Stop Beating Your Spouse Over the Head with the Bible

In the life of the church, the most common weapon people use to beat up their spouse is the Bible. The husband argues with his wife (either vocally or underneath his breath - doesn't matter really), "You should be submissive to me. The Bible says so!" And the wife, if she enters into the sinful discussion, says something to the effect of, "You should love me like Christ loves the church!"

These are true statements, and biblical ones at that. But there is one slight problem with the way these commandments are often used (the above being an example). It is a shame that we sometimes use the Bible in a very unbiblical way.

Paul the apostle instructs wives to "submit to your own husbands as to the Lord." He goes on to instruct husbands, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church..." (Eph 5).

Notice, however, what he does not say. He does not say, "Wives, make sure your husbands are loving you as Christ loves the church." He does not say to the husbands, "Husbands, ensure that your wives are submitting to you as they do the Lord." This is a critical truth that makes the gospel and the Christian life distinct from all other worldviews.

In giving instruction to the wives and to the husbands themselves, the Lord is speaking to ransomed image bearers who are now free live under his rule. Christ does not give instructions to slave masters, but to redeemed sinners. And because of this, the slave is free to submit to his or her master (Col 3:22), the wife is free to submit to her husband, and the husband is free to love his wife in a Christ-like way.

This makes the home a refuge for gospel-centered freedom, instead of moralistic, religious slavery. Not only does he free us from the tyranny of others, but he also frees us from the stressful life of trying to govern others. As we obey his command to us, we trust that he will liberate the other to obey his command to them.

Misunderstanding "The Day the Lord Has Made"

Many Christians wake up each day saying, "This is the day the Lord has made. I will rejoice and be glad in it." This quote from Psalm 118:24 often helps us understand that the day itself is a gift of God, and that it should be received as a gift, with joy.  

This saying, however, also represents a classic case of the right theology taken from the wrong verse. When reading the verse in its immediate context, it becomes obvious that we commonly misuse it - and in so doing, we neglect the main point of encouragement it seeks to provide. 

The demonstrative pronoun "this" at the beginning of the verse should inform us that, rather than speaking of a general point of theology concerning the Lord's creative power for each day, this verse is speaking about a particular day in redemptive history concerning the Lord's saving power. 

In other words, instead of saying "Today is the day that the Lord has made," we should say, "That day was the Day the Lord made." While it is right to say that the Lord made today, it is not the main point of this verse.

When we read the entire Psalm, we notice that that day was the Day when the "gates of righteousness" were opened (v.19). It was the Day when the Lord answered prayer and became salvation for his people (v.21). It was the day when the cornerstone was rejected (v.22) - a Day that was the Lord's doing, and a day that should be marvelous in the eyes of his own (v.23). 

It was the day that when the people of God cried out, "Save us!" (v.25) And it was the day when God's people called him who came in the name of the Lord, "blessed" (v.26). It was the day when his redeeming light shone and the Sacrifice was made (v.27). It was the day for which we extol him and give him thanks for being our God whose steadfast love endures forever. (v.28-29).

While the Lord did make today, in Psalm 118 he is calling us to focus on another day that he made. It was the Day that the Lord brought salvation to his people. It was the Day Christ was rejected and crucified. It was the Day that he provided the sacrifice for our sins and showed his steadfast love. 

And just so we don't get it twisted, he wants us to know, that it was he who made that day. It was his doing. It was him saving. If he did not see fit to make that day, we would not have this day at all. It is because he made that day, that we can rejoice and be glad.

Recap of Amos 1-6

I am preaching through the book of Amos.  I have two sermons left that will cover chapters 7-9.  The following is a recap of what we have covered in those sermons.

Amos 1. The Lord roars from Zion, as a Lion coming in judgment, against the nations (1:2). He is speaking to His people through His prophet Amos. He is sovereign over all peoples and consequently has the right to demand obedience from all peoples. He also has every right to curse in response to covenantal disobedience. These countries surround Israel on all sides and as the list progresses their sins become more heinous. The Lord is patient (“for three transgressions and for four”), but patience, by nature, has an end (“I will not revoke the punishment”).

Amos 2. This is a rhetorical noose that Amos ties around Israel’s neck. Being from the Southern Kingdom (Judah), Amos would have had to build some clout. As he indicted the surrounding countries, Israel would have agreed wholeheartedly and would have praised God for His justice. The people of God would have loved Amos’s preaching until 2:6 when the indictments turned toward themselves. The people of God were abusing, neglecting and oppressing the poor and marginalized for their own personal gain. They, too, deserved God’s judgment (2:6-16).

Amos 3. Being the elect of God, those upon whom lies the special love of God (3:2), does not exempt them from judgment, but is rather cause for more judgment. They had forgotten and rejected the ways of the Lord (2:4). They had misrepresented Him terribly. Rather than blessing others, they were abusing others. And rather than being a spectacle of righteousness for the other nations to see, they were just the opposite (3:9-10). For Israel, the Lord was faithful to bless, but not to curse. They were wrong. The curse would come through destruction - by both natural disaster (1:1) and exile by a foreign army (3:11).

Amos 4. Israel’s cultish religion and material affluence had caused them to ignore God’s previous warnings. The disasters that Israel previously experienced were specific covenant curses that were laid out in the law (Deut 28). They should have interpreted natural occurrences covenantally and theologically. Because they had rejected the law of the Lord, they did not see the natural disasters as Personal warnings for their covenantal misconduct. Instead of being led to repentance by the disasters and “returning to the Lord” (4:6-11), Israel saw themselves as innocent victims of random acts of nature. Again, they were wrong. Therefore, they were to prepare to meet their God (4:12).

Amos 5. The Lord explains more precisely what His judgment will be (the judgmental “this” of 4:12). Israel would be completely destroyed (5:2-3). Escape, via human strength or human righteousness, was simply not a possibility (5:8-9). The Sovereign, All-Knowing Lord of the universe was coming with justice. Israel was guilty (5:12). The only safe response was to seek Him in order to live – to hate evil and love good (vv.5, 6, 14, 15).

Amos 6. God hates those who are religious (5:21-23), self-confident (6:1-3) and self-indulgent (6:4-7); as well as those who “turn justice into poison and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood” (6:12). Empty people who constantly consume at other people’s expense (like cows of Bashan – 4:1) are an abomination and a horrible distortion of God’s purpose for humanity. Israel, instead of blessing the nations with the justice and righteousness of God (Gen 12:3), and, instead of being an everflowing fountain of love, generosity and equity (5:24), they were a people who the helpless feared most. Israel would therefore become helpless. They would go into exile (6:14). Before, they desired the Day of the Lord (5:18), after, no one would want to mention His Name (6:10).

While the main message of Amos is seemingly grim, light can be seen throughout in the most majestic ways.  The Lord is not indifferent to oppression.  He hates injustice.  He knows about and will sovereignly judge all acts of injustice.  These are glorious truths.  However, in an age when people are more prone to despise a police officer for giving a speeding ticket, than to thank him for doing his job well, Amos may be a difficult message for us to hear.

