Issue 172

G
SOUND OF
E
In This Issue Continuity / Discontinuity Part Five John G. Reisinger The Blessings of Believing Part 2 Blake White The New Perspective on Justication Part 4 1 1
it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9
Continuity/Discontinuity Part Five

John G. Reisinger
In our previous article, we argued for covenantal discontinuity by making the 3 claim that some things are considered sin under the New Covenant that were not Steve West classied that way under the Old Covenant. We supported this claim by examinBorn to Believe 5 ing the status of divorce under each covenant. According to the law of Moses, Fred G. Zaspel divorce was legal on the grounds of uncleanness, which excluded adultery. JeThe Call, The Called, and the Caller sus, however, taught that adultery (sexual uncleanness) was the only legitimate 7 ground for divorce in his kingdom. Divorce serves as an invalidating example Mike McInnis Christ is not Ashamed to Call that falsies Covenant Theologys claim that there is but one canon of conduct (or ethics) for all of Gods redeemed people in all ages, and this canon is the contents Poor Sinners His Brethren 9 of the Decalogue. While we agree that the morality contained in the Ten ComJohn G. Reisinger mandments does not change with a shift from one redemptive era to another (e.g. the categories of adultery and idolatry are condemned under both; the attitude of worship of the Creator is enjoined under both), we must point out that the contents of the Ten Commandments do not unanimously qualify as moral. We cannot assert that the Ten Commandments are THE moral law of God; indeed, we cannot ReisingerContinued on page 2 state with certainty that such a term is even biblical at all.
The Blessings of Believing Gal 3:6-14 - Part 2

Blake White
In Part 1, we showed how empty faith is worthless, but faith in Christ is invaluable. We saw that by faith in Christ, we become children of Abraham, and that without faith we are cursed. In Part 2, we pick up with reason number three: 3. By faith, you will live
Now it is evident that no one is justied before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith. (Gal. 3:11)
Note the parallel in this verse. To be justied is to have life eternal life. Unbelief results in death, but through faith we will live forever in paradise on the new earth reigning with our great God and King. It is clear that all who rely on their own performance are under a curse because all die! Many of you do not know your great-grandfather because sinful humanity
is under a curse. The wages of sin is death, and death is an honest employer. It never cheats its servants but always gives just compensation. We try hard not to die, but die we will, and the symptom is sin. We hate death; we just pretend as if it doesnt happen. We now just pass away. We ght the process of death with everything we have: cosmetic surgery, wrinkle-treatments, hair dye, and on and on. We are scared to death of death, as Hebrews 2:14-16 says,
Since therefore the children share in esh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps WhiteContinued on page 8 the offspring of Abraham.
Page 2
ReisingerContinued from page 1
November 2010
Issue 172
Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code. Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is $10.00 per year. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us nancially. We do not take any paid advertising. The use of an article by a particular person is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing. Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and Jacob Moseley. Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)3963385; e-mail: jreisinger24@rochester.rr.com. Webmaster: Maurice Bergeron: webmaster@soundofgrace.com General Manager: Jacob Moseley: info@newcovenantmedia.com Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 Phone 800-376-4146 or 301-473-8781 Fax 240-206-0373. Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, Sound of Grace, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 144242441. Visit the Sound of Grace Web Page at: http:// www.soundofgrace.com Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Contributions Orders Discover, MasterCard or VISA If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938. Please check the mailing label to nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue$10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue sending Sound of Grace free of charge.
One record of Jesus teaching on divorce is in Matthew 5-7, where it forms part of a larger series of lessons that he set before his disciples. We often refer to this passage of Scripture as the Sermon on the Mount. Many writers characterize this section as the best known and least understood of all that Jesus taught. A clear understanding of the Sermon on the Mount, however, is essential to the discussion of continuity and discontinuity. Some theologians view texts within the Sermon (such as Matt. 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulll them) as emphatically teaching the continuity of the law of God, which to them means the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai. These theologians emphasize that Jesus specically denied abolition of law, and asserted fulllment. From one perspective, Jesus statement certainly seems to establish continuity between his teaching and that of Moses. Yet from another perspective, his statement demonstrates discontinuity. The words Jesus uses, abolish and fulll, allow for more than one connotative meaning. If we understand abolish to mean to destroy by treating the Law and the Prophets as useless and worthless, then Jesus assertion that he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets proves continuity between the scriptural status of his teaching and the earlier teaching to which he compares his teaching. This is precisely the point we made earlier when we marked the distinction between testament and covenant. When we are referring to Gods trustworthy revelation of himself to his people, we nd complete continuity between the earlier revelation (the Old Testament) and the newer revelation. Jesus did not come to treat the Law and the Prophets as though they were no longer scripture. This understanding of abolish al-
lows us to view Jesus as the fulllment of scripture; as that revelation to which all earlier revelation pointed. This fulllment, however, entails a connotative meaning of abolish that establishes discontinuity. In order to fulll scripture, Jesus had to replace the Old Covenant, in its entirety, including the Decalogue, with a new and better covenant. Jesus did not abolish the Law and the Prophets in the sense of destroying them, but in order to fulll them, he had to abolish them in the sense of setting them aside. Paradoxically, the non-abolition/fulllment of the Law and the Prophets requires the abolition of the Law and the Prophets. The Sermon on the Mount offers further support for inspirational continuity and covenantal discontinuity. Immediately after setting up the expectation of fulllment (vv. 17, 18), Jesus contrasts his new teaching with the law of Moses in six you have heard it said/but I say unto you passages (vv. 21-48). This contrast prepares the groundwork for us to view Jesus as replacing Moses as lawgiver in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as priest. In this way, we have the continuity of ofces (prophet and priest; law-giver and mediator) at the same time that we have the discontinuity of the covenants that govern those ofces. Further support for discontinuity of the law comes from Paul, who more than once (e.g. Rom. 6:14 and 10:4) clearly speaks of the end of the law and of Christians being not under the law but under grace. It would seem that the question is not either/or but both/and. The question is not, Are Christians under the law, but in what sense are they are under the law and in what sense are they free from the Law. Understanding what both Jesus and Paul actually meant is to go a long way in understanding the continuity or discontinuity of the Law of God given
ReisingerContinued on page 4
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 3
THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON JUSTIFICATION: Part 4 A Brief Introduction to the Discussion

