Jehovah Tsidkenu: The Lord Our Righteousness

By the Rev. C. H. SPURGEON

A Sermon delivered on Sunday Morning, June 2nd, 1861 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington.

"This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness"—Jeremiah 23:6.

MAN BY THE FALL sustained an infinite loss in the matter of righteousness. He suffered the loss of a righteous nature, and then a two-fold loss of legal righteousness in the sight of God. Man sinned; he was therefore no longer innocent of transgression. Man did not keep the command; he therefore was guilty of the sin of omission. In that which he committed, and in that which he omitted, his original character for uprightness was completely wrecked. Jesus Christ came to undo the mischief of the fall for his people. So far as their sin concerned their breach of the command, that he has removed by his precious blood. His agony and bloody sweat have for ever taken away the consequences of sin from believers, seeing Christ did by his one sacrifice bear the penalty of that sin in his flesh. He, his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Still it is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He, of course, is then in the eye of God without sin. But it was required of man that he should actually keep the command. It was not enough that he did not break it, or that he is regarded through the blood as though he did not break it. He must keep it, he must continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him. Should He give heaven to a soul that has not perfectly kept the law; that were to give the reward where the service is not done, and that before God would be an act which might impeach his justice. Where, then, is the righteousness with which the pardoned man shall be completely covered, so that God can regard him as having kept the law, and reward him for so doing? Surely, my brethren, none of you are so besotted as to think that this righteousness can be wrought out by yourselves. You must despair of ever being able to keep the law perfectly. Each day you sin. Since you have passed from death unto life, the old Adam still struggles for dominion within you. And by the force of the lusts of the flesh you are brought into captivity to the law of sin which is in your members. The good you would do, you do not, and the evil you would not, that you too often do. Some have thought the works of the Holy Spirit in us would give us a righteousness in which we might stand. I am sure, my brethren, we would not say a word derogatory to the cork of the Holy Spirit. It is divine. But we hold it to be a great cardinal point in divinity that the work of the Spirit never meant to supplant the merits of the Son. We could not depreciate the Lord Jesus Christ in order to exalt the office of the Holy Spirit of God. We know that each particular branch of the divine salvation which was espoused by the persons of the Trinity has been carried out by each one to perfection. Now as we are accepted in the Beloved, it must be by a something that the Beloved did; as we are justified in Christ it must be by a something not that the Spirit has done, but which Christ has done. We must believe, then,—for there is no other alternative—that the righteousness in which we must be clothed, and through which we must be accepted, and by which we are made meet to inherit eternal life, can be no other than the work of Jesus Christ. We, therefore, assert, believing that Scripture fully warrants us, that the life of Christ constitutes the righteousness in which his people are to be clothed. His death washed away their sins, his life covered them from head to foot; his death the sneaky to God, his life was the gift to man, by which man satisfies the demands of the law. Herein the law is honored and the soul is accepted. I find that many young Christians who are very clear about being saved by the merits of Christ's death, do not seem to understand the merits of his life. Remember, young believers, that from the first moment when Christ did lie in the cradle until the time when he ascended up on high, he was at work for his people; and from the moment when he was seen in Mary's arms, till the instant when in the arms of death he "bowed his head and gave up the ghost," he was at work for your salvation and mine. He completed the work of obedience in his life, and said to his Father, "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." Then he completed the work of atonement in his death, and knowing that all things were accomplished, he cried, "It is finished." He was through his life spinning the web for making the royal garment, and in his death he dipped that garment in his blood. In his life he was gathering together the precious gold, in his death he hammered it out to make for us a garment which is of wrought gold. You have as much to thank Christ for loving as for dying, and you should be as reverently and devoutly grateful for his spotless life as for his terrible and fearful death. The text speaking of Christ, the son of David, the branch out of the root of Jesse, styles him THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Having introduced the doctrine of imputed righteousness, I proofed to map out my subject. First, by way of affirmation; we say of the text—it is so—Christ is the Lord or righteousness; secondly, I shall exhort you to do him homage; let us call him so: for this is the name whereby he shall be called; and thirdly, I shall appeal to your gratitude; let us wonder at the reigning grace, which has caused us to fulfill the promise, for have been sweetly compelled to call him the Lord our righteousness.

First, then, He is so. Jesus Christ is the Lord our righteousness. There are but three words, "JEHOVAH"—for so it is in the original,—"OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.' He is Jehovah. Read that verse, and you will clearly perceive that the Messias of the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth the Saviour of the Gentiles, is certainly Jehovah. He hath the incommunicable title of the Most High God. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Oh, ye Arians and Socinians, who monstrously deny the Lord who bought you and put him to open shame by denying his divinity, read you that verse and let your blasphemous tongues be silent, and let your obdurate hearts melt in penitence because ye have so foully sinned against him. He is Jehovah, or, mark you, the whole of God's word is false, and there is no noun for a sinner's hope. We know, and this day we testify in his name, that the very Christ who did lie in the manger as an infant was infinite even then; that he who cried, cried for very pain as a child, was nevertheless saluted at that very moment as God by the songs of the creatures that his hands had made. He who walked in pain over the flinty acres of Palestine, was at the same time possessor of heaven and earth. He who had not where to lay his head, and was despised and rejected of men, was at the same instant God over all, blessed for evermore. He that sweat great drops of blood did bear the earth upon his shoulders. He who was flagellated in Pilate's hall was adored by spirits of the just made perfect. He who did hang upon the tree had the oration hanging upon him. He who died on the cross was the ever living, the everlasting One. As a man he died, as God he lives. As Mary's son he bled, as the son of the Eternal God he had the sway and the dominion over all the world. In nature Christ proves himself to be universal God. Without him was not anything made that was made. By him all things consist. Who less than God could make the heavens and the earth? Bow before him, bow before him, for he made you, and should not the creatures acknowledge their Creator?
 
Providence attests his Godhead. He upholdeth all things by the word of his power Creatures that are animate have their breath from his nostrils; inanimate creatures that are strong and mighty stand only by his strength. He can say concerning the earth, "I bear the pillars thereof." In the deep foundations of the sea his power is felt, and in the towering arches of the starry heavens his might is recognized to the full. And as for Grace, we claim for Christ that he is Jehovah in the great kingdom of his grace. Who less than God could have carried your sins and mine and cast them all away? Who less than God could have interposed to deliver us from the jaws of hell's lions, and bring us up from the pit, having found a ransom? On whom less than God could we rely to keep us from the innumerable temptations that beset us? How can he be less than God, when he says, "Lo, I am with you always, unto the end of the world?" How could he be omnipresent if he were not God! How could he hear our prayers, the prayers of millions, scattered through the leagues of earth, and attend to them all, and give acceptance to all, if he were not infinite in understanding and infinite in merit? How were this if he were less than God? Let Atheists scoff, let Deists sneer, let the vain Socinian boast, let the Arian lift up his puny voice, but we will glory in this fact, that he that bought us with his blood is Jehovah—very God of very God. At his footstool we bow and pay him the very homage that we pay to his Father and to the Spirit.

"Blessings more than we can give,
Be Lord for ever thine."

But the text speaks about righteousness too—"Jehovah our righteousness." And he is so. Christ in his life was so righteous, that we may say of the life, taken as a vehicle, that it is righteousness itself. Christ is the law incarnate Understand me. He lived out the law of God to the very full, and while you see God's precepts written in fire on Sinai's brow, you see them written in flesh in the person of Christ.

"My dear Redeemer and my Lord,
I read my duty in thy word,
But in thy life the law appears
Drawn out in living characters."

He never offended against the commands of the Just One. From his eye there never flashed the fire of unhallowed anger. On his lip there did never hang the unjust of licentious word. His heart was never stirred by the breath of sin or the taint of iniquity. In the secret of his reins no fault was hidden. In his understanding was no defect; in his judgment no error. In his miracles there was no ostentation. In him there was indeed no guile. His powers being ruled by his understanding, all of them acted and co-acted to perfection's very self, so that never was there any flaw of omission or stain of commission. The law consists in this first, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." He did so. It was his meat and his drink to do the will of him that sent him. Never man spent himself as he did. Hunger and thirst and nakedness were nothing to him, nor death itself if he might so be baptised with the baptism wherewith he must be baptized, and drink the cup which his Father had set before him. The law consists also in this, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." In all he did, and in all he suffered he more than fulfilled the precept, for "he saved others himself he could not save." He exhausted the utmost resources of love in the deep devotion and self-sacrifice of loving. He loved man better than his own life. He would sooner be spit upon than that man should be cast into the flames of hell and sooner yield up the ghost in agonies that cannot be described than that the souls his Father gave him should be cast away. He carried out the law, then, I say to the very letter he spelt out its mystic syllables, and verily he magnified it, and made it honorable. He loved the Lord his God, with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and he loved his neighbors as himself. Jesus Christ was righteousness impersonated. "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" he might well say. One thousand eight hundred years have passed since then, and blasphemy itself has not been able to charge him with a fault. Strange as it may appear, the most perverted judges have nevertheless acknowledged the awful dignity of his character. They have railed at his miracles; they have denied his Godhead; but his righteous character I know not that they have dared to impugn. They have hatched jokes about his generation; they have made his poverty a jest, and his death has been the theme of ribald song; but his life has staggered even the most unbelieving, and made the careless wonder how such a character could have been conceived even if it be a fiction, and much more, how it could have been executed if it be a fact. No one that I know of has dared to charge Christ with unrighteousness to man, or with a want of devotedness to God. See then, it is so. We do not stay to prove his righteousness any more than we did to prove his Godhead. The day is coming when men shall acknowledge him to be Jehovah, and when looking upon all his life while he was incarnate here, they shall be compelled to say that his life was righteousness itself. The pith, however, of the title, lies in the little word "our,"—"Jehovah our righteousness." This is the grappling iron with which we get a hold on him—this is the anchor which dives into the bottom of this great deep of his immaculate righteousness. This is the saved rivet by which our souls are joined to him. This is the blessed hand with which our soul toucheth him, and he becometh to us all in all, "Jehovah our Righteousness"
 
You will now observe that there is a most precious doctrine unfolded in this title of our Lord and Saviour. I think we may take it thus: When we believe in Christ, by faith we receive our justification. As the merit of his blood takes away our sin, so the merit of his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. We are considered, as soon as we believe, as though the works of Christ here our works. God looks upon us as though that perfect obedience, of which I have just now spoken, had been performed by ourselves,—as though our hands had been bony at the loom, an though the fabric and the stuff which have been worked up into the fine linen, which is the righteousness of the saints, had been grown in our own fields. God considers us as though we were Christ—looks upon us as though his life had been our life—and accepts, blesses, and rewards us as though all that he did had been done by us, his believing people. Accordingly, if you will turn to the thirty-third chapter of this same prophet Jeremiah, and look at the sixteenth verse, you will see it written, "This is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness." I know that Socinus in his day used to call this an execrable, detectable, and licentious doctrine: probably it was, because he was an execrable, detectable, and licentious man. Many men use their own names when they are applying names to other persons; they are so well acquainted with their own characters, and so suspicious of themselves, that they think it best, before another can express the suspicion, to attach the very same accusation to someone else. Now we hold, you know, that this doctrine is not execrable, but most delightful, that it is not abominable, but Godlike, that it is not licentious, but holy: and let others say what they will of it, we will repeat the praise which we have been singing,—

"Jesus, thy perfect righteousness
My beauty is, my glorious dress;"

and we will day when all things shall be tried by fire, for we feel confident that—

"Bold shall we stand in that great day,
For who aught to our charge shall lay,"

when we are clothed with the righteousness divine?
 