But the message of salvation through judgment is clear.  The Lion is coming in judgment.  Only those who repent and believe will live.

Getting Back to Biblical Hebrew

After I bought my new MacBook, I was devastated to learn that the program mainly responsible for my acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary would not run on Snow Leopard.  Intelex would be leaving my life - and along with it, Hebrew vocabulary!

Ever since that day, I have been on a quest to find something that would work as well.  Though I am still on that search, I did find a pretty good resource.  Quisition is a website that provides its users with online flash cards.  OTProf has been so kind to add countless Hebrew flash card "decks" to this site.  All you have to do is register - with only a username and password (no strings attached - they don't even want an email address).

After you register, you can search for certain decks.  I typed in Biblical Hebrew and voila! countless resources (specific to my textbook! BBH) appeared.  I'm pretty stoked.  Though Quisition won't vocalize the words, it will quiz you and recycle missed words.

So, to all my hommies out there with slippery minds...let your Hebrew slip no more!

The Deep Breath We Don't Take When Hearing, "God So Loved..."

John 3:16 has become the verse everyone knows.  For most, it is probably the first verse they memorized as a child, or new believer.  While this is a great thing, it can also be a not so good thing.  Common things in life often become invisible things.  We have built into our human anatomy an "inhibitory response" that makes us forget common things.  Take the shirt you have on right now for example.  You forgot about it didn't you.  Give thanks to the inhibitory response for that.  Otherwise, the cloth hitting your skin every second would drive you crazy.

This is what has happened with John 3:16.  A statement that should cause us all to take the deep breath of astonishment, does little more than remind us of a WWF wrestler, or something that Tim Tebow advertised on the little black strip under his eye.

The reality is, however, this verse is scandalous.   It is exactly what we need to hear in our day.  The "inhibitory response" that has dragged this verse into our mental cobwebs, has also dragged us into a lifestyle of moralistic selfishness.  Because this verse doesn't carry a punch anymore, neither do we.

I now have a mental picture in my head of a medic trying to revive a person who is in cardiac arrest.  Conventional CPR just isn't working.  The medic has now resorted to violently pounding the person's chest to get their heart beating again.  This is what we need.  And this is also what we need to be doing for others.

This is what Jesus did as he was speaking to Nicodemus in John chapter 3.  Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews.  He was a religious guy who had it all together.  He came to Jesus one night and spoke with him.  In short, the conversation goes back and forth about the nature of salvation.  Nicodemus is convinced that his own reasoning abilities have shown him and his buddies that Jesus is a teacher from God.  Jesus responds by saying, "Your reasoning abilities are squat.  You need more than a sign.  You need to be born again or else you cannot even see the Kingdom of God."

Nicodemus thought his religious knowledge would provide him acceptance before the Almighty.  After all, he was very different from sinful Gentiles.  He followed the rules.  He did everything right.  Jesus showed him otherwise.

Jesus takes the next few moments to lump Nicodemus into a category he would have never lumped himself into.  It is a category called the "world."  This word in this context does not mean "every single human being on the planet."  It carries with it the categorical connotation of "the world" - both Jews and Gentiles.  But I would take it even further to mean "the world" - the sinful, jacked up, rebellious, dark "world" (cf. 1:5, 9-11; 3:19).  While Nicodemus thought the problem with the "world" was Gentile sinners; Jesus told him the problem with the world was Nicodemus himself!

If we are not careful, we too, will exclude ourselves from the "world." To guard ourselves from this we must define the word properly.  Allow me to give a 21st century definition:

World [wurld] -noun
1.  the guy you look up on the sex offender website to make sure he does not live in your neighborhood
2.  the kid who punches your kid in the mouth, that you now detest to the point you want him expelled
3.  the lady who killed her children by drowning each of them in the bathtub
4.  the guys wearing hoods, standing behind an innocent missionary, who then proceed to decapitate the missionary, along with his family, with a steak knife
5.  the lazy guy, who has no job, lives off of the government, and rides around town in a $40,000 car
6.  the girl at school who is known for her "history" with just about every guy in town
7.  the people who own the porn shops next to my church
8.  the 70-year-old guy who was trying to get into one of the porn shops one Sunday morning at 9am
9.  the doctor that considers it his life's mission to abort little babies
10.  the person who's picture is on your license
11.  the guy who posted this blog

That's the world God loved so much that Jesus, the Son of God bled.  When we look down upon people because they are so "lost", we must understand that those are the ones He came to save. If we do not consider ourselves as part of the categorical "world" in the Jn 3:16 sense of the term; if we do not consider ourselves "lost", then we must conclude that Jesus didn't come for us (Luke 19:10).

Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Three

In the last post we noted the element of covenantal continuity in the warning passages in 3:1-4:13. With this foundation laid we can look more briefly at 5:11-6:12, noting especially in what respects this comparison with the wilderness generation is continued. Most scholars concede that this WP is the most precarious of them all. Discussions surrounding this passage usually revolve around the various lexica (ie. ‘words’) used in verses 4-6. Embedded in between the verbless clause Adu/naton ga»r (‘for it is impossible’) in verse 4 and it’s infinitival modifier pa¿lin aÓnakaini÷zein ei˙ß meta¿noian (‘to renew again unto repentance’) are a series of participial modifiers which many contend most naturally refer to a Christian, or a true believer.[1] Leaving the verdict open on this question until after we examine 10:26-29, the point to be made here is that a proper understanding of this passage, or any passage for that matter, must move beyond the semantic range of the various lexica used.[2]

A way forward is paved by paying attention to the much neglected OT background to which this passage most likely alludes. Martin Emmerich has convincingly argued that there are significant overtones from the LXX (ie. ‘Greek Translation of OT’) account of Israel’s wilderness experience/ exodus tradition in the terms used in verses 4-6.[3] If this can be demonstrated then a link would be provided with 3:1-4:13. For example, a‚pax fwtisqe÷ntaß (‘once having been enlightened’) recalls God’s provision of light, ‘that they might travel by day and by night’ (cf. Exod 13:21; Neh 9:12; Ps 105:39. ‘geusame÷nouß te thvß dwrea◊ß thvß e˙pourani÷ou’ (‘tasting of the heavenly gift’) is remnicient of God’s provision of manna ‘from heaven’ for Israel in the wilderness (cf. Exod 16:4). The common rehearsal that God daily provided Israel with manna clearly highlights the fact that bread was a divine ‘gift’. Less likely though certainly plausible is Emmerich’s contention that meto/couß genhqe÷ntaß pneu/matoß aJgi÷ou (‘having become partakers/ participants of the holy spirit’) which he notes refers to the guiding power of the Spirit, corresponds to God’s placing of “Moses’ Spirit” on the seventy elders to ‘instruct their contemporaries during the wilderness treck’ (Num 11:16-30).[4] Finally, he argues that kalo\n geusame÷nouß qeouv rJhvma (‘having tasted the good word of God’) may be an allusion to 2 verses in Joshua that refer to God’s promise of the land of Canaan (cf. Josh 21:45; 23:15).

