These words occur in John 6:40; 54, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day . . . . Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
"The Father's will" in verse 40 is "the will of God" designed to save alien sinners.
It is the same aspect of "the will of God" found in Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50 and
Matthew 21:31. To confuse it with "the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning" the
children of God (I Thess 5:18), by which they "walk and . . . . please God (I Thess
4:1-3) is to blunder. This aspect of "the will of God" is found in verses like
Colossians 1:9; 4:12; and I Jn 5:14.
From John 6:40; 54, notice three important facts. First the words "hath eternal life"
precede the promise, "I will raise him up at the last day." The Lord does not say, "I
will raise him up at the last day in order to determine whether or not he will have
eternal life." But, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day."
Similarly in John 5:24, the Lord said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." The Lord does not
say, "He shall come into judgment in order to determine whether or not he will have
eternal life." But, " . . . . he . . . . hath everlasting life . . . . is passed from
death unto life . . . . and shall not come into judgment . . . ."
Second, the words, "I will raise him up at the last day," are inapplicable to "the
inward man," whom God " . . . . hath raised . . . . up," a fact which precedes "the
ages to come" (Eph 2:6-7).
Third, The same condition by which one "hath eternal life," in John 6:54, also secures
the promise, "I will reaise him up at the last day." That condition is, "Whoso eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood," an expression equivalent to believing on Christ since
the result of doing one is the same as the result of doing the other (Jn 6:47; 54) and
things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
This third point is of major importance. It is our conviction God's Word teaches the
final aspect of deliverance is secured on exactly the same condition by which one
becomes a child of God. That conviction distinguishes us from those previously quoted
in the beginning of this section who hold there are many "ifs between the Christ and
his final redemption," inclusive of the Church of Christ, the Catholics, the Mormons,
the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Nazarenes and many more not mentioned.
Is it easier to become a child of God than it is to stay one? Is one's final
acceptance conditioned on "if he be faithful," thus making it "a difficult and
critical affair?"
We think not. We purpose to present enough verses of Scripture to establish the fact
the final aspect of deliverance is secured on the same condition by which one is made
a child of God and not on conditions beyond become a child of God. Those verses are
from John 6:54; Romans 5:9; 8:30; Galatians 4:7; and I Thessalonians 5:9-10.
The first reads, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:54). The condition stated is "Whoso eateth
my flesh, and drinketh my blood." The result of so doing is twofold. "Hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
What is the condition "between" these two? Obviously there is none. For John 6:54 to
teach what those from whom we have quoted say God's Word teaches, it would have to
read something like this, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath the
remission of his past sins only; and if he be faithful to the commands of Christ
beyond that fact, I will raise him up at the last day so as to determine whether or
not he will have eternal life."
When one "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood," according to John 6:54, he "hath
eternal life," which not only obtains prior to the promise, "I will raise him up at
the last day," but also secures the latter promise on exactly the same condition.
What does it mean to "eat my flesh, and drink my blood?" It is equivalent to believing
on Christ. It is true, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn 6:47).
It is also true, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life" (Jn
6:54). Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Because two plus two
equals four and three plus one equals four, it is also true, two plus two equals three
plus one.
Since the result of believing on Christ is exactly the same as the result of eating
His flesh, and drinking His blood, then the one who "believeth on me" is the one who
"eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood."
Is it "the inward man" or the "outward man" who "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood?" The "outward man" is sustained on a meat and drink basis but does not eat of
spiritual food.
In Genesis 3:17-19, God said to Adam, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . . shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life . . . . and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field . . . . shalt thou eat bread." These words are applicable to that part of man of
whom it is said, "for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return" (Gen 3:19). This language is inapplicable to "the inward man" (Gen
2:7; Eccl 12:7; Zech 12:1; Job 10:11; 14:22).
Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4). "The inward man" does not eat of physical food and the
"outward man" does not "live by . . . . every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God." There is spiritual food designed of God in order to have spiritual life and
there is spiritual food designed of God in order to provide for the growth and
nourishment of those who have spiritual life (Jn 4:13-14; 6:35; 54; Heb 5:11-14; I Pet
2:2).
The only part of man capable of eating and drinking as per John 6:35; 50-51; 53-54;
56; 58 is "the inward man" and it is that part of man who "hath eternal life" as the
result. But, not only does he have "eternal life," he also secures to himself the
promise, "I will raise him up at the last day." This future raising up pertains to the
"outward man" for "the inward man" has already been quickened, redeemed, saved, raised
up and "hath eternal life" as we have shown.
The next verse, Romans 5:9 reads, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him." Paul spoke of "the wrath to come" (I Thess
1:10). The words "shall be saved" look to the future and promise deliverance 'from
wrath." The question is, what is the condition given in Romans 5:9 which stands
"between" being "now justified by his blood?"
Obviously, there is none. For Romans 5:9 to teach what those from whom we have quoted
say God's Word teaches, it would have to read something like this: "Much less then,
being now justified by his blood, we have the remission of past sins only, and if we
maintain the works of faith beyond that fact, we shall hope to at last be saved from
wrath through that effort."
The words "much more" in Romans 5:9 present an argument from the greater to the less.
In verses 6-8, we learn that Christ died for a class of alien sinners said to be
"without strength . . . . ungodly . . . . sinners" and verse 10 adds, "enemies." If
that was done on behalf of an alien sinner, what do you think He will do for you "now"
that you are His child?
Romans 5;9 responds, "Much more then (not, much less then) being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." The promise, "we shall be saved from
wrath through him," is predicated of the condition, "being now justified by his
blood," and not on conditions beyond that fact. All who teach one's final acceptance
is predicated of the faithfulness of the individual do not believe "we shall be saved
from wrath through him" merely because we are "now justified by his blood." That is,
however, what Paul affirms. So be it.
The next verse, Romans 8:30, reads, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also
called; and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he
also glorified."
Here, the "glorified" equal the "justified." Therefore glorification is not predicated
of conditions beyond being "justified" but upon being "justified" for "whom he
justified, them he also glorified." Again, we remind you that "glorification," which
is the final aspect of deliverance, pertains to the body.
Justification in God's Word is twofold. One is "before God," and involves the
"ungodly" or alien sinner. The other is before man and involves "the godly" or child
of God. The justification of Abraham offers us these two aspects of truth.
In Romans 4:2-3, Paul writes, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof
to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness." Paul does not deny that Abraham was
"justified by works," for had he done that, it would have contradicted James 2:21
which asks, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar?" and James 2:24, which states in conclusion, "Ye see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
What Paul denies in Romans 4:2 is, "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath
whereof to glory; but not before God." The words, "before God" mean the same thing as
"in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:9) or "in thy sight" (Ps 143:2) or "in the sight of
God" (Gal 3:11). An alien sinner has never been justified by works "before God."
Abraham is no exception.
In Romans 4:3, we learn "it was counted unto him for righteousness." The singular
pronoun "it" cannot have as its antecedent the plural "works" of verse 2. In verse 9,
Paul said, "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." Therefore, the "faith"
of verse 9 is the "it" of verse 3 or the what he "believed," in verse 2.
When Paul affirms, "that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness," verse 9, he
raises a pertinent question, "how was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or
in uncircumcision?" (vs 10).
This fact enables the establishment of a clear cut time element. In Genesis 17:24,
Moses records "Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin. Now if he was 99-years-old "when he was circumcised," and
"faith was reckoned" to him "for righteousness" at a time when he was "in
uncircumcision," then he was righteous before he was 99-years-old. How long before is
not the important issue, but just that he was righteous before he was 99-years-old.
The specific work whereby James said Abraham was justified was the offering of his son
Isaac upon the altar (Ja 2:21; 24). This enables again the establishment of a clear
cut time element.
