A new rabbi was installed at a very old temple near Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. One of the newer congregants, Bogomilsky, wanted to commemorate the occasion by planting a young tree on the postage-stamp-sized grounds adjacent to the temple building.
The older members of the congregation agreed with planting a tree, but believed the hole for the tree roots should not be dug with a backhoe.
Which was OK with Bogomilsky who didn’t want to pay the union wages for a half-day’s use of a backhoe.
However, the handle of Bogomilsky’s shovel was shattered beyond repair, rendering the digging tool useless for the task.
When the congregation was advised of Bogomilsky’s sad plight, a theological discussion immediately erupted among the older members about G-d’s grace.
Half of the older members held that if another congregant gave Bogomilsky a new shovel for free–thus enabling Bogomilsky himself to dig the hole for the tree roots–that would be a fine example of G-d’s grace.
The other half held that if another congregant himself dug the hole for free, that would be a more precise example of G-d’s grace.
So which half was theologically right and why, and did the hole ever get dug?
a biblical history of god’s grace
Introduction
In 1996, an English translation of the Bible was published for the first time: the New English Translation (NET). Three years later, another English translation of the Bible made its premiere appearance: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Both translations feature sound manuscript support, capable translation teams, and helpful study tools.
However, in comparing the same New Testament verse from each of these new Bibles, one can uncover evidence of a recent trend in the understanding of God’s grace. Here is the verse, Philippians 2:13, cited from each translation:
-“for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the
sake of his good pleasure—is God (NET).
-“For it is God who is working in you, [enabling you] both to will and to act
for His pleasure” (HCSB).
Notice, translators of the HCSB insert two words in brackets, “enabling you,” that are supplied for clarity. Those two words do not appear in the Greek manuscripts used to translate this verse. That’s why the two words appear in brackets in the English text.
Phil. 2:13 is a revelation of God at work to motivate the believer. Moreover, God not only works to motivate; He also acts according to His motivation. God’s motivation and actions are, therefore, in perfect harmony with His good pleasure—meaning neither His motivation nor His action violate any aspect of God’s intrinsic nature. In other words, both are holy. Since God’s motivation and action are holy, neither is tainted by the impurity (indwelling sin) that is intrinsic to the believer’s mortal body. While God’s motivation may indeed produce His desire within the believer, the believer cannot do what he wants (Gal. 5:17; cf. Rom. 7:19 NET). Since the believer is unable, himself, to act apart from indwelling sin, both God’s motivation and actions are likely manifestations of His grace.
The tendency in present-day theological circles, however, is to define God’s grace as enabling the believer, himself, to accomplish God’s desires as exhibited by HCSB’s insert in Phil. 2:13. The biblical record suggests an altogether different meaning for God’s grace: grace is God, Himself, accomplishing His desires for the believer by faith.
At this point, a caveat is in order. God both promises and provides new spiritual equipment constituting the new birth. God does not enable man to procure a new human heart and spirit for himself. God installs each unilaterally. Using this new equipment, God’s child-to-be is enabled to believe God’s promise of forgiveness of his sins. In this sense, God’s new-equipment grace “enables” man with the ability to believe. However, as the apostle Paul makes clear, even the faith that man exercises for salvation is not of himself (Eph. 2:9).
Here’s an illustration that might help to clarify the present-day definitional tendency of a human “enabling” grace instead of a God-doing grace. You have to dig a hole in your backyard. But, your shovel is broken. A friend gives you a new shovel—that enables you—to dig the hole. Or, the friend digs the hole himself. Which alternative is an act of grace in the biblical sense?
The following essay will present historical evidence of God’s grace from the scriptures that will enable one to reach the correct answer about which hole-digging alternative illustrates God’s grace.
God’s Grace in the Garden
God’s grace resurfaced dramatically in the Garden of Eden after the derelict duo had abandoned God’s diet instructions about eating fruit. After eating of the forbidden fruit, each realized his/her nakedness and were able to promptly fashion for himself/herself fig-leaf coverings to solve the nudity problem. The coverings were the couple’s efforts to deal—themselves—with the effects of their sins.
But their efforts were unsatisfactory from God’s perspective, as God was about to demonstrate, because without shedding blood there is no forgiveness of sins. The fig-tree approach was without blood.
Moses recorded this unequivocal display of God’s grace, apart from any contribution from His creation. “The lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:2 NET).
God did not enable Adam and his wife to select an appropriate animal, butcher the beast, remove and tan the animal’s hide with tree bark, cut the hide into garments that fit, and then clothe themselves with the garments thus prepared.
Nor did God FedEx garments to the Garden. No human delivery-truck drivers were available. God didn’t just drop the duds in the Garden so the hapless couple could attire themselves. God, Himself, actually manufactured the garments, sought out the man and his wife, and dressed them. In other words, God took on the role of a valet. Not only that, God had assumed the role of a butcher, a tanner, and a tailor as well, in order to produce and install those God-acceptable garments of skin. Adam and his wife did nothing but simply receive God’s gracious act of providing what God required. Adam and his wife were saved from their sins by God’s grace, alone.
Job’s Testimony
Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible. What made Job’s words particularly pertinent was God’s unconditional endorsement of what Job said.
Remember Job’s story? Job lost everything but his wife and life because Satan twice challenged Job’s integrity before God. After losing family, possessions, and his health, three of Job’s friends (Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad) appeared to commiserate with him about his horrible misfortune. Three times, each friend presented his own views about the basis of Job’s troubles (except Zophar, who spoke only twice).
What was astounding was God’s twice-repeated comment about the speech of Job’s three friends: “. . . you have not spoken about Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7, 8 NET). God, Himself, puts His personal imprimatur of validity upon Job’s words.
Job’s testimony about God was: “He will certainly accomplish what He has decreed for me . . .” (Job 23:14 HSCB). By God’s own endorsement, Job’s words were correct. God will do what God decrees for Job. This was Job’s testimony about God’s grace.
David’s Testimony
The apostle Paul, on his first missionary journey in Pisidian Antioch, made this observation about God’s view of David: “. . . I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My wills” (Acts 13:22 NASB, i.e., the New American Standard Bible). So what David testified about God has unquestioned validity. In his Psalms recorded in the scriptures, David’s words were the very word of God.
This is what David said: “Commit your way to the Lord, Trust also in Him, and He will do it” (Ps. 37:5). In other words, when anyone commits his life to God, trusting in Him, God will do what God commands. David’s assertion is an assertion of God’s grace.
Ezekiel’s Prophecy
Ezekiel, God’s faithful prophet, quoted God’s New Covenant promises. Here is what God promised: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and [I will] cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances” (Ezek. 36:25-27 NASB). While God’s five spiritual ‘I wills’ of the New Covenant were promulgated for the nation Israel, the church benefits as well from these promises from God (cf. Heb. 8:13 NASB).
The operative word for our study of God’s fifth promise relayed to Ezekiel is the word “cause.” God did not promise to “enable” one to walk in His statutes and to be careful to observe His ordinances. God’s promise was that He, Himself, would make a New Covenant believer’s lifestyle a lifestyle of obedience. To “enable” the believer would mean that the believer himself would receive credit for his behavior whenever he chose to exercise his new God-given ability. However, God does not share credit for His grace.
The four examples of God’s grace from the Old Testament were selected from Moses’ writings, the wisdom writings, and from the prophets. These are the Jewish divisions of the Old Testament canon. Other examples of God’s grace exist throughout the Old Testament, but these four are probably sufficient to help grasp the meaning of God’s grace. What God requires, God does. And God receives the credit.
Jesus’ Teaching
In His interview with Nicodemus, Jesus taught about being born again by God’s Spirit (i.e., receiving a new heart and a new spirit) and about life under the New Covenant. New Covenant living, as explained by Jesus from Ezekiel’s above-mentioned prophecy, means that God, Himself, causes obedience from the believer. God causes His requirement of obedience by having His Spirit manifest Jesus’ obedient life in the believer through faith. The result will be that, “. . . his [the believer’s] works may be shown to be accomplished by God” (John 3:21 HCSB). God does what God requires.
The Apostle Paul’s Letters
Paul’s sentiments about God’s grace have already been reviewed above from his letter to the Philippians. Another compelling example is the apostle’s benediction penned in the closing of his letter to the Thessalonians: “Now may the God of peace Himself make you completely holy and may your spirit and soul and body be kept entirely blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is trustworthy, and He will in fact do this” (1 Thess. 5:23-24 NET; cf. Isa. 46:11c and d). Again, what God requires of His child, God will, in fact, do.
A Biblical Example by Old and New Testament Citations
God told Moses He would raise up a prophet like Moses from among his own countrymen. Further, God said, “I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them [Moses’ countrymen] all that I command him” (Deut 18:18). Some centuries later, and in prophetic recognition of God’s grace upon the prophet’s mouth, the psalmist wrote, “. . . Grace is poured upon Thy [the prophet’s] lips . . .” (Psalm 45:2). When Jesus—the prophet—arrived, He said, “. . . the word which you [Moses’ countrymen] hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me” (John 14:24). Jesus speaking the Father’s actual words by grace is partially behind John the Baptist’s comment that “. . . the only begotten from the Father [was] full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
This aspect of God’s grace was also extended to the apostles sent by Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 13:3).
Conclusion
The clear and consistent biblical witness is that God’s grace means that what God requires of the believer, God will also accomplish, Himself, for the believer.
Let’s revisit the hole-digging scenario. If a friend gives you a new shovel that enables you to dig the hole, you become independent of the friend. You may dig, or not dig, whenever and wherever you please. However, if the friend, himself, digs the hole, then you continue in your dependence upon the friend beyond his gracious gift of the new shovel. You have, by choice, acceded to your friend’s initiative to dig wherever and whenever he pleases. That’s the nature of God’s grace—to place His child in a state of continued dependence upon His Father’s will and power. If God’s grace simply “enables” the believer, then the believer doesn’t have to depend any longer upon God.
Remember Satan’s discomforting contribution to the apostle Paul—Satan’s “thorn in the flesh?” Three times Paul asked God to remove the thorn. But God demurred by informing the apostle, “My grace is enough for you . . .” (2 Cor. 12:9 NET). Had God enabled Paul to cope with Satan’s thorn, the apostle would then have been able to operate independently of God. But that is not the Father’s plan for, or design of, His children. Rather, His design is one of continual dependence by His children upon His grace. Suggesting that God’s grace “enables” His child distorts the meaning of God’s grace by introducing a human dimension beyond simply receiving—thus thwarting God’s design.
MODERN MISSIONS MANIA
Matthew 28:16-20, author’s translation
“But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw Him, they worshipped [Him]; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I, Myself, have commanded you; and remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”
Introduction
A portion of Matthew’s report from the mountaintop has become known throughout recent church history as the Great Commission. To help grasp the overwhelming church-wide emphasis placed present day on this piece of scripture, one needs only to reflect on the contemporary sentiments of a renowned Bible expositor and pastor. He holds the Great Commission is the focal point of all scripture. Further, he goes on to lament the misunderstanding of God’s people about the Great Commission’s significance, and their unwillingness to fulfill it. He concludes the unfulfilled Great Commission is the only reason the church remains on earth.
One reason for church saints’ misunderstanding and confusion about the critical importance God allegedly places on the Great Commission is that Jesus’ commands to “Go . . . and make disciples . . .” appear only in one place in the entire New Testament—at the very end of Matthew’s gospel. For example, the epistles are completely silent about Jesus’ injunction.
One might conjecture that such an important command would be repeated often, or at least alluded to, in the rest of the New Testament. Some with missionary fervor have noticed this anomaly of silence, and have speculated that the Great Commission’s great significance has been propagated throughout the ages by oral tradition, or by implication from the rest of scripture rather than by direct apostolic reference. Therefore, the Lord did not deem it necessary to have His spokesmen mention the Great Commission again.
However, an explanation other than oral tradition and implication may account for the Commission’s solitary mention by Matthew. Jesus’ disciples understood from their mountaintop experience that His commands did not apply to them. Nor did it apply to the church formed some weeks later at Pentecost.
Seven issues need to be resolved before one can accurately comprehend Jesus’ Commission-encapsulated instructions to His disciples. Resolution of these seven issues clearly presents a scriptural understanding for the New Testament’s silence about the Great Commission in letters to local churches and their leaders, as well as for the Commission’s dormancy in saints’ lives. The seven issues are: Jesus’ ‘heads-up,’ the disciples’ doubt, disciple making, disciple makers’ curricula, baptism and the baptismal formula, Jesus’ presence at the age’s end, and Paul’s missionary endeavors.
A “Heads-Up” for Jesus’ Disciples
Just weeks before Jesus gave His post-resurrection Great Commission in Galilee, He sat on the Mount of Olives across from the temple and delivered what has become known as The Olivet Discourse. The discourse may be divided into two sections. The first section was His prophecy about what would take place from the time of His death and resurrection to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. The second section was His prophecy related to events of the Tribulation that would take place between the rapture of the church and His Second Coming. The Great Commission passage is actually a parallel passage, but in more detail, to Jesus’ statement about the kingdom gospel and all nations in His Olivet Discourse.