Even further, as many have observed, the agricultural example and exhortation given in verses Hebrews 6:7-20 are the interpretive key to the preceding verses. Here however, many jump rightly, but too quickly to the parable of the sower as a gospel parallel to shed light on this passage without investigating the OT background to verses 7-8. Dave Mathewson points out that verses 6 and 7 are not a mere illustration but have an informative background in Deuteronomy 11.[5] He notes that this chapter affirms the promises of God must be kept if Israel is to inherit blessing rather than curse when they enter the Promised Land. In Deuteronomy 11:11, ‘the land that drinks the rain’ refers to the promised land. Inheriting the blessings in that land are contingent upon Israel’s obedience (vv. 13-15). Verse 26 makes clear that the choice before Israel is clear: obey and inherit blessing in the land or disobey and experience the covenant curses laid down in chapter 28. The overall context of the chapter must be kept in view. In verses 2-7 Israel is to ‘consider’ all that God had done for them as they stand on the plains of Moab about to enter the promised land. This is to provided an impetus for obedience.

Thus, almost certainly as the recipients of Hebrews read ‘the land that has drunk the rain…receives the blessing…but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is…near to being cursed”, their minds jumped immediately to the book of Deuteronomy. Taken in conjunction with what was said above regarding the lexica used in verses 4-6 it is clear that Hebrews 6:4-8 is rooted deeply in the OT. These roots provide a direct link with the typology demonstrated in 3:1-4:13. Just as the wilderness generation had been enlightened, tasted God’s good provision, participated in the guiding power of the Spirit, given the choice of life or death, blessing or curse, so had readers of Hebrews 3 and 6. It is hard to imagine that mention of blessings and curses in verses 6 and 7 did not bring to mind the bloody self-maledictory oaths so closely associated with OT covenant making.[6] As the bloody ‘pledge to death’ freshly in mind symoblized, the gravity of the covenant that the readers entered into when they professed faith in Christ was not something to be taken lightly. No wonder, it is ‘impossible to renew / restore’ to repentance such a man that has received so much blessing and yet still ‘fall away’ (cp. 3:12; 6:6).[7]

Conclusions: Section 2

At this point the most important element of continuity for the argument of these posts, demonstrated implicitly above (ie. ch 3, 6-see ‘part deux’ from 4-12 ), can now be made explicit. The covenant community of the wilderness/ Israelite generation, upon which the author is drawing his comparison was composed of both believers and nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of those who had entered into covenant with God failed to enter the Promised Land. They had been redeemed out of Egypt, set apart as His covenant people, pledged their obedience, experienced God’s guidance and provision, as described above in section 2. Yet, in spite of all of these blessings, they failed to enter the promised land because of unbelief. Similarly, the author’s present readers had entered into the New Covenant, so richly and elaborately explained in the letter. They believed in God, pledged their obedience, experienced his guidance and provision, but were now in danger of ‘falling away’ as Israel fell in the wilderness (3:16-18). And it is exactly this element of continuity that I believe the writer wishes to emphasize to his present readers. The initial question asked in 3:16, “For who were those who heard and yet rebelled”, has been answered by typological argumentation and carried over from 3:1-4:13 to 6:1-8. The author is stressing continuity with reference to the ‘make-up’ of the Covenant community in the Old and New Testaments that to explain the phenomena of how a person can experience substantial covenantal blessings, and yet fall away.

In the next post we will examine 10:26-29 and then try to pull all of this together, bringing our conclusions to bear on ‘what kind of person’ is in view in these ‘warning passages’.

---

[1] Cf. Schreiner, 592-594. It would be superfluous to multiply further citations.

[2] Cf. Wayne Gruden, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 794-801. Wayne Grudem has cogently demonstrated that the semantic range of the terms used evidences that the terms do not necessarily denote a Christian. For a much more in depth and extended argument see Grudem’s chapter in Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware, eds. Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 133-182.

[3] Martin Emmrich, “ Hebrews 6:4-6 Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry)” WTJ Vol.65, (2003): 83-95.

[4] Emmrich, 85.

[5] Dave Matheson, “Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament” WTJ Vol 61, (1999): 221-222.

[6] This will provide further connection with 10:26-29 and its bases in the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24.

[7] The precise sense of parapi÷ptw (6:6) and aÓfi÷sthmi (3:12) will be assessed after all 3 passages are examined since it is the sin that is in view in all 3 passages. This ‘sense’ will inform how we are to interpret the specific language of Hebrews 6, which is left purposefully vague at this point.

Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Deux

Warning: This is a large post. They will not all be this long! (note: WP= 'warning passage')

It is a presupposition of these posts that a major key in understanding the meaning of the warning passages in Hebrews and 10:26-29 in particular hinges on the element of continuity between the Old Covenant covenant community and the New Covenant covenant community. The section below will seek to validate this presupposition. It is from the angle continuitythat we will examine WP in chapters 3, 6, and 10. To those even vaguely familiar with the debates surrounding these passages, however, such a statement may sound quite naïve. I, therefore, wish to clearly express from the onset that I am not writing under the delusion that understandingthis element of continuity will solve all of the ‘problems’ surrounding these passages. By all accounts these are clearly difficult passages within a difficult book. With that said, it is the present writer’s opinion that certain aspects of the OT background that highlights thiscontinuity and are crucial to proper interpretation of the WP have either gone unnoticed, downplayed, or have been misinterpreted. This is crucial in a book that consists in large part of a series of a fortiori (ie. ‘from the lesser to the greater’)arguments for the superiority of Christ and his covenant and that grounds the protases (ie. first part of an ‘if’-‘then’ conditional clause) for such arguments firmly on OT foundations. As is well known these a fortiori arguments largely highlight the element ofdiscontinuity between the New Covenant and the Old. The writer goes to great pains to demonstrate the supremacy of Christ and the covenant that he inaugurates to every covenant that has preceded (cf. chs. 7-10)

This emphasis on superiority and discontinuity serves several pastoral functions in the writer’s exhortation. For example, many scholars believe that the pressures of social ostracism were tempting some to revert to certain Jewish practices that were now obsolete under the New Covenant.[1] Further, the confidence and assurance offered through the message of this New Covenant for both approaching God and enduring immanent temptation and persecution far surpassed that which was offered under the Old Covenant. What is more, the author continually warns that the great privilege of receiving such a message also comes with great responsibility. To neglect such a message is a far greater infraction than rejecting the Old Covenant revelation (2:1-4; 10:28-31).