Steve West
[A note from the editor: This is the last of a four-part series which has been presented in the Sound of Grace. Subsequently, the series will be published as a booklet by New Covenant Media. We are grateful to Steve for providing this material and pray that God will be pleased to bless our readersto the glory of God.]
of our hearts. If the Scriptures depict people trusting their own righteousness, thenregardless of their formal theologythat is exactly what they were doing. A major question in JVN2 is: Does justication in the New Testament denote a forensic declaration of righteousness, in the way that the old perspective on justication understood that phrase? Seifrid nds that righteousness and justication language in the New Testament literature is in fact forensic (JVN2; 52-59). Blocher nds that this is simply in keeping with classical Greek, where justication never means to make just; on the contrary it is always bound up with forensics and a judicial verdict (JVN2; 493). Carson (2004; 50-51) shares a personal anecdote where he was talking with a classical Greek expert who could not believe that anyone who knew anything about Greek could think that righteousness/ justication could mean anything like: Gods declaration that certain people truly belong to the covenant community. The linguistic data, coupled with a more jaundiced view of the propriety of applying covenantal nomism everywhere across the literature of Second Temple Judaism, means that the new perspective interpretation of Paul fails to be well supported. The historical background does not demand another reading of Paul, and the linguistics of the New Testament does not demand any other interpretation besides the forensic, as understood in the traditional, Reformational model. If the antithesis of justication by faith is justication according to the works of the law (and the latter is impossible), it is very important to
The second volume of Justication and Variegated Nomism attempts to determine what justication means in the New Testament. Was Second Temple Judaism an era when worksrighteousness teaching abounded? Yes and no. According to Gathercole (JVN2; 150): there are numerous references in the Second Temple literature to a Jewish condence of vindication on the basis of obedience to Torah Silva (in what is in my estimation a very important chapter) notes that in Luke 18:9, Jesus tells a parable against some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. Silva points out that Sanders rejects this pericope, claiming that it is inauthentic (JVN2; 245 fn 66). Even if Jesus never said it, however, it is still the case that the writer of Luke, writing in the rst century, thought there were some Jews who thought this way (JVN2; 245). The same can be said for Ephesians 2:8-9; Paul can be rejected as the original author, but whoever wrote it felt there needed to be a contrast between works-righteousness and salvation by grace through faith (p. 245). Why would Luke and Ephesians contain these sentiments if nobody in Second Temple Judaism was attempting to earn or merit righteousness? Furthermore, on a high view of biblical inspiration, it is the Scriptures which prove the reality: regardless of what people say or think they believe, the Bible reveals the genuine beliefs
understand exactly what the works of the law means. As was already seen, Dunn takes it as a technical phrase to signify boundary markers or covenant badges. Dunn does acknowledge that the works of the law are deeper than this, but in the Pauline texts he exegetes, he sees the issues involving the narrower boundary markers between the Jews and Gentiles. OBrien (JVN2; 279) nds that Dunns narrower interpretation cannot do justice to Rom 9:30-10:3 where Israel is trying to establish their righteousness on the basis of works. The problem in this text is not that Israel is relying on their ethnic boundary markers, but that they are trying to earn a positive righteousness on the basis of their ethical conduct (p. 279). Silva (JVN2; 221-222) agrees that while works of law include ceremonial aspects, they cannot be reduced to them, and the reduced, narrower reading cannot be used as the hermeneutical key to the justication argument in Galatians. OBrien notes in a different chapter that (JVN2; 389) according to Second Temple Judaism, David, like Abraham, was accepted by God and justied on the ground of his works. They were not accepted on the basis of their ethnic distinctives, but on the basis of their positive works. Pauls argument in Romans 4 is against the general position of Second Temple Judaism, which is why he demonstrates that neither Abraham nor David were justied on the basis of their works (Gathercole, JVN2; 160). They are both, according to Paul, examples of individuals who are justied even though they are ungodly. The issue with Abraham and David is ethical,
WestContinued on page 6
Page 4
to Moses. Our theology must explain and reconcile both Matthew 5:17 and Romans 6:14. We will better understand the Sermon on the Mount if we are aware of how Jesus audiences perceived him. Jesus was radically different from his teaching contemporaries in both the content of his message and the authority with which he taught. Matthew comments that when Jesus had nished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law (Matt. 7:28, 29 NIV). On another occasion, Mark mentions a similar response: Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law (Mark 1:21b, 22 NIV). Luke mentions yet another occasion when our Lord was preaching in the synagogue and the congregation was astounded at his message: All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips (Luke 4:22a NIV). Their amazement was not merely that he spoke with authority, but that he spoke the message of sovereign grace. It was truth of the gracious words, that amazed the hearers. John also points his readers to the gracious aspect of Jesus words and contrasts those with the content of what Moses spoke: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17 NIV). John MacArthur, in his commentary on Matthew, provides a clear synopsis of what Jesus was doing with his words in the Sermon on the Mount.
Here is the manifesto of the new Monarch, who ushers in a new age with a new message. The greatest
November 2010 preacher who ever lived preached the greatest sermon ever preached. He quoted no sources, no ancient rabbis, no revered tradition. What He spoke, He spoke on his own authority. That was unheard of among the Jews, who always derived their authority from recognized sources.1
Issue 172
to the law given to Moses in even the slightest way, but to uphold it entirely. I agree that on the surface that may sound like a contradiction, but I think there is an explanation that rescues it from the charge of incoherency. John MacArthur is too clear a thinker and a too careful an exegete of Scripture to contradict himself so openly. I think the solution lies in understanding that comparing two different things and showing that one is better than the other one is not the same as one thing contradicting the other. MacArthur is not saying that Christs new message contradicts Moses old message. MacArthur sees the seventh day Sabbath fullled and done away in Christ, and thus no longer binding on Christians, but he does not see that as contradicting Moses.3 That is indeed a clear change, but it is not a contradiction. This is a clear example of fulllment. Our Lord not only fullls the Sabbath, he is the Sabbath! Christ, by becoming our Sabbath rest, does not imply that Moses was wrong in keeping the seventh day holy; instead, his fulllment demonstrates that the Sabbath was a type of Christ. Keeping the Sabbath with God under the New Covenant means resting in Christ. New Covenant Sabbath-observance is more demanding than merely not picking up a few sticks or not lighting res on one day of the week. Thus, Messiah, when he came, did not abolish/destroy the true Sabbath; rather, he fullled it and so abolished/set aside the old manner of observing Sabbath. Covenant Theology, rather than viewing Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as something new
3 In his Study Bible, MacArthur comments on Colossians 2:16. Sabbaths: The weekly celebration of the seventh day, which pictured Gods rest from creation. The NT clearly teaches that Christians are not required to keep it. See also his notes on Acts 20:7 and Romans 14:5, 6.
MacArthur rightly sees Jesus as the promised king, or monarch, bringing in the new age. In Jesus, God has established the promised kingdom, or new age, and he has proclaimed a new messagehe has fullled the promises made to the fathers. Jesus is the new and nal king who has established the new and everlasting kingdom with new laws that are appropriate for the subjects of that new kingdom of grace. Our understanding of the Sermon on the Mount must include recognition of Jesus respect for the law of Moses. Our Lord never stated or implied that Moses had failed to accurately transmit Gods revelation to Israel. Jesus added to what Moses said, and changed some things that Moses said, but never, in any way, did he imply that Moses had been wrong. Again, MacArthur has summed it up well.
And as Gods own Son, Jesus declared unequivocally that He did not come to teach or practice anything contrary to that law in even the slightest way, but to uphold it entirely.2
Not everyone will agree with MacArthurs comments. Most Covenant Theologians will object to the idea that Jesus came with a new message. From the perspective of a Covenant Theologian, MacArthur would seem to be contradicting himself when he states Jesus gives a new message while at the same time declaring unequivocally that he did not come to teach or practice anything contrary
1 John MacArthur, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 131, 136. 2 Ibid., 250.
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 5
Born to Believe A Study in Gods Initiative in Salvation

Fred G. Zaspel
He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13 The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Christ Rejected
He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him.
This is one of those familiar verses which is not often fully appreciated. Generally, the verse is viewed as a historical statement only. That is, when this verse is read in preaching, often all that follows is an explanation of the rejection of Jesus by the nation of Israel in the days of his esh. Sad and unexplainable as it was, he was rejected. There is no question at all that this is what the verse says. But it seems that John is intending by that statement to say much moresomething which he emphasizes again and again throughout his gospel. Let me put it this way: Johns statement, historical though it is, is more than a historical statement. It is a theological statement. His point is not merely that Israel rejected Jesus. No, his point is that man rejects God. Now in a sense, this is not a profound point at all. You dont have to observe this world very long at all before you notice that this is a point of theology which is as obvious as anything can be. This universal rejection of God is due in part to mans natural blindness. That is, there is on the part of natural man a kind of inability to rightly understand and appreciate the things of God. In fact, this is precisely how the apostle Paul says it in 1 Cor. 2:14:
In other words, the things of God are of another character, another realm entirely; they are spiritual, and man in his natural state just cannot make sense of it all. In the futility of his mind, man is so ignorant (Eph. 4:17) of the things of God that he simply is unable to grasp, let alone appreciate, the gospel of Christ. Paul speaks like this in 2 Cor. 4:4 also. Those who do not believe the gospel are those
whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
will believe that. If you tell them that they will be saved if they but do their best, they will believe that alsodespite the fact that no one yet has done his best. If you tell them that they will be saved if they are sincere, they will believe that. But tell them that their sin has alienated them from God so drastically that only Christ can save them and that only in his death can they nd sufcient payment for sin and that they may have all the saving blessings of Christs person and work freely by faith, and they will not believe you. Amazing! Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me. You dont have to analyze this very long before you realize that the problem is not a rational one! No, the gospel is just too simple and makes too much sense for the problem to be a rational one. Mans problem is not that he cannot understand the gospel message. He can intellectually grasp that sin demands penalty and that God has sent his Son to pay that penalty and that salvation may be his by faith in Christ. That is not difcult to understand. His problem is much deeper. The reason people reject God is that they want to. The problem is in their will. They are biased against him. People are not looking for God, really; they are looking to be rid of him. They are ignorant of him, to be sure, but they are willfully ignorant. His own did not receive him because they would not have him. John emphasizes this at some length:
This is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For
ZaspelContinued on page 14
Satan has so effectively worked in the hearts and minds of all men that they are unable to see the true value of Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke like this also. In John chapter 8, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees, who are persistent and stubborn in their unbelief and rejection of him. But what is signicant is the way Jesus characterizes the reason for their unbelief: Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me (v. 45). Fascinating, isnt it? Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me. You might wish that he could say, If I tell you a lie, you will not believe me. But no; they reject him precisely because he tells them the truth. If you have attempted to witness the gospel to a friend, you have experienced this. If you would tell them that they will be saved if they but keep the ten commandments, they
Page 6
WestContinued from page 3
November 2010
Issue 172
not ethnic righteousness. Beyond that, David sinned but offered atonement (which is what one must do in covenantal nomism). But he was still ungodly. He had the boundary markers, and he repented, but he was not considered righteous on that basis. Douglas Moo, in his study on Romans 5-11, argues that works of the law is not just a technical phrase for boundary markers; they are a subset of general human works, and that is why they cannot justify (JVN2; 209-211). To invest the phrase with a technical meaning is not supported by Pauls usage. Moo further observes that in Pauls major treatment of the law, he does not refer to the law as a barrier which keeps Gentiles out: Human inability, not Gentile exclusion, is the issue (p. 208). Finally, Blocher (JVN2; 487) writes: Construing the phrase works of the law to mean (or to refer to) only those works that were badges of Jewishness ies in the face of all probabilities. Counter-arguments have proved decisive, and James D. G. Dunn himself has been led to qualify his earlier statements and to make signicant concessions. The problem, in Romans 2, is the failure to obey the ethical precepts of the law which failure produces the need for another way, without the works of the law. Replacing the law in Galatians 3:21 by ceremonial regulations verges on the absurd. The old perspectives interpretation of the relationship between works and righteousness seems to these authors to still be a more accurate way to understand Paul than that proposed by the new perspective. Wrights narrative of deliverance from exile also is weighed in the balance and found wanting by the contributors of JVN2. Moo (p. 188) suggests that when it comes to the interpretation of Romans, the new per-
spective has highlighted background issues at the expense of the foreground ones. Moo makes four strong points against Wrights view of exile: 1) The language used in postexilic texts does not support the continuing in exile motif as a dominant theological category (p. 201). 2) The texts Wright uses to prove that the ongoing exile was found all through Second Temple Judaism do not demonstrate what he thinks they do, and neither are they actually representative of all the different groups (pp. 201-202). 3) Rather than continuing in exile the texts are better understood through the familiar already/not yet tension. Israel had returned from exile, but the glorious promises of the post-exilic prophecies were only partially fullled; more would be coming in the future (p. 202). 4) Many individual Jews were satised with their personal spiritual condition (p. 202). Even if the Jews were collectively waiting for national glory, individually many were quite content with their righteousness and not looking for an exilic return. OBrien (JVN2; 285) nds himself in agreement with Moo. He writes: First, there are serious, if not insurmountable problems with the view that Second Temple Judaism as a whole regarded the nation of Israel as still living in exile (emphasis in original). OBrien goes on to mention, however, that even if the exilic motif was dominant in Pauls time (which it wasnt), it would still have to be demonstrated that it is dominant in Pauls thinking and letterswhich it is not (p. 285). OBrien and Moo judge Wright to be wrong on two serious counts: in the rst place, the continuing in exile motif is just not as widespread or as dominant in the
thinking of Second Temple Judaism as he claims; and in the second place, it is not present in Paul as an important category. Besides the exilic motif, how have critical scholars responded to Wrights view of justication as covenant membership, or the recognition that someone is part of the covenant community (or is saved to use popular terminology), rather than the traditional view that justication is how someone becomes saved? Piper in The Future of Justication (2007; 90) points out that although Wright denies that Paul appeals to justication when he is talking about how someone can be saved, Romans 10:9-10 says otherwise. It is also the case that if righteousness is to be equated with covenant membership, there is something strange about the many Israelites who were in the covenant but who were unrighteous (2007; p. 40; fn 7). In the end, Piper (2007) argues that Wrights denition of justication is unprecedented and full of confusion (pp. 44, 54-55). Most importantly, it does not make sense out of the texts. (In trying to keep this introduction an introduction, nothing more will be said at this point. I hope that this paragraph sufces as a point of departure into the fuller discussion.) Another area needs to be addressed. What is the relationship between works and future judgment? As was noted above, the new perspective holds that the future judgment is based on works, and that these works are not merely evidential of salvation. OBrien (JVN2; 269-270) nds serious inconsistencies with this view. The way it is presented, it does not end up being a matter of Gods work in Christ alone (p. 270 fn 78). OBrien recognizes that there are many passages which speak of judgment on the basis of works (p. 269) and is eager to uphold the reality that our works reveal who we really are (p. 270). Yet,
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 7
THE CALL, THE CALLED, AND THE CALLER

