Complete Salvation

I'm in the last four volumes of J. N. Darby's Collected Writings. The end is close enough to see, so I've been really motivated to keep up the pace of my reading. But there's a danger to simply dashing through a book to finish it: go to fast and you might as well not read it.

All moralizing aside, Volume 31 has really been getting my attention. Don't get me wrong: at this point it's mainly repetition. There's bound to be, in that many volumes: most of what I'm reading now he said at some point in the previous 30 books. Still...

One really striking paper is "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost". This one gets a lot of press as a result of Darby's falling out with F. W. Grant on the subject, but there's a lot of meat in it that's easy to overlook.

I'm not sure whether I agree with Darby or Grant on the subject of sealing. Darby's writing is pretty convincing, but I'm not completely comfortable with his assertion that the man delivered at the end of Romans 7 can't fall back into it. But that's not really what I want to talk about right now.

To me the far more interesting and important thing discussed in this paper is Darby's assertion of complete redemption:

Bad teaching, which puts being born again (a vital and necessary truth, and examining whether we be in the faith, a very natural thing then, but a mere and entire misinterpretation of Scripture), instead of an accomplished and known redemption by the work of Christ, having led many true hearts away from plain Scripture truth, I add here what Scripture plainly states. If a soul can in truth before God say, Abba, Father, that soul is sealed. If a person really knows that he is in Christ, and Christ in him, he is sealed. If the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, the man is sealed. (Rom. 8; Gal. 4; Rom. 13; John 14; Rom. 10.) Other proofs may be given of if, for the whole life of a man is, save particular failures, the evidence of the Spirit of God dwelling in him; but I take the simplest and most immediate evidence in a man's soul purposely and such as are in terms stated in Scripture. Now what hinders the simple acceptance of this truth is, that the full doctrine of redemption is not believed. Forgiveness is looked at as forgiveness of so much past sins,* of sins up to our conversion, what was really Jewish forgiveness, which is contrasted in Scripture with Christian; Heb. 9, 10. What Scripture calls eternal redemption is not believed in. As to Christians in general, what it is to have no more conscience of sins, they cannot tell you, or even of the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin. No, all their past sins were forgiven when they believed, but sins since? well, they must be sprinkled again, or the present priesthood of Christ on high applies to it, neither of which is in Scripture.

Ask them what it means, when it says that by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; they cannot tell you: each sin, after its commission, has to find its forgiveness as and when it may; and people are taught that it is a very dangerous doctrine to think otherwise. Now there is an interruption of communion; there is a gracious washing of the feet with water; but when I have believed in Christ's work there is no more imputation of sin, I am perfected as to conscience. We have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. He who bore our sins, and put them away long ago, is there. We must not confound the work of the Spirit, which makes me own my faults, and the work of Christ, finished and effectual once and for ever. He bore my sins when I had not committed one of them, and if forgiveness, in the sense of non-imputation, has to be gained now, it would be impossible; for Christ would have to suffer for them as the apostle says, "For then he must often have suffered from the foundation of the world." Hence he who has not the sense of redemption in his soul by faith, and he who really has, are by current teaching put on the same footing, though one has the Spirit of adoption, and the other has not — one looks for mercy, not yet obtained by faith, and the other, with God, cries Abba, Father; but both are taught to suppose sin imputable alike, and to search if they are children, and the delivered man is thrown back by false teaching under law in Romans 7. If you can really cry, Abba, Father, you are surely sealed; but then no sin can be imputed to you, or Christ is dead in vain. Judaism was, as to that, better than this half Christianity. There, if a man sinned, was a sacrifice, and his sin was forgiven. Here, once, perhaps, pardoned for what was gone before, he has nothing but uncertainty for all that follows. But Christ has obtained eternal redemption, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin. And the work being complete, and he who is sanctified perfected for ever, the worshipper once purged has no more conscience of sins, and Christ is sitting down on the Father's throne because all is finished. Of this the Holy Ghost is the witness; being born of God is not.

Darby's prose is tortuous and tangled; it requires some parsing.

First, "an accomplished and known redemption by the work of Christ... what Scripture plainly states". The most important point here is that redemption isn't known by subjective self-examination; it's known from Scripture. This is a very important point, and is one of the most significant points of Darby's teaching. Scripture teaches both objective and subjective truth. Justification is objective truth: it's God's declaration that a man is righteous. New birth is subjective truth: it is God's work in a man. Justification--- objective truth--- is known objectively. One doesn't look inside to find objective truth, one looks to facts. God acquits the one who believes: this is objective. It's entirely outside me. New birth is subjective---it's God's work in me. That is known subjectively, and is proven by my life. It's impossible to see evidence in me that I am justified, because justification implies nothing at all about me: it is entirely outside me. Darby is here insisting that I have peace with God not because I am born again, but because I am justified (cf. Romans 5:1). There is no proof in my life, the proof is in Scripture.

We are redeemed by Christ, and forgiven of sins. There is no way to see that, and really no way to experience it. It is something we accept by faith: God has promised forgiveness to all who believe. If you believe, it's yours (Acts 13:39; Romans 4:5). It's foolish to examine one's self to see whether one is redeemed: there is, by definition, nothing you'd expect to see in one who's redeemed.

Then, "the full doctrine of redemption is not believed... [w]hat Scripture calls eternal redemption is not believed in." This is where we get to the real crux of the matter. "Full redemption" means there's nothing that I can do to change my standing before God. Christ's work for me means all my sins--- even sins I've not yet committed--- have been forgiven. I've not committed them yet, but they're already forgiven. Regardless of what I do, I can't change my acceptance with God.