While the importance ofdiscontinuity for the writer’s exhortation has rightly received much attention, certain equally important elements ofcontinuity have not received due consideration in many circles. In the midst of the rich theological argumentation it is easy to lose the proverbial forest for the trees. As Lane observes in his introduction, the rich theological ‘argumentation’ of the letter ‘serves exhortation’.[2] This means that the rich theology, therefore, serves the purpose of the WP, not vice versa. Further, underlying these WP is a current of continuity.Expressed a bit differently and perhaps more cumbersome than above, the element of continuity is this : the ‘make-up’ of the Old covenant wilderness/ exodus ‘community’ and their failure to enter the earthly promised land is cast as a type of the ‘make-up’ of the New covenant ‘community and their potential failure to enter the heavenly promised land. Though clumsy, this way of putting things includes the elements ofcontinuity that these posts wishe to highlight. The different elements in this definition will be fleshed out below. It is the contention of the present writer that by paying close attention to how the wilderness/exodus generation is being used by the author that considerable light will be shed on the ‘kind of person’ in view in the WP. It isthat generation’s disbelief andthat generation’s disobedience that the author passionately pleas with his fellow brethren not to imitate. We see this clearly in 3:1-4:11.

In 3:1-6a the author made a contrast between Jesus and Moses. This contrast segways into a comparison of their follower’s responses.There has been much debate as to what kind of conditional statement 6b is. Fanning, however, convincingly argues that 3:14 sheds light on how we should understand the relationship between the protasis (ie. ‘if’) and apodosis of 6b (ie. ‘then’). This relationship is one of evidence-to-inference rather than cause-to-effect.[3]That is, the evidence of perseverance in the lives of these believers leads to theinference that their faith is genuine. Agreeing with this interpretation, Carson points out that the perfect tense ofgego/namen (‘we have become’)in verse 14 is best understood having past tense reference. Thus, taking 6b in isolation of 3:14 may convey the idea that one becomes a member of God’s household byperseverance. While there is an element of truth to this and perseverance is mandated “perseverence is also the evidence of what has taken place in the past” (Emphasis mine).[4] Thus the author is both encouraging the present faith of his readers and exhorting them to future faith. They are presently God’s people, and by exercise of truth faith, they will demonstrate that they truly are God’s people.

Sandwiched in between 6b and verse 14 is a quote from Psalm 95 that provides the basis for the exhortation in verses 12-19.[5] This quotation recalls Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 14:21-35. In both instances the entire congregation complained and tested God. The original context of both passages stresses the fact that ‘all of the congregation’ is in view.[6] It was all of those who had been redeemed out of Egypt and had entered into a covenant with God at Sinai, pledging to obey all of his commands (Exodus 24:3-8).[7] In 3:16-19 the author wishes to stress this fact by asking a series of rhetorical questions that read very much like OT wisdom literature and which are meant to have the same rhetorical effect.[8] That is, the series of questions are to be pondered carefully as to their true significance and are subsequently to be acted upon accordingly. In 16a he asks, ‘Who were those who heard and rebelled?’. His response is: ‘Was it not most certainly all of those who came out of Egypt by Moses? (emphasis mine) ’.[9] He wants his readers to ponder exactly who it was who rebelled and failed to enter the promised land because the author is making a comparison between that generation and his readers. As will be demonstrated, it is this generation that the writer hearkens his readers back to in each successive warning passage. The significance of this question, therefore, for understanding the warning passages and particularly 10:26-29, cannot be underestimated. This question is answered by the quotation from Psalm 95 mentioned above, being applied directly to his readers by means of the strong inferential conjuction ‘therefore’ (dio) in verse 7. He stresses the continuity between his readers and the wilderness generation by the typological argumentation from Psalm 95:7-11. The house church (es) in Rome are the antitype of the wilderness generation of Numbers 14 and more specifically, the house church (es) in Rome are being cast as the “New Israel who’s entering the promised land is contingent upon their faithfulness to God”.[10]

It is on this basis that the solemn warning of verse 12 comes. Playing off of key lexica used in the quotation the author urges his readers against a ‘unbelieving heart’ which would lead them to ‘fall away’ (aÓposthvnai) from the living God in the same manner that the wilderness generation did.[11] Put in the language of verse 14, only holding to their present confidence will they prove that they truly do ‘participate’ (me÷tocoß) in Christ. And the ‘rest’ in view is eschatological, not merely physical and temporal. As typological of the OT ‘rest’, the idea conveyed in 4:6-13 is best understood in the well-known NT ‘already-not yet’ language. The already aspect of rest, consistent with the sense of the conditional clauses of 3:6 and 14 just mentioned, is seen by the emphasis on ‘today’ (v. 7). Because the recipients presentfaith is waning they must strive or they are in danger of proving in the future that their faith was not genuine. The eschatological ‘not-yet’ aspect is also implied in these statements. As Lane notes, commenting on verse 11, ‘The consummation- rest, in which everything that God intended for humanity by his own Sabbath rest will be realized, remains future. It can be forfeited through a careless and hardened disposition”.[12]Further, the grounds given in verses 12-13 for striving against such a disposition also demonstrates that the eschaton is in view. The same word which at present was good news (v.2) will, at the final judgment, witness against them when they will not be able to hide even a shred of unbelief or disobedience from God, before whom the readers ‘must give account’ (v. 13).

Thus, the writer is basing the warning against failure to enter God’s rest typologically on the wilderness generations’ failure to enter the promised land. 3:1-4:13 is theparadigmatic warning text, laying down the typological relationship between the wilderness / exodus generation which he will use in the subsequent warning passages.

Next time we will see how this idea of 'continuity' also forms the background for the warning passage in chapter 6. At that point we will 'take stock' and note the significance of this idea of 'continuity' for both of the passages that we have looked at so far.

---

[1] Schreiner notes that though this point is disputed it is the majority opinion among scholars. Schreiner, 585.

[2] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47: Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word books, 1991), c.

[3] Bateman, 207-215.

[4] Carson, 85.

[5] G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 953; The MT and the LXX of Psalm 95 evidence different emphases. In the former the writer points more directly to the incident in Meribah and Massah in Exodus 17:1-7, but clearly alludes to Numbers 20 and therefore Numbers 14 (Kadesh). It was at Kadesh that God swore that the wilderness generation would not enter the promised land. The latter (LXX) focuses more directly on Numbers 14 and interestingly turns the names ‘Meribah’ and ‘Massah’ into their meaning in Greek, ‘revolt’ and ‘trial’ respectively; Lane, liii. Lane notes that the recipients of the letter was almost certainly a house church or several small house churches.

[6] The LXX of Exodus 17:1 says that it was ‘all’ (pasa) of the congregation. In Numbers 14 paß is used 9 times and oloßonce to refer to the congregation who sinned. This is deliberately juxtaposed with the three times it is said that ‘none’ of them shall enter the promised land.

[7] A more detailed discussion of the covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24 will be discussed in connection with 10: 26-29.

[8] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 250.

[9] Fredrick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 44:3.Here, the conjuction ‘but’ (aÓlla) is not translated in many English translations. This conjunction is best understood as relaying ‘strong asservation’ having the sense of ‘surely’; The writer is emphatically drawing attention to the fact that it was not just any community but God’s redeemed communitywho had ‘heard’ His warnings, experienced the majestic redemption of the Exodus event and yet in spite of such privileges rebelled.

[10] Osborne, 340. Osborne goes on to say, “ Hermeneutical principles in Hebrews must begin with typology. In one sense this permeates the whole book”.

