John 14:15 - If you love Me, keep My commandments. As I have studied this verse and what it means for Christians today, who would have thought there could be such a wide variety of views about this simple teaching? The topic in today's post is to show some of the different interpretations I have come across and the problems raised by thesedifferent views as they try and understand why a Christian would / should want to obey Jesus' Commands.
I have come across three different Problems that come from John 14:15, and Jesus' simple Command that if a believer loves Jesus, then we will obey His Commands. As I have previously discussed, when Jesus asks us to obey His Commands, He is not just speaking about loving our neighbors, but instead is speaking about a believer's total obedience to all of Jesus' moral and ethical teachings. And again, I cannot say this enough, following Jesus' Commands does NOT provide us with our salvation/justification. Instead, believer's have a devotion to our Lord and Savior, and out of the thankfulness in our hearts for being rescued from God's wrath we desire to follow Jesus' Commands. Thankfulness and not fear is the reason we want to obey Jesus' Commands.
With that said, let's look at three of the problems
- Obedience Provides Salvation. This is the classic 'works' theology that believes that God will only save us if we are good people, or if we are obedient to the moral teachings in the Bible. I'm not going to discuss this much, but only say that this view is wrong – anyone who is saved is a sinner saved by God's Grace, through faith in Jesus' death on the Cross. So instead of a lengthy discussion, if anyone believes that God will let you into heaven because you are a good person, or because you have done some nice things to help others, let me ask that you look at Ephesians 2:8-9, the Story of the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:17-22), Jesus' teaching at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7), and the 10 Commandments (Exodus chapter 20), and this should provide a more clear understanding of what God's Grace means;
- Cheap Grace. Martin Luther himself, wrote in a letter dated August 1, 1521, the following:
… let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Wikipedia)
And so, are we really to let our "sins be strong" as Martin Luther suggests? Haven't we lead a life of sin sufficiently strong before we came to a saving faith, so that we can have a deep appreciation for the Salvation that is provided only through Jesus? I'm not sure exactly what Martin Luther's point here was (if anyone has access to the full text of his August 21, 1521 letter, I'd love to see it), but it implies we should continue on in sin though we have died to it. And of course, Martin Luther was very familiar with Romans 6:1-2, which I think addresses this whole problem of 'Cheap Grace'. Here is Romans 6:1-2:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
And so, I guess we could ask Paul's question in Romans Chapter 6 in a slightly different way, to those who agree with this partial statement from Martin Luther, or any other form of Cheap Grace: – shall we go on sinning, so that our appreciation for Christ's death abound? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Those who don't follow the Commands in the Bible, and try and live a holy, righteous life, may be living a life of 'Cheap Grace', and so let's quickly move to the last problem.
- Dispensational Problem with Obedience to Jesus' Commands. This is the most interesting of the Problems. Remember, Dispensationalism is closely tied with the Pre-Millennialism End-Times view (see my previous March 21, 2008 Post). Pre-Millennialism is the leading End-Times view in the Church today. In the Scofield Reference Bible a dispensation is "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" Dispensationalism says that God uses different means of administering His will and grace to His people. These different means coincide with different periods of time. Scofield says there are seven dispensations: of innocence, of conscience, of civil government, of promise, of law, of grace, and of the kingdom. Dispensationalists interpret the scriptures in light of these (or other perceived) dispensations.
And so, here is the problem – Dispensationalists may view some of the Commands of Jesus as applying to someone else, or even to a future time, and thus they do not have to be followed for today's Christians. An example of the Dispensational Problem comes when reading teachings like Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Dispensationals may have an odd interpretation that either Jesus was only speaking to the people of Israel with His Sermon on the Mount. Or worse yet, that this Sermon was only intended for those living in the Millennium (the Dispensation of 'the Kingdom', the last dispensation). This is a subject that looks like it is ripe for discussion, but I need to learn more about Dispensationalism, so if you know of any good resources, I'd appreciate any help that can be provided.
And so, I do not view any of these Problems as a reason why any Christian should not follow Jesus' Command that if we love Him, then we should follow or obey His Commandments. In my next posts, I will try and organize and summarize what this Obedience looks like. God bless you this week.
6 comments:
Here you go again, bashing dispensationalism... just kidding. I know the approach you are taking is not anti-anything per se, but merely trying to figure out what the Bible is saying. Just two thoughts for you to help with the dispensationalism stuff:
First, everyone, including covenenantalists, amils, etc. believe in "dispensations". The term "dispensation" has been given to dispensationalism because it is a theme that is emphasized in their theology, just as covenants are a theme emphasized covnental theology. Moreover, when you list all of those dispensations in the Scofield Bible, you need to recognize that not all dispensationalists agree on that list. There is a huge difference between the average dispensationalist today and the average dispensationalist 100 years ago. While it is important to know the past of dispensationalism, to have a better understanding of it you need to read more recent works.
Second, in light of that, I think it is difficult to apply a “dispensational interpretation” to specific texts very easily because there is little agreement among dispensationalists much of the time, including (if I understand it right) areas like the Sermon on the Mount. When I write on various dispensationalist interpretations of passages of Scripture I usually try to label the views along with those who actually hold those views because it is so difficult to make blanket statements.