It's obvious that sins I haven't yet committed have already been dealt with; because when Christ died for my sins, I hadn't committed any of them. If it's truly by Christ's sacrifice that I've been forgiven, then that must apply equally to sins I've not yet committed.

Darby continues, "Ask them what it means, when it says that by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; they cannot tell you: each sin, after its commission, has to find its forgiveness as and when it may; and people are taught that it is a very dangerous doctrine to think otherwise." Scripture clearly teaches there is only one sacrifice for sins, and it cannot be repeated. This, Darby points out, is precisely what Scripture asserts is different between Judaism and Christianity. Under the Law, sacrifices were repeated; but Christ has died once, He cannot die again, and there is never another sacrifice for sins. This is the whole point of Hebrews 10:1–14. It is not merely that Christ need not sacrifice again for sins, but that He cannot. If the sacrifice He has already made is not enough, then you are certain of an eternity in Hell, with no recourse. There is absolutely nothing you can do; Christ cannot die for you again, you are lost without any hope at all.

There is a subtle subtext here. What Scripture insists on is, the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. But there are those who deny this plain truth out of fear. That is, they're afraid of what someone might do who really believed all his sins (even those not yet committed) are forgiven, and so they're not willing to believe what Scripture teaches. This is not merely theoretical, I have personally met people who believed that. In fact, one missionary told me they didn't like to teach eternal security on the mission field, because it might lead to licentiousness. What this really means is, this person was more willing to deny the completeness and perfection of Christ's work than to see a Christian fall into sin. It's not a matter of laziness or danger or license: denying that Christ's one sacrifice has covered all our sins (past, present, and future) is denying Christ. There is no other way to interpret Hebrews. God's Son has died for me, God says this one offering perfects the sanctified forever; to deny this isn't humility, it's blasphemy.

Let me diverge a moment here and point out that most people don't realize they're actually denying Christ. It's very difficult to accept that Christ's one offering is once for all, has covered all my sins, and there's nothing I can do to change that. It's not that they set out to deny Christ, it's that they can't bring themselves to believe what Scripture teaches. But the fact is, we need to let God be true and every man a liar. The Gospel is unbelievable: it has to be. The problem of sin is too big a problem to be solved by something believable. A gospel less than once-for-all isn't big enough for real sinners. Real sinners need a real gospel: something that requires nothing at all from them, something that rests entirely outside themselves. The Gospel of Scripture is exactly that. The "gospel" you hear preached rarely is.

Then, "We have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. He who bore our sins, and put them away long ago, is there." Christ bore my sins in His own body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). He took them all away, there is nothing left on me. My sins were entirely put on Him. Where is He? He's in Heaven. If one of my sins were left, if a single sin I've committed hasn't yet been dealt with, then Christ has taken it into Heaven. His presence in Heaven is proof my sins are gone. Now, I know there is more to the sacrifice of Christ than bearing my sins: there is propitiation and sanctification, etc. But the plain statement of Scripture is that He took my sins on the Cross. They're not mine any more: He took them. So if He's back in Heaven, sitting at God's right hand, then my sins must be gone. And they must be gone forever, because He's not going to be kicked out of Heaven. This is what Hebrews is actually all about: this is what Colossians 2 insists on.

Next, "We must not confound the work of the Spirit, which makes me own my faults, and the work of Christ, finished and effectual once and for ever." This is a repetition of the first point. The work of Christ for me has brought me peace with God. The work of the Spirit in me brings me into maturity and practical holiness. The Spirit works in me to make me like Christ. It's not that the Spirit's work in me isn't important: it's that God accepts me because of Christ's work for me. The relationship is established solely by what Christ has done on my behalf: the Holy Spirit's work in me doesn't enter into it.

I once read a quote by JND I've never actually found in any of his books: "It is Christ's work for me, not His work in me that brings me peace."

Then Darby makes a striking point: "Judaism was, as to that, better than this half Christianity. There, if a man sinned, was a sacrifice, and his sin was forgiven. Here, once, perhaps, pardoned for what was gone before, he has nothing but uncertainty for all that follows. But Christ has obtained eternal redemption, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin." The "christianity" that's taught in so many places is actually inferior to Judaism. At least under the Law there is another sacrifice coming if the old one wasn't enough. But under Christianity, there can never be another. If that wasn't good enough, you're going to burn in Hell.

And I might point out, this is the problem with all Arminianism. If you really can be saved and then lost, then you can never actually be saved. A "gospel" good enough to save you until you sin again is only a "gospel" good enough to taunt you. If that's the "gospel", then not one of us is saved, and we're all going to burn.

But the point is, Christ has obtained eternal redemption. Contingent redemption isn't eternal. If God were to impute sin to me, that would be exactly the same as His rejecting Christ's sacrifice. And that would mean not merely that I would burn in Hell, but you would too. There's only one sacrifice for sins: if God rejects it, then we all are destined for Hell. Think about that: if God were to impute a single sin to a single believer, then He would reject the same sacrifice that makes everyone else perfect. If God rejects me, He rejects Paul too. There is only one sacrifice for sins, it can only be offered one time, and it's been accepted absolutely, with no recourse. God has accepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

Finally, "the worshipper once purged has no more conscience of sins, and Christ is sitting down on the Father's throne because all is finished." If I have been purged by this one sacrifice, I can never again be conscious of sins. It's not that I don't sin, nor is it that the Holy Spirit doesn't deal with me when I sin. It's that those sins cannot ever appear before God as mine. God cannot impute those sins to me, because He's already imputed them to Christ. And Christ has already suffered for them, taking them away forever.