[11] Bateman, 336-377. Gleason and others argue that too close of a comparison between the fate of the readers and the wilderness generation leads to the view that ‘rewards’ and not ‘eternal life’ is in view. This view fails to acknowledge that the writer goes on to make a typological comparison between the OT physical rest and NT eschatological rest.

[12] Lane, 102.

Colossians 2:7

Colossians 2:7

“firmly rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.”

If the first verse [v.6] answers the question, “What must we do now that we are Christians?”, this next verse answers the question, “How are we to accomplish such a life?” I suppose another question could follow on the heals of this one – “Why must we live this way?” The answer to the “how” is answered explicitly, while the answer to the “why” is answered implicitly. Paul answers the question with four adverbial participles (all of which correspond with the four participles in 1:10-12 – relating to horticulture and ending with thanksgiving and which serve to modify the main verb – Moo and Harris). This fact shows us at least two things: 1) that Paul understands God’s sovereign work in building his church; and 2) that these things, for which he asks and now exhorts, are the apostle’s central concern for the church at Colossae as they continue in the faith.

[Remaining] firmly rooted (perfect, middle, participle, nmp) How are we to “continually live in Christ?” First, the Christian is to remain firmly rooted. In agreement with Moo, I use the term “remain” to properly communicate the meaning of the perfect tense of the participle. If one has been firmly rooted (perfect – past event), then, in “continuing,” he must “remain” so rooted (perfect - with future implications). This verb may indicate a particular nature of faith. As we have seen, faith receives. But this verb may tell us “how” it receives. There is an intensity that comes with it. The faith that receives Christ so tightly clings to its object that it is likened to a tree whose roots are, not loose in the ground (like a weed), but “firm” in the ground (like an oak). Historically, the verb has not been used only in an horticultural way. Lucas points out that “the word ‘rooted’ was also used in his [Paul’s] day for sinking the foundations of buildings…” For me, this does not change the meaning of the verb, but rather serves to shed more light upon it. Whether it be a tree or a building, the importance of having both firm roots and a firm foundation cannot be overemphasized.

and [continuing] to be built up (present, middle, participle, nmp). This verb is naturally related to the previous one. If a tree has its roots firm in the ground, then we expect a decent amount of growth. A farmer hardly takes so much care in planting his seed in the best soil for the sake of having it die their. No. He wants to see it grow and bear fruit (1:6, 10). Similarly a builder hardly goes through the pains of laying a solid foundation only to have it sit there with nothing built upon it. Christians are to be firmly rooted in Christ in order that they might continue (present participle) to be build up in him. The verb expresses something being built (oikodomevw) upon (e∆p-) something else. It would therefore not be wrong to say that the Colossian church was to continue to live in Christ Jesus the Lord, by remaining firmly rooted [by faith] in Him, and by continuing to be built up upon Him [upon the foundation that was laid by the apostles and Epaphras’ teaching] – that is, upon Christ as he was presented in the gospel.

In Him. This prepositional phrase is governed by the previous two participles (Moo, 180). It also serves to show the relation of the two participles with the previous verb (to walk) which is also modified by the phrase. One walks out the Christian life “in Him” by remaining rooted and continuing to be built up “in Him.” All of the Christian life, from start to finish is in Him.

And Being established (present, middle, participle nmp). “And” is epexegetical – that is, it expands on the meaning of the previous words (O’Brien). The word “establish” is to be preferred over “strengthen” b/c it brings out the basic meaning of the word group: “firm” or “solidly grounded” (Moo, 181). This participle along with the prepositional phrase (th≥: pi√stei- “in the faith”) that follows, summarizes what Paul expects to happen as a result of the first two participles. By sticking to their roots and being built up, the readers will be established in faith (O’Brien). Because the main verb “to receive,” has the person of Christ as its object, we remember that there is a more technical sense in which the verb is here being used. It is receiving Christ as he comes in the tradition or “in the faith.” I prefer this rendering as it works well with the both the preceding context (as just shown) and also with what follows – “just as you were taught.” The Colossians received Christ in the “word of truth – the gospel” (1:5), which they learned from Epaphras (1:7); who had himself learned from Paul the apostle. This connotates a “tradition” that has been passed down.

In the faith. The people are to be established in the faith. It is of the greatest importance to understand what is being said here. The expression has an immediate cross-reference that gives us some insight. Some have made much of being established in the instrument itself and not its object. This verse serves to correct the common error. O’Brien comments (and I wholeheartedly agree), “it is better to understand “faith” as that which is the object of belief, the content of the teaching which Epaphras had faithfully passed on to them.” It would go against the meaning of this passage therefore to be established in faith/belief itself. Simply put, we are not to have faith in faith, but faith in Christ.

As you were taught (aorist, passive, indicative, 2pl). This is a parenthetical interruption, that serves to qualify the previous phrase th≥: pi√stei. It is the tradition that they had received [by learning] from Epaphras. We can draw a few conclusions here: 1) that Paul affirms that which Epaphras taught them; this being a further witness to his faithfulness as a minister of the gospel (1:7); 2) the passive verb sheds more light upon the nature of saving faith. We cannot reason ourselves to this mystery (1:27), we can only receive it as a revelatory gift from God; and 3) if the gospel had proved fruitful to the Colossian church; and if the apostle sees fit to spend so much of his life in caring for them, let us be faithful in our proclamation of the same gospel.

When faith is absent (that is, saving belief in Christ, which is beyond the ability of reason to prove) all things seem, to the eye and understanding, to be separate, dependant, and without purpose or meaning. All of life is blurry until the spectacles of the gospel are applied. Then, b/c of Christ and his work on the Cross, all things are seen with proper vision and in the proper context. All things begin to make sense. The diversity of life is now connected to some Unity. Suffering makes sense. Life makes sense and has an eternal purpose. As the Christian continues to walk about the earth with these spectacles on, resolved to never see and make decisions without them, then he is prone to a life of constant reason to “abound with thanksgiving.”

I do not think that “the faith” that they “were taught” was simply the gospel verbally communicated through tradition. If we were to leave it here, I think we would be missing the whole of the passage up to this point. Paul has gone through great lengths to call Epaphras “faithful” (1:7) and to tell them of his own faithful ministry in Christ, through struggling and striving. Paul himself, and Epaphras, have not only communicated the “teaching” of the gospel, but also the “living” of the gospel as well. This is exactly what Paul wants the Colossians to resemble.

