"Justification Without Works" - Quotes from Benjamin Keach

The following was originally published to this blog on 3/3/15. These are select quotes from Benjamin Keach's The Marrow of True Justification, a small book consisting of two sermons from Keach on Romans 4:5. 

The necessity of preaching justification:

"Other subjects a minister may preach upon, and that unto the profit and advantage of the people; but this he must preach-this he cannot omit-if he would truly preach the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Justification and the Covenant of Grace:

"Was it not the exaltation of the glory of God in all His attributes and blessed perfections, which was the result of that glorious counsel-held above between the Father and the Son, before the world began-in the bringing in and establishing of the Covenant of Grace?"

"[T]hat which Christ did and suffered, He did and suffered as a common person: as a head, surety, and representative for all the elect;"

The definition of justification:

"Justification is an absolute act of God's most sovereign grace, whereby He imputes the complete and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to a believing sinner (though ungodly in himself), absolving him from all his sins, and accepting him as righteous in Christ."

"Justification is the acceptance of a sinner with God as righteous, through the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to him."

Justification is by faith alone:

"[B]elieving sinners are made partakers of Christ's righteousness, and the benefits of it: and that by faith alone, as that by which we wholly fly to Him for righteousness, trusting in the promise of life for his sake and merits."

Justification is on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ:

"[B]y Christ's righteousness imputed, he that believes is perfectly justified, and is freed from the curse of the Law, and accepted, and accounted righteous in the sight of God, and hereby hath a certain title to eternal life."

Our works have NO part of the basis for our justification:

"[A]ll works done by the creature are utterly excluded in point of justification in the sight of God."

"Good works done [even] by saints and godly persons cannot justify them in God's sight."

"[S]ince all boasting is excluded [from justification], all works are excluded."

"[E]very man before he is justified is like an evil tree,  and therefore can bring forth no good fruit, no good works; wherefore all works, 'tis evident, before faith and justification, are utterly excluded [as the basis for our justification]."

"[T]he doctrine that mixes any works of righteousness done by the creature with faith or the free grace of God-in point of justification-gives the Scripture the lie; therefore, that doctrine is false, and to be rejected."

"[A]ll works done by the creature are utterly excluded in point of justification..."

"Grace and works (let works be of what sort they will) are directly contrary, the one to the other. (See Rom 11:6)."

"There is no mixing of works and free grace together, but one of these does and will destroy the nature of the other; and as it holds true in election, so in justification: if justification was partly of grace, and partly of works done by the creature, or from foreseen holiness and sincere obedience done by us, then grace is no more grace, or works no more works."

Law and gospel:

"[The terms of the Law and the terms of the gospel] differ not only in degree, but in their whole nature."

"[T]he Apostle proves that the justice of God requires a perfect or sinless righteousness in point of justification, and also he proves that all have sinned."

"[T]he Law of God is but as a transcript, or written impression of that holiness and purity that is in His own nature, and serves to show us what a righteousness we must be found in, if we are ever justified in His sight."

"[Righteousness] must be fulfilled by us in our own persons, or by our Surety for us, and imputed to us."

"The [Moral] Law did not only proceed from the will of God, doubtless, as an act of His sovereign will and prerogative [i.e., as a Positive Law], but as an act proceeding from His infinite justice and holiness." [Therefore, God cannot lessen the demands of the Moral Law without contradicting His holy character.]

"[W]e are still under obedience to the Moral Law, the substance of which is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. By the 'Law' is meant 'that rule of life God hath given,' whether as written in the heart, or given by Moses,"

"[N]o man, because a sinner, can be justified by his own works righteousness, or obedience; but all men are sinners,"

"God is just as well as gracious (Rom 3:26). He cannot suffer any wrong to be done to His holy Law."

"[W]hat we could not do in keeping perfectly the Law, He sent His Son in our nature, as our surety and representative, to do it for us."

