God's Salvation
SALVATION TEACHING IN THE MINISTRY OF JESUS
God's Salvation
SALVATION TEACHING IN THE MINISTRY OF JESUS
Our response of faith is crucial. We have seen this time and again as we have studied the nature of faith. The exact place of faith in our salvation appears illusive to some readers of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry. One may study the healing activity of Jesus with great profit (Cf. study of “God the Son,” Contents section of StudyJesus.com, for the miracles of Jesus’ ministry).
Faith and Miracles: The healing miracles of Jesus confirm that He was a compassionate man. On one occasion a leper came to Jesus and begged Him for cleansing. “And moved with compassion, He stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed” (Mark 1:40-42). Jesus warned him to be silent, but to comply with the Law of Moses concerning the ritual cleansing of the leprosy. There is no mention of faith for salvation.
Another time Jesus used an example of physical healing to remind those observing that His power extended far beyond curing mere physical ailments. Four men brought a paralyzed man to Jesus on a pallet. “Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven’” (Cf. Mark 2:2-12 for complete context). The scribes in the crowd thought Jesus was blaspheming because He claimed to forgive the man’s sins. His answer was revealing. “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – “He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, arise, take up your pallet and go home.’”
The answer Jesus gave was revealing because He gave it to some religious leaders (scribes) who seemed to have no qualms about Jesus’ healing power; but, they were not willing to accept His power to forgive sins. Neither is there any indication from the man’s four friends that they had brought him to Jesus for spiritual healing. Their faith was in Jesus’ power to heal physically; otherwise, why bring him to Jesus? And of course there is no indication that the paralytic himself had any faith at all. But, the crowd was amazed, and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”
The answer is also revealing because it illustrates a major reason for the miraculous element in the ministry of Jesus. It is significant that in the gospel of John he uses the word semeion, meaning “sign” when speaking of Jesus’ miracles. By doing this he conveys the idea that the miracles are more than mere acts. They, like all signs, point to something else. “Many other signs (Note: attesting miracles) therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).
This establishes that Jesus’ miracles not only showed His sympathy and compassion. They were also performed to promote faith in Him as the Christ, God’s Son. Thus, the recipient’s blessing was not necessarily based on faith, but, as John states, “… that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” This accounts for the fact that many who received physical healing did not have faith. The cure did not depend on their faith. It was for an ultimately higher purpose. Jesus did not want people to confuse His power to cure physical ailments with His power to forgive sins. These were different actions taken in two different realms.
Jesus’ Salvation Teachings in a Time of Transition: When Jesus cured the paralytic He also stressed: “… that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” Jesus’ miraculous healing work and His forgiving work were done as part of His preparation for the coming kingdom. They were the works He was doing as part of the great transition from the era of the Mosaic covenant to the New Testament (covenant). The new covenant was to be established in His blood at His death. Jesus lived under the Old Testament (law/covenant). He died under it. This is why He said to the man cured of leprosy, “… Go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a testimony to them” (Mark 1:44b). The transitory nature of Jesus’ earthly ministry resulted in healing and forgiving under various circumstances. Thus, many were healed who had not expressed any faith (Luke 4:38-39). Some were healed because of other peoples’ faith (Mark 7:25-30). Some were healed because of their own faith (Luke 7:36-50). Some were forgiven without any show of faith when they were healed (Mark 2:2-12). Some were forgiven who did not come to Jesus to seek forgiveness or personal healing (John 8:3-11).
The foregoing discussion illustrates why it is difficult for some Bible readers to discover the role of faith in their salvation. It does seem confusing when we find such a varied array of examples in the ministry of Jesus. Therefore, further examination and explanations are in order.