Mike McInnis
Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. II Timothy 1:7-9
God are not for everyone, but they are clearly reserved for those whom the Lord calls. The Call The Lord Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). This call which the Lord gives to his sheep is spoken of as a holy calling. That which is holy is set apart from that which is common. It is a special and specic calling and is not in any sense generic or general. He says in John 10:3, He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. It is a heavenly calling (see Heb. 3:1) which denotes its origin, to be sure, but also speaks of the authority which accompanies it. When I was but a lad, my mother would often call me in for supper and, since I was busy about many things, I would often ignore her call. However, when she used my rst, middle, and last name, I knew it was time to come, and her authoritative call was effectual to accomplish her purpose. Such is the call of Christ to his children; it never fails to accomplish his purpose. It is a high calling (see Phil. 3:14) which has reference to that place of blessing to which we are called and the great privilege which is given to those so called. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God (1 John 3:1.) It is also indicative of the tender and persuasive nature of the call. Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28). The Called Peter said that the promises of God were for all those who are called. Paul speaks in Romans of the same thing. Many quote this verse and leave off the most important part of it: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them
McInnisContinued on page 22
The gift of tongues was rst uniquely demonstrated by the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. There was a rushing as of a mighty wind and cloven tongues of re sat upon each of those to whom this gift was given. They spoke the word of God in languages which heretofore they had not known. This was such a mighty work of God that men of all nations who were gathered in Jerusalem on that day heard them speak in his own language (Acts 2:6). The hearers testied, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11). They could only marvel at this miracle even as we do now. This particular manifestation was not repeated again and, according to Peters testimony, was the fulllment of the prophecy of Joel (see Acts 2:1621). We know of two other recorded instances when a gift of tongues was manifested upon new believers (see Acts 10:46, 19:6), but never another incident like that which took place at Pentecost. Whole denominations have arisen in modern times with a quest to continually duplicate what occurred on that day, even though it was never again so demonstrated in the Scripture record. It is common to the religious nature of men to place emphasis on that which is external and carnal and miss that which is truly spiritual. Even though this gift of tongues was given by the Spirit of God, it was not in itself anything but a sign, even as Peter
reiterated the words of Joel. The purpose of this gift was not to cause folks to roll around on the oor, hang from the light xtures, or in general act like idiots, but it was for the purpose of declaring the testimony of Christ. The most easily counterfeited and falsied spiritual gift is that of tongues. Paul told us not to forbid others from speaking in tongues, but he also said when I became a man, I put away childish things. The declaration of the gospel by Peter on the day of Pentecost was heard by men from all of the nations and tribes of Israel through this same miracle. Yet this miracle was not an end in itself but rather served a greater purpose. It is that purpose we are concerned with and not the means by which that purpose was carried out. Preaching is not an end in itself but is a blessing given to men for the purpose of exalting Jesus Christ and him crucied, which Peter plainly did on the day of Pentecost. God was pleased to use that gospel which Peter preached to the natural ears of his hearers. All men present heard the words which Peter spoke, but not all had the same reaction to it. Some were noticeably moved, 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? (Act 2:37). The preachers of free will tell us that the difference between those who received the word that day and those who did not was just a choice on their part. Yet Peter plainly declares that something else was involved. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Act 2:39). The promises of
Page 8
WhiteContinued from page 1
November 2010
Issue 172
You are not really prepared for life until you are prepared for death. By faith in the Son of God, you will live! 4. We obtain redemption
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree (Gal. 3:13)
cusation. The musical duo, Shane and Shane, have a song called Embracing Accusation1. Listen to the lyrics:
The father of lies Coming to steal Kill and destroy All my hopes of being good enough I hear him saying cursed are the ones Who cant abide Hes right Alleluia hes right! The devil is preaching The song of the redeemed That I am cursed and gone astray I cannot gain salvation Embracing accusation Could the father of lies Be telling the truth Of God to me tonight? If the penalty of sin is death Then death is mine I hear him saying cursed are the ones Who cant abide Hes right Alleluia hes right! Oh the devils singing over me An age-old song That I am cursed and gone astray Singing the rst verse so conveniently Hes forgotten the refrain Jesus saves!
Christs redemption brings two results: 5. We are blessed with Abraham

So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal. 3:9) Christ redeemed us so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:14)
How did Christ redeem us from the curse of the law? By becoming a curse for us. For us! Unbelievable! The Son of God was executed like a slave. The law stated that everyone hanged on a tree is cursed! How could the Son of God be cursed? Because someone had to bear the curse if anyone would escape it. He bore the penalty we deserved. His substitutionary act is our only hope. As II Corinthians 5:21 says, For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. In my place condemned he stood. Christian, do you know this? We are not meant to feel guilty all the time. We can easily beat ourselves up. We need to pray more; we are not bold enough in evangelism; we like TV too much; our house is too big; we need to lose weight; our kids eat too many Happy Meals; our quiet times are sporadic; we dont give enough money; we dont recycle; and on and on we could go. Believer, when Satan accuses you, agree with him! Embrace ac-
The blessing of Abraham is justication by faith. We see this from verses six and eight. Verse six says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness that is, God gave him a right standing. Verse eight says, And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed. Notice that it is Scripture that foresaw and preached the gospel. The Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul, personies the Word of God. What Scripture says, God says. Also notice the equation of the gospel with justication by faith. Scripture preached the gospel, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. A right standing with God through faith is the heart of the good news. The Reformers were standing on passages like these when they parted with the Roman Catholic Church.
WhiteContinued on page 10
Embrace accusation and tell Satan that he is right. But thanks be to God for his indescribable gift. Christ didnt come for the righteous but the unrighteous. When he accuses, tell him the rest of the story: Jesus saves!
1 Shane and Shane, Embracing Accusation, in Pages 2007.
SUBSCRIBE TO
SOUND OF GRACE
$10.00 FOR TEN ISSUES

ION L R I PT BSC ENEWA SU /R ER OR D FOR M
My check (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed. Charge to my: Discover MasterCard VISA Expires ____/____ Account Number: ____/____/____/_____ Name: _________________________________________ Street address: ___________________________________
City: _________________________ State/Province: _____________ Zip/Postal Code: _________
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 9
Christ is not Ashamed to Call Poor Sinners His Brethren