"[B]y faith we get or attain to a perfect righteousness; even such a righteousness as the Law requires, by being interested in the complete and perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ to the Moral Law, in whom every type and shadow of the Ceremonial Law, and in whom each promise and prophecy is fulfilled also:"

Gospel call:

"Remember, sinners, you are guilty and must be justified in a way of righteousness as well as pardoned in a way of sovereign mercy,"

"[A]ll we have is of God's free grace."

"Sirs, there is no way in order to peace of conscience for us, but to do as Paul did, i.e., renounce all our inherent righteousness and obedience, and fly to the doctrine of justification by the grace of God, through the complete righteousness of Jesus Christ received by faith only."

Concerning The Early Church Apologists' Teachings on Free-Will

[The following was originally published to this blog on 2/9/14.]

Introduction

The group of theologians commonly referred to as the Early Church Fathers, from just a few generations after the apostles until the time of Aurelius Augustine, taught a position concerning humankind that included the belief that Man has free will: the ability to freely choose between good and evil. This is particularly evident in the writings of the Apologists–those Church Fathers especially noted for defending the Christian faith from other religions and heresies–of whom Church historian J.N.D. Kelly observed, “they are unanimous that man is endowed with free-will” (J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. 166). The Apologists' teachings on free-will may seem to run counter to the teaching of Reformation theology: that the will of Man after the fall is in bondage to sin.

But (at least) three questions must be considered in regard to the Apologists’ teaching on the freedom of the will:

1. What were the immediate contexts of the individual statements made concerning free will?

2. What were the specific errors the Apologists were trying to correct with their statements concerning free will?

3. What extra-biblical influences were displayed in the Apologists’ statements concerning free will?

In this blogpost, I will seek to give a brief examination into the answers for each of these questions in turn, and I will briefly outline what I believe to be a biblical response to each of the answers discovered.

The Early Church Apologists' Teachings on Free-Will: Immediate Contexts

In regards to the immediate context of the writings of the Apologists concerning the freedom of the will, there must be an examination of the documents in which this issue is addressed. As an example of a statement from an Apologist regarding free will, consider the following assertion from Tertullian:

It was proper that he who is the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will, and a mastery of himself, so that this very thing, namely freedom of will and self-command, might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him. 

Looking more closely at our example above, it should be noted that, when he wrote against the Marcionite heresy, Tertullian was combating the Marcionites' heretical idea that the God of the Old Testament is a different being from the Father revealed in the New Testament and that all of the troubles in the world are basically due to the failings of the Old Testament God. Tertullian proclaimed that there is one God: the Creator who is also the Father of Jesus. God created everything good, and he also created Man with free will, that he might serve God or reject Him. Evil enters into God's all-good creation due to the free decision of Man to reject God.

It is crucial to note that Tertullian's statements concerning Man's free will were focused upon the created condition before the Fall into sin. That Man had free will before sin entered into human experience has been the nearly universal consensus of the Church throughout history. Any controversies over free will have historically been centered on the condition of Man’s will after the Fall. That Man’s will was originally created free to choose good or evil is easily deduced from the declaration of Genesis 1:31 that everything as created by God was good, and yet in Genesis 3, Man made an evil choice to sin against the Creator.

The activity Tertullian ascribed to Man's free will must also be noted. Did the author introduce the free will of Man in order that Man may be glorified in choosing God? On the contrary, the idea of free will was given so that we may see that it is Man the creature, and not God the Creator, who is to blame for the sin in the world. As Tertullian concluded:

[T]he goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed.

That God never commits evil acts and is not to be blamed for the evil in the world has never historically been a major source of contention in any controversy over free will, although theologians who have asserted that Man’s will is limited or corrupted after the Fall have always been accused of making God the author or approver of evil. That Scripture prevents us from blaming God for evil is evident from Bible passages such as the following:

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:13-17 NIV 1984)

Likewise, the Apostle Paul prohibited any accusation against God’s character when he wrote:

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Romans 9:19-20 NIV 1984)

When other statements from the Apologists concerning free will are considered, material similar to that found in the above quotes from Tertullian is regularly present in the immediate context. And it is an examination of the immediate context for statements concerning free will from the various Apologists that prompts consideration of the larger historical context of these writings.