Imputation, so far from being an exceptional case with regard to the righteousness of Christ, lies at the very bottom of the entire teaching of Scripture. How did we fall, my brethren? We fell by the imputation of Adam's sin to us. Adam was our federal head; he represented us; and when he sinned, we sinned representatively in him, and what he did was imputed to us. You say that you never agreed to the imputation. Nay, but I would not have you say thus, for as by representation we fell, it is by the representative system that we rise. The angels fell personally and individually, and they never rise, but we fell in another, and we have therefore the power given by divine grace to rise in another. The root of the fall is found in the federal relationship of Adam to his seed; thus we fell by imputation. Is it any wonder that we should rise by imputation? Deny this doctrine, and I ask you—How are men pardoned at all? Are they not pardoned because satisfaction has been offered for sin by Christ? Very well then, but that satisfaction must be imputed to them, or else how is God just in giving to them the results of the death of another, unless that death of the other be fire? of all imputed to them? When we say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to an believing souls, we do not hold forth an exceptional theory, but we expound a grand truth, which is so consistent with the theory of the fall and the plan of pardon, that it must be maintained in order to make the gospel clear. I think it was this doctrine which Martin Luther called the article of standing or falling of the Church. I find a passage in his works which seems to me to refer to this doctrine rather than to justification by faith. He ought certainly to have said, "Justification by faith is the doctrine of standing or falling of the Church." But in Luther's mind, imputed righteousness we, so interwoven with justification by faith, that he could not see any distinction between the two. And I must confess, in trying to observe a difference, I do not see much. I must give up justification by faith if I give up imputed righteousness. True justification by faith is the surface soil, but then imputed righteousness is the granite rock which lies underneath it; and if you dig down through the great truth of a sinners being justified by faith in Christ, you must, as I believe, inevitably come to the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ as the basis and foundation on which that simple doctrine rests.
 
And now let us stop a moment and think over this whole title—"The Lord our righteousness." Brethren, the Law-giver has himself obeyed the law Do you not think that his obedience will be sufficient? Jehovah has himself become man that so he may do man's work: think you that he has done it imperfectly? Jehovah—he who girds the angels that excel in strength—has taken upon him the form of a servant that he may become obedient: think you that his service will be incomplete? Let the fact that the Saviour is Jehovah strengthen your confidence. Be ye bold. Be ye very courageous. Face heaven, and earth, and hell with the challenge of the apostle. "Who shall say anything to the charge of God's elect? "Look back upon your past sins, look upon your present infirmities, and all your future errors, and while you weep the tears of repentance, let no fear of damnation blanch your cheek. You stand before God to-day robed in your Saviour's garments, "with his spotless vestments on, holy as the Holy One." Not Adam when he walked in Eden's bowers was more accepted than you are,—not more pleasing to the eye of the all-judging, the sin-hating God than you are if clothed in Jesus' righteousness and sprinkled with his blood. You have a better righteousness than Adam had. He had a human righteousness; your garments are divine. He had a robe complete, it is true, but the earth had woven it. You have a garment as complete, but heaven has made it for you to wear. Go up and down in the strength of this great truth and boast exceedingly, and glory in your God; and let this be on the top and summit of your heart and soul: "Jehovah, the Lord our righteousness."
 
You will remember that in Scripture, Christ's righteousness is compared to fair white linen; then I am, if I wear it, without spot. It is compared to wrought gold; then I am, if I wear it, dignified and beautiful, and worthy to sit at the wedding feast of the King of kings. It is compared, in the parable of the prodigal son, to the best robe; then I wear a better robe than angels have, full they have not the best; but I, poor prodigal, once clothed in rage, companion to the nobility of the stye,—I, fresh from the husks that swine do eat, am nevertheless clothed in the best robe, and am so accepted in the Beloved.
 
Moreover, it is also everlasting righteousness. Oh! this is, perhaps, the fairest point of it—that the robe be shall never be worn out; no thread of it shall ever give way. It shall never hang in tatters upon the sinner's back. He shall live, and even though it were a Methusaleh's life, the robe shall be as if it were woven yesterday. He shall pass through the stream of death, and the black stream shall not foul it. He shall climb the hills of heaven, and the angels shall wonder what this whiteness is which the sinner wears, and think that some new star is coming up from earth to thine in heaven. He shall wear it among principalities and powers, and find himself no whit inferior to them all. Cherubic garments and seraphic mantles shall not be so lordly so priestly, so divine, as this robe of righteousness this everlasting perfection which Christ has wrought out, and brought in and given to all his people. Glory unto thee, O Jesus, glory unto thee! Unto thee be hallels for ever; Hallelu—jah! Thou art you—"Jehovah, the Lord our righteousness."
 
II. Having thus expounded and vindicated this title of our Saviour, I would now APPEAL TO YOUR FAITH.
 
Let us call him so. "This is the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness." Let us call him by this great name, which the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath named. Let us call him—poor sinners!—even we, who are today smitten down with grief on account of sin. I want this text to be fulfilled in your ears and in your case to-day. You are guilty. Your own conscience acknowledges that the law condemns you, and you dread the penalty. Soul! he that trusteth Christ Jesus is saved, and he that believeth on him is not condemned. To every trustful spirit Christ is "the Lord our righteousness." Call him so, I pray thee. "I have no good thing of my own," sayest thou? Here is every good thing in him. "I have broken the law," sayest thou? There is his blood for thee. Believe in him, he will wash thee. "But then I have not kept the law. "There is his keeping of the law for thee. Take it, sinner, take it. Believe on him. "Oh, but I dare not," saith one. Do him the honor to dare it. "Oh, but it seems impossible." Honour him by believing the impossibility then. "Oh, but how can he save such a wretch as I am?" Soul! Christ is glorified in saving wretches. As I told you the other day, Christ cures incurable sinners; so I say now he accepts unacceptable sinners. He receives sinners that think they are not fit to be received. Only do thou trust him and say, "He shall be my righteousness to-day." "But suppose I should do it and be presumptuous? It is impossible. He bids you, he commands you. Let that be your warrant. "This is the commandment, that ye believe on Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." If you cannot say it with a loud voice, yet with the trembling silence of your soul let heaven hear it. Yes, Jesus, "All unholy and unclean, I am nothing else but sin, yet I dare with fervent venture of these quivering lips to call thee, and to call upon thee now, as the Lord my righteousness."
 
And you who have passed from a state of trembling hope into that of lively faith, I beseech you call him so. Let your faith say, as you see him suffering, bleeding, dying, "Thus my sins were washed away." But let not your faith stay there. As you see him sweating, toiling, living a self-denying laborious life, say, "Thus the law was kept for me." Come up to the foot of Sinai now, and if you see its lightnings flash, and hear its thunders roar, be brave, and say like Moses, "I will ascend above those thunders, I will stand enwrapped within the storm-cloud, and I will talk with God, for I have no cause for fear, there are no thunderbolts for me; for me no lightning flash can spend its arrow, I am perfectly, completely justified in the sight of God, through the righteousness of Jesus Christ." Say that, child of God! Does yesterday's sin make thee stammer? In the teeth of all thy sins believe that he is thy righteousness still. Thy good works do not improve his righteousness; thy bad works do not sully it. This is a robe which thy best deeds cannot mend and thy worst deeds cannot mar. Thou standest in him, not in thyself. Whatever, then, thy doubts and fears may have been, do now, poor troubled, distressed, distracted believer, say again, "Yes, he is the Lord my righteousness."
 
And some of us can say it yet better than that: for we can say it not merely by faith, but by fruition. We remember well the day when we first called him "the Lord our righteousness." Oh, the peace it brought, the joy, the gladness, the transport! Since then we have proved it to he true, for we have had privileges we could not have had if he had not been our righteousness. We have had the privilege of reconciliation with God; and He could not be reconciled to one that had not a perfect righteousness, we have had access with boldness to God himself, and He would never have suffered us to have access if we had not worn our brother's garments. We have had adoption into the family, and the Spirit of adoption, and God could not have adopted into his family any but righteous ones. How should the righteous Father be God of an unrighteous family? Our prayers have been heard, and we have had gracious answers, and that could not have been—for he could not heal the prayer of the wicked; he could not have heard us—if it had not been that he seemed to hear Christ crying through us, and to have seen Christ's merits in us. And therefore granted the desire of our hearts. We have had in daily rich and sweet experience such manifestations of fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, that to us it is a matter of fact as well as a matter of faith, a matter of praise as well as a matter of profession, that Jesus Christ is "the Lord our righteousness."
 
Brethren, your divinity must be experimental or it will not profit you. I would not give a straw for your theology if you learned it merely out of a pollee, or out of a system of man's teaching. No, no, we must prove these things to be true in our lives. I can say it, and I must say it—the testimony is not egotistical—I know there is a comfort in the faith of Christ's imputed righteousness which no other doctrine can yield. There is something that a man can sleep on and wake on, can live on and die on, in the firm conviction that he is received by God as though the deeds of Christ were his deeds, and the righteousness of Christ his righteousness. Take away his filthy garments from him, set a fair mitre on his head, array him in fine linen. O, Joshua, priest of the Most High, thou man greatly beloved, come thou forth now in thy garments and offer acceptable sacrifice, seeing, thou wearest the garments of Jesus, our great High Priest." Let us, then, call upon his name and extol him in our worship as "the Lord our righteousness."
 
And now let the whole universal Church of Christ, in one glad song, call Jesus Christ the Lord their righteousness. Wake up, ye isles of the sea; shout, thou wilderness that Kedar doth inhabit; ye people of God, scattered and peeled, banished among the heathen, vexed with the filthy conversation of the idolaters, from your huts, from the destitute places that ye inhabit, sing, "The Lord our righteousness!" Let no heir of heaven be silent at this hour; let every soul be stirred. Though tempest-tossed and half a wreck, yet, mariner in Christ, say, "Thou art the Lord my righteousness." Though cast down into the deep dungeon, thou despairing soul, yet say, "The Lord my righteousness." Let no one of the entire believing family keel; back his song but together let us sing, "The Lord our righteousness." And you, ye spirits that walk in white, ye glorious ones that "day without night circle his throne rejoicing," ye saints that ere his day beheld him, and died, not having received the promise, but having beheld it afar off,—Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and Samuel, and Jephthah, and David, and Solomon, and all the mighty host, sing ye, sing ye, sing ye unto him to-day; and let this be the summit of your song, "The Lord our righteousness." Our spirit bows before him now. Sweet fellowship beyond the stream! Me clasp our hands with those that went before; and while the cherubim can only say, "Holy, holy, holy; he is righteous," we lift up a higher note, and say, "yes, thrice holy, but the Lord our righteousness is he." Let none, then, of all his saints in heaven and in earth, refuse to call him "the Lord our righteousness"
 
III. I now conclude, in the third place, by appealing to your GRATITUDE. Let us admire that wonderful and reigning grace which has led you and me to call him, "The Lord our righteousness."
 