Abounding in thanksgiving (present, active, participle, nmp). Thanksgiving is referred to no fewer than six times in the letter (O’Brien). Clearly then Paul is desirous to see the life of faith which abounds with thanksgiving. In 1:12 practice is given in the context of patient endurance, and as the letter as a whole will indicate, it proves a significant offensive measure against the attack of false teaching. As noted in the above paragraph, the life of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ sees all things in relation to him and under his final authoritative control. This alone provides humanity with certainty (firmness in faith); a certainty needed to live this life without wavering and one that is beneficial to the world at large. Imagine living a life with no authority – no standard to ultimately trust but your own. Might soon makes right. If you are not mighty, you life may soon end. Imagine a life where everything is independently random and without purpose or order. This is called chaos – and leads to a life with no hope. And imagine a life where you are responsible for changing yourself. You dedicate yourself to one thing only to find that you do not change. So you devote to another – and another. No change. Same desperation. Now imagine a Life outside of you that has ultimate authority. All things must ultimately submit to and obey him. Imagine this Life has ultimate control, power and a single purpose for all things (even you). And Imagine that this Life has the power and desire to change you and make you his, in love. He can change you from within, by giving you a new heart. And he has the ability to keep you captivated forever. Receive the gospel! He is the Christ Jesus the Lord, who died to pay the penalty for sins committed against God; who now lives and is seated at the seat of ultimate authority; and who now LIVES to make intercession for you and live with you by His Spirit! By faith receive Him and abound with thanksgiving! Embrace this mystery and find yourself no longer subject to uncertainty and doubt – and find common and ample opportunity to overflow with gratitude to God for doing this work in you!

Only those who remain and continue in their work make any difference in the world whatsoever. But those who simply begin and soon forfeit, only to move onto the next “thing” make no difference. How often are we frustrated by starting and not finishing! How often is the Christian church ridiculed for claiming Christ but not living accordingly. This is that with which Paul is concerned. Only those who remain, continue and finish will be saved (1:22-23).

Colossians 2:6 Insights

Colossians 2:6

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him…

O’Brien’s Introduction: As he [Paul] begins his interaction with the “philosophy” of the false teachers, the apostle admonishes the addressees to continue in the teaching they had received and to remain immovable in their faith. These two verses summarize much of what has preceded and lay the foundation for the attack on the Colossian heresy that follows.

· Therefore…The “therefore” though pointing immediately to the previous verse, does, in a very significant way, point to and summarize the entire letter up to this point. Paul has previously prayed, with thanksgiving (vv.3-8) and supplications (vv.9-12). He gives thanks for the work of gospel among them (producing fruit and growing). He then asks for God to grant that they would walk in a way that is indicative of the gospel’s work – that is that they would “walk” (2:6) in a way that shows they have faith in Christ. Up to this point the general outline is – Paul’s prayer (1:3-9), Paul’s Christology (1:13-23), and Paul’s ministry/example (1:24-2:5).

· The Colossians received Christ by faith, as he was presented to them in the gospel (1:3-8); this corresponds with 2:6a – “just as you received Christ Jesus the Lord.” Paul prayed that they would walk in a certain way (1:9-12); this corresponds with 2:6b – “continue to live in Him.” Paul’s Christology (1:13-24, 26-27, 2:2-3) is nicely summarized in the expression “Christ Jesus the Lord.” Paul points to his own example of standing firm, struggling and striving – all in subjection to Christ and for the proclamation of his Gospel. By doing so, he is showing that even he is “rooted” and being built up in Christ; and that he is established in the faith (that Christ taught him) and abounding in thanksgiving (2:7). Now with this in view, we can see how and why many commentators see this passage as the hinge of the book as a whole. It summarizes what has previously been communicated and gives the proper foundation for what follows.

· As you have received (aorist, active, indicative, 2pl). Paul is giving instruction for the practical lives of the believers in Colossae. In order to face the enmity of the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15), an enmity with which Paul was all too familiar (Acts 9), the Christian must continually walk in the Christ he receives. It is important to note, however, that the focus of the instruction lies in the past. The believers must understand what happened in history to understand how they ought to live in the present. The conjunction draws the eye to the past tense (aorist) verb. “As, you received…”

a. Harris notes that the verb “to receive” is not simply the passive receipt of Christian tradition, but active acceptance of the person who was the essence of that tradition.

b. O’Brien comments in the same line with Harris: Receiving Christ Jesus as their Lord is not simply a personal commitment to Christ (though this is no doubt included), but the use of the semi technical term specifically employed denotes the receiving of something delivered by tradition (p.105). Paul’s teaching does not come from the tradition passed down from man to man, but from the Lord himself (1Cor 11:23).

c. Moo. To “receive Christ” – in this verse at least- is not only a matter of believing “in” his person; it also involve a commitment to the apostolic teaching about Christ and his significance. This tradition, which the Colossians have heard from the faithful Epaphras, stands in contrast to the “human tradition” of the false teachers (v.8).

· The receiving instrument in the individual is none other than faith. It is an instrument that, before the work of the Holy Spirit in a person, is non-existent. It is a gift (Eph 2:8-9). And salvation comes not by the greatness of the gift, but by the greatness of the object that the instrumental gift receives. Knox Chamblin has often said, “that it is not faith’s size that is of greatest importance, but its object.” The size of faith can be as small as a mustard seed. But the object of faith must be able to move mountains (Matt 17:20). Faith, as Machen has put it, does not consist in doing something, but in receiving something. It is not merely possessed by someone, but places its confidence in someone. This is important for us to know.

· Christ Jesus the Lord. Cf. 2Cor 4:5. The accusative case identifies Christ Jesus as the direct object who receives the action of the verb. He is the object of faith; or, the one that, by faith, believers “receive.” Placed in the context of the whole of the letter up to this point, we must understand that Christ is not empty of meaning and substance. Machen, speaks of the “profound fact about faith, a fact without which everything else…would be valueless…that it is not as a quality of the soul that faith saves a man, but only as the establishment of contact with a real object of the faith…[In our day] faith is being considered merely as a beneficent quality of the soul without respect to the reality or unreality of its object; and the moment faith comes to be considered in that way, in that moment it is destroyed.”

· Much work has been done on the part of the apostle to inform the people of the particulars concerning Jesus. He is the redeemer (1:14), the divine God incarnate (v.15), the head of all creation (vv.16-17), the head of the church (vv.18-19). He alone is where the fullness of salvation (v.19), wisdom and knowledge (2:3) is to be found. He is the one, in whom reconciliation takes place (1:20-22). He is the mystery of God revealed (1:27), who is both in us and who is our eschatological hope (1:27). He is the sole subject of the church’s proclamation (1:28) and the object of her faith (1:4). He is the spring from which the church receives power and energy while struggling, striving and toiling through this life (1:29). He is the one who will finally present us before God (1:22). He alone is the King (1:13). He alone is the Lord (2:6) – Yahweh incarnate.

a. O’Brien notes. This is an early creedal confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” The one whom the Colossians received as their tradition is the center of God’s mystery (1:27; 2:2), and the Lord of both creation and reconciliation (1:15-20). He is Lord absolutely (1 Cor 8:5, 6), not just one among many.

b. Moo. Nowhere else in Paul do we find the exact same sequence of names and articles that we find here; indeed, this combination is found nowhere else in the NT. The article before the word “kurios” or “Lord” sets it apart and that it is this title that receives the emphasis in the verse. Furthermore, coming after a transitive verb such as “receive” the title may function predicatively; hence TNIV’s “Christ Jesus as Lord.” Paul is probably intentionally echoing, then, what was arguably the early Christian confession: that “Jesus is Lord.” And Christ is added to the formula in two texts that may (despite different syntax) be cited as close parallels of what Paul probably intends here: “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord” (2Cor 4:5, cf. Phil 2:11).

