passage along with 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which are generally recognized as the three main passages on the rapture, all have this characteristic, namely, that there is no mention of preceding tribulation, nor is there mention of an earthly reign of Christ immediately following. A natural question is why Dr. Ladd, in presenting a chapter which deals specifically with the rapture, ignores these passages. The answer is not hard to find—they do not teach posttribulationism.

In this chapter also the argument is presented that inasmuch as there is a specific resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20, and this resurrection is obviously posttribulational, it would lead to the conclusion that the church must also be resurrected at this time. The idea that the first resurrection can be in more than one stage is rejected categorically. However, according to 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, there are three stages (tagma) of the resurrection of saints: Christ the first, those at His coming second, and those at the end third. Even Tregelles admits 1 Corinthians 15:24 is not the resurrection before the millennium—but the one after it (The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming, pp. 104-5). Matthew 27:52-53 is another “stage” of the resurrection. That saints are not all raised at the same time is not “inference.”

Dr. Ladd sees the church in Revelation 20:4 as sitting on thrones in distinction to the martyred dead of the tribulation who are also raised at the same time. He seems unaware here of the very common pretribulational explanation of this passage, namely, that the Old Testament saints are raised at this time and that only the church, the saints of the present age, are raised at the rapture. While pretribulationists are not agreed on this and the followers of Darby generally have interpreted the rapture to include all saints, the fact is there is no Scriptural proof that the Old Testament saints are raised at the rapture (For further discussion of this point, see Bibliotheca Sacra, 113:3-5, January, 1956). The pretribulational objection to this chapter is that the author does not prove that the rapture is after the tribulation. The very fact that the rapture is never mentioned in any clear passage dealing with the coming of the Lord after the tribulation would certainly leave the door open for the pretribulational view. Dr. Ladd’s objection that pretribulationism is an inference is offset by his own admission that posttribulationism is also. Some posttribulationists will probably be critical of this chapter inasmuch as the author passes by a number of the standard arguments for posttribulationism based on Scriptural terminology such as are mentioned by Alexander Reese and others (cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, on “Posttribulationism,” 112:289-303, October, 1955, and 113:1-15, January, 1956).

Having presented the point that the rapture before the tribulation is purely inferential, Dr. Ladd raises the question in the next chapter as to whether this inference is valid. He concedes at the outset: “We will admit that even if Scripture did not explicitly affirm a pretribulation rapture, it is possible that the totality of Scriptural data would demand such a conclusion; and in this case, it would be a valid inference” (p. 89). In the discussion which follows, a comprehensive refutation of arguments commonly used by pretribulationism is attempted. Such arguments are presented as coming “for” and “with” the saints, and the contrast between the Day of Christ and the Day of the Lord. He also considers the argument concerning the removal of the Holy Spirit based on 2 Thessalonians 2 and the necessity of an interval between the rapture and the second coming. The writer tends to agree with Dr. Ladd that emphasis on the “for” and “with” in relation to Christ’s coming is not conclusive in itself, though whatever force the argument has is in favor of pretribulationism. Dr. Ladd, however, misunderstands the pretribulational argument based upon the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ. Pretribulationists do not insist that these terms in themselves prove a pretribulation rapture. It is rather that in the usage of these terms there seems to be a distinction. The Day of Christ seems to be identified with the rapture as a specific event while the Day of the Lord seems to include the tribulation and the millennium or an extended period of time. It would be rather tenuous to claim solid proof for pretribulationism, however, based on the terms alone. Readers will have to judge, also, whether Dr. Ladd’s treatment of 2 Thessalonians 2 regarding the removal of the Holy Spirit is a satisfactory explanation. Actually he admits divine restraint is in view—essentially the pretribulational position. Buried as minor points under the removal of the Holy Spirit are such subjects as “The Teaching of the Revelation,” “The Twenty-four elders,” “The Use of the Word ‘Church’,” and “The Marriage of the Lamb.” It is not clear what relationship this has to the principal head, “The Removal of the Holy Spirit.”

A major criticism and one of great significance is that he attempts to answer in scarcely more than a page the important question of the usage of the word church. He admits that it is not found in any tribulation passage. The assertion that the word “church” is never used in the Book of Revelation “to designate the Church in its totality” (p. 98) is quite beside the point. The burden of proof is on the posttribulationist to prove that the church is in the tribulation. Dr. Ladd, like most posttribulationists, passes over this point hurriedly because posttribulationists have no answer to this difficulty in their system. They lack any positive proof that the church—the ecclesia—is ever found in the tribulation period. This key doctrine of pretribulationism is left with an utterly inadequate treatment, while pages are devoted to indecisive questions.

An extended discussion is devoted to proving that the marriage of the Lamb in Revelation 19:6-9 is an explicit proof of a posttribulational rapture. Ladd pins his entire argument that the church must be in view in Revelation 4—19 , even though it is never mentioned, upon the fact that pretribulationists believe that the church appears in Revelation 19 without the use of the word church. He states: “If the argument is sound that the ‘saints’ of Revelation 13:7, 10; 16:6 ; 17:6 ; 18:24 who suffer at the hands of Antichrist are not the Church because the word is not used and because we are on Jewish ground, then the bride of 19:6 cannot be the Church because the word is not used; the people involved are called saints (v. 8 )” (p. 99).

The fallacy of this argument should be evident. The text refers to “the marriage of the Lamb” and to the “wife.” It is on this ground, not the use of the word saints, that pretribulationists find the church in this chapter .

The main point of Ladd’s argument, however, is that the marriage is announced as a future event. As pretribulationists think of the marriage as being connected with the rapture, he concludes that the rapture must occur at this point, i.e., after the tribulation. As a New Testament scholar, Ladd no doubt is acquainted with the facts relating to a Hebrew marriage which make his entire position untenable. As Lenski and others have pointed out, a Hebrew marriage has three stages: (1) the legal marriage consummated by the parents of the bride and groom; (2) the groom goes to take his bride from her parents’ home; (3) the wedding supper or feast. Most Greek scholars take the Greek word gamos, translated “marriage” in Revelation 19:7, to mean “wedding feast.” With the exception of Hebrews 13:4, this is the uniform meaning in the New Testament. Ladd himself alludes to this in referring to the event as “the marriage banquet” and “marriage supper” (p. 99). It should be clear, then, that if the marriage supper is in view here, the wedding has already been legally consummated and the bridegroom has already come for his bride. As applied to the church, Romans 7:4 indicates that legally the church is already the wife of Christ. At the rapture, Christ will come for His bride. At the return to the earth, the wedding feast will be held. On the basis of generally accepted facts of a Hebrew marriage, there is no scholarly ground for the point Ladd is attempting to make on the basis of Revelation 19. The wedding feast is future, but the previous two stages are already accomplished in Revelation 19.

Most damaging to the effectiveness of this chapter is the fact that he passes over the tremendously important pretribulational argument for the necessity of an interval with almost no discussion. He makes only two points; first raising the question, “Where does the Word of God say that the saints are to be rewarded before Christ returns in glory?” (p. 103). He then argues that seven years would not be enough to judge two hundred million living Christians. He computes this would require that each Christian be judged in only one second as seven years amount to two hundred million seconds. This is an argument that borders on the ridiculous. He assumes that God has the same limitations as finite man.

Most surprising in his argument is the fact that one of the most important pretribulation arguments for the necessity of an interval is not mentioned at all (cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, 112:97-104, April, 1955). Pretribulationists have often pointed out that if every living saint is raptured at the time of the second coming this would in itself separate all saints from unsaved people and would leave none to populate the millennial earth. One posttribulationist, Rose, in his book Tribulation Till Translation, faces this problem. He pictures the rapture as occurring forty days before the second coming of Christ to judge the nations in Matthew 25. During these forty days a new generation of believers comes into existence—the sheep—and eventually populate the millennial earth. While the explanation of Rose does not commend itself, he at least makes an attempt to face this difficulty in posttribulationism. One would judge from his silence that Dr. Ladd has no answer for this basic pretribulational argument. While the chapter on the whole is a good presentation of the posttribulational argument against pretribulationism, its major difficulty is that it does not meet the more important pretribulational arguments and on crucial questions is either silent or indecisive.

Readers will find the sixth chapter on the word “Watch” an interesting presentation of posttribulationism. The argument is based on various Greek words used in the New Testament which indicate the attitude of watchfulness. Dr. Ladd holds that they do not necessarily carry with them the idea of the imminency of the Lord’s return. The argument attempts to show that all references to watching have the glorious appearing of Christ at the end of the tribulation in view (p. 112). Once again the logical fallacy of making a general word a technical and specific word is used. The important point is that each of the various exhortations to watch for the Lord’s coming has its own context. In some cases the context has to do with the return after the tribulation, and obviously refers then to people living at that time. The context in such instances makes clear, as in Matthew 24—25 , that watching for the Lord’s return has special pertinence after the signs appear. By contrast, however, where exhortations are found to look for the Lord’s return, and the rapture is clearly in view, no signs are given, but rather the believer is exhorted to look for the Lord’s return itself (cf. John 14:3; 1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). While pretribulationists have perhaps overdone the argument based on these exhortations, the use of similar expressions for expectancy of the rapture and of the Lord’s return after the tribulation does not prove that the two events are one and the same. While much of the material in this chapter will be of interest, it falls short of demonstrating its conclusions.

In the discussion of the question of whether the church can experience the wrath of God, Dr. Ladd rightly concludes that the church cannot experience divine wrath, though the church may experience tribulation. The argument passes over, however, the main point in the distinction as it is commonly presented by pretribulationists. Once again the real issue is avoided, rather than faced. The point is not that the church will escape the wrath of God, but that it will escape the time of the wrath of God, as it is stated to the church of Philadelphia: “I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Rev 3:10, italics added). As it is indicated, in 1 Thessalonians 5, we belong to the time designated as “the day” in contrast to “the night” in which the wrath will come. That the wrath of God is only at the end of the tribulation is refuted by the fact that it is mentioned in Revelation 6:17, that is, early in the period. That the church will experience tribulation throughout its course is conceded by all pretribulationists. The question is whether the church will go through that specific time designated in the Scriptures as the great tribulation. It is noteworthy that Dr. Ladd does not deal adequately anywhere in his volume with the great theme of the tribulation though he evidently accepts a literal view of it. The characteristics of judgment in that period are such that they will affect both saved and unsaved, namely, such judgments as earthquakes, pestilence, war, famine, and stars falling from heaven. His argument that God will save the church in the tribulation like He saved Israel out of the judgments which fell upon Egypt is its own refutation. No Israelites died in the plagues. By contrast, as Dr. Ladd himself admits, the tribulation will feature the most awful massacre of saints which has ever occurred.

An entire chapter is devoted to the dispensational problem, and the statement made is correct, that pretribulationism is an outgrowth of dispensationalism. Dr. Ladd shares the viewpoint of B. W. Newton, however, that dispensationalism is “the height of speculative nonsense” (p. 130). It will be clear from this chapter that Dr. Ladd does not understand dispensationalism. He defines dispensationalism as “the method of deciding in advance which Scriptures deal with the Church and which Scriptures have to do with Israel, and then to interpret the passages concerned in the light of this ‘division’ of the Word” (p. 130). To Dr. Ladd, then, dispensationalism is an entirely unjustified method of interpretation and is superimposed upon the Scripture arbitrarily. This, of course, is not true, nor is it fair to define dispensationalism in this summary manner. The dispensational interpretation of Scripture is rather the outgrowth of literal interpretation inasmuch as there are differing rules of life in different periods of the progressive revelation of God. Rather than spiritualize these differences, dispensationalists regard them as being pertinent to the age in which they belong. Thus a Jew under the Mosaic covenant was commanded to bring his lamb of sacrifice, something a Christian never has to do who has the one sacrifice in Christ. Under the law, Sabbath breakers were to be stoned, while under the present dispensation no one would think of stoning one guilty of misusing the Lord’s day. Dispensationalism is a method of solving these primary problems of interpretation and is far from an arbitrary assumption.

