The cross
is universally recognized as the main symbol of Christianity. This
seems strange to some since the cross was the instrument by which Jesus Christ
was put to death. The New Testament itself makes it a symbol of the
Christian religion however. St. Paul
writing to the Galatians said “God forbid that I should glory, save in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I
unto the world” (Gal 6:14). Indeed, the
association was made by Jesus Christ Himself.
When He asked His closest disciples first, Who men said that He was,
then second, Who they, that is His disciples themselves said He was, He
received St. Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
Living God" (Matt. 16:16) Praising this response as having been
revealed by the Father, He then began to explain to His disciples that His
being the Christ meant that He would go to Jerusalem, be put to death on the Cross
- a particularly cruel form of execution ordinarily reserved for the worst of
criminals - and would rise again from the dead on the third day. (Matt. 16:21) He then told them
that if they wanted to be His disciples they must deny themselves, take up
their crosses, and follow Him. (Matt.
16:24) Taking up the cross was not a reference to wearing a cross
as a piece of jewelry. It was a reference to the condemned criminal
being forced to carry the crossbeam to the execution site, as He Himself was
forced to do (with Simon of Cyrene being forced to help Him). (1)
In a book
that was quite popular when I began my theological education, John F. MacArthur
Jr. used Jesus' call to take up the cross to hopelessly confuse Law and
Gospel. The book received the endorsements of all sorts of
evangelical celebrities and even contained an introduction by an orthodox
Anglican priest, the late J. I. Packer, who definitely ought to have known
better. (2) While I am more reluctant to speak negatively
about MacArthur after his behaviour of the last two years – the Solzhenitsyns
and Niemollers and Wurmbrands who stood up admirably against the Satanic public
health totalitarianism usually came from among the heretics and schismatics whereas
the leadership, even that which is ostensibly orthodox, of Apostolic Churches behaved
abominably - the confusion of Law and Gospel is deadly error, which is
particularly obnoxious when it is tied in to a theology of the cross. It is in the Cross of Jesus Christ, which
bears the shape of the meeting of two paths, that Law and Gospel meet, and it
is because of the Cross that they must never be confused.
Law and
Gospel, when juxtaposed and contrasted, refer to the two Covenants, the Old
Covenant God established with Israel through Moses at Mt. Sinai and the New
Covenant He established with believers in Jesus Christ - both individually and
collectively as the Church - through Christ's Death on the Cross and Resurrection.
The Law Covenant takes its name from the Books of Moses in which the
terms of the Covenant are set out. The Gospel Covenant takes its
name from the Christian kerygma - the message of Good News that we proclaim to
the world about how God has sent the Promised Redeemer, His Son Jesus Christ,
how He has accomplished the salvation of the world through His Death on the Cross,
and how He rose again victorious over death.
The emphasis in the contrast is on the opposite principles by
which the two Covenants operate. The principle upon which the Law
operates is exactly what its name would indicate. God commands and
requires obedience, men obey and are rewarded and they disobey and are
punished. It is summed up in the words "do and live" (Rom.
10:5, Gal. 3:12). The principle upon which the Gospel operates is
that of grace - God's favour, freely given in Christ. The Gospel tells us that God’s grace has
been given to us in Christ, we receive it by faith, by believing the
Gospel. It is summed up in the last thing
Jesus Christ said on the Cross before committing His Spirit to the Father – “It
is finished” (Jn. 19:30).
St. Paul
explains the contrast between the two principles this way:
For what saith the
scripture? Abraham believed God, and it
was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. (Rom. 4:3-5)
Later in
the same epistle he declares the mutual exclusivity of the two principles. In talking about the “remnant according to
the election of grace”, i.e., ethnic Israelites who believe in Jesus he says:
And if by grace, then it is
no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more
grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Rom. 11:6)
St. John
expresses the contrast at the beginning of his Gospel:
For the law was given by
Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn. 1:17)
The
mutual exclusivity of the principles of Law and Gospel does not mean that there
was no grace in the Old Covenant or that there is no law in the New. The Tabernacle/Temple, with its daily
sacrifices, and especially the Day of Atonement was all about the forgiveness
of sins and reconciling the offender to God which is only accomplished through
grace. These did not accomplish the
removal of sin, but they pointed forward as St. Paul explains in his epistle to
the Hebrews, to the One Sacrifice of Christ at the heart of the Gospel which
did. Jesus, after the Last Supper in
which He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist declaring the Cup to be the “New
testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Lk. 22:20), gave to His
disciples a New Commandment “That ye love one another; as I have loved you,
that ye also love one another” (Jn. 13:34), a Commandment both similar and
different to the Two Greatest Commandments in which He declared the whole of
the Law to be summed up. What the
mutual exclusivity does mean is that the Law and the Gospel have their own ends
to accomplish, that neither can accomplish the ends of the other, and that it
is disastrous to try and accomplish the end of the Gospel by means of the Law. When the Law is used for its own end rather
than that of the Gospel the two complement each other.