Is there such a thing as confession? Absolutely! But confession doesn't absolve me from sins: God has already done that. Confession is how God deals with me subjectively, bringing me closer to Himself. But I don't confess my sins to escape them: it is by one offering that Christ has perfected me. There is nothing else to add to that: not even confession.

And this brings us really to the main point. It's hard--- really, really hard--- for a true believer to believe this when he's sinned. Our conscience is burdened, our mind is troubled, we're upset with ourselves, we fear what we've done, we're ashamed. And so we look for something to soothe the conscience: some penance or confession that will bring us peace. The problem is, there's nothing in Heaven or on earth or under the earth that can do that, because the only remedy for sins that exists (or ever will exist) is that Christ has already suffered for it. And God has already accepted Christ's offering. There cannot ever be anything else if that's not enough.

So how to deal with this problem? The solution is simple: first, we have been once purged, that cannot be repeated. But we do need to trust God. God hasn't lied to us, we need to accept the forgiveness we already have. Second, it's the worshipper who's been purged. When we feel the weight of sin, we find (although it's hard to believe) that it's in God's presence we have no more conscience of it. We don't claim forgiveness out of arrogance, but because we can see what God has given us in Christ. Third, we see that Christ is seated at God's right hand. This is what perfects us:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18, KJV)

Wanna feel forgiven? Look at Christ on God's right hand.

Eucharist

I was in Las Vegas this week for work. It was about what I expected: they call it "Sin City" for a reason. On the return flight, I was reading an article by Darby on Transubstantiation ("Familiar Conversations on Romanism--- Transubstantiation", Collected Writings, Vol. 31, pp. 1--74). It's not his best article ever, but it contains this description of the Lord's Supper:

spiritual persons with holy reverence celebrating the memorial of Christ's death, humbled in the sense of the infinite love which brought Him there for us, while they wait for Him who so loved them; but with holy joy and thanksgiving (which is the very name of the ordinance, eucharistia) that He has so loved them and washed them from their sins in His own blood, so that saved by Him they can wait for Him with joy, feeding on Him and living by Him meanwhile

I've frequently found as I read through Darby's writings, the really valuable bits are frequently his tangential comments.

Resurrection

I've been thinking a lot about resurrection, and I wanted to jot down some of those thoughts.

The Resurrection of Christ is probably the single most important point of Christian doctrine. It's arguably true that Christianity is the belief that Christ rose bodily from the grave. This was the watershed issue when Paul spoke to the Athenians; it was when he introduced the resurrection that his listeners decided he might be crazy. 1 Corinthians 15 makes the stunning statement that without the bodily resurrection of Christ there is no Gospel.

But if there is not a resurrection of those that are dead, neither is Christ raised: but if Christ is not raised, then, indeed, vain also is our preaching, and vain also your faith. (1 Corinthians 15: 13 & 14, JND).

The Lord Jesus spoke about three different resurrections in John's gospel:

1. His own, the Resurrection of Christ (John 2:19--22)
2. the resurrection of life (John 5:29)
3. and the resurrection of judgment (John 5:29)

The Lord seems to put the last two at the same time ("the last day"), but I'm not sure they happen precisely together. Revelation 20 certainly discusses the "resurrection of judgment" in vv. 11--15, which comes at least 1,000 years after the "first resurrection" of vv. 4--6: "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed. This is the first resurrection" (Revelation 20:5, JND).

There is a fourth resurrection discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13--18. There, we have "for the Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first;" (v. 16, JND). I suppose those who don't hold a premillenial view consider this to be a parallel account of the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20. It seems to me it can't be, because Paul sees this as an "any moment" thing, where the timing of the resurrection in Revelation 20 is fairly well detailed. But ultimately I'm not interested in eschatological argument at the moment.

My favourite expositors claim the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 isn't a literal, bodily resurrection. They interpret that as a figurative resurrection along the lines of Ezekiel 37. Certainly Ezekiel 37 is a figurative resurrection: the passage itself provides the interpretation for the vision. I'm not so sure about Daniel 12. Revelation 20 makes it clear that the millenial kingdom starts with the resurrection of the tribulation saints who've been beheaded for Christ (v. 4), while "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed" (v. 5, JND). I don't see a real problem in connecting this with Daniel 12.

At any rate, regardless of your eschatological views, Scripture makes it clear that the Resurrection has already begun: it started when Christ rose bodily from the grave. This is why 1 Corinthians 15:23 refers to the Resurrection of Christ as the "first-fruits". He began something totally new that He will share with us. Not "us" as merely the Church, but "us" including every saint as far back as Abel. We will all be raised to everlasting life.

Of course, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 reveal a "mystery": some of us will participate in Resurrection without actually dying (1 Corinthians 15:51, 1 Thessalonians 4:15--18). Some of us will actually be raised without dying! This is the hope of the Christian:

for *our* commonwealth has its existence in the heavens, from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of glory, according to the working of the power which he has even to subdue all things to himself. (Philippians 3:20 & 21, JND)

We are waiting for God's Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead (1 Thessalonians 1:10). He will change our "vile bodies" to be like His, and we'll be with Him forever.

Morally, Christians are called to live out a life of resurrection, even though we haven't yet seen it happen. This isn't just a motivational technique, it's the ontological doctrine of the Epistles. Romans teaches we're free from sin because we've been crucified with Christ: we're no longer the "old man" we were, we're now to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4--11). Colossians 2 & 3 take this further: not only have we been crucified with Christ, we were raised with Him and are thus in a totally separate sphere. Having died with Him, we're not to subject ourselves to fleshly ordinances (Colossians 2:20--23). Religious rules and shibboleths aren't part of the new life we are to live in Christ: they appeal to the flesh, but have no value to us. And, having been raised with Him, we're to have our affections where He is, at God's right hand (Colossians 3:1--4). One day Christ will be manifested, and we too will be manifested with Him in glory.