When I look back some ten or twelve years upon a foolish boy, who cared little for the things of God, who was burdened with an awful sense of sin, and thought that he never could be pardoned—clad so often driven to the borders of despair that he was fain to make away with his own life, because he thought there was no happiness on earth for him—I can only say for my own self. O the riches of the grace of God in Christ, that ever I should stand not only conscious that he is the Lord my righteousness, but to preach him to you! O God, thou hast done wonderful things! Thou saidst by the mouth of Jeremy, "This is the name whereby he shall be called." I call him so this day from my inmost soul. Jesus of Nazareth! suffering man! glorious God! thou art the Lord my righteousness! If I were to pass this question round these galleries, and down below oh, what hundreds of responses would there be from such as joyously obey the summons of gratitude! And among those about to be added to the Church (I am sure they would permit me to tell, for the honor of the glorious grace of God), there are very many who are special instances of that grace which has sweetly constrained them to call Christ their righteousness. Some of them, according to their own concession before us at the Church meeting, were not only revelling in drunkenness, one until he had well nigh drank away his reason by thirty years of habitual intoxication; but others of them were unclean and unchaste, till they had rioted in debauchery, and gone to the utmost lengths of crime. There be many in this place to-day, who would not, though they would blush for the past, refuse to tell, to the honor of redeeming grace, that once they had committed every crime in the catalogue except murder; and if they have not committed that, it was nothing but the sovereign grace of God that restrained them. Some members of this Church have sinned in every part of the world—have sinned in every quarter of the globe—have committed every form of lust and vice—and if you had asked them ten years ago whether they should ever be in a place of worship, they would have repelled with an oath what they would have thought an insult, and would have cursed you for supposing that they should so degrade themselves as to profess the faith of Christ. Brothers and sisters, I should not be surprised if you were to stand up now and say, "Yes, still Jehovah Jesus is the Lord our righteousness." Oh!—

"Wonders of grace to God belong;
Repeat his mercies in your song."

Who would have thought that the lip of the blasphemer should fulfill that very prophecy—that the tongue that could scarce move without an oath should, nevertheless, glorify Christ,—that the heart that was black with accumulated lust,—the mouth which must have become a very sepulcher, breathing forth deadly miasma, has now become a place for song, and the heart a house for music, while heart and tongue say, "Yes, he is the Lord my righteousness this very day!"
    It would be a wonder if God should vow that the devils should yet sing his praise; but I do not think it would be a greater wonder than when he makes some of us sing his glorious praise. Brethren, you and I know that there is nothing in freewill doctrine; for in our case, at any rate, it was not true. Left to ourselves, where should we have been? What could Arminianism have done for us? Oh, no! it was irresistible grace that brought us to call him "the Lord our righteousness." It was that divine shall that broke in pieces our will. It was that strong arm that broke the iron sinew of our proud neck, and made us bow, even us, who would not have this man to reign over as. It was his finger that opened the blind eye; for once we could see now beauty in him. It was his breath that thawed our icy heart; for once we felt no love to him;—

"But now, subdued by sovereign grace,
Our spirit longs for his embrace;
Our beauty this our glorious dress,
Jesus the Lord our righteousness."

And this shall be our glory here, and our song forever—"The Lord our righteousness."

The New Covenant: Its Problems, Certainties and Some Proposals

By Carl B. Hoch, Jr.

It is a simple fact that Christians have a Bible with two parts. That the second part of this unified, whole Bible is a New Testament is not disputed. What is disputed, and has been for centuries, is this: "What is really new about this New Testament?"

For more than twenty years I have been thinking and reflecting upon what I consider to be one of the central themes of biblical theology - the newness of the new covenant. Some years ago I decided to go through the New Testament looking at the various occurrences of the word "new" (kainos, neos, and palaios). What I discovered profoundly affected me. What I was unprepared for was just how few biblical scholars had actually dealt with this very central theme.

There can be little doubt that this theme of "newness" needs serious exploration and development by biblical scholars. It also cries out for exploration by the serious Christian reader, whether pastor or layman.

Problems 

There are a number of exegetical and theological problems associated with the subject of the "newness" of the new covenant that raise interpretive difficulties for those who attempt to develop a definitive theology of the new covenant. I will cite several:

1) There is no systematic presentation of the complete new covenant. There is no one passage (including Jer. 31:31-34) to which the reader can turn and find the usual components of a covenant. These components are generally agreed to be:

1. the name of the covenant maker, 
2. the names of the covenant recipients, 
3. the requirements of the covenant, 
4. the inaugural ceremony for the cutting of the covenant, 
5. the public reading of the covenant or recorded agreement of the parties to make a covenant, and 
6. what consequences flow from the covenant, including any penalties that accrue from the breach of the covenant or rewards for compliance with the conditions of the covenant. 

Since no single New Testament text can be adduced where these covenantal elements are clearly articulated, it becomes necessary to reconstruct the nature of the covenant from bits and pieces scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments which seem to be related to the new covenant in one way or the other.

The reader must understand that this problem, however, is not unique to the new covenant. Scholars have struggled for years to reconstruct the particulars of the old covenant as well. This problem was exacerbated by source criticism where an attempt was made to demolish the integrity of the Pentateuch. This effort was joined with a consequent denial that the treaty form is present in the text of the Pentateuch. [1] Even conservative biblical scholars have struggled with reconstructing the treaty from Exodus and Deuteronomy. Why? Because no one section contains all the essential elements of the Suzerain-Vassal treaty. What we find is that the cursings and the blessings of the covenant are separated from the preamble, the historical prologue, and the stipulations of the treaty-covenant. This same pattern holds true for the covenant-confirming oath, the provision for public reading, and procedures against rebellious vassals. An induction of the stipulations of the covenant shows that the stipulations are repeated in more than one place, and they usually give the impression of being newly stated when they have already been recorded elsewhere. This is a disconcerting phenomenon, in certain ways, for the careful exegete of the Hebrew text. The narrative structure of the Pentateuch may account for this lack of systematization, but one cannot be sure whether this is the whole reason for the scattering of the various parts throughout several portions of material.

2) The lack of a systematic development of the new covenant leads to a question regarding the form of this covenant. Is the new covenant to be understood as a Suzerainty, Parity, Patron or Promissory type of covenant? Even George E. Mendenhall, whose pioneer work with the biblical and ancient Near Eastern covenants has been seminal, is unsure whether there is any "form" to the new covenant other than the love command. [2] On the other hand, Thomas McComiskey argues that "the covenants that have the distinct function of administering the terms of obedience in redemptive history are the covenant of circumcision, the Mosaic covenant, and the new covenant." [3] If McComiskey is correct, then both the old covenant and the new covenant have the same form, even though the particular form may be in dispute.

3) There is no agreement among biblical theologians on the meaning of hadasah in Jeremiah 31:31. McGomiskey argues that this adjective must mean "new" rather than "renew" because the meaning "renew" is infrequent in biblical Hebrew and the nature of the covenant marks a new covenant era in the outpouring of God's grace. It is therefore a new covenant in the strictest sense of the word. [4] Brown, Driver and Briggs, in their standard Hebrew Lexicon, seem to concur with this assessment. They translate every occurrence of the adjective in their work as "new." [5] Of course, more than word studies and exegesis are involved in this debate. One's view of the role of the Mosaic law in the life of the Christian will always be a controlling consideration in deciding how "new" the new covenant really is.

4) The difficulty regarding the newness of the new covenant is inseparable from the larger debate regarding the relationship between the Testaments. Systems of continuity tend to opt for a renewed old covenant. Systems of discontinuity opt for either a new replacing old as the covenantal rule or, in its most radical form, arguing for two new covenants: one made with Israel and one with the church. In other words, entire theological systems are called into question if the new covenant is a partially emended old covenant, a replacement for the old covenant, or a divided covenant for the two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church.

5) What Torah will be/is written on the hearts of "Israel and Judah"? Is this the entirety of Old Testament directives to Israel? All Pentateuchal legislation? The Ten Commandments? The moral and civil commandments of the old covenant? The moral commands of the old covenant? Basic, fundamental commands such as loving God and loving neighbor? Or is the term a synonym for God's will without any definite legal content?

6) How can one reconcile Paul's six statements that the Mosaic law has been canceled with Paul's citations from that same law as obligations for Christian believers? The canceled texts involve the strong word katargeo (cf. Rom. 7:2, 6; 2 Cor. 3:7, 11,13; and Eph. 2:15). The canceled old covenant allows the creation of equality between the Jew and Gentile in one new man. The nature of this new man militates against any suggestion that the new man is not absolutely new since Jew-Gentile equality was unheard of until the new covenant was inaugurated. Alternatively, Paul directs children to honor their parents (Eph. 6:2), not covet, not commit adultery, murder or steal (Rom. 7:7; 13:9 and other numerous texts), love their neighbor as themselves (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14), and abstain from idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14). This conflict causes Thomas Schreiner to declare that Paul's view of the law is very complex. [6] The fact that Paul quotes the old covenant as obligatory for Christians assures those who argue for a renewed old covenant that they are correct, while the fact that Paul also says the law has been canceled is proof enough for those who argue for a new new covenant that they are correct.

7) The stated or implied conditions of the new covenant are a problem in interpreting God's promise that He would forgive His people's iniquities and remember their sins no more (Jer. 31:34). Does this promise mean that no sin can exclude anyone from realizing the inheritance? Is no covenantal obedience necessary? Can one sin with impunity? Can one lead a life of sin? Can one abandon the covenant, renounce Jesus Christ and the gospel, or consider imperatives given in the New Testament as optional suggestions rather than divine demands? In other words, is the new covenant an antinomian covenant? Is it necessary to insist that the new covenant is a renewed old covenant in order to put teeth, as it were, into Christian obligations? Isn't it possible that without this approach we will, in reality, reduce the new covenant to some vague "love-ethic"? Must one hear the thundering voice of God at Sinai to live righteously? Is the new covenant weak ethically or incomplete in its details so that one cannot build an adequate ethical system on the new covenant alone?

8) Why are there so few new covenant texts within the New Testament? (Cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8, 13; 9:15.) Does this paucity of texts mean that the early Christians were really not a covenant structured people as Israel was? Or is it that far more work needs to be done in terms of new covenant terminology and conceptuality by scholars in order to make it more clear how the new covenant permeates the entire New Testament literature?

9) Should one simply say that some kind of new covenant was prophesied in Jeremiah, announced by Jesus Christ in the Upper Room, mentioned in passing by Paul, and used as a measuring stick of the old covenant sacrificial system by the writer of Hebrews and let it all go at this? To put this very simply - is the new covenant really that important?

