The text from James 2:14-21 is historically speaking a very interesting text. It has been used and indeed abused by many to substantiate various theological positions to the extent that it is often hard to read it just for what it says and what it means. However, to properly treat the text, we must do exactly that – we must determine what it actually teaches in terms of doctrine, what it actually instructs a person to do, and what the implication of these together is for the Christian as an individual and the church as a whole. Indeed, it is my contention that if we can ignore all the historical bickering, we will find a text which is both straightforward in meaning, and valuable in application.

The NIV titles the passage “Faith and Deeds”, however I disagree. It is not about deeds, or works, at all – but about faith. In this passage, James sets out faith in quite considerable detail; but his focus is not upon what constitutes faith before God, but upon what constitutes faith as it is observable by man.

He opens with a question which is to shape the rest of the passage, asking in verse 14 “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?”

Now, having claimed the passage is not about works, it is only fair to acknowledge that it does refer to works; yet, James’ point here is to set out that in those who have a true faith; a faith that can save, there are also works as evidence of that faith.

To explain how this works, James will distinguish two types of faith; a living faith, and a dead faith. We implicitly understand much of his point from these words alone. We know well that that which is living does, and that which is dead does not. Indeed, we will even admit that nothing which is dead can save. James will substantiate his argument by bringing forth three examples:

  1. The first example is that of a hypothetical Christian, and it is as well it is hypothetical as it does not reflect well on the person involved! He starts in verse 15:

    15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
    16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
    James 2:15-16

    Well, it takes no great level of theological investigation to understand this point! It clearly doesn’t take faith in Christ to understand one should provide food and clothes for his own brother. If then we understand that much without theology, how much more is it clear with theology? The man pictured instead of doing what he ought, makes a mockery of the word of God; he offers a prayer or a blessing so that he can make God an excuse for his hatred. Clearly, his view of God is deficient, and from the placement of the argument, we see James intends us to conclude that this man does not really have a true and living faith He says with his lips that he has faith, with his heart he has none. Indeed, the very scripture which declares If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:10) goes on to add and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead before promising you shall be saved. This is no more than James sets out here: the man confesses with his lips but evidentally believes not with his heart.

  2. The second example is that of Abraham (James 2:21-23), a man revered by Christians as the father of faith, and of whom we have clear testimony to the fact he was saved by his faith (e.g. Romans 4:9; Galatians 3:9; Hebrews 11:8,17).
    Note carefully here, that James does not say that Abraham was “saved by works and not by faith alone” but rather that he talks about his faith being justified – and this agrees very well with the narrative, for if we recall what happened, first Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and then some years later he offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Until the time that the sacrifice was offered, his contemporaries (and indeed the reader today), have nothing more than the word of his trust to go on. His claim to faith is justified by the action which agrees with it, and bears evidence to it.
  3. The third example is found in verse 25:

    And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? (James 2:25)

    At first, it seems that Rahab offers nothing more than the example of Abraham, indeed, she confessed a faith to the spies at first, saying “The LORD your God is he who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Joshua 2:11), and then she acted to save the spies from being captured – by which act we know the former claim to faith was true.
    However, there is something more – for note carefully the description chosen by James. He writes “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified”, which most clearly rules her out from a claim of righteousness by works. Indeed, her lifestyle testifies clearly that the works which testify to a living faith NOT those which mean a man lives a blameless and holy life before God, but rather works consistent with faith, that testify to faith, by which we know a claim to faith is more than mere words.

The argument of James is a very powerful one, it is the argument that we know that a man is justified because of the works that come from his faith. In verse 24 James summarises, saying “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Notice what he does not say. He does not say that “God sees that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. God sees that a man is justified by his faith alone, sees thoughts; heart – desires, faith. God alone. But for us, James shows, that we must rather see the faith of a man by the works he does in agreement with that which he claims.

What does it mean?

I started by saying that we would try to apply the passage; and that’s exactly what we’ll do. However, it is a passage which does cause some practical difficulties. It is difficult in particular for us when we ask if there are those who claim to have faith but have not works amongst those who we love and worship in our own communities. This gets brought into sharp focus when we ask ourselves how it is we decide (practically speaking) that a Christian has a true faith.

In some places, a sinners prayer is used. Once said, the new Christian is treated forevermore as a brother, or a sister, and it is assumed that on the last day he will be saved from the wrath of God by that very faith.

In other places, there is a rite of confirmation in which there is a public claim of faith, and witnesses. Once that has been completed, the person is judged to be one who truly does have faith, and is treated forevermore as one who will be most surely saved on the last day.

Yet, do we stop to ask if these practices agree with this passage from James? Should we be so sure of the salvation of those who merely claim to have faith? Well, James shows us that we are to look at their works as evidence of faith. When he imagines an objector who says (James 2:18) “You have faith and I have works” he even goes so far as saying, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith”. So, he suggests, it is appropriate to look for works that bear evidence in those who claim to have faith.

Now, there is much to be said for acting in Christian charity and taking the claim to faith as willingly as we can, so as not to discourage or disappoint those new in their faith; however, when it comes to pastoral questions – what to teach and what to preach – we do need to bear in mind what James says and think a little about how many members really do have a living faith.

Now, one thing which unites almost all denominations is a complaint of nominal Christianity, or Christians who are only Christians on a Sunday. It is a common complaint that there are many glad to offer prayers for the poor and needy, but yet refuse to help those even in their midst. Indeed almost ubiquitously, when an appeal is made for help, whether an appeal for help in outreach, or mission, or a teaching ministry, or indeed any other role, it is often the same few familiar faces who respond.

If we do consider and find such patterns, then perhaps we should in such a case pay closer attention to those words of James. If whilst these brothers and sisters say they have faith, yet if their faith has not works, then we are counselled by Scripture that they may well have but a dead faith. So far as we can see – their faith, which is dead, cannot save them. We may indeed be very pleasantly surprised by them on the last day; but until then, we must follow the guide of Scripture. As James says in verse 26; “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

The counsel of James is that those who claim to have faith but are without works are yet in their trespasses and sins, and the wrath of God remains on them. It matters not how many times they come to church, or how frequently they pray. They will not be saved on the last day.