Keeping Jesus and His Salvation Teaching in Proper Perspective: In a real sense, the earthly ministry of Jesus was a transition ministry. Even His own life on earth, like ours, was lived in a “passing” mode. Between this “beginning” and “ending” “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, (Note: age) and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). He came at the proper time, born under the Law (Galatians 4:4). He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). He knew His ministry was on a time table (John 2:4; 7:6, 30; 8:20; 12:23; 17:1). He knew He was going away. He knew He would come back (John 14:2-3). He lived and died under the old covenant. In His death, He made the old covenant (Law of Moses) obsolete (Hebrew 8:13). He became a mediator of a better covenant (New Testament) (Hebrews 8:6). “He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:9b-10). After His death, burial, and resurrection, His Father exalted Him to His right hand. The Father gave His Son all authority in heaven and on earth. Now, the kingship of Jesus extends over the entire universe. This, of course, includes the kingdom of God of earth, the church. Now, “He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives” (Hebrews 9:15-17).
All of this means that God’s great plan of redemption included a law (covenant) given to His chosen people, the Jews. This law guided His people while it was in effect. However, it was also pointing to the future. The apostle Paul tells us that “Before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:23-25).
The elaborate system of sacrifices in the old covenant included the blood sacrifices of animals that were offered for all kinds of sins. Thus, those seeking restoration of fellowship with God could offer the designated sacrifice for deliberate sins, sins of ignorance, sins of passion, sins of idolatry, and many more. When sincere, conscientious Hebrews came to their senses and realized they had sinned, they offered sin offerings in conformity to the stipulated ritual laws concerning such things. By faithful obedience to God’s prescribed covenant laws, they remained in covenant relationship with Him. This was so even though “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). What, then, is their hope? The answer is important because their hope is our hope – “A death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant.” Those ancient Hebrews who followed the terms of the Old Testament became eligible for redemption when Jesus, the Messiah, shed His blood on the cross.
The Old Covenant Passed; The New Covenant Came: As Jesus came near the close of His ministry here, He met with His apostles in an upper room in Jerusalem to eat the Passover with them one more time. And what a time. For well over a millennium the Jews had kept this feast in memory of their great deliverance from bondage. However, Jesus did something shocking. “… He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).
Thus, we see the great sweep of history as we move from the old covenant to the new covenant, the Mosaic age to the Christian age. We see God preparing His plan of perfection in Christ. Someone has said that the entire scope of salvation history may be stated as “Jesus is coming; Jesus has come; Jesus is coming again.” This may seem like a gross exaggeration. Actually, it is an understatement. History dissolves into “much ado about nothing” unless there is meaning that transcends it. History becomes the darkest night without the revealing light from above. Without meaning, history would be the enactment of a dramatic tragedy from which all laughter is transformed into wails of misery from both players and audience. The orchestra pit is vacated and hideous creatures come forth from below to kill and devour – that is, unless we are willing to make the great escape. Jesus is that “great escape,” so to speak. He, Himself, said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28).
No Partiality in Jesus’ Salvation Teachings: We started our discussion about the response of our faith with the observation that a study of the healing ministry of Jesus may leave us confused as to the exact place of faith in salvation. Now we know why. For the most part, the miracles were done, as the apostle John later records, to produce faith, not as a blessing or reward for faith (John 20:31). Also, His miracles, like much of His teachings, were a vital part of a transitional ministry. Although the Law of Moses was in effect as long as He lived, many of His teachings and actions were anticipatory, that is, to be remembered and applied under the terms of the New Testament that was sealed by His blood and made effective by His death. This means His personal ministry of teaching and healing was: first, transitional (moving from one covenant to another); second, anticipatory (looking forward to the time and terms of the new covenant); third, transactional. At an early age Jesus said, “… I must be about my Father’s business” (Luke 2:49, KJV). The transactions of that business unfolded in the activities of His daily living. He found Himself in many different circumstances. His relationships varied from day to day, month to month, year to year. He was transacting. He was interacting. In the course of daily operations, He was thrust into different situations; therefore, His ministry was also situational. He seized the moments to do great things (John 2:7-11; 11:43-44). He taught great things (Matthew 5:1-11; 23:11-30).