John G. Reisinger
Matthew, in his gospel, presents Jesus as Israels Messiah, and includes his genealogy as the son of Abraham and the son of David as support for his claim (1:1-17). Matthew uses this genealogy to show that Jesus of Nazareth fullls Gods promise to Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation that would bring forth the Messiah. This same seed would fulll the promise made to David that one of his sons would establish an everlasting kingdom. This genealogical list would have been important to Matthews readers, but it can seem dry and trivial to those of us who already believe that Jesus qualies as Messiah. I would not be surprised if the rst time you read Matthew, you had been ready to quit reading by the time you got Asa begetting Josaphat in verse 8. If you persevered, however, until verse 18, you would have found rich treasure with these words: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. As you continued, you would have read the amazing account of the virgin birth of our Lord. At that point, the human begetting is nished and the divine begetting begins. It is signicant that our Lord was not begotten by the seed of a man, but by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit planted the seed of God in the womb of a virgin and God became esh. It was necessary for our Lord to be born of Mary so that he could be truly human. It was also necessary that Mary be a virgin so that the Messiah would be conceived and born without Adams guilt. He must be one with us in our humanity if he is to be our kinsman-redeemer, and he must be without sin if he is to pay for ours. I am sure that we have all heard sermons on the mystery and signicance of Jesus birth, but I wonder how many evangelical pastors have preached sermons on Matthew 1:1-17 and for what purpose. My concern in this article is to consider how Matthew 1:1-17 illustrates the truth set forth in Hebrews 2:11 that Jesus is not ashamed to call the worst of sinners his brethren. Matthew lists four women as part of Jesus genealogy: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and Bathsheba (v. 6). All of these women are sons whom Christ has brought to glory (Heb. 2:9) and sanctied sinners to whom Jesus refers as brothers (Heb. 2:11). God demonstrates his grace, not only in sending Jesus to taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9), but also in inspiring Matthew to include these women as part of Jesus genealogy. These women, and the men with whom they were associated, illustrated to Matthew and his contemporaries (and to us) that Jesus openly acknowledges sinners as his kin. Usually we try to hide the fact that some of our family tree consists of rotten limbs. We would not willingly and openly acknowledge the fact if one of our aunts was a prostitute or an uncle a drunk. How different is our Lord. Jesus is not ashamed to acknowledge publicly that some of the worst of guilty sinners, as we rank sinners, are part of the people he came to redeem. He is not ashamed to call some of the worst of sinners his brethren. The rst woman that Matthew lists is Tamar, by whom Judah (her father-in-law) fathered twins, Perez and Zerah. We read her history in Genesis 38. It is a story of open rebellion on the part of Judahs sons, lies from everyone in the family, lust, possible incest, and much more. It is the kind of material that in our day would be on page one of every tabloid for weeks. To our way of thinking, one of the most amazing statements in this account is in verse 26, when Judah refers to Tamars deception in posing as a prostitute in order to become pregnant by him, saying, she is more righteous than I. This entire passage, and Judahs comment especially, poses a problem for the concept of a ubiquitous moral law that includes a uniform sexual purity, but more to the point, for our purposes, is Matthews inclusion of Judah and Tamar in the genealogy of Christ. The story, which would have been well known to Matthews Jewish readers, is hardly the most attering light in which to present any of Jesus forebears. Matthew simply could have listed Judah, without mentioning Tamar or her offspring, and left it at that. He could have placed Judah in a positive light by referring to Judah as the brother of Joseph, and Matthews readers could have supplied the rest (Judah was the brother who prevented Josephs death). That Matthew uses the Tamar story, which does not place Judah in a favorable light, demonstrates Jesus willingness to identify the unrighteous as his brethren. Matthews second woman in the genealogy is Rahab, by whom Salmon fathered Boaz. We nd Rahabs story in Joshua 2:1-21 and 6:22-25. Rahab was a prostitute, a profession forbidden to the Hebrew women (Lev. 19:29), in spite of their cultural sanctions against prostitution. In addition to her wicked lifestyle as a prostitute, Rahab, in giving the Hebrew spies safety, lied to her own people, essentially selling them out
Christ is not Ashamed Continued on page 23
Page 10
WhiteContinued from page 8
November 2010
Issue 172
Do you walk in this blessing? Do you know deep down that you are accepted by God, or do you think you have to gain his approval by good works? Luther wrote, Christians are not made righteous by doing righteous things; but having been made righteous by faith in Christ, they do righteous things.2 This is the difference between faith and works of the law, between religion and gospel Christianity. Faith is a desperate cry for God. Works try to bolster self and impress him. Trust Christ for your right standing, not yourself. You say, I try to trust Christ, but my faith is weak. Listen believer, the weakest faith clings to a strong Savior. Our tendency is to try to be our own savior by our own performance. The natural religion of the heart is works-righteousness. Even life-long Christians tend to gravitate towards doing something to save themselves rather than receiving a salvation that has been accomplished for us by another. This in turn leads to one of two errors: self-love and self-hate. It is ironic that both inferiority complexes and superiority complexes have the same root. Those who think they are gaining favor with God by obedience tend to have superiority complexes, becoming arrogant. Those who know that they cant do enough to gain Gods favor tend to have inferiority complexes and beat themselves up.
2 Luther, Galatians (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 146.
We must realize that we contribute nothing, while at the same time realizing that God has provided everything. In this sense, we do need daily selftalk, but the content is very different from what Joel Osteen advocates. We need to remind ourselves that we are more sinful than we even know, but at the same time, we are loved and accepted by God because we are represented by his perfect Son. We are declared in the right by faith alone. We must learn this everyday, as we are prone to wander. Martin Luther writes, Particularly when you hear an immature and unripe saint trumpet that he knows very well that we must be saved by the grace of God, without our own works, and then pretend that this is a snap for him, well, then we have no doubt that he has no idea of what he is talking about and probably will never nd out. For this is not an art that can be completely learned or of which anyone could boast that he is a master. It is an art that will always have us as pupils while it remains the master. And all those who do understand and practice it do not boast that they can do everything. On the contrary, they sense it like a wonderful taste or odor that they greatly desire and pursue; and they are amazed that they cannot grasp it or comprehend it as they would like. They hunger, thirst, and yearn for it more and more; and they never tire of hearing about or dealing with it, just as St. Paul himself confessed that he has not yet obtained it (Phil. 3:12).3
3 Martin Luther, Psalm 117, trans. Edward Sittler in Selected Psalms III
By faith we are blessed with Abraham with the gift of righteousness, and there is no greater blessing than a right standing with Almighty God. 6. Receive the promised Holy Spirit
Christ redeemed usso that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:14)
Paul almost certainly has Isaiah 44:3 in mind, because the verse mentions both the Spirit and blessing: For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. Receiving the Spirit is in fulllment of the promises given to Abraham. The new age is here. The new exodus has occurred: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. The giving of the Spirit shows that the age of fulllment is now. The Spirit is being poured out on Jew and Gentile alike. Today is the day of salvation. In conclusion: Just have faith, not an empty faith, not mere positive thinking with no grounding in reality, but faith in Jesus Christ and you will become a child of Abraham, you will have the curse removed, you will have life, you will obtain redemption, you will be blessed with Abraham with a right standing before God, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. m
from Luthers Works, vol. 14, ed Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1958), 37.
Faith is not a work which Christ condescends in the gospel to accept instead of perfect obedience as the ground of salvationit is only the hand whereby we clasp the person and work of our Redeemer, which is the true ground of salvation. A. A. Hodge
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 11
and greater, views the six contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus refutations and corrections of the Pharisees wrong interpretation of the Mosaic law. In Covenant Theology, the law of Moses, was, is, and always will be the highest moral standard ever given. The revelation of morality was complete when God nished dealing with Moses. Nothing can be added to or taken away from Moses words. That has to be true if there is one unchanging moral canon for all men in all ages. Change in the law of Moses results in two canons of conduct: one for Israel and a different one for the church. To allow change of any kind in the law of Moses is to destroy Covenant Theologys view of that law. As you read the following quotations from some well-known Covenant Theologians, notice their strong insistence that Jesus made no changes in the law of Moses.4 Arthur Pink states forcefully that it is wrong to perceive the moral standard of the New Covenant as superior to that of the Old Covenant:
Christ is not here [Mt 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic Law, nor is He inculcating a superior spirituality. Instead He continues the same course as He had followed in the context, namely to dene that righteousness demanded of His followers, which was more excellent than the one taught and practiced by the Scribes and Pharisees; and this He does by exposing their error and expounding the spirituality of the moral law. our Lords design in these verses has been misapprehended, the prevailing but erroneous idea being held that they set forth the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant over that which was obtained under Judaism.5 4 The emphasis in all the following quotations is mine. 5 A. W. Pink, An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 110, 127, 129.
We agree with Pink that Christ is not here [Mt 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic Law. In no sense is Christ against the law. He is not impugning it in any way. Jesus attitude toward the Law of Moses was that it was the very kind of law that a nation primarily consisting of hardhearted sinners needed (Matt. 19:8). As long as the law governed a nation that comprised both regenerate and unregenerate people, it functioned according to its design. In the thought-world of Jesus day, anything that functioned exactly the way it was designed to function was excellent. This is what Paul means when he refers to the law as holy, and the commandment as holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12). Jesus is not in any way suggesting that the law of God given to Moses was not good. It was perfectfor the people among whom Moses lived. We disagree with Pink when he claims that Jesus is not inculcating a superior spirituality or that the New Covenant does not have a moral standard superior to the Old Covenant. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming for his teaching. Gods new spiritual nation consists entirely of regenerate people. The Holy Spirit indwells every child of grace who lives under the New Covenant; therefore, the law given to Moses is far too low a standard for them. Jesus is saying that his new law is better than the Law of Moses was, because his law is better suited to the constituency of his kingdom. I am sure it was not Pinks purpose to minimize the glory of the New Covenant, but he could not have done more to set Moses and the Old Covenant as superior to Christ and the New Covenant if he had tried. When you deny the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant and Christianity over the Old Covenant and Judaism, you treat Christ as a mere rabbi or scribe, but not as a lawgiver. True, according to Pinks view, he is
the greatest interpreter of Moses, but he is still only an interpreter. Rather than refer to the Sermon on the Mount as the new message by the new Monarch, as MacArthur does, Pinks perception implicitly posits that teaching as the midrash of Jesus.6 We believe that Christ is more than just the greatest rabbi or commentator on Moses; he is a new lawgiver who replaces Moses in that function exactly as he is a new high priest who replaces Aaron in that function. Walter Chantry is another theologian who emphasizes that there is nothing new in the Sermon on the Mount.
Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and denitive code of morality. In his great sermon on kingdom righteousness (Matt. 5), the greatest prophet produced no new standard. He merely gave clear exposition of the old statutes. These were selected, not to make a complete list of duties, but to correct the prevailing misinterpretations of the hour.7
We agree with Chantry that our Lord did not give a complete list of rules for his kingdom. We disagree with Chantry, however, over the reason for that incomplete list. We cannot determine from the text that it was Jesus intention to correct prevailing misconceptions, but even if we grant that, it would not seem to have been his primary intention. That intention was to proclaim the difference between a rule by law and a rule by
6 Midrash (plural, midrashim) is one form of early rabbinic literature. It denotes a collection of comments written by Jewish scholars on the Hebrew Scriptures. (Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 73. 7 Walter Chantry, Gods Righteous Kingdom (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 81.
Page 12
November 2010
Issue 172
NEW COVENANT MEDIA P U B L I C AT I O N S