Certainties 

There are many certainties regarding the new covenant that can be acknowledged by the majority of concerned parties in this debate. I list several of the important ones:

1) The fact that the new covenant is a divine work where God promises to make a new covenant which will involve significant changes in the character of God's people and where the history of redemption will take a major step forward. The repeated "I's" in Jeremiah 31:31ff. stress God's initiative in the new covenant. The emphasis is on what He will do. "I will make" (vs. 31, 33); "I will put," "I will write," "I will be" (v. 33), "I will forgive," "I will remember no more" (v. 34). This divine initiative will result in an internalization of God's Torah. "I will put My law within them," or "On their heart I will write it" (v. 33); "they shall all know Me" (v. 34). This internalization of knowing God is expanded in Ezekiel 11 and 36. "I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God" (Ezek. 11: 19-20). "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances" (Ezek. 36:26-27). Paul underscores the difference between the old covenant and new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3. The new covenant is "not of the letter [i.e., as the old covenant], but of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6). This ministry of the Holy Spirit is a ministry of transformation from glory to glory (3:18).

2) The new covenant is plainly superior to the old. The old covenant was a ministry of death, engraved on tablets of stone. It had a glory for sure but it was a ministry of condemnation, fading away, and a veiled glory (2 Cor. 3:7-16). The new covenant is the ministry of the Spirit, abounding in glory, indeed, abounding in surpassing glory. It yields hope, creates boldness in speech, unveils glory, and is a source of liberty. According to Hebrews Christ has introduced a better hope (7:19), a better covenant (7:22), better promises (8:6), a better sacrifice (9:23), a better possession (10:34), a better homeland (11:16), a better resurrection (11:35), and a better blood (12:24). The new covenant, therefore, makes the old covenant obsolete, old and ready to disappear (8:13).

3) There is only one new covenant. There are not two separate new covenants - one with Israel and one with the church. Arguments for this duality are clearly not based on exegesis but theological polemics. [7] William Everett Bell, in an academic thesis, has provided the best and simplest refutation of the two new covenants view and argument for one new covenant that I have seen. He deftly asserts seven arguments and then proceeds to prove each of them exegetically. His arguments, in summary, are:

1. the Bible knows only one new covenant, 
2. the new covenant of Jeremiah is operative in the church (and Paul is ministering that new covenant according to 2 Cor. 3:3), 
3. the cross inaugurates the new covenant, 
4. the "Israel and Judah" of Jeremiah 31 are the Jewish remnant in the church, 
5. Israel still retains her former covenantal promises, 
6. Gentiles share with Jewish Christians in the new covenant, and 
7. the land aspects of the new covenant in Jeremiah await the establishment of Christ's kingdom upon the earth. 

While the last point might well be disputed by some, the other six are sufficient evidence to demolish the notion of two new covenants.

4) There must be some continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant without identifying the two. God is the author of both covenants. Both are based upon prior redemptive acts: the Exodus and the cross. Both are moral in essential nature. Whether the commands are given by Moses or by Jesus and the apostles, there is an obvious overlapping of commandments regarding the love of God and one's neighbor, the honoring of one's father and mother, doing no murder, committing no adultery, not stealing, lying or coveting. There are other common commandments to pay the laborer, aid the poor, not intermarry with pagans, avoid gluttony and drunkenness, not indulging in impure thoughts, not taking revenge, etc. Neither covenant is a meritorious covenant whereby one gains righteousness with God through human efforts. The ultimate goals of both covenants are the glory of God and the holiness of His people.

5) The new covenant is not like the old covenant. This is the clear statement of Jeremiah 31:32. While scholars may not agree on what exactly the "not like" entails, it behooves everyone to discover in what way or ways the two covenants are different. If the only difference is the cessation of offering bulls and goats, then that certainty is a tremendous difference! Furthermore, Hebrews 7:12 states that a change of priesthood requires a change of law. It is clear from Hebrews that Aaron is no longer the divinely ordained priest, but Christ is and Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. So at least the "ceremonial" aspects of the old covenant have been abrogated!

6) The Holy Spirit plays a major role in the operation of the new covenant. This fact should be established by the Ezekiel passages without any further elaboration. But it is also clear that Paul sees the Holy Spirit as a key factor in his new covenant ministry. The fact that the Corinthians have had a work of the Spirit on their hearts is Paul's refutation of his opponents' contention that he lacks the proper credentials as an apostle of Christ. For Paul the Holy Spirit is the proof that one is a Christian (Rom. 8:9). It is the Spirit who enables the Christian to "fulfill the law" (Rom. 8:4). The Christian can walk by the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). This statement follows Paul's assertion that the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5: 14). In fact, the whole ministry of the Spirit is to transform the Christian from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18).

7) Forgiveness of sins is a glorious result of the cutting of the new covenant. This forgiveness is grounded in the blood of the Lamb who as sacrificial victim bore our sins in His own body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). This final and sufficient sacrifice not only is the basis for cutting the new covenant, but it is the whole basis for sola gratia and sola fide. The New Testament texts sustaining this truth are too numerous to list, but Ephesians 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5 spring to mind immediately, along with the entire Epistle to the Hebrews.

Some Proposals

At this point in our survey I offer several proposals concerning the new covenant. These proposals have received much more detailed discussion and exposition in my book, All Things New. [9] The reader is referred to that volume for more detailed considerations.

1) The old covenant does have the form of a suzerainty-vassal treaty. This type of treaty was modeled after the Hittite treaties of the fourteenth century B.C., and has been the subject of much study by the academic community in the last several decades. Although it is not absolutely necessary to hold this proposal in order to organize the old covenant data, I have found it very useful to understand the old covenant as a treaty/covenant. Suzerainty treaties embody a certain structure that appears to parallel the structure of the Mosaic covenant. The first part of this form is the preamble. In this the king identifies himself. The second, which is historical prologue, reviews the past deeds and faithfulness of the king on behalf of his subjects. The third part is the stipulations which are the commands/demands the suzerain makes upon his subjects. Obedience to these commands produces the fourth part, a list of blessings that the king will pour out upon his subjects. Disobedience to the command brings certain cursings upon the subjects as a fifth part of the treaty. Other aspects such as periodic public reading of the treaty, a list of the gods as witnesses, an oath by the vassals to adopt the treaty, and a section on procedures against rebellious subjects follow. Each of these treaty components is to be found in the Pentateuchal texts.

The preamble can be seen in Exodus 20:2a where the king identifies himself as "I am Yahweh your God." Since Yahweh is now known as the God of redemption, no further identification is necessary. It is the Redeemer of the Israelites who is the Author of the covenant.

The historical prologue occurs in Exodus 20:2b as "who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The Exodus experience will form the basis of Israel's formation as a people for the rest of her history and will be constantly referred to in the biblical narrative.

The stipulations begin with but do not end with the Ten Commandments. These stipulations extend throughout the rest of the Pentateuch and number 613 by Pharisaic accounting!

The cursings and the blessings may be found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27-28. Severe penalties accrue when the covenant is broken. Periodic public reading of the covenant is commanded in Exodus 24:7 and in Deuteronomy 31:10-11. And the oath can be seen in Exodus 24:3ff.

One does not have to concede that these are "Hittite" elements. The elements are there in the text regardless of what background they are given.

2) I suggest that the new covenant is also a suzerainty-vassal treaty. This is a suggestion, on my part, certainly not a dogmatic contention. The reasons I think this classification is necessary go as follows. McComiskey's arguments for both the old and new covenants being administrative covenants seem persuasive to my mind. The scattered character of the new covenant components no more demand that there is no structure to the new covenant than the scattered character of the old covenant components demand that it lacks structure. Therefore, it is possible to reconstruct a new covenant suzerainty-vassal treaty from the New Testament data. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

The new covenant preamble might be: "I am the Lord Jesus Christ."

The historical prelude might be: "Who died for your sins according to the Scriptures. I have ascended to the right hand of My Father and will return to judge the living and the dead. I am Lord of all and High Priest to My church."

The prologue would ground the new covenant in redemptive history just as the old covenant was so grounded. This reconstructed prologue would reflect the theme of forgiveness of sins promised by God in Jeremiah's new covenant oracle. The themes of judgment and lordship would serve as indicators of who this Inaugurator of the new covenant is: He is the One to whom all men are ultimately responsible and the One who will begin judgment with His new covenant people (cf. 1 Peter 4:17). Such a prologue would flow naturally into the stipulations of the new covenant because not only does this king have authority over His people, but His work on the cross is not only forgiveness of sins but transformation of those for whom He died.

Are there new covenant stipulations? To suggest that there are causes concern that the new covenant is another form of legalism. On the other hand, what is one to do with the numerous directives in the New Testament given in the imperative mood? Are these directives merely suggestions, or do they have a certain "bite" to them that means Jesus Christ, Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, James, Peter, John, and Jude really intended their imperatives to be obeyed? The New Testament is permeated with those commands. They cannot be placed in some "optional" category so that Christians can choose what to obey and what to ignore. Is Paul serious when he writes Romans 12:9-21, for example? What about Hebrews 13, or 1 Peter 1:14-16, or 2 Peter 1:5-15, or 1 John 4:21, or Jude 20-21, or Revelation 22:11? It appears that in the evangelical zeal for stressing Christ's work for us scant attention has been paid to His work in us. Is this a new legalism? Hardly. In fact, a casual approach to these new covenant stipulations may explain the current state of spirituality in most evangelical churches. Christians have been led to look upon salvation as a "signup" rather than the beginning of a life-long relationship with the living God and the risen Christ. What grade would any professor with integrity give a student who signed up for a course but never attended a single class, never submitted any required papers, or took any exams? Is salvation so vacuous that it had no demands on its applicants?

A further argument for new covenant stipulations is the role the apostle Paul plays as an adequate servant of the new covenant. Carol Stockhausen, in a magnificent dissertation on 2 Corinthians, concludes her discussion with the title, "Paul the New Moses." In this section Stockhausen considers Paul the "second Moses." [10] It appears that just as Moses serves as an administrator of the old covenant, so Paul serves as an administrator of the new covenant. That means that the Mosaic commands do not materially differ from the Pauline commands. Both spell out the covenantal obligations of the subjects of the King. The new covenant is therefore not weak ethically so that ethicists have to employ the Mosaic Ten Commandments and other old covenant stipulations in order to have a strong system. The new covenant contains all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Of course, this conception does not diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling the Christian to keep the new covenant stipulations. The writer is well aware of Paul's argument that the Mosaic stipulations in and of themselves were unable to sanctify Israel because of the potency of the flesh. It was necessary, therefore, for God to provide an Enabler so that His commands could be obeyed. Paul insists in numerous passages that the Holy Spirit is that Enabler and that is the reason why the new covenant is superior to the old (cf. Rom. 7:4-8:17). Further, the power of the Spirit is seen as freedom for the Christian and frees him from the bondage of a covenant that requires but does not enable (Gal. 5, esp. vv. 13-14).

New covenant stipulations, like the old covenant stipulations, have blessings and cursings attached. A total induction of all new covenant blessings needs to be made. Obviously, the new covenant blessings are much more relational toward God and neighbor in the realm of the Spirit rather than in the concrete land of Palestine. Old covenant blessings are heavily oriented toward prosperity and longevity on the earth. New covenant blessings stress unity (Rom. 15:5), joy, peace, hope, and power (Rom. 15:13), all grace (2 Cor. 9:8), and purity (phil. 2: 15). The ultimate blessings are the maturity of God's people and that God is pleased (Eph. 4:13-16; Heb. 13:16).