Of course, one could expand on the work of Jesus almost without limit. Our point has been to show that in His transitional, anticipatory, transactional, situational ministry, He was not setting forth a sort of minimum check list of stereotypical theology. He was not establishing a uniform systematic procedure for all to follow. This certainly does not minimize His ministry. It is meant to set the stage to understand why the New Testament contains so much more than the four Gospels on the life of Christ. For example: As the reader has probably noted, we are using the New American Standard Bible as the base translation. The particular edition we are using has 396 pages in the New Testament. The gospels total 179 pages. Acts has 52 pages. The letters have 140 pages. The Revelation has 24 pages. This shows that of the 396 pages of the New Testament, only 179 pages are Gospels. These are followed by 217 pages. Of course, the pages in your Bible may vary, but the ratios will remain constant.
Is all of this material extraneous that we find following the Gospels in the New Testament? Is it superfluous? Rhetorical questions need no answers. The answers are obvious. First of all, one sees all of this material through helpful glasses. We learn afresh that the entire corpus of Scripture is a product of God’s inspiration and “… profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We do not find this in the Gospels, Acts, the letters addressed to congregations, or the Revelation. This truth is found in a letter from the apostle Paul to his younger co-worker, Timothy. Every thoughtful reader will realize this is not an attempt to negate nor even mitigate what is taught concerning the word in the gospels. We have stressed the prominence of the Word of God as being God (John 1:1-4), eternal in nature (Matthew 24:25), the spoken words of God as our judge (John 12:48), the truth (John 17:17), and a source of spirit and life (John 6:63).
The Time and Precise Nature of Jesus’ Teaching: The presence of all of this inspired literature written after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is prima facie evidence that much more needed to be said. Other things must also be kept in mind. The fact that the Gospels are the first documents we see when we start reading the New Testament does not mean they were written before any of the other New Testament materials. Although we are not searching at this time for exact dates for the writing of the Gospels, we can make a few observations. Conservative Biblical textual scholarship holds that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written in the middle of the first century A.D. (50’s - 70’s). The gospel of John was written as late as two or three decades after the Synoptics (80’s - 90’s). This means that the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, were written while other New Testament documents were appearing on the scene. Mainstream views for the dates of some of the New Testament letters illustrate this point. As examples, James and Galatians were probably written in the late 40’s; 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the early 50’s; 1 and 2 Corinthians in the mid-50’s; and the prison and pastoral epistles in the 60’s.
All of this means that the four Gospels, although positioned first in the New Testament, were not the first New Testament writings. Their distinction lies elsewhere. Their content illustrates. They speak of the life and teachings of Jesus. They deal with those momentous foundational truths designed to be the bedrock of Christianity through all time. They describe the particular transitional, anticipatory, transational, situational features of Jesus’ ministry. In all of these areas we see the uniqueness of their greatness. We see the need to be cautious as we study. Here, perhaps more than in any other area of Bible study, we need to heed Paul’s injunction. “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Brief examples illustrate how important Paul’s statement is. (1) Transitional teaching: Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus. He abolished it. He took it out of the way. Therefore, we are no longer living under it. Although Jesus lived and died under the old Law, He treated the Law transitionally. Example: Jesus recalled the law which said, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Then He said: “… But I say unto you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). (2) Jesus also “looked forward” anticipatorily to the Christian age in His anticipatory teaching. Example: Jesus’ disciples asked Him to teach them how to pray. “He said to them, ‘When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come”’” (Luke 11:2). Of course, this teaching was anticipatory. The kingdom had not yet come (Matthew 4:17). It would come in a very short time (Mark 9:1). It did, in fact, come (Colossians 1:13). Thus, we have a specific teaching of Jesus given to His disciples that no longer applies. It would be evidence of a lack of understanding to offer prayers today for the kingdom to come, even though Jesus taught His disciples to do so. One should handle accurately the word of truth, which includes a recognition of the context and nature of Jesus’ teaching. (3) Jesus often taught in a transactional mode; that is, in His interaction with others He gave instructions that were circumstantial, passing, restricted, and intended for a specific individual. Example: On one occasion Jesus and His disciples saw a man who had been blind since birth. Jesus applied clay to the man’s eyes and said, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing” (John 9:7). This transaction has theological overtones. However, it was not related to the old covenant which was passing away nor to the new covenant which was soon to be sealed by the blood of Christ. It would be out of order for us to take a blind friend to Jerusalem , anoint his eyes with clay, and have him wash in the pool of Siloam. Why? Because Jesus did not teach us to do that, even though He did instruct one man to do so. We should handle accurately the word of truth, which includes the isolated, transactional nature of many of Jesus’ teachings.