· Saying that Jesus Christ is the Lord is a succinct way of saying that he is: The image of the invisible God; The firstborn of all creation (1:15); the head of the body, the church (1:18); The Mystery of God (2:2; 1:27); and the repository of all wisdom and knowledge (2:3). Moo summarizes the implications for the expression, “it is this central confession, with all it’s varied and far-reaching implications, to which the Colossians need to return in order to ward off the threat of the false teaching.”

· Question. How did they receive Christ?

a. Not wages – Receiving Christ is not like receiving a paycheck. We did not work to earn him.

b. Not a Christmas present - Receiving Christ is not even like receiving a Christmas gift. Be careful!

c. But a gift freely offered in the gospel and received by faith [and repentance]. This makes him the Lord whereas the others identify the receiver as Lord – the one who has the final say.

· In Him, walk [or, “continue to live”] (present, active, imperative, 2pl). As is common in Paul, the indicative comes before the imperative. The history is the basis for the present [and the present lived for the future]. The same way the church in Colossae received Christ, that is the way they ought to walk. This verb characterizes the Christian’s life and behavior. He has already prayed for them to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord” (1:10). Now he exhorts them to that end. The exhortations in Paul (or, the imperatives) are not calls to independent living. On the contrary, Paul trusts that God will work in them what he exhorts them to do (1:10 à 2:6). We walk understanding that our walking is dependent walking.

a. Harris notes that the formula “in Him” is less likely to be that of instrumentation (“by Him”), but more likely to be that of location; either “in union with Him” or “as incorporated in Him.” This indicates that Christ is the sphere circumscribing the entire life of the believer.

b. O’Brien, to walk is to “continue to live”.

c. Moo states that this expression in the present tense is an exhortation for the Colossians to “stay where they are!” Let Christ [and not the world] establish your values, guide your thinking, and direct your conduct.

· It is not uncommon for people to have misconceptions about the Christian life. Receiving Jesus Christ as Lord is not merely a check on a list before one dies; but a call to lose one’s life for His sake. It is a full and final submission. There is, for the Christian, no other authority to which he can now submit after receiving Christ without being is cognitive rebellion.

· One thing could be mentioned here. Christ is not the Lord because people receive him as such. If all were to rebel against him, this would not lessen his lordship. All men will one day bow (Rom 14:11). We must not play his patience and longsuffering against him. His waiting to impose himself on all finally does not diminish his strength, but rather heightens it! We have all sinned and denied His lordship. That is why the flip-side of the coin of faith is repentance. Once embracing His lordship we are never again to reject it! We do not go back to our former lives – having received him we are to “continue to live in Him.” We all formerly submitted to other authorities. We obeyed them; and found ourselves in quite a predicament in doing so! We all, at one time, trusted in some other controlling “power” or “authority” in the universe. For some of us, we were that providential governor – and others look(ed) to fate, the stars, mother nature, or other random powers. Trusting in them often caused much stress and anxiety and thus called for abandonment in preference to another. And we all, at one time, were motivated by individualistic, near-sighted, self-love. We desired no help, lived for no one, and loved no other. Talk about disaster! The Lordship of Christ brings redemption to all of these casualties! Because he is authoritative and in control of all things, we can now “trust and obey” for there is no better way. This should be comforting. And because he is Immanuel (God with us – by His Holy Spirit), we have the renewing power and presence to bring forth peace, love, patience, joy and the like (Gal 5).

· Christ is not needed as a one-time remedy; but as a life long from which we must continually draw. He alone is sufficient for this. He alone is the living water – a source that is never dried up. It is contrary to the nature of all living things to be once made alive and then be completely self-sustaining. All life is ultimately dependent on THE life-giver. When we take a moment to reflect on our utter dependence on others, and ultimately on God, we stand confounded and amazed that all of the resources needed to sustain our lives are readily available to us.

· “IN HIM” is a loaded phrase and very much related to what has been said before. Though he is over all (1:15-20), we are in Him. Our new union with Christ, which is our life in Him, demands that we see all of life through the lens of his Lordship. There is now, for the believer, no random particle, action, or thought in the entire universe that is independent Jesus Christ. As Lord over all creation – and over the entire Church – Christ, sits (at the right hand of God) in control, with ultimate authority; all the while, by His Spirit, he is intimately “with us.”

On 1 John 1:9

This is a brief paper to address particular difficulties that arise when considering the “if…then” clause of verse 9. Tension arises because confession seems to be the condition which must be met in order for one to be forgiven. It is a conditional clause – “if confession…then forgiveness.” In this paper I will address the historical context; mainly focusing on the identity the recipients. Does the author (John) write to believers or unbelievers? This question is important with regards to the text at hand. If they are unbelievers it would seem very appropriate for the apostle to call them to confession and repentance in order to receive forgiveness. However, if they are believers, it seems odd that the apostle would lead them to believe that they may not be forgiven until they confess their sins. The text may imply that continual forgiveness is needed – or, that forgiveness is withheld until they perform the “work” of confession (this sparking the question of legalism).

Historical Context: Purpose and Recipients. It is commonly held by most conservative scholars that the apostle John penned both the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John. We know that the Gospel was written mainly to unbelievers in order that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing they may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31). The first epistle on the other hand was written to believers. It is a pastoral letter that was written to congregations across Asia Minor, who had been around long enough to now be threatened by positive heresy.

The main heresies that were being introduced were Gnosticism (or pseudo-Gnosticism) and Docetism. These gnostic “false prophets” claimed to have a special illumination by the Spirit (2:20, 27), that was imparted to them the true gnosis theou (knowledge of God). Through this spiritual illumination, the schismatics claimed to have attained a state beyond ordinary Christian morality in which they had no more sin and attained moral perfection (1:8-10). This led to spiritual pride and haughtiness that caused them to despise ordinary Christians who did not claim to have attained the same level of spiritual illumination as had the Gnostics (See Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 657-658).

If Gnosticism is mainly moral, Docetism is christological. Docetists denied the incarnation (2:22; 4:1). They held to the typical Greek contrast between spirit and matter, and thought that since matter was evil, God could not possibly have come into direct contact with the phenomenal world in Christ. They either denied the incarnation in general terms, or else taught that the body of Christ was only an appearance and not real (See Ladd).

In order to confront these heresies and protect these churches, John writes very pastorally and practically. Many verses throughout the letter would give clear indication that the letter was written to believers that were under John’s authoritative care. They would have known him and felt secure under his teaching. Perhaps the most convincing verse for identifying the recipients is 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” Verses like 2:1 and 2:7, when John calls them “My little children” and “Beloved,” along with many others would make an address to unbelievers unlikely. It may be argued that the pericope of 1:5-10 is isolated and specifically written with unbelievers in mind. However, 2:1 could easily rule this out: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” The “these things” being referred to is not only what comes after, but also what comes before.