TITLE Abrahams Four SeedsReisinger The Believers SabbathReisinger Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and CovenantalLong But I Say Unto YouReisinger Chosen in EternityReisinger Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the ChurchReisinger Denite Atonement Long The Doctrine of BaptismSasser Full Bellies and Empty HeartsAutio GraceReisinger In Defense of Jesus, the New LawgiverReisinger Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?Wells John Bunyan on the SabbathReisinger Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the Covenant of GraceGilliland The Law of Christ: A Theological ProposalWhite Limited AtonementReisinger Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. ReisingerSteve West, Editor The New Birth Reisinger New Covenant TheologyWells & Zaspel The Newness of the New CovenantWhite The Obedience of ChristVan Court Our Sovereign God Reisinger Perseverance of the Saints Reisinger The Priority of Jesus ChristWells A Prisoners ChristianityWoodrow Prophetic Fulllment-Spiritual, Natural, or Double?George Saving the Saving GospelWest Sinners, Jesus Will ReceivePayne Studies in GalatiansReisinger Studies in EcclesiastesReisinger Tablets of StoneReisinger The Sovereignty of God and PrayerReisinger The Sovereignty of God in Providence Reisinger Total Depravity Reisinger What is the Christian Faith? Reisinger When Should a Christian Leave a Church?Reisinger LIST $10.95 $3.75 $15.75 $10.95 $5.50 $2.50 $10.95 $3.50 $14.99 $13.95 $23.95 $4.25 $3.00 $3.95 $14.95 $7.00 $14.85 $5.50 $19.95 $12.99 $2.50 $4.45 $6.00 $11.95 $12.99 $4.25 $12.99 $9.99 $19.99 $19.99 $10.95 $5.75 $4.45 $5.00 $2.50 $3.75 SALE $8.76 $3.00 $12.60 $8.68 $4.40 $2.00 $8.76 $2.80 $12.00 $11.16 $15.95 $3.40 $2.80 $3.16 $11.96 $5.60 $11.88 $4.40 $15.96 $10.39 $2.00 $3.56 $4.80 $9.56 $10.40 $3.40 $10.40 $8.00 $15.96 $15.96 $8.75 $4.60 $3.56 $4.00 $2.00 $3.00 Total Price Shipping Total Order QUANTITY COST
See Rate Charts on Page 16 Canadian ordersDiscover, Visa or MasterCard onlyplease.
Issue 172
November 2010 rmation of the Older Testamental law So we see in Matthew 5:21-48 examples of how Christ conrms the Older Testamental law and reproves the Pharisaical use of it; the antitheses are case law application of the principle enunciated in Matthew 5:1720. Christ did not come to abrogate the law; far from it! He conrmed it in full measure, thereby condemning scribal legalism and showing us the pattern of our Christian sanctication.8
Page 13
grace. He was showing the difference between the Old Covenant, which was based on law, and the New Covenant, which is based on grace. Both kinds of rule and their administrative covenants are good and both serve the same ultimate purpose of God. Greg Bahnsen was an ardent Theonomist and articulate writer and preacher. He not only refrained from labeling Jesus teaching as new, he also abstained from using the term Old Covenant. Instead, he refers to Older Testamental law. In Bahnsens Covenant Theology (some would say his is consistent Covenant Theology), there are not two distinctly different covenants, an Old and the New; rather, there is one covenant with two administrations. Both Israel and the church are under the same covenant (the Covenant of Grace) and both are under the same canon of conduct. There is no true New Covenant in Bahnsens theology. There is only a new administration of the same covenant. Notice also that for Bahnsen, the law of Moses becomes the pattern for Christian sanctication. In this, Bahnsen directly opposes Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who, in his introduction to his commentary on Romans 7 explains that not only can the Mosaic law not nurture holiness, it actually hinders it. We believe that Bahnsens understanding of the contrasts that Jesus made between himself and Moses misses the point entirely.
Christs primary concern at this point [Mat. 5:17-48] was the validity and meaning of the older Testamental law. From the antitheses listed in verse 21-48 we see that Christ was concerned to show how the meaning of the Law was being distorted (and thus its ne points overlooked). These radical commands (Mat. 5:21-48) do NOT supercede the older Testamental law; they illustrate and explain it. In six antitheses between His teaching and the Scribal interpretations Christ demonstrates His con-
of you have heard it said to/by those of old, but I say unto you. First, there is the question of the correct translation of Matthew 5:21 and 33, the verses where the qualier to/by those of old occurs. I have emphasized the salient words that the King James Version and the New International Version translate differently.
NIV: You have heard that it was said TO the people long ago, Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. Again, you have heard that it was said TO the people long ago, Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord. KJV: Ye have heard that it was said BY them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said BY them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
The authors quoted above claim that Jesus was correcting pharisaical misinterpretations of Moses, but none of those authors support that claim with evidence. Six times in the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord compared his teaching with that of old. To what did he refer when he used that phrase? With whose words did he compare his words? By Jesus day, the Pharisees had been established as a sect within Judaism for about one hundred years; Moses, of course, had a much older provenance. Either one would qualify as older when compared to Jesus. Covenant Theology insists that our Lord could not possibly be comparing his teaching with the teaching of Moses; that explanation does not t within their scheme of one covenant, one redeemed people, and one canon of conduct. The problem is that their alternative explanation (pharisaical distortions of Moses) is not supported by evidence from the text. There is no indication in the text that Jesus is referring to the Pharisees interpretation. In all six instances of contrast, our Lord is comparing his words with the Hebrew written record of what Moses said. Our Lord is comparing His words with the Law of Moses recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. Let me outline a few problems for Covenant Theologys understanding
8 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1977), 63, 90, 119.
The NIV concurs with the majority of translations: it was said to. If this is the correct translation of the preposition, then we understand Jesus to be saying that Moses said TO the people. Jesus is comparing his teaching with the teaching of Moses. This is supported by the immediate context, which in every case includes a direct quotation from the law of Moses. The King James translation, You have heard that it was said by them of old time, would have Jesus reminding his hearers that the Pharisees promoted a vigorous adherence to the law. But in that case, there is no contrast between Moses and the Pharisees. The pharisaical teaching conforms exactly to the words of Moses preserved in the Old Testament Scriptures. Not only is there no evidence to support Covenant Theologys claim that Jesus is correcting prevailing misconceptions, the evidence that does exist refutes their claim. William
Page 14
ZaspelContinued from page 5
November 2010
Issue 172
everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (John 3:19-20).
That is, their love is misplaced instead of loving God, they love their sin, and this explains their bias against him. This is why they will believe a lie but not the truth of the gospel. The world hates Christ (John 7:7; 15:18) and wants nothing to do with him. Yes, to be sure, they are glad to have a Jesus of their own makingone who is more tolerant of sin and less restricting, one who allows us to walk the broad road rather than a narrow one. This kind of Jesus they are happy with, a Jesus who will save them by their own good works, however few their good works may be. But the real Christ who demands surrender and submissionno, they are not interested in him. They will not come to the light. So deep is their hatred for me, Jesus says, that they will rejoice when my people weep (John 16:20). They are enemies of Christ (Rom. 5:10). They are children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2), naturally inclined away from God. Their natural disposition is to disobey him, not to trust him and obey him. There is a natural hostility against God on the part of natural man, and this is true of all people everywhere (Eph. 2:1-3). Man rejects God.
The question often arises regarding the heathen who have never heard the gospel. Are they lost? Must they be condemned? But the question assumes too muchit assumes that people are innocent until they have heard the gospel preached, and only when they reject it are they guilty. Paul deals with this at some length in Romans 1:18-32. There he explains that all people everywhere, however remote the place in which they live, have some degree of knowledge. They know right from wrong, and they know there is the true God and that they are obliged to worship Him. But what have they done? People universally have suppressed what they know to be true and right and have turned to gods of their own making. Their problem is not ignorance; their problem is rebellion. Man has a natural hostility toward the things of God. So man is blind and willfully so. It is his very nature to reject God, and in this condition, he is as bad off as he can be. He is helpless. No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, Jesus said (John 6:44). It is something altogether beyond him. He needs me, and unless he comes to me, he will perish. But coming to me is precisely what he is unable to do. It is not within him. So, as I say, man in his natural condition is as bad off as he can possibly be. He loves his sin, he is lost, and he is unwilling to be otherwise. This is what theologians have called total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that all people are as bad as they can possibly be; everyone could be worse! No, it means that all people are as bad off as they can possibly be. They are lost, sinful, and unwilling to be anything else. This is their nature. And so John 1:11 is a theological statement that meets up exactly with everyday experience. It was the story then, and it is the story today. Man rejects God. You see it virtually every
time you witness. Christ Received!