The Early Church Apologists' Teachings on Free-Will: Errors the Apologists Combatted

The Early Apologists struggled against two positions that led them to emphasize the free will of Man. The first was the Roman pagan position, which was, to a large degree, influenced by a belief in inevitable fate. This belief was inherited through a focus on certain passages of Homer, combined with the teachings of Stoicism and astrology. The Apologists saw fate and destiny as contradictory to the call for pagans to convert to faith in Christ and so “with very few exceptions the apologists for the gospel against Greek and Roman thought made responsibility rather than inevitability the burden of their message.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971) 281.]

The second position the Apologists struggled against that led them to emphasize the free will of man was Gnosticism in all its different varieties. As Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan observed:

Gnostic systems were based on an understanding of the human predicament in which man’s incapacity to avoid sin or to evade destiny was fundamental. The division of the human race into three classes [two of which could not gain ultimate salvation in their present life] was not due to any action of their free will for which they could be held responsible, but to a pre-determined destiny… The response of the anti-Gnostic fathers was to deny the inevitability of sin.

This insistence [that Man has free will] seemed the only way to preserve both the Christian doctrine of the goodness of the Creator and the Christian doctrine of the responsibility of the creature, in opposition to a theology that denied them both by subjecting God and man to the slavery of an all-powerful fate. [Ibid., 283]

This is seen in passages such as the following from Irenaeus, in which he defends the goodness of God with an assertion that Man has free will; Man was not made as an inanimate object like wheat or chaff, to be considered good or bad with no say in the matter:

For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them: that is, separates them. But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature. But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.

In their debates with pagan and Gnostic thought, the Apologists were not merely seeking to win an intellectual argument. Rather, their desire was to spread the gospel message, persuading all kinds of people to accept the Christian faith. The Apologists’ teaching on free will, in contrast to pagan and Gnostic fatalism, was given to support the claim that people, upon receiving the gospel message, could be spiritually converted. People were not fated to serve the gods of their ancestors, as paganism taught, nor were they locked into some spiritual category denied of salvation due to an arbitrary, impersonal chance, as some schools of Gnostic religion speculated.

Throughout the centuries, theologians on all sides of the free will controversies within the Church have believed the doctrine that the spiritual condition of individuals could be changed due to the preaching of the gospel. Biblically, this change of spiritual condition was seen most dramatically in the Apostle Paul’s conversion as recorded in Acts 9:1-31 and in his subsequent teaching in passages such as the following:

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions: it is by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:3-5 NIV 1984)

And 2 Corinthians 5:17, where it was recorded that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (NIV 1984)

The Apologists needed to defend the Bible teachings that the world was made by the one true God as a good creation and that evil is due to the sinful choices of people. But having established the doctrine of free will as a solution to how an all-good creation could become so marred by evil, the Apologists began to turn to free will as a solution for other philosophical and theological problems as well. In examining the writings of the Apologists, one must observe that no detailed biblical analysis was given by them concerning free will after the Fall of Man into sin and the relation of Man's will to God's grace. As Augustine later noted of the Early Apologists when he was called upon to think more carefully on the relationship between free will and grace during the Pelagian controversy:

[I]t arose that they touched upon what they thought of God’s grace briefly in some passages of their writings, and cursorily; but on those matters which they argued against the enemies of the Church, and in exhortations to every virtue by which to serve the living and true God for the purpose of attaining eternal life and true happiness, they dwelt at length. [Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, I.27]

With the lack of thorough biblical examination into this issue, the Apologists, in their isolated statements concerning free will and grace, drew upon their own perception of what happens in conversion and appealed to the common sense of their audience. And it is just in this common sense appeal to the people of their culture that the Apologists left room for extra-biblical influences to infiltrate their teaching. As John Calvin later noted concerning the Apologists’ teaching on free will:

The ancient [Apologists] seem to me to have deliberately exalted human powers more than was right… to avoid arousing by an explicit acknowledgment of [human] impotence the laughter of the very philosophers with whom they were in controversy… Therefore, so as not to teach something absurd in the general opinion of mankind, they were anxious to half-reconcile the teaching of Scripture with the doctrines of philosophy. [John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius, edited by A.N.S. Lane, translated by G.I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996) 74.]