It is a chilling thought isn’t it? So what, then, can we do? What then is the answer?

Well; If a congregation lacks those works which testify to faith, maybe we should preach to them all the more of the need to do good works, of the need to feed the hungry, to care for those in need, to build up one another in knowledge, in love and the word of God, exhorting one another to good deeds.

We could do that. However, I don’t know about you – but I’ve never yet met a Christian who does not know that he has to do these things. … I have never yet met a Christian who does not know these things well, but I have met those who know them but do them not.

I do not think the problem arises from a lack of knowledge of these things, and indeed – even if we were to find a way to induce them to taking part in works, I do not think it would solve the problem. The idea that we can solve the problem of those who say they have faith, but have not works, by introducing works is like that of the foolish farmer who finding his trees dead, sets out to the market, purchases apples and then painstakingly ties them to his trees. Calling his brothers to come, he declares “behold, my brothers, my trees which were once dead are now alive, and lo, they bear fruit!”

Of course, it is easy for us to understand such a declaration is futile on the part of the farmer! Although it is true to say that a living tree bears fruit; yet it is also true to say that the fruit that a living tree bears comes from the life of the tree. It is not a fruit which is forced upon the tree, but a fruit which the tree brings forth out of its own stock of goodness and the life which is within it.

And so, too it is with faith; as James tells us, “for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” Just as a tree without life is dead, so too the tree apart from fruit is dead. Our real problem is not the lack of fruit, or works; but it is the death of the tree, or indeed the dead faith.

So, if we cannot profitably exhort them to good works, what can we do about the problem?

Our aim then is to bring that which is dead to life : It is to bring those who have a dead faith into a living faith. Gospel is the power to salvation for all who believe. Faith, we read, comes not through works, but through hearing; and hearing by the Word of God. If we are serious about bringing faith to those who have but dead faith; if we truly care about saving from the very fires of hell – about the salvation of those who we call brothers and sisters – if we do want them to be saved on the last day and find their faith has not been in vain; then we surely we must all the more clearly, all the more powerfully, and all the more frequently and without relent preach the Gospel.

We must teach them day in and day out, or at least week in and week out, just what Christ did for them in dying for them on the cross.

We must declare to those who are yet of dead faith, that Christ died for them, in their death, that in him they might have life. We must proclaim to those who are still in their trespasses and sins that Christ died for sinners that they might be saved; that Christ took their sins upon himself dying in their place.

And, when we are done preaching the Gospel, we need to preach it again. It is not given to man to write off those he calls brothers and sisters as beyond salvation; it is not given to us to give up, but rather to declare life to those who need it.

one
For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God and are justified freely by his grace

For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God and are justified freely by his grace. Romans 3:23+

If you only understand one thing from the Bible, this should be it. We stand guilty before God – when we measure ourselves against his law we all fall flat. The good news then is that God justifies us (counts us sinless before him) by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ who died for our sins. This is the only way to be saved – because it does not matter how good we think we have been, we are still unrighteous and condemned to hell if measured by our deeds.

Romans 3:21-25
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

one

In him was life, and the life was the light of men

Diwali (divali/deepavali), known as the ‘festival of lights’ is a central festival of the Hindu religion. It is centered around the concept of the atman, an inner light which is beyond the physical body and mind. Awareness of this inner light brings about peace, transcendence, and an awakening to an unchanging infinite non-bodily nature. This ‘inner light’ is celebrated over a period of five days during which lamps and lights are prominently featured.

This festival is a deeply integrated part of Indian and Hindu culture, both in India and overseas. The prominence given to it within the community means that Christians with a Hindu background need to ask themselves important questions about the compatibility of their participation with Christianity.

It’s important to note that within Christianity there is also a belief in a light which can legitimately be said to bring peace, dispel darkness, give guidance, and bring a knowledge of the mysteries of the infinite etc.. This light is an essential part of the Christian faith. It is this light we read of when Simeon picks up the infant Jesus and declares him to be “a light to enlighten the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32), and the same light we see set out at the beginning of John’s Gospel. It’s the account found in John 1:1-14 which we’ll discuss today – and we’ll do so with special reference to Diwali and the Atman:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
In words echoing the start of Genesis (Genesis 1:1-3), we see the Word, Christ, from the creation of the world – through whom all things were made. This same Christ is God, and within him alone is life. This life, which is within Christ alone, is the only light for mankind. So, the light of Christianity is not an internal light, but an external light; it is not of one’s own being, but of God’s own being.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5)
We are in darkness, and it is the light which shines into the darkness; thus we do not find the light within ourselves, for it comes from God and is of God where it shines into our darkness.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. (John 1:6-8)
See how even when God has acted in a man to bear witness about the light, still he is not the light? The light is not a part of man, the light is not a part of his being, the light cannot ever be found from within. The light which shines into the darkness is the light of God, Jesus Christ – a light for man not a part of man.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:9)
Again, how can the light come into the world, if the light here discussed is akin to the atman? This claimed atman is a part of a man’s own being and self, which needs to be discovered – it is not the external light of God but an internal light of man. Clearly, atman cannot be the true light – and as the true light is the true God; then atman is a false god – an idol – and thus the festival is a festival of idolatry.

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)
That so many will spend so much effort in the worship of this false God, atman, the impostor pretending to be the light which enlightens man, pretending to be God, should not be a surprise. John 3:19 explains “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” Our evil deeds are great; consider we are even conceived in sin and raised in iniquity (Psalm 51:5), each one of us knowing the revelation of God (Romans 1:19) yet turning away from him to worship false gods and idols (Romans 1:25). Although God made us, we refuse to acknowledge him as the one God.

