Author Archives: Mark Herzer

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

Question 74

74. Q. What is adoption?

A. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God,[307] in and for his only Son Jesus Christ,[308] whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children,[309] have his name put upon them,[310] the Spirit of his Son given to them,[311] are under his fatherly care and dispensations,[312] admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.[313]

PART 2

His Name and Spirit

To be received into the number means that the children of God “have his name put upon them, the Spirit of his Son given to them…” We are legally His children; we have His name. “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2Cor. 6:18) As He calls us His sons and daughters, we are also promised that He “will write upon [us] the name of my God” (Rev. 3:12). But we His people are already called by His name as God refers to His people as “my people who are called by my name” (2Chron. 7:14). What does this mean? God is legally our Father and we are members of His glorious household. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” (Eph. 2:19) In this verse, Paul mentions two privileges, we are citizens in God’s kingdom and family members in His household. “In Christ Gentiles are not only fellow-citizens with Jewish believers under God’s rule; they are also children together in God’s own family.”[1] A believer may not feel himself to be a child of God yet the translation from being a child of Satan to being a child of God is binding and permanent. The name is on him. Fisher offers a helpful illustration: “as the wife’s name is sunk unto her husband’s, so the former name of the adopted is sunk unto Christ’s new name, Rev. iii. 12, ‘I will write upon him my new name.’”[2] God is our Father and we His children; His name is upon us forever!

The latter phrase “the Spirit of his Son given to them” adds a very necessary dimension to the nature of our adoption. The new name, the new family status, is legal, external, and permanent. But God did not stop there. The Spirit of God’s Son is given to us who enables us to cry Abba, Father. Because we are indeed God’s children by adoption, God gives us the Spirit (“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” Gal. 4:6). The logic here is unmistakable. Because we are indeed God’s sons, Paul says, God therefore sends the Spirit into our hearts. The German liberal commentator actually explains this verse very well. “God bestows on us not only the status of sons [through the sending of his Son] but also the character and knowledge of sons [through the sending of the Spirit]. And he bestows on us the character and knowledge of sons because we are already in the status of sons.”[3] That is, the Holy Spirit who comes to us through the mediation of Christ enables us to respond as genuine sons. Notice how the verse states that the Spirit is sent into our hearts (εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν).

It is not uncommon to meet adopted children who don’t feel like they are part of the family or that their adoptive parents are really their own. The new parents may bend over backwards to reach out to their adopted son but they cannot put a filial spirit into him. That he feels himself to be a part of their family or that at his gut level he is indeed their beloved son are dispositions the parents cannot impart. Yet this sad dilemma will not occur for genuine believers. The Holy Spirit actually enables us to instinctively (and therefore ‘naturally’) cry out to God as our heavenly father. That instinct, that filial disposition, that family feeling, etc. come out of us because of the Holy Spirit. We have received “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15). Therefore the legal status of adoption with God’s name upon us includes the Holy Spirit who enables us to look to our heavenly father. A child of God is not “trained” by man to call upon God; he is enabled by the Holy Spirit to cry out to His heavenly father.

Under the Father’s Care

The privileges of being adopted include God’s fatherly care: “are under his fatherly care and dispensations.” The verses used to support this phrase are interesting. Our heavenly Father’s pity or compassion from Ps. 103:13 is mentioned (“As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him.”) along with the privilege of being able to take refuge in Him in Prov. 14:26 (“In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge.”). The great promise of Mt. 6:32 that our heavenly Father is well aware of our needs is also mentioned (“For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”).

All these privileges are wonderful as well as comforting. God cares for us; He is concerned and is compassionate towards us. Good fathers feel the pain of their sons and daughters; their compassion or pity go out towards their children. If they can wisely relieve their children in their distress, they would. Yet, their compassion is not matched by their power. They may weep on account of their son’s struggle but is powerless to do anything about it. Our heavenly fatherly is not so limited. If he does not relieve, it is not because he does not care or that he is unable to take care of the problem. Our father has wisely chosen not to intervene though his bowels of compassion are moved. Furthermore, we are reminded that because He cares for us, we can take refuge in Him (Prov. 14:26). We can be safe in Him because of He is a strong tower. Like an earthly father, he cares for us. Yet, he cares for us far better than we deserve.

Most of the writers who explain the Catechisms and Confession mention God’s fatherly discipline (Ridgeley, Beattie, Fisher, Green, etc.). The LC states that we are under God’s dispensations. This means we are under our heavenly father’s government, his order, control, oversight, etc. It would include chastening as our Confession states. The WCF states that we are “pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him, as by a father…” (12.1). Though the verses cited for the LC do not list Heb. 12:6 like the WCF, yet the truth of the point can easily be seen. We are under our father’s care and government; we are under his special dealings with us as our father which would at times include discipline. Whatever we need, we will receive from our Father, even discipline because He loves us: “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6). We are illegitimate children and not sons if we are not disciplined by Him (Heb. 12:8). What the divines seem to be teaching is that we are under the father’s care and that includes whatever we might need (both positive and negative [though they are ultimately all positive]) as his children. Ridgeley summarized it this way:

As God’s children are prone to backslide from him, and so have need of restoring grace, he will recover and humble them, and thereby prevent their total apostasy. This he sometimes does by afflictions, which the apostle calls fatherly chastisements, and which he reckons not only consistent with his love, but evidences of it. ‘Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth;’ and ‘if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.’ The apostle speaks here, of afflictions, not as considered absolutely in themselves, but as proceeding from the love of God, as designed to do them good, and as adapted to the present state, in which they are training up for the glorious inheritance reserved for them in heaven, and need some trying dispensations which may put them in mind of that state of perfect blessedness which is laid up for them. These afflictions are rendered subservient to their present and future advantage. In the present life, they ‘bring forth the peaceful fruits of righteousness’ to them; and when they are in the end perfectly freed from them, they will tend to enhance their joy and praise.[4]

The difficulties in life come to us “under his fatherly…dispensations.” They are not to crush us but to correct us; they are not given to destroy us but to demonstrate his love to us as His children. “Thus, many of the ills of this life may turn out to be blessings in disguise, while the chastisement itself is a proof of the love of God, and of their adoption into his family.”[5] Because we are His children, our heavenly Father brings difficulties into our lives: “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons.” (Heb. 12:7)

Liberties and Privileges

The last thing listed in the answer is that we are “admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.” Rather than listing everything that could pertain to our adoption, the divines simply summarize the point as being admitted to all the liberties and privileges. Part of that liberty of course is that as children, we are free from the law (as a means of salvation and from its condemning power). Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1) The privileges include access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16), we have “access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:18). Paul’s statement reveals so much. It is not just that we have access to God per se (that we have in Christ) but we have access to the Father — that is the language of sonship, adoption, and God’s fatherhood.

The privilege underscored in the LC is our inheritance. We are exhorted to persevere “through faith and patience” to “inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:12). The great privilege of sonship is that we will inherit all that God has promised to us in Christ. We cited this before but it is a helpful reminder: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:17) The divines used this verse to come up with “and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.”

Conclusion

1. Calvin said, “For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him— they will never yield him willing service.” (Institutes, 1.1.1, p. 41) This is the essence of piety. Are you convinced of God’s fatherly care? Do you believe you are actually nourished by his fatherly care? If not, you will never yield him willing service.

2. One of the implications of adoption is as our Confession teaches that when we are chastised, we are “never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.” God will never disown his children. May we find encouragement in this!

3. Earthly fathers can and will fail us but our heavenly Father will not. To know the love of the Father is to look at the cross, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, NASB)

[1] Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 211-212.

[2] James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer. In Two Parts. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, nd), 168.

[3] H. Schlier, Galater, 197 cited in F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 198.

[4] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 136.

[5] Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards, 215-6.

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 74

74. Q. What is adoption?

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[307] 1 John 3:1. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. [308] Ephesians 1:5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. [309] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. [310] 2 Corinthians 6:18. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Revelation 3:12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. [311] Galatians 4:6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. [312] Psalm 103:13. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. Proverbs 14:26. In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge. Matthew 6:32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. [313] Hebrews 6:12. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Romans 8:17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Introduction

1. Adoption in Reformed Theology[1]

Many theologians have written on the doctrine of adoption in the last fifty years. The most popular and influential is J. I. Packer who argued that adoption “has been little regarded in Christian history.” He noted that R. S. Candlish (The Fatherhood of God) and R. A. Webb (The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption) gave attention to this doctrine in the nineteenth century but apart from them, he concluded that nothing else has been written since the Reformation.[2] He suggested that the Puritans were deficient in this area. Against this, Joel Beeke shows convincingly that the Puritans wrote extensively on this.[3] Many have noted that our Confession and Catechisms were the first to include a separate chapter and questions on this doctrine (WCF XII; LC #74; SC #34). Francis Beattie was surprised that so few Presbyterian theologians treated this doctrine separately: “In view of this fact it seems a little strange that some of our leading theologians should give no distinct place to adoption in their systems, and many of them devote but little attention to it.”[4] R. A. Webb complained that Charles Hodge was silent on this topic and that Breckenridge and Shedd also said nothing on this.[5]

Theologians now recognize that this doctrine must be given a separate treatment. It used to be viewed as a second element of justification. For example, John Dick, though giving a whole lecture on the doctrine, stated that the doctrine of adoption “appears to me to be virtually the same with justification, and to differ from it merely in the new view which it gives of the relation of believers to God…”^{^[6]} Dabney says the same (following Turretin and Owen), “Adoption cannot be said to be a different act or grace from justification.”[7] This way of treating adoption has pretty much vanished in the latter twentieth century.[8] This doctrine is distinct from justification and regeneration. As Ferguson says, “Undoubtedly the New Testament never separates justification and adoption, but neither does it confuse them.”[9] It does not confuse the two but it also assumes it. In fact, Beattie says that adoption assumes “election, effectual calling, regeneration, faith, and justification.”[10]

2. Adoption and Sonship[11]

Contemporary believers have probed this doctrine and attempted to draw out some of its practical benefits. Though many have sung its praises, this movement has garnered criticisms as well. I am talking about Jack Miller’s Sonship courses (which are very popular in our present geographical surroundings). Without going into this too deeply, I want to make one observation. Though the emphasis is on Sonship is wonderful, we must realize that the doctrine of adoption is one of the several benefits that flow from our union with Christ (LC #69). One is always in danger of imbalance when he or she clings to only one doctrine. Perhaps the revised courses have improved on some of the things raised by their critics but it is far better to embrace the whole counsel of God instead of using one doctrine as a prism to the whole Christian life.