(4) Then, there are the teachings of Jesus that are situational. They grew out of particular situations in which He found Himself. Example: Jesus had just started out on a trip when a situation developed that delayed Him. A man rushed up to Him with a question, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” After the man’s insistence that he had kept the commandments all his life, Jesus finally told him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” We are told that at “… these words his face fell, and he went away grieved, for he was one who owned much property” (Cf. Mark 10:17-22 for complete details). Are we ready to apply this teaching about how to attain heavenly benefits? After all, we are deep into a study of that very question – salvation. Have we found the final answer in this situational teaching of Jesus? This man did, but he was grieved. Fortunately, we do not need to become paupers to receive eternal life. Neither do we need to keep the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses has been removed. Much more teaching about how to inherit eternal life must be considered beyond what Jesus told this man to do in this particular situation.
We have pointed out that many of the New Testament writings were appearing as the Gospels emerged, although the Gospel of John was much later than the Synoptics. However, the distinction between the Gospels and the other writings was readily apparent. The contents of the Gospels emphasized the earthly life and teachings of Jesus from His birth to His ascension. These documents vividly show the features of His life and teachings in the ways we have been discussing. On the other hand, the Acts, epistles, and the Revelation follow a different tact. They show a different perspective. They are essentially based upon all that is implied when we use a phrase the early Christians used, “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” These Biblical writings follow upon the life-transforming contents of the gospels. The Gospels bring the life of Jesus to the forefront in all of its brilliance and beauty. He was the living Word. The difference in perspective between the gospels and the other New Testament writings is this: The Gospels bring the spotlight to bear on Jesus who lived from day to day, along with His marvelous transitional, anticipatory, transactional, situational teachings; whereas, the remainder of the New Testament shows the results of that life and teaching. Of course, the difference is not contradictory, but complimentary, plus the fact that most of what Jesus taught had eternal significance.
Significance of the Covenant Context: The Gospels have a “before” and “after” dimension. Jesus taught in ways we have explained before the old covenant was abrogated. The remainder of the New Testament deals with events and teachings under the new covenant. A preparatory element is often found in the Old Testament, especially in prophetic writings. Paul tells us the overall purpose of the law was that of a teacher leading us to Christ. Jesus becomes the bright and morning star as the old covenant settled beyond the horizon. He was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. With His victory accomplished, the old covenant was finished and His last will and testament came into effect. Although He lived under the old covenant, the transition from the old to the new is obvious.
What does all of this mean for us as we continue our study of salvation? First, it means we must become very serious in our attempts to “handle accurately the word of truth.” This is not a call to discern truth from error. We are talking about the Scriptures, God’s Word. Error is not involved. It is all true. Our challenge is to “handle it accurately.” This principle has been illustrated with many references and examples. Second, this admonition to handle properly the Scriptures applies to both general and specific teachings. Since we are deeply involved in a study of salvation, we turn to examples that illustrate this point, specifically.
Jesus was crucified between two robbers. One of the robbers said to the other, “‘… We are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise’” (Luke 23:41-43). On another occasion a certain lawyer asked Jesus the question in which we are interested, “‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?’ And he answered and said, ‘You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; do this and you will live’” (Luke 10:25-28).