On the Mount of Olives, Jesus gave His disciples a one-sentence ‘heads-up’ on what would take place during the period from the church’s rapture to His Second Coming. He said, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come”—the end being a permanent halt to gentiles trampling Jerusalem underfoot terminated by Jesus’ return. Without question, preaching the kingdom gospel to all the nations was addressed in further detail through the Great Commission. So the Commission relates to a generation that will see the Second Coming, and not to the immediate generation of Jesus’ disciples in Galilee.
The Disciples’ Doubt
At Jesus’ clear and direct instructions following His resurrection, eleven disciples of the original twelve headed to Galilee, to a particular mountain designated by the Lord. Upon their arrival, Jesus appeared on the mountain. All eleven disciples worshipped Him as King even though some of the eleven were doubtful.
Some commentators believe that all the eleven disciples were doubtful. However, skilled, articulate, and knowledgeable grammarians point out from word use that only a portion of the eleven disciples was doubtful. Further, most English translations read, “some doubted.” The question then arises, “About what, exactly, were some doubtful?”
Doubt had run rampant among most of Jesus’ disciples after His crucifixion. On the third day following His death, the news of His resurrection spread haphazardly among His followers. At least one of the disciples was so skeptical that he earned for himself the nickname ‘doubting Thomas’ because of skepticism and doubt upon hearing the resurrection news. But Jesus had proceeded to effectively resolve all doubts in dramatic and thorough fashion so that, when the disciples set off for Galilee per His command, uncertainty about the reality of His life beyond the grave had been removed beyond doubt. Yet, when some saw Him on the mountain, they were doubtful, but not about His resurrection.
To understand the cause of their doubt, we recall that the Lord Jesus entrusted three of His disciples with a special vision—a vision that He ordered them not to communicate to the others until after “the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Those three disciples followed Jesus’ orders to the letter.
But after Jesus’ resurrection—and probably on the way from Jerusalem to the Galilean mountain—the three, no doubt, eagerly and openly discussed with the other eight their experience of something extraordinary that had happened previously on a particular mountain quite possibly located in Galilee—that “holy mountain,” as Peter referred to it. Peter, James, and John had witnessed “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” something referred to as the Transfiguration. So it’s possible the three’s account met with doubts.
Peter likely addressed skeptical responses to the Transfiguration report. He said, “We [Jews] have an altogether reliable thing—the prophetic word.” In other words, if anyone doubts our eyewitness accounts of what took place on that holy mountain, he can consult God’s word for reassurance. The ‘prophetic word’ likely referred to Daniel’s prophetic vision wherein he saw one like a son of man coming up to God and receiving from Him dominion and glory as well as a universal and everlasting kingdom.
Peter concluded Jesus was the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision Who received the kingdom from God. The Transfiguration experience eliminated any doubt from Peter’s mind that Jesus was King. Since He was also Israel’s Messiah, the kingdom Jesus received is sometimes called the Messianic Kingdom.
Remember, Elijah was present on the Mount of Transfiguration. God had promised, according to Malachi’s prophecy, to send Elijah as a missionary and herald to the nation Israel before the King inaugurated the kingdom. And Moses was also present on that holy mountain, the one born outside the land that God had sent to bring His people out of Egypt (a pseudo-diaspora) and into the land He had promised to the fathers. Peter’s reaction to the vision shows all doubts were dispelled about who was King on that mountain, so he offered to build three Sukkot booths—a certain indication that he, as a Jew, expected the King to immediately launch His kingdom. So perhaps Moses and Elijah exemplify Jewish activity leading up to His return as King.
Now, back to the mountain in Galilee where the group of eleven was then standing—perhaps the very mountain where the Transfiguration had taken place (some believe Mt. Tabor in Galilee was where the Transfiguration took place). The Transfiguration, either by personal experience or by a doubt-free acceptance of the recent eyewitnesses’ reports, naturally divided the group of eleven in two: those who had no doubt Jesus was King, and those who found it difficult to accept what other eyes had seen, and other ears had heard—like Thomas with Jesus’ resurrection. Since the three eyewitnesses unreservedly worshipped the King on the Galilean mountaintop, based on their prior personal experience and subsequent understanding, the others instinctively followed the trio’s lead. But some had nagging doubts.
Not having the benefit of seeing the vision firsthand, nor hearing the voice of the Majestic Glory announcing His pleasure with His beloved Son, some of the disciples very likely had doubts about the kingdom’s status. The doubts probably went something like this: “If He is coming in His kingdom, why are we worshipping up on this mountain in Galilee instead of at post-coronation festivities in Jerusalem?”
To assuage their doubts on that Galilean mountain, and to reassure them that kingdom matters were going along according to God’s will, “Jesus came up and spoke to them [the doubters], saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’” Jesus thereby asserted that He was indeed the “Son of Man” in the prophet Daniel’s vision, Who, “. . . came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion . . . and a kingdom . . .” Jesus’ reassurances for the doubters amounted to Him saying, ‘My Father made Me permanent King of everything; it’s OK to believe the Transfiguration accounts despite the Jerusalem leaders demanding, and being granted, My crucifixion.’
Our analysis has suggested that those doubts of some of Jesus’ disciples arose because, even though the King was present, the anticipated kingdom was nowhere to be seen in a form that corresponded to revelations made by Israel’s prophets. Nevertheless, they worshipped Him, even in the face of their doubts. Against that Messianic Kingdom backdrop, and in accordance with His position as King, Jesus issued The Great Commission.
In such a context, the Great Commission’s goal would be to fill the ranks of gentile citizens in the Messianic Kingdom as well as the ranks of Jewish citizens from both the nation, and the Diaspora—hence the command to go into all nations. The word ‘Diaspora’ refers to Jews living in gentile nations.
One further point is worthy of note. During Jesus’ post-resurrection ministry, the major topic of discussion with His disciples was the kingdom.
Disciple Making
Here is an interesting New Testament statistic: the words disciple/disciples are found 224 times in the gospels, 30 times in Acts, and 0 times in the epistles and Revelation. What might one discover from this precipitous drop-off in word usage as the chronology in the New Testament progressed? One might say that emphasis on disciple making decreased dramatically as the nature of the church was revealed.
To elaborate on this point, the word ‘disciple’ identified an individual who assumed the long-term responsibility of learning from a specific teacher. In the gospels, John the Baptist had disciples. Jesus was addressed by the title, ‘Rabboni,’ which meant ‘teacher.’ Hence, Jesus had identifiable students who became known as His disciples. Why, even Moses had disciples! Since John the Baptist had disciples, and Jesus had disciples, at least two distinct disciple groups sprouted, and were identified by their respective teachers. After Jesus departed, who would assume His role as ‘Teacher?’
The apostle John likely pointed to the Teacher Who would take Jesus’ place. John informed his local church audience, “As for you, the anointing [the Holy Spirit] which you received from Him [Jesus] abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you . . .” So while teachers existed in the churches, the Spirit likely replaced Jesus in His role of personal Teacher. In the epistolary literature, therefore, no one was ever instructed to ‘make disciples’ because all had the indwelling Holy Spirit’s personal ministry.
As the church’s nature began to unfold after Jesus’ departure, it became apparent that no distinction was to exist among church disciples (even though the church was omni-national) as had been experienced between Jesus’ disciples and John’s disciples. In fact, the apostle Paul admonished the Corinthians because each one was saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I am of Apollos,” and “I am of Cephas,” and “I am of Christ.” Such Corinthian claims may well have highlighted the practice of claiming a certain superiority by virtue of the one with whom he identified himself in the hierarchy of personal teachers—Christ being the preeminent one.
Paul’s argument against this practice was conveyed by the simple question, “Has Christ been divided?” The church became a unified entity wherein no one stood above another, or even claimed self-aggrandizing distinctions. Hence, the word ‘disciple’ may have lost relevancy in the church and stopped being used. In place of ‘disciples,’ the terms ‘brethren’ and ‘saints’ came into vogue. The plethora of traveling church teachers may also have resulted in fewer saints assuming the responsibility of learning from the necessarily abbreviated ministry of a specific traveling teacher, and so they were no longer called disciples. Finally, as a corpus of letters from itinerant teachers accumulated in, and were circulated among, local churches; preachers using those epistolary resources replaced disciple makers.
Some wish to infer that the other gospel writers alluded to Jesus’ sentiments given to the eleven on the mountain in Galilee. However, inspection of what the other gospel writers said shows that not even one echoed Jesus’ specific instructions to the eleven.
The foregoing review suggests that Jesus’ command, “to make disciples in all nations,” may not have been directed to the eleven disciples of His generation, but perhaps to a future generation. That may explain why the words ‘preach,’ ‘proclaim,’ and ‘witness’ were popular among those of Jesus’ generation when referring to the ministry. Not one of the gospel writers, or any of the epistle authors, repeated Jesus’ command to “make disciples.” Matthew is the only one who records this particular command because his gospel was written to Jews to explain the status of the kingdom—both present and the future.
For an example in the future, Jews in the land during Elijah’s ministry will likely become Elijah’s disciples, and Jews in the Diaspora (as well as gentiles) will probably be discipled by some of the 144,000 ‘sealed’ Jews referred to in Revelation.
The Disciple Makers’ Curricula
Per instructions, disciple making was to begin with baptism upon belief in the gospel. The gospel would highlight the nearness of the kingdom of God, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins was obligatory for kingdom citizenship. The Baptist had proclaimed this gospel. Jesus, Himself, emphatically echoed the Baptist’s gospel of the kingdom from the outset of His ministry until the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This kingdom gospel may be differentiated from the church gospel. The kingdom gospel addressed national Israel as separate from all other nations as well as individual citizens from those national entities, while the church gospel addressed people from all nations, including some from Israel, as a single entity.
Matthew made it abundantly clear by his word choice that the content of what the disciple makers were to teach was everything Jesus Himself had commanded the eleven disciples. Emphasis on the commands that Jesus alone had taught the eleven limited the teaching curricula of His Commission. For example, rabbinic traditions alluded to in the gospels would not be taught to disciples, nor would Pharisaic practices. Jesus’ teachings from the Sermon on the Mount would be especially pertinent in the curricula of kingdom disciples. But probably church doctrine, briefly sketched in the gospels and explicitly developed in the epistles, would be marginalized. Because of similarity to Daniel’s prophecies, the material in The Revelation of Jesus Christ would also be properly included in the content of teaching material for disciples of the tribulation generation—that generation living between the church’s rapture and the Lord’s second coming.
From our vantage point of a completed canon, we can clearly discern that Jesus’ instructions about teaching content in fulfilling the Great Commission—content limited to what He personally had commanded during His earthly ministry—could not logically apply to the church. For example, Jesus revealed to Paul several unique details of church doctrine not included in His earthly-ministry commands. These details were later recorded in the apostle’s epistles, and would prove essential to spiritual growth and maturity of Jesus’ body—the church—but would have little value to tribulation disciples.
Baptism and the Baptismal Formula
It might be helpful to review the practice of baptism. John’s baptism was intended to mark publicly the moment when a Jew of the believing remnant removed himself from that generation of Jewish nationals facing judgment. This became known as John’s baptism. Following Pentecost, the believing Jewish remnant was baptized in Jesus’ name to identify Jews in the church as distinct from Jews in the rest of Israel. Gentile converts were immediately baptized in Jesus’ name in public recognition that they did not have to become proselytes to Judaism to become part of the church.
Jesus’ Great Commission instructed that disciples be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet one of the more tantalizing facts of the New Testament is that there is no record of anyone ever being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded that those baptized with the Holy Spirit be baptized in the name of Jesus. The same name of Jesus was used for the believing Samaritans’ baptism, as it was for the baptism of Cornelius and those gentiles assembled at his house.
One might note that the Great Commission instructed baptism in the name of the Deity for those disciples that were in nations outside Israel. Thus, a more rigorous test of the correct baptismal formula for the church might be converts made beyond Israel’s borders. And we have just such a test case. In Ephesus—well beyond Israel’s boundaries—the apostle Paul found about twelve men who were John the Baptist’s disciples. After Paul instructed them about Jesus, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, not the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is likely they no longer retained the sobriquet of John the Baptist’s disciples.
It is unequivocal that Peter, one of the very disciples who heard firsthand Jesus’ Great Commission, consistently disregarded Jesus’ commandment, as did Paul, the apostle sent by Jesus to the gentiles (e.g., Ephesus). What might account for this blatant and consistent violation of Jesus’ instructions? Close scrutiny of the baptism formula itself may help resolve the apparent disregard for our Lord’s commandment.