3. Its Necessity

Frame states, “Adoption is God’s remedy for our second great need. Justification meets our need for a new legal status. Adoption meets our need for a new family.”[12] This may be a fair and accurate statement but we need to consider this carefully. Our need does not determine the remedy but rather the remedy from God reveals our need. Adoption corresponds to that but we must be careful at this point. Adoption is necessary not because we deserve it or have an inherent right to it — in that sense, it is not a need. However, given our spiritually bankrupt condition, to be in God’s family would be a gift of amazing grace.

Some assume we are all children of God. Adoption is not really needed because God cannot adopt his own children.[13] — we simply need to recognize we have a heavenly father who loves us and we merely need to turn to him. John Bickford Heard said that “all men are originally, and by their very birth into the world, and as beings breathing thoughtful breath, entitled to look and address God as Abba, Father… Every day we meet with men living below their privileges, heirs but outcasts, and we only pity them the more when we contrast what they are with what they ought to be.”[14] This is a grievous and sad error. Without some divine act, we are alienated from God and are not his children. We can only become His children through His free act of grace.

A more popular contemporary expression exists in the 21^st century. Oprah Winfrey’s magazine encourages people to see children “as children of God, as Christs, or Buddhas.”[15] Mormons believe that we are all children of God.[16] All these things may “feel” good but it is not the biblical truth. We either have God as our heavenly Father by His sovereign grace (of regeneration and adoption) or have the devil as our father (cf. Jn. 8:44; Eph. 2:1ff.).

Adoption is an Act of God’s Free Grace for Christ’s Sake

What then is adoption? The answer states that “adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” Adoption is nothing we could have expected. The verb “act” is important in this answer. “You will observe that adoption is called an act, because it is perfected at once. As soon as a believer is vitally united by faith to Christ, the head of God’s family, and the elder brother of every saint, he is from that moment, an adopted child of God.”[17] It is not a process but the immediate act of God’s grace. This transition from family (of Satan) to family (of God) is instantaneous. It is a supernatural work of God’s free grace and in a moment the sinner believes, he becomes a child of God!

Though adoption is connected with justification, it is distinct from it (as we already noted). God could have pardoned us and simply left us as justified creatures. Joel Beeke carefully delineates the difference: “Justification involves a legal relationship; adoption, a personal relationship.”[18] Similarly, Thomas Watson said, “[I]t is a mercy to redeem a slave, but is more to adopt them.”[19] So the distinct act of adoption is a superb additional blessing flowing to us on account of our union with Christ. The apostle John exclaims, “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are” (1Jn. 3:1). Notice John’s statement. It is a wonder that we should be called the children of God; that is in fact a wonderful blessing but lest we conclude they are only words, John says “and so we are” (καὶ ἐσμέν). John’s astonishment indicates the wonder of this blessing. It is indeed an act of the free grace of God — He didn’t have to do it. Thomas Watson summarizes this point quite well: “Adoption is a mercy spun out of the bowels of free grace; all by nature are strangers, therefore have no right to sonship, only God is pleased to adopt one, and not another, to make one a vessel of glory, another a vessel of wrath. The adopted heir may cry out, ‘Lord, how is it, that thou wilt show thyself to me, and not unto the world.”[20]

This free grace of God flows to us “in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” We have already touched on this point in LC #39 but a few other points should be added. We read in Eph. 1:5 that God predestined us “for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). That was God’s purpose in Christ, to adopt us. Redemption enabled adoption (Gal. 4:4-5). [21] Paul mentions “adoption” in Eph. 1:5 (a Graeco-Roman term that enabled the childless patron or a patron endeared with someone not his child to inherit the privileges of his new father). We are redeemed to inherit (Eph. 1:7) and adoption enables us to inherit all things in Christ. Notice how Paul argues this point in Rom. 8:17, “if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ…” Calvin explains this well in his commentary, “It is for children that inheritance is appointed: since God then has adopted us as his children, he has at the same time ordained an inheritance for us.”

Now coming back to the point, our adoption comes to us “in and for his only Son Jesus Christ.” The inheritance we jointly receive with the Lord comes to us because we are united to Him. There is no adoption without Christ; it is a redemptive mercy conferred upon us. No one is a child of God except in his union with Christ (“in”) and he is God’s child on account of Christ (“for”— “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” Heb. 2:13; cf. Is. 8:18). That is why John 1:12, 13 states it this way, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Faith in Christ, relationship with Him through faith automatically translates us into the status of sonship — they have a right or authority to their sonship in Christ. Leon Morris says, “John does not say that they achieve or attain or merit membership in God’s family, as though they make their own way in. He says that they are given the right. The right is God’s gift. Receiving this gift, they ‘become’ members of the family. They were outside the family; they did not belong. Now they have been given the right to become members; they do belong.”[22]

Before moving on to the next clause in the LC, we must consider the significance of what we just noted. There is no sonship, no adoption without Christ. A person must receive Christ, consciously and surely. He may not remember when he did (as a covenant child) but he personally believes and receives Christ offered to him in the gospel. How do you know whether you are a child of God? Have you believed in Christ? What does it mean to believe in Him? It is to place your personal faith in Him and to follow Him. Faith assumes a responsive life. One’s sense of belonging to God as His child is directly and intimately related to one’s own faith in Christ. The “right” to be a child of God, this privilege and gift, comes to you as you believe in Christ. It is not from natural birth because “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (Jn. 3:6). When the Bible says “not of blood” it means not of natural descent (heritage, race, etc.); “nor of the will of the flesh” means not of human decision; “nor of the will of man (ἀνδρὸς)” means that it is not dependent upon the husband’s decision. To be a child of God is a gift. It comes through faith in Christ — “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal. 3:26). And this birth comes from God (“but of God”). Are you “born of God” (Jn. 1:13 TNIV) or “born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8)?

Received into the Number

Only the justified are adopted. Notice how this is phrased, “whereby all those that are justified… As we noted above, adoption comes through Christ and Christ is ours through faith. In believing in him, we are justified. In the order of our salvation (logically considered), adoption springs from justification. The two are related but are also distinct. Ferguson said, “In human terms it is quite possible to imagine a man being justified without the remotest thought of his being adopted.”[23] Yet in Christianity, that is not the case. Believing in Christ entitles [gives the right to] the sinner to become a child of God. Pardoned justified sinners become pardoned justified sons of God.

The first element of adoption needs some explanation: “whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children…” The idea of being received into the number of his children is not commonly used. The WCF says something similar when it says “taken into the number” (12.1) while the SC #34 has, “whereby we are received into the number.” This phrase simply means each believer becomes one of the many children of God. The number of God’s elect is finite (“their number are certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished” [WCF 3.4]) and consequently, the number of God’s children is also certain and definite. God, as it were, is the ultimate family planner. He planned the “number of his children” and he knows exactly how many He will have and who they are. To be received into this number means we fit into His eternal family plan. Remember, God “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ…” (Eph. 1:5) and “The Lord knows those who are his” (2Tim. 2:19).

[1] The title seems a bit pretentious since we will only highlight a few historical points. It is at best a super mini micro small overview and abridged!

[2] J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 207. He should have mentioned Crawford, Lidgett, and Girardeau.

[3] Joel R. Beeke, Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 1ff., esp. pp. 10-14.

[4] Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standard (1894; reprint, Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997), 212.

[5] R. A. Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 17. Webb is actually incorrect about Breckenridge. Breckenridge gives a full chapter to this doctrine, see his The Knowledge of God, Subjectively Considered: Being the Second Part of Theology Considered as a Science of Positive Truth, Both Inductive and Deductive (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1859), 178ff. (Ch. X: Adoption: Its Grounds, Nature, and Fruits). Surprisingly, the earlier twentieth-century Baptist theologian gives a chapter to this doctrine as well. See Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia; Boston; St. Louis; Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Toronto: Roger Williams Press, 1917), 401ff.

^{^[6]} John Dick, Lectures on Theology (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1850), 2:224.

[7] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (1871; repr., Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 627. Regarding Turretin and Peter Martyr, Bavinck says, “Sometimes the adoption as children was mentioned as the second part of Justification [e.g. Turretin] but others, such as Peter Martyr, preferred to consider this a fruit of Justification.” See Herman Bavinck, John Bolt and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 224.

[8] The little book by Beeke (Heirs with Christ) gives a very helpful and up to date bibliography on this doctrine.

[9] Sinclair Ferguson, Know Your Christian Life (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 82.

[10] Beattie, The Presbyterian Standard, 214.

[11] On this, see Chad Van Dixhoorn’s “The Sonship Program for Revival: A Summary and Critique,” WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999): 227ff.

[12] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 205-206.

[13] Cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 515. Albrecht Ritschl did not teach universal fatherhood of God though he is often viewed as one who taught it, see James Orr, The Ritschlian Theology and the Evangelical Faith (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897), 221 fn; 226. I’m having some difficulty pinning down proponents who taught this. One author who maintained it called it “New Theology” and he happily dispensed with Candlish’s view of God’s Fatherhood (Old Theology), see John Bickford Heard, Old and New Theology: A Constructive Critique (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885), 82ff. This book assumes the existence of this new teaching but is not its source.

[14] Heard, Old and New Theology, 84.

[15] http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Show-Empathy-Emotional-Intimacy

[16] http://mormonwoman.org/2011/05/15/mormons-believe-we-are-all-children-of-god/

[17] Ashbel Green, Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath School Work, 1841), 1:404.

[18] Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 31.

[19] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 162.

[20] Watson, A Body of Divinity, 161.

[21] We dealt with the historical biblical theological flow of this doctrine from Gal. 4:5 in our study of the LC #39.

[22] Leon Morris, Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 12. Sometimes the word is translated as “power.” The word dunamis (power) is not used (cf. C. K. Barrett) in John; one is not enabled to become a child of God by some invested power within him (Calvin addresses the RC view that seems to appeal to Jn. 1:12 to prove human merit and power).