In Genesis 21:5, "And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born
unto him." We also know Isaac was old enough to carry wood up the mountain side (Gen
22:6) and to interrogate his father concerning "the lamb for a burnt-offering" (Gen
22:7). Therefore, safely, Abraham was older than 100 "when he had offered his son
Isaac upon the altar." Now if he was reckoned to be righteous before he was
99-years-old, and was "justified by works" after he was 100-years-old, then the latter
act cannot be done in order to obtain what he already had. It may manifest it. It may
describe it but it cannot be in order to it. Yet James 2 is used by many as an example
of the justification of an alien sinner.
Romans 4 deals with an event in Abraham's life before he was 99-years-old whereas
James 2 deals with an even in the same man's life but after he was 100-years-old.
Romans 4 deals with the justification of "the ungodly" (Rm 4:5), whereas James 2 deals
with the justification of "Abraham our father . . . . the friend of God," a righteous
man (Ja 2:21; 23; Rm 4:10; Gen 17:24).
Romans 4 is a justification "before God" (RM 4:2), whereas James 2 is before man, or
those included in the words, "Seest thou . . . . Ye see then" (Ja 2:22; 24). Romans 4
is a justification without works (Rm 4:2; 4-6), whereas James 2 is a justification "by
works" (Ja 2:18; 21; 24). Romans 4 describes Abraham's being made a child of God,
whereas James 2 describes his being manifest as such.
In the Book of Romans, we have discussed, in several articles, the justification of
"the ungodly." In Romans 3:24, "Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The word "freely" means literally "for nought,
without just cause." The word is used in Matthew 10:8 and Revelation 22:17 and lays
stress on the grace of the giver.
In Romans 5:9, we learn one is "justified by his blood" and in Romans 5:1, that one is
"justified by faith" and in this sense "faith" is a mental response to the truth which
precedes any overt activity in evidence of it. "Grace" is the very essence of
justificaiton. It is God's unmerited favor bestowed upon sinners by which God sets
aside what they deserve in order to confer upon them that which they did not deserve
and never could earn.
Yet, this was not done at the expense of truth for "his blood" is the very ground of
justification. It was not simply "by blood," but "by his blood," that is, the blood of
God's appointed sacrifice, the Lord Jesus Christ. That sacrifice satisfied what the
justice of a holy God demanded as payment for sin and enabled God to justify "the
ungodly" man without doing violence to His own standard of justice.
"Faith" is the instrument of justification and enables the believing sinner to receive
the benefit of God's gracious provision. Justification, in the sense in which it is
used in Romans 3:24; 4:5; 5:1; and 5:9, is the act of God removing from the believing
sinner his guilt and the penalty incurred by that guilt and bestowing a positive
righteousness, Christ Jesus Himself, in whom the believer stands innocent, uncondemned
and righteous.
All who are "justified" in that sense, secure the promise to be "glorified" on exactly
the same condition by which they were "justified." Therefore, Romans 8:30 reads in
part, "and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
For this verse to teach what those from whom we have quoted say that God's Word
teaches as to man's final acceptance, it would have to read something like this. "And
whom he justified has the remission of past sins only, and him will he also glorify if
he is faithful until death."
In Romans 8:33 Paul asks, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" The
answer is, no one but is it because His children always do what is pleasing to the
Lord?
No one I know believes such a thing. Yet, millions of people religiously speaking have
predicated their hope to at last be saved in heaven on such a supposition. This has
never been the ground of hope in God's Word.
The answer to the question of Romans 8:33 does not involve the faithfulness of "God's
elect," but it does affirm, "It is God that justifieth." How could this affirmation
answer a "charge" against "God's elect," unless in that justification all has been
done that is necessary to satisfy righteously the demands of justice and a holy God?
In this justification, God is not only "just" but also the "justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus" (Rm 3:26). Justice demands death as the penalty of sin. The death
of Christ completely satisfied that demand.