Note this well:

  1. Christ is the only true light that shines into our darkness
  2. This same Christ who is the true light of the world is also fully God
  3. Sinful and wicked man created a lie that the true light is the atman, a part of man’s own being
  4. Thus, the lie puts man in the place of God – the archetype of all idolatry

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)
Regard the great grace of God, his immense mercy to mankind – for he has torn a people for himself, ripped us from the darkness of hell by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is Christ who is the light of the world, the same Christ who alone is the way, and the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
This very Christ, the only Son from the Father, who became man and took on our human flesh, also died for our sins and was raised again in glory. He alone is our light – and no other. Brothers, let us take great care never to give to any other the honour and glory which belongs to God alone. It is clearly the worship of a false God to celebrate, remember, parade, praise, or display this inner light of Atman to which Diwali refers.

one

A reading from the third chapter of ‘All of Grace’ by C. H. Spurgeon focused on God’s promise to justify unrighteous and unholy sinners, which means both you and I are included:

The full text

3 com

A Humble Petition for the Qu’ran in Churches*

[An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury]

To the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the undersigned offer obedient greeting.

Your Grace will perhaps wonder, Most Reverend Lord, what this unusual action of writing a letter to yourself means, and not without reason. For nature has ordained that the unexpected should create not only wonder, but at times even a feeling of dumbfoundedness. Yet, we would have you to be entirely free and undisturbed in regard to this matter which we are laying before you. For we do not come to your Grace in regard to anything very troublesome, but to find help. For we are so sure that you are both a most pious lord and a most loving father that there is nothing we do not promise ourselves from you. And this fact itself shows, for we should never have ventured to write to your Grace unless we had had thorough confidence in it. We desire, therefore, humbly to beg you to listen to what we are going to disclose a little later, to hear it graciously, and to take it in good part. This is demanded both by the matter itself which drives us to this appeal and by the office which you fill as Archbishop of Canturbury.

The matter itself, to come to it at last, is this: Your Most Reverend Lordship knows how for a long time the heavenly teachings which God, the creator of all things, willed to have made plain unto the poor race of men by one no way inferior to himself, by his Son, in all things his equal, have, not without the utmost loss to the cause of salvation, been lying hidden through the ignorance, not to say evil intentions, of certain persons, and how rudely, when he had determined to recall and renew those teachings in our day by a sort of second revelation, certain persons attack or defend them. Therefore, Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop, we beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ, not to join those who aim at putting under a bushel, nay, at extinguishing, the light that came into the world to illumine all men, and who call evil good and good evil, turning sweet into bitter and light into darkness, but rather to join those who have this one desire, that the whole concourse of Christians return to their head, which is Christ, and form one body in him, and having received the spirit of God, recognise the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

Yet, despite the great progress made in the past centuries, it is clear that some have taken things too far. Some have elevated the Bible to a God in itself. Forgetting that the Bible is mostly the response of past generations to God, they have treated the scriptures as if they were breathed out by God himself! Thankfully, in recent times, there has been a departure from this most foul idolatry and a return to a more balanced and man-centred theology. This being the case, and as it seems to be now well accepted within the Anglican Communion, we hope for no more than our concept of scriptures to be expanded in accordance with this realism. We must stop scriptural exclusivism and move away from the “the response of man to God in my book is right because I like the guys who wrote it” school of theology!

Now, let it not be denied that since the death and resurrection of our Lord most notable events have taken place, not least of which being the rise of the Islamic teachings comprised in the book known as the Qu’ran. Whilst we understand that some have been led away from what the Bible says by these teachings, others have benefited from reading them whilst remaining within the Christian faith. We note with interest the compatibility of professing them both has even been observed by Anglican clergy. The marked proliferation of the text shows the great demand that the soul has to read it, for our hearts keenly desire it. It gives clear instruction on the living of a life, clear traditions and rites to be observed, and a picture of the Trinity which is much simpler than the Biblical doctrine. So, on what basis can this text be withheld and suppressed any longer? On what basis may we continue to rule against it, given that it is but words and forms the implication of which depends so much upon personal interpretation?

The body of Christians today under your charge then are the subject of the most cruel persecution, the most inequitable suppression, the most illiberal dictatorial censorship. Despite gathering together for religious purposes on regular occasions, this text (which is undeniably religious in nature and held in very high esteem by many of the most learned men of our day) is not permitted as reading matter. Despite the commentary it offers upon the Bible, the novel interpretations of Biblical events, and the importance of all mankind uniting around a common understanding, our Churches stubbornly refuse to give place to the Qu’ran.

Unfairly banned from churches

We are aware that there is an argument amongst some fundamentalist parts of the Anglican Communion that claim the Qu’ran is not the work of God; however we as men are not able to rule on that as the Bible says nothing about the Qu’ran and indeed the Bible says “judge not”. Even if it is not the work of God, it must be allowed that we permit many works which are not of God to be read and used in our Churches, including hymnals, prayer books and notice sheets. On what basis can we allow ‘Jerusalem’ to be sung – which is neither the work of God nor resplendent with the name of Jesus – but not the Qu’ran, which at least some believe to be of God and does contain the name of Jesus in many places?

The time for silence has passed, the time for speech is now. We can remain silent no longer in the face of this narrow-minded traditionalism. How can we, with one breath, declare the Creation narrative as a fiction created to explain complex matters to ignorant man, and then refuse place to the Qu’ran because some think it less than historically accurate? Let’s face it, modern Anglican theology will tolerate the denial of the substitutionary atonement, practicing of prayer for the dead in purgatory, pilgrimages to visit statues of dead Christians (and often non-Christians!), the parading around of baked goods as if they were God himself, and all manner of other concepts both Ancient and Modern. Why do we still cling to the sixteenth century concept of Religious Isolationism? If we can accept priests who think they are ‘of the order of Aaron’ and who try to break the body of God and offer up sacrifices on an altar, what is wrong with accepting the deeply edifying and morally instructive contents of the Qu’ran?

We further realise that some believe the Qu’ran to be contrary to the Christian faith. Those who allege such misunderstand our design entirely, for we hope it to be read not to be believed, but to be heard. What in Christianity is there that forbids a man’s ears from hearing words which are read? We are confident in the inherent goodness of man, and his ability to discern and choose what is right and good. In one God, in one faith, in one baptism we shall certainly be made one, for these are one. Do you not see that we can give place for the Qu’ran in this structure? A man will still acknowledge one God, one faith (for who can hold two simultaneously?), and one baptism. What more can we ask, and indeed what more should we ask? Let us drop all pretense, and embrace that which our brothers and sisters in Abraham have long recognised as an important text.