[23] Cited in Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 32.

Luke 19:11-27, The Parable of the Ten Minas (Annotations)

Leave a reply

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

This is clearly a separate parable from Matthew’s parable of the talents (Mt. 25:14-30). “It is more likely that Jesus made more than one use of the basic idea.” (Morris) In Matthew, Jesus focuses on the stewardship given according to each one’s ability (Mt. 25:15, “to each according to his ability”). In Luke, one mina is given to see if they are fit for larger tasks. Hence the statement, “you have been faithful in a very little.”

19:11 — The reason our Lord gave this parable is “because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.” This came after the previous account (“As they heard these things…”).

The parable illustrates the stewardship required in the interim. Many perhaps thought the imminent return precluded activity and diligence. Nevertheless, this interim period is the time in which we are to be faithful.

19:12 — The “nobleman” clearly represents Christ. This nobleman was to receive his kingship (and not just some static kingdom). The departure meant that an interim period required stewardship. “Two interesting historical analogies may have provided background for this allusion. Both Herod the Great in 40 B.C. and his son Archelaus in 4 B. C. went to Rome to receive confirmation of their rule. Herod received the kingship of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Archelaus received not ‘kingship’ but only the title ‘Ethnarch.’” (Stein)

19:13 — Minas “is a much smaller amount than Matthew’s talents. A mina was worth about a sixteenth of a talent or about one hundred drachmas, i.e., about three months’ wages.” (Stein) The nobleman gives clear direction to his servants. There is no doubt what he is requiring. This is particularly important when we read of the third servant’s response. Presumably, each servant received one mina with which to work.

19:14 — Jesus adds to this the story to make it the example very similar to his. These citizens did not wish to have the nobleman rule over them. The Jews likewise did not wish to have Christ rule over them. Both reject their Lord. “Jesus is the perfect King and nothing can interfere with his kingship. But we should not miss the point that people rebel against all he stands for.” (Morris)

19:15 — The nobleman has received his kingdom and has returned as Lord. This parallels what will happen to Jesus who will be exalted as Lord and will one day return.

19:16-19 — The servant recognized that the minas was not his and that the Lord’s mina had earned ten more or 1000%. There is no boasting here. He is one of the three who is mentioned out of the ten. The nobleman rewards the faithful servant with ten cities. Interestingly, he says that the servant had been “faithful with very little.” If he can show that much industry from such a small amount, then he is a trustworthy servant who can handle more. More importantly, like Adam would have been rewarded (had he obeyed), the servant will receive far more than his deed; the reward was greater than the work! It is what Augustine called “rewards of grace.”

The second servant produced 500% for which he will receive five cities. No commendation is made like the first. But it is clear that the reward of grace means that he has his master’s approval. “Here the master shows both his generosity and his fairness, since the servants all received the same amount of capital to trade with, yet some have worked harder than others.” (Milne) “The reward is not rest, but the opportunity for wider service.” (Morris)

“All Christians will be saved by Christ, yet their work for Christ is another matter, it may pass muster or suffer loss in the fire of Christ’s testing examination (1 Cor. 3:11-15). Their special responsibilities in the future kingdom will depend in some way on the quality of their service for Christ in the present kingdom.” (Milne) This author also rightly summarizes two important truths that must guide our understanding of our future standing. One, “No servant deserves to be in Christ’s employment; everything is due to Christ’s pity and generosity (Matt. 20:1-6).” Two, “No servant deserves a reward since no one ever lives up to what Christ has the right to ask of us (Luke 17:7-10).” (Milne) But a third truth should be mentioned. No servant should highlight what he did; let his master do so (see below in “Lost in Translation”). They do not say, “I did this for you.” Rather, “Your mina produced this.”

19:20-21 — This third servant simply gives back what was given to him. He had not heeded the command, “Engage in business until I come.” (v. 13) Not only had he failed to heed the command, he is now blaming his failure on his master’s harshness. “In his defense the wicked servant sought to paint a negative picture of the character of the nobleman.” (Stein) “Taking up what one did not put down and reaping what one did not sow are evidently proverbial expressions for making gain through other people’s efforts.” (Morris) Bock says, “The king takes from others what he did not work for.” (Bock) Plummer states the dilemma in these words: “If I earn money, you will take it; if I lose it, you will hold me responsible.” (Plummer)

His assessment is certainly not true. The master rewarded his servants disproportionately to their labor. They received far more than what they did. The nobleman was generous and not severe.

Basically there are two classes listed in this parable, those who were faithful and those who were not. This man sufficiently portrays unfaithfulness. “The third servant stands for all those people throughout Christendom who have enjoyed an outward relationship to the church and the gospel. Yet these individuals have never made any return on these privileges and opportunities by trusting, loving and serving Christ personally. They are like land that has received the fructifying rain, but only produces thorns and weeds.” (Milne)

We learn how one’s prejudice and wrong understanding of who Jesus is will impact our behavior. Some view his as this wicked servant; others view him as indulgent and soft. Either way, they both misunderstand him and respond accordingly to their spiritual condemnation.

19:22-23 — “The nobleman judged the wicked servant on the basis of his own presuppositions.” (Stein) The logic of his response is quite penetrating. “If you indeed knew I was that way, then why in the world did you not fear and do something?” Not only did this man lie, he also was foolish. He failed to act on his pretended understanding. The minimal effort to invest would have been sufficient. Even that was neglected.

19:24 — The one who served faithfully will even be more blessed. Once again, the nobleman’s generosity is evident, contrary to the worthless servant’s mischaracterization.

19:25-26 — This interjection raises the question of the nobleman’s generosity and sense of equity. Yet, he will reward them disproportionately to reveal his generosity. “The smallest gift must be put to good use. In the Christian life we do not stand still. We use our gifts and make progress or we lose what we have.” (Morris)

19:27 — Jesus has dealt with those who profess to be his disciples, now he will address his enemies. “We may be horrified by the fierceness of the conclusion; but beneath the grim imagery is an equally grim fact, the fact that the coming of Jesus to the world puts every man to the test, compels every man to a decision. And that decision is no light matter. It is a matter of life and death.” (T. W. Manson) Bock says, “When Jesus returns, which category each person falls into will be revealed—and there will be no counterarguments.” (Bock)

Lost in Translation

Most translations offer everything we need to accurately study the Bible; they are trustworthy and faithful. But in a paraphrase rendition of this passage, the writer missed a significant point. When the servants came to their Lord, they stated something quite clear and emphatic. In v. 16, the servants stated first and foremost that it was “YOUR” mina (vv. 16, 18, 20). It was not their mina but the Lord’s. This is something we all can easily recognize in the translation. The verb however is very important to these verses. To highlight its significance, let me offer the difference between the ESV translation and the MESSAGE paraphrase:

ESV, “Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.”

MESSAGE, “Master, I doubled your money.”

The Grk. is very clear. The verb is in the third person (προσηργάσατο) and not the first. “Your mina, IT (that is, your mina) made ten minas more.” The MESSAGE changes it to the first person, “I doubled your money.” The original [which the ESV (and most translations) rendered correctly] emphasizes YOUR MINA; that is first in position in the sentence after acknowledging the “Lord” (Κύριε, ἡ μνᾶ σου δέκα προσηργάσατο μνᾶς.).

The first person is not used by the first two servants; they do not refer to themselves — they do not mention “I”. The first person comes out in the third servant. Yet, even he acknowledges it is the Lord’s mina (your mina, v. 20). Then he then states what HE did, “I kept laid away in a handkerchief…” This response by contrast is quite stark. He mentions himself and thus the contrast highlights something important. There is something to be learned here.

The first two servants reveal something of their humility. Their Lord’s gift produced the work; they do not highlight what they did. They dare not mention or boast about what they did — the Lord’s gift worked and their Lord must get the glory. The third servant either by way of excuse or by way of boast, mentions what he himself did. Believers must not do that; they must say what the first two servants said. They must say with Paul, “it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). We don’t want to overreach and make too much of the grammar here but I believe what we have highlighted is warranted from the text. We love to highlight what we do. “I did this, I did that!” How often I find myself sinning like this. Should we not say, “Lord, you have blessed me and gifted me in such and such area and look what you have done — you have enabled me to do such and such. Lord, I should have done more but what good has been done has been your work of grace and I dare not take credit!” “Lord, your mina has made more minas. May YOU be praised! We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty. [Lk. 17:10]”

[NOTE: These annotations come from the notes I kept on the gospel when I preached through Luke a few years ago. I have posted this portion because I recently noticed the translation issue and added to the document the portion entitled “Lost in Translation.” Portions of this file have been given to a few people in our church; it is my desire to get the entire file uploaded over the years. These annotations were for personal use and study to serve as the basis for my sermons on Luke.]

Proverbs 6:16-19

Leave a reply

Proverbs 6:16-19

Remember, these are instructions of a father to his son (6:1; cf. 6:20). Serious descriptions are given to warn the son. What he began in v. 12 he continues in this. Not only will worthless men be broken beyond healing (v. 15b), God also hates them do such things.

I think Hubbard is correct about these two passages: “If we are right in seeing ‘discord’ (v. 19) as the heart of the passage and in finding frivolous or malicious litigation as a chief expression of that discord, then we may see a contentious note in each of the first six rungs in the ladder by which we ascend to the climax of the final clause (v. 19b).” (Hubbard, 102) That is, each one of these abominations will serve to advance discord.

6:16-17 — 16 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

Seven abominations are listed here.[1] These are the things that the Lord hates. They are an abomination to him. God is not ashamed to state that He hates these things and because His displeasure or hatred against them is so clear, we must be careful to give our attention to what they are. “Man conceives of God in his heart as ‘such a one as himself’ (Ps. 1.21), looking with indifference at sin.” (Bridges) But God is not a man that He can look upon wickedness with favor (see Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4-5). This is the way God looks at these offenses.

The first abomination is “haughty eyes. ” The first four are tied to a body part. “Haughty (or lifted up) eyes denote a demeanor shaped by pride…pride does not allow a person to be self-critical. Thus, such people perpetuate bad behavior.” (Longman) The haughty demeanor can never bring concord; the haughty man must take first place and he will be reckoned with — if not, the unfortunate person will suffer his personal wrath. “Arrogance means self-exaltation over another person and violates the fundamentally equal honor of each individual (cf. 8:13; 16:5; 29:23).” (Waltke)

The second is “a lying tongue.” This man will play loose with the truth (cf. Hubbard) and it may have in view a legal court situation. God hates a lying tongue though it is greatly permitted and tolerable in our culture. Haughty eyes express contempt for others and a lying tongue will show contempt for their reputation and name.