Let’s start by asking the question, “What is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?” The description, “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” is not a proper name but a description of the Deity’s fullness. This is somewhat analogous to the use of the name ‘Pharaoh’ for Amenhotep II of Exodus fame; ‘Pharaoh’ is not a proper name, but likely a title for Egyptian rulers. The Exodus monarch’s proper name was actually Amenhotep II. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might function as the Deity’s full title.
So what is the proper name of Israel’s Deity? The answer to this question takes us back to Moses and the burning bush. Most are familiar with the story. The angel of the Lord (probably the pre-incarnate Christ) appeared to Moses in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush. The Lord identified Himself to Moses and eventually said, “. . . I will send you to Pharaoh [ruler of the gentile nation Egypt] so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt.”
Anticipating His peoples’ response, Moses posed the scenario: “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” God responded with His proper name: “I AM WHO I AM.” God said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM’ (‘Yahweh’ in Hebrew) has sent me to you.” Then God made clear the implications of His name: “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial-name to all generations [of the sons of Israel].” Years later, Moses extolled God, identifying that ‘I AM’ is His name.
Jesus instructed that disciples from the nations should be baptized in the Deity’s name—i.e., ‘Yahweh.’ The disciples of Jesus’ generation were quite aware of the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But their inclination not to use the name Yahweh when baptizing church saints likely resulted from their realization that ‘Yahweh’ was the name of Israel’s God, while ‘Jesus’ was the name of the church’s “God and Savior.” (The Son and the Father are One, but have different proper names.) The disciples of Jesus’ generation were preaching or proclaiming the church gospel; a future generation of His servants would be making Jewish and gentile disciples for Israel’s worldwide Messianic Kingdom—hence baptism would be in the proper name of Israel’s God. Baptism in the kingdom would be in God’s name (Israel’s deity) rather than in Jesus’ name, which was reserved for the single, but omni-national entity—the church.
For example, Peter—who certainly was present on the mountain in Galilee—had to be commissioned by a vision plus God’s Spirit to take the gospel to the gentile Cornelius. When initially facing Cornelius and his household, Peter related how inappropriate it was for him, a Jew, to be in a gentile house. Had Peter understood Jesus’ instructions on the mountain in Galilee as applying to himself, he would certainly have willingly and enthusiastically embraced the idea of making Cornelius a disciple. However, Peter tarried only a few days with Cornelius. Not only did he not spend enough time to make Cornelius a disciple, he ordered Cornelius be baptized in Jesus’ name and not in the name Jesus had instructed on the mountain in Galilee. Peter’s behavior with Cornelius clearly indicates Peter rightly understood the Great Commission was intended for another generation of Jews and not his generation.
Of course, if the church replaced Israel–as some in the early church believed–then the appropriate baptismal formula would be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (a preterist’s perspective). This historical fact may help explain the popularity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit baptismal formula. However, if nation Israel still has a future (the futurist’s viewpoint), then baptism into the church would be in Jesus’ name.
Jesus’ Presence And The End Of The Age
To encourage the disciples who would execute the Great Commission, Jesus instructed them to remember His ever-present presence, “even to the end of the age.” Such a promise may be reminiscent of the Lord’s encouragement to Moses, “Certainly I will be with you . . .” in carrying out his commission in a gentile nation—hence Jesus’ instructions to “remember.” The phrase, “end of the age,” likely refers to fulfillment of the times of the gentiles, and is nearly co-terminal with the end of the Great Tribulation and second coming.
Jesus taught in the ‘Olivet Discourse’ that His second coming would occur when “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” It is the ‘end’ Jesus mentioned earlier in the same discourse when He said, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Jesus’ prophecy about the gospel and its relationship to the end of the age is likely a seminal summary of His detailed commands later given the disciples atop the mountain in Galilee.
When the kingdom is restored to Israel before the tribulation, the spiritual revival and salvation of Israel as a nation will begin and God’s servant, Israel, will be responsible for making Jewish and gentile converts who will become citizens in the pending Messianic Kingdom. As we know, reassurance of the Lord’s protective presence for those disciples fulfilling the Great Commission will be critically important because of the terrible and devastating resistance mounted against their efforts by an earthbound Satan, the beast, and the false prophet as prophesized in Revelation.
Remember, the kingdom will be restored to Israel when the Lord God fulfills His promise reported by Ezekiel: “My holy name [I AM] I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name [I AM] be profaned anymore.” The initiation of Israel’s national conversion will occur immediately upon the church’s removal from earth because two administrative entities cannot have stewardship of God’s kingdom simultaneously—only sequentially, and without any hiatus. Making disciples of all nations “even to the end of the age” would be nonsensical if applied to the church because the church will not be present on the earth in that time period.
The Apostle Paul—Missionary to the Gentiles
Approximately a dozen-and-a-half years after the Great Commission was given, Jesus gave a specific task to His apostle Paul to make disciples in the gentiles nations of Asia Minor, Greece, Europe, and possibly Spain. Was Jesus’ commission to Paul necessary because His eleven disciples had failed to obey His Great Commission?
The answer is that the Great Commission was never intended for those eleven disciples, but rather for a future generation of Jews who would be spiritually awakened almost simultaneously with the rapture. The reason one can be assured that Paul was not Jesus’ substitute for the disobedient eleven is that Paul claimed God had set him apart from his mother’s womb for preaching Jesus among the gentiles. Of course, such a claim by Paul meant that at the time the Great Commission was given, God was at work preparing a contemporary of His Son who would become His missionary to the world.
Less than ten years into his missionary work, the apostle asserted that the gospel had successfully been made known to all the nations. The task had been completed for both the Jews in the Diaspora and for the gentiles. Paul and others had fulfilled the intent expressed in the Great Commission in their generation.
Summary and Conclusions
- Before Jesus’ death and resurrection, our Lord gave His disciples instruction about the Tribulation that included the preaching of the kingdom gospel to all nations thus pinpointing activation of the Great Commission.
- At the promulgation of the Great Commission, some disciples doubted Jesus’ God-given supremacy because some did not have the benefit of being eyewitnesses to His Transfiguration. Jesus’ reassured the doubtful by verbally asserting His God-given universal authority.
- Disciple making is a Messianic Kingdom convention and not a church practice.
- Baptizing disciples according to the Great Commission is to be in Yahweh’s name, not Jesus’ name.
- Teaching of disciples is organized around Jesus’ personal commands made during his earthly ministry, and does not extend to rabbinic, Pharisaic, or church doctrines.
- Jesus will accompany the besieged Jewish disciple makers from the rapture to the end of the Great Tribulation.
- God prepared and commissioned the apostle Paul to make disciples in all nations, a task never intended for the original eleven or the church. Paul successfully completed his commission.
The astounding conclusion to which these analyses point is that Jesus addressed the Great Commission to disciples not of His generation. He had spoken in similar fashion almost three weeks earlier. On the Mount of Olives during His final week, Jesus spoke directly to four of His disciples, yet actually addressed a future generation who would be living in the Great Tribulation. He did this without any signal, except context, indicating a switch in those addressed as subjects. Thus, Jesus addressed the eleven on the Galilean mountain, speaking prophetically in reference to a future Jewish generation.
The Great Commission is for Jews of the tribulation generation. The Great Commission does not apply to the church. Corroborating this conclusion is the fact that the apostle Paul wrote on three different occasions that the gospel had been made known to all the nations—even “to all creation under heaven.” Paul maintained the commandment to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ had been fulfilled during the apostolic era, as early as 57 A.D., roughly some two decades after his conversion but well within his lifetime. The apostolic era ended almost two millennia before the end of the age will end. Therefore, even proclaiming worldwide the gospel of Jesus Christ could not possibly pertain to the contemporary church. Because of the terminus ad quem, the Great Commission pertains to a period yet future, and is intended to recruit and develop qualified citizens for the Messianic Kingdom: first, Jews in Israel and of the Diaspora, and then gentiles.
The Great Commission was never repeated as a command to local churches in any of the epistles. This anomaly was not because the commandment was promoted by oral tradition or implication from scripture, as some have speculated, but because Jesus’ Jewish disciples understood His commands on the Galilean mountain did not apply to them or His church.
Although the disciples’ doubt about Jesus’ identity as King had been alleviated on the mountain in Galilee, the kingdom’s status was still at issue in the disciples’ minds. Moments before Jesus’ ascension, Luke noted His disciples asked, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus’ response amounted to keeping them in the dark, strongly indicating other matters were at hand—matters more timely, pertinent, and pressing than fulfilling the Great Commission. Jesus’ response probably confirmed the disciples’ suspicion that the Great Commission did not apply to them.
Understanding that the Great Commission applies to a post-church generation resolves Jesus’ apparent conflict between His restriction about teaching church doctrine, and His disciples John and Peter doing just that in their generation. As the prophet Daniel was informed, “knowledge will increase” in the tribulation generation. The knowledge phenomenon likely occurs because Jewish disciple makers come to believe the New Testament is indeed joined to the Old as the very Word of God. However, some of the New Testament is relevant only to church matters and may, therefore, be disregarded in teaching tribulation disciples.
Making disciples during the tribulation answers the problem of creating disunity in the church because the church will have been completed by the rapture before tribulation teaching begins. Tribulation disciples will have Jewish teachers and maintain their distinction as separately discipled groups—unlike the distinction-less members of the ‘new man’ known as the church. Gentiles with Jewish teachers will be a likely reality as pictured by Zechariah, “In those days, ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”
Would-be disciples will be taught that the Messianic Kingdom is about to be reality, and that unless their righteousness exceeds that of the Hassidic Jews’ righteousness, they cannot enter the kingdom. Belief on Jesus for forgiveness of sins will be obligatory for both Jewish and gentile citizenship. Teaching the Talmud will be irrelevant because Jesus had not taught the then nonexistent Talmud to His disciples.
The explanation of the baptismal formula has become clear—a clarity Peter and Paul would have recognized immediately. The generation of Jews coming out of Egypt had been baptized into the name of their great teacher, Moses; but Moses’ name was far too parochial for the Great Commission. Another formula was required to focus on both national Israel and on the forthcoming nationally-inclusive kingdom. That formula would be the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in contradistinction to the end-of-the-age worldwide kingdom of the unholy trio: Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. The apostle Paul knew the Great Commission did not apply to the church, for he stated to the Corinthians, “Christ did not send me to baptize . . .” Such an assertion by saint Paul could only be true if he were not commissioned under the Great Commission. Thus, Peter and Paul never violated the Lord’s baptismal instruction.
Paul was God’s agent in spreading the gospel of Jesus to gentiles as well as Diasporal Jews in all the nations. He stated repeatedly that the task had been effectively completed. The apostle’s words should effectively reduce the mania of modern mission.
What difference do these conclusions make for the contemporary local evangelical church? After all, the Lord has used modern missions as a conduit for some into His church. The difference is this: irrespective of what local churches and mission agencies propound, missions is not presently the central mission of the people of God. Love from a pure heart, pleasing God in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God are closer to the church’s central mission. Modern mission mania is perhaps a diabolical scheme to distract God’s children from pursuing holiness.
The enormous expenditure of local church resources in funds and prayers is currently being misdirected because of the myth of modern missions. Individuals from local congregations need not feel guilty because they remain at home leading a quiet life, attending to their own business, and working with their hands as the apostle Paul commanded the local church of the Thessalonians. A caveat: of course, if, while the Jewish and gentile elders of a local church are ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit says, “Set apart for Me elder (insert his name) for the work to which I have called him,” then by all means, “Go!” Finally, an elite class of saints known as missionaries who expect, and enjoy, preference in allocation of local church assets was never in view in the Lord’s plan for His church.
a biblical illustration
of the christian’s spiritual life
Introduction
Buried in a veritable treasure trove of personal vignettes throughout the New Testament are highlights of the God designed and God implemented Christian life. Such vignettes may be stitched together from the apostle Paul’s life—a full and imitable example of spiritual growth from birth to maturity.
However, a significant bifurcation has erupted in Christendom related to one item in Paul’s autobiography. At the center of this controversy is one’s understanding of Rom. 7:7-25. One understanding leads to spiritual growth and a God-honoring lifestyle. The other can lead to severance from Christ and falling from grace. While not indicative of loosing one’s salvation, or of never having been saved in the first place, this latter understanding can lead to a useless and unfruitful life for the believer.
The issue over the Roman’s passage boils down to this: did this cameo of Paul’s experience take place before the apostle was born again? Or, did the material recounted by Paul take place after he was born again?
Methodology
Which of these above-mentioned alternatives is correct? This essay will resolve the issue from the biblical record. The method for the study’s approach will be to encapsulate Paul’s life from the scriptural evidence into eighteen stages.
These somewhat arbitrary stages are chronological. Some might choose to organize Paul’s spiritual life experiences into fewer, or possibly more, segments. The rationale for itemizing in stages is clarity and succinctness for understanding, coupled with ease of quick and direct referral in the study to specific events in Paul’s life experiences.
Reasoning from four scriptural facts in Paul’s life, an argument will be framed that shows plainly which alternative is consistent with the evidence. A conclusion will summarize and contrast the implications of choosing the correct biblical understanding versus choice of the incorrect alternative.
Tracing the Spiritual Life of the Apostle Paul
Stage 1: Conception. A male offspring from the tribe of Benjamin was conceived. At conception, God gave him a human spirit (cf. Zech. 12:1; 2 Tim. 1:7; Heb. 12:9) thereby creating the unique person who would be born, Saul of Tarsus (vid. Eccles. 6:4 for the revelation that embryonic life has a name and therefore a personal identity). Refer to Stage 17 for Saul’s name change to Paul.
Stage 2: Birth. At birth, Paul was alive spiritually (vid. Deut. 1:39 which suggests spiritual life exists in infants and children). However, sin inherited from his father actively dwelt in his body from birth (Rom. 5:12). Sin dwelling in the human body was sometimes referred to biblically as the “flesh” (Rom. 7:14).
Translation note: the family of Greek manuscripts used in English translations of Rom. 5:12 contains an error. From more accurate manuscripts, the translation should read, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so it [sin] spread to all men on the basis of which all sin.”
Theological note: this correct translation nullifies the doctrine that all humanity sinned in Adam. However, believing this doctrine that all sinned in Adam means the above Stage 2 and the next Stage 3 would be significantly altered because Paul would have been spiritually dead in Adam at his own physical birth.
Stage 3: Initial Sin. At some point beyond infancy, indwelling sin compelled Paul to commit a sin (Rom. 5:12-13). Sin coerced Paul to sin either through deception or by its lusts, taking advantage of the fact that man is instinctively self-reliant. The nature of the sinful act was likely some sort of self-assertive act manifesting that Paul himself could live life quite independently of God’s truth.
God did not credit Paul’s account with his act of sin for future adjudication. Rather, God immediately invoked judgment. The judgment was spiritual death (Rom. 5:13-14).
Paul’s human spirit was severed from God. This severance probably left a spiritual channel by which Satan could access and control Paul (vid. John 13:27 and Mark 5:8 for direct control of humans by an unclean spirit or Satan himself; see also Eph. 2:2-3 for Paul’s possible acknowledgment that Satan controlled his life before being born again).
Further, indwelling sin became Paul’s permanent and omnipotent slave master (vid. John 8:34 for enslavement as the consequence of sinning). Also, Paul was totally unaware of his enslavement to indwelling sin (vid. John 8:33 where Paul’s Jewish brethren denied slavery to indwelling sin indicating sin’s indwelling presence went unperceived).
Stage 4: Education. Growing up in Jerusalem, Paul was educated by Gamaliel in strict accordance with the Law God had given Moses (Acts 22:3; Phil. 3:5). In the Law, God made provision for the absolutely unavoidable failure to obey His whole Law at all times. The provision was a sacrificial system that all Jews without exception (until Jesus) needed to cover the results of their failures (cf. Heb. 9:7).
Sacrifices provided a modicum of protection from the Law’s curse (physical death for disobedience, Deut. 28:20; vid. Gal. 3:10 indicating the whole Law was always in play for those under the Law) as well as maintaining God’s promised blessings of an abundant life (cf. Lev. 18:4-5; Deut. 28:1-14). The Law did not provide forgiveness of sins.
God also gave His Law so that His people would behave in a manner worthy of Him as the holy God of nation Israel.
Stage 5: Law. Paul was zealous for God’s Law, ignorant of God’s righteousness (1 Tim. 1:13) but nevertheless blameless according to the Law’s righteousness with its provision for failures (Phil. 3:6).
Stage 6: Lifestyle. However, Paul also lived in the lusts of his flesh, doing the desires of his flesh and of his futilely speculative reasoning. See Eph. 2:3 where not a scintilla of evidence exists whatsoever that Paul waged war mentally against sin’s agenda before being born again.
Stage 7: Persecution. Under the high-priestly ministration of the Law, Paul persecuted Jesus’ disciples (Phil. 3:6).
Stage 8: Damascus. While Paul was about his persecution initiatives and traveling to Damascus, Jesus personally confronted him about his violent aggression and sinful behavior (Acts 9:4; vid. 1 Tim. 1:12-14 for Paul’s summary of his life before Jesus’ confrontation). Paul was temporarily blinded physically during his encounter with the Lord.
Stage 9: New Birth. Three days following the confrontation, Jesus opened Paul’s eyes, physically and spiritually, so that Paul was filled with God’s Spirit, i.e., he became controlled by the Spirit. See Ezek. 36:27 for God’s promise of His Spirit indwelling those born again. Paul was baptized (likely by immersion in Jesus’ name) and began to proclaim Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 9:17-20). Paul was saved by faith in Christ’s death for forgiveness of his sins (vid. Acts 13:38 for Paul’s public proclamation of God’s promise of forgiveness).
God had given Paul a new human spirit, removed Paul’s heart of stone and implanted in Paul a heart of flesh (vid. Ezek. 36:26 for God’s promise of the new birth). This heart transplant likely took place through Paul’s Spirit baptism into Christ’s death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3-6). At this point, Paul was permanently and irreversibly alive spiritually.
God’s actions were not because Paul had obeyed or disobeyed His Law, but because of His grace alone (Gal. 1:15). In fact, God’s Law could not impart spiritual life (Gal. 3:21). So, Paul was now born again—spiritually alive apart from the Law due to faith alone in God’s grace.
Furthermore, sin dwelling in Paul’s body had been deactivated and rendered dormant, but not removed.
Stage 10: Discovery. Sometime shortly after being born again, Paul was prompted to return to his old Pharisaical lifestyle of Law keeping (vid. Acts 15:5 for what other believing Pharisees taught and practiced). Perhaps because of indoctrination under Gamaliel’s teaching and probably combined with some good intentions fueling an intense competitive drive to excel among Jesus’ apostles (vid. Gal. 1:14 for his competitive spirit), Paul made the lethal decision that he himself would covet no longer (Rom. 7:7). Influencing Paul’s decision was likely sin’s deceptive suggestion that the believer himself must obey the Law to please God (Rom. 7:11). Thus, Paul’s decision enabled indwelling sin to become alive and active.
Because the Law activates and empowers indwelling sin (cf. 1 Cor. 15:56), Paul discovered that he could not stop coveting (Rom. 7:8). He had fallen from grace (vid. Gal. 5:4 where the decision to obey a single commandment of the Law severs one from Christ).
Even though he recoiled in disgust at his coveting, Paul discovered he was powerless to stop sinning because sin was in full control of his members (Rom. 7:14-23). The Law was now about to become Paul’s “child-conductor” to Christ (cf. Rom. 7:24-25; Gal. 3:24).
Stage 11: Death. The sin Paul committed by breaking the Law’s ‘no coveting’ commandment produced in him the knowledge of indwelling sin (Rom. 7:21-23). However, Paul’s act of sin also resulted in broken fellowship with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. Such a condition for Paul was known biblically as being dead (cf. Psalm 32:3-4; Rom. 7:12; vid. 1 Tim. 5:6 and Rev. 3:1 for “dead” believers). This state was not loss of salvation, or evidence that he had never been saved originally in Damascus.
Stage 12: Confession. Paul confessed his act of sin (Rom. 7:24). God restored Paul to fellowship with Himself and with His Son whose blood cleansed Paul from all unrighteousness (cf. 1 John 1:7).
Stage 13: Lordship. At this juncture, God revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. 1:16). Note: this revelatory event was quite distinct from what happened on the way to Damascus when Jesus was revealed to Paul.
Paul now received Jesus as Lord of his life so He might bear fruit to God (Rom. 7:4; 10:9). As a spiritual new-born, he had just been conducted to Christ and His Lordship by his experience with attempting to obey the Law himself (Rom. 8:1-2).
Stage 14: Faith. Paul began to live under grace by faith (cf. Rom. 4:16) after taking the twin decisions to make Jesus Lord of his life, and to not obey the Law himself. His life now conformed to Habakkuk’s maxim that the righteous will live by his faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17).
Paul’s mindset effectually switched from, ‘I must . . .’ to ‘God will . . .’ (Rom. 8:5). From this point forward, God would cause Paul—by Christ’s indwelling and by the Holy Spirit—to walk in God’s statutes and to be careful to observe His ordinances (vid. Ezek. 36:27). The Spirit manifested Jesus’ life through the apostle by faith (cf. 2 Cor. 4:10-11).
Miraculously, Paul’s life displayed Jesus’ perfect obedience to His Father’s will—miraculous because it was humanly impossible for Paul to overcome indwelling sin with its agenda of bearing fruit for death (Rom. 7:5; vid. John 14:12 for Jesus’ promise that His disciples would perform greater miracles by the Spirit than He had, e.g., righteousness while indwelling sin was present but miraculously dormant). Such miracles took place “in”—a translation correction from “among”—those in the Galatian churches as reported in Gal. 3:5. Paul was saved from God’s wrath meted out for perpetual slavery to indwelling sin. He was saved by Christ’s resurrected life (Rom. 5:9; cf. Acts 13:39)—a difference from being saved by Christ’s death for forgiveness of his sins (cf. Acts 13:38).
The above circumstances resulted in the apostle’s later declaration: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is not longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and delivered Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).
Stage 15: Prayer. Paul’s freedom from enslavement to his indwelling sin was re-established. His enduring prayer was to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness by purposely, or even inadvertently, obeying the Law himself (Phil. 3:9).
Stage 16: Mission. Paul became fruitful and useful for Jesus’ ministry to the gentiles (vid. Rom. 16:26; Col. 1:23; 2 Tim 4:17 for Paul’s success; see also 2 Peter 1:8 where growing spiritual maturity, evidenced by love, results in fruitfulness and usefulness).
Stage 17: Name Change. During his first formal missionary endeavor for the gentiles, Saul began using the name Paul—perhaps to highlight his born again status or to accommodate gentile listeners (Acts 13:9; vid. Matt. 16:18 for a similar name change with Simon to Peter). Please note that in this study, the name “Paul” is used throughout for convenience and consistency. The reader can make the proper name adjustment when the essay material applies to Saul’s life before the name change.
Stage 18: Future. Before His physical death, Paul made the accurate claim to his son in the faith, Timothy, that he had fought the good fight, had kept the faith, and confidently asserted the crown of righteousness would be awarded him in heaven (2 Tim. 4:7-8).
Analysis of the Biblical Evidence
At the outset of this analysis, let us agree based on Stages 1-18 that there were only two possible periods in Paul’s life when he was alive to God apart from the Law. The first period is described in Stages 1-2. The second period is described in Stage 9.
One key to understanding Paul’s declaration of life apart from the Law made in Rom. 7:9 is to determine from the facts which of the two periods Paul had in mind when he made the declaration, “. . . I was once alive apart from the Law.”
A. Fact One: Sin’s Resurrection.
In the Rom. 7:9 passage, Paul noted, “. . .sin became (emphasis mine) alive, and I died . . .” Recall, Stages 1-2 of Paul’s life covered his physical lifespan until adolescence. During that period, he was spiritually alive apart from the Law. However, indwelling sin was also continually alive, eventually forcing the events of Stage 3—Paul’s initial act of sin that carried the immediate penalty of his spiritual death (unless one believes the spurious doctrine that all sinned in Adam which means Paul was never alive spiritually before being born again).
At the point in Paul’s young life reported in Stage 2, sin had always been alive and active because sin was at work in Paul from his physical birth until his rebirth. During his youth, God’s Spirit did not yet indwell his body to block sin’s spiritual ravages (vid. Gal 5:17 and Rom. 8:13 for the Spirit’s ministry against indwelling sin). So, Stages 1-2 do not fit the apostle’s statement in Rom. 7:9.
By Stage 9, however, Paul’s spiritual rebirth had deactivated indwelling sin, rendering it dormant or ‘dead.’ Stage 10 provided the occasion for his bringing indwelling sin back to life. This sequence from Stage 9 to Stage 10 fits perfectly with Paul’s claim that sin became alive and killed him. Therefore, a review of indwelling sin’s activity in the apostle’s life coincides perfectly with Paul’s spiritual life after rebirth—and not before his being born again.
B. Fact Two: Ignorance.
Paul readily admitted he would not have come to know the character of sin dwelling in his body had it not been for the Law (Rom. 7:7).
His state of ignorance about sin was consistent with the state of some Jews who had engaged Jesus in a spiritual discussion touching the issue of slavery—slavery to indwelling sin and their ignorance about their slavery (John 8:32-33). Although those Jews likely believed certain facts about Jesus, they were not born again as indicated in their rejoinder to Jesus’ spiritual observation by declaring their physical heritage. Thus as with these Jews, Paul’s ignorance about sin corresponded to a period in his life before being born again as recorded in Stage 9. His discourse in Rom. 7:7-25, therefore, must have related to a time almost coincidental, but certainly after, the moment he was born again.