This is our humble proposal; it has long been the practice for the Old Testament texts to be read in Churches, and yet nobody really knows what they mean. They talk about stuff which has no relationship or direct application to our lives today. Who cares about the furnishings of an ancient tent, or the names of the sons of Levi? Rather, this has been time usually wasted in empty listening. A review of the New Testament shows that the important stuff from the Old Testament is generally mentioned there anyway, and so we think it no loss to discard the Old Testament. What merit is there in hearing tired stories of long dead people in an alien culture? This time now freed can be used for reading the Qu’ran, something much more educational and informative to the congregations. Many will never have heard from the Qu’ran before, and so this will be new and breathtaking – indeed it could well lead to a great increase in Church membership and collection plate revenues! Lest our proposal seems too extreme, let the Old Testament stories be retained in Sunday Schools, for that is where they are most useful anyway. We would not wish to deprive children of fun stories of brave men or big battles.

Further, through reading of the Qu’ran, we will be able to increase in the degree to which we understand our neighbours of the Islamic faith, and may even have the opportunity to make them Church members. As many worship on Friday afternoons, they may relish the chance to come to a Sunday morning service at which the Qu’ran is read and where they can pray in a devotional atmosphere. Needless to say, even these persons will increase the collections.

If, however, you cannot possibly be persuaded to grant it, we beseech you at least not to forbid it. We think you are brave enough to do right without fear of those who can even slay the body. And in fact you will have to refrain at least from interfering. For there is a report that most of the ecclesiastics have already departed from the heretical idea of the Bible being the inerrant word of God, and are already leading their congregations into a much more understanding and modern theology, more in agreement with how we suppose God wished us to understand him in our present culture. Accordingly, scorn our petition not as of little account; for if in our quest for a more complete religion we cast out the most important resource of the Qu’ran, all will suffer and we will be needlessly disunited from our brothers in Abraham.

The Most High God long preserve your Grace in prosperity and in the knowledge of God! We pray with all humility that you will take all we have said in a spirit of justice and kindness.

Your Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor’s most obedient servants;

THE UNDERSIGNED

*With apologies to Huldreich Zwingli, who unlike this letter, was entirely serious

4 com

The issues that concern believers are often different to those which concern unbelievers – and so the questions they ask are different. In these two interviews with Dr. Montgomery these questions and how they can be approached are discussed in a brief overview form. Topics include common objections, the scientific method and historical evidence.

Throughout the interviews Dr. Montgomery emphasises the need to address the foundational truth claims of Christianity rather than vainly discuss peripheral and later issues or criticisms.

“If Einstein was caught shoplifting, would E no longer equal mc2?”, “I thought that historians could deal with anything for which there is strong historical evidence…” and much more from John Warwick Montgomery.

Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers
Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers 2

These interviews are from the Issues Etc. program and the files are hosted by Trinity Lutheran Church, California.

3 com

Something that has at times confused me is how we can reconcile our total depravity apart from God with the real fact of there existing works which seem good amongst those who do not believe. On the one hand there are clear Biblical statements such as that nobody is righteous, that nobody seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11), that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that the intention of man’s heart is evil from from his youth (Gen 8:21), and that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God’s law (Romans 8:7). On the other hand, there is the evidence we see around us of people apart from God achieving things that do benefit others, and showing civilised restraint in the avoidance of sin.

How do we square what the Bible says about depravity with what our personal experience says about the merit of our fellow men?

I’m going to discuss this in three parts, the first being within this post:

Some of the important questions I hope to answer include:

  • How can we account for good being done by atheists and those of other religions without concluding that fallen man has intrinsic righteousness, ability and will to do good?

  • Do all good works originate in God?
  • How does God achieve good ends in and despite the sinful rebellion of unbelieving men?

By the conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the doctrine of depravity does not contradict our experience and observations but rather that our experience and observations support and help validate the doctrine of depravity. It will be shown that the knowledge of mankind that we term our experience testifies to the depravity of mankind, and that the nature, means and motivation of works performed apart from God are illustrative of that.

Good works, evil, and sin in the absence of faith, and the inability of man apart from God to do good works

The first and most important point which I will discuss in this part is the proper distinction between authoring a good work, and authoring a work which produces a good effect. These I will term intrinsically good works and extrinsically good works respectively. In the former case, a man determines to undertake a work with the sole object of good; in the latter case, a man determines to undertake a work with the object of addressing pride, selfish desire or guilt and the effects of that work contain some aspect of good.

This distinction may be seen most clearly in Matthew 6, although it may be found elsewhere. Christ here shows the hypocrisy of those who do good but not in order that good be done but for their own selfish motives. We are instructed to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven; Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).

Although we understand this well from the perspective of faith, yet as we are presently discussing works in the absence of faith, a new question arises – whether the giving to the needy by the hypocrites was a good work, or whether it was not. That the needy received that which they wanted for seems clear, for both the instructed and the condemned are presumed to perform the same act of giving. This is, in the sight of man, a good thing. It would take a very cold heart to say that for the hungry to be fed and the naked to be clothed is a bad and an evil work.

So, why does Christ condemn the hypocrites? They have brought about the same level of benefit to those in need, and perhaps even more. After all, is this not the same Christ who exalts the works of those who have done these very things (Matthew 25:34-40) and condemns those who have failed in doing so (Matthew 25:41-46)? The ends, so we are told by the wisdom of our age, justify the means. What we must realise is that Christ does not condemn the work, but the hypocrites. Christ does not condemn the poor being given to in their need, but he does condemn the motivation of the hypocrites as they set out to do so. Here then is an extrinsically good work, one which by outward measure brings good, but by inward measure is driven by pride, vainglory and a selfish desire for praise in the eyes of man. The hypocrites did not give in order to do good, but in order that others would judge their act as good and so be increased in public estimation.

Where is the sin, where is the evil, where is the wicked work, and where is the good work? The sin is on the part of the hypocrite, for despite the opportunity to do good to the glory of God he performed an act extrinsically good to his own glory; the evil is in the heart of the hypocrite, for he sought to make himself the author of good works in the eyes of man, taking the place of God himself; the wicked work is in his performance of the act in order to be seen, a wicked work by a wicked man; and so the good work then springs in no way from the desire or merit of the hypocrite to perform good, but is attributable solely to the unseen design of God. The honour, praise and glory here belong only to God himself – in no way can we attribute merit, righteousness or authorship of good to the hypocrite.