Ephesians takes this even farther: we've been raised with Christ, quickened, and taken to Heaven "with Christ". God's estimation is that we're so completely "with Christ" that we're even sitting with Him "in the heavenlies" (Ephesians 2:5--9).

The Christian is one who lives between the Resurrections: he has already been raised spiritually, he awaits the bodily resurrection that will complete the deal. Really, all our problems come from the fact that we have a foot in both the old and new creations. We ourselves are risen with Christ: we are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). But we're still in old creation bodies. We're new creatures, but we're in old bodies. So Romans 6 tells us we're free from sin: we've been crucified with Christ; but Romans 7 tells us we have "the flesh"--- not the "old man", but "the flesh"--- we're in old bodies, there's a "law of sin" in our members so that whenever we want to do good, evil is there with us. Romans 8 gives us the solution: our bodies will one day be redeemed and we'll be free of the sin in them. But until that day, we need our Deliverer because we are utterly powerless over the sin in our flesh.

Our hope is not that we'll die and go to heaven. Our hope is that the Son of God will come and transform our vile bodies. When He comes, He will bring those who have "fallen asleep in Jesus" with Him: they won't miss out on the transformation just because they've died. In fact, the departed saints in Heaven are waiting for the very same event. We don't long to be out of our bodies: it's not our longing to be "unclothed" (2 Corinthians 2:4). The departed saints haven't yet arrived: they are waiting for the shout much more diligently and earnestly than we. The Lord Jesus is coming to get us: He will bring them with Him, and they'll be raised in new bodies. Those of us who are still here will be changed in a moment into bodies like His, and we'll all leave together with Him. That's our hope. That's what the Apostles waited for, that's what we've been called to wait for.

Esteeming

I've been thinking a lot about Philippians 2: 3 & 4

[let] nothing [be] in the spirit of strife or vain glory, but, in lowliness of mind, each esteeming the other as more excellent than themselves; regarding not each his own [qualities], but each those of others also.

If you've spent any time at all with "brethren" you've heard these verses. These are frequently read at the Lord's Supper, as they lead into one of the most striking Christological passages in the New Testament. But while that might well be the greater meaning of the passage, the immediate context is an exhortation: nothing--- nothing--- is to be done out of strife or vainglory; each of us--- every one of us--- is to consider everyone else as more excellent than ourselves.

The example is Christ Jesus (vv. 5--10). He is eternally God, but He considered equality with God nothing to be grasped at. He became a servant, emptying Himself, and became a Man. As a Man, He humbled Himself so that He even became obedient to the death and died on the cross. This is a remarkable story: it's the essence of Christianity.

With Christ as our example, we can consider the exhortation that we each esteem others as more excellent than ourselves. We immediately see that what we're really called to is, taking a lower place than our brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not that we are to attempt to convince ourselves that they are objectively better than us--- they might not be "more excellent" in any real way--- but we see that Christ took the lowest place. He is God, but He became a servant. Whether someone else is actually better than I is not the issue: even if I am superior to someone else in every conceivable way, I can still esteem him or her as more excellent than myself. That's what Christ did: He is objectively superior to every creature. He is God, He actually made them all. But He took a lower place than His creatures, becoming a slave and humbling Himself even to the point of dying on the cross.

I suppose I need to say that this doesn't mean I'm to simply act like everything's OK. Paul didn't do that, and he doesn't exhort us to do so either. The Epistles are full of exhortations to be careful how we live. There are exhortations to separate from iniquity (2 Timothy 2), and instructions on how to excommunicate an unrepentant brother or sister (1 Corinthians 5).

But there is a mindset and a spirit that we are to have as believers. We are to esteem others as more excellent than ourselves. We needn't buy into a heresy to condemn it humbly. Arrogance, even when we're right, is contrary to the mind of Christ and the will of God.

I don't want to ignore problems in an attempt at humility. It seems the spirit of the age would drive us to say nothing's bad, except believing in something. This isn't humility, it's arrogance: it's a practical denial of what God has said.

But at the same time, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about almost everything. Recognizing bad doctrine or practice is one thing, reacting to it "after the flesh" is quite another. So when someone stands up and says something completely wrong, it's not right to act like he was right on the mark. On the other hand, it's equally wrong to stand up and encourage everyone to mock and deride him.

I've said before that my biggest problem with "brethren" is how they teach the truth, but don't live it. I'm sure it's not only "brethren" who're guilty of this, but we seem particularly to fall into this sort of hypocrisy. And I think this is just another example, we remind ourselves (and one another) weekly that the Lord made Himself of no reputation so that He (eternally God) could come here as Man and die for wretched sinners. But so many of us (like me) then take an obnoxious and arrogant attitude when we notice a brother or sister go astray. I'm as guilty as any in this regard, and more guilty than most.

So I've been thinking about Philippians 2. I need to consider every other person in the assembly as more excellent than I. That doesn't mean I'm to pretend they're right when clearly they're not. That doesn't mean I'm to pretend someone's giving excellent ministry when they're spouting nonsense. What it does mean is that I'm to consider them more excellent than I am.

The Lord Jesus modeled this when He washed the disciples' feet:

When therefore he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, having sat down again, he said to them, Do ye know what I have done to you? Ye call me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well, for I am [so]. If I therefore, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that, as I have done to you, ye should do also. Verily, verily, I say to you, The bondman is not greater than his lord, nor the sent greater than he who has sent him. (John 13: 12--16, JND)

The key to that seems to be not so much that I take a false view of my brethren, but that I take a true view of God. If I think highly of myself, that's pretty strong evidence that I'm not thinking about God. I can't have my eyes on Christ and think well of myself at the same time: were I looking at Him, I wouldn't think too highly of me. This ought to spill over into how I treat others. I need to learn to be right in the right way: it's much easier to be right than to be upright. It's a lot harder to be godly than it is to be correct. Christ came here and too the lowest place; I ought to do nothing from strife or vainglory: I ought to do everything considering others more excellent than I. It's not that I necessarily convince myself that someone else is actually a better person than me, it's that I act in the understanding that I am to take a lower place.

I don't do this nearly so well as I should.

Good Read

I found a paper by J. N. Darby in Collected Writings, Vol. 27 the other day. It's not on STEM Publishing's website, so here it is: Dead with Christ, Risen with Christ.

Enjoy!

No Confidence

For *we* are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh. (Philippians 3:3, JND)

I think of Philippians 3:3 as one of the definitions of a Christian in Scripture. J. N. Darby defined Christianity from 1 Thessalonians 1:9 & 10, Martyn Lloyd-Jones reputedly defined Christianity from 1 John 4:16; but I think Philippians 3:3 is as good a working definition as either of those.

There are three characteristics of the circumcision in Philippians 3:3, and I think they are worth considering. First, those of the circumcision worship by the Spirit of God. Scripture puts a great emphasis on worship, much greater than most Christians seem to. When the Lord Jesus spoke with the woman at the well in Sychar, He told her, "the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeks such as his worshippers" (John 4:23). You don't read a whole lot in Scripture about God seeking for things, but here's an example: the Father is seeking worshippers. Worship is a high and holy calling: perhaps the holiest calling of all.

But we're supposed to worship in a certain way: the Lord Jesus said the Father was seeking people who would worship "in spirit in and truth", Paul specified that we "worship by the Spirit of God." We don't just worship any old way: worship is to come from and be empowered by the Spirit of God. It is a sobering thought that throughout the history of Israel's idolatries, there was frequently a mixing-up of the worship of the Lord with their worship of idols. We might consider Exodus 32, where Aaron made the golden calf for the people to worship, "And Aaron saw it, and built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah!" (Exodus 32:5, JND). Notice how quickly Aaron mixed the worship of Jehovah with idolatry. This danger isn't diminished today: 1 John (certainly one of the last books in the Canon to be written, if not the last) ends with the warning, "Children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21, JND). The mixing of Christianity with idolatry is a very real danger. I suppose we can fairly say that the first characteristic of worship by the Spirit of God is that it's not tied up with idols.

Do I need to mention that worship by the Spirit of God would be worship according to truth? The Lord Jesus explicitly tied these together in His conversation with the woman at Sychar. I've sometimes been accused of anti-intellectualism (which is perhaps another blog post), and I certainly won't say that having the correct answers is the priority... but we can't claim to be worshipping by the Spirit of God when we're flagrantly denying what He says. The fact is that the Spirit of God came here to guide us into all truth (John 16:13); if we're going to play fast and loose with the truth, we're not doing anything by the Spirit of God.

It is a fact that the Epistles consistently describe the Spirit as being in opposition to "the flesh." This has sobering consequences when we consider we're called to "worship by the Spirit of God." Worship by the Spirit of God will necessarily be something that's in opposition to the flesh. Now, we need to be very careful when we say something like that, because flesh is a very adaptable thing: it can put on religious airs easily. The history of asceticism is largely the history of the religion of the flesh, which is certainly counter-intuitive. But it is so: the flesh can be a very religious thing. When we consider passages like Galatians 5 or Romans 7, we need to be careful to recognize that the lusting of the flesh against the Spirit can be very deceptive. Flesh is quite willing to bow in prayer, so long as it doesn't actually have to submit to Christ.

Second, the true circumcision "boast[s] in Christ Jesus". There's a connection here with the first point (worship by the Spirit of God): we don't generally think of boasting "in" someone else. Usually we boast about ourselves. But the true circumcision is characterized by boasting in Christ Jesus. I was speaking in a meeting recently about 1 Corinthians 1:30--31, "But of him are *ye* in Christ Jesus, who has been made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption; that according as it is written, He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord. (JND)" Paul tells us we're to boast in "the Lord." Why? Because He is or righteousness, our holiness, and our redemption. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking in abstractions: we think of things like holiness as abstract qualities, but God says these things are a Person. I am to be holy and live a life that's holy, but it's all based on the fact that God has given me Christ Jesus to be my Holiness. I ought to live righteously, but my Righteousness is the Lord Jesus.

The Epistles talk a lot about boasting in the Lord, and I think it's true that boasting in the Lord is based on our own inability and unworthiness. The man who's got it all together doesn't boast in Christ Jesus: the boasting in Christ comes from the realization that all my worth is in Him. If I have worth in myself, I don't look for it in Christ. I boast in Christ when I realize He's what I have. And this is what Johnny D would say is the secret to the Christian life: that God has called me to a life where Christ is my All in All. He's all I need, and He's all I have. Trouble and temptation come when I forget these two propositions: all I have is Christ, and He's all I need.

We're called to delight in God's Son like He does. We're called to be completely taken with one Person. God's Son has died here, has been buried here, has been raised from the dead, and has been welcomed back into Heaven. There He's been given the highest place. We're waiting for Him to come back. Now here's the secret: 2 Corinthians 3 tells us how we become like Christ Jesus, it's by "beholding His glory":

But *we* all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18, JND)

Want to be like Christ? Stare at Him.

