I’ve been re-reading Rich Lusk’s excellent essay from the “Knox Seminary Colloquium” where he brings the resources of Biblical theology in explainng and defending the basics of Protestant soteriology, nailing it down from explicit Scriptural teaching. (OK, I admit I have a quibble I was thinking of blogging about; but it is a minor one that I’ll mention at some point). One thing I had forgotten is that he uses some of my material, which means I get to feel flattered all over again.
However, I also had one of those “how-could-I-miss-that?” experiences at precisely a point where Rich is invoking my writings. In fact, I have been teaching a Bible study and completely missed an opportunity to drive this point home because I was incognizant of it. We were covering this passage:
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (ESV)
Now, I have always wondered at the fact that Jesus responded so positively to Peter’s bluster. I never mentioned this because I didn’t know what to do with it, but it has bothered me.
Here is what Rich wrote:
The story of the rich young ruler also presents an interesting slant on the keep-ability of the law. Jesus did not give commands to the young man as a hypothetical “covenant of works” to show him he was really a law breaker. Rather, Jesus is outlining the way of discipleship for this man, which at this particular juncture in redemptive history would have included selling all his possessions and journeying with Jesus to Jerusalem. We know this is the way the story should be read because immediately afterwards, Peter indicates that he and the other disciples have done precisely what the young man refused to do (Matthew 19:27). Jesus does not correct Peter’s claim; in fact he agrees with it, and then goes on to remind the disciples that they should not feel self-pity over the sacrifices they have made for the kingdom because it will all be paid back to them many times over (19:28ff). See Mark Horne online at Correcting 2 Mistakes in the Law/Gospel Hermeneutic and Did Jesus Preach Law or Gospel to the Rich Young Ruler?
The part that I had completely missed and forgotten was: “…and then goes on to remind the disciples that they should not feel self-pity over the sacrifices they have made for the kingdom because it will be paid back to them many times over.”
Peter and the rest had made real sacrifices–the same sort that the rich young ruler had refused to make. Yet, if they really believed in Jesus, they could not really regard these as acts of moral heroism. If someone were to offer a tenant in a hovel a free mansion to live in at no cost, then the disruption and expense of moving would be real. But no one would ever say that the family had “made a great sacrifice” to acquire the mansion.
Faith simply doesn’t allow for us to make a great deal of the sacrifices we have made for God. If we really trust God to care for us and to give us what he has promised, then what he calls us to leave behind, however hard it may be to do so, cannot be seen as some great sacrifice. When Jesus responded by assuring Peter of how much he would get back, he was rebuking any thoughts of grandness in Peter’s statement. The problem with the rich young ruler was not that he was unable to live up to the demands of great moral heroics. The problem with the rich young ruler was that he didn’t trust Jesus.
Thinking about this brings to mind Jesus’ promises of rewards in the Sermon on the Mount and his warning about doing good works in order to be seen by men because they you have already received your reward. The point is that you are supposed to really believe that God watches over you and cares for you. You are supposed to trust him. You don’t need the paltry rewards of human praise when God offers you His own praise.
And this an essential feature of saving faith. As the Apostle Paul writes, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” Caring about praise from God rather than man is, in my opinion, the most challenging ideal–one that proves to anyone who is honest that the flesh is always at war against the Spirit. Love God with all my mind, heart, soul, and strength? Please! Let me just spend a day (or even just a moment of a day) when I care more about God’s praise than man’s flattery.
Thank God that, no matter how sin obstructs us, if we trust him at all we are valuing his praise and his promises, and we are acceptable in his sight through the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Lord. The more we become self-conscious of what it is that God promises, the more we will realize that our efforts never amount to any real sacrifice. God accepts our offerings, but they are no real sacrifice for us.
By the way, if you haven’t listened to Rich’s sermons you are missing something great. Also, my question about Rich and imputation will have to wait for some other day when I have the time. In the meantime, those of you who have read his excellent work might be able to figure out my basic concern here.
Mark,
Here is a problem that I have never seen adressed (and it could be because I haven’t read enough) by those who are arguing for the “keep-ability of the law”:
I am correct in saying that you don’t want to say that the law (in the sense in which you are describing it) is “keep-able” by natural man apart from new life in Christ, am I not?
Romans 8:6-8 “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
If this is the case then I fail to see how this is any different than saying that for those in Christ the law is fulfilled through love:
Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 8:3-4 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
So the law cannot be obeyed by natural man in order to gain salvation, nor can it be obeyed by natural man as the natural outflow of discipleship.
This distinction would seem to have saved a lot of grief in the current debates on these issues in the PCA/OPC/whatever, but maybe I am missing something.
Ben D.
Ben, the distinction is not enough. There is a tradition within the Reformed heritage where it is a matter of dogma that “keep the law” must mean behave sinlessly. To point out that the Law was simply a description of what Saving Faith looks like seems to be a detail worth dying (or destorying) over.
But, following Calvin on Luke 1.6 there has always been an acknowledgment that sinful believers can, should, and do “keep the law.” Ezekiel 18, for example, does not present the wicked with a hypothetical works covenant, but simply calls them to exercise saving faith (and it does so perspicuously, by the way). The description of the way of righteousness is simply a shorthand for the life of faith. It does not imply sinlessness, but is offered to sinners who will repent and believe.
This is, in fact, the Westminster Confession’s understanding of the Law, which insists that the Law is an administraton of the covenant of grace.
No one has ever, Ben, been the least bit unclear on the doctrine of total depravity.
I look forward to your intereaction with Rich on imputation. I have appreciated Rich’s and your theological analyses as much as anyone, but I’ve always had questions about how closely you want to stay to traditional formulaions on certain points. I know there are many possible explanations for this and I haven’t really assigned any particular motive to you, except that you think the traditional categories are best. I can’t wait for that post.