It is perhaps worthwhile to re-read the words of the righteous in Matthew 25:37 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?…”, and note the ignorance that they display of their own good works. Some suggest that the righteous are unaware that in serving their neighbour they serve Christ, yet to me this seems contrived, for such a teaching is set out frequently in both testaments. Whilst at this point it is postulation, it appears likely that indeed they “[did] not let [their] left hand know what [their] right hand [was] doing” (Matthew 6:3), and as they were conformed to the Christ through the Spirit they brought about “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [they] should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) – this not being their self-righteous design to gain merit through works but the quickening sanctification of the Spirit himself.

The distinction here is perhaps well expressed in an imperfect summary; that there are some who for some cause set out to do good works and so perform them when the opportunity arises, but there are others who when the opportunity arises perform good works ‘automatically’ (which is, in fact, due to sanctification). I do not imagine that Christ decided he wanted to do good works, but rather than when presented with human need and suffering, it was his nature to help; and so, as we are conformed to Christ through the spirit, it becomes our nature that our faith is manifested in good works by the spirit, rather than that we decide to attempt works for our own self-righteousness.

Yet, there are those without faith who quietly perform works, who avoid the snare that caught the hypocrites. What do we say of these? Are these works good works? In the same way as we have seen the evil in the hypocrites by looking not to the effect but to the motivation, we should try to assess the reasons that a man might do extrinsically good works quietly or in secret.

First, there is selfish empathy. Now, empathy is a very powerful emotion and characteristic of much that we see as good in humanity; but at its root is selfishness. This, I realise, seems rather cold and mean-spirited, but it is important that we get to the heart of the matter.

When a man sees another man suffering and experiences empathy, he imagines himself in the position of the other, and thinks to himself how he might feel and how he might suffer. He reasons within himself that such feelings and sufferings would be terrible, painful and intolerable and this brings about fear within him – an entirely natural fear – that what has happened to this man (or something similar) might one day happen to him or his family, and that nobody would help.

It offends our concept of right and wrong primarily because we see a level of wrong committed that we fear being subjected to ourselves. When empathy prompts us to seek to help the other, we rationalise that we wish to ‘make the world a fairer place’ or to ‘improve social safety nets’ etc. and indeed that is what we may do, but from the beginning it is motivated by our selfish wish to have a fairer world and social safety nets for ourselves, for this is the root of the emotion of empathy – putting yourself in the place of the other, thinking about how bad it would be for you to be there, and so setting out to put in an escape ladder should you one day arrive there. We see just this in countries with more developed forms of social security, for those who agitated for such systems become quiet and content once they reach a level at which they feel reasonable safeguards are in place – they do not continue with the same zeal to do good – for doing good in itself was never their aim.

Second, there is self-righteous vainglory. This seems to come quite naturally to all men, and is characterised by our selfish wish to think well of ourselves. From infancy, we love to be praised and have our ‘self confidence’ built up, and this is proper that we be so encouraged; yet, over time external affirmation gives way to our internal self-praise and self-congratulation. It is a difficult thing indeed for a man to look on himself as essentially evil and wicked, which should be clear by considering any number of military dictators who despite committing the most heinous of crimes and abuses constantly seek ways to justify their acts to themselves. This pride in our own self-righteousness and vainglory manifests itself in many ways; one of which is the urge to compensate for our deficiencies. Being aware of our failings in some aspect, it is quite usual for our wounded pride to ache for a cause of self-celebration, something we can obtain quite readily by setting out to do some good work. Consider the adulterous husband who tries to be particularly nice to his wife – not for her benefit – but because he wishes to patch up his wounded self-righteousness. This of course is the root of false or emotional guilt; for in so much as it is due to an injured pride it is not due to recognising our failings before Almighty God (which is not to say that God’s natural law doesn’t influence in some part the measurement of self image). The end is (usually) good which would not have come about otherwise, but yet the motivation is self-righteous vainglory and so it is yet again only extrinsically good and not intrinsically good. If the person were to judge himself as fully self-righteous again and with an intact pride such that he felt the superior of his peers, he would cease in his wish to do more good – for doing good was never his aim.

Third, there is fear. There is a form of fear of condemnation which drives a man to come to terms with his own failings, and this is in some ways shaped by his religious beliefs. In some religions, he will be presented with a high example to follow in order to ascend to heaven and achieve enlightenment, in others with a karma-like concept in which good must be done to cancel out or balance bad – with consequences in this life of that to come. As he becomes aware of his failings, he starts to worry about the consequences of his defects. Being apart from the Gospel, if he does not abandon all hope, he will seek to meet the required standard through works of merit and charity. His acts then are selfish, for they are motivated by a desire to improve his own standing and so avoid the consequences of his past sins. On one level, such logic seems reasonable, but only where the depravity of man is not fully appreciated; on another level, this is little more than self-righteous vain-glory, for the aim is to build up his assessment of his own righteousness and not to see to it that good is done. That much good is done because of such fears is undeniable, but because the root motivation for the action is self-centered and for one’s own benefit, it is extrinsically good but not intrinsically good. If the person were told that he had fulfilled all the required merit to cancel his past sins, he would cease to be motivated to do further good – for doing good was never his aim.

So, it becomes clear that when a man apart from faith appears to be motivated to do good, at the root is not a wish to do good, but some form of self-serving or selfish aim. Whether his wish is to build himself up before his peers, before his god(s), or before his own self image the judgement is the same – that he did not wish to do good but merely did works that brought about the effect of good in serving his own selfish lusts. On what basis then can God be expected to declare these works good works if they are motivated by evil and not by good? Truly, good proceeded from them, but the author of the good was not the author of the work.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how it is possible that a sinful act can produce good, how the author of an act and the author of its effect can be different, and share some passages from the Bible which talk about a similar concept. In the final part, I will develop examples of the way in which God restrains us in our sin apart from faith, that is – how God so arranges it that despite us being wicked and entirely affected by sin we do not cause to pass as great an evil as we possibly could.