Finally, the true circumcision doesn't "trust in flesh." I suppose this is connected with the two previous points, both worship by the Spirit of God and boasting in Christ Jesus stand in opposition to the flesh. But there is a deeper meaning here and we don't want to overlook it. There is the ever-present danger of trying to live "after the flesh," a danger Scripture warns against time and again.

The Epistles insist that we are "in Christ," that we are identified with Him in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. In Romans, men are alive in sin, but the believer has died with Christ. In Galatians, we're crucified with Christ, but He lives in us. In Ephesians, men are dead in trespasses and sins, but the believer is quickened with Christ, ascended with Him, and seated in the heavenlies with Him. In Colossians, the believer has died with Christ and has been risen with Him. So Romans and Ephesians are opposite in this sense: in Romans we started out alive and have died; in Ephesians we started out dead and have been raised.

In the Romans account, the believer is dead with Christ---dead to sin and to the Law. Our old man is crucified with Him, and we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin. Notice it doesn't say we're to reckon the old man dead: it says the old man is crucified with Him (Romans 6:6) and as a result we're to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11). After this---after we learn that our old man is crucified and the "body of sin" is annulled (Romans 6:6) and we're to reckon ourselves dead to sin---we meet a new character in Romans 7, "the flesh". Romans 7 says that the flesh is in us, and nothing good is in the flesh (Romans 7:18). So we have a strange situation in the believer: the old man is crucified, but the new man lives in the old man's body. We are redeemed just like Adam fell: Adam died spiritually the day he ate the fruit, but he didn't die physically for another 930 years. Similarly, we are redeemed and alive spiritually, but our bodies aren't yet redeemed, so we await for the redemption of the body (Romans 8:23). All of this is summed up in Romans 8:

But *ye* are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed God’s Spirit dwell in you; but if any one has not the Spirit of Christ *he* is not of him: but if Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to flesh; for if ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live: for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, *these* are sons of God. (Romans 8:9--13, JND)

Our body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But our mortal bodies will one day be raised just like Christ's body was. Still, we're not there yet. So we are called not to live after the flesh---that's part of the yet-unredeemed body---but to be led by the Spirit of God.

So Romans presents the very real conflict between the flesh and the spirit. We're spiritually redeemed, but we're still in the unredeemed body. Our mortal bodies will one day be redeemed, but we're still waiting for it: "we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of glory" (Philippians 3:20--21, JND). In this conflict, we need to be careful that we're not walking after the flesh.

And this brings us back to Philippians 3:3. We're to have no confidence in flesh. Let's consider this carefully: it was the religious leaders in Israel who rejected and crucified the Son of God. That's not to say we wouldn't have done the same thing: certainly the Gentiles were complicit insofar as it was actually a Roman who gave the order. But the point is, flesh can be a very religious thing. Fleshly religion generally takes two characters in Scripture: one is sensual, the other legal. The Colossians were warned that they were denying their crucifixion with Christ by being subject to ordinances (Colossians 2:20--23), and they were told that these ordinances were "to the satisfaction of the flesh." The flesh is us loves to feel religious, and it's quite willing to bring us into bondage of ordinances to do it. The Colossians were apparently getting into some weird legalistic mysticisms, the flesh loves that. The Galatians were borrowing from Judaism and the Law, the flesh loves that too. What is the Scriptural judgment of the Galatians? They had been justified by faith, but were trying to achieve perfection (i.e. spiritual maturity) by the flesh (Galatians 3:3). It doesn't work that way: you can't start one way and finish another. You have to walk in Christ the same way you received Him (Colossians 2:6).

This is a subtle error, and an easy one to fall into. But fundamentally, keeping law appeals to flesh. This is the uniform testimony of the Epistles. So Romans 7 begins with the solution, then presents the problem: "So that, my brethren, *ye* also have been made dead to the law by the body of the Christ, to be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4, JND). We are dead to the Law, just like we are dead to sin. And notice, the whole purpose of being dead to the Law is so we can bear fruit to God. You want to be fruitful? You can't do it unless you're dead to the Law. And notice: you're dead to the Law just like you're dead to sin. If you want to say that being dead to the Law isn't really, you know, dead; then you're going to have to say the same thing about sin. We are as finally and completely severed from the Law as we are from sin.

But the problem is, we see lawlessness and we try to combat it with law. It doesn't work: it can't work. We're saved by faith to live by faith. We're not saved by grace to live by law. We're not justified by the Spirit to be made perfect in flesh. We didn't receive Christ by grace to walk "in Him" by law. It doesn't work that way.

Our verse says we're to not trust in flesh. When you reduce the Christian walk to efforts of law, you're placing confidence in flesh. This isn't an easy lesson to learn, and it's counter-intuitive, but it's important.

So how do we walk? Romans 8 gives us the answer, as does Galatians 5. Galatians 5 is more succinct, but perhaps less helpful:

But I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh’s lust. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these things are opposed one to the other, that ye should not do those things which ye desire; but if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law. (Galatians 5:16--18, JND)

The answer in Galatians is, "walk in the Spirit and you'll find you're not fulfilling the flesh's lusts." So, how do we walk in the Spirit? I think it's this simple: look at Christ in glory, this will change you (2 Corinthians 3:18). Then, as we submit ourselves to Him, we'll find we're walking in the Spirit.

Romans 8 gives us more explicit instruction, "So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to flesh; for if ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live" (Romans 8:12--13, JND). Romans brings up the idea of mortifying the deeds of the body (notice the use of "body" in Romans 6--8, it's quite an interesting study). Here's the thing: self-improvement doesn't work. It can't work, it's not supposed to work. The whole point of Romans 7 is that there is sin in your flesh, and you are powerless over it. So you find that when you want to be good, you're bad. This is the plain teaching of that chapter. There's sin in you, and it's bigger than you are. So how do we go about mortifying the deeds of the body, when every time we try to do something good, we find ourselves doing the very deeds we're trying to mortify? This isn't a trivial question: it's what the poor tortured man in Romans 7 wants to know. It's what every sincere Christian will eventually struggle to answer.