The third abomination listed here is the one who is swift to shed innocent blood. If one has contempt for another then one will utilize whatever means possible to show contempt for innocent life. Here, it must be noted that shedding blood is not itself forbidden but instead, shedding innocent blood is in view. One who is haughty may not be able to murder someone but his heart is enraged against the other person (a murderous heart) and would do so if tolerated (cf. Haman in Esther).

6:18 — a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,

We are brought back into the heart of the man. This is the fourth thing God hates, viz., those who devise wicked plans. Perhaps they could not lay hands upon the one on whom they look down. They can only devise a wicked plan to get them. How many people have done this in the church? In their beds, in their homes, with their brethren, they’ve devised ways to spring their wicked plan which their wicked hearts hatched. This too the Lord hates.

Fifthly, not only do they devise a wick plan, they are quick to see it come to pass. They “make haste to run to evil.” They are not reluctant victims; they are calculating perpetrators. They are zealous about their evil: “The verset ‘catches the note of urgency involved in the crime — no step spared, no second wasted, no base left uncovered in the execution of the plot.” (cited in Waltke, 347)

6:19 — a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

The sixth thing is the willingness to speak a lie in a legal context. Body parts are no longer mentioned. Not only lying (e.g. second abomination) but lying under oath is abominable to the Lord.

The last thing is what we already mentioned. Discord is sown! The six abominable things will produce discord. All these can stand on their own but in this passage, they can easily be connected to lead to “discord among brothers.” [or relatives, kinsmen, or something broader] “If the heavenly ‘dew descends upon the brethren that dwell together in unity’ (Ps. cxxxiii.), a withering blast will fall on those, who, mistaking prejudice for principle, ‘cause divisions’ for their own selfish ends. …Fearful is the Lord’s mark upon them — ‘sensual, having not the Spirit.’ [Jude 19; 1 Cor. 3:3, 4]

The sower of discord among brethren, are worse than those who set fire to the houses of their neighbours. They kindle flames which burn with unrelenting fury, and set on fire families and provinces, and sometimes even nations themselves. They not only sin, but, like Jeroboam the son of Nebat, they cause multitudes of sin, destroying that charity which is the soul of every commandment, and disseminating those corrupt passions, which prove incentives to all the works of mischief. The God whose commandments are all included in love, and who sent his Son to be our peace, cannot but abhor these sons of Belial. Surely he will make their mischiefs to recoil with an awful vengeance upon their own heads. (Lawson)

ERGO — we learn the value of instructing others in the way God will treat iniquitous people (v. 15) and how He hates their ways (v. 16). It is not merely the father pointing out what his son should avoid; he is saying that God hates these things as well.

Furthermore, we must realize the serious nature of causing discord. Unless it is for God and His truth, we should humbly do all that we can to live in peace with all men, especially with our brethren in the faith. The Gospel itself causes divisions; we ought not to instigate it with our own wicked hearts. It is an abomination to our God.

[1] “The seven together present another concise and vivid description of the troublemaker; no other type of person satisfies the description.” (Waltke, 345)

Proverbs 6:12-15

Leave a reply

Proverbs 6:12-15

One characteristic unifies this and the following passage (vv. 14 & 19): sowing discord.[1] Previously, the father urged his pupil not to be lazy. Now he describes what a worthless person looks like. The contrast between the passage above and this one is quite stark (in the words of Charles Bridges): “What a contrast between the inactivity of the sluggard and the unwearied diligence of the naughty person!” (Bridges)

6:12 — A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech,

He is a worthless person (literally “man of Belial” in Hebrew, אָדָ֣ם בְּ֭לִיַּעַל) The word “denotes one who is implacably wicked and who agitates against all that is good.” (Waltke). His speech is crooked (or fraudulent speech) — one who “distorts the truth on which a straight and sound society is built” (Waltke).

6:13 — winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger,

In summary, “With a hint here, and a wink or a gesture there, the troublemaker can sow discord at will—until God’s hour strikes for him.” (Kidner) The point is not we ought not to wink but these gestures should not be used to advance wickedness. Waltke and others note that these gestures may be expressions of superiority, condescending attitude, etc. “By his devious and invidious motions he attempts to derogate others and thereby to lower their status in the eyes of associates. In turn, a troublemaker feels superior, and this ego satisfaction is his ultimate desire and goal.” (Waltke, citing Pault).[2]

6:14 — with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord;

Similar to the way Paul describes the various facets of one’s body to teach the doctrine of total depravity, so the father describes how a worthless fellow oozes out wickedness. His speech eyes, feet, finger and now the heart are listed. The man of Belial devises evil in his heart; it is not just external behavior — it comes from the heart. “The heart is the core of a person from which emanate all actions, motives, and speech. The heart of an evil person is bent on evil.” (Longman)

The end result of these expressions of worthlessness and wickedness is that it sows discord. “All their choices (‘heart’) are malicious, because discord among the people, disruption of community consensus and family unity, are their aim. Such discord may even carry them into court to try to give legal expression of the contentiousness…” (suggested from the Hebrew word for discord – a judicial term). (Hubbard)

6:15 — therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.

Such a person will come to ruin; God will see to it. “They may seem as though they are getting away with their actions, but they will ultimately be ruined; that ruin will come suddenly and will not be reversible.” (Longman) “Sudden destruction is probably a sign of divine wrath and indirectly incorporates the troublemaker among the ranks of the wicked (see 3:25).” (Waltke)

ERGO — We are warned against living this kind of life. Being a sluggard is one thing; being a wicked troublemaker is another. Wickedness cannot live alone; it must spread and it will do what it can to express itself. What is interesting about this “worthless man” is that the ultimate expression of his iniquity is discord. That vice is once again highlighted in the next passage.

How does one sow discord in the church? Will it always appear to be malevolent and vindictive? This passage views sowing discord as the culmination of a wicked man. Why does the church and our culture not view this as a serious vice (or does it)?

[1] “…the climatic line of each is ‘sows discord’ (vv. 14, 19).” (Hubbard)

[2] Some have suggested that these gestures may be ancient expressions of sorcery (cf. McKane) or simply restless expressions of inner disquietude (cf. Longman).

Proverbs 6:6-11

Leave a reply

Proverbs 6:6-11

The father has spoken about finances in some measure in vv. 1-5. Now he urges his son to be industrious. The father is concerned about the way his son uses his money and time. These two things (along with what follows after) greatly affect a man.

6:6-8 — 6 Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. 7 Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, 8 she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.

Though we may know more than the beasts, yet the smallest of insects can teach us. The young sluggard is bidden to go to the ant to learn. The ants have no one goading them on and yet they get all their work done and acquire all their necessities (30:25, “… the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer…”). If we reflect on their behavior and heed their industry, we will be wise (“consider her ways, and be wise”).

The father addresses a pupil who is perhaps not a sluggard but one who may easily become one (Hubbard). Remember, we can lose all that we have by chasing a wicked woman (5:7-10) as well as putting up security for someone (6:1-5). The other way we can come to impoverishment is sheer laziness.

6:9-11 — 9 How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, 11 and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.

Not only must the sluggard consider the God’s creatures but he is also exhorted to awake from his slumber. It is said by some that the most unproductive tend to sleep the most. Sleeping too long is often a symptom of laziness (all things being equal). Lawson says, “It is a shame for men to give up to sleep a third part of their time, but it is not less so to spend our waking hours in doing nothing, or in doing what is as unprofitable.” (Lawson)

Verse 10 is the sage’s observation. A little bit of all of these things can only lead to one thing. The sluggard may defend his “little” sleep, slumber, and folding of his hands to rest. This may be his response to the question of How long? Just a little bit more! “The lazy person says they just want a ‘little sleep,’ but we suspect that little nap will become a long sleep to avoid work necessary to sustain life.” (Longman)

This indolence has consequences. Poverty will come upon them quickly. The phrase “armed man” may better be translated as “beggar” or “insolent man.” “The house of the sluggard is the haunt of poverty, and it comes not like an invited guest, whose visit is expected, but like a traveler, whose approach is unforeseen. It comes like an armed man, and gains an easy victory over the naked and slumbering sluggard.” (Lawson) “The doom of the sluggard travels swiftly and is inevitable. While he slumbers inertly, Poverty is coming on apace, drawing nearer to him every moment; and when it comes, it falls upon him like an armed man…from whom there is no escape.” (Perowne)

The opposite of this is hard work; to be busy and productive. “Hard work ought to be the normal routine of us who serve a carpenter-Christ, who follow the lead of a tentmaker-Apostle, and who call ourselves children of a Father who is still working (John 5:17).” (Hubbard)

Some Lessons

1. Believers should be busy and productive. Our culture is too preoccupied with pleasure and entertainment. TV, internet, games, outings, etc. may all have their legitimate place but they must not take a large part of our time or impede the proper and productive use of our time.

2. This is not arguing against legitimate sleep.

3. Christians have been known to be productive. It has been said that Christ’s work in the hearts of men and women have often freed men from their waste (drunkenness, gambling, prostitutes, sinful entertainment, etc.)

4. “The idle man is bad, but the mischievous man is still worse; but indeed it generally happens, that he who is enslaved by the one of these vices, becomes in process of time the slave of the other also.” (Lawson)

5. “Laziness is a breach of love. It refuses to carry its own weight let alone help with the loads of the rest of us who plod along supporting our young, our aged, our infirm. We have no surplus energy to carry those who can walk and will not.” (Hubbard)

On the Sluggard and Hard Work in Proverbs[1]

Proverbs has strong words against laziness. Laziness leads to poverty (10:4) and at best, it will lead him to forced labor (12:24). His worthless pursuits (or frivolity) show that he lacks sense (12:11) and they will lead him to poverty (28:19). Not only worthless pursuits but mere talk will also lead to poverty (14:23) and hunger (19:15). This suggests that the man may be busy and talk much about all that he is doing and intends to do but at bottom, he is bone lazy and wants a quick gain — it can only lead to poverty because it is without wisdom and not God’s way. His way is “like a hedge of thorns” (15:19) and is a “brother to him who destroys” (18:9).