Probably the most difficult issue in this consideration is the matter of new covenant cursings. To even suggest such a category immediately raises the specter of works-righteousness and the loss of salvation. This writer admits that he observes a certain tension in the New Testament itself. While there is certainly heavy stress upon the preserving power of God, there is also repeated stress on the perseverance of the saints. There are just too many passages and "if clauses" that lead one to conclude that disobedience to the new covenant results in some kind of loss. How serious can this loss be? Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians to hold fast to the gospel warns against believing in vain (1 Cor. 15:2). The Colossians will appear blameless before Christ if they continue in the faith, grounded and firm and not being removed from the hope of the gospel which they have heard (Col. 1 :22-23). The repeated warnings throughout Hebrews to not slip away (2:1), not neglect Christ's salvation (2:3), holding confidence fast and boasting in hope firm to the end (3:6), taking care lest there should be in any one of his readers an evil, unbelieving heart in falling away from the living God (3:12), holding fast the beginning of our assurance firm to the end (3:14), fear lest any come short of the promise of rest (4:1), etc., show that apostasy is possible.

The difficulty of keeping the power of God and the need for perseverance in balance has led to two major works on the theme of falling-away. [11] One such position, held by Judith Volf, argues that the warning passages are for unbelievers or merely professing Christians. True Christians cannot fall away because God sees to it that they don't fall away. I. Howard Marshall, on the other hand, believes that the passages are directed to Christians and are a toothless lion who roars a lot but cannot bite anything if they are excused as hypothetical, reserved for unbelievers, or only a threat to professing Christians.

This writer has always been impressed with the relevance of Christ's teaching to this very issue. In His own explanation of the parable of the sower as recorded in Luke 8:11-15, our Lord seems to define the nature of the good soil. This soil is characterized by four things:

1. people hear with honest and good heart; 
2. they hold the message fast; 
3. they bear fruit; and 
4. they persevere. 

This suggests that God's purposes involve means as well as ends. If the end goal is life eternal, then there are certain prescribed means of entering that life. The first is believing the gospel. But there must also be steadfast adherence to the gospel, fruit-bearing, and perseverance in holiness. The question boils down to: will all true Christians hold fast and persevere, or must all Christians hold fast and persevere? The New Testament does not seem to answer this question clearly. It is these acute difficulties that divide Calvinists from Arminians at this very point. Nevertheless, there do seem to be the cursings in the new covenant which can be serious and severe for those who abandon this covenant (cf. Heb. 10:26-39).

It is not necessary that the new covenant includes periodic public reading. Since the whole New Testament seems to be a covenantal document, any public reading of Scripture would constitute a periodic reading of the covenant (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13).

While faith in Jesus Christ cannot be called an "oath," the fundamental importance of this faith for entry into salvation and the church in the New Testament would be tantamount to an oath in terms of a serious commitment. Perhaps if committing one's life to Jesus Christ were taken more seriously, the sense of a covenantal bond and responsibilities would attach itself to more young people.

3) Since strong grounds exist for seeing the new covenant as "new," then there are strong grounds for not using the old covenant as a rule of life for Christians. The immediate question that arises from my proposal is whether or not this leads to some kind of neo-Marcionism. My reply has always been to clearly and biblically differentiate the old covenant from the new covenant. The New Testament writers certainly used the Old Testament as their Bible. But did they require Gentile believers to abide by the Mosaic covenant as their rule of faith and practice? Admitting some ambiguity with Paul concerning the use of Moses, it is clear that Paul preached Christ, not Moses. One can still preach from the Old Testament using it typologically, illustratively, analogically, and rhetorically as the New Testament writers themselves do without bringing in the Mosaic covenant as a continuing rule of life for Christians. In other words, the Old Testament should enrich Christians' understanding of the New Testament, and the theological direction should always be from the old to the new.

What Torah has been written on the heart? It seems absolutely certain that Torah as used by Jeremiah definitely refers to the Mosaic covenant (cf. Jer. 2:8; 6:19; 8:8; 9:13; 16:11; 18:18; 26:4; 32:23; 44:10, and 44:23). In Jeremiah the Torah is the law of Moses. But what is the Torah/nomos that will be written on the heart according to Hebrews? It would be incongruous for the author of Hebrews to envision the reinstitution of the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8: 10 and then to proceed to call that covenant "old," "obsolete," and "ready to disappear" in 8:13! Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews has stated explicitly in 7:12 that "when the [Levitical] priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law [nomos ] also." It is so interesting that the writer of Hebrews in following the Septuagint, does not have law (nomos), but laws (nomous). The plural may be significant in his thinking. It hardly seems possible, then, that the writer of Hebrews regarded the Mosaic law as written on the heart when he calls that law "old," "obsolete," "ready to disappear," and "changed."

I propose, based upon these weighty exegetical observations, that the law written on the heart of the new covenant believer is the law of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21), which replaces the law of Moses. Such a replacement is justified by the nature of redemptive history. As the history of redemption unfolds, the new revelation reinterprets or replaces the old revelation. Examples of new developments abound:

1. the death of Christ fulfilling the Mosaic sacrificial system so 'that the whole system is replaced - temple, priest, altar, and sacrifices, 
2. the Jew-Gentile equality in the church, and 
3. the change in the food laws (Mark 7:19). 

Such examples (and they could be multiplied) indicate that the new age of Jesus Christ brings change in the old Mosaic age. I have attempted to articulate these changes extensively in my book, All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology (Baker, 1995). The chapter titles that I use there indicate these changes: "New Wineskins," "New Teaching," "New Covenant," "New Commandment," "New Creation," "New Man," "New Name, New Song, New Jerusalem," "New Heaven and New Earth," and "All Things New."

New Testament scholar Douglas J. Moo explored the law of Christ quite extensively in a festschrift volume for professor S. Lewis Johnson, Continuity and Discontinuity. Moo argues that Matthew 5:17 should be interpreted along the lines of "anticipation-realization." By this Moo means that we should see the Mosaic law in the light of its fulfillment in Christ. [13] He states, furthermore, that by telos in Romans 10:4 Paul means that Christ is the goal of the law and the end of the law "in that his fulfillment of the law brings to an end that period of time when it was a key element in the plan of God." [14] In Galatians 5: 14 love is an activity that brings about the intended goal of the law of Moses. Christians "fulfill" the law of Moses but do not "do" it. This distinction, according to Moo, is not just a semantic one but it is intimately linked with the work of the Holy Spirit. [15] This life in the Spirit is the ground of Christian ethics. [16] The law of Christ, then, is Paul's way of stating the demand of God that is binding on Christians since the coming of Christ. Moo summarizes:

The Christian is no longer bound to the Mosaic law; Christ has brought its fulfillment. But the Christian is bound to "God's law." ... In that "fulfillment" of the law, however, some of the Mosaic commandments are taken up and reapplied to the New Covenant people of God. Thus, while the Mosaic Law does not stand as an undifferentiated authority for the Christian, some of its individual commandments remain authoritative as integrated into the law of Christ. [17]

Moo concludes his summary by adding:

In actual ethical practice very little is lost. For the New Testament clearly takes up all the Decalogue, except the Sabbath, as part of "Christ's law" and thereby as authoritative for believers. But considerable difference in theological construct is involved, and the difference in approach is therefore not at all insignificant. [18]

The law of Christ in progressive New Testament understanding is the "Torah" which God through His Holy Spirit writes on the hearts of all who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. This "law" has content and authority for all who are His children under the new covenant.

Conclusion 

This essay has argued that the new covenant is a vital part of a genuinely biblical New Testament theology. I began by listing nine problems associated with the new covenant. I then gave seven agreements that the various interpretive positions can hold regarding the new covenant. I then made several proposals regarding the new covenant.

My argument is that the new covenant cannot be a simple renewal of the old covenant. This position argues that there in the reality of the case, nothing really distinctive about this new covenant. It treats the covenant as if it were not actually new. This is why I made my attempt to spell out the distinctiveness of the new covenant in several ways.

It is my conviction that there can be continuity between the two Testaments without neglecting discontinuity. This line of inquiry involves a book-length discussion such as the aforementioned book of essays. [19] Suffice it to say that this writer is convinced that there is both continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church. Key elements of discontinuity would be Jew-Gentile equality in Christ, spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit to the entire church, and a new approach to God through the shed blood of Christ. Key elements of continuity would be the ongoing fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, the continued fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the covenants and promises given to Israel being extended by the believing remnant of Israel in the church to the Gentiles in the church, and the progressive realization of the purposes of God redemptively.

I have also argued that the Torah written on the hearts of Christian believers is the law of Christ instead of the law of Moses. This law of Christ replaces the law of Moses as the ethical base for Christians. Some old covenant stipulations are reintroduced into new covenant stipulations. These stipulations go far beyond the Ten Commandments. The understanding of Torah as the law of Christ is a change from Jeremiah's understanding because of the development in redemptive history and progressive revelation through Jesus Christ and the apostles of the New Testament.

The problem with Paul and the law of Moses remains an area for further study. Certainly Paul's debates with the Judaizers are a key factor in resolving the tension, but there may be some tension in Paul himself in attempting to live with one foot in Judaism and one foot in Gentile liberty in Christ. It was very difficult for Paul to talk about the complete abrogation of the Mosaic law for both Jews and Gentiles without being accused of antinomianism.

New covenant cursings are a part of the New Testament text and go so far as to warn against sins like adultery, fornication and apostasy excluding individuals from the kingdom of God. Such warnings are difficult to reconcile with so-called "eternal security," but are more compatible with a doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

It is not possible to ascertain why the New Testament writers do not do this or that. When they do not tell us why they omit this or include that we are at a loss to give a reason. It is unwise to conclude that the new covenant is a minor New Testament theme since there are not many direct references to it. There is far more there than meets the eyes, and hard work may further demonstrate the centrality of the new covenant to all New Testament theology.

It should be clear from the foregoing proposals that the new covenant is a key theological theme and is very important for biblical theology. It certainly deserves far deeper treatment than it has received in the past. I pray that this issue of Reformation & Revival Journal will provoke earnest interaction between Christians and greater understanding of the strategic place of the new covenant in the life of the Christian and the church.

Author 

Dr. Carl B. Hoch, Jr., is professor of New Testament at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. He is a contributor to such publications as Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church and The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. This is his first contribution to Reformation & Revival Journal.

Endnotes 

1. See Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant. Analecta Biblica 21A, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). 
2. See this discussion of "Covenant" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:722-23. 
3. Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 144. 
4. Ibid., 167. 
5. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1959), 294. 
6. Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 160. 
7. For a recent example of this old classical dispensational tenet see John R. Master, "The New Covenant," in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994). 
8. William Everett Bell, Jr., "The New Covenant," Th.M. Thesis (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1963). 
9. Carl B. Hoch, Jr., All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). 
10. Carol Kern Stockhausen, Moses' Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. Analecta Biblica, 116 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1989), esp. 172-75. 
11.  Judith M. Gundry VoH, Paul and Perseverance; Staying In and Falling Away (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), and I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1969). 
12. Chapter Nine of Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway, 1988),203-18.
13. Ibid., 205-206.
14. Ibid., 207.
15. Ibid., 209-10.
16. Ibid., 209-10.
17. Ibid., 217.
18. Ibid., 218.
19. Ibid., 218.