As far as books to read, among the ones I have been introduced to these have been the most helpful. Far and away the best in helping me understand the entire discussion is the book, Continuity and Discontinuity edited by Feinberg. One other great introductory book on dispensationalism was actually just published by a professor of mine, Michael Vlach. It’s entitled Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. While the brand of dispensationalism promoted by my school is not main stream in light of history, it is, I think, the most biblical form of dispensationalism out there (though I’m still working through the issues myself). Here are links to those books:
http://www.amazon.com/Continuity-Discontinuity-Perspectives-Relationship-Testaments/dp/0891074686/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223846973&sr=8-1
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/dispensationalismbook.html
bry
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for trying to help me better understand Dispensationalism with the books you cited. I will try one day to look at these books - because it's a topic that interests me.
But I want to keep us focused on the main part of why I brought up Dispensationalism here - I raised it because there are many Commands of Jesus, and I was TRYING to show that there are no good reasons for Christians who read the Bible literally to avoid these Commands. In other words, Christians should love to follow Jesus' Commands. I hope to have the first list posted in a couple of days...
"Instead, believer's have a devotion to our Lord and Savior, and out of the thankfulness in our hearts for being rescued from God's wrath we desire to follow Jesus' Commands. Thankfulness and not fear is the reason we want to obey Jesus' Commands."
I would argue this point. You're starting in the middle here. God defines sin, and promises punishment for those who don't return to the fold. This is clearly a basis of guilt and fear. Only then does he offer salvation through Jesus, who is really God, for which you are grateful. It's like he's playing both halves of Good Cop/Bad Cop.
When someone throws you into a lake wearing cement shoes, then waits until you're almost blacked out before throwing you a branch that is coated with axle grease to pull yourself out with, are you expected to be all gooey-happy with your "rescuer"?
"I'm not sure exactly what Martin Luther's point here was (if anyone has access to the full text of his August 21, 1521 letter, I'd love to see it), but it implies we should continue on in sin though we have died to it."
I think Martin Luther was being dramatic. He was actually saying that we are all sinners, and cannot achieve a sin-free life, so as long as we ask for continual forgiveness (by accepting Christ's sacrifice), we will still receive God's grace. He was also saying that no matter how great your sins, you can still be saved. I doubt he was really advocating Cheap Grace.
Of course, I don't actually accept ML's message there, but even I get disgusted by those actually advancing a Cheap Grace philosophy. I don't really think it fools anyone, not even themselves...
Quoting Ed, "I would argue this point. You're starting in the middle here. God defines sin, and promises punishment for those who don't return to the fold. This is clearly a basis of guilt and fear. Only then does he offer salvation through Jesus, who is really God, for which you are grateful..."
TW: Good point Ed. Some go into Christianity only as some kind of fire insurance, so that they will not be punished in hell. But they may be misunderstanding the Gospel/Good News. Because once you see that you are a sinner, and that God is rightfully angry at how you have lived your life without Him, you have the starting place called the 'Fear of God'. And with the fear of God, also comes the start of gratitude, that for some reason God has opened your eyes to see your true condition. Once a person is saved, gratitude becomes the chief motivation for believers.
But you are right that even in the Christian life there can be guilt and fear. It is easy to slip into the old habit of believing God is punishing me because I looked a little toooo long at that Victoria's Secret commercial a little too long, or because I had an extra piece of pizza. But once there is a change in the mental picture that we have of God - changing it from the angry punishing God, and turn it instead into the love-filled God as described in story of the Prodigal Son, then a real relationship, and real growth can take place. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Tom.
You end your blog with:
"And so, I do not view any of these Problems as a reason why any Christian should not follow Jesus' Command that if we love Him, then we should follow or obey His Commandments".
I agree with you.
But that means that Christians will need to obey Luke 12:33, "Sell what you have and give to those in need".
That includes you as well, as you have just advocated it to others.
What Jesus meant in practice by this command is:-
His disciples/followers should not have more than the poorest (where they live) are able to have.
The purpose of obeying all of the teachings of Jesus is not to make yourself right with God through obedience alone or good works. The purpose is to show you where you are sinning, so you can stop.
I have a website at: http://www.veergild.com which you may find of interest.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for visiting my blog and for your Comment. Wow, your use of Luke 12:33 to suggest that we should not own more than what the poorest person in our area owns, is a challenging thought.
Here is what the MacArthur Study Bible says about Luke 12:33:
Those who amassed earthly possessions, falsely thinking their security lay in material resources (vv. 16–20), needed to lay up treasure in heaven instead... Believers in the early church did sell their goods to meet the basic needs of poorer brethren (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32–37). But this commandment is not to be twisted into an absolute prohibition of all earthly possessions. In fact, Peter’s words to Ananias in Acts 5:4 make it clear that the selling of one’s possessions was optional.
And I would add, don't you think that the context of Jesus' instruction in Luke 12:33 suggests that He is warning against the sin of covetousness (see Luke 12:15, :21, and :34)? Richard, you raise a great point though, and I would appreciate hearing more about your understanding of this verse, and your thoughts about Pastor MacArthur's comment.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment