Monday, August 28, 2006

The Heart of the "Free Will" Error


(Here is some "theology 101" from a few years back. It's not a polished essay but it should have enough discussion to be useful.)

One of the first questions that needs to be asked when addressing this topic is, “What is a will”? Advocates of “free will” theism talk about the will of man as if it were the core aspect of a person. The will is thought of as a metaphysical object that plans, chooses, and directs man’s activities. It is thought of as the seat and “generator” of man’s desires. Thus, a free will is that metaphysical aspect of man which makes choices between alternate options. But this concept of the will comes from secular philosophy; the Bible does not teach it. The Bible speaks of “willing” as a verb/action far more often than it speaks of “the will” as a noun. And when it does speak of “the will,” it is not referring to some core metaphysical thing that makes choices. Rather, the will of someone is equivalent to his plan, purpose, or desire. The choosing faculty — the seat of emotions, desires, and choices — is the heart. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (ed. R. Laird Harris; Gleason L. Archer, Jr.; and Bruce K. Waltke), under the entry for leb and lebad (entry 1071), has this to say.

Concrete meanings of leb referred to the internal organ and to analogous physical locations. However, in its abstract meanings, “heart” became the richest biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature. In biblical literature it is the most frequently used term for man’s immaterial personality functions as well as the most inclusive term for them sense, in the Bible, virtually every immaterial function of man is attributed to the “heart.”

[...]

By far the majority of the usages of leb refer either to the inner or immaterial nature in general or to one of the three traditional personality functions of man; emotion, thought, or will.

[...]

Thought functions may be attributed to the heart. In such cases it is likely to be translated as “mind” or “understanding.” To “set the heart to” may mean to “pay attention to” (Ex 7:23) or to “consider important” (II Sam 18:32).... The RSV translates “which came upon Solomon’s heart” as “all that Solomon had planned” (II Chr 7:11).

Wisdom and understanding are seated in the heart. The “wise heart” (I Kgs 3:12; RSV, “wise mind”) and “wise of heart” (Prov 16:23) are mentioned....

The heart is the seat of the will. A decision may be described as “setting” the heart (II Chr 12:14). “Not of my heart” expresses “not of my will” (Num 16:28).... Removal of the decision-making capacity is described as hardening the heart (Ex 10:1; Josh 11:20).

The abridged Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), under the entry for kardia (heart), has this to say.

There is in the NT a rich usage of kardia for a. the seat of feelings, desires, and passions (e.g., joy, pain, love, desire, and lust; cf. Acts 2:26; Jn. 16:6; 2 Cor. 7:3; Rom. 10:1; 1:24); b. the seat of thought and understanding (cf. Mt. 7:21 [sic, 6:21?]; Jn. 12:40; Acts 8:22; Mk. 11:23; Rev. 18:7; Rom. 1:21); c. the seat of the will (e.g., Acts 11:23; 2 Cor. 9:7; Lk. 21:14)...

The will is simply a function of the heart. Man wills/desires to do what is foremost in his heart. Thus, in biblical terminology, the question of man’s “free will” is really a question about man’s heart. Does man have a “free heart,” and what is the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s heart?

In terms of general history and events, man does not have a “free will” as that concept is commonly understood. To begin with, the human will is a function of the human heart. The heart is the seat of man’s inclinations, desires, and emotions. As such, man will desire or will to do that which is in his heart. The Bible teaches that God foreordains everything that occurs in creation history. God is in sovereign control of everything, and this explicitly includes the hearts of men. This does not mean that God is guilty of evil or that man is not responsible for his actions. On the contrary, man is responsible for his thoughts and actions, and God is absolutely righteous. However, it is also the case that man’s heart (and thus, his will) is not “free” (i.e., he does not make autonomous choices apart from God’s sovereign plans), and God is the author of history. Although the following material may appear to make man a robot or puppet in God’s hands, such an inference does not follow and should not be drawn. The remarks following the outline should help to clarify this.

I. The seat of the emotions and desires is the heart. Man wills, desires, and decides to do that which is in his heart.

A. Various phrases in the Bible such as “said in his heart,” “speak truth in his heart,” “regard iniquity in his heart,” “thoughts of the heart,” “set your heart upon,” “cut to the heart,” “take to heart,” “secrets of the heart,” and “counsel of the heart” point to this. In addition, the heart is over and over described as glad, angered, sorrowed, yearning, contrite, proud, etc.

B. Both good and evil actions flow from the heart.

1. Evil comes from the heart: Gen. 6:5; 8:21; I Sam. 17:28; Job 15:35; Ps. 101:4; Prov. 6:14, 18; 11:20; 26:24, 25; Eccl. 8:11; 9:3; Is. 10:7; 32:6; 59:12, 13; Jer. 3:17; 5:23; 14:14; 17:9; Rom. 1:24; Jas. 3:13

2. Integrity/uprightness comes from the heart: Gen. 20:5, 6; Deut. 9:5; I Kin. 3:6; 9:4; Job 33:2; Ps. 24:4; 73:13; Rom. 6:17; Col. 3:12; I Pet. 1:22

C. Various aspects of the heart also confirm this.

1. Scripture focuses on the fact that God knows the heart of man: I Sam. 16:7; I Kin. 8:39; Acts 1:24

2. It is the heart which is hardened: Ex. 7:3, 13; 8:19; 10:1; Deut. 15:7; Ps. 95:8; Is. 63:17; Lam. 3:65; Mark 6:52; John 12:40; Eph. 4:18

3. It is the heart which must be humbled: Lev. 26:41

4. God laments their lack of a reverent heart: Deut. 5:29

5. It is one’s heart which must be inclined toward the Lord in order to do His will: I Kin. 8:57, 58 cf. Josh. 24:23

6. The heart takes delight in the Lord’s ways: II Chr. 17:6

7. God “bowed the hearts of the men of Judah”: II Sam. 19:14

8. God’s people were to search for and return to God with their hearts: I Kin. 8:48; II Chr. 22:9; Jer. 24:7; 29:13

9. They were to set their hearts to see the Lord: I Chr. 22:19

10. It is circumcision of the heart which leads to obedience: Deut. 10:16; 30:6 cf. Ezek. 44:7

11. It is the heart which turns away from / toward God: Deut. 17:17; 29:18; 30:17; I Sam. 7:3; I Kin. 11:3, 4; 12:27

12. We ought to forgive from our hearts: Matt. 18:35

13. The apostles were slow to believe because they were “slow of heart to believe”: Luke 24:25

14. The heart must be cleansed by faith: Acts 15:9 (cf. Jas. 4:8)

15. It is “with the heart [that] one believes unto righteousness”: Rom. 10:9, 10

16. Servants should obey their masters “in singleness of your heart”: Eph. 6:5

17. The peace of God guards our hearts: Phil. 4:7

18. The peace of Christ should rule in our hearts: Col. 3:15

19. We should sanctify Christ in our hearts: I Pet. 3:15

20. The law of God is in or written on the heart: Ps. 37:31; Prov. 3:3; 6:21; Is. 51:7; Jer. 31:31-33 (cf. Heb. 8:10)

D. Numerous passages directly show that the desires which produce action come from the heart.

1. Every man who “willingly gives with his heart” shall give an offering: Ex. 25:2

2. Whosoever is of a “willing heart”: Ex. 35:5, 29; II Chr. 29:31

3. “Follow after own heart” means to do what the heart desires: Num. 15:39

4. “Do what is in thy heart” means to do what the heart desires: I Sam. 14:7; II Sam. 7:3

5. “In the heart” means he desired to do it: I Kin. 8:17, 18; II Chr. 1:11; 7:11; 29:10

6. “To put into the heart” means to stir up the desire to do: Ezra 7:27; Neh. 2:12; 7:5; John 13:2 (cf. Acts 5:3; 7:23)

7. It is “the desires of your heart”: Ps. 37:4

8. “Go after the stubbornness of their own hearts” means to follow the heart’s desires: Ps. 81:12 cf. Jer. 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 18:12

9. Solomon went after false gods because his heart was turned in that direction: I Kin. 11:4

10. “Turn my heart toward your statutes” means cause him to desire God’s law: Ps. 119:36 cf. 119:112; 141:4 cf. Luke 1:17

11. The Lord’s anger will not cease until He has “performed the intents of His heart”: Jer. 23:20; 30:24

12. “Settle it in your hearts” means make a determined decision to act a certain way: Luke 21:14

13. Ananias’ lie was conceived in his heart: Acts 5:4

14. “... with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord”: Acts 11:23

15. “... my heart’s desire... is for them”: Rom. 10:1

16. “So let each one give as he purposes in his heart”: II Cor. 9:7

E. Thus, the issues of life flow from the heart, not the will: Prov. 4:23; Matt. 12:34; Mark 7:18-23

II. God is the sovereign controller and director of all things. This includes the hearts and desires of men. He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

A. God does all that He wants/pleases: Job 23:13; Pss. 115:3; 135:6; Is. 14:24-27; 46:9-11; 55:11; Dan. 4:34, 35

B. He works both “good times” and “bad times” according to His will: Job 2:9, 10; Eccl. 7:14; Lam. 3:37, 38; Amos 3:6

C. Nothing occurs without His decree: Lam. 3:37, 38; Matt. 10:29, 30

D. His decretive will cannot be resisted: II Chr. 20:5, 6; Eccl. 7:13; Is. 14:27; 43:13; Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 5:38, 39; Rom. 9:18-21

E. And in His sovereignty, God denies men’s plans when He chooses so to do: II Sam. 16:20 - 17:14; Ps. 33:9-11; Prov. 19:21

F. Thus, God sovereignly appoints/directs man’s good and evil actions: Gen. 20:1-6; I Sam. 2:22-25; II Chr. 10:1-15; 25:17-20; Job 14:5; Ps. 37:23; 139:16; Prov. 16:1, 9; Jer. 10:23; Acts 2:22, 23; 4:27, 28 (cf. Rom. 8:28); 18:20, 21; I Cor. 12:6; 15:10; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:6; 2:12, 13; Heb. 13:20, 21; Jas. 4:13-15; I Pet. 2:7, 8

G. He is also in sovereign control over the spirit, dispositions, and desires of man : Gen. 3:16; Ex. 11:3; 34:23, 24; Ezra 1:1, 5; Is. 37:5-7; Dan. 1:9; Hag. 1:14; Zech. 8:10

H. All of this is true because God is in sovereign control over the hearts of men.

1. He puts things (including dispositions) into the heart: I Kin. 10:24; Ezra 7:27; Neh. 2:12; 7:5; Ps. 4:7; Rev. 17:16, 17

2. He prepares the heart: Ps. 10:17

3. He turns / directs the heart in a certain direction: Ezra 6:21, 22; Ps. 105:25; Prov. 21:1; II Thess. 3:5

4. He opens the heart to belief: Acts 16:14

5. He changes the heart / gives a new heart: Deut. 29:2-4; I Sam. 10:9; Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26, 27

6. He hardens the heart: Ex. 4:21; Deut. 2:26-30; Josh. 11:19, 20; John 12:37-40 (cf. Rom. 9:18)

I. Thus, He (actively, not passively) foreordains and directs man’s evil desires to accomplish His purposes: Gen. 45:8 w/ 50:20; I Kin. 12:12-15; I Chr. 5:25, 26; 6:15; II Chr. 21:16, 17; Job. 1:13-15, 17 w/ 1:20, 21; Is. 13:17; 19:2

J. He (actively, not passively) directs the evil desires of other creatures for His purposes: Judg. 9:23; I Sam. 16:14, 15; I Kin. 22:19-23; Job 1:8, 12 w/ 1:20, 21

K. He (actively, not passively) sends men to perform their evil desires, and then He punishes them for those evil deeds: Deut. 13:1-3, 5; Ps. 105:23-36; Is. 10:5-15; 47:5-11; Ezek. 14:6-10

L. In sum, God foreordains all events in accordance with His comprehensive plan: Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:11

Discussion

It should therefore be clear that man does not have an autonomous, free will. Men will to do that which their hearts desire, and the hearts of men are ultimately in God’s hands. To say that God allows evil to occur is much too weak a statement. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and this includes all evil events.

Now this seems to imply two rather nasty conclusions. Indeed, the two most common arguments leveled against the previous material is that if it is true, it would mean that (1) God wills/performs evil for which He is morally responsible, and (2) man is not responsible for his actions because he is a robot or puppet that God plays with like a G. I. Joe action figure. (A well-known Protestant teacher is fond of saying that “God is not a cosmic rapist” and “God is not a cosmic puppeteer who forces us to love Him.”) These two arguments are never leveled against “free will” theology (for obvious reasons), but they are almost always employed against the Reformed views of God’s sovereignty and predestination as presented above.

In response to these two objections, it should first be noticed that throughout the epistle to the Romans, Paul preemptively raised and answered questions and objections that he knew his teaching would provoke (e.g., Rom. 3:1-6, 31; 6:1-4, 15-18; 7:7, 13, 14). Then in chapter nine, Paul did something very interesting. Right after he stated that God sovereignly predestines men apart from anything in them (9:6-13), he anticipated and answered the same two objections always made against Reformed theology! He first answered the question: Doesn’t this make God evil (9:14-18)? He then addressed the question: Doesn’t this make man a robot that is not responsible for his actions (9:19-24)?

His answer to the first question is that such an inference is false. He then basically left the question in order to restate the truth of God’s sovereignty. His answer to the second question is even less satisfying to us. He didn’t answer it at all. He basically said, “Stop your arrogant, rebellious whining.” He then even had the “gall” to suggest that God’s electing sovereignty is “longsuffering” to the wicked and “glory” and “mercy” to the elect! He first slaps us in our faces for even asking the question. He then completely turns the question around such that we should be grateful for God’s sovereignty! Thus, the Reformed view of God’s sovereignty as presented above is in good company. The two big objections to it are the two big objections that Paul anticipated and answered (though his answers don’t really satisfy us psychologically).

Now that we know that the two objections are not valid, the question is: why? They seem to quite logically trace the consequences of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. But in fact, when trying to draw inferences from such deep truths, very subtle errors are easy to make. Such is the case here. The two objections, along with the entire paradigm of free will theology, presuppose a subtle but fatal error. Free will theology assumes that God causes events to occur in the same way that man causes events to occur. That is to say, the two forms of causality (God’s and man’s) are assumed to be qualitatively similar. Thus, it is assumed that if God foreordains man's actions, man must be a robot. Why? We know that man can only cause something to occur by either persuading another “free moral agent” or by applying some kind of coercion (e.g., verbal threat, physical force). And it is assumed that God causes things to occur in pretty much the same way (qualitatively) though He does cause things to occur on a much larger and/or grander scale (quantitatively). Thus, for God to cause something to occur with respect to man, He can either persuade someone to make an autonomous, free choice or He must force that person to do something (either in robotic fashion or against his “will”).

By definition then, God’s foreordination must equal coercion. Causality is thought to be a zero-sum game. If man caused his choice, then God didn’t (and vice versa). The free will advocate rightly points out that man is called to make uncoerced choices and that he does, in fact, make such choices (Josh. 24:15; Jer. 18:7-10; Matt. 10:32, 33; 23:37; Rom. 10:13, etc.). But he combines this truth with a zero-sum view of causality and concludes that God must not be truly, actively sovereign over all things. And this is the same methodology which has led to a number of theological errors with respect to other important doctrines (e.g., the Trinitarian nature of God). A clear biblical truth (there is only one God) is combined with a philosophical assumption (there is nothing in the created order that is “trinitarian” in nature, and man can’t really get his mind around the concept; therefore it doesn’t exist) and results in the denial of another clear biblical truth (there are three persons in the Godhead). Free will theism is not heretical like Unitarianism, but both views arise from the same erroneous methodology.

The free will advocate’s view of God’s causality cannot be biblically sustained. God’s ways, after all, are not our ways. They are much “higher.” Of the many biblical examples that were referenced above, consider Is. 10:5 15. God sovereignly ordained that Assyria would plunder His people, and then He punished Assyria for her savagery!!! Assyria was culpable for her sins (vv. 12, 13), yet she was compared to an inanimate tool in the hands of the sovereign Lord (v. 15). What in the world is going on here? The biblical answer is that God sovereignly foreordains everything that occurs while man is responsible for each and every decision of his volitional (though not “free”) heart. Man makes real, meaningful, personal, conscious choices (i.e., volition), yet it is also true that God has foreordained all of those choices. The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wills (Prov. 21:1).

The obvious objection is that this is contradictory. Either the choice is “free” (i.e., metaphysically autonomous) or it is forced. But this objection likewise makes the metaphysical assumption that causality works pretty much the same way for God and man. It is simply assumed that an active, infallible, and non-coercive causality cannot exist because man cannot perform such a thing (or even understand the mechanics of it).

But along with the biblical examples already mentioned, we should realize that ultimately, His thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways. His ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth (Is. 55:8, 9). Thus, His word will accomplish all of His desires and purposes (Is. 55:11). His judgments and ways are quite simply inscrutable to our puny brains (Rom. 11:33). We are, after all, talking about the God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence. Obviously, there is something quite different about the way He causes things to occur. And as if that were not enough, the Bible tells us that this mind-boggling act of creative causation is small potatoes compared to what He is actually capable of doing (Job 26:6-14)! His providential dealings with creation are but the edges of His ways. Thus, it is hardly surprising that we cannot understand the actual mechanics of how God can foreordain man’s decisions without Himself performing evil or destroying man’s volition and moral culpability. But this is what the Bible teaches.

God’s causal activities are, in the end, not qualitatively the same as those of man. God is not restricted to the coercive causality of man. This is a bit crass, but His causality operates “on a different plane” as it were. He has foreordained all things including evil, yet He does not create or perform evil and He is not guilty of it. Men consciously and meaningfully choose to perform evil actions and are guilty of them. Yet God, without coercion and without destroying man’s volition, decisively planned those actions before the foundation of the world. He has foreordained all things, yet man is not a mindless robot. (Notice the explicit juxtaposition of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility without resolving the “tension” in Acts 2:22, 23; 4:26-28; Eph. 2:8 10; Phil. 2:12, 13.)

Thus, both free will theology and the metaphysical assumption of causality that undergirds it are false. God is truly and actively sovereign over all things. He is the potter, and we are the clay — the work of His hands (Is. 64:8). The Lord is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3). He works all things according to His will, and this includes the redemption of the people of His choosing (Eph. 1:3-11). His people perform meaningful works that are good, yet He ordained those works beforehand (Eph. 2:10). He works in them both the will (i.e., desire) and the actions for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). And because of His comprehensive and active sovereignty (Phil. 2:13, “for” or “because”), His people should reverently pursue obedience to Him (Phil. 2:12)!?! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!

Continue Reading Here

Friday, August 25, 2006

Vicarious Death, Punk Rock Style

Silver and Cold
by AFI

I... I came here by day, but I left here in darkness
And found you, found you on the way
And now, it is silver and silent, it is silver and cold
You, in somber resplendence, I hold

Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one
Your sins into me
As a rapturous voice escapes, I will tremble a prayer
And I'll beg for forgiveness
(Your sins into me) Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one

Light, like the flutter of wings, feel your hollow voice rushing into me
As you're longing to sing
So I... I will paint you in silver, I will wrap you in cold
I will lift up your voice as I sink

Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one, now
Your sins into me
As a rapturous voice escapes, I will tremble a prayer
And I'll beg for forgiveness
(Your sins into me) Your sins into me

Cold in life's throws, I'll fall asleep for you
Cold in life's throws, I only ask you turn away
Cold in life's throws, I'll fall asleep for you
Cold in life's throws, I only ask you turn
As they seep... into me, oh, my beautiful one, now

Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one
Your sins into me
As a rapturous voice escapes, I will tremble a prayer
And I'll beg for forgiveness
(Your sins into me)
Your sins into me... oh

Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one, now
Your sins into me
As a rapturous voice escapes, I will tremble a prayer
And I'll beg for forgiveness
(Your sins into me) Your sins into...
(Your sins into me) Your sins into me
Oh, my beautiful one


(end of post; ignore continue reading statement below)

Continue Reading Here

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Video Humor


Darth Vader terrorizes Japan

(end of post; ignore continue reading statement below)

Continue Reading Here

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Version 2 of the Gospel Paper


I’ve been in a revising mood lately so I decided to revise the Gospel paper. The original version (October 2003) put a lot of focus on the gospel as Jesus’ kingship but only said a little about the flipside of this coronation – the defeat of the previous king(s). Someone recently said something in an e-mail discussion list that helped me get a full picture of this aspect of the gospel, so I’ve revised the paper by adding material that describes this aspect. Thus, a good summary phrase that I would now use for the gospel is “dynastic transfer.” The gospel is indeed “Jesus is Lord,” but the other side of this coin is that He became Lord by defeating the old tyrant rulers and plundering their goods.

Instead of putting the revised version in a new blog entry (and thus having two versions posted), I edited the blog entry for the original version and replaced it with the new one. So the link to the paper is still here.

(end of post; ignore continue reading statement below)

Continue Reading Here

Monday, August 21, 2006

Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together

In light of all the controversy generated by discussions of the "Federal Vision" and the "New Perspective on Paul" in conservative Presbyterian circles, the following artistic interpretation of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together may help give a big picture summary of the issues involved as well as the history of the controversy.


Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together: The Dream







Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together: The Reality





Continue Reading Here

Friday, August 18, 2006

The Eschatology of Being "Born Again"

by Derrick Olliff

August 2006

(This is version 2.0 of this paper. Nothing of any significance from the first version (created March, 2006) was changed or removed. This version updates the previous version by adding a fair amount of material in order to make the paper more comprehensive.)

“There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.’

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you [sing.], unless one [sing.] is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’

“Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’

“Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.], “You [pl.] must be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.’

“Nicodemus answered and said to Him, ‘How can these things be?’

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Are you [sing.] the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you [sing.], We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you [pl.] do not receive Our witness. If I have told [aorist] you [pl.] earthly things and you [pl.] do not believe [present], how will you [pl.] believe [future] if I tell [aorist] you [pl.] heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’” (John 3:1-16)

In Protestant circles, the meaning of the first half of John 3 is well known. In this passage, Jesus taught Nicodemus about the necessity of personal regeneration. The subject is thought to be about how individuals are saved. They are “born again” – transformed in the inner man so that those who formerly rebelled against God are now faithful to him (principally by believing in Jesus). Without addressing the whole subject of “inner transformation,” I would like to present a different reading of what Jesus meant by being “born again.” (I think this phrase should really be translated “born from above,” but “re-birth” is hardly an unknown theme in the Bible and what follows will not require choosing between the two translations. It may well be that the double reference is quite intentional.)

I do not think the typical Protestant interpretation of the first half of John 3 does justice to what Jesus said because it contains two errors. The first error relates to whom the passage is addressed. The standard Evangelical view sees this need for regeneration being directed to individuals in general. Instead, I believe that the object of rebirth being spoken of here was the nation of Israel. The second error relates to the subject at hand. I do not think the subject in this passage is the kind of inner transformation that Protestants usually talk about. Jesus was not here giving a timeless description of how an individual is inwardly transformed from one who hates God to one who loves Him. Rather, He was describing the historical fulfillment of specific things promised under the old covenant. He was talking about a transformation from the old covenant order to the new covenant order.

To begin with, we should notice an unusual point of grammar in the text. An individual came to Jesus by night to talk to him, and the whole conversation was between Jesus and this one man. But in verse 7, Jesus shifted from the singular “you” to the plural “you.” “Do not marvel that I said to you [sing.], ‘You [pl.] must be born again.’” This change would have been noticeable to Nicodemus because either the pronouns are different words (unlike the English word ‘you’) or the verbs are conjugated differently.

I believe that when we consider who Nicodemus was, the shift in grammar should not seem all that strange. In the quotation, we find that Nicodemus was both a “teacher of Israel” (v. 10) and a “ruler of the Jews” (v. 1). In other words, he was a representative of Israel. Along these lines, the trouble he had with Jesus’ words reflected the general unfaithfulness and unbelief within Israel at that time. The unbelief mentioned in verse 12 was Israel’s unbelief, and it was ultimately Israel as a nation (not simply individuals qua individuals) that needed to be born again. The text begins with Jesus telling the individual ruler and representative of Israel that he needed to be born again, but this was functionally equivalent (as the plural grammar in verses 7 and 12 show) to Jesus talking about Israel’s need for regeneration. So we can understand verse 7 as saying, “Do not marvel that I said to you Nicodemus, ‘Israel must be born again.’” And though verse 11 tells us that Jesus was talking to the individual Nicodemus, verse 12 tells us that He was actually talking to and about Israel (all of the 2nd person pronouns in verse 12 are plural).

This identification of the object of rebirth as national Israel becomes quite explicit when we notice that Jesus was not talking about something new. He incredulously asked the teacher, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (3:10) Jesus was not only talking about something that Nicodemus should have known from the OT Scriptures, it was something that should have been rather obvious to him. But if we search those Scriptures for references to a rebirth theme, the Spirit’s work in general, or a water/Spirit regeneration in particular, we will not find anything that is significantly related to the general, personal, inner transformation of individuals as individuals.

To begin with, we can note that the birth/rebirth theme says almost nothing that can be plausibly connected with the standard Protestant view of being born again. The individual just isn’t the subject of that theme. Luke does call Adam the son of God (Luke 3:38) and Solomon was also God’s son (II Sam. 7:12-14), but we do not get much beyond those references. And since these two individuals are clearly types of Christ, their exceptional nature should be kept in mind.

On the other hand, there are several important references in the OT to the nation of Israel’s birth and rebirth. From Ezekiel, we find that Jerusalem (representative of Israel in general) was originally born pagan (Ezek. 16:1-5). Similarly, the people themselves had a pagan for a father (Deut. 26:5). Indeed if we go back to Israel’s beginning, we find the pagan Abram who was from “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen. 11:31). But after infant Jerusalem had been thrown out into the open field and was as good as dead, the Lord spoke new life into her and made her thrive (Ezek. 16:5-7). Along the same lines, Israel was no longer the son of pagans by the time he was in Egypt. He was now God’s son, His firstborn (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). Thus, we see the twin themes of resurrection and rebirth. Israel was pagan and as good as dead, but the Lord gave her new birth and new life. Thus, the song of Moses that was taught to Israel (Deut. 32:44-46) proclaimed, “Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you” (Deut. 32:18). Israel was born pagan, but she was born again by God and for God.

When it comes to the activity of the Spirit in the OT, the same pattern emerges. We do not find any consistent description of the Spirit’s activity with respect to individuals that looks like the Protestant view of being born again. In fact, the Spirit’s presence under the old covenants was not even universal. The Protestant view sees the arrival and indwelling of the Spirit as central to rebirth (eg., Rom. 8:9; II Cor. 3:17). This is how a generic individual passes from death to life: the Father sends the Spirit to breathe new life into him. But in the OT, very few individuals received the Spirit’s special presence and most of them seem to have been indwelt by the Spirit for certain special tasks. These include:

Joseph (Gen. 41:38)
Bezalel (Ex. 31:3)
Moses and the 70 elders (Num. 11:25, 26)
the pagan prophet Balaam (Num. 24:2)
Joshua (Num. 27:18)
Othniel (Judg. 3:10)
Gideon (Judg. 6:34)
Jephthah (Judg. 11:29)
Samson (Judg. 14:6)
Saul (I Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6), whom the Spirit later departed from (I Sam. 16:14)
David (I Sam. 16:13)
Amasai (I Chr. 12:18)
Azariah (II Chr. 15:1)
Jahaziel (II Chr. 20:14)
Zechariah (II Chr. 24:20)
Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:2)
Daniel (Dan. 4:8, 9)
Micah (Mic. 3:8)
the Lord’s prophets (Neh. 9:30; Zech. 7:12)

This list may leave a person or two out but this is pretty much all of those who had personally been given the Spirit in the OT. Thus, Moses wished “that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them” (Num. 11:29). At the time of course, this situation simply had not come to pass. Under the old covenants, the Spirit’s activity with respect to individuals was quite limited, specific, and special. This activity was clearly not what Protestants mean when they describe the Spirit-indwelt rebirth of unbelievers into believers. But if the Spirit was not given in the Protestant born again sense to all of those who trusted God and if the rebirth theme focused on the nation of Israel’s historical beginning, what specifically was it that Nicodemus should have understood? Jesus spoke of the regenerating work of the Spirit. This was supposed to be an obvious reference to some OT passage/theme/promise, but what?

With the previous discussion of the rebirth theme and the Spirit’s work as background, we should have no problem identifying Jesus’ words as a reference to the nation of Israel’s promised resurrection following its apostasy, judgment, and exile-death. In the 8th century BC, the Northern Kingdom of Samaria was invaded and conquered by Assyria. The northern tribes of Israel had apostatized from the covenant so God carried out the judgment that the Mosaic Law prescribed for such adultery. The Israelites were carried out of the land and foreigners were brought into the land to re-settle it. At the close of the 7th century BC, the same destructive conquest came to the Southern Kingdom of Judah in the form of the Babylonians. The remaining tribes had likewise fallen into unrepentant rebellion, so they received the same judgment. It is this judgment that the prophets described as the destruction and death of Israel.

But God would not leave His people in the grave. Along with the promise of death, the prophets also promised Israel’s resurrection. This resurrection would begin with and be initiated by the Lord’s chosen Messiah. The Spirit would come upon Him and He would draw both the remnant of Israel and the gentiles to Himself (Is. 11:1-12; 42:1-7). Thus, the Spirit would also be “poured upon [barren Israel] from on high” resulting in new growth and fruitfulness (Is. 32:12-15). The prophet Joel also foretold this Spiritual effusion on Israel with vivid language.

“The LORD will answer and say to His people…

‘You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied,
and praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has dealt wondrously with you;
and My people shall never be put to shame.
Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel:
I am the LORD your God
and there is no other.
My people shall never be put to shame.

‘And it shall come to pass afterward
that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions.
And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:
blood and fire and pillars of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood,
before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
And it shall come to pass
that whoever calls on the name of the LORD
shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the remnant whom the LORD calls.’” (Joel 2:19, 26-32)

This leads us to the two OT passages that are the most direct and relevant referents for Jesus’ description of the water and Spirit rebirth. They are the only two OT passages that specifically bring together water and the Spirit to describe regeneration, and they record the specific promise of Israel’s national rebirth/restoration.

The first passage is from the prophet Isaiah.

“Yet hear me now, O Jacob My servant,
and Israel whom I have chosen.
Thus says the Lord who made you
and formed you from the womb, who will help you:
‘Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
and you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
For I will pour water on him who is thirsty,
and floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My spirit on your descendants,
and My blessing on your offspring;
they will spring up among the grass
like willows by the watercourses.’” (Is. 44:1-4)

The second passage is from the prophet Ezekiel.

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them….”

‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt. The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by. So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’…”’”

The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”

Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath [or “spirit” throughout this passage] to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”

So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them.

Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”’” So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army.

Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’” (Ezek. 36:22-27, 33-35; 37:1-14)

What the prophets proclaimed here is not a general, timeless description of how the thoughts and desires of individuals get transformed via a personal conversion. This is not a generic picture of an unbeliever who gets converted to trust in God. Rather, it is a promise and prediction of a specific event that would happen to the nation of Israel. Throughout the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the prophets presented Israel with the judgments of God. The nation had apostatized from God. But along with this judgment and desolation, God would provide a new birth for the nation.

Isaiah began by calling Israel “Sodom” and “Gomorrah” (1:10). Israel had become one of the pagan nations. God had created the vineyard of Israel but it had brought forth wild grapes and would be destroyed (5:1-7). This would be the death of Israel (9:13-19). But God would deliver Jerusalem with a new exodus (31:4, 5). The people would mourn and desolation would come upon the land until God poured out the Spirit from on high and the wilderness became a fruitful field (32:12-15). This would in fact be the “gospel”: the good news that God would return to Israel and restore her (40:9-11). This new exodus/creation would make the old one pale in comparison (43:16-20). God would pour His water and Spirit upon His people so that they would grow again (Is. 44:1-4), and the mysterious servant “Israel” would bring salvation to the nation of Israel and to the world (49:1-7). This was the gospel of the kingdom of God. The Lord would return to Israel to restore her and to reign (52:1-10). This would all be the work of the Spirit-indwelt Anointed One who would go to Zion to proclaim the Jubilee of God (Is. 61:1-3).

Likewise, Ezekiel told his contemporaries that God would make Judah’s land more desolate than a wilderness (6:14). The end had come for Judah; she was going to die (7:1-8). God would perform a new Passover. The remnant would be marked on the forehead and passed over, but the rest of Judah – the new Egypt – would be killed (9:3-7) and God would leave His people (10). Samaria had played the adulterous harlot and had therefore received the death penalty at the hands of Assyria (23:5-10). Judah had also played the adulterous harlot, and she would likewise receive the death penalty at the hands of the Babylonians (23:11-25). Both would be stoned and killed (23:44-47). But the desolate land of Israel would be reborn and re-inhabited (36:1-12). God would gather His scattered people back to the land, sprinkle clean water on them to cleanse them, and put a new spirit within them (36:22-28). This would be the resurrection of Israel (37:1-14).

It is true that there was an initial fulfillment of this restoration when the Lord moved Cyrus to proclaim that the Jews could go back to the land and rebuild. After the 70 year Babylonian captivity, the remnant returned from exile and eventually built a new temple. But it was also clear that this restoration period simply did not match the full description of the Messiah-provided restoration that had been given by the prophets. Israel was still under foreign rule, and though the glory of the restoration covenant surpassed the glory of the previous covenants in some ways, it was a far cry from the kind of Spirit-induced resurrection described above. Moreover, though the people were faithful for a time, things eventually went downhill once again. By the time Jesus had arrived, Israel was again unfaithful to God. Things had become so bad in fact that it was not enough for Israel to be under the beastly foreign power of Rome. She was also held captive by the nastiest and most foreign power in existence: Satan and his demons (this is why we see all of the demonic activity in the NT when it was very rare in the OT). The full and ultimate gospel had not yet become a reality, and when Jesus arrived, things were certainly ripe for something to happen.

Now that we have reviewed all of this material, we should have no problem understanding why Jesus was so incredulous with Nicodemus. The birth theme and the Spirit’s work as they are developed in Israel’s story were quite prominent in the OT. Any Jew should have known this story rather well. For a teacher of Israel to be ignorant of this was a bad sign. At any rate, we should see that Jesus was not talking about individuals per se but about Israel as God’s chosen nation. It is of course true that a nation is made up of individuals, but the point here is that the texts focus on and discuss the nation as a whole instead of focusing on individuals. Neither was Jesus giving a general description of a transformation that happens in numerous times and places. Rather, He was talking about a single promised event – the OT gospel promise that God would restore wayward Israel. Jesus told the teacher and ruler of Israel that Israel needed to be reborn of water and the Spirit before she could see or take part in the promised gospel of the kingdom of God.

But if this rebirth of water and Spirit was a specific promise to Israel that had not truly been fulfilled by the time Jesus talked to Nicodemus, do we know if (and if so then when) it occurred? The NT answers this question with a resounding “yes,” for Jesus had come to do this very thing. He was the first in the new era to be anointed with water and the Spirit (Matt. 3:13-17). He was then able to begin His ministry, for:

“The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
because He has anointed Me
to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed;
to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.” (Luke 4:18, 19 quoting Is. 63:1, 2)

And after the Spirit was poured upon Him from on high, He would then be the one to initiate the baptism of the Spirit promised to Israel by the prophets (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8). But this promise had not yet occurred, for these two verses tell us that He “will baptize” (future tense) Israel with the Spirit. This was the necessary order: Christ the first fruits and afterward those whom He anoints. And before the promise could be realized, the Anointed One had to die.

“On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)

The promise of a water/Spirit restoration had not yet come to Israel because Jesus had not yet given His life as the ransom and been resurrected from the dead. (Here again we can see that this is not referring to a generic, timeless transformation of individuals from unbelief to belief but instead to a specific historical event that was to come.) The Messiah needed to die and be reborn before Israel could be reborn.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give [future tense] you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever – the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you….

“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send [future tense] in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. (John 14:15-17, 25-26)

“But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.” (John 16:5-7)

Jesus was put to death of course, and His resurrection was His rebirth.

“Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent…. But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings – that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’” (Acts 13:26, 30-32 quoting Ps. 2:7).

Thus, Psalm 2 was not referring to the fact that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the Nicene Creed describes the second Person of the Trinity and His eternal generation from the Father. Instead, as the Psalm makes clear, the birth it mentions was the Messiah’s enthronement as King. Jesus was begotten from the dead by the Father and ascended to His right hand to reign. It was this foundational birth from above that then set the stage for the Spirit’s promised work. “Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.’” (Luke 24:46-49)

This is how Luke closed his Gospel account, and interestingly, he opened his “Acts” by describing the same promise.

“And being assembled together with them, [Jesus] commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, ‘which,’ He said, ‘you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’ Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, ‘Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ And He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’” (Acts 1:4-8)

At last, the time had come. Fifty days after Jesus’ glorification, many Jews from all over the Roman Empire were in Jerusalem for Pentecost. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2). The Jews “were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4) and began to speak in other languages. Peter then explained that this was the “last days” effusion of the Spirit prophesied by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:14-21 quoting Joel 2:28-32). He then proclaimed that it was the resurrected Jesus who “poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Many were convicted and they asked what they should do. Peter replied that they should “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38, 39)

This was the beginning of the rebirth that was promised by Ezekiel and described by Jesus. God had promised this water/Spirit resurrection of Israel, and on the Pentecost after Jesus’ glorification, He kept His word and began to breathe new life into Israel’s dry bones. The waters of baptism, quickened by the Holy Spirit, begot many faithful Jews into the kingdom of God by uniting them to the King and to His body (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 6:3-5; I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26, 27). And throughout Acts, we are told of the effects of this event as the Pentecostal rebirth of Israel spread first to many Jews (“the promise is to you [Jews] and to your children”) and then on to the nations as the prophets had foretold (“the promise is to… all who are afar off”, e.g., Acts 10:44-47; 19:2-6).

There is one more important point that should be made about John 3. No one would describe the standard Evangelical doctrine of rebirth as an “earthly thing.” In Protestant circles, being “born again” is clearly a “heavenly thing.” Yet in His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus did in fact call the rebirth an earthly thing. Notice again what verse 12 says. “If I have told [aorist] you earthly things and you do not believe [present], how will you believe [future] if I tell [aorist] you heavenly things?” Nicodemus was in real trouble. If he had been told about earthly things that were easily found in the scriptures and yet did not believe, how would he believe when Jesus told him of heavenly things that were perhaps not so clear in the scriptures? Thus, Jesus had told the teacher of earthly things but He had not yet told him of heavenly things. And what were the “earthly things” that Jesus told Nicodemus about? Up to that point, Jesus had only talked about the rebirth. But how could He refer to such a “spiritual” concept as an “earthly” thing?

I believe this helps to show from another angle that Jesus was not talking about the same thing that Evangelicals talk about when they use “born again” language, but we should notice what happens after verse 12 to fully answer this question. That verse contains the first use of the word ‘heaven’ in the conversation. But then Jesus went on to use the word three times in the very next sentence! “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” (3:13) He then proceeded to talk about the Son of Man being “lifted up.” When we consider the gratuitous use of the word ‘heaven’ just after Jesus made a distinction between earthly things that had been mentioned and heavenly things that had not yet been mentioned, we should have no trouble seeing verse 13 and following as the “heavenly things.”

I believe that we now have what we need in order to really understand what Jesus was saying. In verses 3-11, Jesus told Nicodemus about “earthly things” – the necessity of Israel’s promised restoration from sin and exile. Beginning in verse 13, He taught the teacher about “heavenly things” – the Son of Man who would die, rise again, and ascend to heaven as the Lord of all.

What we have here is nothing less than a description of the promised new heavens and new earth (Is. 65:17-25). This was the goal of all of the restoration work mentioned throughout Isaiah. Israel and the nations were corrupt, and God would judge and destroy them. This would be a cataclysmic “de-creation” of the world (e.g., Is. 13:9-13; 24:1-6, 17-23; 34:4). But after this “death” of the world, God would bring life from the dead. God’s suffering Servant would bring salvation to Israel and to the world (Is. 42:1-9; 49:1-7; 52:13 – 53:12; 56:1-8). Israel would be reborn and restored, and this would include life for the world. After destroying the old heavens and earth, God would create them anew.

This restoration was what Jesus was talking about. The suffering Servant had come to give His life so that new life would be breathed into Israel and the world. It is the promised new heavens and earth. The heavens are new because a man, the “Son of Man,” now rules over all from heaven. This had never been the case before Jesus took our nature upon Himself, died, and was resurrected and exalted to be the King of kings (Phil. 2:5-11). The earth is new because Israel has been raised from the dead. And as the prophets promised, this new earth includes the ingathering of the nations into the covenant. The new covenant in Jesus is the new heavens and new earth.

Thus, we get the NT language of new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (II Cor. 5:17) “But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the [old] world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” (Gal. 6:14, 15) The Jews under the old order had been set apart from the gentiles as a special priestly people, and circumcision was the covenant sign that accomplished this. But Jesus inaugurated the new creation, and in it He created one new man – “a dwelling place for God in the Spirit” – from the previously separated two (Eph. 2:11-22). It is of course true that the new heavens and earth have not been fully consummated. This new creation certainly has not attainted its full maturity and development. But it has begun, and Jesus was its creator. He died and rose again so that the old world may die and rise again to something more glorious – the new creation in Him.

Now having said all of this, I would like to conclude with what I am not saying. I am not denying the existence of personal transformation. When someone who formerly hated God comes to love Him, something obviously happened to his “deepest” desires, motivations, etc. The change may have been dramatic (e.g., conversion of a mafia hit man) or not (e.g., the child born into a Christian home who never knows a day when he does not love God) and it may have been sudden (e.g., the “lightning strike” experience) or not, but such transformations do occur. God does convert people who hate Him into people who love Him; He does transform people’s strongest desires.

And in line with what has been said about the spread of Pentecost in Acts, we can see the transformation of individuals today as that which flows from the creation of the new heavens and earth. There is a clear analogy between Israel’s rebirth/resurrection and our own (with both flowing from the foundational resurrection: the resurrection of Jesus). And so the Bible presents discussion of more personal application in passages like Eph. 2:1-6 and I Pet. 1:22, 23.

The new creation order is as follows. During His earthly ministry, Jesus received the Spirit from on high and was subsequently born (“from above”) from the dead. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to claim His inheritance as Lord of all. He thus became the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) and the new Adam, the first fruits of the new creation (I Cor. 15:20-22). He then sent the Pentecostal Sprit to breathe new life into Israel. This new life then flowed to the nations as God “in Christ” created one new man from the previous two (Eph. 2:11-22). So Jesus became the firstborn from the dead “among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29 cf. Heb. 12:22, 23). These brethren, the early Church composed of Jews and gentiles, were the first fruits of the new creation (Jas. 1:18). It is this objective shift in the world-order that provides the conceptual theme of rebirth/resurrection that we can then apply to individuals. (E.g., notice the order in Ephesians. Eph. 1:19-23 describes Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. Eph. 2:1-6 then describes our resurrection and ascension.)

But the point of this paper is that in John 3, Jesus was not giving a general description of such individual transformation. Rather, He was describing the specific, historical rebirth that God promised would happen to Israel. Technically speaking, the nation had come back into the land after the Babylonian captivity. But in a real sense, it was still in exile. It was captive to Rome and to the demons, and it was full of unfaithfulness and rebellion. Israel was a nation of dry bones and she needed the cleansing water and life-restoring Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, the promised new heavens and earth. This event had not yet occurred when Jesus talked to Nicodemus, and it would not occur until after Jesus – the true Servant and Israel of God – had died and risen to new life. He was the firstborn from the dead, and from that rebirth came Israel’s rebirth and life for the world.


Continue Reading Here

Looking for Legalism

by Derrick Olliff

March 2005

Looking for Legalism I: The Sins of Israel

I previously posted a paper on this blog which discussed Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In it, I argued that Paul’s Judaizing opponents in Galatia were not merit legalists and that Galatians is not an argument against such legalism. Instead, Paul’s opponents were more like “hyper-dispensationalists.” They wanted the Christian gentiles to become Jews because the Judaizers believed that the old covenants had not been affected at all by the arrival of the Messiah. Paul therefore argued in his letter that circumcision (the Abrahamic covenant) and the law (the Mosaic covenant) had been fulfilled and transformed by the Messiah’s arrival. Thus, in this new covenant, the gentiles had been incorporated into God’s people apart from the old administrations.

In the next few posts, I want to continue with this theme as it relates to the N.T. history books. I want to look at the Gospels and Acts and see what sort of emphasis, if any, is put on identifying and critiquing merit legalism. The three posts in this series will be as follows:

1. The Sins of Israel
2. The Sins of the Pharisees
3. Some “Surprising” Teaching from Jesus

This post will summarize the sins of Israel in general as they are pointed out in the Gospels and Acts. I will be looking to see how prominent merit legalism is. Not every sin will be listed. In a number of places, Israel or a group of Jews is criticized without a lot of specificity (e.g., Matt. 11:20-24). But I will be looking for discussions of specific sins with an eye toward identifying any examples of legalism.

The next post will focus specifically on the sins of the Pharisees as they are described in the N.T. Since Pharisaism was the most prominent strand of second temple Judaism (2TJ) addressed in the N.T., this should be a good complement to looking at Israel in general. More than a few Protestants think that the heart of Pharisaism was legalism and I want to test that notion. The third post will review a few pericopes where Jesus gave teaching that seems directly related to the topic of legalism.

Before beginning, let me define some terms. Historically, the term ‘legalism’ has had several definitions. It is often defined as adding requirements to the law that aren’t there. Thus, the “house rules” of many American Prots. – don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t dance – would be legalism by this definition. These are moral requirements that the word of God does not require. They are “traditions of men” that have been added to God’s law. I will refer to this form of legalism as “additive legalism” or AL. The other main form of legalism is what I’ll call “merit legalism” or ML. This is the idea, belief, or teaching that one can earn/merit salvation from God by doing good works, and this is the type of legalism that I’ll be looking for.

These two sins are clearly not the same. For example, one can add requirements to the law without supposing that obedience to such requirements will earn salvation. Maybe such additions are meant to be a hedge which protects people from even getting close to “the line” (and thus significantly lowering the chances that they will cross it). Maybe such additions are meant to make those who do them look good and pious before others. Or maybe those proposing the additions don’t think they are additions at all. Maybe they are simply wrong about what the law requires. On the other hand, someone could have a completely accurate view of what the law requires and he could avoid adding to the law but he could still be an ML. He could correctly identify what is and is not sin but he could still think that by following God’s law, he is thereby meriting his salvation. Thus, AL and ML are clearly different problems and this difference should be kept in mind.

The Sins of Israel

This isn’t going to be fancy. I’ll just list the specific and noteworthy sins that were attributed to Israel (or Jews in general without regard for party affiliation) in the N.T. history books followed by some comments.

Matt. 6:1-5, 16
There appears to have been a significant number of “hypocrites” who did pious looking things in order to be seen by and get glory from men.

Matt. 10:5-23
The disciples were persecuted by some in Israel who failed to believe that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matt. 11:16-19
“This generation” had an inconsistent standard that was impossible to meet. It condemned John and Jesus in a way that was clearly contrived and disingenuous.

Matt. 12:39; 16:4
“This generation” was “adulterous,” a term that reflects OT usage and refers to Israel’s widespread unfaithfulness to the covenant. Israel was married to God (Ezek. 16), and her unfaithfulness to Him is adultery. Idolatry was the most common sin that brought the “adulterous” label.

Matt. 13:53-58
Many in Nazareth did not believe that Jesus was who He said He was.

Matt. 21:23-27
The rulers of Israel challenged and rejected Jesus’ authority.

Matt. 23:37-39
Jerusalem killed the prophets and apostles and she rejected Jesus.

Matt. 26:3, 4; 27:1, 2
The rulers of Israel were active participants in Jesus’ murder.

Matt. 27:15-26; Acts 2:22, 23, 36; 3:12-15
The people in general were guilty of murdering Jesus.

Luke 3:7-9
There were probably those who were covenantally presumptuous. They thought that they were safe from judgment because they were Abraham’s children.

Luke 11:29-32
This “evil generation” tempted God by seeking a sign and it failed to repent at the preaching of Jesus.

Luke 13:10-17
A synagogue ruler hypocritically judged Jesus for something he did himself.

Luke 17:11-19
The nine Jewish lepers were ungrateful after being healed; only the foreigner returned to glorify God.

Luke 17:22-25 cf. John 1:11
“This generation” rejected Jesus.

Luke 19:41-44
Israel “did not know the time of [her] visitation.”

John 5:36-40; 6:64-66; 8:42-47; 9:22-26; 12:37-40
Some Jews did not believe or trust Jesus.

John 5:16-18; 42-47
Some Jews persecuted Jesus; they did not love God or believe Moses.

John 7:14-19
There was a general failure to keep the laws of Moses.

John 8:57-59; 10:31-39
Some Jews rejected Jesus’ Messianic claims and tried to kill Him.

John 12:42, 43
Some rulers loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Acts 4:1-3; 5:17-20, 40; 6:8-14; 7:54 - 8:3; 12:1-4; 13:49, 50; 14:19; 17:5-9
The apostles and the Church were persecuted; some were killed.

Acts 7:51-53
Israel had murdered Jesus and failed to keep the law.

Acts 13:42-47
Many Jews at Antioch were envious and rejected the gospel message.

Acts 22:17, 18
Many Jews in Jerusalem rejected the teaching that Jesus is the Messiah.

This list is interesting both for what it contains and for what it doesn’t contain. This is a more or less complete list of Israel’s highlighted sins, and it looks like nearly everything on this list can be summarized and organized under two headings:

Antinomianism – a general failure to be faithful to God, keep the law, and repent when necessary. In some cases, this was probably bolstered by a presumptuous belief that no serious judgment could befall the children of Abraham.

Unbelief regarding the gospel – a rejection of the teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah-King who had come to redeem Israel and usher in the kingdom of God. This “passive” unbelief often led to more active forms such as persecution and murder of Jesus and His apostles/Church.

It is interesting to note that this list does not contain ML. Now the Pharisees in particular will be discussed in a separate post, so we should keep this post focused on Israel in general. And it is true that the story of the “rich young ruler” is not on this list. For organizational purposes, I will discuss that story in the third post of this series. I realize many would see that story as a great example of ML though I don’t think it is such. But for the purposes of this post, even if I grant that it is an example of ML in Israel, it would be a single example involving one person in the midst of a flood of antinomianism and unbelief. So even if this is a good example of ML, it is not significant enough by itself to be a good example of Israel’s common, major sins. Israel’s “real problem” – that which Jesus and the Gospel writers regularly focused on and pronounced judgment on – was something else.

So the list above contains envy, hypocrisy, and ungratefulness not to mention persecution and murder. In general, antinomianism was quite common. The people were just not following the law. That generation was wicked and adulterous. This was the Israel that Jesus and the Apostles came to, and they were greeted with plenty of unbelief regarding their message and a failure to repent on the part of many Jews. But what we don’t see (apart from the possible example of the “rich young ruler”) is the sin of thinking that by following the law, the Jews were earning salvation. In general, the Jews weren’t even faithful to the Mosaic covenant (i.e., they weren’t following the law). Much less did they think they were meriting something by their works (or non-works in this case).

So in light of the list above, I think the historical books of the N.T. make it clear that Jesus came to an Israel with problems that were very different from widespread ML; He came to an Israel suffering from widespread antinomianism. And then Israel illustrated and magnified the problem by rejecting Him. This shouldn’t be a surprise, because this is just what happened throughout the O.T. God didn’t regularly send His prophets to His people in order to warn them of their ML. Instead, Israel during O.T. times was regularly falling into antinomianism – apostasy, idolatry, oppression, theft, and on and on. That is what God’s messengers warned them of time and time again in the O.T., and this is the state that Israel was once again in when John and Jesus arrived.

In sum, Israel was rebellious, unfaithful, and unrepentant. She failed to remain faithful to God and keep the law, and when the Messiah finally arrived, many in Israel rejected Him. They failed to believe that He was who He said He was and that He would do what He said He would do. This, not ML, was Israel’s problem. And therefore this, not ML, was that which would bring judgment. If the Jews did not repent of their unlawfulness (Luke 13:1-5) and recognize/acknowledge “the time of [their] visitation” (Luke 19:41-44 cf. Matt. 23:37, 38), they would perish and their house would be left desolate.


Looking for Legalism II: The Sins of the Pharisees

In part one of this series, I looked at the sins of Israel in general as they are highlighted in the historical books of the N.T. Now I want to focus in on the Pharisees in particular. They are often accused of “legalism,” and keeping in mind the distinction between “additive legalism” and “merit legalism” that I made in part one, I want to explore just what sort of legalism the Pharisees may have been guilty of. But first a caveat.

There were plenty of rebellious Pharisees, but not all of them were ungodly. The core of the Pharisee credo was piety, and there were those who were sincere and faithful to the covenant despite Pharisaical doctrinal errors. One such person invited Jesus to eat with him and the biblical text does not record any hint of hypocrisy or malice on his part. Jesus corrected him, and the Pharisee seems to have accepted the lesson and rebuke (Luke 7:36-48). Some Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was trying to kill Him (Luke 13:31). The Pharisee Nicodemus came to Jesus’ defense (John 7:45-52), and there were even some who believed in Jesus (John 9:13-16). The book of Acts shows that some Pharisees were open to and respectful of the Apostles’ teaching (Acts 5:33-39; 23:6-9).

However, these Pharisees were probably in the minority. In general, it looks like the party of the Pharisees opposed Jesus and the disciples. This relationship is analogous to the relationship between Israel in general and Jesus. There were more than a few Jews who were faithful to God and who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. But this does not seem to have been true for the majority in Israel. Nevertheless, we should keep the faithful ones in mind when we talk about “unfaithful Israel” or the “hypocritical Pharisees.” These are appropriate generalizations, but there were more than a few faithful exceptions.

Sins of the Pharisees

Similar to the list of Israel’s sins in the first post, here is a list of the sins of the Pharisees as recorded in the N.T. history books.

Matt. 3:7-10
The Pharisees needed fruit worthy of repentance. Some of them were covenantally presumptuous; they thought that significant judgment would not come upon them because they were Abraham’s heirs.

Matt. 5:17-48
Jesus told the people that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. He then gave examples of this by critiquing the Pharisees’ erroneous interpretations of the law. Those interpretations tended to make the law fairly easy to fulfill by ignoring the hard and “weighty” parts/aspects. Jesus opposed that antinomian teaching by teaching the true and full requirements of the law.

Matt. 9:10-13
Pharisees held that one should not eat w/ sinners. This would have been an addition to the law inasmuch as such a thing is not taught in the O.T. They also appear to have been ignorant of their own sin, and this was probably due in part to their antinomian evisceration of the law’s requirements.

Matt. 9:34; 12:24; John 9:13-34
The Pharisees rejected Jesus’ miracles.

Matt. 12:1-14
Two more Pharisaical additions to law: forbidding plucking grain and healing on the Sabbath.

Matt. 15:1-20
The Pharisees added a small command (washing hands) to the law while they ignored the law’s “weighty” requirement to honor one’s parents. They were therefore hypocrites who made a pretense of piety with a man-made command while they neglected the true law. They also appear to have focused on external actions without regard to true motivation, and they “were offended” when Jesus critiqued this formalism.

Matt. 21:18-46
Some Pharisees knew that Jesus’ parables were about them. Those parables pictured a lack of fruit, a lack of faith, disobedience, theft, and murder.

Matt. 22:15-22; 34-40; Luke 11:53, 54
Some Pharisees tried to confound Jesus, make Him look bad, and trap Him into saying something against either Roman or Jewish law.

Mark 3:6
The Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus.

Luke 5:17-25
The Pharisees rejected Jesus’ authority.

Luke 7:24-30
The Pharisees rejected the redemptive-historical teaching about John.

Luke 12:1
Jesus warned His disciples to be weary of the leaven (the teaching) of the Pharisees (Matt. 16:5-12), and here we learn that the leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy. See Matt. 15:1-20 for a good example.

Luke 16:13-15
At least some Pharisees were lovers of money and liked to justify themselves before men. That is, they liked to make themselves look good and pious before others. They also rejected Jesus’ teaching and scoffed at Him.

Luke 18:9-14
Some “trusted in themselves that they were righteous,” so Jesus addressed this with a parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector. The Pharisee thanked God that he was pious and not like overt sinners. But the penitent tax collector was the one who went home justified because those who exalt themselves will be humbled while those who humble themselves will be exalted.

John 3:1-12
The Pharisee Nicodemus was ignorant of some O.T. teaching and he appears to have had trouble believing it.

John 7:25-34; 45-53
The Pharisees rejected the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and tried to have Him arrested.

John 11:45-48
Some priests and Pharisees had an idolatrous attachment to their positions/status and their nation.

John 18:3
Some Pharisees helped to arrest Jesus.

Matt. 23:1-36
Here is the fullest N.T. critique of the Pharisees. In general, they:
taught and said things but they didn’t do what they said should be done
bound burdens on others but didn’t place those burdens on themselves
did things in order to be seen by men; they exalted themselves before others
played games of casuistry with the law in order to avoid its requirements
focused on little things and neglected the weightier matters of the law
focused on appearance alone; there was no focus on proper desires and motivation even though the law does highlight such things
persecuted and killed true prophets

Once again, we can organize and summarize this list into two categories. Like Israel in general, the basic sins of the Pharisees were their antinomianism and their unbelief. However this needs to be qualified and expanded somewhat. The Pharisees’ unbelief was straightforward and like that of Israel in general. They simply did not believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be and they did not accept His teaching about the coming of the Kingdom of God. They rejected the idea that He was the Messiah.

But the other major aspect of Pharisaism wasn’t just garden variety antinomianism in general. It was rather a combination of legalism with a somewhat reoccurring “flavor” of antinomianism. But the legalism of the Pharisees was not merit legalism (ML). Once again, ML is next to nonexistent in the list above. As with the previous post in this series and the story of the rich young ruler, there is one example listed above that is regularly referred to in order to demonstrate ML among the Pharisees. Luke 18:9-18 shows a Pharisee who “trusted in himself” and was not justified. This, we are told, shows that he was an ML and that since justification is by faith alone, he was not justified.

While I think that this is a somewhat plausible interpretation, I don’t think it is the best one. Others have pointed out for example that the Pharisee was somewhat “Calvinistic” with regard to his good works. He thanked God, not himself, for what he did – for those things that supposedly made him different from other men. That doesn’t sound like any Pelagian I’ve ever heard. And Jesus’ conclusion doesn’t fit the ML interpretation either. Jesus didn’t say that everyone who believes he can merit salvation from God will be humbled. Rather, He said that everyone who “exalts himself” will be humbled. These two are not the same thing. To exalt oneself is to make oneself look good and pious in front of others (generally in order to get praise from others). It is the attempt to say that I am better than you, more faithful than you, etc. And usually this is laden with pride and is done without a view to one’s own shortcomings, weaknesses, sins, etc. The Pharisee was prideful and wanted to exalt himself, but it is far from clear in the story that he thought he was earning justification or something else from God because of his works. He gave God the credit for his works, but he did it in a perverse way, for perverse ends (to make himself look good), and probably with a prideful attitude. Moreover, we should hardly think it impossible that someone could take self-exalting pride in something he views as a gift from God. As Calvinists, we should be rather familiar with such a self-contradiction. So one can hold to the doctrine of sola fide and still have the attitude of this Pharisee.

More could be said to defend this alternate interpretation but I don’t think it is necessary. For once again, this is just one example among many other sins that are regularly highlighted and that are not ML. By itself, this one example simply doesn’t demonstrate at all that Pharisaism was a religion of ML. One example hardly establishes a trend; much less does it identify the heart of Pharisaism. So while I don’t think this story needs to be about ML, my overall view of the Pharisees wouldn’t change even if it were.

So if ML was slim to nonexistent among the Pharisees, what do I mean when I say that Pharisaism was a mix of legalism and a specific “flavor” of antinomianism? The legalism I’m referring to is the “additive” kind defined in the previous post. We are given a number of examples involving Pharisaical “traditions of men.” These sometimes petty requirements were added to the law. But coupled with this, we see numerous examples where the Pharisees downplayed or ignored the actual requirements of the law, and usually these were “big” requirements. Therefore, the picture of the Pharisees that is regularly given in the N.T. is one of petty (gnat-straining) additive legalism (AL) combined with an antinomian rejection of the weightier matters of the law. They didn’t want people plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, but they were perfectly willing to undermine the commandment to honor father and mother with a sophistic casuistry. And all of this was done while they projected a picture of pietism towards others but it was done without much of an interest in proper desires or motivations (i.e., formalism). There is a term for this: ‘hypocrisy.’ And indeed, Jesus didn’t say that the leaven (i.e., the teaching) of the Pharisees was ML. Rather, he said it was hypocrisy. That, not ML, was their problem.

Thus, we have now surveyed Israel in general and the Pharisees in particular. “The problem” with both can be summarized under two major headings. Israel was antinomian and unbelieving. She didn’t live according to the law and when Jesus came, she rejected Him as the Messiah sent to redeem the nation and usher in the kingdom of God. The problem with the Pharisees was pretty much the same except with a twist. They rejected Jesus as well, but instead of a generic and generalized antinomianism, theirs was a more specific “hypocrisy” – a combination of petty AL and antinomianism done to make themselves look pious but formalistically done without the concern for a truly pious attitude or motivation. And that is why Jesus condemned them. In His most comprehensive critique, he catalogued their leaven and behavior (Matt. 23:1-30) and then He pronounced judgment (Matt. 23:31-36). Those were the sins of the Pharisees.


Looking for Legalism III: Some Surprising Teaching from Jesus

In the search for legalism, we’ve now looked at what the N.T. history books have to say about the sins of Israel in general and the sins of the Pharisees in particular. I think there is one more place we can look to help bolster the results we’ve seen so far.

Imagine that you have recently learned some distressing news. Your Christian friend John has a significant streak of ML in him. He thinks that although he was initially saved and brought to Christ through no effort of his own, he now must contribute to the process in a meritorious way. After reflecting for many months on texts such as Phil. 2:12, he has decided that Christians must “work out [their] own salvation” by doing enough good works to ensure salvation. And right now, he thinks he’s probably done enough good works to merit God’s saving favor.

In such a situation, you would hardly give him the following advice.

“John, I’ve just learned about your new theological views and I’m very concerned. John, don’t you realize that the only people who will live eternally are those who do God’s will? You must keep God’s law if you want to live with God in glory forever.”

Obviously, that would be a terrible idea. And yet Jesus said things on multiple occasions that, if they were said to a nation struggling with ML, would have been just as counter productive. Consider this statement that Jesus gave to “multitudes” of people. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) At this point, He did not stop to qualify this by saying, “Now keep in mind that good works are no cause of salvation but only a necessary consequence. So don’t misunderstand Me to be saying that you can earn your salvation.” He just laid out the statement and proceeded to build on it with similes (Matt. 7:24-27). And when Jesus referred to “these sayings of Mine,” He was referring to what He had just told them – the “sermon on the mount.” And let’s face it, that sermon contains law, law, and more law. But unlike the Lutheran “Law/Gospel” view of how a sermon should be constructed, Jesus didn’t first hit them with the law to make them feel guilty so that He could then follow it up with the comfort of “the gospel.” He told them that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (5:17-19), He corrected the traditional misinterpretations of the law by describing what the law actually required (5:21-48), He gave them some more commands (6:1 - 7:20), and then He summed up and concluded His sermon with those “legalistic” sounding statement and similes (7:21-27). And that was the end of the sermon. Clearly if His audience had held to ML, this sermon would have been a disaster.

Jesus later met a lawyer who asked Him, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25) This may well be THE question of personal soteriology, and we all know what the right answer is. “My friend, you are suffering with far too high a view of yourself. You can do nothing to inherit eternal life, for you are a sinner in God’s sight. All your righteousness is as filthy rags, and there are none who do good, no not one. Therefore you should repent of your sin and believe that Jesus died to take away that sin – something that you could never accomplish.”

We all know that this is the right answer, but this was not Jesus’ answer. Instead, Jesus asked the lawyer what was written in the law. The lawyer quoted the two greatest commandments of the law (Luke 10:27 cf. Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5). Jesus then told him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” But this was not the end of His surprising teaching. We are told that the lawyer wanted to justify himself, and given the way we tend to turn the word ‘justify’ into a technical, systematic term, we know what our answer to the lawyer would be. “Sir, justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners in which He pardons all their sins and accepts and accounts their persons righteous in His sight, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them and received by faith alone. Stop trying to earn your justification, for that is impossible. Your works will not help you; repent and believe.” But once again, Jesus said nothing of the kind. Instead, He told a parable about a Samaritan who helped his neighbor. The parable had nothing to do with either picturing or critiquing ML. Instead, it helped expose the lawyer’s truncated and racist definition of ‘neighbor.’ Thus, it focused on the lawyer’s real problem: his antinomianism. Jesus then told the lawyer to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). This means that Jesus twice gave this man “legalistic” sounding advice when the specific question being discussed was “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus’ answer? Do the greatest commandments in order to live, and here is an example from a Samaritan.

Jesus also discussed these commandments with a scribe. The scribe had asked about the “first commandment of all,” and Jesus responded by quoting the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31). The scribe clearly agreed with Jesus’ answer and praised Him for it. (Mark 12:32, 33). Because of this, Jesus told him that he was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). The scribe had simply agreed with Jesus’ identity of the greatest commandments and said that those commandments were more important than the sacrificial system. And for that, Jesus told him that he was not far from the kingdom of God.

Finally, we come to the story of the rich young ruler. The ruler asked what good thing he should do to have eternal life (Matt. 19:16), and we think this shows that he was an ML. But the lawyer above asked the same question, and Jesus answered him by pointing to the law. Once again, this would be a terrible response to give an ML. Yet when the ruler asked this question, Jesus did the same thing. He pointed to the law (Matt. 19:17-19). “But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus then told him that if he wanted to be perfect, he should sell what he had and give to the poor; “and come, follow Me.” (Matt. 19:21)

If someone came to us with ML, the last thing we would do is let him believe that such a view was true. And yet Jesus did this multiple times when the specific topic of gaining eternal life was on the table. In fact, His answer to the ruler was so alien to our paradigm that we have been forced to argue that Jesus’ answer was something of an ironic ruse. Jesus really believed the opposite of what He said, but He gave the answer He did in order to force the ruler to see that he could not keep the law perfectly. When the ruler saw that, he would then be ready to give up his ML and embrace sola fide.

This would amount to a reductio. Jesus supposedly named laws until He found one that even the ruler realized he couldn’t/didn’t keep. But the problem here is that on this view, Jesus never got to the point. On this view, the law had already broken the man and made him sorrowful. The final step would then be to give him the gospel alternative. But this final and most important part of the reductio was never given. Jesus let the ruler go away without showing him the orthodox alternative to his supposed ML. And the N.T. gives no indication that Jesus ever talked to the man again. This would mean that Jesus let the man believe that ML was true but that he wasn’t good enough. So if this view were true, it amounts to this. A man in the grip of ML asked Jesus a question that presupposed the truth of ML. Jesus answered him by teaching ML not once but twice. Then Jesus let the man go away believing ML was true without telling him the orthodox alternative to ML (and He did this after the man had already been convicted by the law!). This simply doesn’t work.

So what is the alternative? It’s actually pretty simple. Jesus meant what He said. He wasn’t trying to trick the man by telling him to sell his stuff and follow Jesus. He actually wanted the man to do it. This was not a call to abstract moral perfection that was impossible to fulfill. Other disciples had already done exactly what Jesus told the man to do. “Then Peter answered and said to Him, ‘See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?’” (Matt. 19:27) And notice that Jesus did not respond by telling Peter that he was deluded to think he had fulfilled such a difficult command. Instead, he accepted Peter’s comment and answered his question. “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” (Matt. 19:29) Peter and the other disciples did just this. They had lives, professions, and sometimes unbelieving families that they left in order to follow Jesus. Thus, Jesus really did want the man to leave his current life and follow Him. He wanted the man to become His disciple.

Remember that this was a time of transition for Israel. Jesus had come to, among other things, harvest the faithful remnant from Israel before judging the wayward nation. Thus, His disciples had to be willing to leave their old lives behind and join Jesus as He brought in the new creation (with Jesus Himself as the first fruits from the dead). Jesus was just requiring the same of this man. Moreover, Jesus’ requirement was not something that the Mosaic law required. The law never taught the Jews that they had to sell everything they had. So Jesus wasn’t in the process of naming commandments of the law until He found one that even the ruler admitted he couldn’t keep. He was requiring something new of the man because of the eschatological nature of the period of time in which he was living. This requirement was not a reductio designed to make the man see his sin. It was a redemptive-historical necessity. Thus, no hermeneutical gymnastics are necessary. In historical context, this text makes perfect sense.

But what about the man’s claim that he had kept the commandments? Doesn’t this clearly indicate a problem? Not necessarily. Very similar statements are made of Noah (Gen. 6:9), Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5, 6), Simeon (Luke 2:25), and John (Mark 6:20). These people are described as righteous, holy, blameless, and devout. They walked in the commandments of the Lord. There is no reason to think the ruler meant something other than this. The problem here is that we have trained ourselves to view concepts like “law” and “sin” exclusively in the abstract and apart from the covenant. And so we see only two possibilities. Someone is either sinless and morally perfect or he is a law breaker. This perspective is certainly useful and applicable in some situations. It is true enough that all men are sinners and that no man can merit anything from God by his works. But this is not the context for this story. The questions on the table and the point being made are different.

Recall that Zechariah, despite being a sinner, walked blamelessly in all the Lord’s commandments. This is not a claim that he didn’t sin. Such a statement was possible because the text is not referring to law keeping in the abstract. It is referring to faithfulness within the context of the covenant. And the covenant itself had the sacrificial system whereby sin could be dealt with by faithful people. So when Zechariah (or someone else) sinned, he remained obedient to the commandments by sincerely availing himself of the sacrificial system. And the same was possible for the ruler. Thus, he need not have been claiming abstract moral sinlessness. He was simply claiming the same kind of covenantal faithfulness that we know others had. But the time of transition had come, so Jesus required something in addition to basic faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant. He asked the man to abandon life as he knew it and join the new exodus, because the old world was nearing judgment. Therefore, this story makes perfect sense apart from any references to ML. Jesus doesn’t look like a poor teacher, and we don’t have to posit strange and implausible accounts in order to rescue Him from error.

So what have we seen in this series? As it turns out, it is very difficult to find merit legalism either described or judged in the recorded history of the N.T. Israel in general was antinomian and unbelieving, and the Pharisees were “hypocritical” (in the sense that we defined it) and unbelieving. The Gospels and Acts point out many specific sins that fall into these general categories, and the curses of the covenant were brought on Israel because of these things. But there are arguably no (or very few at most) examples of ML in Israel that are presented in the history books, and ML certainly wasn’t a problem that was given significant emphasis.

Surprisingly enough, it is much easier to find Jesus teaching what prima facie sounds like ML to us (though it wasn’t ML of course) than it is to find Jews teaching or holding to ML. I think that this fact, when combined with the previous posts in this series, really helps finish off the notion that Israel had a significant problem with ML. The basic points are these:

1. There was no significant criticism of Israel or the Pharisees for ML.

2. Israel and the Pharisees were consistently and significantly criticized and judged for other things: antinomianism/hypocrisy and unbelief.

3. The views that sound the most like ML to us came from Jesus, and the N.T. records a number of instances where Jesus taught such views.

Thus, I think the picture is absolutely the opposite of what it should be if ML was a significant problem in Israel. And I think the third point, within the context of the first two points, may well indicate that ML was not even part of Israel’s paradigm. Let’s face it. We see Jesus’ words above and we get nervous. At the very point where we would most expect to see what we think of as “gospel,” we see law, law, and more law. So we immediately bring the “analogy of faith” tool out of our tool box (which sometimes appears to get used the way the federal government uses the commerce clause of the Constitution) and we start systematizing. And of course, other Scriptures get hermeneutical priority; these pericopes are interpreted in light of those Scriptures. No wonder Dispensationalists have been known to relegate the sermon on the mount to “the age of law.”

We do this because ML is a significant part of our theological paradigm. Obviously it is not significant because we support such a view, but it is significant because it is one of our biggest enemies. In our paradigm, ML is ubiquitous and it is a damnable heresy that we must always be vigilantly on watch for. And of course, there are more than a few Prots. (including Reformed ones) for whom Roman Catholicism (or anything that even smells like it) is THE bete noir. This enemy, with its Trentine merit theology, is a constant threat. The rejection of ML is in fact central to Protestant history in general. Thus, ML is a significant player in our paradigm, and if a Prot. today said some of the things that Jesus said, he would have some splainin’ to do. In fact, I have heard talks from Reformed Christians that either included material quite similar to Jesus’ words above or that were less easily confused with ML, and those talks have been condemned for supposedly advocating works righteousness, justification by faith plus works, or something similar.

But if ML were not a significant part of a culture’s paradigm, then someone could say something in that culture that would sound like ML to us (or at least make us nervous) but not to the original audience. And given the three numbered points above, I think that was the state of first century Israel. Jesus could make those statements and no one would think twice about ML; it simply wasn’t a significant part of the first century Jewish zeitgeist. For several thousand years, God had taught His people the importance of following His commandments, but this was done within a general context of grace. The O.T. basically gave Israel this message: “You are an insignificant bunch of rebellious ingrates, but God saved you out of Egypt anyway. And He keeps saving you simply because He is longsuffering and because He made promises. If the Lord marked iniquities, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with Him. So put away your idols, have some gratitude, and do what He tells you to do. Otherwise, He will pummel you with foreign armies. But He loves you and has big plans for you, so trust Him.”

In this context, ML wouldn’t even be an issue. It simply wasn’t a conceivable part of the equation. And so we really don’t see much of anything in the way of ML. It just wasn’t part of the O.T. paradigm, either pro or con. And when we get to the N.T., the same picture holds. ML is just as insignificant in the recorded history of the N.T. as it was in the O.T. Thus, Jesus could say what He said without being misunderstood by His original audience.

Continue Reading Here