Then Paul asks, "Who is he that condemneth?" (Rm 8:34). This question is answered by
stating the foundation on which God was able to justify the "elect" in the first
question. "It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again."
Look to the cross my friend. There was the wisdom of God. Justice was completely
satisfied and therein is the salvation of man, in spite of his utter helplessness.
"Come now" is the divine invitation. It is rooted in justice met, love displayed and
mercy offered.
The next verse, Galatians 4:7, reads, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a
son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Here, heirship is not
predicated on the activity of one who is "a son" but upon sonship itself.
The verse does not read, "If a faithful son, then an heir of God through Christ."
which it must say according to those who teach man's final acceptance is predicated of
the works of faith. It says, "if a son, then an heir." That is what we believe and
teach.
The last verse we wish to use, as illustrative of the truth the final aspect of
deliverance is secured on exactly the same condition by which one receives the benefit
of the primary aspect of deliverance is I Thessalonians 5:9-10.
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ. Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with
him."
Paul desired to "perfect that which is lacking in your faith," referring to the
subjects of address (I Thess 3:10). Yet, he said to them, including himself, "Jesus .
. . . delivered us from the wrath to come" (I Thess 1:10).
These subjects were said to have been "delivered from the wrath to come," yet there
was something "lacking in" their "faith." Therefore, what was "lacking" had nothing to
do with their having been "delivered from the wrath to come." The basis of that
deliverance was, and is, "by our Lord Jesus Christ. Who died for us" (I Thess 5:9-10).
In I Thessalonians 5:6, Paul exhorts, not alien sinners, but the children of God.
"Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."
Let us suppose the children of God fail in that responsibility. What then? Will that
failure nullify their standing as the children of God? Some answer, "yes," and that is
the answer of all who base man's final acceptance on works but hear Paul.
"Whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." In verse 6, the word
"sleep" is from katheud and the word "watch" is from grgore. Interestingly enought,
the word "sleep" in verse 10 is also from katheud and the word "wake" is from the same
word grgore, translated "watch" in verse 6.
Now hear scholarship. "Whether we wake grgore, translated 'watch' in marg., as in v.
6, and each of the twenty-one other places in which it occurs in the N.T. . . . . or
sleep, katheud, as in v. 6 . . . . It is obviously impossible to understand the words
of natural wakefulness and natural sleep. And inasmuch as grgore is not used elsewhere
in the metaphorical sense of 'to be alive,' and as katheud means 'to be dead' in only
one place out of two and twenty occurrences in N.T., and never elsewhere in Paul's
Epistles, there does not seem to be sufficient justification for departing from the
usual meaning of the words, i.e., vigilance and expectancy as contrasted with laxity
and indifference." (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, by C.F.
Hogg and W.E. Vine)
Therefore, failure in the realm of duty has nothing whatever to do with being
"delivered . . . . from the wrath to come." No wonder Paul could say as the result of
such teaching, "Wherefore comfort yourselves together" (I Thess 5:11). There is no
basis of comfort except in the knowledge of the truth that "being now justified by
(not the works of faith but) his blood, we shall be saved (not from past sins but)
from wrath through him" (Rm 5:9).
We have given five texts that teach: 1) the promise, "I will raise him up at the last
day," is secured on the condition, "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood;" 2) the
promise, "we shall be saved from wrath," is secured on the condition, "being now
justified by his blood;" 3) the promise to be "glorified" is secured on the same
condition by which one is "justified;" 4) the promise of heirship is secured on the
same condition by which sonship is effected; and 5) that deliverance from "the wrath
to come" is predicated of the finished work of Christ and that failure in the realm of
Christian duty does not nullify that deliverance.
No one of these texts predicates final salvation on man's faithfulness or places many
"ifs" between the Christian and his final acceptance. BD
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day . . . . Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
"The Father's will" in verse 40 is "the will of God" designed to save alien sinners.