Do you agree with what I’ve set out about the motivation of works which, on the surface, appear to be good works? What’s your experience been of those who do not have faith? I’d love to hear your comments on this, and the coming parts in due course.

Part Two

6 com

The epistle of James, part of the New Testament, contains a passage which has become a favourite of those who have difficulty accepting sola fide, the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. Foremost in this regard are the twelve verses of James 2:14-26 in which it appears that James contradicts what Paul outlines frequently elsewhere by insisting on the necessity of works as well as faith for justification.

That this particular passage has become a favourite is regrettable, for those who use it to back up their rejection of sola fide invariably embarrass themselves by making a real mess of understanding what the passage actually says. Keen to draw the mind of their listeners to the words which suggest their case, they fail to employ the basic principles of Biblical exegesis and arrive at an entirely false hermeneutic. As is to be expected in such a circumstance, the case that they then build is fatally flawed.

It should suffice to state this and let the matter rest – as justification by faith is well set out in many other passages (Luke 5:20; John 3:16; John 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5 etc.), and pointing out the errors of those who are already happy to ignore so many clear statements in favour of one is futile; yet, the scripture twisting of this passage continues and often does achieve its desired aim of diverting the weaker brothers amongst us from the foundations of our Christian faith. Therefore, as medicine and perhaps part immunisation, let us go into a little detail as to the meaning of the text as is most readily apparent from the text itself, and from the Biblical context.

James 2:14: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The section in question opens with two questions, the answers to which are first discussed and then stated. The first question asks the value of a faith without works, and the second asks if this faith without works is able to effect salvation. Take great care to note here the phrase is “if someone says he has” and not “if someone has”, for here we discuss not the nature of faith but the nature of a claim to faith. This discussion is thematically an extension of that with which the epistle opens, where we read “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). In the opening, James relates the value of being tested in the faith, for it produces steadfastness. Note the order; first that there is faith, then that is tested, and that the testing produces steadfastness. First faith, then the works which proceed from faith in due course.

Here, in James 2:14 we are asked the reverse question; almost as if it were to say “What good is it if a man meets with trials of various kinds, but his faith does not produce steadfastness? Can that faith save him?” True faith, as in 1:3, responds to tests and challenges, it moves the believer to respond to God’s will. The nature of faith already being set out previously as one which responds with works, the word “faith” in the following verses is necessarily a reference to “claimed faith without works” as in James 2:14 rather than (as some have argued) a true faith without works.

James 2:15-16: If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

As if to underline the point, we next read an example of these works. The ‘one of you’ here is also by implication a brother or sister, that is, one who claims faith; and perhaps until this point there has been no reason to doubt the professed faith of the man. Yet, in his failure to respond, he betrays the absence of a true faith. The fault here is with the faith of the person and suggests it to be a false faith. This is then the thrust of the argument in this section, that a claimed faith which does not manifest itself in works when the time for such arrives is not a true faith. This is in good agreement with the rest of scripture (e.g. Philippians 1:6,11; Romans 8:29-30).

James 2:17: So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

We come to the first contentious point of the passage, which seems to contradict so many other passages of scripture. Yet, if the context of the verse is taken into account, we should rather read “so also man who claims to have faith, but from which works do not proceed, has a dead (or a falsely claimed) faith”. As the Spirit is received by grace in faith it is impossible for there to be a true faith which is dead, but rather only an empty claim to faith apart from the life of the Spirit. Remember, these works here discussed proceed from faith, and as they proceed by the same grace as that which has first justified the believer then they necessarily and without fail follow faith. So, to suggest that a man has a true and present faith, but from his faith works do not proceed, is to attribute a fault not to the man or to his faith, but to the Spirit which indwells him, and almost to imply that God himself is guilty of the failure. No, rather, it is clear that by dead faith James means nothing more complex than the state of a man who claims to have faith but in fact has none.

James 2:18: But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Skilfully, the question is turned around yet again, and to great effect. Having discussed the manifestation of a false claim to faith in the lack of works, the question becomes one of how one might demonstrate faith other than through works. Although the question is, in some ways, redundant, yet it serves well to emphasise the line of reasoning. The challenge is rhetorical, for a man cannot show his faith to man other than by the witness of his sanctification.

James 2:19: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder

Here follows a qualification to faith, which is to state that faith must have its proper object; for the mere belief that God is one is insufficient. The faith which saves is faith in the person and work of Christ (e.g. I Peter 1:8-9), not merely the nature of God, and so here those who profess faith but deny the Gospel are condemned. Although it does not immediately fit the flow of the argument, yet it is essential that this point is raised, for there are many who believe, but somewhat fewer who have the Gospel as the object of that belief. It is likely that it relates directly to Deuteronomy 6:4, which was used by Jews frequently almost as a miniature creed, and almost mocks the empty repetition of the phrase which was most often quite apart from faith in God let alone in the covenant promises through Abraham.

James 2:20-23: Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

Here is a rather pointed and strongly worded question, but it serves its purpose well. The object is much related to what we have just read of the object of faith, and should be as we have discussed read in the context of a claimed faith. Here, declared faith, claimed faith (perhaps also today’s altar calls), are labelled useless because they do not demonstrate faith – indeed we know even the servants of Satan make such claims to faith (II Corinthians 11:14-15). Next, we read a very useful example and one which deserves very close attention. The text relates to two events in the life of Abraham, the first being Genesis 22:10, and the second being Genesis 15:6. The first refers to the works, the second to the faith; and yet that of faith here written second took place some decades before that of works here written first. This then reiterates the same point yet again, that a true faith is followed in due course by works, and so although he had already been declared justified in the sight of God in Genesis 15:6 yet it is not until Genesis 22:10 that his claim to faith is justified before man. That there should be no doubt then that the justification here is according to man, it is worthwhile also reading Romans 4:1-5 on the subject of Abraham’s justification before God.