In view of the low value put upon dispensationalism, it is to be expected that the author would not appreciate the force of the dispensational interpretation. He shows repeatedly a misunderstanding of dispensational teachings. He concludes from his study of dispensationalism that the great tribulation is exclusively Jewish and not occupied with the church. Perhaps pretribulationists have not made themselves clear, but the great tribulation, even though it does not deal with the church, is not exclusively Jewish, as it also comprehends the times of the Gentiles. Obviously the fourth world empire is dominated by Gentiles and not Jews, and the saints who are won to the Lord in the tribulation time are from every tongue and nation. Dr. Ladd has therefore set up a straw man when he assumes that the great tribulation is exclusively Jewish according to the dispensationalists. Much of the detail that follows in this chapter is based largely on Dr. Ladd’s misunderstanding of dispensational arguments and should afford little difficulty to one who understands this position. This chapter, though it deals with the most strategic issue of the entire book, is probably the weakest chapter. It certainly is not a cogent discussion of the real issues relating to dispensationalism.

The concluding argument of the volume deals with “The Blessed Hope.” The opening point is that we should not be so concerned about pretribulationism as to neglect our defense of the Lord’s return itself which is disputed by the modern liberals. Dr. Ladd especially denies that posttribulationism is “a step away from the Word of God toward liberalism” (p. 139). His argument is that such eschatological questions as these do not concern liberals at all and are discussed mostly by conservatives. While his argument is valid in part, it is still true that premillenarians who are pretribulational are immune to modern liberalism. He is right that pretribulationists should not press this point beyond its proper limits.

In this chapter, the author spends some time refuting an unnamed author who uses Titus 2:11-14 to illustrate how expectancy of the Lord’s return leads to godly living. Dr. Ladd denies that the main force of the passage has to do with the Lord’s return, and he also denies that the passage deals with the rapture. It does not seem to have occurred to Dr. Ladd that the glorious appearing here could very well be the rapture rather than the second coming, as it has only believers in view. However, pretribulationists themselves are not agreed on the interpretation of this passage. While pretribulationists have the best of the argument when it comes to the practical application of the truth, Dr. Ladd is undoubtedly correct in his viewpoint that even a posttribulational return has a beneficial effect upon those who believe it. The argument that posttribulationism actually gives a better incentive to gospel preaching is presented in accord with the view that Christ cannot come until the gospel of the kingdom is preached to the whole world (Matt 24:14). He cites several missionary leaders in support of this point and goes so far as to quote Dr. Oswald Smith as referring to pretribulationism as “a dangerous heresy” (p. 150)—an unfortunate libel of pretribulationism. Though Dr. Ladd presses his argument beyond the Scriptural facts, undoubtedly he is correct that posttribulationism in itself does not remove missionary incentive and pretribulationists should not assume the role that they are the only ones who are concerned with the Lord’s return in a practical way. Many will agree with Dr. Ladd’s closing plea in this chapter for more tolerance in this matter of pre-, mid-, and posttribulation rapture.

In the conclusion, a summary of the argument as presented in the preceding material is given. In a word, he holds “that the contemporary inference of two aspects in the second coming does not have the explicit confirmation of Scripture” (p. 167). Dr. Ladd insists that the burden of proof rests on the pretribulationist, as if the posttribulationist has no burden of proof. He concludes with this appeal: “Neither pretribulationism nor posttribulationism should be made a ground of fellowship, a test of orthodoxy, or a necessary element in Christian doctrine. There should be liberty and charity toward both views. That which is essential is the expectation of ‘the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’“ (p. 167).

The volume, taken as a whole, is a worthy presentation of the posttribulational argument, and will serve the purpose of gathering together in very readable form many of the reasons which have supported posttribulationism through the centuries. It is the reviewer’s opinion that the main reasons for pretribulationism are practically untouched by this volume, but it is nevertheless the best posttribulational book to appear for some time. Dr. Ladd is to be especially commended for the high standard of courtesy which characterizes the volume. The reviewer continues to believe that “the blessed hope” is the imminent return of Christ for His church, not the hope of resurrection after martyrdom in the great tribulation. The daily expectation of the Lord’s return for His church is a precious hope for those who “love his appearing.”

Dallas, Texas

(Premillennialism series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1957)

---

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.