Notice that Romans 8 carefully guards against asceticism: it's not that we mortify the deeds of the body, but we by the Spirit mortify them. This isn't some self-improvement plan: it's fueled by something entirely outside myself, the Spirit of God.

Do we understand that? Do we see that our only hope is to be led by, to walk by, and to live in the power of the Spirit of God?

So once again we return to the answer in 2 Corinthians 3:18. As we behold the glory of the Lord (with unveiled face), we are changed into the likeness of His glory. Beholding Christ is transformative. We're changed by what we see when we're looking at Him. And notice we can't look at Him except by the Spirit. The Spirit of God is explicitly given to draw our hearts to the Son (John 16), to remind us of what He Himself said, to show us what the Father thinks of Him. This is the secret to our power.

And really, this is the only power the Christian has. We're nothing, and that's what we're called to. We're called to be nothing, but to have Christ as our everything. God's not interested in autonomously good Christians, He's interested in having people who're absorbed with His Son.

There might be pain here, just like there's pain in physical circumcision. Paul felt it:

Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us: every way afflicted, but not straitened; seeing no apparent issue, but our way not entirely shut up; persecuted, but not abandoned; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body; for we who live are always delivered unto death on account of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh; so that death works in us, but life in you. (2 Corinthians 4:6--12, JND)

Death has to be at work so in us. That's the process by which the life of Jesus is manifested in our mortal flesh. See, God's glory shines in Jesus' face; but that glory only really shines out when it's expressed in unworthy vessels. God doesn't want us to think we have anything to do with it, remember we're supposed to boast in Christ Jesus. So the God who raises the dead (2 Corinthians 1:9) has us under a sentence of death, so that we learn to trust Him.

But it's not only negative. We're not Buddhists, we don't strive for nothingness. Notice Paul wasn't trying to put himself to death: it was God's work in him. He wasn't saying that we need to deliver ourselves to death, but that this is the process through which God takes us. Delivering ourselves to death is just the sort of mystical monasticism that Colossians condemns. There's nothing good there. We're not called to asceticism, but to delight in the Son. I'll repeat that as many times as necessary: when Paul described the principal of death working in him, his focus was on Christ. He wasn't looking at himself, but at the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Look at the end of 2 Corinthians 4,

Wherefore we faint not; but if indeed our outward man is consumed, yet the inward is renewed day by day. For our momentary and light affliction works for us in surpassing measure an eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen; for the things that are seen are for a time, but those that are not seen eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:16--18, JND)

What was he looking at? He was looking at things that aren't seen. He was looking into glory. And notice that while his outward man was being worn down, his inward man was being strengthened.

I've known a lot of Christians who've become obsessive with death working in us, to the point where they forget there's a new man who's not being put to death, but who's supposed to be feeding and growing. We don't grow merely by the cutting away and breaking down of the outward man, but by nourishment, feeding, and sustenance of the new. We're not called to be nothing. The principle of death isn't our calling, it's merely a process God uses as He brings us down the path. The point of death in us is that we would learn to trust in the God who raises the dead, and so that Jesus' life would be manifested in our mortal flesh.

On the other hand, I hear and read an awful lot of "ministry" that encourages all sort of "spiritual disciplines" in order to grow in Christ. I've ranted about this sort of thing before, but I have to say it again: it won't work. It won't work, because it can't work. Scripture explicitly condemns efforts of self-improvement. Scripture explicitly condemns trying to war against sin. Scripture explicitly condemns fleshly efforts. We can't say we have "no confidence in flesh" and then say "next time I'll do better." It's foolishness. It's Galatianism. It's wickedness. We're called to walk in the Spirit. Walking the in Spirit doesn't mean setting your alarm clock to get up early and read your Bible, it doesn't mean making vows, promises, or covenants with the Lord to do this or that thing. Can you imagine making a vow and then saying you've no trust in flesh? Doesn't the very act of making a vow mean you're confident you can keep it? Isn't it, by definition, trusting in yourself? This is precisely what Scripture says we can't do. Consider 2 Corinthians 1:9, "we ourselves had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead;" We cannot trust in ourselves. Making covenants with God is the very opposite of Christianity. It's exactly the sort of thing the Epistles warn us against. We're not made perfect through effort, just like we're not declared righteous through effort. God freely justifies when we believe (Romans 4:5). God gives us Christ as our Holiness (1 Corinthians 1:31).

So let's forget this self-improvement nonsense and turn to Scripture. Want to live like the true circumcision? Then worship by the Spirit of God, boast in Christ Jesus, and don't trust in flesh.

If you really want to be like Christ, look at Him. That's the Scriptural answer. As we behold His glory, we'll be transformed to be like Him.

We strive to know Christ. He is our object, He is our goal. As we learn Him, as we know Him, as we love Him, then we're led by the Spirit. And it's as we're walking in the Spirit that we find we're not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

Psalms

There are several Psalms that are considered "messianic" by the majority of Christians. These are the Psalms that the New Testament explicitly quotes with regard to Christ: Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 69, 102, and 110 are examples. Quotes from the Psalms are scattered all through the Gospels and Hebrews as a demonstration of who Jesus Christ was, and would have been a powerful argument to the Jewish people at the time. No Christian can seriously dispute that at least some Psalms are Messianic, but I've come to believe that the vast majority---perhaps even all that Psalms are Messianic.