Also, we have already studied an encounter Jesus had with a rich man who asked how to gain eternal life. Jesus told him to give all his money away (Cf. Mark 10:17-22 for the full context). These three examples are enough. Jesus gave specific answers to three supplicants making their entreaties for eternal life. Each answer was different. He told one to keep the law. He told another to give all his money away. He told yet another he would be with Him in Paradise. Why different answers to essentially the same request? Were these answers satisfactory to those who asked the favor? One tried to justify himself; one was grieved at the answer he received. The other even questioned the identity of Jesus.
These examples are very enlightening. They illustrate what we have been examining at great length. They admirably reflect the very nature of Jesus’ personal ministry. To appreciate this fully, we must remember that God is no respecter of persons. He shows no partiality. How do we know this? We know the same way that children know Jesus loves them. They sing in Bible classes a touching little song, “Jesus loves me. This I know, for the Bible tells me so.” Is this too simple? Is it naïve? Well, before we get tripped up in our own sophistication, we need to remember Jesus’ words, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 18:3). Many pertinent things we learn about our salvation are known only because God, in His Word, tells us.
God does not show partiality. “I most certainly understand [now] that God is not one to show partiality” (Acts 10:34). “There is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11). “God shows no partiality” (Galatians 2:6; also see Colossians 3:25 and 1 Peter 1:17). We can rest assured that Jesus was not being partial to these seekers of eternal life. He was in a transactional, situational, ministry in which He addressed each person according to his or her needs. He knew their hearts. One was haughty; one was greedy; one was desperate. His responses were appropriate. Did they or Jesus say anything about faith or repentance? Jesus called for life-style changes from the lawyer and the wealthy man. This reminds us of the retort of John the son of Zacharias who prepared the way for Jesus by preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said, “… Bear fruit in keeping with repentance …” (Cf. Matthew 3:3-8; Luke 3:3-8 for full context). These people were required to show repentance. Jesus, in our examples, was requiring two of the petitioners to show repentance.
The Thief on the Cross: But the thief – how about the thief? As we have said, Jesus knows the hearts of men (Luke 9:47, 16:15). We also know He had power on earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The two thieves were seriously insulting Jesus in the same way as the chief priests, scribes, and elders. In fact, all those passing by were involved in this shameful mockery (Matthew 27:37- 44). While one of the robbers kept up this diatribe, the other one rebuked him for doing so. Why? Perhaps he saw the multilingual sign on the cross of Jesus which read, “This is the king of the Jews.” Perhaps he heard Jesus praying to His Father, saying, “Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Note: We are aware of the textual variant that is found in the first part of Luke 23:34. It would be unfair to the reader not to mention it. Jesus’ plea is not found in some early biblical manuscripts, including the Fourth Century Codex Vaticanus, probably the earliest and most important of the three great uncials. [See pg 311 of The Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren; Also, many Bible commentaries, early and late]). Perhaps he heard the skepticism of the crowd and the other robber, “… if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One … Are You not the Christ?” (Cf. Luke 23:32-43). If the thief was a Jew, he would know about the Messianic prophecies of a coming king who would establish a kingdom. If he was a typical Jew of Jesus’ time, he could see Jesus as the one whom God would use to establish the kingdom of the Jews, perhaps to the former glory it had enjoyed during the days of David and Solomon. If so, he had a lot of company (John 6:15). At any rate, he did sense that it was a mistake to continue insulting Jesus. Then he made a request, “… remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” Jesus’ response was, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” Is this what the thief asked for? No. Were his sins forgiven? If so, was that forgiveness any different from the forgiveness Jesus prayed His Father to extend to all the jeering mob? The thief was with Jesus in Paradise that day. Jesus was buried that day. They were both in the hadean world that day. This is the unseen, invisible, realm sometimes described as Abraham’s bosom, a place of comfort. Far away from the comfort zone in that unseen realm is a dimension of torment (Luke 16:19-26).