Sleeping when he should work will bring shame (10:5) and his slothfulness “casts into a deep sleep” (19:15). They should not love sleep (20:13) but as it is, “As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed.” (26:14) He will not plow when he needs to (20:4) though he will look for food in the harvest but will find nothing (20:4). Yet, he is “wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly.” (26:16)

The sluggard is so lazy that he “buries his hand in the dish” and won’t “even bring it back to his mouth” (19:24) for “it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth” (26:15). His hand refuses to work (21:25). The sluggard won’t even roast his game (12:27) nor will he get what he desires (13:4). He will have all kinds of excuses and says things like, “There is a lion outside! I shall be killed in the streets!” (22:13; 26:13). Indeed, “the desire of the sluggard kills him” (21:25).

24:30-34, “I passed by the field of a sluggard, by the vineyard of a man lacking sense, and behold, it was all overgrown with thorns; the ground was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. Then I saw and considered it; I looked and received instruction. A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.” (cf. 6:6-11)

But we are strongly encouraged to work hard. The wise gathers (10:5) and opens his eyes instead of sleeping (20:13). Working our land will allow us to have what we need (12:11) and hard work can lead to wealth (“…the hand of the diligent makes rich.” [10:4; cf. 12:27; 13:4; 28:19]) and may enable the person to rule (12:24). His diligence and skill will elevate him: “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men.” (22:29)

We are taught that “in all toil there is profit” (14:23). Though we may not become rich through diligence, careful planning, etc. we will have enough. This principle must be fixed in our minds. We are to be like the woman in Proverbs 31. “She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.” (31:27) We will have enough when we work (because the Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, 10:3). The same principle and encouragement can be found with greater clarity in 27:23-27: “Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds, for riches do not last forever; and does a crown endure to all generations? When the grass is gone and the new growth appears and the vegetation of the mountains is gathered, the lambs will provide your clothing, and the goats the price of a field. There will be enough goats’ milk for your food, for the food of your household and maintenance for your girls.” One commentator says this: “It may well be a warning not to let the pressures of urbane activities and the lure of get-rich-quick schemes seduce attention from the enduring and indispensable tasks of feeding and clothing one’s household and providing ‘nourishment’ for one’s helpers.” (Hubbard) Waltke adds, “To involve himself fully and personally with his sources of income will take the energy, discipline, kindness, shrewdness, and other virtues bestowed by wisdom.”

That is the point of all this — wisdom shows itself in a person’s industrious ways. Though we are exhorted not to trust in riches (11:28) yet we are also taught that diligence will make rich (10:4). God blesses the efforts of the righteous and adds no sorrow to it (10:22, more on this when we come to it). But how does one do this? Wisdom enables one to be industrious and helps the person to prepare. These things do not simply come to us — in Proverbs, they are the expressions of wisdom as well as the effects of wisdom in a person’s life. He has a proper view of work and wealth (not like 18:11, “A rich man’s wealth is his strong city, and like a high wall in his imagination.”) The point of these verses is not, “Just work hard. Do it!” Rather, show wisdom (rooted in our Lord) in the area of your vocation. Proverbs teaches us what wisdom looks like when it comes to work and planning. Mere work is not the expression of wisdom; rather, work done with an eye to God’s glory is wisdom at work.

Some Questions

•Do these verses teach that all who are poor brought it upon themselves?

•Does it teach us that some of the poor brought it upon themselves?

•What does this teach about sleep? Leisure?

•Our generation fears being a “workaholic.” Do these verses have anything to say?

•It is easy to accuse the “other” person who is in a desperate situation of being slothful (that is, their “sloth” or folly brought it upon themselves). Where does compassion come in?

•Are all industrious people wise? Explain. Or, are all poor people fools?

•Is “poverty” related to morality? To wisdom? Explain.

[1] The list of these verses can be found in Longman, 561-562.

Larger Catechism, #73

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 73

73. Q. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[304] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[305] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[306]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[304] Galatians 3:11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [305] Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 10:10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [306] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Galatians 1:16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.

Introduction

If the believer is not careful in stating his understanding of justification by faith, he can easily imply that his faith itself justifies. That is, the strength (or virtue) of our faith justifies us. It is similar to saying, “My act of believing is the cause and ground of my justification.” William Pope, a very competent Arminian, argued that for a believer “his faith is counted for righteousness.”[1] John Miley says that “faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed” as the righteousness.[2] Justification by faith was somehow related to righteousness. In explaining this, these Arminians did not want it to be Christ’s imputed righteousness.[3] Many of them simply ended up arguing that faith itself was the righteousness. At some points, it is difficult to understand how they explained this but what becomes crystal clear is the denial of Christ’s imputation of righteousness. Faith was not the means of justification but the ground for these Arminians.

For this reason, we must be give this particular question careful consideration. The Westminster divines clearly saw (or foresaw) how all this could be misunderstood — this question carefully answers what later would become a problem. [I have not done enough research to see if certain individuals advanced what the Arminians later taught (though Arminian thinking was already soundly refuted in 1618-19). The Confession was finalized in 1646. Question 73 seems to have in mind a specific error but I have not verified as of yet.]

Accompanying Graces do not Justify

The answer states, “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it…” This part of the answer carefully lists the two ways faith does not justify. The other graces which accompany faith, like hope, charity, etc. do not justify. The various “other graces” would be the “fruits of the Spirit” in Gal. 5:22, 23. Peter speaks of adding to faith in 1Peter 1:5-7. Nowhere does it ever say that love itself justifies, or that our joy, peace, patience, etc. justifies. Our repentance, which flows from faith, also does not justify.

Gal. 5:6 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” This has been the locus classicus for Roman Catholics to refute sola fide. It seems clear that we are not justified by faith alone but instead are justified by “faith working through love” (πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). Therefore, the Westminster divines err by saying “not because of those other graces which do always accompany” faith. Are they correct?

In interpreting passages, we must always consider the context. This verse is in the context of refuting those who boast in circumcision. Paul is saying being or not being circumcised is nothing. What matters is “faith working through love.” Is he speaking of justification? The context seems to suggest that. One commentator says, “The faith which operates through love is clearly the same as the faith which justifies.”[4] At the same time, this author says, Paul “is saying simply that the faith which justifies is of such a nature that it will express itself through love.” That is, though faith alone justifies, it also expresses itself in love. By faith alone are we justified but this faith does more. as one author tersely summarized the verse with this maxim, “faith as root and love as fruit.”[5] So the New Living Translation pretty much got it right by translating it as “faith expressing itself in love.” Love is always the fruit, the fruit of the Spirit (v. 22) for those justified by faith.[6]

An illustration may help here. Electricity alone powers my router; nothing else can. Yet, electricity does far more than power my router — it warms my electric blanket, heats my electric heater, spins my blender, etc. Similarly, faith alone is the means of justification, yet faith does many other things. Thomas Schreiner says, “The participle ‘working’ (ἐνεργουμένη) should be construed as a middle here, so that faith is the root and love is the fruit.” That is, love is the fruit of faith which is precisely what Paul teaches in Ga. 5:22, “where love is the fruit of the Spirit, and therefore those who trust in Christ and embrace him as Lord show that faith in love.”[7]

We must not overlook the immense practical matters related to this theological observation. This is much more helpful than we can imagine. If we are justified by God’s grace through faith alone and these accompanying graces do not in the least justify, then we may be justified without joy, peace, etc. Though these graces are essentially connected to faith, we may not sense them. Some believers have thought their sense of being accepted, their experience of God’s peace, their felt sense of joy, etc. are the grounds of their justification. How can I be right with God if I don’t “feel” peace, joy, patience, etc.? These graces accompany faith but they do not justify. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; God justifies me as I humbly believe in His Son for my salvation, etc. To be declared forgiven, righteous on account of Christ’s imputed righteousness, are forensic acts and not necessarily felt experiences (though these do most often accompany it).

Good Works that are the Fruits of Faith do not Justify

Furthermore, “good works that are the fruits” of faith do not justify. Good works are always “fruits” and not the grounds of our justification. If we are truly justified, we will bear fruit and good works are themselves evidences, the fruits of our justification. As Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:28) Paul’s statement is pitted against specific obedience to the law of God revealed in the OT (in particular, the Torah). That is what “deeds of the law” means. When it comes to justification, works of the law do not play any role. The “good works” that accompany those who are justified do not contribute to justification.

Major detractors to this interpretation have gained a hearing. N. T. Wright says that Paul is concerned with ecclesiology and not soteriology. So “Paul’s point in the present passage is quite simply that what now marks out the covenant people of God, in the light of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Jesus, is not the works of Torah that demarcate ethnic Israel, but ‘the law of faith,’ that faith that, however paradoxically, is in fact the true fulfilling of Torah.” He states that Paul is stressing “the badge of membership in God’s people, the badge that enables all alike to stand on the same, flat ground at the foot of the cross, is faith.”[8] This seems convoluted because it imports what is not present in the context. Remember, Jews have sought to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 10:3). Christ is “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). Many scholars have risen up to refute N. T. Wright. His innovative (and heretical) interpretation does not only destroy the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone but it will also kill the life and soul of the church because his focus on ecclesiology is nothing more than externalism. Much more could be said but that cannot engage our present attention. It will not do you any good to read N.T. Wright.[9]

The Act of Faith is not Justification

The divines also state, “nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification.” As mentioned in the beginning, the divines shut the door in attributing the act of faith as the ground of our justification. Vos summarizes the mistake in this way, “Abraham did not have a perfect righteousness, such as God originally required of men, but he did have faith, and so God graciously accepted faith as a substitute for righteousness.” (Vos, 163) Additionally, the phrase “any act thereof” would probably include repentance, sorrow, etc. (those things mentioned above). Faith itself or any kinds of acts we might perform (whatever that might be), etc. are not substituted for our righteousness. God does not say, “You don’t have good deeds but do something, like believe, and I’ll accept you as righteous.”