C. Fact Three: Mental Warfare.
Rom. 7:15-23 was a review of the intense mental warfare the apostle Paul waged with indwelling sin. However, in Paul’s letter to the saints at Ephesus, he recalled his life before being born again as typified by blithely living his life in the lusts of indwelling sin and of his mental speculations (Eph. 2:3). These two brief insights from Paul’s letters to Rome and Ephesus respectively, obviously paint each of Paul’s mental/emotional experiences in starkly different colors. Since his letter to the Ephesian saints clearly stated the apostle’s spiritual condition was before being born again, the Romans passage describing mental turmoil must refer to a time in Paul’s life after he was born again.
D. Fact Four: Failure.
In Rom. 7:8, Paul confessed his utter failure to accomplish his good intentions. Before he was born again, Paul had never admitted failure while under the Law because the temple’s sacrificial system was available for him to cover failure (cf. Phil. 3:6). Therefore, Paul’s confession must correspond to a period after he was born again when temple ritual had become obsolete (Heb. 8:13).
Factual summary: While free from the control of indwelling sin, Paul decided to obey the Law. His decision brought valuable insight into the character of indwelling sin, but at the expense of miserable failure, mental warfare, and enslavement to sin. One deduction from the apostle’s experience might be that any attempt to obey the Law oneself by a believer leads to gross disobedience because indwelling sin is empowered by the Law resulting in re-enslavement.
Corroboration Through a Warning
One way of corroborating the deductive reasoning referred to in the factual summary above would be to discover in Paul’s other biblical writings a similar deduction. Such a deduction may be found in Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia.
This letter was written early in Paul’s missionary work to Jews and gentiles assembling in the local churches of Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe. It is a safe assumption that Paul’s early spiritual life experiences—Stages 9-15—form a backdrop to the apostle’s Galatians letter. The significance of the wide variety of believers in several geographic locations testifies to the widespread prevalence of this issue regarding the Law and indwelling sin.
The apostle Paul sent a warning to all believers in those churches: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:1-3). These sentiments clearly express a close similarity to the Rom. 7:7-25 passage.
The warning is aimed at those after they had been born again, and not to unbelievers. Since this is a warning, making the spiritually effective decision not to obey the Law would be tantamount to heeding Paul’s admonition. Hence, Paul’s warning corroborates as valid the deduction that obeying the Law can lead a believer into sinful behavior and re-enslavement to indwelling sin.
Conclusions
Should Rom. 7:7-25 be considered a snap shot of life before Paul was born again as some contend, then Paul’s experience is removed from anything a child of God might encounter in his spiritual development. Furthermore, at the center of a letter to saints, Rom. 7:7-25 becomes interpreted as a biblically unprecedented message for unbelievers as to how one might become saved through law. Such a message violates Jesus’ teaching that becoming born again is both unpredictable and uncontrollable (John 3:8).
A critical and noteworthy observation at this point is that God did not enable Paul to obey His Law no matter how sincere, admirable and determined his efforts were to do so. God’s grace by faith and man’s works cannot be mingled (Rom. 11:6) as the word “enable” suggests.
However, as has been demonstrated from biblical evidence, Rom. 7:7-25 is Paul’s personal testimony of his attempted law-keeping experience after he had been born again. Recognizing and believing this truth by deciding not to obey law oneself can put God’s child on a sure course of spiritual growth and a God-honoring lifestyle—thereby avoiding Paul’s dreadful spiritual experience with attempting to obey the Law.
The apostle made the same point to the Galatian churches by the conclusion: “Therefore, the Law has become (emphasis mine) our child conductor to Christ . . .” (Gal. 3:24). Here was a new and distinctive role for the Law that could only be applicable to a point in time after Christ’s death and resurrection—not before, when Paul’s childhood adolescence ended in spiritual death.
In the early church, one’s spiritual life was sometimes described in stages analogous to one’s physical life: infancy, childhood, youth, and finally fatherhood (cf. 1 John 2:13; 1 Cor. 3:1; Gal. 4:19). So when Paul used the terminology “child conductor,” he likely was referring to a stage of spiritual development after God’s forgiveness of sins. Keep in mind, when Paul was spiritually alive in the above-mentioned Stages 1 and 2, John the Baptist and Jesus had not yet begun their respective ministries so the Law cannot be retrospectively labeled a “child conductor” for the unbelieving Paul, or for any other unbelieving Jew.
In addition to becoming a “child conductor” for youthful believers, the Law revealed the following aspects of indwelling sin’s character:
- its permanent presence in all believers until physical death or rapture,
- its deceptiveness that obeying God’s law oneself is mandatory to please God,
- its killing power, separating believers from God,
- its enslaving power,
- its condemnation of oneself ending with the believer putting himself down, or beating himself up, and continually resolving to do better,
- its omnipotence over those believers under its power, and
- the believer’s complete helplessness requiring God alone to set the believer free.
The principles derived from Rom. 7:7-25 definitely apply to believers today. For believers who are Jews, the application refers to the Mosaic Law. For gentiles, the application is to the “elemental things” of the world that include obeying any law or behavioral ethic by which one seeks to please God (vid. Gal. 4:9).
The present day essence of law for either Jew or gentile is this: “love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14). This law must be obeyed, but not by the believer himself. Rather, the indwelling Christ Himself obeys this law as Lord of His believing bond-servant in response to His servant’s faith. The result: God alone is the One who receives the glory for His ingenious plan and its miraculous execution.
the parable of the sower
(Matthew 13:3-8; 18-23; Mark 4:3-8; 13- 20; Luke 8:5-8; 11-15)
Introduction
Jesus couched a significant portion of His earthly teaching ministry in parables—significant not only in numbers (48, by one count) but also in content and timing.
The first and foremost of Jesus’ parables was the Parable of the Sower. A popular title has been coined: the “Parable of the Four Soils.” The Lord Himself emphatically underscored to His disciples the importance of understanding this parable, for such understanding would provide the key to interpreting the rest of His parables.
All those in Christendom who have heard or read the Parable of the Sower understand the parable in one of two ways: one, three of the four soils represent saved people; or two, just one of the four soils, the last, represents a person who will be in heaven. Only one of these alternative understandings can be what Jesus intended His disciples to grasp. An apt subtitle for the parable might be, the “Crossroads of Christendom.” The following essay is aimed at clarifying what Jesus taught in this parable. An accurate understanding will provide significant insight into productive Christian living.
Background
Jesus started teaching in parables for two reasons: one, to fulfill an Isaianic prophecy of a discerning-destroying judgment against those of His generation who rejected Him as God’s Anointed One; and two, to reveal vital foundational information regarding God’s kingdom management that would follow Jesus’ rejection—information that had not been provided in the biblical material of previous generations. Initiation of parabolic teaching also marked the beginning point of God’s temporary administrative transfer of kingdom management from Israel to Jesus’ soon-to-be-formed church (cf. Matt. 21:43; Acts 1:6).
Someone suggested that a biblical parable tells an earthly story about a heavenly truth. This is a workable definition providing that “earthly” and “heavenly” are understood as follows. “Earthly” may sometimes be expanded in meaning to include other items in the physical universe like the air and sun. “Heavenly” truth is not descriptive material about the biblical place labeled heaven. Heavenly truth is better understood as a spiritual reality—matters that relate to the spiritual realm both external and internal to man.
Jesus’ Interpretation of the Sower Parable
For His disciples’ benefit, Jesus outlined briefly a paradigm for interpreting His parables. One discovers that the first thing Jesus did when He was alone with His disciples was to concentrate on explaining the ‘heavenly’ meanings of three nouns in the parable. The three parable nouns were the seed, birds, and soil (Luke. 8:11-12). Jesus left about 70 percent of the parable nouns uninterpreted.
However, Jesus did provide the spiritual interpretation of two parable verbs that would help His disciples interpret the parable nouns related to the two verbs. For example, the sun’s effects (i.e., verbal action), referred to as withering, were interpreted as afflictions and persecutions. In addition, the thorns’ verbal action, choking, was interpreted as worry, deceit, and certain desires. Thus, Jesus left His disciples some interpretative homework to broaden their own understandings of the parable nouns’ spiritual realities. So identifying the spiritual realities of most parable nouns was the key component of the framework Jesus gave wherein one might come to understand fully His parables. Keep in mind, parable nouns were never intended to be understood literally.
Furthermore, when His disciples asked the meaning of a subsequent parable featuring wheat and tares, Jesus’ response to His disciples’ query was to interpret almost 90 percent of that parable’s nouns. Therefore, our Lord’s comprehensive pinpointing of the noun meanings in the wheat/tares parable confirms the paradigm He gave His disciples for interpreting the parables: identify the spiritual realities of the parable’s earthly nouns.
Please note one other important feature of the sower parable and Jesus’ interpretation of it. The correspondence between a noun in the earthly story and its spiritual counterpart identified by interpretation is either one of innate similarities, or of similarities in their actions.
For example, consider the parable noun ‘sun.’ The sun enjoys the innate characteristic of universality—that is, the sun shines on everything. Also in the parable, the action of a scorching sun withered some plants. From the similarity between the innate nature of the sun, plus its sometimes-devastating agricultural effect (interpreted by Jesus as affliction and persecution in the spiritual realm), it becomes possible to uncover and identify the spiritual noun represented by the parable’s earthly noun, ‘sun.’ This interpretive approach is demonstrated in End Note No. 5.
Nouns in the Parable of the Sower
The following is a composite list of 11 nouns taken from the gospels’ records of the Parable of the Sower: sower, seed, path, birds, rocky ground, soil, moisture, sun, root, thorns, and crop.
The Parabolic Nouns with Their Respective Spiritual Meanings
Jesus gave the following meanings for about 30 percent of the above-mentioned nouns: the seed is the word of God, the birds are Satan, and the soil is the human heart.
Soil Preparation
From a sketchy knowledge of agriculture, proper soil preparation is likely one of the important precursors to producing a bountiful crop. The Parable of the Sower, however, is not an earthly story about proper soil preparation, nor is the parable about soil reclamation or remediation after a planting failure.
In fact, some soil preparation like plowing or harrowing must be presupposed when reading the parable, or else the sower would surely pass quickly onto another means of earning a livelihood because he naively sowed seed on unprepared ground. Since soil in the parable corresponds to the spiritual reality of the human heart (the ‘organ’ of belief, cf. Rom. 10:10), one might well inquire into how, and by whom, human hearts are prepared to receive the seed that is the word of God.
God alone prepares human hearts to receive His word, quite apart from any contribution that might correspond spiritually to man’s plowing or harrowing. God’s prophet Ezekiel best described God’s promise of heart preparation. Quoting God’s promise, “. . . I will give you a new [prepared] heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone [unprepared] from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances” (Ezek. 36:26-27). God’s prophetically-revealed heart protocols feature nothing less than a permanent and irreversible heart transplant—not merely valve or arterial repairs.
God gave the apostle Paul an insight into how His celestial surgery for humans takes place. Stone heart removal likely occurs when the Spirit baptizes a person into the death of Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3). New heart implanation (together with a new human spirit) follows when the Spirit next baptizes that person into Christ’s resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:5).
According to God’s promise, reception of the heart transplant takes place in the flesh formerly housing the heart of stone. This is a critically important fact about the new heart’s environment. The flesh retains its former constituents, including indwelling sin and a mindset developed during one’s lifetime following physical birth.
Indwelling sin is a permanent part of the new heart’s surroundings (until the new heart is housed in a new body—see 2 Cor. 5:1). The Spirit’s ministry probably protects the new heart against environmental corruption from indwelling sin (cf. Eph. 4:30).
Implantation of a new human heart and a new human spirit is equivalent to a new birth for the human. Biblically, the result of God’s heart-transplant surgery is labeled as being born again. Aspects of a mindset fashioned by life’s pre-salvation experiences are subject to change by ‘mind renewal’ as the believer matures (cf. Rom. 12:2).
The Spiritual Realities of the Story’s Nouns: Allegory Versus Parable
The technical difference between an allegory and a parable is that an allegory’s author must disclose the meaning of his story’s nouns within the allegory itself, whereas a parable’s nouns are not explained within the parable (cf. Gal. 4:22-31 for an allegory in which Paul identified the meaning of the nouns within his story). Meanings of parabolic nouns can be discovered by interpretation because the author selects the parable’s nouns based on their intrinsic nature and their actions in the story, which correspond to similar aspects of the spiritual nouns the author intended the parable nouns to represent.
For example, in the Sower parable, Jesus interpreted the birds of the air as representing Satan. Although invisible to the human eye, Satan occupies and/or travels two separate domains—the heavenly and the earthly. Likewise, birds travel in the air above the earth as well as on the soil upon the earth. Also, birds instinctively remove seed from the ground, similar to the way Satan instinctively removes God’s word from unprepared human hearts. Birds, therefore, were an excellent noun for the sower parable—an earthly story to explain some of Satan’s heavenly (i.e., spiritual) activities. The birds have certain qualities and actions that compare well with some of Satan’s spheres of operation as well as his nefarious actions with God’s word.