Again, The Gospel of John was written so that people might believe and receive eternal life (Jn 20:30-31); whereas the letter 1John was written to those who already believe so that they may have assurance of their eternal life (1Jn 5:13). Carson and Moo comment, “The Johannine epistles make an important contribution to the doctrine of assurance. If other NT writings make it clear that the objective grounds of our confidence before God are in Christ and his death and resurrection on our behalf, such that Christian assurance is not much more than a concomitant of genuine faith, these epistles insist that a distinction must be made between genuine and spurious faith. Spurious faith does not have the right to assurance before God; genuine faith can be authenticated not only by the validity of its object (in this case, the belief that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh) but also by the transformation it effects in the individual: genuine Christians learn to love one another and obey the truth. Christian assurance is not, for John, an abstract good; it is intimately tied to a continuing and transforming relationship with the covenant God, who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Carson and Moo, 685).”

Literary Context: Verses 1:5-10 confront gnostic heresy of perfection. There is a clear dualistic structure to this passage. We see the distinction between light and darkness. God is light and there is no darkness in him at all. Everything about the Christian life stands in relationship to this truth. If one says that he has fellowship with God while walking in darkness, is lying and is not practicing the truth (1:6). Similarly, if one says that he has no sin, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him (1:8). Clearly here the apostle is identifying lives (particularly confessions or statements) that are either in line with the truth or not in line with the truth. In short, one can know by what they confess whether or not they are in light or in darkness.

We must keep the author’s purpose in mind to help us here. He is writing to give believers assurance. Assurance is not to be given to those who do not live in accordance with the truth. This is very practical and pastoral. It is very difficult for a person to know whether they have fellowship with God or not. God is spiritual and unseen. Our love for him is unseen. We therefore know of our love for him, by looking and reflecting upon our lives and actions. This is the thread that runs through the entire epistle. John wants his hearers to KNOW that they are in the faith. Consider the following passage:

“Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning…By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, or is the one who does not love his brother (3:7-10).”

There are many other passages like this in the epistle. The purpose and the message is clear – we can know if we are in Christ by paying attention to what we say and do. Similarly, we can make a reasonable assessment of others are as well by what they say and do. Now, with this in mind, lets consider the passage at hand:

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

Reflections on 1:9: What is the verse saying and what is it not saying. With the historical and literary context in mind, here are some reflections on the passage. I feel it is important to understand that the apostle is not specifically educating his audience on the doctrine of salvation. The question is not how one has come to be in Christ, but how one knows whether or not he (or another; namely those who are professing heresy) is in Christ.

Reflection 1: Grace and humility are implied in the phrase “confess your sins.” In regards to the text, we must understand what it actually means, not what some (who remain in their sins) make it out to mean. The same action is performed by both the legalist and the true Christian – they confess sins. However, one desires a much different end. The Christian desires a restored relationship with His Lord. The one who remains in sins confesses to relieve himself of penalty only. The verse can be taken legalistically, albeit unjustly. A person who is truly confessing sin is not focusing on their works but depending on the grace and mercy of God. That person would be quite aware of the insufficiency of their merit to cover their offence, and would therefore understand the required payment to come another way. A person who was once impenitent but now finds themselves in confession would see and give praise for the work of Another who changed their heart to do such.

Reflection 2: The Scripture nowhere implies that confession of sin is meritorious of grace. It does however, repeatedly affirm the simple and profound truth that our God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is one who gives pardon to those who are contrite and confess their sins. Though we are justified and forgiven, the conscience not being yet glorified, is still weak and fragile. It stands in constant need of repair and relief. It is true that sin no longer has dominion in the Christian, but it does still dwell. The believer therefore, having fallen into sin needs constant reminders of assurance and pardon. The promise of forgiveness in this passage is not necessarily an objective one; but one that is very subjective. When a person sins, it is comforting to know that they have a Father who is ready to forgive and cleanse that sin. Sin and darkness would desire us to keep sins hidden – their existence wholly unseen. This was the gnostic heresy. The believed they had been completely rid of sin.

Reflection 3: This passage encourages confession by emphasizing God’s gracious character – purchased by Christ. It is a fearful thing to bring one’s offence to the one they have offended. Fear alone keeps many from confessing sins. Why? B/c they are afraid that they will not be accepted. Many are afraid that their sins keep them from having a relationship they so desire. Here, John, gives wonderful assurance of the character and nature of our Lord. It is safe to confess. He will pardon. He will cleanse.

Reflection 4: Notice that the passage implies that forgiveness is founded on the Cross, not confession. The Lord will forgive “on account of” the Cross (1:7), and according to the confession. The distinction between the prepositions “according to” and “on account of” are significant, especially in reference to verses like Romans 2:6, “He will render to each one according to his works.” One implies merit, while the other implies a simple truth, not based on merit. God does respond to the works and lives of Christians. He does bless “walking in the Spirit.” He does so according to such walking – but on account of the work of Christ.

Reflection 5: On a similar note. Notice the passage says “if you confess,” not “because you confess.”

Reflection 6: Understanding the Accomplishment of Christ and the Application of His work. The Work of Christ (especially his passive obedience – or passion on the Cross) is the basis for our forgiveness (Acts 2:38, 5:31; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). Though the forgiveness of sins was accomplished at the Cross with the shedding of His blood (Matt 26:28; Eph 1:7), a moment in history; there is another moment in history when the forgiveness is applied. The distinction is important. This verse follows 1:7, which clearly gives the foundation for forgiveness and cleansing (1:9)

Reflection 7: One of warnings. The Scripture, even Christ Himself, gives repeated warnings to those (who call God, “father”) who do not confess (Jn 20:23; Matt 6:14-15). It would do God a great injustice among the unbelievers (Gentiles) if he were to justify and not sanctify. The pardoned life is always a life of piety. Faith alone saves, but faith which saves is never alone (Calvin).

Summary. The apostle is saying that children of God walk in light. He is encouraging such a life. Walking in light does not mean walking in perfection; but rather walking in confession. A life lived concealing sin is a life lived in the darkness. A life lived confessing sin is a life lived in the light. But now that the man, the sinner, is encouraged to confess his sin, it is only right to assure that sinner that he will be accepted and pardoned; and that his sin will be cleansed by God. Nowhere in the passage does the apostle give the indication that the sin is pardoned based on the merit of the sinner or the act of confession. Rather, he explicitly gives such a foundation in 1:7. What follows in 1:9 must be read and understood through the lens of 1:7.

John’s point is pastoral and practical. A person who is being encouraged to come forward with his/her sins must be assured that they will be pardoned and cleansed. The true believer, when doing so, sees no merit in the act all-the-while seeing great benefit in the act. He asks, “How can such a holy God forgive and pardon me?” The answer is clear. The blood of His Son, Jesus Christ was shed. “How can this be?” Grace.

This paper is in no way exhausts the truths that could be mined in this passage. It is simply my thoughts over the past few days. I have referenced Bruce, Calvin, Ladd, Marshall, Kistemaker, and Carson/Moo. I am more than willing to be challenged on any point in order to know my Lord better and achieve the unity that Christians have in Christ. I would gladly welcome any comments/criticisms.

May the Lord bless this work.