Imputing faith for one’s justification is plausible given Rom. 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” This verse sounds like God is accepting the act of believing as a substitute for what Abraham couldn’t do and thus counting it as done. But as Douglas Moo says,

But if we compare other verses in which the same grammatical construction as is used in Gen. 15:6 occurs, we arrive at a different conclusion. These parallels suggest that the “reckoning” of Abraham’s faith as righteousness means “to account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him.” Abraham’s response to God’s promise leads God to “reckon” to him a “status” of righteousness.[10]

Paul makes it clear in v. 4 that this gift of righteousness is not what is earned or what is due on account of works (“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”). So the interpretation of v. 3 (i.e., making the act of believing the merit, basis, and the ground of one’s righteousness) would contradict the teaching of v. 4. NT scholars have noted that many of the Jews believed Abraham faith was Abraham’s obedience to God and regarded as a work for which God owed him a reward.[11] Paul would have been very aware of that and vv. 3, 4 contradict the received Jewish opinion. To locate merit in the believer (his act of believing) would destroy Paul’s argument. Bavinck puts it well:

If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value. But the faith that justifies is precisely the faith that has Christ as its object and content. Therefore, if righteousness came through the law, and if faith were a work that had merit and value as such and made a person acceptable to God, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). In Justification faith is so far from being regarded as a ground that Paul can say that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).[12]

The Westminster divines obviously wanted to close the door on any and all kinds of imagined human activities that could be used to claim merit. Any act, whatever that might be, cannot imputed for one’s justification. The faith that justifies has not merit in itself. This is a wonderful blessing. Faith must always look outside itself and never to itself. Too often people look in to see if they have “enough” faith, piety, repentance, sorrow, passion, zeal, etc. No act, even faith (if we trust in it), can justify.

Faith is an Instrument

This last clause explains the function of faith. Faith is not itself a meritorious work but it is only an instrument by which we receive Christ: “but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” How does faith justify a sinner? Faith is only an instrument — it looks beyond itself to Christ to receive Him. We have already noted that justifying faith is a saving grace (LC #72) — it is produced by the work of the Spirit. When He works that faith in us, we look to Christ by faith and receive Him and all of His benefits. Thomas Watson summarizes it well: “The dignity is not in faith as a grace, but relatively, as it lays hold on Christ’s merits.”[13]

[1] William Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, nd), 2:408.

[2] John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:319.

[3] Cf. Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (London: Printed for Thomas Tegg & Sons, 1835), 154ff.; Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine (Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, 1903), 445ff.

[4] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 229.

[5] Loosely following F. F. Bruce in Gerald L. Borchert, in Galatians, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, vol. 14 (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2007), 316, loosely follows or cites F. F. Bruce. Bruce says, “faith is viewed as the root, love as the fruit.”

[6] Cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publications Company, 1982), 233.

[7] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 317. “Middle” voice indicates that the subject is the one acting and in this instance, it is “working itself” (almost like a reflexive verb).

[8] N. T. Wright, Romans, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 482.

[9] Some mature believers are gifted enough to work through Wright’s writings without being infected by his thinking. He is not a safe guide though at times he can be insightful and helpful. He has fundamentally reshaped Pauline theology and in turn historic theology. I grow more and more impatient with his writings as he pushes his agenda throughout his publications.

[10] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 262.

[11] See Moo cited above.

[12] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:211.

[13] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, nd),158.

Larger Catechism, #72

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 72

72. Q. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[297] Hebrews 10:39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. [298] 2 Corinthians 4:13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak. Ephesians 1:17-19. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. [299] Romans 10:14-17. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [300] Acts 2:37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 16:30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? John 16:8-9. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me. Romans 6:6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Ephesians 2:1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. [301] Ephesians 1:13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. [302] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Acts 16:31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [303] Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Acts 15:11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Introduction

The question assumes something we all recognize. There is a kind of faith that justifies and a kind that does not. Not all faith justifies though genuine faith alone justifies. Many people who go to church believe many orthodox truths but mere mental assent does not justify. I may believe that eating pork is bad for me or drinking wine is good for me but such belief does nothing for my health if I don’t act on that belief.

So the first thing to consider is that there is a faith that does not justify. James 2 speaks cogently of that matter. Believing orthodox truths may put us on an equal footing with demons — “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.” (James 2:19) James says you do well to believe such things but also points out that that demons believe the same things. “The point James is now driving home is that a Christian creed without corresponding Christian conduct will save neither devil nor man.”[1] Some have called this “dead orthodoxy” but it is in fact licentious orthodoxy. It is not only inert; it is carnal. Faith without works is dead! Jesus says that this kind of faith in the end “proves unfruitful” (Mt. 13:22, ἄκαρπος γίνεται, or “becomes unfruitful”).

Another example of a faith that does not justify is what we call a temporary faith. Temporary faith represents the ones who “believe for a while” (Lk. 8:13, πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν, or “they believe for a time or a season”). Whatever the reason (worldliness, temptation, seduction, persecution, etc.), they end up believing for a season, for a time. The length of belief may be many years or for a short time but eventually time reveals the nature of their belief.

It is not wrong to examine ourselves regarding the nature of our faith. Protestants have rightly taught that we are justified by faith alone. Unfortunately, any and all faiths have been accepted. The mere profession of faith somehow protects the person from any scrutiny — forming any discerning judgment about the genuineness the person’s profession is considered uncharitable. Because a person says he has faith, it is tantamount to asserting that the person has justifying faith.

Furthermore, a growing trend in the Reformed circle has rightly stressed justification by faith. Yet, a strange (and disconcerting) aberration has developed from this. Any emphasis on obedience, sanctification, adherence to God’s law, etc. has been roundly criticized for being legalistic. Justification by faith alone has displaced sanctification and obedience in many. Men like Tullian Tchividjian have been criticized for this.[2] For this reason, we need to be clear about justifying faith.

Saving Grace

The first thing the LC states is that “justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God…” Justifying faith is first and foremost a saving grace. This means that those who have this faith have received a work of grace in their hearts that is saving. It will truly justify and in turn truly save. The classic text is Eph. 2:8-10. The saving faith “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” The text used to support the LC statement is Heb. 10:39: “But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” The phrase reads “but of faith unto the preserving of the soul” (ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς). The writer of Hebrews is arguing that his readers are those who have a faith that truly saves unto the end. The ones who “shrink back” are not saved but “are destroyed.” They believed for a while but such a faith did not justify.

This justifying faith is a gift wrought in us: “wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit.” 2Cor. 4:13 supports that point: “Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak…” The phrase “same spirit of faith” is very important.[3] It teaches that Paul and the NT believers have the same faith the same Holy Spirit created in the Psalmist. He is the one who enables us to believe.

Furthermore, this faith is wrought “by the Spirit and Word of God.” Vos has this to say, “The Word, or gospel, message alone, without the Holy Spirit, may result in a kind of faith, but not justifying faith. Where the Word is not known, as among the heathen who have never heard the name of Christ, the Holy Spirit does not do any saving work (except perhaps in the case of infants dying in infancy, etc.).” (159-160) The Spirit doesn’t create faith without a context. The person believes the truth preached. He has faith in something and justifying faith believes in the gospel and all that it teaches. When God created faith in Lydia, we see that it is coupled with the message preached to her: “and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14, NASB). She responded or paid attention to the message preached; God did not merely create faith in her without a corresponding gospel for her to believe. As Paul has taught, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Justifying Faith and Conviction

There is an element added here that could easily be misunderstood. Justifying faith includes the following, “whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition…” The person with real justifying faith is also convinced of his sin and misery. We read in Acts 2:37 that the people who heard Peter’s preaching were “pricked in their heart.” That is, they were convicted by what they heard, convicted of their guilt and sin. The Spirit will “reprove the world of sin” (Jn. 16:8) and everyone who has genuine justifying faith will be convinced he is a sinner. What is not spelled out (and it cannot be spelled out) is how much conviction of sin and a sense of misery they must experience. Some measure, however little, accompanies genuine justifying faith — whatever it takes to get them to Christ.

In Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer was compelled to ask what he must do to be saved, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Here, the jailer recognized his need for salvation and realized there was no one who could help him. He had a sense of the “disability in himself” — he does not seek the remedy from somewhere else except in Christ Jesus. The truth of Acts 4:12 (“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”) also means that the convinced sinner realizes that Christ is the answer to his misery and lost condition.

Some, like Zane Hodges (a dispensationalist), have argued that faith is simply “believe.” It is no different than asking someone if he believed that the President will do what he promised. Faith is just like that, he argues.[4] There is no “mental assent” for him; there is only belief and unbelief. Faith is the “inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true.”[5] He (along with Ryrie) is convinced that the Bible doesn’t teach intellectual faith, historic faith, etc. It is belief or unbelief. Ryrie says, “When a person gives credence to the historical facts that Christ died and rose from the dead and the doctrinal fact that this was for his sins, he is trust his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths.”[6] They fail to recognize a simple point. It is true that faith means all those things but what they failed to consider is that Scripture teaches much more than that. Those who say they believe do not necessarily savingly believe on account of their lifestyle, affections, etc. So faith includes much more than mere credence to some historical facts. Are there not many who have left the church who would never say they don’t believe those verities in the Bible? Justifying faith is more than mere mental assent.

Faith and Assent

Here is where the divines saw right through this issue: “not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin…” First of all, assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel is necessary. Salvation is not just an experience. Something happens to the sinner (regeneration) but that work in him comes with the reception of the truth by the sinner. To be more precise, the work of regeneration enables the person to assent to the truth. The sinner trusts in Christ as he first believes in the truth: “when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him…” (Eph. 1:13). Hearing the word of truth and believing in Him go together; that is, the sinner assents to the “word of truth” when he hears it and with it he believes in him. Before unpacking that point, we need to consider a very important aspect of assenting to the truth. Vos asks, “When a person denies the truthfulness of God’s Word, in whole or in part, what does this show concerning the state of that person’s heart?”

Such unbelief ordinarily indicates that the person does not have saving faith, and is not a child of God. The only exception to this statement would be the case of a person in whose heart justifying faith has been wrought by the Holy Spirit, who yet because of weakness of intellect denies the truthfulness or authority of some portion of the Bible without realizing that this is inconsistent with justifying faith and that it dishonors God. (Vos, 160)

Assenting to the truth of the gospel means that the person believes what the Bible says. We have no gospel except the one presented in the Bible. Assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel go hand in hand with the truth of the Bible. The Spirit who gave the Word is Himself the one who enables a sinner to believe in His Word. He would not regenerate someone to not accept His own Word.