James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Whilst this verse is just a summation of what precedes it, yet given the frequency with which it is taken from its context and used to support all manner of heresy, it demands a more complete discussion. The blame perhaps rests to some extent with our reformers, who used the language of ‘justification by faith’ so frequently that when we see ‘faith’ and ‘justification’ in one verse we jump to the conclusion that what is meant is declarative justification of man before God. Yet, in Greek as in English, the word ‘justified’/δικαιόω bears two meanings. Read, for example, Luke 10:29 or Luke 16:15 and you will see this other sense; the sense of a man seeking to appear justified in his actions. Many people lock the door of their house when they leave it empty, and given the risk of burglary they are justified in doing so. Yet, we do not dream to suggest that by locking your door you are declared righteous before God, no – but merely justified in your action before man. This verse itself is a direct answer to the challenge of James 2:18, for it points out what we already discussed, the futility of trying to justify (show, demonstrate, exhibit) a claimed faith without the works which proceed from faith.

James 2:25: And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Here, just as we read in Hebrews 11:31, is testimony to the faith of Rahab. Because she had faith, when that faith was tested by the spies (Joshua 2:1), it produced in her works. It is because of her works that she was justified in the eyes of the spies, and so she found favour in their eyes (Joshua 2:14). This justification then is not a declaration of the saving justification by which a man is declared righteous before God, but to the other meaning already discussed, the justification of Rahab’s claim to faith in the eyes of man.

As to the application of this passage, I find it to be very directly applicable and of great instructive value to Christians today. Although we know that only God knows the heart of a man, yet here we are given a means by which we might recognise those who falsely claim faith. In such a manner, this teaching is parallel to that of Christ in Matthew 7:16, for it is by the works which proceed from faith that a claimant to faith is justified in his claim, and conversely by the presence of bad works or the absence of works in due course (which is strictly speaking a bad work in itself) that such a claim be dismissed as unjustified.

The crucial question then arises, which is the correct course of action to be taken regarding a person who claims faith but appears defective in works. Two options present themselves; the first – to encourage the person to do good works, the second – to proclaim the Gospel to that person.

If we choose the first option, that is if we exhort those we think to be without true faith to perform works, do we not risk exhorting them into a false righteousness apart from the righteousness of God and Christ (Romans 10:3++), giving them false hope and comfort in their state of separation from God, deceiving them into thinking themselves justified before God by the performance of acts to justify themselves before man?

The second option, to proclaim to them the Word, does not seem to address the problem of a lack of works until it be realised that the lack of works points to the lack of faith and not the reverse. As scripture tells us, it is the hearing of the Gospel which leads us faith, and so not exhortation to works (Romans 10:17).

It is then clear that it is wrong to use James 2:14++ for the purpose of exhorting persons of defective works to perform more works, for such a use is to confuse law and grace in making the sanctifying work of the Spirit (received by faith through grace) into law for man to perform in order that he might somehow earn or merit faith (which again is by grace). The remedy for defective works is then not exhortation to works, for the defective lack of works is symptomatic of a lack of faith. Just as a poor doctor might treat the symptoms and not the disease, so too does the poor use of this passage treat the sign of a lack of faith and not the lack of faith itself.

22 com

These two brilliant talks by Dr. Don Carson talk about the reliability of the New Testament in historical terms. As he explains, the focus is not the Bible but God himself, and so he unfolds the case for historical reliability as it arises from the historical actions of God and the historical facts regarding the Christ. The talks discuss a variety of approaches to this topic as well as including very interesting comparisons between different religions and different ways of thinking about truth.

The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 1]
The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 2]

Personally, I found them greatly rewarding listening, and will be following up on some of his recommendations for further reading.

3 com

Galatians 2.15-21; ESV
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who 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 gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

In the scripture above, taken from Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul tackles the Jews amongst his audience, he himself being a Jew; and so, whilst he clearly rejects their theology, we see his ability to empathise with them and so present his argument that it might be clearly understood from their point of view. This is important to remember, because if it is read as if it were directed at believers in general then almost one half of the argument is lost, that is – the implied objections and rejections of the Jews. That being said, there is much that relates the theology of the Jewish Christians in Galatia with that of many Christians today, for in both cases there is a failure to understand the absoluteness of grace, a grace which boldly declares that no work of man whatsoever merits or contributes to salvation.

The Jews of the day had been raised in the knowledge that they were the chosen people of God: they were circumcised in the flesh, and sought to observe all parts of the law in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis. This law comprised four parts, the first being the ceremonial law – those ceremonies, rites, and rules of ritual purity that were a peculiar part of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel through the temple, the second being moral law – those edicts and commands of God founded in morality – such as the ten commandments, the third being civil law – the means by which God provided regulatory governance to Israel as they lived in the land, and the fourth the oral tradition – the body of case law and rulings which was formed by the rabbis and teachers of the law over generations to interpret the law and add safeguards against accidentally breaking it.

Paul, a Jew, here groups himself with his audience, so when he says “we ourselves”, that is what he means – those Jews who have come to faith in Christ, himself included. Note carefully his opening argument: first, that they were born Jews and as such born with the law and apart from Gentiles, then that because by the works of the law no one will be justified, so that even they as Jews had put their trust in Christ.

By trying to do the works demanded by the law, to keep the law in all its parts, the Jews had long thought that they would be able to obtain righteousness and so be justified before God. So far, Paul has no quarrel with them, for God did promise righteousness through the perfect keeping of the law; yet, that really is theory rather than practice – for the law is impossible for sinful man to keep, neither for Jew nor for Gentile. It is true to say that man is able to keep some parts of the law, and indeed for periods of time much of the ceremonial law was kept; yet, the moral law in particular demands standards so high no fallen man can ever meet them entirely.

Just consider what Jesus calls the greatest commandment, that in Deuteronomy 6:5, where we read “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”. Whilst what this commandment asks of us it is entirely good and right, yet, what man can say there has never been a moment in which he has not loved God with all his heart, that there has never been a time when his soul took pleasure in sin, and that throughout his life he has always used his entire might in the love of God? Even today, can any man claim that since he woke he has not wavered even slightly in the entirety of his love for God, with the fullness of his soul, and in the completeness of his might?