The Original Promise Keeper: The Doctrine of the Final Perseverance of the Saints

By Mark DeVine

Evangelical obedience is fully a condition of justification but not a cause of justification. - Sam Logan 

A Christian man is free from all things; he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from his faith alone. - Martin Luther 

Justification supplies the only efficient motive to obedience. - Ernest Kevan 

No amount of good deeds can make us good persons. We must be good before we can do good. - Chester A. Pennington   

"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows" (Luke 12:6-7).

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you" (1 Peter 5:6-7).

Recently I found myself seated on the front porch of our home in Kansas City. My wife was away. I was home alone with my two boys, six year old Drew, and Sam, who is two. Sam was aggressively making rows on the front lawn with his toy mower while Drew was inside at work on his latest book. I lifted Sam into my arms, walked no more that fifty five feet into my next door neighbor's house where I spoke to my friend, Vernon, for no more than eight minutes - eight minutes during which my six-year-old did not know where his daddy was - eight minutes of terror for Drew. I returned home to a son who needed comfort, and, I believe, deserved an apology. Drew deserved an apology because the one who had promised to take care of him, the one he looked to for protection, the one who owed him that care and protection, had let him down.

The doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints addresses the question of the nature, the extent, and the duration of the care and protection promised to Christian believers by their heavenly Father.

Our understanding of the nature of salvation, indeed, of the very character of God is at stake in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. No dimension of the Christian life is left unaffected by answers given to the questions raised - questions such as: Has our heavenly Father promised to take care of us? Does our Lord desire that we look to Him for the care and protection of our souls forever?

The Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints represents the conclusion of many believers across the centuries who have felt compelled by the Holy Scriptures to answer these questions with a resounding and grateful yes! Our God can, does, and will take care of His children to the end. To suggest otherwise is false, ungrateful, and certainly is not the Good News of the Christian gospel

Sadly, the historic church has not yet been able to speak with one voice on this great issue. In fact, even evangelical Christians have frequently found themselves heading in opposite directions when it comes to this matter.

Among Protestants, Arminianism represents the sharpest and most persistent denial of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. We think especially of the celebrated Dutch professor at Leyden, Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), and also of the truly magnificent founder of Methodism in the eighteenth century, John Wesley (1703-91). Out of a genuine desire to respond to Arminian teaching I have structured this paper around three enduring Arminian challenges to the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints.

That the Doctrine Is False 

From the Synod of Dort (1618-19) to the Westminster Confession (1644-46) to the Second London Confession (1689) and beyond, Reformed Protestants have formally affirmed belief in the final perseverance of the saints. A representative definition by a Southern Baptist is that of Timothy George for whom such teaching involves "the doctrine that the truly elect despite their temptations and lapses into sin, are faithfully preserved by the grace of God unto the end." [1]

Clearly, the most serious objection to this doctrine is that it is scripturally and therefore theologically false. Later Arminian teaching relied heavily upon the so-called apostasy texts in Scripture and flatly rejected the perseverance of the saints. Compared to such boldness the classic and original denial of perseverance set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 seems conspicuously restrained.

... whether [those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith] are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds. [2]

Surely the Remonstrance is right to warn against teaching final perseverance unless such doctrine be "particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture." Certainly because of our sin, but perhaps even more fundamentally, because God's sovereignty extends to the knowledge of Himself, we cannot presume to tell ourselves of the nature and extent of God's keeping power. No, in this as in all matters of doctrine, we must be told by God through the Scriptures under the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit what is true.

When we turn to the Bible, what do we hear from our God? We find a rich array of divinely inspired verbs which teach us what to expect from our God and Christ - verbs such as "keep" (terein), "protect" (phrourein), "guard" (phulassein), "sustain" (bebaioun), "establish" (sterizein), and we learn that Jesus "loved [His own] to the end" (eis telos egapesen tous idious).

Jesus accomplishes His Father's will, not by losing, but by keeping those given to Him by the Father so that "not one of them perished" (John 17:12). Paul was assured that God would "guard your heart and your minds" through Jesus Christ (Phil. 4:7). Paul proclaimed to the Thessalonians that the Lord is "faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one" (2 Thess. 3:3).

Use of the legal term "seal" (sphragizo) together with the inheritance language of Ephesians strongly supports the eternal security of every believer already made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places. It is certainly fitting that Christ the Savior Himself has been seen as the surest evidence against the possibility of believers falling and in favor of their eternal security.

Even J. R. Graves understood this in his 1876 debate with the Methodist Jacob Ditzler. [3] Believers' perseverance to the end was assured not because of anything in themselves but because of Him to whom they belonged - to Christ, the Good Shepherd who loses none of His sheep; Christ the Kinsman Redeemer who unfailingly saves those He redeems; Christ the Priest after the order of Melchizedek, who, so long as He lives, gives life to everyone for whom He mediates; Christ the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. [4] Graves aptly concludes that "... to say that Christ will ever lose a sheep is to impeach His veracity, rob Him of power, and break Him of His office." [5]

If we "desire to know whether God cares for our salvation," Calvin suggests we "inquire whether He has entrusted us to Christ, whom He has established as the sole Savior of all His people." Is not Calvin correct to understand that when Jesus prays that Peter's faith not fail and directs him to strengthen his brothers we should learn from this "to trust that we shall ever remain safe because we have been made His once for all"? [6]

Against the challenge that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is not true, we respond, compelled by the Scriptures, yes, it is true. Still the challenge to deal seriously and fairly with the so-called apostasy texts which carry so much weight for Arminians should be accepted.

I. Howard Marshall, who claims to move beyond such categories as Arminianism and Calvinism to a supposedly objective exegetical position, claims that "the New Testament refers in an admittedly small number of cases to Christians falling into apostasy." [7] After his "objective" treatment of these texts; Marshall concludes that "the possibility of genuine Christians falling into apostasy is not to be explained away." [8]

According to Marshall, once the possibility of apostasy is recognized, the Bible becomes easier to read. Paul's charge that the Galatians had "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4) and warnings such as that found in 2 Peter 1: 10 - "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble," can now be read without the strain imposed by Calvinistic bias. [9]

Not every Arminian complaint is equally weak. The charge that Reformed exegesis fails to treat warnings against apostasy seriously should be answered. For example, is it really adequate to view biblical warnings against lapsing from the faith merely as God's means for keeping the elect secure by His own power?

Still, the crucial Arminian weakness is the failure to recognize that the apostasy in view is from a false, not a true, faith. We can affirm that good seed falls on many kinds of soil with varying results while acknowledging that good seed on good soil unfailingly produces fruit (Luke 8:1-15). That some who were with us go out only reveals that they were not with us, otherwise "they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). Paul "knew" (eidotes) that the Thessalonian believers were "beloved by God" (egapemepemenoi hupo [tou] theou) and was sure of their "election" (eklogen) because the gospel came among them with power, and they had turned from idols to Jesus who "delivers from the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:4-10).

Recognition that perseverance in faith is the mark of election makes a Calvinistic reading of the apostasy texts at least plausible, especially since it meshes better with the numerous passages which emphasize eternal security and perseverance. The falling warned against is taken seriously inasmuch as its occurrence does indeed call into question one's election. [10] As John Dagg understood it, "the doctrine that grace in the heart will produce perseverance to the end; and where the effect is not produced, the cause does not exist." [11]

That the Doctrine Is Harmful 

Arminians also maintain that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is harmful to believers. Not only does the Reformed teaching perpetuate the lie that true believers cannot finally fall from grace, but this falsehood threatens believers' souls eternally while it simultaneously distorts the reality of their relationship to God as a whole.

The Methodist, Jacob Ditzler, articulated pervasive Arminian reasoning: "[The doctrine of perseverance] destroys all free agency and responsibility. It assumes that after conversion men are perfectly passive in God's hand have no free will, no choice, no action - are machines." [12] Again from Ditzler:

It is not good for the moral and intellectual universe that man be deprived of the value, pleasure, and dignity of choice - of free agency. In it alone is there such a type of intellectual and moral dignity and grandeur, and such capacity for happiness and bliss as is pleasing to God, and compatible with His wisdom. The qualification for real mental and moral happiness is freedom of choice." 

Once such freedom of choice is undermined, says Ditzler, believers may "lull to repose, ease, carelessness, presumption and ruin." [14]

Belief in the eternal security and the perseverance of the saints need not and should never involve some easy believism, presumption or what Dietrich Bonhoeffer termed "cheap grace." Charles Spurgeon called this doctrine a "great wonder," since, as the Synod of Dort recognized, "those who are converted could not persevere in a state of grace if left to their own strength." [15] In fact, Dort admits, "with respect to themselves, [apostasy] is not only possible [but] would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible." [16]

It is fitting that the title "perseverance of the saints" has direct reference to an event in the lives of believers - believers persevere. But it is also appropriate to recognize that the entire basis for confidence that the faith of the truly converted will endure is outside believers. It is highly instructive that the fifth head of doctrine at the Synod of Dort is as focused upon the God who preserves His elect as upon the perseverance produced by that divine preservation. Faithful response to the biblical insistence that God finishes the saving work He begins never recoils in upon itself but looks to and leans upon the original and only true Promise Keeper who keeps those He has promised to bring to glory.

Ditzler's comment concerning machines is illuminative of a distinctive lack of exegetical subtlety which pervades much Arminian thinking. Only two options seem possible to deniers of perseverance - either free will obtains, or we are all robots.

The Arminian Holy of Holies. The first possibility - that free will obtains - involves what might be viewed as the Arminian holy of holies - that precious jewel, that value above all values which must be protected at all costs, namely, the right of refusal with respect to all gracious overtures of God. The same tenacity for the right of refusal which leads many evangelicals to deny effectual calling at the point of conversion, leads consistent Arminians to deny God's power to preserve the truly converted to the end. [17] Ditzler articulates the centrality of this negative prerogative of free will - "we say man cannot of himself turn, but he can refuse to receive grace, and help, and refuse to turn, and there is just where we are Arminian." [18]

But is it not the case that when the right of refusal and apostasy become the focus of discussion, a certain distortion of the biblical emphasis creeps into Arminian logic? Too often the discussion runs thus - "Can man fall?", to "Can the Christian fall?" Is not the prior question, the more urgent question, a different one? Namely - "Can man stand?!" [19] The question of falling is moot. Man's power to fall has advanced beyond the possible to the actual - He has fallen! O, how far he has fallen! He is blind! He is bound in sin! He is spiritually dead! [20]

Now our attention is better focused upon the concrete reality on the ground. Can man, whose body, mind, and soul are mature and experienced at falling, stand again? And if so, can he remain standing? Can he stand eternally? If so - how? By what power? To whose credit? To whom the praise? To whom the glory? The short answer is - Yes, he can stand eternally because God is able to make him stand. [21]

Is it not fair to ask whether the right of refusal, which is seen as the genuine mark of true humanity and dignity at the point of conversion and throughout the Christian life, ought also to prevail in heaven as well? True Arminians, along with all who deny effectual calling, should be asked why the prerogative to spurn God's love loses its luster once the pearly gates have been traversed. If genuine human nature can flourish in heaven without the power to break free of God's love, why insist upon such freedom at any stage of man's existence? Unless, in the final analysis, man's faith, whether at conversion or in the course of the Christian life on earth or both, is in fact viewed as in some sense meritorious. Arminians seem to treat the right of refusal not so much as a constituent element within human nature but rather as a test, a hurdle which, once cleared, may be left behind. For deniers of effectual calling, this hurdle is cleared at the point of conversion, while for Methodists it is overcome at death or at Christ's return, whichever comes first.