It is the same aspect of "the will of God" found in Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50 and
Matthew 21:31. To confuse it with "the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning" the
children of God (I Thess 5:18), by which they "walk and . . . . please God (I Thess
4:1-3) is to blunder. This aspect of "the will of God" is found in verses like
Colossians 1:9; 4:12; and I Jn 5:14.
From John 6:40; 54, notice three important facts. First the words "hath eternal life"
precede the promise, "I will raise him up at the last day." The Lord does not say, "I
will raise him up at the last day in order to determine whether or not he will have
eternal life." But, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day."
Similarly in John 5:24, the Lord said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." The Lord does not
say, "He shall come into judgment in order to determine whether or not he will have
eternal life." But, " . . . . he . . . . hath everlasting life . . . . is passed from
death unto life . . . . and shall not come into judgment . . . ."
Second, the words, "I will raise him up at the last day," are inapplicable to "the
inward man," whom God " . . . . hath raised . . . . up," a fact which precedes "the
ages to come" (Eph 2:6-7).
Third, The same condition by which one "hath eternal life," in John 6:54, also secures
the promise, "I will reaise him up at the last day." That condition is, "Whoso eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood," an expression equivalent to believing on Christ since
the result of doing one is the same as the result of doing the other (Jn 6:47; 54) and
things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
This third point is of major importance. It is our conviction God's Word teaches the
final aspect of deliverance is secured on exactly the same condition by which one
becomes a child of God. That conviction distinguishes us from those previously quoted
in the beginning of this section who hold there are many "ifs between the Christ and
his final redemption," inclusive of the Church of Christ, the Catholics, the Mormons,
the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Nazarenes and many more not mentioned.
Is it easier to become a child of God than it is to stay one? Is one's final
acceptance conditioned on "if he be faithful," thus making it "a difficult and
critical affair?"
We think not. We purpose to present enough verses of Scripture to establish the fact
the final aspect of deliverance is secured on the same condition by which one is made
a child of God and not on conditions beyond become a child of God. Those verses are
from John 6:54; Romans 5:9; 8:30; Galatians 4:7; and I Thessalonians 5:9-10.
The first reads, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:54). The condition stated is "Whoso eateth
my flesh, and drinketh my blood." The result of so doing is twofold. "Hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
What is the condition "between" these two? Obviously there is none. For John 6:54 to
teach what those from whom we have quoted say God's Word teaches, it would have to
read something like this, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath the
remission of his past sins only; and if he be faithful to the commands of Christ
beyond that fact, I will raise him up at the last day so as to determine whether or
not he will have eternal life."
When one "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood," according to John 6:54, he "hath
eternal life," which not only obtains prior to the promise, "I will raise him up at
the last day," but also secures the latter promise on exactly the same condition.
What does it mean to "eat my flesh, and drink my blood?" It is equivalent to believing
on Christ. It is true, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn 6:47).
It is also true, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life" (Jn
6:54). Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Because two plus two
equals four and three plus one equals four, it is also true, two plus two equals three
plus one.
Since the result of believing on Christ is exactly the same as the result of eating
His flesh, and drinking His blood, then the one who "believeth on me" is the one who
"eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood."
Is it "the inward man" or the "outward man" who "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood?" The "outward man" is sustained on a meat and drink basis but does not eat of
spiritual food.
In Genesis 3:17-19, God said to Adam, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . . shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life . . . . and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field . . . . shalt thou eat bread." These words are applicable to that part of man of
whom it is said, "for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return" (Gen 3:19). This language is inapplicable to "the inward man" (Gen
2:7; Eccl 12:7; Zech 12:1; Job 10:11; 14:22).
Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4). "The inward man" does not eat of physical food and the
"outward man" does not "live by . . . . every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God." There is spiritual food designed of God in order to have spiritual life and
there is spiritual food designed of God in order to provide for the growth and
nourishment of those who have spiritual life (Jn 4:13-14; 6:35; 54; Heb 5:11-14; I Pet
2:2).