After His death and burial, Jesus apparently spent some time in the region of comfort and in the region of torment. Of course, He was not in torment as a sufferer. He was there, no doubt, as a proclaimer to the spirits who were imprisoned because of disobedience and rebellion (1 Peter 3:18-20; Jude 6). In all probability, His message was a declaration of triumph over death, gehenna, Satan, and eternal darkness. His resurrection was imminent. His glorification was to follow. His reign over the entire universe was forthcoming (Matthew 28:18). Where was the thief, during the time Jesus continued His activity in the entire hadean world? No doubt he was in Paradise, as Jesus had promised. Jesus was resurrected three days after burial. Did the thief also leave Paradise? If so, did he go to heaven? If so, he received more than Jesus promised. If he is still in Paradise, what is his status? No doubt he will stand with us, all of us, before the great Judge on the last day of general resurrection and judgment. “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds, to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (Cf. John 5:28-29; Romans 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28).
We know of no good deeds the thief did. Even at his death, he neither asked for forgiveness of his sins nor was he promised forgiveness. Rather, there is a strong implication that the thief’s request was based on worldly concerns and desperate self-seeking, not on spiritual matters. Hearing what the crowd was saying, and knowing what the sign read, it seems the thief was desperately seeking protection from one he believed might, in some way, become king.
But, how about the prayer of Jesus; did His prayer to the Father for the forgiveness of the jeering mob include the two thieves? Apparently so. We need to remember that Jesus was fully human and wholly divine. He was not God disguised as man; neither was He man disguised as God. He was, as the ancient creeds affirm, “Very God and very man.” Many incidents in the life and ministry of Jesus reveal His deep humanity. Tears, fatigue, and hunger come to mind. His Gethsemane ordeal is a prime example of human reaction in the face of a torturous death. He was deeply grieved, distressed, sweating like dripping blood, agonizing (Matthew 26:37-44; Luke 22:39-44). He was praying that it would be His Father’s will to spare Him such a death. Did the Father hear and grant His prayer? Yes, He did hear. The answer was “No.” The Father’s will prevailed – and the Father’s will was always the Son’s will. So, while experiencing the horrible death of the cross, His great heart cried out to the Father. “Father, forgive them!” Did the Father hear and answer that prayer? Yes, He heard. What was His answer? We do not know because we are not given that information. If He did forgive, it was His will to do so. If He did not forgive, it was His will not to forgive. In either case, we need to remember the following two specifics about this scene. (1) Jesus prayed His tormentors would be forgiven for what they were doing to Him on that day. Jesus promised the thief would be with Him in Paradise that day. Even if the Father answered His Son affirmatively and forgave Jesus’ killers for what they did in ignorance that day, they still must stand in the final judgment with us to answer for all the deeds they did all their lives before and after that day. (2) The thief showed no evidence of actually knowing who Jesus was. He called Him an “innocent man.” He thought He was some sort of king. Was the thief penitent? Did he have saving faith? Did Jesus promise him heaven? The answer to each of these questions, based on the textual evidence we have, is “No.”
What may we make of this? Even if those who crucified Jesus were forgiven for what they did that day, and even though the thief was allowed to be with Jesus in Paradise that day, these are not examples of how we may obtain eternal salvation. The crucifixion scene unfolds near the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. This happened as Jesus “cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which were hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). The Old Testament (covenant) was at last being abolished and superceded by “a new and living way” (Hebrews 10:20a). “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22). “He obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).
Therefore, it would be very unfortunate, even disastrous, to base one’s hope of eternal salvation on such dubious examples. This is not to minimize the strategic importance of Jesus’ life and teachings as recorded in the gospels. We find invaluable lessons and examples on every hand; and, as He shines like a beacon in the night, we learn from the very life of Jesus what it means to be godly and to live a life of holiness. We also cherish that multitude of teachings Jesus delivered to guide us safely into eternity.
Neither are we discounting the place or importance of His transitional, anticipatory, transactional, situational, ministry found in the gospel records. However, because of the very nature of those teachings, one must be very careful and judicious when applying those teachings, especially concerning eternal salvation. Again, we stress Paul’s admonition, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
The New Covenant and Our Faith: We are now ready to look at the results of what happened in the four Gospels. This means we are now turning to the remainder of the New Testament. We now study the inspired literature that presents the full range of Christianity as it is to be lived under the new covenant. We found there was a transition phase as the old covenant was ending and the new covenant was beginning. Although the gospels are bound in the New Testament, they actually reflect the transition period between the old and new covenants. This placement is logical based on the fact that the Gospels reflect the life, burial and resurrection of Him who is the very basis of Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Founder.