In either case Paul's questions, which seized the mind of St. Augustine, cannot be answered correctly - "Who makes you different from another? And what do you have which you did not receive? And if indeed you did receive it, how is it that you boast as if you did not receive it?" [22] Once the slightest notion of merit penetrates our understanding of faith, a ground for boasting before God is established, and grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6).

Robotic Christianity. Still, Arminians maintain an intense protectiveness of this almost Herculean, inviolable right of refusal. Why do they do it? Part of the explanation is that for them, the alternative is robotic Christianity - a mechanical, coercive manipulation by God of the entire universe which includes the wills of human beings. [23]

Happily, Reformed believers join Arminians in rejecting such a mechanical view of God's providential lordship over His creation and in His saving work. The Scriptures typically depict God as unfailingly saving His elect, not with the language of force and coercion but with the language of wooing, drawing, changing hearts, and transforming wills. [24]

Calvinistic teaching has recognized and celebrated this fact. Calvin, whose high view of God's sovereignty is unquestioned, agrees that "man is not borne along without any motion of the heart, as if by an outside force; rather, he is so affected that he obeys from the heart." [25] James Petigru Boyce agreed that God does "not act independently of [Christians'] cooperation, but leads them unto salvation through their own perseverance in faith and holiness." [26] Again, "salvation is secured only through the cooperation of the believer. It is not bestowed upon him in his sins. It is not merely preservation by God, but also perseverance of the believer, in faith and holiness, unto the end." [27]

Christian teaching from Augustine to John Calvin to Thomas Goodwyn to Jonathan Edwards to J. I. Packer demonstrates that Arminian fears of mechanicalism have not been realized in the theologies of many prominent defenders of perseverance. On the contrary, the reservoir of instruction concerning Christian discipleship, obedience; sanctification, and what we might call heart religion in its broadest sense has been deep and rich among Reformed writers and teachers.

Unlike Arminians, Calvinists maintain the affirmation that true growth in obedience and the pursuit of holiness, while taking place in believers and truly involving their wills, are also received gifts, as Romans 6:22-23 indicates: "... now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The Work of the Holy Spirit. Reformed reading of the Scriptures recognizes a third option which does violate the Arminian holy of holies but without resulting in robotic Christianity. This option affirms that God the Holy Spirit, non-coercively, yet unfailingly, vivifies, awakens, illuminates and effectually draws blind, dead sinners to enduring and, therefore, to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Against this view the Arminian understanding has the Holy Spirit restoring the human will to some sort of neutrality rather than bestowing, nurturing, and sustaining faith and the obedience of faith.

Yet even earthly parental love acts in the Calvinistic and not the Arminian way. When mothers and fathers know better what will help or harm their children, love compels them to influence their wills toward the good. No reasonable person blames the parent who leads his children to live honestly, to work diligently, to avoid the dangers of drugs and promiscuous sexual activity. These efforts are neither tyrannical nor manipulative but are the plain duties of love.

Ah! but of course, children with contrary wills may and often do successfully resist the loving efforts of the parents. Yes, they do! But praise be to God, our Lord is better at persuasion than earthly parents. Our loving heavenly Father is perfect in all that He does, including this, and so accomplishes all things in accordance with the counsel of His own will, and not ours. Therefore John can attribute the new birth precisely to the will of God and just as pointedly not to the will of man (John 1:13; Eph. 1:11). Thus it happens that Jesus never loses one of those sheep given to Him by His Father before the foundation of the world, but raises him up at the last day (John 6:38-39; 10:16,25-30). Arminian minds reject the possibility that God might draw sinners to Himself and keep them both unfailingly and noncoercively, and since the noncoercive element touches their holy of holies, perseverance must be denied.

That the Doctrine Is Indifferent

Surprisingly, the same Arminian teaching which finds the doctrine of perseverance untrue and harmful often insists that it is indifferent - that it does not matter whether one believes in perseverance or not! Once again Jacob Ditzler, in his 1876 debate with J. R. Graves, will serve as our representative Arminian.

Ditzler argues that one might affirm or deny the final perseverance of the saints, be equally pious and useful to the Lord, equally respect the Word of God, without endangering one's soul. After all, Ditzler reasoned with Dr. Graves, "we [Arminians] are safe any way ... we stand if you do." [28] Whether a truly regenerate and adopted child of God might apostatize ought, according to Ditzler, to be left "to liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment." [29]

Graves responded that in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints "the very foundation of Christianity itself" is at stake. [30] He was right. The nature of faith, one's view of God's character and of God's glory are definitively shaped according to one's understanding of perseverance.

Undivided Faith. Arminians rightly teach that faith obeys God, but it has difficulty emphasizing that faith leans, relies, and depends upon God's grace alone for that obedience and for endurance in the obedience of faith to the end. Inevitably, Arminian faith must recoil in upon itself. It must depend for its salvation both upon God and upon itself to persevere. Since Arminians believe that God will undoubtedly do His part in offering help for perseverance, it is not surprising when disproportionate and isolated attention is focused upon the one variable which finally determines one's eternal destiny, namely the Christian's faith.

Do you see the zaniness, the impossibility of this picture? What we are talking about here is strikingly and disturbingly similar to one of the fundamental flaws which sabotaged Protestant liberalism from its beginnings in the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher and ensured its betrayal of the gospel. I am speaking of faith in faith. This is a nonsensical idea, but it prevails in the minds of many Christian believers.

The secular media can be counted on to speak of religion in this way. A case in point is the United States Air Force pilot, Sean O'Grady, who had to bail out of his airplane over the former Yugoslavia, but survived by eating plants and bugs until he was rescued. O'Grady gave God credit for his deliverance. But the newspaper headlines reported that he credited his faith for his recovery and that he leaned on his faith.

Faith and God must be sharply distinguished. Faith does not exist in isolation. Faith lives from its object. Christian faith is not only not in itself, it is precisely not in itself - saving faith depends upon and credits God and God alone for salvation and for everything good, including faith. Faith is itself a leaning, a trusting, a dependence. To speak of unexercised faith as Arminians are prone to do is to speak of dead faith, of that which is not faith. To credit faith without reference to the God in whom it trusts is to rob God of His glory and ascribe it to believers themselves.

One New Testament scholar's teaching illustrates the confusion which ensues once the perception of the inseparable relationship between faith and its object becomes clouded. He states that "in one sense, faith is God's gift, yet it must be a gift received." [31] Do you see the confusion? Unintentionally, it seems, an additional step has been inserted into Christian conversion. Apparently God first offers the gift of faith to sinners which may be refused. Then Jesus Christ, together with His gospel, is offered to faith, which may receive Him or not, depending upon whether faith is exercised or not!

Do not the Scriptures treat faith as a bestowed gift, not as an offered gift? Just as we awaken to having received our name, to which we respond when addressed by it, so God's elect, having received faith as a gift, receive Jesus Christ together with His gospel when offered. Likewise, the Lord's sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd and do come when He calls (John 10:26-28, 6:45; Eph. 2:8).

Arminian understanding of faith is distorted in two ways. First, faith is understood as a human capacity which mayor may not be exercised. This notion separates faith from its object, namely, the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Second, faith inevitably becomes divided. The believer rightly depends upon God who promises to save all who persevere to the end. So far so good. But then the believer must depend upon himself or, if you will, upon his own faith in order to persevere. Where faith is divided, glory is divided, a ground for boasting is established, grace is no longer grace, and what was good news has turned into bad news, namely that it is up to sinners "to convert themselves" (as convertendum se) by their faith. [32]

God's Glory. Reformed Christians make much of God's glory. Soli Deo Gloria is their motto. To God alone be glory. Which view gives God more glory on this point, the Calvinistic or the Arminian? The Arminian worships a God who has not promised that every true believer will be saved, and so he does not give God glory for such a promise. The Calvinist worships a God who has so promised and he praises Him for having done so. So, which conception gives God the most glory?

Let me suggest that the question of more or less glory can be misleading. The more pertinent question is surely - which view gives God proper glory? We have to do with the question of truth, not with an abstract demand from outside God's revelation and activity which requires that God must be given the most glory possible.

Here is the point. If the God envisioned by the Arminian is right, then his praise of God is right and in that sense he gives God more glory than the Calvinist. If God has not promised to save every true believer eternally, the Calvinist in no sense glorifies Him by suggesting otherwise; in fact, the Calvinist is presumptuous in that case. Glory is as much a matter of character as amount. Thus, we sing-"To God be the glory, great things He has done." The Calvinist gives God proper glory because God has indeed promised to save eternally every true believer.

The Character of Faith. Surely the fundamental character of the Christian life will turn upon our grasp of this doctrine. Calvin was right - the Bible does not contain everything which can be known, but only that which is profitable for us to know in order to trust Christ and to lay hold of His benefits, only that which is necessary for us to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. [33]

It cannot be a matter of indifference for us that God was pleased not only to preserve and keep His children through Jesus Christ but also to tell us so. The Lord wills to comfort us with this promise and to evoke from us the thanksgiving, grateful obedience, worship, and love appropriate to His preserving activity.

Gratitude for the promise of perseverance belongs to the essential character of faith. Works which flow from a different faith do not praise God fully and properly because they do not credit to God even those works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Obedience flowing from true faith acknowledges that we ourselves are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2: 10).

I. H. Marshall asks that we balance our teaching on perseverance and eternal security with teaching on apostasy. This word balance is not always helpful. We often hear of balancing divine sovereignty with human responsibility, and now of balancing perseverance with apostasy. What does such balancing really mean? Do we steal a little of God's sovereignty to beef up human responsibility? Can the doctrine of perseverance be pared down to make room for apostasy? Surely not. Our goal does not involve a balancing of teachings so much as a right understanding of them, a right relating of them to one another. [34]

A firm embrace of the doctrine of the perseverance nurtures a pursuit of holiness of a theocentric intensity and gratitude unnatural to consistent Arminianism. Perseverance-shaped faith agrees with Calvin that "not a whit remains for us to glory in, for the whole of salvation comes from God," and with St. Augustine who gladly confessed that "grace alone brings about every good work in US." [35] It is comfortable with God's announcement to Ezekiel that when He had put in His people a new fleshly heart to replace their stony heart He would cause them to walk in His statutes. [36] It does not flinch at Paul's insistence that "all things are of God who reconciled us to Himself through Christ" and that he no longer desired a righteousness of his own, for he considered himself dead and that Christ lived in him. [37] It offers the "Amen!" to Jesus' warning that without Him we can do nothing. [38]

Much water will have to pass under the bridge before we come into full possession of that precious inheritance. The Devil will assault us. Sins will tempt us. Our desires will try to draw us from our Lord. Doubts will assail from all sides. And to whom will we turn? Not to ourselves. Oh, no. We cannot take care of ourselves. And praise be to God, our Lord knows that we cannot. He remembers that we are dust (Ps. 103:14). He delights both in telling us that He will take care of us and in actually doing so as we run to Him and cling to Him who is able to keep what we have committed unto Him against that day (2 Tim. 1:12).