Sowing and Cropping
The Parable of the Sower depicts a single growing season of sowing and cropping. It is probably reasonable to assume Jesus intended this parable to recount a single agricultural cycle of planting and harvesting thus representing the spiritual lives of different believers from the point of rebirth to physical death or rapture.
The Parable of the Sower—A Full-Orbed Interpretation
Using Jesus’ paradigm for parable interpretation of comparative similarities between the story’s nouns (i.e., innate characteristics plus their actions or effects) and their intended spiritual counterparts:
- the sower is a teacher of God’s word,[i]
- the path is a heart of stone,[ii]
- the rocky soil is the flesh,[iii]
- the moisture is God’s Spirit,[iv]
- the sun is Satan’s world system,[v]
- the root is Jesus abiding in the human heart,[vi]
- the thorns are sin that dwells in the flesh,[vii] and
- the crop of fruit is God’s righteousness.[viii]
Using the above spiritual counterparts to the nouns in the Parable of the Sower, a full understanding of the parable is as follows.
During God’s kingdom administration following Jesus’ death and resurrection, a born-again teacher would travel about teaching God’s word. The teacher’s listeners either had God-prepared hearts, or they did not have God-prepared hearts. They were in two mutually exclusive spiritual states. Due to the combination of impenetrable hearts and satanic theft, some did not receive God’s word and thereby remained unsaved. This was the destiny of those represented by the first soil.
It is noteworthy that the seed of God’s word falling upon the next three soils in the parable produced in each soil a ‘blade.’ The blade gave clear and conclusive evidence that germination—new life—had taken place in all three soils. This seed germination in the earthly story was equivalent to the spiritual reality of a new birth.
A second group of listeners received God’s word. To receive God’s word means biblically to believe the teacher’s curriculum containing God’s promise of forgiveness of sins. Belief of God’s forgiveness promise always results in passing out of death into life. This life, permanent and irreversible, was evidenced by the Spirit-produced joy emanating from those who experienced the new life.
Exposure to God’s implanted word immediately began to erode old beliefs, attitudes, and habits resulting in changes in speech and behavioral patterns (cf. Matt. 13:21 where God’s word in the new heart was credited with the changes). However, resulting spiritual growth promoted exclusively by God’s word was met with intense affliction and persecution originating from within the unbelieving community that forms an integral part of Satan’s world system. The believer was pressured to abandon his fledgling transformation and return to his former lifestyle thus arresting development prior to any fruit bearing.
Remember, fruitlessness is not evidence of spiritual lifelessness. See 2 Pet. 1:1-8 where Peter’s letter to believers clearly indicates fruitfulness is contingent upon spiritual growth.
Because Jesus did not abide in their new hearts (to paraphrase from His parable, ‘they had no root in themselves’), and because the indwelling ministry of God’s Spirit was quenched (again paraphrasing, ‘the scorching sun evaporated moisture from the thin soil layer covering the rocky formation’), they quickly responded to community pressure and reverted to old and sinful behavioral patterns.
Biblically, this state is sometimes referred to as “death” in the believer (cf. Rom. 7:9; 1 Tim. 5:6; Rev. 3:1). But this “death” was neither physical nor spiritual. This death may be understood as a believer’s separation from fellowship with the Father and the Son (cf. 1 John 1:3-7).
A third group received God’s word much like the second. In fact, listeners in this group actually began to bear the fruit of righteousness—another factor testifying to, and confirming, their new birth. However, the fruit-yielding growth stage was only temporary.
Sin dwelling in their bodies (in the parable, the thorn seeds) gained and asserted dominant control over thoughts, feelings, and resulting actions. Sin actually ‘choked’ the believer’s development through destroying belief in God’s word of grace, resulting in the disappearance of God’s righteousness from their new lifestyles. Fruit bearing, initially manifested, was arrested. This group may also be characterized as ‘dead’ due to severance from Christ and falling from grace (cf. Gal. 5:4).
The fourth group of listeners/believers in this parable was in fact divided into three sections of mature and consistent fruit producers: those yielding a minimal amount of fruit; those producing a moderate amount; and those displaying a bountiful crop. Each individual in this group had made Jesus Lord of his life and was filled with God’s Spirit on various occasions. Despite the external pressures from unbelieving family members, friends, and associates, plus the internal deceptions/lusts of indwelling sin, God provided growth and fruitfulness.
Interpretive Criticisms
Two criticisms of the above interpretation come to mind immediately. First, some of the above noun interpretations may seem a bit fanciful or even overdrawn. Second, Jesus’ disciples could not have had enough information to make full interpretations on the occasion that the parable was given.
In response to the first criticism, an End Notes section has been appended to this essay with details of the comparative features, or comparative actions/effects, between the nouns in the parable and their respective spiritual interpretations.
Second, while it is quite true Jesus’ disciples initially lacked adequate revelation for a full understanding of the sower parable when it was originally told, it is highly likely the gospel authors did possess the necessary information at the time they wrote their accounts of Jesus’ life. What those biblical authors knew is also available to us in the New Testament. And we live in the age to which the parables apply. Furthermore, man lives on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matt.4:4)—not just a few select nouns.
Conclusions
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that three of the four soils in the Parable of the Sower represent hearts of born-again believers.
While not a parable about heart preparation for receiving God’s word, the Parable of the Sower reveals a fivefold variation in the righteousness evidenced by believers’ behavior after being born again. Although the range of fruit production from the last three soils ran from zero to a hundred fold, the conclusion that lack of fruit meant some of those believers were never saved, or lost their salvation, is invalid.
Some believers never exhibit God’s righteousness due to hostile intimidation from the unbelieving community of family and friends; nevertheless, they are saved. Some believers exhibit God’s righteousness for a time and then succumb to control by indwelling sin. They are likewise saved. Other believers become fruitful despite intimidation or the presence of the growth inhibitor sin, and yield the fruitfulness for which God’s word was implanted in their hearts—manifesting God’s righteousness through faith at various times throughout life.
Jesus’ abiding in the hearts of believers, as well as the spiritual-growth-maintaining ministry of God’s indwelling Spirit, collaborate to produce the crop of God’s righteousness.
Spiritual growth from prepared hearts represented by the respective soils is due directly and exclusively to God through God-prepared hearts believing His word (1 Cor. 3:6; 1 Thess. 2:13).
According to the scriptures, God’s righteousness in a believer’s life is duly rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). Adversaries to the believer’s fruitfulness are Satan’s world system, and indwelling sin. God’s provision for victory over the believers’ adversaries is the indwelling Christ working with God’s Spirit also indwelling the believer.
Since a wide variety of fruitfulness is to be expected among believers, it is probably inappropriate for any believer to judge the heart condition of another believer. This judgment is left to Christ Jesus (cf. Rom. 2:16).
[i]Since the sower walks about broadcasting the seed that represents God’s word, the sower was likely intended to represent a peripatetic teacher whose subject matter was gathered from God’s revelation. An example of a sower was the Lord who was sometimes referred to as “Teacher” (John 3:2).
[ii]Constant foot travel rendered the soil of path surfaces impervious to seed penetration. Such a condition points to a “heart of stone” (cf. Ezek. 36:26).
Seed falling on a path’s hardened surface was further disturbed by being trampled under foot and removed by pecking birds, thereby preventing germination. Soil in the parable represented the human heart. God described impenetrable hearts that could not receive His word as hearts of stone. So the path probably represented human hearts unprepared by God that were simply unable to believe God’s salvation promise.
[iii]According to Ezek. 36:26, stone-heart replacement takes place in the flesh. After being born again, the apostle Paul discovered this about the flesh: ‘nothing but evil dwells in my flesh’ (paraphrase of Rom. 7:18-21). The flesh impedes or inhibits spiritual development. Thus, God-prepared hearts implanted atop an underlying environment (described in the parable as “rocky”) suffer inhibited spiritual growth development due to the flesh. While the seed (God’s word) did germinate in the thin soil—indicating the presence of permanent spiritual life—the plant’s root could not penetrate, or develop around, the rock. The underlying rock had the effect of impeding or inhibiting root development. Therefore, effects of the rocky underpinnings of the second soil readily represent the flesh.
[iv]The word “moisture” means water is present. Jesus used the noun water to indicate the reality of God’s Spirit dwelling within a human (cf. John 4:10; 7:38-39). As the effects of water are absolutely essential to support earthly life, so too the Spirit’s ministry is absolutely essential for the maintenance of spiritual life.
Furthermore, the particular word translated “moisture” was a new word in the disciples’ vocabulary, possibly indicating the new ministry of God’s Spirit promised under the New Covenant. So moisture probably corresponds to God’s Spirit.
[v]The sun is experienced universally. So, too, is Satan’s world system. No one escapes the world’s influential propaganda and compelling pressures to conform to its principles and values. The sun and world have comparable intrinsic characteristics.
For seed germination, the warm rays of the sun are welcomed at the outset of the growing season. When the blade appears, the sun provides the necessary energy for photosynthesis with the effect of plant growth toward maturity. But the scorching rays from the sun on a hot summer’s day can prove inimical to growth.
The world’s effects compare precisely with this dramatic variation of the sun’s effects on earthly life. The world provides the necessities of life—food, shelter, clothing (cf. Eccles. 2:26). However, at times, the world is aggressively hostile toward the believer’s spiritual development (cf. John 15:19). So the sun is a worthy parable noun to indicate the spiritual reality of the world and its effects on believers.
[vi]Although their descendent, Jesus was known biblically as the root of Jesse (Rom. 15:12) as well as the root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16). Jesus’ ‘root-function’ is support for the believer’s spiritual life by acting as the believer’s channel to God’s (New Covenant) promises (cf. Rom. 11:18). In addition, Paul attested to Jesus being un-rooted in believers’ hearts in his prayer for the Ephesian saints (cf. Eph. 3:14-19; see also Gal. 4:19 for believers without Christ in their hearts). Therefore, the root in the sower parable likely represents none other than Jesus Himself who dwells spiritually in the hearts of some believers.
[vii]Jesus described the thorns’ effects as deceit, worry, and certain desires. These effects are all internal to a believer—unlike the affliction and persecution coming from the external unbelieving community. Thorns choked out physical growth. The effects of indwelling sin in a believer’s heart are deceit (Rom. 7:11) and desire (Rom. 7:8, where desire is translated as “coveting”). Therefore, indwelling sin chokes out spiritual growth. Based on the similarities between the effects of the parable noun “thorns,” and the spiritual reality of indwelling sin, it is most likely that the thorns were selected by Jesus to represent indwelling sin.
[viii]Note: interpretation of some parable nouns may come directly from colloquial sayings or previous parable use as recorded by other biblical writers. For example, “The seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (Jas. 3:18) is likely such a saying. Jesus was a Sower whose message was a righteousness greater than the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Thus, the parable noun “fruit” may be interpreted as the spiritual reality of righteousness—God’s righteousness that is greater than the Pharisees’ righteousness.
A recent discussion between a Jewish believer and a gentile believer about the Law and grace ended with the critical question, “Why did God address New Covenant believers through such an abundance of biblical imperatives?” The astonishing answer to this simple query has profound implications for the believer, both during and after life on earth. This essay assembles the biblical evidence upon which the answer may be proffered.
Sometimes the biblical writers referred to the imperatives God gave Moses as “the Law.” Other times, pagan society’s laws regulating gentile religious life were included under the sobriquet of “the elementary principles (or elemental things) of the world.” Finally, the word law was used to describe spiritual principles such as “the law of sin.” A scriptural definition of law for our purposes is any code or ethic—Jewish or gentile—that governs man’s behavior in relationship to God, or to his fellow man.
However, life lived under the New Covenant is a life not lived under law. The reason God removes a believer from the jurisdiction of law is that law activates the sin that dwells in the body of each believer. Law has this effect because it originates from a recognized authority and is addressed directly to the individual, putting the focus solely on that person alone.
Activated sin deceives the believer into thinking that a lifestyle pleasing to God must be lived by the believer, himself, obeying the God-given laws—imperatives—of the scriptures. Responding to this deception, the believer experiences devastating failure: his own uncontrollable acts of sin, loss of the life of fellowship with God and Christ, and the possible pressuring influence from the evil and hostile spiritual domain.
“Why then, does God give us His word replete with imperatives?” Here are some reasons:
- to reveal God’s holiness,
- to teach His child about the realities and power of indwelling sin,
- to lead His child to Christ as life under the New Covenant,
- to govern the life of those believers who choose to live under law,
- to establish a basis for crediting sins to the accounts of unbelievers, and
- to maintain physical life.
Two questions that immediately come to mind when a believer hears that life is to be lived, by God’s design, free from law are: “Does that mean I am free to commit sins?” and “From which part of the law am I free?”