As we’ve already stated, it is more than assent because the truth brings with it the Person to whom the truth points. Jn. 1:12 speaks of receiving Christ (“But as man as received him…”) while Acts 16:31 writes of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:43). These verses clearly teach that in assenting to the truth, we are also receiving and resting on Christ. Propositions do not save us; Christ does. In justifying faith, the sinner receives Christ— the whole soul rests on Christ: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). The Puritans spoke of the sinner “recumbing and relying on the Lord Jesus Christ as offered in the promise of free grace for his righteousness.”[7] Recumbing means to repose, recline, etc. These various verbs all connote the simple idea of “resting” or leaning on Christ.

In this believing we set our seal that God is true; and God will, in due time, if He has not done so already, set His seal to work assurance in you, to second your reliance. ‘But if you believe not, thus you make God a liar’ (1 John 5:10).

Though you assent to the truth of the promises of Christ, yet if you draw back your affiance and relying, as if the promises were not to you, you give God the lie. Oh, then, in the sense of your own nakedness, come out of yourselves and cast yourself on Christ for righteousness—and this is the faith that saves you.

How many men deceive themselves in this saving act of faith! If they know the promise of Christ as our righteousness and assent to it, they think that is enough. But, alas, it is not; for there must be a stripping of a man’s self naked of his own righteousness and a resting on this righteousness of Christ’s alone. David stripped himself of his armor, and so went out against Goliath in the name of the Lord. Adam was naked and saw it before God made the promise of Christ.[8]

To lean or rely on something means that if the said object upon which we rely or lean is removed, we would fall. The sinner does not merely assent to the truth, he also leans on Christ. If the “prop” is not there or if the prop fails, then the one leaning on it falls. The sinner leans on Christ and His righteousness so much that if Christ fails him, he is undone.

The divines rightly recognize that justifying faith means that the sinner looks to Christ and His righteousness — he sees that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins are offered in Christ and he rests in Christ for them. In the Bible we read that God enables us to be “in Christ Jesus, who became to us … righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). Paul says he wants to be found in Christ not having a righteousness of his own “but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). Justifying faith looks to Christ for that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins — “that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).

So, justifying faith assumes a body of biblical knowledge, a belief in those truths, a relying and resting on Christ and a looking to Him for righteousness and the forgiveness of sins. That is to say, justifying faith means something more than a vague religious experience! It possesses rich biblical content that focuses on forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness! If those things are not preached then there can be no justifying faith — however sincere the profession may be!

Faith and Being Account Righteous

Lastly, justifying faith of course assumes the effect of faith: “and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Phil. 3:9 (quoted above) clearly teaches the point made in the LC. The sinner who truly believes recognizes that his believing in Christ means that he will be accounted righteous in the sight of God. God does not merely tolerate us by forgiving us — He actually accounts us as righteous in his sight. It is not as if we never sinned but rather as if we had perfectly obeyed the law — not we in ourselves but Christ and His righteousness!

[1] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 127.

[2] See http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/08/sanctification-and-the-nature.php.

[3] “Gk. τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως, a probable reference to the Holy Spirit, through whom faith comes (see, e.g., 1 Cor 12:3). Despite his emphasis on the eschatological coming of the Spirit in the new covenant, Paul nonetheless acknowledges the work of the Spirit in the life of the psalmist” (Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 240).

[4] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Rendención Viva, 1989), 27-28.

[5] Hodges, Absolutely Free, 31.

[6] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), 30.

[7] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness: The Old Perspective (reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 69.

[8] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness, 70.

Proverbs 6:1-5

Leave a reply

Proverbs 6:1-5

6:1-2 — 1 My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, have given your pledge for a stranger, 2 if you are snared in the words of your mouth, caught in the words of your mouth,

Putting up security is equivalent to our “co-signing” for someone and it is a big “No, No” in Proverbs. Here, the person is a neighbor, someone close (could be translated as “friend”) or the stranger. That is to say, the verse is simply including “everyone” (cf. Longman calls it a merism, that is, it “is a figure of speech by which a single thing is referred to by a conventional phrase that enumerates several of its parts, or which lists several synonyms for the same thing.” Wikipedia).

The son is tempted to help someone out and thus guarantees the help with his promise. The young naïve man pledges his own assets as security for someone else. He was hasty and has been caught by what he said; he is trapped by his pledge (like a handshake, something like “struck your palm for a stranger”).

Though helping is one thing, but we must avoid being the guarantee for someone’s financial debt. We must not be tied to our indebted friend’s goodwill to pay off his debt; if he is good for it, then he can do it on his own. We must not be his guarantor. The Bible is emphatic: “The teaching is consistent: don’t give loans or secure debts.” (Longman) “The book of Proverbs, however, consistently and unconditionally warns against becoming surety or the debtor for a stranger’s debt…” (Waltke)[1] “He forbids us to become surety, even for a friend, (except for some weighty reason,) and to strike hands with a stranger, in token of our becoming bound for our friend’s debts.” (Lawson)[2]

6:3-5 — 3 then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor: go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor. 4 Give your eyes no sleep and your eyelids no slumber; 5 save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler.

While the son has the opportunity, he must do all that he can to get out of this situation. The description here is quite alarming. He has “come into the hand of your neighbor” — he is in a trap from which he must be delivered. Furthermore, the father is saying that he must be shameless and give himself no rest until he is out of this predicament. He must act like a gazelle or a bird which is about to be captured. Break free, flee, fly, leave the situation as quickly as possible.

It is recognized that the guarantor is at the mercy of the creditor and the debtor. We are out of power; we are in the hands of the fidelity of our indebted friend and the goodwill of the creditor. This is a serious impediment to his happiness.

The effect of suretiship, even with the most upright men, has often proved hurtful to their souls, embittering their days, and unfitting them for the cheerful services of religion. It has not infrequently rendered them unable to perform those services to God and to his church, for the sake of which a competency of the good things of life is to be valued. We are the servants of Christ, and must not disqualify ourselves for his service, by making ourselves needlessly the servants of men. (Lawson)

On “co-signing” or serving as a guarantor, Proverbs has much to say. The first time this idea is addressed after these verses in ch. 6 is Prov. 11:15 — Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm, but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure. The newer New Living Translation has, “There’s danger in putting up security for a stranger’s debt; it’s safer not to guarantee another person’s debt.” The original NLT has, “Guaranteeing a loan for a stranger is dangerous; it is better to refuse than to suffer later.” Furthermore, the Contemporary English Version states, “It’s a dangerous thing to guarantee payment for someone’s debts. Don’t do it!”

Whereas Prov. 6 encourages us to get out of it, this tells us of the harm that will befall us. It is dangerous so we ought not to do it. Proverbs never says that it is good to become someone’s guarantor. We are helping other people secure loans, that is, helping them to get into debt! (cf. Longman)

Whereas these examples (6:1-5 & 11:15) focus on the negative aspects of being a guarantor of someone else’s debt, Prov. 17:18 actually says that if we do, we are senseless or stupid. It says, One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor. CEV has, “It’s stupid to guarantee someone else’s loan.”[3] One may have “reasons” for participating in these precarious situations but the Bible consistently says that such a person is actually senseless.

One more place in Proverbs addresses this topic and it is found in 22:26-27. These verses actually forbid it: “Be not one of those who give pledges, who put up security for debts. If you have nothing with which to pay, why should your bed be taken from under you?” The New Living Translation: “26 Do not co-sign another person’s note or put up a guarantee for someone else’s loan. 27 If you can’t pay it, even your bed will be snatched from under you.”

The reasoning is very sensible and practical. If we incur debt or put up security for debt, what will happen if we can’t pay back? We can lose the very bed on which we sleep. We must simply avoid the situations that will jeopardize what has been lawfully and graciously given to us.

Proverbs has another way of looking at this. It looks at it from the lender’s perspective! In some situations, the lender is to make sure he receives a pledge or gets security under certain circumstances. 20:16 says, “Take a man’s garment when he has put up security for a stranger, and hold it in pledge when he puts up security for foreigners.” That is, if we ended up loaning to someone who was foolish (putting up security for a stranger), then show no mercy and get what is coming to you. This is more explicit in 27:13, “Take a man’s garment when he has put up security for a stranger, and hold it in pledge when he puts up security for an adulteress.”[4] Kidner says, “Don’t lend to him without security (Ex. 22:26); he is a bad risk!” “At stake in these warnings was more than the protection of individual wealth or reputation. The stability of the society was a prime consideration. Promises lightly made or pledges rashly offered contribute to economic uncertainty and interpersonal ill will. They enable shysters and con men to flourish and jeopardize the credit of the reliable.” (Hubbard, 172-3)

Further Thoughts on Money, Debt, & Co-Signing

What makes a person co-sign or become the collateral for someone else?

Pressure and a sense of obligation may “guilt” us into it! It may be for a “noble” reason. A dear friend may need a car badly but his credit is not good enough and you are tempted to serve as his co-signer. We may want our own children to develop good “credit” so we help them get into debt by co-signing for something they want! Our parents, whom we love and to whom we own so much, may ask us to co-sign or offer some collateral to enable them to get the final dream house, summer home, etc. Perhaps it is the person we recently met who is a mutual friend of someone very close to us (our parents, our parent’s friends, etc.) and his “need” for something comes to our attention and he asks that you co-sign for him.

Why shouldn’t we?

•We have encouraged the friend to enter into debt. Prov. 22:7 says, “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.” We do not wish to be in debt and should not be in debt — why should we make it easier for our friend to enter into debt?

•Prudence indicates that if the person in question cannot guarantee his own debt, why should we gamble on him?

•We do not know the future. Why should we hazard our assets on the uncertainty of someone who cannot secure his own? God has not promised us that we will have enough to take care of our friend’s debt in the event he defaults.

•Pride? Do we really think we can underwrite someone else’s bad behavior? Or, can we be certain he will pay back?

•God’s word says (Prov. 22:26), “Be not one of those who give pledges, who put up security for debts.”