The Early Church Apologists' Teachings on Free-Will: Extra-Biblical Influences

In defending the Christian faith against Roman paganism and Gnosticism, many of the Early Apologists saw similarities between the teachings of the Bible and certain schools of Greek philosophical thought, which seemed to support their position. This made the Apologists more open to incorporate Greek philosophical ideas into certain portions of their presentation. As Pelikan explains:

In the conflict of Christian theology with classicism [the Roman pagan position mentioned in the previous section], it was chiefly this sense of fate and necessity that impressed itself upon the interpreters of the gospel as the alternative to their message rather than, for example, the Socratic teaching that with proper knowledge and adequate motivation a man could, by the exercise of his free will, overcome the tendency of his appetites toward sin. [Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Volume 1, 281.]

An example of an Apologist who used one aspect of Greek philosophy in support of an argument for free will against another aspect of Greek philosophy which had become incorporated into Roman paganism can be seen in the following quote from Justin Martyr:

But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins… The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]. And this also is shown by those men everywhere who have made laws and philosophized according to right reason, by their prescribing to do some things and refrain from others. Even the Stoic philosophers, in their doctrine of morals, steadily honour the same things, so that it is evident that they are not very felicitous in what they say about principles and incorporeal things. [Justin Martyr, “The world preserved for the sake of Christians. Man’s responsibility,” The Second Apology, 8.3.7.]

Also notable is the way in which Clement of Alexandria frequently quoted from Plato in his disputations with the philosophers in his context, defending the goodness of God with Plato’s writing on free will:

Plato in what follows gives an exhibition of free-will: “Virtue owns not a master; and in proportion as each one honours or dishonours it, in that proportion he will be a partaker of it. The blame lies in the exercise of free choice.” But God is blameless. For He is never the author of evil. [Clement of Alexandria, “Greek plagiarism from the Hebrews,” The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 5.14. ]

Conclusion

In the quotes from Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, we see representations of two major tendencies within the Early Apologists’ writings concerning free will. The first is the tendency noted in previous sections of this essay, that the doctrine of free will was used to demonstrate how God is blameless and how Man is to be held accountable for sin. This is the force of Clement’s appeal to Plato. But the second tendency that developed in the Apologists’ writings is represented in the passage quoted from Justin Martyr: the tendency to represent free will as necessary for moral judgment. The Apologists, drawing from ethical thought found in Socratic teaching, as Pelikan observed, and the teachings on morals found in the Stoics, as seen in the quote from Justin, asserted that apart from free will, Man cannot be either praised for his virtue nor blamed for his vice. A quick response to this teaching would be to note that it is an obviously FALSE assertion that a being must be equally capable of good and evil in order to be praised, as demonstrated in the fact that we praise God for His truthfulness, yet the Bible is clear that “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18 NIV 1984). But the questions of, (1) whether a being that is not equally capable of good and evil can be blamed for sin, and (2) how a sinner can make decisions in line with God’s Word–these questions, which the Apologists believed to be answered by their teachings on free will–would require further consideration by Augustine during the Pelagian controversy.

"Sons of God" in Genesis 6: Human-Thirsty Angels?

[The blogpost above was originally published on 8/26/21. I am re-posting it now, as I had a conversation with some friends about this earlier this week.]

1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:1-8)

Who are "the sons of God" and "the daughters of man" in Genesis 6:2? The two understandings of this text have been: 1) "the sons of God" were men from the godly line of Seth, and the "daughters of man" were women from the ungodly line of Cain; 2) "the sons of God" were angelic beings (actually demons), and "the daughters of man" were human women.

Historically, Augustine (see City of God, Book XV), Aquinas (see Summa, Part I, Question 51, Article 3), Matthew Henry in his commentary, and Charles Spurgeon (see his Morning and Evening evening selection for August 20) all identified "sons of God" with the line of Seth, and the "daughters of man" with the line of Cain.