The answer to the first question is that Christ lives His life through God’s child and Christ does not commit sins. Consequently, the believer’s life with Christ controlling as Lord is bereft of sinful acts.
The answer to the second question is that if a believer is still thinking about keeping law, even if it boils down to only one law, he doesn’t understand the concept of living under grace rather than law. Under grace there is no law. Keep in mind, where there is no law, there is no violation of law.
Believers should come to realize two aspects of New Covenant living. First, living under grace means a counter-intuitive repudiation by the believer of his own obedience to law. Law and grace are mutually exclusive. Astoundingly, a heaven-bound believer trying to obey God’s law has fallen from grace.
Second, the definition of grace is God Himself doing what God commands the believer to do. Grace is not God helping or enabling the believer to do what He commands. An important caveat: under the New Covenant, God supplies His child-to-be with the necessary new (and permanent) equipment to receive, understand, and believe His covenant promises. In this sense, God’s grace enables the unbeliever to believe.
God provides grace to the believer through the believer’s faith in God’s promises to do what He commands. The believer’s responsibility under the New Covenant is to discover, and to believe, God’s promises that relate to the believer. Believing means desisting from all attempts to contribute to God’s grace. Such belief is credited to the believer’s account as God’s righteousness because God does what God commands. And at the end of life, God alone receives the glory (credit) for what He has accomplished. The believer is rewarded for believing God’s promises and becoming an informed and willing instrument is His hands.
“Why so many imperatives?” Imperatives are God’s universal teaching tools to conduct believers directly to His grace culminating in their life-rewards from living by faith, free from the control of indwelling sin.
On God’s Commandments And Being Proactive
Years ago, a seventh-grade English teacher introduced her grammar students to a verb’s active voice and passive voice. In the active voice, someone does something—as in, “the boy loved the girl.” In the passive voice, something is done to or for someone by someone—as in, “the girl is loved by the boy.”
About two decades later, authors of a college handbook advised that the passive voice produces weak sentences. The handbook counseled the passive is only appropriate if the doer of the action is unknown.
Today, word processors have a grammar check that invariably discourages use of the passive (which makes typing this essay a challenge). After all, we live in a proactive culture where the go-getter is applauded for actively taking and executing initiatives. Passivity is passé.
But not in theology. Because the human race is infected with the deadly virus known as “indwelling sin,” passivity is the only path to life.
Scripture reveals the astounding reality that the believer’s proactive decision to obey God’s commandments actually activates the dormant but deadly virus know as indwelling sin, enabling sin to gain a death grip over the believer’s bodily members. Everything the saint does or accomplishes under sin’s deadly control is impure or unclean from God’s perspective. Therefore, under this condition, the saint’s works are unrecognized by God, or are unacceptable to God. Biblically, such works are labeled dead works.
When Moses delivered God’s commandments to Israel, the good-intentioned, proactive population declared with one voice, “all that the Lord has spoken, we will do!” What happened next was catastrophic. By the popular vow to be proactive, indwelling sin took control of their minds and bodies, fashioned a golden idol, and worshipped it. God’s first response to this heinous activity was the desire to obliterate His people.
Most people would agree that obedience to God’s commandments is essential for life as God intended life to be lived. Since indwelling sin is enabled to control one’s bodily members by one’s decision to actively obey God, how can the saint live outside or beyond this control of sin? The answer to this puzzle is: passivity!
God’s plan for life is that the believer should actively decide not to obey God’s commandments. But we just agreed obedience to God’s commandments is essential to please Him. So how can one decide not to obey, yet fulfill the life-enhancing requirement of obedience to God’s commandments? The answer is the passive voice: something is done for someone by someone.
‘Something,’ i.e., obedience to God, is done for God’s saint by ‘someone.’ That ‘someone’ is Christ dwelling in the believer.
Passivity removes the believer from the venue of “life from law” that energizes sin, placing the believer beyond sin’s energizer, and depositing him in the arena of God’s grace through faith in God’s promise—the promise that God Himself does what He requires from His child.
Dwelling in the believer’s mortal body, Christ will obey perfectly God’s commandments by the Spirit’s victorious power over indwelling sin. Controlling the believer’s members, Christ will produce God-acceptable actions that fulfill His commandments. The believer causes all this to happen by deciding not to be proactively obedient, but rather to believe God’s ‘promise in the passive’ that obedience will be done for him by God. Finally, the belief of God’s child in God’s promise is credited to His child’s account as His righteousness.
Does this mean the believer is “inactive?” Not at all! The believer’s actions do not diminish or cease, but rather his works are actively carried out by faith in Christ’s control of his members producing obedience to God’s will and commands. Obedience takes place miraculously, sometimes in the face of seemingly impossible or overwhelming circumstances.
At the end of the ride, when the tickets are collected, all creation will recognize the proactive One is God, not man aspiring to replace or contribute to God’s proactive role. The credit will belong to God—alone.
Ruinous Living: A Case Of An Indirect Reflexive Middle
In 1 Corinthians 8:11, Paul wrote about a Jewish believer with a conscience about eating non-kosher food—one who might be seduced by some gentile believer into eating a BLT on toast or a ham-and-cheese on rye (a 21st century USA reframing of ‘the sacrifice to idols’ in 1st century Corinth).
Quoting the Corinthian passage: “For through your (a believing gentile) knowledge (i.e., kosher is no longer behaviorally relevant under the New Covenant) he who is weak (a Jewish believer who is still hung up on keeping a ‘kosher-table’) is ruined, the brother (a believer) for whose sake Christ died” (NASB with my additions in parentheses).
The verb in verse 11, translated ‘is ruined,’ is in the middle voice meaning that it can be translated as an indirect reflexive middle. (‘Is ruined’ is sometimes translated ‘perishes;’ same Greek verb, but with a different meaning based on context or theology: cf. BDAG, p. 116.b.a.) An indirect reflexive middle implies grammatically that the verb’s action reflects back upon the subject of the sentence without the explicit use of a reflexive pronoun. In the case at hand, the believing Jew who eats (cf. verse 10 for his action of eating) acts in such a way that the verb’s action takes place in relation to himself. So, a better translation is: the brother ‘ruins himself.’ The reflexive pronoun, ‘himself,’ is supplied by implication from the indirect reflexive verb in the middle voice.
This makes sense theologically because, although pushed by the gentile to do something he would not otherwise do, the Jew is still the one who acts to violate his own conscience and, for that Jew, eating would be a sin (cf. Romans 14:23 for how acting with a violated conscience becomes an act of sin).
Thus, by the Jewish brother sinning, he ‘ruins himself’ spiritually. But he is still ‘heaven-bound.’
Having established a grammatically, lexically, and theologically sound translation for this verb, it is interesting to apply the same translation to the verb’s context in four other verses.
First and foremost is 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow . . . not wishing for any [of you saints] to ‘ruin yourselves’ (instead of ‘to perish’) but for all [of you saints] to come to repentance.” Popular translations make this verse say that God wishes every person on the planet to be saved, whereas a more accurate meaning is God wishes every believer to change his mind about living according to law, and begin to live his life by faith according to principles outlined in Galatians 2:20.
Next, Romans 2:12: “For all who sin (the verb ‘sin’ is a gnomic aorist denoting a timeless or general act that happens) without law will also ‘ruin themselves’ without law; and all who sin (id.) under law will be judged by law.” Here, Paul is not referring to unbelievers who ‘perish’ as many commentators suggest. Rather, the apostle is explaining the basis of judgment for all believers at the judgment seat of Christ–the basis being acts of sin, whether or not the believer does–or does not–follow an external code of ethics during his lifetime following rebirth. However, those believers choosing to live under some ethical code (e.g., the Law of Moses) will be judged by the code’s tenets (cf. Matt. 7:2).
Further, in 2 Corinthians 4:3: “and even if our gospel [of liberty from indwelling sin] is veiled, it is veiled in those who are ‘ruining themselves.’” Paul next identified two factors contributing to Corinthian believers who ruin themselves: unbelief and the god of this world. Having had first-hand experience with this death-delivering duo (cf. Luke 22:31-32), the apostle Peter pointed out the key to retrieving spiritual fellowship with God is resistance to Satan through faith (1 Pet. 5:8-9). In the ‘amen corner’ might be the apostle John—an eyewitness to Peter’s denial experience from defeat to victory—who pointed out that the Spirit in the believer is greater than the one in the world (cf. 1 John 4:4).
And finally, 2 Corinthians 2:15: “For we (who live according to the principles of Galatians 2:20) are a fragrance (sacrificial metaphor for behavior in both words and actions) of Christ to God among those who are being saved (from enslavement to indwelling sin) and among those (believers) who are ‘ruining themselves;’ to the one an aroma from death (our death with Christ to indwelling sin) to death (their own ruinous death from indwelling sin), to the other an aroma from life (of Christ in us) to life (of Christ in others).”
Paul taught about the impact a ‘Galatians 2:20 life’ has upon God as well as two different groups of believers. The impact upon God: “This is My beloved Son ['in you,' by application from the 2 Cor. and Gal. passages], with whom I am well pleased” (cf. Matt. 17:5). The impact upon the group of ‘dead’ believers: an increased confidence that the Law can impart life. Upon the group of ‘living’ believers, validation of Christ’s indwelling presence and fellowship with the Father. Warning: self evaluation based on the response of dead believers is not necessarily a good indicator of one’s spiritual acumen or status.
By the way, “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). By faith.
jesus and the rich young ruler
introduction
Probably just weeks before Jesus would ride into Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey, a young Jewish ruler, who was a quite wealthy property-owner, urgently pressed Jesus with a daunting question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (cf. Mark 10:17-22). The Lord’s immediate response to the ruler’s use of the word “good” in addressing Him was startling. “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Perhaps Jesus’ startling response was intended to illicit a confession from the ruler that he recognized Jesus was God incarnate, and had thus addressed Him accordingly. But a more probable reason for Jesus’ response can be discovered in Matthew’s account of this incident.
In his gospel, Matthew recorded that the ruler, using the identical word for “good” in both his address and his question, queried, “. . . what good (emphasis, mine) thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16).
Obviously, Jesus drew attention to the self-contradictory correlation between the theology of the ruler’s address and the resulting futility of his question. If no one but God is intrinsically good, how can anyone—other than God– do something that is intrinsically good? So, if inheriting eternal life for a human (one intrinsically evil, cf. Matt. 7:11) required doing something intrinsically good, no one could do anything to possess eternal life.
It is quite possible that the rich young ruler had—at the very moment Jesus pointed out no human could possibly do anything to possess eternal life—understood that eternal life must be a gift from God, and believed this reality thereby inheriting eternal life.
From Jesus’ further elaboration about inheriting or possessing eternal life, it is clear that He identified from the Law six different things the ruler should do. Either Jesus had just contradicted His point that evil cannot beget good, or the ruler had received the new birth from God and Jesus was further instructing the ruler as one already born again.
The following ten points are offered to support the idea that the rich young ruler was indeed born again in the early moments of his interview with Jesus.
the ten biblical reasons
1. Jesus taught that the whole Law depended upon two commandments: love your God and love your neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40). In fact, Jesus had endorsed this very premise publicly from a cynical lawyer’s response about inheriting eternal life. The lawyer’s answer had included both commandments (Luke 10:25). However, when the respectful rich young ruler inquired about inheriting eternal life, Jesus omitted the first and foremost commandment, “love the Lord your God,” from His answer (Mark 10:19). Why the difference?
The answer lies in the difference between life under the Old Covenant and life under the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, the children of Israel were commanded at least ten times to “love the Lord your God.” The astonishing fact is that, under the New Covenant, the command to love God is nowhere to be found. Does this mean believers are not to love God? May it never be!
According to Moses, God would circumcise the heart of a future generation—and the heart of their offspring—with the result that they would love the Lord with all their heart and soul (Deut. 30:6). The prophet Ezekiel provided a few additional details of this future arrangement of living by revealing God would remove hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh (Ezek. 36:26).
The apostle Paul made the point in his letter to the saints at Colossae that God’s new arrangement for life became a reality in Christ for both Jews and gentiles whose hearts had been circumcised (Col. 2:11; cf. Rom. 6:3-4 for further insight into the roles of Christ and the Spirit in the heart removal/installation procedure).
The “heart of flesh,” with which God has equipped every believer under the New Covenant, is a human heart that is God designed and fashioned to understand and believe God’s promises to His children. Because the default position of the new heart is intrinsically to “love the Lord your God,” it was unnecessary to reissue the “love God”command under the New Covenant, leaving only the “love your neighbor” command from the Old Covenant.
This explanation can be validated in Paul’s letter to those born again (i.e., receptors of New Covenant hearts) in the Galatian churches. The apostle wrote that the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement: “love your neighbor” (Gal. 5:14). Notice Paul omitted the “love God” command—unlike life under the Old Covenant as summarized by Jesus and His generation of Jews (Matt. 22:37-40; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:23).