Good Advice

“In dealing with close friends or relatives…outright gifts may make for less strain and better relations than loans. If the person is able and willing to repay, good and well. Then we have a few dollars to give to someone else. If not, by viewing the transaction as a gift, we are spared both the anxiety of wondering if the repayment will come and the edginess of deciding whether to confront the issue when we see the other person. Jesus’ word about keeping the left hand and the right hand in ignorance about the transactions in which each is engaged is a vote for quiet, unheralded generosity as a mode of Christian living.” (Hubbard, 173)

More Advice

Bridges says (on 17:18) — “Beware of striking hands in agreement, without ascertaining, whether we can fulfill our engagement, or whether our friend is not equally able to fulfill it himself. “ He says we “must not befriend our brother at the risk or expense of injustice to our family.” He seems to believe there are occasions when it is permitted to enter into suretyship.

One thing he warns against is selfishness. We are to be wise as well as rich in sympathy (p. 104).

Lending, Debt, and the Poor

The Bible does not forbid lending but we are not to incur interest from our brethren. Exodus 22:25-27 says, “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. 26 If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, 27 for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.”

Lending is not forbidden but it is also controlled. M. D. Carroll R. summarizes what the Law says about how debt and lending are related in the OT (in view of the poor):

The laws of the Pentateuch attempted to provide a safety net for the unfortunate and vulnerable members of society. The Pentateuch prescribed a series of charitable acts and legal measures that were designed to aid the poor in their distress…The precariousness of existence made falling into debt a constant danger. In Israel, as in the rest of the ancient Near East, the accumulation of debt could eventually lead to debt slavery, where children (Ex. 21:7-11; cf. 2 Kings 4:1) and even heads of households would be sold to pay off a debt. The sabbatical manumission laws set the limit for such a arrangement at six years and laid down guidelines for the pardoning of debts and release from servitude which could help the individual be reincorporated into civil society (Ex. 21:1-11; Deut. 15:1-18).[5]

We will deal with more the other verses in Proverbs that relate to these topics later on when we encounter them in the course of this study.

Conclusion

Wisdom is needed regarding this topic and God gives us such guidance in the book of Proverbs. Even in this mundane area, God is Lord of our lives. We must use what God has given us very wisely. Our use of money, whether old or young, reveals the nature of our hearts. Will we act with wisdom or in foolishness? The Christian must not be so “liberal” with his money that he is easily manipulated nor should he be so tight that he fails to be generous and full of charity. Wisdom must guide us in this matter.

[1] “Modern commerce is essentially based on interests on loans, a practice not known in the ancient Near East.” (Waltke, 330)

[2] Bridges appeals to Reuben and Judah for Benjamin to be the rare exception. Gen. 42:37; 43:9; 44: 32-33. But this is an improper use of the account. Reuben was putting up himself and his family as security for what he wanted to do. It was not his asset for someone else. Besides, it is not a financial issue; it was a life and death situation.

[3] The Message (a paraphrase version) has, “It’s stupid to try to get something for nothing, or run up huge bills you can never pay.” The point is well made but that is not the point of this verse.

[4] The Hebrew is virtually the same.

[5] “Wealth and Poverty,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.

Lessons for Christians from Joe Paterno

Leave a reply

[This is the document I passed out in our Sunday School. I have added to it to make it clearer for the reader. It is to be used in conjunction with the lesson I have in the Sunday School hour. The audio of the lesson can be found http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1114111144442]

1Cor. 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

We have all heard about what happened to Joe Paterno, the coach of Penn State for 46 years. I am neither a Penn State fan nor a devotee of football. In fact I know very little of college football and rarely watch it these days.

I also do not presume to know all the facts or details of this heinous situation. It is neither edifying to rehearse the details of this wicked crime nor prudent. Enough is known to compel us to be circumspect.

Three things compelled me to pursue this study. 1) A caller on the radio noted how Joe Paterno be remembered — no longer as a great honorable coach but one who mishandled this situation very badly. 2) A dear brother in Christ said to me that these events were sobering. 3) I happened to be reading a selection from John Newton again that dovetailed with these events. I thought it necessary as a pastor to strike while the iron is hot.

For all I know, Joe Paterno may emerge as a hero — I don’t know and it doesn’t matter but there are definitely three things (at least) we can draw from this grievous situation. I have not heard if Paterno is a Christian or not but allow me to use his life as a metaphor for our spiritual pilgrimage, the pilgrim’s progress. I want to meditate on four lessons we could learn from this.

1. We need the Lord’s grace to see things with moral clarity.

If Joe Paterno were able to do it again, he would have acted differently knowing what he knows now. To see things clearly from a spiritual moral perspective is an act of God’s grace; we must beseech Him for wisdom so that we will not fall into sin. We make myriads of decisions in our lives and many of them chosen unwisely may be our undoing later on. Let us earnestly beseech the Lord to keep us, to fill us with wisdom, to enlighten our hearts and imprint upon our souls the gravity of the moment.

2. We need the Lord’s grace to run well unto the end. It’s not over til it’s over! Remember Peter, David, & Solomon.

All of us have the race before us. Some of us will reach the celestial city much earlier than the rest. Either way, we must run to the end. None of us can presume that we will make it to the end with ease. Joe Paterno almost ended his distinguished career with distinction but now his entire life and all his achievements have been sullied. O to make it unto the end without dishonoring our dear master! May He give us the grace to run well and to the end.

3. We must recognize how quickly man’s glory fades.

This football legend, had he ended well, would still have been forgotten. Eventually, all our exploits and glory done for self and this world will come to naught. Only what is done for Christ will last.

4. We must remember that our glory can turn to dishonor in a flash. The Lord must hold us up or we will perish.

One mistake, one act of indiscretion, etc. can overturn our reputation, our wealth, our health, etc. We are in the Lord’s hands at all times but let us not presume that we can flirt with sin and lesser things and assume all will be well. May the Lord keep us and may we by His grace and mercy humbly and safely cling to Him! O to cling evermore to Him who loved us and gave Himself up for us!

How quickly our lives change. In looking up a few bits of information regarding Joe Paterno, I ran across this clip on a site. I’ve never heard of him before but the news blurb aptly illustrates how quickly our lives and fortunes can change.

Once-richest Irishman declared bankrupt

Sean Quinn, three years ago listed as Ireland’s richest man, has been declared bankrupt in a Northern Ireland court over alleged debts of €2.8bn to the Irish state-owned lender Anglo Irish Bank.

The 64-year old businessman’s insurance, cement and property empire collapsed last year following a multibillion euro stock market gamble on the share price of Anglo, which was nationalised during Ireland’s banking crisis.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7c86e246-0c76-11e1-8ac6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dYaZU1aR

John Newton and the Lord our Keeper

In a letter to young John Ryland, Newton refers to his sense of inner corruption and weakness. Earlier, he confess, “It is a mercy that I have not been surprised and overwhelmed long ago: without help from on high it would soon be over with me.” (p. 88)

One trial however abides with me; a body of sin and death, an inward principle of evil, which renders all I do defective and defiled. But even here I find cause for thankfulness, for with such a heat as I have, my sad story would soon be much worse, if the Lord were not my keeper. By this I may know that he favours me, since weak and variable as I am in myself, and powerful and numerous as my enemies are, they have not yet prevailed against me. And I am admitted to a throne of grace, I have an advocate with the Father. And such is the power, care and compassion of my great Shepherd that, prone as I am to wander, he keeps me from wandering quite away. When I am wounded he heals me; when I faint, he revives me again.[1]

Newton recognized how easily he could have fallen. He attributes his continued state of grace to God’s mercy. True believers feel the plague of their hearts and are surprised that they have not been undone by their sins. Newton’s humbly admits that the Lord had kept him; if the Lord were not our keeper, we would all fall. What happened to Paterno and those related to this incident could easily affect us — “It is a mercy that I have not been surprised and overwhelmed…”

Edward Reynolds and His Meditations on Peter’s Fall

Another extract that helps us on this matter of Joe Paterno is from Edward Reynolds (a Westminster Divine). He penned thirty short meditations on Peter’s fall and rise. This is taken from his third Meditation. Written in old English, it may be difficult for readers to follow so let me summarize the main point and then you can meditate on this paragraph. He says that we can never assume that we will never fall. If we are true believers, we will indeed make it to heaven but there is no promise that we will never fall into temptation. Reynolds’s words are sobering because he reminds us that all our resolutions (like Peter’s protest and promise) are worthless unless our Lord gives us grace to keep them for His glory.

Vows and promises unconditionally addressed, cannot but prove dangerous to the strongest faith. God must first give us perseverance, before we can promise it; it is not in our power, though it be our duty to perform it. Though Peter may, in the virtue of Christ’s promise, be sure not to fall into hell, he cannot, in the virtue of his own promise, be sure not to fall into temptation: though he can be secure that faith shall have the last victory; yet he cannot, that it shall have every victory: though it cannot die and be finally dried up, yet it may ebb and languish; and though even now it can look undauntedly on the nails of a cross, yet presently it may be affrighted at the voice of a maid. He only that hath given faith unto us, can give life and action unto our faith… Lord! let me never barely promise, but let me withal pray unto thee; and let ever my purpose to die for thee, be seconded with a supplication that I may not deny thee; whenever I have an arm of confidence to lift up in defence of thy truth, let me have a knee of humility to bow down before thy throne: Lord, give me what I may promise; and I will promise what thou requirest. (Works, 3:11)

[1] John Newton, Wise Counsel – John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland Jr., ed. Grant Gordon (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009), 170. Newton has made similar confessions earlier on, see pp. 88, 145.

Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church

a pca congregation

Author Archives: Mark Herzer

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

PART 2

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 1

The Larger Catechism

Luke 19:11-27, The Parable of the Ten Minas (Annotations)

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

Proverbs 6:16-19

Proverbs 6:16-19

Proverbs 6:12-15

Proverbs 6:12-15

Proverbs 6:6-11

Proverbs 6:6-11

Larger Catechism, #73

The Larger Catechism

Larger Catechism, #72

The Larger Catechism

Proverbs 6:1-5

Proverbs 6:1-5

Lessons for Christians from Joe Paterno

John Newton and the Lord our Keeper

Edward Reynolds and His Meditations on Peter’s Fall