However, after the resurrection Jesus pointed to the future when He gave the “Great Commission” to His apostles. This was authoritative, sealed with blood, and applicable for subsequent ages. Now we find what it means to see the old covenant end and the new covenant begin. We see a new era beginning, a new age dawning. In the book of Acts we find what people need to do to be saved, the beginning of the church, and the expansion of Christianity from Jerusalem, into Judea, Samaria, and beyond. The letters from Romans to Jude spell out, in various contexts, how Christians are to live in this world. The book of Revelation describes how the triumph church emerges victorious over all enemies to be transported to eternal bliss in the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, the angelic hosts, and the redeemed from all time.
As we turn our attention to our individual role in this great drama of redemption, we recall how much God has done for us through His Son that we may be saved. Page after page, chapter after chapter, we have discovered the indispensable work of God for our salvation that we ourselves could not possibly do. This need not be stressed again. What does need to be considered is the answer to the very biblical and oft-repeated question found in the book of Acts, “What must I do to be saved?” This is not to be a study pitting works on our part against God’s grace. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God … (Ephesians 2:8). If we are saved, it is “… not as a result of works so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:9). Jesus reminds us of this when He says, “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’” (Luke 17:10). Thus, it becomes clear that we are saved by grace. The Ephesians passage just quoted establishes that fact. But, note carefully that the verse also tells how we are saved by grace. “For by God’s grace you have been saved through faith.” So, we come to the core of the human factor in our salvation – our faith.
Saving faith is easily misunderstood. Part of this misconception arose out of the tumultuous context of the Reformation. One of the most verbal and notable advocates of religious reform was Martin Luther. His indignation was stirred greatly by the sale of indulgences for the purpose of completing the building of St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. Pope Leo X wanted to finish what Julius II had begun. He had an ally in Albert of Brandenburg, who, although already over the sees of Holbertstadt and Magdeburg, also wanted the bishopric of Mainz. This would, in effect, give him the control of civil and ecclesiastical life in Germany. Money was needed. Indulgences were the answer. After elaborate negotiations with leading financiers to support the vending campaign, the project was put into the hands of John Tetzel. He was a priest of the Domician order who had much experience in the on-going indulgence traffic. To make the sales more brisk, benefits stressed plenary and perfect remission of all sins. “They would be restored to the state of innocence which they enjoyed in baptism and would be relieved of all the pains of purgatory. Those securing indulgences on behalf of the dead already in purgatory need not themselves be contrite and confess their sins” (Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther)
A slogan Tetzel used during the sales was, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, / The soul from purgatory springs” (Ibid). This inflamed Luther and ultimately provided a leading motive for writing the famous ninety-five theses. His opposition to the rewards offered to those who purchased indulgences was based heavily on his conviction that such rewards encouraged reliance for salvation on works of merit and were therefore ineffective before God. Contrarily, the Roman Catholic church in which he was a priest during those changing times (1505 A.D. ff.) certainly advocated and promoted indulgence sales.
A Close Look at Faith Only: At this point we come to the purpose of this little historical vignette. It illustrates one of the reasons why there is much murky thinking about saving faith. Luther himself battled against a religious system that he knew was contrary to Biblical teaching – and he was doing that at a time when there seemed to be only two alternatives; metorious works or faith only. The pendulum could swing no further in either direction; and, as is often the case when two extremes arise, people go to one extreme or the other. Luther swung from the extreme of meritorious works to the extreme of faith only, but he confessed he had to add to the sacred text to establish his “faith only” position. This position is so extreme that it rejects all works for salvation. “… the works of faith … are those which are done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of God, and the latter cannot be accomplished except by those who have been justified by faith …” (Hilton C. Oswald [ed.], Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, “Lectures on Romans,” [trans.] Walter G. Tillmans and Jacob A.D. Preus). In other words, after we have been “justified by faith” (saved), a state that is reached without works, we may then do works of faith to show our love for God. Luther emphasized this when he said, “But the righteousness based on faith, without the law and good works, ‘says,’ without the prescription of any works” (Ibid). Luther’s own writings indicate that he was uneasy with this position in light of Scripture. This would naturally be problematic in view of his very high view of the written Word of God as man’s sole guide for salvation: sola scriptura. His faith in the Word was nobly expressed when he was before the Diet of Worms.