The only part of man capable of eating and drinking as per John 6:35; 50-51; 53-54;
56; 58 is "the inward man" and it is that part of man who "hath eternal life" as the
result. But, not only does he have "eternal life," he also secures to himself the
promise, "I will raise him up at the last day." This future raising up pertains to the
"outward man" for "the inward man" has already been quickened, redeemed, saved, raised
up and "hath eternal life" as we have shown.
The next verse, Romans 5:9 reads, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him." Paul spoke of "the wrath to come" (I Thess
1:10). The words "shall be saved" look to the future and promise deliverance 'from
wrath." The question is, what is the condition given in Romans 5:9 which stands
"between" being "now justified by his blood?"
Obviously, there is none. For Romans 5:9 to teach what those from whom we have quoted
say God's Word teaches, it would have to read something like this: "Much less then,
being now justified by his blood, we have the remission of past sins only, and if we
maintain the works of faith beyond that fact, we shall hope to at last be saved from
wrath through that effort."
The words "much more" in Romans 5:9 present an argument from the greater to the less.
In verses 6-8, we learn that Christ died for a class of alien sinners said to be
"without strength . . . . ungodly . . . . sinners" and verse 10 adds, "enemies." If
that was done on behalf of an alien sinner, what do you think He will do for you "now"
that you are His child?
Romans 5;9 responds, "Much more then (not, much less then) being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." The promise, "we shall be saved from
wrath through him," is predicated of the condition, "being now justified by his
blood," and not on conditions beyond that fact. All who teach one's final acceptance
is predicated of the faithfulness of the individual do not believe "we shall be saved
from wrath through him" merely because we are "now justified by his blood." That is,
however, what Paul affirms. So be it.
The next verse, Romans 8:30, reads, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also
called; and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he
also glorified."
Here, the "glorified" equal the "justified." Therefore glorification is not predicated
of conditions beyond being "justified" but upon being "justified" for "whom he
justified, them he also glorified." Again, we remind you that "glorification," which
is the final aspect of deliverance, pertains to the body.
Justification in God's Word is twofold. One is "before God," and involves the
"ungodly" or alien sinner. The other is before man and involves "the godly" or child
of God. The justification of Abraham offers us these two aspects of truth.
In Romans 4:2-3, Paul writes, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof
to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness." Paul does not deny that Abraham was
"justified by works," for had he done that, it would have contradicted James 2:21
which asks, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar?" and James 2:24, which states in conclusion, "Ye see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
What Paul denies in Romans 4:2 is, "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath
whereof to glory; but not before God." The words, "before God" mean the same thing as
"in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:9) or "in thy sight" (Ps 143:2) or "in the sight of
God" (Gal 3:11). An alien sinner has never been justified by works "before God."
Abraham is no exception.
In Romans 4:3, we learn "it was counted unto him for righteousness." The singular
pronoun "it" cannot have as its antecedent the plural "works" of verse 2. In verse 9,
Paul said, "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." Therefore, the "faith"
of verse 9 is the "it" of verse 3 or the what he "believed," in verse 2.
When Paul affirms, "that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness," verse 9, he
raises a pertinent question, "how was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or
in uncircumcision?" (vs 10).
This fact enables the establishment of a clear cut time element. In Genesis 17:24,
Moses records "Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin. Now if he was 99-years-old "when he was circumcised," and
"faith was reckoned" to him "for righteousness" at a time when he was "in
uncircumcision," then he was righteous before he was 99-years-old. How long before is
not the important issue, but just that he was righteous before he was 99-years-old.
The specific work whereby James said Abraham was justified was the offering of his son
Isaac upon the altar (Ja 2:21; 24). This enables again the establishment of a clear
cut time element.
In Genesis 21:5, "And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born
unto him." We also know Isaac was old enough to carry wood up the mountain side (Gen
22:6) and to interrogate his father concerning "the lamb for a burnt-offering" (Gen
22:7). Therefore, safely, Abraham was older than 100 "when he had offered his son
Isaac upon the altar." Now if he was reckoned to be righteous before he was
99-years-old, and was "justified by works" after he was 100-years-old, then the latter
act cannot be done in order to obtain what he already had. It may manifest it. It may
describe it but it cannot be in order to it. Yet James 2 is used by many as an example
of the justification of an alien sinner.