But to as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His name.
With this verse, John turns to a happier theme indeed. Christ is offered to all, and all who come to him are given the very highest of blessings: they become children of God. By their association with the Lord Jesus, Gods Son, they become children of God also. With sonship come the wonderful blessings of love, acceptance, access, safety, provision, guidance, care, and all that children receive from a good father. All this is ours simply by faith even to those who believe on his name. We neednt work to make ourselves acceptable. No, we come claiming the sufciency of Christs work, relying on him to save us. We believe on his name. Notice the freeness and the extent of the offer: as many as received him. Any and all who are willing to come to Christ may have him and nd in him the great salvation which only he can give. All who trust him have eternal life. Thats Impossible! Do you detect a problem here? How does verse 12 follow verse 11? How can we have both a statement of universal rejection of Christ and a statement of his universal availability? Or perhaps better, how can anyone get out of verse 11 into verse 12? It is plain in verse 12 that some did believe, but how did they? So verse 12 presents us with an interesting situation. Here are people who, like all others, were blinded by Satan, loved their sin, and were naturally hostile enemies of God. Like all others, they were unable and unwilling to be anything but what they
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 15
weresinners without Christ. Yet the verse tells us that some, in fact, believed and were saved! How can we explain that? How do people who hate Christ all of a sudden love him? This would seem to be an impossibility. To believe on Christ is to act contrary to fallen human nature! It is not natural for men to believe; their nature leads them to reject Christ, not to trust him. But they did, in fact, believe! How can we account for it? It seems evident that in order for a man to turn to Christ in true saving faith, there must be a whole reconstitution of his entire being. His whole makeup must be made over! In sin and under Satan, he is constituted such that he will not come to Christ. To do so, he would have to be made all over again into something other than what he is. Put another way, in order for a man to believe in Christ, he would have to be born all over again. And this is what verse 13 tells us exactly: these people who believed were born. This is the doctrine of regeneration that God remakes us entirely and gives us new life in his Son. This is how they believedthey were born again (John 3:3). But How?
Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
regeneration was solely an act of the human will. Regeneration is nothing more than moral reformationturning over a new leaf, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. This (Pelagianism) is the view of modern liberal protestantismthat man is good enough. He needs only to improve, and this he has the power to do. This we may call self-regeneration. Semi-Pelagianism, as you may guess, holds that man of himself does not have total power to come to God, but he is able to cooperate with divine grace. The key to this teaching is free will. Man is not good enough, this system teaches, but he is almost good enough. His will is not so affected by sin that he cannot determine within himself to cooperate with the general workings of God in humanity and so be born again. Arminianism holds that man is not good enough, but by the death of Christ, he is rendered able. Men are not good enough of themselves, but all men are able to cooperate with God because their will is now free. They may choose to incline their wills for God or against him; the choice is entirely up to them. By our free will we believe, and God in return regenerates us. So according to Arminianism, man is not good enough, but he is able. Over against all these is the answer of what is known as Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that if a man believes, it is due only to the working of God within him enabling him to believe and be saved. Man does the believing, yes; but it is God and not the man who inclines the will to do so. Regeneration is solely an act of God; it is a work of his to which we contribute nothing. There is no cooperation; there is no response on Gods part. The response is on our part. He regenerates, and so we believe. In other words, there is nothing natural about it, only supernatural. Man is neither good enough nor able. God does the
regenerating of his own free will. Now you can see from all this that, basically, there are only two suggestions given. 1) Man in one way or another cooperates with the divine process in the new birtheither by baptism or by the exercise of his own will, or 2) Man in no way cooperates, but it is all entirely of God. Which is it? How do we come to faith? And how are we born again? Are we born again because we believe? Or do we believe because we are born again? Notice verse 13 again. These who believed were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Notice how John systematically rules out virtually every suggestion offered but one. Not of Blood First, John says, we are not born again by bloodthat is, by physical descent. Did you ever meet a person who was proud of his family tree in a spiritual sense? There are many people who are sure that they have eternal life because their parents were good Christiansand their grandparents and great-grandparents before them! A Christian family! You witness to them, and it is difcult because they think they are already saved. They came by it naturally! Jesus confronted this with the Jewish leaders of his day. They were sure that because they were Abrahams descendants, their good standing with God was sure (John 8:33). They assumed that since the promises were made to Abraham and his seed, and since they were his seed, they were safe. Interestingly, in the conversation that follows, Jesus tells them that they are not the true children of Abraham but rather the children of Satan (v. 44). In response, they attempted to kill him (v. 59). Clearly, physical descent, no matter how illustrious, cannot
Now that raises another question: How can that happen? How can a man receive new life? Throughout the history of the church, many answers have been offered to that question, and they all remain today. The Roman Catholic will say that in the waters of baptism, original sin is washed away, and we are born anew. This is called baptismal regeneration. In the early centuries, a monk by the name of Pelagius taught that
Page 16
November 2010
Issue 172
TREMENDOUS INVENTORY REDUCTION SALE HURRY, WHILE BOOKS ARE A VAILABLE! SALE ENDS dECEMBER 31, 2010 OR WHEN BOOK SUPPLY IS EXHAUSTED
Total Depravity
The doctrines of grace series by John G. Reisigner Normal S a l e Price for all 5 is $23.20 plus shipping
Chosen in Eterniity
Limited Atonement
The New Birth
special price is $15.00 for all 5 with free shipping within United states
Ship to: ________________________________ Street address: __________________________ City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____ Country: _______________________________ Postage & Handling Rates United States Up to $20.00 $20.01$50.00 $50.01 and Up $3.95 $6.00 12%
Perseverance of the Saints
My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard Expires _______/_______ Account Number: ______/______/______/______ Signature: ________________________________
Postage & Handling Rates CanadaDiscover, VISA or MasterCard Up to $30.00 $30.01 and Up $7.50 25%
Postage & Handling Rates OverseasDiscover, VISA or MasterCard Please call or e-mail for rates
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 17
Hendricksen, a committed Covenant Theologian, understands the issue and admits that the interpretation upon which Covenant Theology builds its case is the minority opinion.
The formula, You have heard that it was said presents a difculty, since the following phrase, considered by itself, can be translated either TO the men of long ago (R.S.V.: TO the men of old) or BY the men of long ago. Many translators and commentators prefer TO, several others favor BY. According to the rst view, Jesus meant that Moses in the law said something TO the fathers, and Jesus now assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 1:44). J. Jeremias expresses the same view in even stronger language when he states that Jesus establishes a new divine law when he opposes his But I say unto you to the Word of Scripture.9
Let me briey restate the important points for us to remember as we read the Sermon on the Mount. 1. We want to be careful to preserve the unity of the Scriptures (inspirational continuity) while at the same time, acknowledge the discontinuity of the covenants. If Jesus, or indeed any writer in the New Testament Scriptures, stated that Moses was wrong and needed correction, then we have lost the unity of the Scriptures. Whatever Jesus meant in the Sermon on the Mount, he did not mean that Moses was wrong. 2. The law that Moses had transmitted was all of Gods law for the nation of Israel. It continues as part of Gods law for Christians, but only as Christ and his apostles interpret and apply it. The law of Moses was holy, just and good. It served its purpose well. The new message of Jesus, however, changes and raises the standard given in the law that God gave to Moses. This change is a comparison that demonstrates the superiority of Christs law; it is not a contradiction that demonstrates any supposed error in the Law of Moses. When the writer of Hebrews teaches that Christ has fullled and rescinded Aarons ministry, he is not implying that Aarons priesthood was wrong. Christs priesthood is better than Aarons was, but that does not mean that Christs ministry is good and Aarons bad. 3. The covenant of Christ, like the covenant of Moses before it, is holy, just and good. The covenant of Christ, because it is founded on better promises, is better than the covenant given to Israel. The better promise on which the covenant of Christ rests is the promise of graceof someone doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. When we compare law and grace and show how much better grace is, we in no way suggest that law is no longer good. The law of God given to Moses, was, is, and always
will be holy, just and good, despite the fact that it has been rescinded as covenant terms and has been replaced by a better covenant based on better terms. The changes that Jesus made in the law of Moses strengthen and raise the moral standard therein. If we fail to recognize these better terms, we fail to see that grace can, and does, both demand and produce higher standards than law ever could. 4. God gave the law of Moses to govern and control hard-hearted sinners (Matthew 19:8), but the New Covenant people of God do not have hard hearts. They have new hearts upon which Christ has written his new lawthe law of love. Christ bases his demands upon grace and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Who will deny that grace and the Holy Spirit can accomplish what the law never could? The law of Moses was perfect for accomplishing Gods purpose in the dispensation of the theocratic kingdom. If, however, we attempt to assign to the law of Moses a function that God never intended it to have, nothing but confusion can follow. In our next article, we will look at the remainder of Matthew 5:17-20.
A. T. Robertson, whom Hendriksen quotes, was the greatest Greek authority the Southern Baptist Convention ever produced. Many consider his Word Pictures to be the classic work on the subject. In no sense could we justiably label him antinomian, even though he rejects Covenant Theologys understanding of this text. Although it is dangerous to build a doctrine on a debatable (albeit, legitimate) translation, we ought not to lightly dismiss the scholarly comments of someone of Robertsons stature. Notice the similarities between Robertsons understanding, cited above by Hendriksen, Jesus now assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations and that of MacArthur, quoted earlier in this article: a new message. [from][t]he greatest preacher who ever lived.
9 William Hendricksen, The New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 295. Emphasis added.
Grace is the sum and substance of New Testament faith. J.I. Packer As heat is opposed to cold, and light to darkness, so grace is opposed to sin. Fire and water may as well agree in the same vessel as grace and sin in the same heart. Thomas Brooks
Page 18
November 2010
Issue 172
guarantee salvation. Jesus instructed Nicodemus similarly. Though he was the noted and respected Pharisee, he, like all others, was but a fallen and sinful man. That which is born of the esh is esh (John 3:3). It may be beautiful esh. It may be very religious esh. But it is still esh, and nothing more. Physical birth never gave spiritual life to anyone. Ultimately, it has never mattered who your parents are. Many an evil son has had a godly father. A godly heritage, privilege as that is, is no guarantee of salvation. The new birth does not arise naturally out of physical descent. It is not of blood. Nor of the Will of the Flesh Next, John says that those who believe were not born of the will of the esh (v. 13). When John speaks of esh, he generally has in mind humanity. The thought is no more complex than that. This is seen in the very next verse: The Word was made esh; that is, he became human. Flesh indicates humanity. So when John says that the new birth is not of the will of the esh, he means that the new birth never arose out of inclinations of human will. No one ever willed himself into becoming a new creature. Again, that which is born of esh is esh (3:6). No one by an act of his will ever made himself anything other than what he already was. In the language of Jesus, No one has ascended to heaven (3:13). The new birth does not arise out of mans will. What does this say, then, about free will? If a man cannot be born of the will of the esh, is his will free? First, we must understand that free will is theological jargon. It is not biblical language exactly but theological language which men have employed to describe what they believe
about mans abilities. So before we can give a biblical evaluation of free will, we must understand what the term means. If free will means that people are free to do what they want to do, that, of course, is obviously correct. Everyone is free to do what he wants to do, without coercion from without. Man is free to follow the inclinations of his desires. In that sense, he is free. But having assumed this much, it seems that most who use the term then smuggle in an idea of ability the notion that a mans will is capable of turning him to God. The idea generally taught is that man, in reference to God, is in a kind of moral neutrality. He is free and able to choose either for God or against him. It is entirely his choice, and if he chooses for Godthat is, if he will believehe will be born again. That notion of free will is clearly unbiblical. Those who believe were born ... not of the will of man. No man can come to me unless the Father draw him (John 6:44). The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rom. 8:7). It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy (Rom. 9:16). Man is not neutral; we saw that in verse 11. Man rejects God. It is his nature to disobey. Yes, a man is entirely free to do what he wants to do, but his want to is corrupt! Men love darkness rather than light ... and do not come to the light (John 3:1920). Mans will is such that, left to his own freedom, he will choose against God and will not believe. This is why John insists that the new birth is not of the will of the esh. Given mans disposition in sin, he will go on refusing God. So much of present day evangelicalism assures listeners, If you believe, you can be born again. But this is all completely contrary to so much of the Bible and
this verse in particular. Those who believe are not born again as a result of their will. It is not of the will of the esh. Indeed, the whole idea that man can somehow cooperate in his own regeneration is foolish. If we could turn to Christ in order to be born again, why would we need to be born again? Is man free? Yes! He is free to do whatever he wants. But this is his problemhe wants his sin. He loves darkness (3:19). His will is only human and sinfully human at that. In other words, we must somehow get help! What we need is rescue. What we are capable of doing is not sufcient to meet the need. If regeneration awaits the positive exercise of our wills, we will all perish. Nor of the will of man John works this out further. Those who believe were not born of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man. But how is the will of man different from the will of the esh? Actually, there is no difference at all, and John may simply here be emphasizing the fact that mans will cannot effect the new birth. But it is likely that John is making a narrow distinction here. The new birth cannot arise out of your own activity (not of the will of the esh), nor can it arise from the activity of others (nor of the will of man). That is, just as the new birth cannot arise from your will, so also it cannot arise from the activity of, say, a priest sprinkling water on your head. Nor can it arise from the clever tactics of some manipulative preacher who talks you into a decision. No, the new birth does not arise out of anything human. Now you see that what John has done here is to systematically rule out everything human. The new birth has nothing whatever to do with anything
Issue 172
works are indispensable for they demonstrate the presence of true faith, and are evidence of ones being united with Christ in his death and resurrection (p. 270). Even the works we do are on the basis of Gods work (Eph. 2:8-10) and are only acceptable in Christ. Piper agrees in spirit with OBrien. In accord with all the creeds and confessions, Piper (2007; 110-115) holds that works are evidence of justication, but are in no way part of the basis of justication. Justication and sanctication are connected, but need to be kept separate; biblically, the latter grows out of the former (Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, 2002; 71-79). Moral transformation, including works, is the evidence of justication, but must not be collapsed into justication. In Pipers estimation, Wrights position is ambiguous, and he cannot articulate the real relationship clearly (2007; 117118). It seems that whenever works areeven partiallywhat justify us (rather than being evidence that we have been justied), the concept cannot be articulate without engendering confusion in regards to syngergism, semi-pelagianism, or the like. The question which needs to be satisfactorily answered is, How can our works be part of our justication, without faith in Christ alone ceasing to be the nal ground? If justication is partly based on works, then it seems impossible for it to be fully based on faith in Christ. Lastly, a brief word on imputation: Wright is totally against the concept, and believes it is absurd to think of a judge passing his righteousness off to the defendant. Blocher (JVN2; 480) responds: Minimal exibility is enough to ward off this reductio ad absurdum: in no version of the Protestant view do believers receive the righteousness of God as Judge, the quality of his act of judgment (usu-
ally it is the righteousness of God the Son, our Mediator, in his obedience and atoning work for us) (emphasis in original). Wright does not want one metaphor to improperly control theological thought when it comes to justication, but it seems that he is the one at this point who has pushed a metaphor beyond its bounds. We require an alien righteousness (JVN2; 495), and this alien righteousness is that of Christ, which cannot be distinguished from Gods (pp. 498-499). It is not as the judge that God gives us righteousness; it is as the judge sees Christs righteousness credited to us that he can pronounce the guilty justied. Wright makes the metaphor too wooden in the details. Piper (2002; 41) denes imputation in the following way: By imputation I am referring to the act in which God counts sinners to be righteousness through their faith in Christ on the basis of Christs perfect blood and righteousness, specically the righteousness that Christ accomplished by his perfect obedience in life and death. Faith is not righteousness but it is instrumental. Although the New Testament does not specically state that Christs righteousness was imputed to us, it is just as necessary theologically as the doctrine of the Trinity according to Charles Hodge (Piper, 2002; 81 fn 26), and is a proper concept for systematic theology (D. A. Carson, in Justication: Whats at Stake in the Current Debates? 2004). II Corinthians 5:21 and I Corinthians 1:30 are two passages which seem to require the imputation of Christs righteousness. Conclusion I think it is only fair for me to offer my own perspective on the new perspective on justication. Just two tiny (but important) points will sufce. I do not do so in an attempt to convince, but only as an attempt to be honest about my own convictions in the matter for the sake of transparen-
November 2010
Page 19
cy. As much as we would like to think that our biases do not affect us, they often do more than we realize. Thus our thinking can be disproportionate and skewed, even if unintentionally. And when our thinking is distorted in this way, then we can misrepresent othersagain, even if unintentionally. 1. In my judgment, the biblical concept of justication is forensic, and it is the declaration that a guilty sinner is now legally considered innocent on the basis of faith alone in Christs perfect atonement and righteousness. Justication is what brings us into the covenant community; it is not the recognition that we are already in it. 2. Works in future judgment provide evidence of our saving faith in Christ. It seems to me that the advocates of the new perspective cannot clearly or simply articulate their view without falling into traps on one side or the other which make Christs perfect work less than complete and sufcient for our justication. My main concern here is less what the advocates of the new perspective explicitly say, than what the implications or entailments of their position actually are. I suspect the lack of clarity in this matter is owing to accepting a position, but not being able to accept its consequences. In other words, I think there is an internal, irreconcilable tension in the new perspective at this point, but advocates are committed to both propositions. Explanations, then, inevitably come across as confusing and unclear, because clarity only reveals the problems that are inherent in the stance. Wright is on record as saying Piper hasnt heard what he is saying, and that Carson doesnt understand the new perspective. Fair enough, but in my judgment this may be owing to the inability to understand anything that is lacking coherence. Certainly much more has been
Page 20
November 2010
Issue 172
we do or will. There is nothing whatever we can do to effect it; there is no room for cooperation of any kind. You cannot do it. Your father or mother cannot do it for you. Your priest cannot do it for you. Your pastor cannot do it for you. The new birth does not come as the result of anything human. But of God! But then where does that leave us? How then can a man be born again? To return to our initial question, how can a man get from verse 11 into verse 12from a natural rebel to a believer? John provides the answer: these who believe were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the esh, nor of the will of man, but of God (v. 13). What no man is able to do, God is able to do. This is the message of the entire Bible. You remember how Jesus said it to his disciples. After a rich man went sorrowfully away from Jesus, our Lord remarked that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. This puzzled the disciples. Who then can be saved? they asked. How did Jesus answer? Did he say, Anyone can be saved if they will simply make a decision, exercise their will toward me positively? No. Who then can be saved? Answer: With man it is impossible, but not with God (Matt. 19:16-26). That is to say, this is something altogether beyond us. It is entirely out of our reach. If we are to be born anew, it will be only the result of Gods will and activity. We who believe were born of God. James said this also. Of His own will He begat us by the Word of truth (Jas. 1:18). It never could and never would arise out of our wills, depraved as we are. If this blessing is to be ours, it will be only because God has so willed it. Our free will took us all our lives away from Christwe
all like sheep went astray; every one of us turned to his own way (Isa. 53:6). None seek after God (Rom. 3:10). It was Gods free will which initiated our salvation and brought us to life so that we would believe. Again, we who believe were born of God. To believe in Christ unto salvation requires much more than anything human life can produce. It is not a matter of ridding ourselves of our worst habits. It is not a matter of moral improvement. It requires such a drastic, such a thorough transformation that it cannot be brought about by anything we do or will. It is not a matter of human excellence; it is a matter of divine grace. And so the biblical writers are careful to tell us not only that it is not of him that wills or of him that runs, but also that it is of God who shows mercy (Rom. 9:16). They tell us not only that we must believe, but that God works within us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). They tell us not only that we cannot do anything to birth ourselves into Gods family but also that God in Christ and by his Spirit does for us what we would not and could not do ourselves. They tell us that those who savingly confess Christ do so only by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). True confession of faith in Christ is something that is entirely beyond us until we are so enabled by God the Spirit. In other words, all this comes down to that one big word which we nd everywhere in the Bible, and that word is grace. Salvation comes to us entirely from Gods side. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). It is his doing for usnot because of us or even with us. It is his doing for us and in us. It is all a work of his grace; it all stems from his loving kindness.
Theology Meets Experience This is illustrated for us in Acts 16:14 where Luke records the conversion of Lydia in Philippi. Paul preached, and the ladies all listened. But only Lydia believed. And why did she believe? Luke tells us: The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. Paul gives this testimony exactly. He explains that his view of God and religion took him ever further away from him, and there he would have continued if it were not for the fact that God was pleased to reveal his Son in me (Gal. 1:15-16). God did not reward Paul for a positive act of will. No, God interrupted Pauls will and graciously turned him around. Paul explains that this experience of his is true of all who have believed. All of those who do not believe are blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4) and continue in darkness just as long as Satan is permitted to blind them. But then how did we all come to faith? What is it that dispelled the darkness? Paul answers:
For it is the God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).
At the original creation, God said, Let there be light! and there was light (Gen. 1:3), and so also in this new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), it is God who creates out of nothing and imparts new life to us who without such blessing would continue in our sin and perish. All Christians, even Arminian Christians, sing this theology all the time, and well they should: Twas grace that taught my heart to fear! It was not our own will; it was Gods grace.
Issue 172
November 2010
Page 21
Salvation is entirely of grace. Left to ourselves, we would all very naturally wander off into perdition. Like all the rest, we too were children of disobedience (Eph. 2:1-3). The whole glory of our salvation is that God did not leave us to ourselves or to our own plans. He graciously interrupted us on our mad rush to hell. He sovereignly implanted within us a new principle of life, and by that, he made us to see the suicidal folly of our way and the glory and value of Jesus Christ. Then he wooed our renewed affections and overwhelmed us with a sense of his love, and by grace he drew us to Christ where with all our hearts we believed unto salvation. I sought the Lord, but afterward I knew He moved my soul to seek him seeking me! It was not I that found thee Savior true No, I was found of thee! Nor is this merely abstract theology. This is the testimony of every true believer. Only this explains the surprising nature of our conversion. We were all content in our own wayssome deep in immorality, others deep in crime, others deep in religion, but all of us equally lost. But we all confess that suddenly we were no longer content in our sin. Suddenly
there was a great sense of despair. Suddenly there was an awful fear of God and of judgment. And suddenly this Jesus for whom we cared nothing became to us our only goal and ambition, and we went running to nd him and, in him, the safety from sin which only he can give. What made the change? Is it really the result of the positive exercise of our own will? No! We all know, instinctively even, that this is all due to Gods special workings of grace. We may not have understood it in these terms at the time, but we understand it well when we read John telling us that we who believe were born of God. This is lifes most important lessonthat salvation is of God; that what he requires of us is far more than we can ever do; but that what he requires of us, he does for us in grace. Making it Personal My friend, you need much more than your will can ever provide. Your hope does not lie in your will or anything else about you. Your hope does not lie in your heritage or in your experience in religious things. What you need is a Savior who is able to rescue you from yourself and your sin, and this is
precisely what God freely gives us in grace. Your salvation is all of him. What does this do to our pride? Can we boast that our salvation was our decision? No. Can we boast that we were wise to make the right choice? No. All of our boasting must be directed to him who called us out of darkness, into his marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:9). He who glories, let him glory in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:13). For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7). We all must confess with the apostle Paul, I am what I am by the grace of God (1 Cor. 15:10). It was not our will but his. Reecting on our own experience in grace, we can well understand why John, Paul, and all the biblical writers love to rejoice in this great truth. Like ancient Israel, we too naturally refused God; we would not receive him (John 1:11). The gospel of grace came to us promising life in Gods Son (v. 12), but we would have nothing to do with ituntil God came to us in grace and brought us to life and faith in his Son (v. 13) so that in him we would be made sons also. This is our testimony, and we love to tell it. m
The Laws of Nature J. R. Miller, The Best Things in Life