Recently, the "sons of God"=[fallen] angels has seen a surge of popularity from evangelical scholars. Dr. Peter Gentry gives a clear and concise presentation of this latter view in the following video:

As much as I respect Dr. Gentry, I'm still not convinced of his view (and I still hold the Augustinian view). The following are my responses to particular points that Gentry raises:

Gentry: "Genesis 6 says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, and they chose the daughters of men for themselves as wives."

In referring to Genesis 6:2, Gentry leaves out part of the verse. I don't think that he does this on purpose in order to make his case stronger, but I do think that he overlooks it, because it does not fit in with what he is trying to say. Notice that the verse does not just say that the 'the sons of God saw the daughters of man' but that they saw "that the daughters of man were attractive." The word here is the same טוֹב֩ used of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3:6. The woman (a positive character in her unfallen state) had seen that the tree was "good/attractive," and she sinned by taking from it. The "sons of God" see that the "daughters of man" are "good/attractive," and they sin by taking them as wives. If these "sons of God" are understood as non-human, already-diabolical characters, the parallel is not nearly as strong. Also: I'm not sure in what sense demons would perceive the women as good, nor why perceiving them as good would motivate them to marry. If Moses is intentionally structuring this narrative to have a parallel, then discerning the nature of that parallel can help our interpretation of this passage.

Gentry: "The exact expression 'sons of God' only occurs four or five times in the Hebrew Bible."

"Sons of God" in Job are certainly referring to angels. However, I think the term is referring to them positively (or it, at least, has a default positive connotation). The "sons of God" are certainly presented as entirely positive characters in Job 38:7, in which they are described as shouting for joy at God's work of creation. In Job 1 and 2, the "sons of God" include at least one demonic figure "among them," but we know that because "the Satan" is explicitly indicated (and thus differentiated from the mass of the "sons of God"). In Job, we don't see an instance in which the term "sons of God" is used to indicate only (or primarily) demons, which is how the term must be understood in Genesis 6 on Gentry's interpretation. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar (whatever he knew) in speaking of one "like a son of the gods," certainly does not seem to be proclaiming that he was looking at a vile, demonic figure; again, the term seems to have a positive connotation. So: if "sons of God," referring to angelic figures in Job and Daniel, has a default positive connotation, then do we see this (positive) term likewise clearly applied to human beings in Scripture?

Gentry: "It doesn't actually say that Adam is a son of God... the only time that linguistic expression occurs in the Bible, it always and very clearly refers to angelic beings."

When Gentry says "Bible" in the above statement, he must mean "Hebrew Bible" or Old Testament. In the section just after this statement, Gentry speaks of the New Testament witness, giving his interpretation of passages in 2 Peter and Jude. However, he does not mention how the New Testament does clearly use "son(s) of God" of human beings.

Whereas the Old Testament "doesn't actually say that Adam is a son of God," the New Testament does, in Luke 3:38. Jesus in Matthew 5:9 teaches, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (I don't think that Jesus means to indicate that His disciples shall be called angelic beings.) Also, Romans 8:14 says, "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God;" this might be a general principle, applying to all rational creatures (both men and angels), but Paul definitely applies the term "sons of God" to human beings, as he is writing about our redemption and adoption in Christ.

So the overall canon DOES apply "sons of God" to human beings. And the New Testament use of the term does not pause to say: "I know we've all just been using this term of angels (and sometimes demons?) until now." Rather, the authors assume that readers/hearers will be able to understand that the term does not always have to be used only of angelic beings.

This raises the question: WHY are angels and people called "sons of God"? In the Job passages (laying aside whatever ideas Nebuchadnezzar may have had about "a son of the gods" in Daniel), are the angels called "sons of God" just because that is the common term for angels? Gentry does not get into the significance of the term. This is what I've been driving at in suggesting that "sons of God" should be understood (and would have been understood by the first readers) as having a default positive character. "Sons of God," when it is clearly used regarding human beings in the New Testament, certainly is a positive term. In the Old Testament, would it have been ambiguous to the point of being easily assumed as negative in Genesis 6? In the opening of Job, if the default understanding is positive, then what we see is an all-good and God-glorifying situation with "the sons of God" presenting themselves before the LORD, into which situation the Satan enters, sounding a discordant note. This would be consistent with that "serpent of old" entering the all-good Garden of Eden with his negative motivation. If, however, the "sons of God" in Job 1-2 are a combined group of angels and demons, then the picture is somewhat different.