Yes, my son, Drew, was owed an apology when the daddy who should have taken care of him abandoned him, if only for eight minutes. Our heavenly Father, the One who invites us to call Him Abba, will neither leave nor forsake us for a fraction of a second (Heb. 13:5).

Recently I was with Alan Tomlinson, my colleague in New Testament, at the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Nichols Street in a shopping area of Kansas City called the Plaza. We both noticed a young blind boy of around six years stooping with the aid of an adult woman in order to run his hand across a recessed plaque in the sidewalk which depicted a scene from the Civil War Battle of Westport. I continued walking but Alan was frozen, his eyes welling up with tears and fixed upon the child.

In 1992, Alan contracted a flesh-eating strep bacterium which ate away at his body. He almost lost his right arm and shoulder. The doctors gave up hope of saving them. By God's grace Alan's condition took an unexpected turn for the better and his shoulder and arm were preserved, though he suffered significant scarring and the loss of sensitivity in his hand. Alan now knows by experience the need to be cared for, both by others and by God for survival itself. Ever since his ordeal, the sight of anyone with an obvious disability seizes Alan with understanding, pity and love.

Sin has spiritually crippled every human being, exposing and perhaps deepening our utter dependence upon God for salvation and everything good, including perseverance in faith. But take note, sin did not create our reliance upon God. Grace was not a fallback position once works did not fly. We were created for dependence upon God's power and mercy from the beginning.

It is right for us earthly parents to encourage our children's maturity into adult independence. But with regard to our heavenly Father, maturity proceeds in reverse. With respect to God, independence is the lie, independence is the sin (Gen. 3:1-22; John 15:5). Before God, we are commanded and invited to mature into dependence! Forever children! In this light we begin to see how the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints belongs to the very heart of all God's ways with His adopted children:

The steps of a man are established by the Lord; and he delights in his way. When he falls, he shall not be hurled headlong; because the Lord is the One who holds his hand ... [the Lord] does not forsake His godly ones; they are preserved forever (Ps. 37:23-24, 28). 

Author 

Mark DeVine is Assistant Professor of Christian Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri. This is his first contribution to Reformation & Revival Journal.

Endnotes 

1. Timothy George, The Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 327. 
2. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990 reprint), 3:548-49. 
3. J. R. Graves (1820-93), no friend to Calvinism, led what became known as the Landmark movement in the South and Southwestern regions of the United States. Graves, relying upon superb rhetorical and literary skills, his editorship of The Tennessee Baptist, and a great love for and competence in controversial debate, exerted lasting influence among Southern Baptists. 
4. John 6:39; 10:16; 17:12; 18:9; Job 19:25; Psalm 19:14; Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:17-7:28; 1 Peter 2:25. 
5. J. R. Graves and Jacob Ditzler, The Graves-Ditzler: or, Great Carrollton Debate (Memphis: The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1876), 1139, 1141. 
6. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., John T. McNeill, ed. (philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), book 3, chap. 24, par. 6, or 1:972-73. 
7. Marshall identifies the most important as being Matthew 24:10-12; Mark 13:22; Luke 8:13, 12:10; Acts 20:29f.; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 11:30-32; Galatians 5:4; 6:13; Philippians 3:18f.; 1 Timothy 1:19f.; 4:1; 6:10; 2 Timothy 2:26; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:18ff.; 1 John 5:16; Jude 22f.; and Revelation 3:2. 
8. I. Howard Marshall, Kept By the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 19-99. 
9. Cf. Graves-Ditzler, 1122. 
10. It is appropriate but still insufficient to insist that the high sovereignty, perseverance passages must govern one's reading of the so-called apostasy texts. We must move beyond "Scripture interprets Scripture" arguments to a genuine engagement with troublesome texts The Original Promise Keeper on their own terms, notably Hebrews 6. 
11. J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Gano Books, 1982), 299. 
12. Graves-Ditzler, 1122. 
13. Ibid., 1146. Is it not striking how clearly this statement has God prizing sincerity above righteousness in His creatures? 
14. Ibid., 1118. 
15. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications, 1979), 23:362. 
16. Schaff, 594. My emphasis. 
17. "Effectual calling" refers to the Reformed conviction that God effectually or successfully· brings to saving faith every sinner He calls. "Effectual calling" is preferable to the more widely recognized "irresistible grace" because it better comprehends both biblical teaching and the language of the Synod of Dort. See Schaff, pages 587-92; and esp. Articles XI and XII; pages 566-700ff. - "sed ejusdem etiam Spiritus regenerantis efficacia ad intima hominis penetrat, cor clausum aperit, ... adeo ut omnes illi, in quorum cordibus admirando hoc modo Deus, certo, infallibiliter, et efficaciter regenerentur, et actu credant." It is interesting to note that the Remonstrance had repudiated the language of irresistibility in 1610 - "quod ad modum operation is ejus gratiaeattinet, non est ille irresistibilis. ... " See Schaff, 547. 
18. Graves-Ditzler, 1143. 
19. Cf. Job 41:10; Ezra 9:15; 1 Samuel 6:20; Nahum 1:6; Malachi 3:2. 
20. John 12:40. 
21. Romans 5:2,14:4. 
22. 1 Corinthians 4:7. Diakrino can mean "make superior" or "give an advantage," rather than merely "make different." This stronger sense certainly fits the context of 1 Corinthians 4 where the issues of merit and boasting are in view. It is also difficult to see how the sense of the passage can be comprehended unless the idea of a bestowed as opposed to an offered gift is envisioned. 
23. Ironically the great father of Protestant liberalism and, indeed, of modern theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, actually held a view of divine sovereignty approaching the Arminian caricature of classic Calvinism. Schleiermacher could even speak of God as the "Author of Sin!" See his The Christian Faith, trans. D. M. BailIe et. al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 325f. Even though for Schleiermacher such an assertion has reference only to the content of the Christian self-consciousness, this represents one of several key emphases not bequested to later liberals. 
24. See also, e.g., Irenaeus, Against All Heresies, 5: 1: 1-2 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 527-28. 
25. Calvin, Institutes, 2.3.10, 308. 
26. J. P. Boyce, Abstract of Principles (philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 426. 
27. Ibid., 431f. Were Boyce's Protestant credentials not so firmly established, his use of the word "cooperation" might be cause for raised eyebrows. Boyce's meaning must be strictly distinguished from Roman Catholic teaching as found, e.g., in the The Council of Trent, Session Six, Chapter 5, viz., "ut, qui per peccata a Deo aversi erant, per ejus excitantem atque adjuvantem gratiam ad convertendum se ad suam ipsorum justification em, eidem graticae libere assentiendo et cooperando, disponantur" (Schaff), 2:92. Instead Boyce's emphasis parallels that of many classic Calvinists (including Calvin himself) that God does not bypass His ordained means of repentance and faith in converting sinners to Himself, or, in the language of Karl Barth, the atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ has existential reach. 
28. Graves-Ditzler, 1117. 
29. Ibid. 
30. Ibid., 1126. 
31. Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology (Nashville: Broadman, 1962), 120. 
32. See The Council of Trent in Schaff, 2:92. 
33. Institutes, 1.10.2:98; 1.14.1-4:159-165; Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., David W. and Thomas F. Torrance, eds., T. A. Smail, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 10:330-31; cf. Timothy George, Reformers, 198-99. 
34. No objection is needed where calls for "balance" encourage due attention to biblical teaching on both sides of a given polarity. My concern is that a too hasty settling for the language of "paradox" or even of "antimony" may unwittingly validate unbiblical construals of the issues involved. I. H. Marshall's "balance," which would satisfy few convictional Arminians or Calvinists, is a case in point. The acknowledgement that we see through a glass darkly concerning certain aspects of doctrine need not discourage eager recognition of what the Bible makes clear. Danger lies not only in speaking beyond what is written, but also in speaking less than the Scriptures allow. 
35. Calvin, Institutes, 2.3.6:298; Augustine, Letters, cxciv 5, quoted in John Calvin, Institutes, 2.3.13:308. 
36. Ezekiel 36:26-27. 
37. 1 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 1:10-11; Hebrews 2:10;2 Peter 1:3; Philippians 3:9; Galatians 2:19-20. 
38. John 15:5; Colossians 3:1-4; Ephesians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 1 John 3:2.

Keeping the Sabbath - John Calvin's Teaching on the Fourth Commandment

From the Geneva Catechism (ca. 1560) 

168. Let us come to the fourth commandment. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

169. Does he order us to labor on six days, that we may rest on the seventh? Not absolutely; but allowing man six days for labor, he excepts the seventh, that it may be devoted to rest.

170. Does he interdict us from all kind of labor? This commandment has a separate and peculiar reason. As the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it was abolished by the advent of Christ.

171. Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary? I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.

172. What then? Is there any thing under it beyond ceremony? It was given for three reasons.

173. State them to me. To figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves.

174. What do you mean by spiritual rest? When we keep holiday from our own works, that God may perform His own works in us.

175. What, moreover, is the method of thus keeping holiday? By crucifying our flesh, - that is, renouncing our own inclination, that we may be governed by the Spirit of God.

176. Is it sufficient to do so on the seventh day? Nay, continually. After we have once begun, we must continue during the whole course of life.

177. Why, then, is a certain day appointed to figure it? There is no necessity that the reality should agree with the figure in every respect, provided it be suitable in so far as is required for the purpose of figuring.

178. But why is the seventh day prescribed rather than any other day? In Scripture the number seven implies perfection. It is, therefore, apt for denoting perpetuity. It, at the same time, indicates that this spiritual rest is only begun in this life, and will not be perfect until we depart from this world.

179. But what is meant when the Lord exhorts us to rest by His own example? Having finished the creation of the world in six days, He dedicated the seventh to the contemplation of His works. The more strongly to stimulate us to this, He set before us His own example. For nothing is more desirable than to be formed after His image.

180. But ought meditation on the works of God to be continual, or is it sufficient that one day out of seven be devoted to it? It becomes us to be daily exercised in it, but because of our weakness, one day is specially appointed. And this is the polity which I mentioned.

181. What order, then, is to be observed on that day? That the people meet to hear the doctrine of Christ, to engage in public prayer, and make profession of their faith.

182. Now explain what you meant by saying that the Lord intended by this commandment to provide also for the relief of slaves. That some relaxation might be given to those under the power of others. Nay, this, too, tends to maintain a common polity. For when one day is devoted to rest, everyone accustoms himself to labor during the other days.

183. Let us now see how far this command has reference to us. In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed in Christ (Col. 2: 17).

184. How? Because, by virtue of his death, our old man is crucified, and we are raised up to newness of life (Rom. vi.6).

185. What of the commandment then remains for us? Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.

186. But does the figure give us nothing more? Yes, indeed, we must give heed to the thing meant by it; namely, that being engrafted into the body of Christ, and made His members, we cease from our own works, and so resign ourselves to the government of God.