“When before that powerful tribunal he said, Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other … my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen” (Bainton).
Are we surprised to find Luther explaining why he changed the Word of God when he made his famous German translation of the New Testament? He said, “In Romans iii I know right well that the word solum was not in the Greek or Latin text … It is a fact that these four letters ‘s-o-l- a’ are not there … At the same time … the sense of them is there and … the word belongs there if the translation is to be clear and strong (Hugh T. Kerr [ed.], A Compend of Luther’s Theology).
We find what seems to be a strange anomaly in Luther’s thought as expressed in his translation and treatment of Scripture. Some think that in Romans 3:28 he added to Scripture the word “only” because he thought that is what was meant, since he was already convinced that no works are involved in our salvation. Others also think he took away Scripture, in effect, when he fell out with the writer James’ statement, “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” However, Luther saw no contradiction between Paul (Romans 3:28) and James (2:24). He said, “Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works …” (Oswald).
All of this discussion set in the context of the sixteenth century illustrates the difficulty of understanding saving faith. Controversies about saving faith and its relationship to works have lingered on to the 21st century. However, additional elements growing out of the modern-day emphasis on existentialism and experiential conversion experiences heightened the tensions. Evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and emotionalism have come center stage in many religious groups, beginning as early as the Pietistic Great Awakening movements that swept across America early on.
The great emphasis on faith as feeling and conversion as an expression of emotional crisis have done much to undermine a biblical understanding of saving faith. Also, the impact of unbridled individualism and unlimited tolerance has made it difficult to describe a saving faith that is based on Biblical authority, presented in Biblical terms, and containing Biblical demands. It all seems so arbitrary, even sectarian, to the modern mind-set to be reminded that the most important challenge is to allow our “mind-set” to be shaped by the mind of God as revealed in Scripture. In the Scriptures, God calls us to reason (Isaiah 1:18).
So, as we reason together with God (search His Word), and with each other, we raise the question, “What is the nature of faith?” We have discussed this at some length in an examination of the difference between “the faith” and “our faith.” We now consider the significance of the phrase “faith only” as a follow-on of our study.
From this point to the end of this lesson eight, we draw heavily from, and often quote, J.W. Roberts, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistle of James. First, faith can be “only” in a composite sense. If used this way, we mean “that faith is the only ground for justification – salvation or remission of sins can never be obtained on any grounds apart from faith in Jesus’ blood.”
Second, faith can be “only” if considered in an analytical sense. If used this way, “the process of obedience is broken down into its component parts.”
“In the first sense, salvation is by ‘faith only’; in the second sense, it is ‘by works and not by faith only,’ for here, faith is only one of the conditions of pardon …”
This means that any doctrine holding that salvation comes at the point of faith – before obedience, is not scriptural. The conviction that salvation by faith, without obedience, springs primarily from the age of evangelicalism, fundamentalism and emotionalism, as we have already observed. The Bible is clear on the necessity of obedience as work of faith for salvation.
We may now understand why Luther saw no contradiction between Paul and James. Luther said, “We are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith which is alone.” But “Paul spoke of the composite nature of faith as the principle of justification by faith rather than by the works of the law (or of human merit). James is thinking analytically of faith as a condition of justification and insists that it must obey the conditions of the teachings of Christ and perfect itself in works.”
(Basic Bible text: New American Standard Bible. Other translations are so noted)