So, when Paul says that a person is not justified by the works of the law, he does not mean that the promise of God that keeping the law would result in righteousness is false, rather that because no man is able to keep the law, it shall not justify any man. There is no salvation through the law, because there is no keeping of the law; indeed, the law was only kept once, by Christ himself. No man before Christ, contemporary to Christ or after Christ has kept the law, so that there really is none that is righteous. Every man who measures himself against the law – that is to say, the full law of God, as revealed – finds he falls short. Before the law, no man can stand, no man finds himself without sin, and so by the law all mankind dies.

On the other hand, Paul now states the basis of our justification, that we are justified through faith in Jesus Christ. We, of habit and convenience tend to conflate the two; to tie indelibly that we are not saved by works, and that we are saved by faith – but they are not as one point, but rather an ordered progression. It is entirely possible to not be saved by works without being saved by faith; yet it is not possible to be saved by faith without deserting salvation by works. So, the first does not demand the second, yet the second demands the first.

“Because by works of the law no one will be justified” is not just the flip-side of the coin, it is a death sentence to every Jew and everyone who hopes to be justified through works. To Paul’s Jewish audience it is to say that the law in which they were born, raised and to which they have been striving in the hope of life is instead the sure and certain promise of death. That’s a serious matter, a deeply insulting allegation, and an implied condemnation of the whole Jewish community – it is to say that the whole basis of Jewish pietistic and legalistic religion is futile and foolish.

Having given such a statement, the natural thought of the Jewish mind is to the effect of this on the status of a Jew and his existing works of the law. Now, it was taught that the Gentiles were sinful because they were without the law, and that the Jews gained righteousness by being under the law; and so the question becomes whether by ceasing to strive for salvation by works of the law they would become sinners just as the Gentiles. Worse yet, is is because of faith in Christ that they become sinners? If it is the faith in Christ that makes them come to terms with their sin, then they might reason it is Christ bringing sin to them.

Paul answers this with absolute clarity – “Certainly not!” – and he shows the error in this line of thought. As his first argument, he writes that “if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor”, and here we need only think as far as Christ, for it is Christ that tore down the tyranny of sin, and so to suggest that Christ then rebuilds sin through faith in him would make Christ himself a sinner! Next, he presents to us the true and proper basis of faith and our response to faith. This is in two important statements.

The first statement is this – that “through the law I died to the law” – for this what we have seen, that it is the commands of the law which despite being entirely good, demand a holiness impossible for fallen man; and so it is due to the nature of the law itself that any man who honestly measures himself against the law will not find the justification he seeks but rather the condemnation of his own sin. It is not then Christ, or faith in Christ, which causes one to die to the law but rather the law itself. If a man under the law believes he can stand under the law, then surely either he fails to understand the full requirement of the law, or in pride and conceit he estimates his own righteousness far beyond the fact.

The second statement is this – “so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ” Now, there is a verse number in the middle of this sentence, suggesting that the phrase about living to God relates first to dying to sin, and that being crucified with Christ stands all alone. This does not seem to be the sense of the passage, and it would be odd for Paul to make such a statement without connecting it to anything whilst in the midst of a developed argument. Rather, and given that the verse number and punctuation is a later addition, it seems more appropriate to read this statement as one – “so that I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ. So, the first statement is that “through the law I died to the law”, and the second “so that i might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ” – another form of death, the first death to the law by the condemnation of the law, and the second a death to sin through Christ. One is in essence the death of sin which reveals sinfulness, the other in essence the death to sin which brings life in Christ through faith. The agent of the first is the law, the agent of the second is Christ; and so in no way can the argument that Christ somehow produces sin hold water.

The truth of this underlines the distinction between law and grace, that although both bring about death, and both forms of death may be suffered, yet they differ entirely both in their result and in their actor or agent. This is again emphasised by Paul when he summarises that “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”; which is to say that through the death by the law truly comes death (even before he hoped in Jesus Christ Paul was dead under the law) and yet it is through faith in Jesus Christ that he is crucified into Christ so that Christ might live in him. He was already under death, for he was already a transgressor of the law, and now he has life, but yet it is not him that lives, but Christ who lives in him.

For this reason then Paul can boldly state that the life he now lives “in the flesh”, by which he means that life connected to this world and this age, is lived by faith in the Son of God. Yet, faith itself is insufficient. We often hear that faith saves, yet it is more correct to talk of saving faith; for not all faith is faith in the same thing, and so not all faith is equal or indeed saving. Paul states what his faith is, when he writes of Christ “who loved me and gave himself for me”. The first object of faith then is in the love of Christ, which is to say the grace of God – for because it is due to the love of Christ it is not by any merit of man but rather by grace alone; and the second object here listed is that Christ gave himself “for me” – and note well that Paul talks of himself, personally and singularly. This is a personal faith in the personal saving work of a personal God, and that saving work being the death of Christ. The life Paul once sought through the law he now acknowledges correctly seen as being only death, for he now lives by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Thus far we have spoken of Paul and his Jewish audience; yet, by now it should be clear that his teaching is not applicable to Jews alone. We too love to place our trust in the works of the law, to trust in being good people, to feel that God should favour us more because we are more righteous than most. We go to Bible studies, pray long prayers, never miss Church, and bow deeply before the table, ever feeling that we are not like ordinary people, that we are doing okay, and unless God is only planning to take say the top 1% to heaven, we’re likely to be accepted. We love to look at our good works, to think about all the money we donate, all the kind words we say, all the scripture we read, for it gives us hope that we’re not so bad after all, that we can achieve that righteousness that God requires. We are no better than the Jews to whom Paul wrote, for we too love to seek righteousness by works.

To us then, as well as to his audience, Paul stands up for the Gospel, when he says “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” This isn’t just fighting talk, nor is it merely an accusation of the deepest and most serious blasphemy; this is to say that we who fail to trust in Grace alone do not have faith in Christ and are therefore not saved by Christ. If we hold that justification is through the law, then we are, says Paul, denying that Christ died for a purpose – and if we believe Christ died without a purpose, we can profit nothing from his death.

We too, just as Paul and the Jewish Christians in Galatia, are to hold steadfastly to the Gospel of our salvation, which as Paul explains, is necessarily and unavoidably by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

3 com

Subscribe to Emails

Most commented