Gentry: "If Peter is trying to encourage his readers from well-known stories in the Old Testament, and if the angels who sinned is not Genesis 6, then where else is the story? There is no other story in the Old Testament that it could be referring to. Some people think that it's the fall of Satan, but as we see when we're going to talk about that, there is no story in the Old Testament that describes the fall of Satan." 

It may be the case that Peter is trying to encourage his readers with well-known stories from near the beginning of history, but that not all (three) of them are clearly displayed in the Old Testament text. In general, having listened to his presentation on the OT 'Satan's fall' texts, I think that Gentry may under-value the history of interpretation on those passages; I gladly affirm his insights into those texts, but I think that they may also point to something in the angelic realm. Again: to look at New Testament passages and to consider that these passages would not have been presenting entirely unheard-of information may be helpful. In Luke 10:18, Jesus said that He saw "Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" and Revelation 12 describes a war in Heaven with Satan and his angels being cast out. Before these texts were given, the readers/hearers may have already had a concept of 'fallen angels.' Couldn't this reasonably be the background for 2 Peter/Jude (especially if other considerations would point away from Genesis 6)?

Gentry: "[Jude] refers to two events. He refers to angels who abandoned their proper dwelling place, their proper home. He also talks about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he says since they, in the same way as these, committed strange immorality."  

The "likewise/in the same way" language in Jude 7 definitely points to some basis of comparison between fallen angels and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the comparison is not necessarily on the basis of sexual immorality. The comparison could be on the basis of acting contrary to created nature, which might look different for a spiritual being than a physical being. Notice Jude 8: "Yet in like manner these people also [the false teachers], relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones." In Jude 6-7, the angelic sin might point to the rejecting of authority, whereas the human sin in Sodom and Gomorrah might point to the defiling of the flesh.

Gentry: Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25.

Gentry does well in showing how these passages don't (necessarily, by themselves) contradict the position he's advocating. However, they may form part of the fabric from which we derive a proper angelology. In that case, an important question is whether the angels in Heaven refrain from marriage as a moral choice in obedience to God's design for them, or if they don't marry as a function of their very nature, being spiritual rather than physical beings.

The Extent of the Atonement in Hebrews 9:11-10:18

Introductory Illustration

Imagine, if you will, a situation in which a headlight on your new car blew and you found that the design of the headlight fixture was so unusual that you needed to consult the owner's manual of the car in order to know how to fix it. Flipping through the owner's manual, you find that the headlights are mentioned in several different sections: sections devoted to topics like "Driving Safety" and "Your Car's Electrical System." Now, reading through these sections might tell you many things about your car's headlights. But if there were a section specifically devoted to the topic "Headlights," then it would make the most sense to turn to this section first to find out the answer to the question, "How do I change my headlights?" Relying on other parts of the owner's manual alone, rather than examining the most relevant section, may actually lead you to wrong conclusions about how to change your headlights and cause great frustration to you and to others.

In a similar way, when looking to examine a particular doctrine found in Scripture, we should begin by exploring the section of God's Word that is most relevant to the discussion of the teaching in question and not by trying to draw conclusions from various other Bible passages. So that when asking a specific question regarding the atonement made by Christ on the Cross, we must diligently search the Scriptures for sections that explore this doctrine in depth and form our understanding of Christ's work based on these sections and not on isolated verses. In this post it is my intention to briefly examine one passage dealing specifically with the atonement and to demonstrate how this passage presents teachings that are only consistent with a 'limited' view on the intended extent of the atonement.