Gods will controls the smallest matters, and takes into account the smallest events in each life. A Spanish proverb says, A leaf does not stir on the treewithout the will of God. Gods hand is in every event. We talk of the the laws of naturebut what is nature? It is not something independent of God. The laws of nature are simply Gods laws. Nothing takes place that is contrary to the divine will. Nothingno storm, no earthquake, no cyclone, no tidal waveever gets out of Gods control. This world is not controlled by chance, nor by any blind fatebut by Him who loved us so much, that He gave His son to die for us.
Courtesy of Grace Gems: www.GraceGems.org
Page 22
November 2010
Issue 172
said, and much more will be said. Again, at the risk of tedious over-repetition, this is really nothing more than a portal for entering the discussions. More data can be brought to bear from both directions. For example, Im not convinced that leaving off all discussion on Philippians 3 was a good idea! But we need to stop somewhere, or else the pages run on and on, and a short introduction becomes just another large book (which, in my case, would be inferior to whats already available, and so an utter waste of time). I hope that in Gods grace this was fairly representative, and that the balance between necessary over-simplication and unintentional distortion was accurate. ____________________ Works Cited Carson, D. A. The Vindication
of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields. In Justication: Whats at Stake in the Current Debates? ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier, 46-78. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Carson, D. A., Peter OBrien, and Mark Seifrid, ed. Justication and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Carson, D. A., Peter OBrien, and Mark Seifrid, ed. Justication and Variegated Nomism, Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul, Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Garlington, Don. In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Piper, John. The Future of Justication: A Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007. Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should we Abandon the Imputation of Christs Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002. Sanders, E. P. Paul. New York: Sterling, 2009. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Wright, N. T. Justication: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
No one else out there seems to have the clarity and ability to communicate so clearly the wonderful truth of the Gospel and our standing in this glorious New Covenant as Mr. Reisinger. Please continue as I share your writings as much as possible Thanks. Paul J
McInnisContinued from page 7
who are the called according to his purpose (Rom 8:28). Those who are the called are none other than those who are referred to as the elect or those ordained unto eternal life (see Acts 13:48). They are not those who fall away but those who believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:39). They are those who heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty (Matt. 13:23) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). The Caller The power and effectiveness of any
decree stands or falls according to the authority of the one who is making the decree. This one who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking ax issues the tender call to his children saying Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satiseth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David (Isa. 55:1-3). This is also the one who says,
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness: I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory (Isa. 46:913). He is indeed mighty to save. m
Issue 172
Christ is not Ashamed Continued from page 9
November 2010
Page 23
in exchange for the safety of herself and her family. She and her household alone, of all the inhabitants of Jericho, survived, and their survival was by the means of deceit. Furthermore, the back story of the conquest of Jericho would have reminded Matthews original audience of the forty-year wandering that preceded it, which was the result of the unbelief and fear of the majority of the Hebrew people of Moses generation (Heb. 3:8-19). Matthew could have structured his genealogy in the same manner as the author of the book of Ruth did, who simply listed the genealogy of David from Perez to Jesse without any mention of the women and the stories they evoked. By including Rahab, Matthew again highlights that Jesus the Messiah is not ashamed to be identied with people whose faith is weak. Matthew also draws our attention to Gods redemptive activity: in spite of her wicked lifestyle, God gave Rahab repentance and faith and saved her. Matthews third woman in Jesus genealogy is Ruth, by whom Boaz (Rahabs son) fathered Obed. The book of Ruth contains an account of a famine in Israel during the time of the judges, a reminder to Matthews audience of the cycles of rebellion and humiliation experienced by Israel. Additionally, the account includes the marriage of two Hebrew men to Moabite women, something implicitly forbidden by Mosaic law (Deut. 23:6). Yet we nd in Ruth a pagan woman who consciously chose to love and serve the God of Israel. In this, she did better than many of the
Hebrews. She certainly did better than her nearest kinsman-redeemer, who was quite willing to do his duty as kinsman-redeemer when that duty meant acquiring more property, but who just as willingly abdicated that responsibility when informed that it included levirate marriage. The redemption of land would have furthered his self-interest, but the acquisition of Ruth would have interfered with it. Land was more important to this Hebrew than the perpetuation of his familys name. Matthew, by naming Ruth as one of the forebears of Jesus, reminds his readers that some of those who are outcasts by nature are acceptable by grace and that Jesus is not ashamed to own them as kin. Jesus was a Hebrew who loved his family more than he loved his own life. Matthew does not name his fourth woman, but refers to her as she who was the wife of Uriah. It seems as though Matthew goes out of his way to make this genealogy as bad as possible. Why did he feel it necessary to mention Uriah? Why raise any reminder of Davids sin of adultery and murder? Why not just write, David begat Solomon of Bathsheba? After all, when David begat Solomon, David was legally married to Bathsheba. Such an account would have been quite in keeping with Matthews readers expectations of the genealogy of Gods promised Messiahthe anointed one, the chosen one, the special one. Surely this Messiah would have an impeccable ancestry. Yet Gods ways are not our ways. It would seem that the Holy Spirit uses every means, including a genealogy
that includes painful reminders of the spectacular failures of Gods people, to exalt the amazing grace of God. How radically different is Gods grace from anything the world knows or can experience. Christs followers have the opportunity to exhibit this grace when confronted with the spectacular failures of those in their spiritual family. An illustration from a physical family will demonstrate. A preachers wife became an alcoholic. One Sunday morning, as he was shaking hands with the departing congregation, a taxicab pulled up outside the church building, and discharged a drunken woman, the preachers wife, who stumbled across the sidewalk. As she started to fall, the preacher stretched out his arms and caught her. Those of the congregation who remained waited to see what the preacher would do. How would he treat his drunken wife? He drew her close and kissed her. She was his wife and he loved her, spectacular failures included. How often have we played the part of that wife? How often have we allowed ourselves to become drunk with this world and its enticements? How often could God have said, I have had it with you. I am ashamed to be associated in any way with you? No, no, God will never give up on any of his people. He will never forsake any of his own. His grace will prevail. He will never turn his back on any sinner upon whom he has set his electing love. Dear fellow believer, arent you glad that Christ is not ashamed to call a sinner like you one of his brethren? m
Whatever is Christian is always essentially simple. Simplicity is not incompatible with depth. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES 5317 WYE CREEK DRIVE FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938 FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED
Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 172 Please renew your subscription promptly.
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 45 FREDERICK, MD 21701
Ten Reasons Why it is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children:

1. God commanded, Thou shalt not murder (Exodus 20:13).
2. The destruction of conceived human life whether embryonic, fetal, or viable is an assault on the unique person-forming work of God. 3. Aborting unborn humans falls under the repeated biblical ban against shedding innocent blood. 4. The Bible frequently expresses the high priority God puts on the protection and provision and vindication of the weakest and most helpless and most victimized members of the community. 5. By judging difficult and even tragic human life as a worse evil than taking life, abortionists contradict the widespread biblical teaching that God loves to show His gracious power through suffering and not just by helping people avoid suffering. 6. It is a sin of presumption to justify abortion by taking comfort in the fact that all these little children will go to heaven or even be given full adult life in the resurrection. 7. The Bible commands us to rescue our neighbor who is being unjustly led away to death. 8. Aborting unborn children falls under Jesus rebuke of those who spurned children as inconvenient and unworthy of the Saviors attention. 9. It is the right of God the Maker to give and to take human life. It is not our individual right to make this choice. 10. Finally, saving faith in Jesus Christ brings forgiveness of sins and cleansing of conscience and help through life and hope for eternity. Surrounded by such omnipotent love, every follower of Jesus is free from the greed and fear that might lure a person to forsake these truths in order to gain money or avoid reproach. John Piper

Issue 172

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue 172

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G

it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9

Continuity/Discontinuity Part Five

The Blessings of Believing Gal 3:6-14 - Part 2

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON JUSTIFICATION: Part 4 A Brief Introduction to the Discussion

Born to Believe A Study in Gods Initiative in Salvation

THE CALL, THE CALLED, AND THE CALLER

Christs redemption brings two results: 5. We are blessed with Abraham

$10.00 FOR TEN ISSUES

City: ___________________ State/Province: _ Zip/Postal Code: ___

Christ is not Ashamed to Call Poor Sinners His Brethren

NEW COVENANT MEDIA P U B L I C AT I O N S

See Rate Charts on Page 16 Canadian ordersDiscover, Visa or MasterCard onlyplease.

time you witness. Christ Received!

The New Birth

Perseverance of the Saints

The Laws of Nature J. R. Miller, The Best Things in Life

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 45 FREDERICK, MD 21701

Ten Reasons Why it is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children:

You might also like