Certainly all the Psalms are Messianic to some degree or another simply by virtue of the fact that the Psalms reflect the experiences of God's people on earth. Christ, of course, was the ultimate example of God's Man on earth, so there is a sense where He ultimately fulfilled the Psalms. Now, some heresies and some blasphemies (and probably some blasphemous heresies) have been developed from this very idea. We want to be very careful to maintain Christ's Impeccability (i.e. He did not sin, and He could not sin); so when we go to a passage like Psalm 51, we want to be sure we don't think it indicates that the Lord Jesus was ever separated from the Father for sins He committed. On the other hand, we are positively told that He was made sin for us (although He Himself knew no sin), and so we can fairly say the He understands the full weight of sin. In fact, Christ knows the weight of sin much better than any of us ever will: He bore our sins in His body on the Cross, He was made sin for us. This is a very intimate thing. None of us will ever truly understand just what that was like: we'll never know sin the way He did.

But even if we concede that not all the Psalms can be truly applied to the Lord Jesus, I think we fall far short of understanding the full extent to which they contain God's thoughts about the Son. So I'd like to think just a little bit about Christ in the Psalms. Perhaps this is more of an "application" and less of an "interpretation", but I really think it's valid.

Let's start with the Chief Musician. This title is used in 55 Psalms as well as the last chapter of Habbakuk. The Chief Musician is the Lord Jesus Himself, and every Psalm addressed to the Chief Musician is to some degree Messianic. Certainly several of the Psalms generally-accepted to be Messianic are addressed to the Chief Musician (Psalms 22, 40, 45, and 69 for example); but Hebrews goes on to describe the Lord Jesus as the Chief Musician, quoting Psalm 22:

11 For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises. 13 And again, I will trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children which God has given me. (Hebrews 2:11--13, JND)

The Lord Jesus is the one who leads praise in the assembly: He is the Chief Musician.

Another significant title in the Psalms is "Son of Man." This title is used of three people in Scripture: Daniel, Ezekiel, and Christ. Christ alone is referred to as "the Son of Man" with the definite article, and He refers to Himself that way some 200 times in the Gospels. The Psalms are full of "the Son of Man." Hebrews 1 & 2 would remind us of Psalm 8 and the question, "Lord, what is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man..." And while in context Psalm 8 doesn't seem to be very Messianic, Hebrews 2:6--10 insists that's exactly what it is.

The Son of Man figures in Psalm 80 (another Psalm to the Chief Musician), which I consider to be significant in light of the parallels between Psalm 80 and Ezekiel. Just like Ezekiel, Psalm 80 is to the One who sits between the cherubim (Ez. 1), it's addressed to the "Shepherd of Israel" (Ez. 34), and discusses Israel as "the vine" (Ez. 15). Psalm 80:17 talks about the Son of Man, who is the man of God's right hand.

And even the Psalms differentiate between "a son of man" and "the Son of Man". Consider Psalm 146: we're not to put our confidence in "a son of man", although Psalm 80 tells us that "the son of man" is the One whom God has made strong for Himself.

One title I've often considered in the Psalms is "the man". I think this is also a prophetic title of Christ, although I haven't fully studied it out. Certainly the Epistles use "the Man" as a title of Christ: there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Even Pilate said, "Behold the Man!" (John 19:5). I've yet to find the title "the man" in the Psalms where it isn't applicable to Christ. There are places where "man" or "a man" is used that clearly aren't the Lord Jesus, but "the man" seems to pretty consistently apply to Him.

An interesting Psalm in this regard is Psalm 32:

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! 2 Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah reckoneth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile! (Psalm 32:1--2, JND)

The first verse talks about someone who has sin to cover, the second verse talks about "the man" to whom the Lord does not reckon iniquity. Now, I have no doubt that these two verses are really discussing the whole issue of forgiveness: Romans 4 makes that plain. But I can't help but notice that the phrase "the man" is used in the second verse but not the first. Again, I'm not claiming Psalm 32 is Messianic (Christ had no sins to cover), but that the Scripture doesn't use the title "the man" except where it's possible to apply those statements to Christ.

Along those lines, I have come to believe Psalm 1 is Messianic. It is the Psalm about the Blessed Man, and it describes the life of the Lord Jesus. In fact, I think the Gospel is displayed in vv. 5 & 6. For the first three verses, there is one man who is walking godly, but in the last two verses, there is a whole congregation of the righteous. This is the essence of the Gospel: one righteous Man has stood in the place of countless of unrighteous men, and God has accepted Him on our behalf.

But I hasten to say again, lest I'm charged with eisegesis, that every Psalm is to some degree Messianic, as Christ is the ultimate Antetype of the godly man on earth. So in that sense, even if you don't believe Psalm 1 is prophetic, you certainly must admit that there was no more blessed man who walked the earth than our Lord Jesus.

Even Psalm 23 is ultimately Messianic: it is the song of the Lamb. Doubtless the Lord Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and what Psalm 23 says about the Shepherd certainly applies to Him. But He is the Lamb of God, and we can see in Psalm 23 a hint of the confidence He had in the Father while He was walking down here.

One place I've found the Psalms very helpful in Bible study is in tying together lines of truth. That sounds more "brethren" than I meant it to... what I mean is that the Psalms will frequently connect different images from the Old Testament into a single thought. So when I go back and examine those images in the Law or the prophets, I find the connections made between the different images combine into single thoughts. I suppose a good example is Psalm 80, which combines the Shepherd, the Vine, and the Son of Man together. Or we might consider Psalm 84, which combines the sparrow with the Altar. That just screams Psalm 102, doesn't it?

I'm no expert in the Psalms, but I find myself gravitating more and more to them as a series of prophetic images of the Saviour.