The apostle’s observation to born-again Galatians about New Covenant living was identical to Jesus’ answer to the rich young ruler, indicating the likelihood that the ruler was also born again—perhaps only weeks before actual New Covenant inauguration. However, the cynical Jewish lawyer, who voiced both commands of the Old Covenant living arrangement, revealed that he was obviously not born again.
2. Jesus’ four Law-unrelated commands to the rich young ruler were: go, sell, give, and follow Me. These commands are identical to Jesus’ previous admonishment to those whose Father is God—that is, to those born again (Luke 12:32-33). Thus, the rich young ruler can probably be classed as one born again.
3. Mark’s account of the rich young ruler’s interview with the Lord noted, “Jesus loved him [the ruler]” (Mark 10:21). This statement is reminiscent of the apostle John’s reference to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23). The fact that Jesus loved the rich young ruler is similar to Jesus’ relationship with John and likely more than merely a description of Jesus’ feelings. Since Jesus never said or did anything on His own initiative (cf. John 14:10), Jesus’ love likely manifested the Father’s love—putting the ruler in the same class of chosen ones as the born-again apostle John, and the “loved one,” Jacob (Rom. 9:13).
The experiential knowledge that Jesus loves one is available only to the one loved, and comes from the Spirit of God witnessing with one’s own born-again human spirit that he is a child of God (Rom. 8:16).
4. Jesus promised the rich young ruler that if he went, sold his possessions, gave the proceeds from the sale to the poor, and followed Him, he would have treasure in heaven (Mark 10:21). If one negates the cause in this cause-and-effect assertion, it would read: if you do not go, sell, give, and follow, you will not have treasure in heaven. Notice the negated promise cannot be made to say, “you will not go to heaven.” It simply says, “you will not have treasure in heaven.” But you will be in heaven. Those who are born again populate heaven; hence, the rich young ruler was born again.
5. A summary of the synoptics’ accounts of the rich young ruler’s episode with Jesus reveals two things: one, the overwhelmingly urgent need of a spiritual Jew; and two, the ruler’s highest respect for Jesus’ expertise in answering an inquiry about that need. Therefore, common sense dictates that this young ruler of the Jews would not possibly disregard an acknowledged Expert’s prescription for life. Such an action would be like someone with a deadly disease urgently seeking the help of a highly trained, skilled, knowledgeable, and recognized physician, only to totally disregard the proper protocols for healing upon hearing those protocols from the doctor. Such behavior would recognizably defy common sense, bordering on the irrational. The rich young ruler exhibited no such irrational behavior indicating he was born again spiritually.
6. The first command in the sequence of four that Jesus gave the Jewish ruler was to “go.” The ruler promptly “went away.” He obeyed Jesus immediately and without further questions, discussion, argument, or request for clarification. A key characteristic of those born again is obedience to the Lord no matter how unconventional the commands—an obedience clearly manifested by the ruler.
7. Mark’s gospel noted that the highly successful ruler went away “grieved.” Most commentators assume the grief came from the ruler’s decision not to sell his possessions and thereby to forfeit eternal life. But, an equally valid assumption is that his grief stemmed from his decision to sell his possessions and to itinerate with a highly controversial Person—and then having to face his Jewish wife, his Jewish mother, his Jewish mother-in-law, and his Jewish children who all had likely become accustomed to a lifestyle of the rich and famous. Grief from the latter proposed decision is much more likely than from the popularly posited decision of relinquishing the treasures of eternal life in heaven. Thus, the ruler was born again.
8. Jesus commented on the ruler’s grief reaction by warning His disciples that it would be hard, or difficult, for those with wealth to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:23). The fact is that the scriptures teach many who unquestionably do enter the kingdom will experience difficulties, hardships, and trials. How difficult it would probably become for the pauperized former ruler to hear derisive remarks from his respected colleagues and contemporaries about his commitment to follow someone who had little, if any, standing with the establishment. Peter (an eye-witness to the interchange between Jesus and the ruler, and who immediately asked Jesus a question about his own discipleship) wrote, “. . . it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved . . .” (1 Pet. 4:18). Difficulties accompany and may even impede entrance into the kingdom, but do not prevent entrance. Hence, the rich young ruler was born again and on his way to heaven—while facing the difficult, unpleasant exigencies of life along the way.
9. Those commentators who do not believe in a “works” salvation have a terrible time trying to explain Jesus’ answer to the ruler about possessing eternal life. This is so because Jesus’ words clearly teach the kind of faith that manifests works. If His words, however, were intended for one born again, as is suggested herein, then Jesus’ suggested works related to faithful service and not to salvation. Such an explanation resolves perfectly commentators’ theological quandary that develops from assuming the ruler was not born again.
10. In his gospel account of Jesus’ experience in the garden at Gethsemane, Mark alone mentioned a “certain young man” who was following Jesus (Mark 14:51-52). When Jesus’ apprehenders arrived, all His disciples fled except for this single young follower. When the members of the arresting party seized this young follower, he left behind a linen sheet that was covering his body and escaped naked.
Some commentators believe this young follower was Mark himself. Our analysis suggests that not only was this Mark, but also this was the rich young ruler who in obedience to Jesus, went, sold all his possessions—except for a linen sheet—gave to the poor, and followed Jesus (as commanded) right into the garden on the night He was betrayed. Thus, this two-sentence cameo was Mark’s way of testifying to his own regenerate state after posing his question, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16 combined with Mark 10:17).
conclusion
Summarizing: the rich young ruler had become born again sometime early in his dialogue with his Good Teacher. The episode makes clear that eternal life can only be a gift from God. After being born again, treasure in heaven may be accumulated by focusing on, and following after, Jesus. The rich young ruler was none other than John Mark.
the lawyer, jesus, and the samaritan
As Jesus’ ministry began to widen to include gentiles, a Jewish lawyer—arrogant, cynical, and self- righteous—challenged the uncredentialed son of a carpenter from Nazareth with a personal question about a spiritual matter. “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (cf. Luke 10:25-37).
In the best of rabbinical teaching traditions—answering a question with a question—Jesus responded to the studied student of the Law, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” Now the tables had been turned. The questioner became questionee.
The lawyer demonstrated his legal acumen: ‘love your God; love your neighbor.’ Jesus judged the lawyer’s answer to his own opening question as correct in terms of physical life, and added that if the lawyer were to obey both commands, to love God and his neighbor as himself, he might prolong his physical life.
God had given Moses the Law, among other things, to maintain and preserve physical life. Since God never bestows eternal life posthumously, the only thing the lawyer himself could do to inherit eternal life was to avoid premature physical death through obedience to the Law, while waiting to see if God would give him a new birth.
However, the lawyer’s self-righteousness bubbled to the surface prompting him to pose a subsequent question: “. . . who is my neighbor?”
To answer the lawyer’s second question, Jesus told a story that has become known popularly as the story of the Good Samaritan. Although Jesus told the story primarily to answer explicitly the second question asked by the lawyer, the story’s remarkable illustrative qualities provided further insight into the spiritual realities of inheriting eternal life.
This short story featured a victim of an encounter with some highway robbers, as well as an encounter with a certain Samaritan who came upon the incapacitated wretch while he himself was on a journey. The Samaritan promptly and fully provided all the victim’s needs in contrast to a priest and a Levite who had themselves separately spotted the victim, but then had chosen not to stop and help.
At the story’s end, Jesus deftly asked the lawyer to identify the one out of the three who had proved to be a neighbor to the robbers’ victim. The lawyer easily and correctly identified the victim’s neighbor from the details of the story. The victim’s neighbor turned out to be the Samaritan. Jesus then directed the lawyer, “Go and do the same,” namely, prove yourself a neighbor to someone in need.
Notice how Jesus framed this last question about neighbor identification. He did not ask the lawyer, “From the story, who would be identified as your neighbor?” What Jesus did say was, ‘Who proved to be the victim’s neighbor?’ This phrasing by the Lord is intriguing, and points the way to the spiritual part of the answer to the lawyer’s original question, ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal life?’
Before we can discover the spiritual realities implicit in the victim/Samaritan story, two issues need clarification. The first is, “How is a neighbor defined?’ The second is, “What does it mean to love, especially to ‘love God?’”
From the Samaritan’s perspective, the victim was a neighbor in need. So sometimes, the biblical meaning of the word ‘neighbor’ is ‘one who has a need.’ This was likely the emphasis Jesus wished to raise in an explicit response to the lawyer’s question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ This is also the common understanding of those who have enacted so called ‘Good Samaritan Laws.’ Such laws clearly regulate meeting another’s physical need.
However, by the nature of His question at the story’s end, Jesus raised another perspective about being a neighbor—the perspective of the victim, the needy one. For the victim, the Samaritan was the one who loved him, who met his needs. Thus, sometimes the biblical meaning of the word ‘neighbor’ is ‘one who meets a need.’
When it comes to loving, the full meaning of the word ‘neighbor’ incorporates two people with their respective perspectives—the needy one, and the provider. The New Testament scriptures express this reality in the commandment highlighting the actions of both a giver and a receiver: ‘love one another.’ Some believers have trouble giving—others, with receiving.
One other observation that is apparent from the analysis of the Samaritan/victim story is that biblical love is meeting another’s needs from one’s own resources, even when doing so interrupts one’s own comings and goings.
From the meaning of biblical love, then, how does one ‘love God?’ Alternatively, to put it another way, “What resources does the creature have to meet the Creator’s need?” In fact, what need does God have? This is sort of like finding a gift for the one who has everything!
The testimony of the scriptures is that God needs a habitation in His physical creation. God’s first habitation was Adam when God breathed into His creature’s nostrils His Spirit plus air. The tabernacle became the next habitation of God, followed by the temple. In the incarnation, Jesus referred to His own body as the temple of God. In the present age, the church saint is the temple of God’s Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20). So ‘loving God’ means turning one’s ‘inner man’ (heart, soul, strength, and mind) over to God as His ‘residence’ on earth. The apostle Paul referred to this as ‘presenting your bodies (to God) a living and holy sacrifice’ (Rom. 12:1).
Now, let’s revisit the lawyer’s inquiry of Jesus about eternal life. The lawyer answered his own question, at Jesus’ prompting, from the Law. But the Law was unable to impart eternal life; had the Law provided the lawyer with life, his question would have been nonsensical. So something more was necessary, and that something more is Jesus Himself. Here is where the implicit meaning of the Samaritan illustrative story comes into play.
Let’s reflect on Jesus’ story, transferring the events in the physical realm to similar kinds of realities against the spiritual backdrop of the spiritual realm. Recall, Jesus had been nicknamed a ‘Samaritan’ by some of His Jewish antagonists (John 8:84). If one then applies this identity transfer to Jesus’ story told to the lawyer, then Jesus’ direction to the lawyer, “Go and do the same” not only meant “meet other’s needs,” but also included “love the One (God in Jesus) who loves you!” Here is the complete spiritual message that, when received, brings eternal life.
The victim in the story illustrated what the potent combination of indwelling sin and Satan does to God’s creature. The sin-driven, Satan controlled robbers acted as Satan’s accomplices in the world. The victim ended up incapacitated, near death—the ultimate state in the spiritual realm always produced by sin and Satan.
The priest and Levite were those from the contemporary and corrupt Jewish religious establishment who were both unwilling and unable to help Satan’s victim. The Samaritan—a figure like Jesus, despised by the Jewish leaders headquartered in Jerusalem—loved God’s creature by supplying his physical needs. Jesus, on the other hand, supplies the spiritual needs of those completely disabled by sin and Satan.
The Samaritan, as Jesus would for spiritual life, provided from his own resources all that was necessary to resuscitate physical life. In Jesus’ case, His own resources from His cross experience provided all that was necessary to restore spiritual life that sin and Satan had robbed from their victims.
One might even speculate that the Jewish lawyer, himself, could be pictured spiritually in the words Jesus used to picture the victim beside the road from Jerusalem to Jericho.
The Samaritan, as Jesus would at His ascension, left on a journey but would return, as would Jesus at His second coming. Anticipating his journey, the Samaritan left the recuperating victim in the care of a surrogate with adequate provision for the victim’s physical restoration, recuperation, and rehabilitation, as Jesus would do for those with spiritual needs through His own surrogates—His disciples.
Jesus, therefore, had Himself proved to be a neighbor by providing the cynical, condescending, self-righteous, needy lawyer—through artful questioning and direction as well as a memorable story—the very foundation for inheriting eternal life. The basis was God, in Jesus, reconciling the lawyer to Himself. Because God might eventually love the lawyer first, the lawyer would then be able to love God, give himself as a vessel for the Spirit’s habitation, and loose his self-righteousness, cynicism, and arrogance. Possessing eternal life, the lawyer could then love, and be loved, by those whom he met in his comings and goings that had needs, either physical or spiritual.
keep looking »