Romans 4 deals with an event in Abraham's life before he was 99-years-old whereas
James 2 deals with an even in the same man's life but after he was 100-years-old.
Romans 4 deals with the justification of "the ungodly" (Rm 4:5), whereas James 2 deals
with the justification of "Abraham our father . . . . the friend of God," a righteous
man (Ja 2:21; 23; Rm 4:10; Gen 17:24).
Romans 4 is a justification "before God" (RM 4:2), whereas James 2 is before man, or
those included in the words, "Seest thou . . . . Ye see then" (Ja 2:22; 24). Romans 4
is a justification without works (Rm 4:2; 4-6), whereas James 2 is a justification "by
works" (Ja 2:18; 21; 24). Romans 4 describes Abraham's being made a child of God,
whereas James 2 describes his being manifest as such.
In the Book of Romans, we have discussed, in several articles, the justification of
"the ungodly." In Romans 3:24, "Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The word "freely" means literally "for nought,
without just cause." The word is used in Matthew 10:8 and Revelation 22:17 and lays
stress on the grace of the giver.
In Romans 5:9, we learn one is "justified by his blood" and in Romans 5:1, that one is
"justified by faith" and in this sense "faith" is a mental response to the truth which
precedes any overt activity in evidence of it. "Grace" is the very essence of
justificaiton. It is God's unmerited favor bestowed upon sinners by which God sets
aside what they deserve in order to confer upon them that which they did not deserve
and never could earn.
Yet, this was not done at the expense of truth for "his blood" is the very ground of
justification. It was not simply "by blood," but "by his blood," that is, the blood of
God's appointed sacrifice, the Lord Jesus Christ. That sacrifice satisfied what the
justice of a holy God demanded as payment for sin and enabled God to justify "the
ungodly" man without doing violence to His own standard of justice.
"Faith" is the instrument of justification and enables the believing sinner to receive
the benefit of God's gracious provision. Justification, in the sense in which it is
used in Romans 3:24; 4:5; 5:1; and 5:9, is the act of God removing from the believing
sinner his guilt and the penalty incurred by that guilt and bestowing a positive
righteousness, Christ Jesus Himself, in whom the believer stands innocent, uncondemned
and righteous.
All who are "justified" in that sense, secure the promise to be "glorified" on exactly
the same condition by which they were "justified." Therefore, Romans 8:30 reads in
part, "and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
For this verse to teach what those from whom we have quoted say that God's Word
teaches as to man's final acceptance, it would have to read something like this. "And
whom he justified has the remission of past sins only, and him will he also glorify if
he is faithful until death."
In Romans 8:33 Paul asks, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" The
answer is, no one but is it because His children always do what is pleasing to the
Lord?
No one I know believes such a thing. Yet, millions of people religiously speaking have
predicated their hope to at last be saved in heaven on such a supposition. This has
never been the ground of hope in God's Word.
The answer to the question of Romans 8:33 does not involve the faithfulness of "God's
elect," but it does affirm, "It is God that justifieth." How could this affirmation
answer a "charge" against "God's elect," unless in that justification all has been
done that is necessary to satisfy righteously the demands of justice and a holy God?
In this justification, God is not only "just" but also the "justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus" (Rm 3:26). Justice demands death as the penalty of sin. The death
of Christ completely satisfied that demand.
Then Paul asks, "Who is he that condemneth?" (Rm 8:34). This question is answered by
stating the foundation on which God was able to justify the "elect" in the first
question. "It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again."
Look to the cross my friend. There was the wisdom of God. Justice was completely
satisfied and therein is the salvation of man, in spite of his utter helplessness.