The Passage in View

[9:11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; [12] and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. [13] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, [14] how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

[15] For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. [16] For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. [17] For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. [18] Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. [19] For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, [20] saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." [21] And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. [22] And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[23] Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. [24] For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; [25] nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. [27] And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, [28] so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

[10:1] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. [2] Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? [3] But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. [4] For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. [5] Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; [6] IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

[7] "THEN I SAID, `BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' " [8] After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law), [9] then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. [10] By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [11] Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; [12] but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, [13] waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. [14] For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. [15] And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, [16] "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, [17] "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." [18] Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. [Hebrews 9:11-10:18 NASB]

The Focus of This Passage

This section of Scripture under consideration, as well as the entirety of God's Word, is focused upon the Person and Work of Jesus: on who He is and what He has done. This is the content of the gospel: the Good News message of the Bible. It is very important to note that what Jesus has done is a crucial part of this Good News, for there are many teachers today who wish to proclaim that the Gospel message is simply that "Jesus is Lord," so that all people who are willing to affirm these three words–whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox–are thought to be co-laborers in the Gospel, no matter how much these belief systems might differ in answering questions about the work of Jesus. But since this Work is deemed so important to the central message of Scripture in passages such as the one presently under consideration, we must strive for a biblical understanding of what Jesus has done. If anyone strays too far from a biblical understanding of the work of Jesus, then they have truly forsaken the gospel message itself.

In the next two sections, it is my intention to briefly summarize what Hebrews 9:11-10:18 has to say about the Person and Work of Jesus.

The Person of Jesus in Hebrews 9:11-10:18

Several descriptions of who Jesus is are found in this passage. Jesus is named:

1. High Priest (9:11)

2. Mediator (9:15)

3. Sacrifice (9:26)

In addition to the three titles listed above, the name for Jesus used throughout this section–"Christ"–tells us another important fact about who Jesus is, for "Christ" means "Messiah" or "Anointed One."

The Work of Jesus in Hebrews 9:11-10:18

Inseparably related to the above discussion of the Person of Jesus is the description of what Jesus has done in accordance with each of the names He is given in this passage. Jesus has:

1. Entered the Most Holy Place, as High Priest (9:11)

2. Obtained the promise of the eternal inheritance, as Mediator (9:15)

3. Been offered to obtain eternal redemption, as Sacrifice (9:12)

According to the name "Christ," Jesus was anointed by God for His supreme work in creation and He perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah.

The Limit of Jesus' Work in This Passage

That Jesus is the focus of this passage necessitates that topics other than who He is and what He has done will not be directly expounded upon in the text. So that the answer to the question, "who was Jesus' work intended to benefit–each and every individual in world history or only a certain portion of the total world population as determined by God?" (a question which focuses on the beneficiaries of what Jesus has done rather than on Jesus Himself)–can only be obtained from this passage on the atonement by reasonable inferences drawn from specific phrases as defined by their overall context: that is, by letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

The Work of Jesus is exalted in this section of Scripture as obtaining a new and better covenant of eternal redemption. This Work is presented as perfect and finished, not needing any addition or repetition. The limit of Jesus' work can be ascertained through the understanding that this work is declared to accomplish certain effects in the lives of a particular group of individuals. This group of individuals is referred to as "those who have been called" in 9:15. According to this verse, these called ones are those who actually benefit from the redemption and "receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." In 9:28, the '"called" ones are mentioned as the "many" whose sins Jesus bore on the Cross. And in verse 10:14 this same group is named as "those who are sanctified"–"sanctified" meaning "set apart"–which group "He has perfected." Notice that the perfect tense, "has perfected," is used to indicate the certainty that the sanctified ones will be made complete by the power of Jesus' atonement.

The Called. The Many. The Set Apart. These are the collection of individuals for whom Jesus' atonement was intended to benefit with eternal blessings. In being limited to this certain group, the work of Jesus is magnified, bringing Him glory, in that the intention of His Work is demonstrated as having been fulfilled. That those for whose sins Jesus died will also be eternally perfected is a glorious inevitability. That God has set apart certain individuals and called them to Himself, needing no other power than Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross to obtain their perfection, indicates that the atonement is limited to the kind intention of God, who works everything according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

Glory to God alone!

[The blogpost above was originally published on 11/29/05.]