"Come now" is the divine invitation. It is rooted in justice met, love displayed and
mercy offered.
The next verse, Galatians 4:7, reads, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a
son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Here, heirship is not
predicated on the activity of one who is "a son" but upon sonship itself.
The verse does not read, "If a faithful son, then an heir of God through Christ."
which it must say according to those who teach man's final acceptance is predicated of
the works of faith. It says, "if a son, then an heir." That is what we believe and
teach.
The last verse we wish to use, as illustrative of the truth the final aspect of
deliverance is secured on exactly the same condition by which one receives the benefit
of the primary aspect of deliverance is I Thessalonians 5:9-10.
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ. Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with
him."
Paul desired to "perfect that which is lacking in your faith," referring to the
subjects of address (I Thess 3:10). Yet, he said to them, including himself, "Jesus .
. . . delivered us from the wrath to come" (I Thess 1:10).
These subjects were said to have been "delivered from the wrath to come," yet there
was something "lacking in" their "faith." Therefore, what was "lacking" had nothing to
do with their having been "delivered from the wrath to come." The basis of that
deliverance was, and is, "by our Lord Jesus Christ. Who died for us" (I Thess 5:9-10).
In I Thessalonians 5:6, Paul exhorts, not alien sinners, but the children of God.
"Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."
Let us suppose the children of God fail in that responsibility. What then? Will that
failure nullify their standing as the children of God? Some answer, "yes," and that is
the answer of all who base man's final acceptance on works but hear Paul.
"Whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." In verse 6, the word
"sleep" is from katheud and the word "watch" is from grgore. Interestingly enought,
the word "sleep" in verse 10 is also from katheud and the word "wake" is from the same
word grgore, translated "watch" in verse 6.
Now hear scholarship. "Whether we wake grgore, translated 'watch' in marg., as in v.
6, and each of the twenty-one other places in which it occurs in the N.T. . . . . or
sleep, katheud, as in v. 6 . . . . It is obviously impossible to understand the words
of natural wakefulness and natural sleep. And inasmuch as grgore is not used elsewhere
in the metaphorical sense of 'to be alive,' and as katheud means 'to be dead' in only
one place out of two and twenty occurrences in N.T., and never elsewhere in Paul's
Epistles, there does not seem to be sufficient justification for departing from the
usual meaning of the words, i.e., vigilance and expectancy as contrasted with laxity
and indifference." (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, by C.F.
Hogg and W.E. Vine)
Therefore, failure in the realm of duty has nothing whatever to do with being
"delivered . . . . from the wrath to come." No wonder Paul could say as the result of
such teaching, "Wherefore comfort yourselves together" (I Thess 5:11). There is no
basis of comfort except in the knowledge of the truth that "being now justified by
(not the works of faith but) his blood, we shall be saved (not from past sins but)
from wrath through him" (Rm 5:9).
We have given five texts that teach: 1) the promise, "I will raise him up at the last
day," is secured on the condition, "eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood;" 2) the
promise, "we shall be saved from wrath," is secured on the condition, "being now
justified by his blood;" 3) the promise to be "glorified" is secured on the same
condition by which one is "justified;" 4) the promise of heirship is secured on the
same condition by which sonship is effected; and 5) that deliverance from "the wrath
to come" is predicated of the finished work of Christ and that failure in the realm of
Christian duty does not nullify that deliverance.
No one of these texts predicates final salvation on man's faithfulness or places many
"ifs" between the Christian and his final acceptance. BD
Table of Contents Back to Home Page Send us E-Mail Church Phone - (254) 865-6924 |
Website design by
Laura Slack
Copyright © 2007
Gateway Baptist
Church
All Rights Reserved
Laura Slack
Copyright © 2007
Gateway Baptist
Church
All Rights Reserved
| Gateway Baptist Church Independent Unaffiliated Separated Soul-Winning KJV "It Does Make A Difference What You Believe". |
| I Will Raise Him Up CHAPTER 27 By Bobby Dunn |