While the
Law forbids sin and requires righteousness it is incapable of producing the righteousness
it requires (Rom. 7). This is not the
end for which the Law was given. In
contrasting the glory of the Law with the greater glory of the Gospel St. Paul described
it as the “ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” and the “ministration
of condemnation” (II Cor. 3:7, 9). This
is the end for which the Law was given.
It was given to condemn. As a
Covenant, the Law was made with a specific people for a specific time. Its message, however, is for all people in
all times, and that message is to the effect of “this is the righteousness God
requires, you do not measure up, you are a sinner, you are condemned”. The condemnation in the Law’s message for us
is not a maybe condemnation – “you
might be condemned if you don’t shape up”.
It is a certain condemnation,
a judgement that is already past, a sentence hanging over all of our heads.
The
Gospel tells us that God, out of His Own love and mercy, has done everything
that needs to be done to rescue us from this condemnation. He has given us His Only-Begotten Son as the
Saviour He promised back when our first parents fell into sin (Gen. 3:15) That Saviour, Who was without sin (Heb.
4:15, I Pet. 2:22) took our sins upon Himself when He was nailed to the Cross
(I Pet. 2:24) and by His Suffering and Death, a work of perfect redemption (Rom
3:24, I Pet. 1:18-19) and propitiation, i.e., turning away of wrath (Rom. 3:25,
I Jn. 2:2) He obtained for us the righteousness of God (II Cor. 5:21, Rom.
3:21-22, 26). That the work of
salvation is complete and nothing more needs to be added to it was proclaimed
by Christ as He died (3) and by His Resurrection (4). This is God’s free gift to us (Rom 3:24,
6:23, Eph. 2:8) proclaimed in the Gospel to all who believe. Believing is not something we do to add to
or complete what Jesus has done. Faith
merely receives what is brought to us through the proclamation of the Gospel. (5)
The salvation proclaimed in the Gospel is as certain as the condemnation
proclaimed in the Law.
When Law
and Gospel are used for their own distinct purposes these messages complement
each other. God, through the message of
certain condemnation contained in the Law, works repentance – brokenness,
humility and contrition – in our hearts, preparing them for the message of
certain salvation proclaimed in the Gospel by removing the impediment to faith
that is our own self-righteous delusion that we can earn God’s favour. Through the Gospel, when it is received in
faith, God works love in the hearts of believers (1 Jn. 5:19), which love is
the source of the only human works that are in any way acceptable to God.
When Law
and Gospel are mixed the certainty of both messages is compromised. The Law, adulterated in this way, ceases to
be the message of certain condemnation to the sinner. The Gospel, similarly adulterated, ceases to
be the message of certain salvation to the believer. Both become the same message in which both
condemnation and salvation are uncertain.
It was by
going to the Cross that Jesus fulfilled all the demands of the Law. It was by fulfilling the demands of the Law
at the Cross that Jesus gave us the Gospel.
It is in the Cross that Law and
Gospel meet each other and we should not try to force them to meet anywhere
else. The call to discipleship
illustrates the point very well.
Contrary
to the way it is explained in the typical sermon, i.e., your “cross” being some
non-specific burden that is particular to yourself, Jesus’ original hearers
would have understood the call to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and
follow Him quite literally as a call to follow Him to their deaths. Since it was made in the context of
predicting His Own Death and Resurrection an obvious opportunity to do just
this was provided along with the call.
At the
Last Supper Jesus told His Apostles that they would be scattered like sheep and
that St. Peter in particular would deny Him three times. St. Peter vehemently vowed that though he
were to die with Jesus, he would never deny Him. All the others joined in and said the same
thing. Of course, things turned out
exactly as Jesus predicted. The Apostles
scattered after the arrest at Gethsemane, St. Peter followed Him to Caiaphas’
palace, where he denied knowing Jesus three times before the cock crow signaled
the dawn. None of the disciples were
crucified with Him that day.
That is
not where the story ends, however.
Jesus went to the Cross Himself.
He completed the work of salvation for the Apostles and for the rest of the
world. He died – and then He rose
again. The Cross led to the Empty
Tomb. The Empty Tomb led to the
Ascension from the Mount of Olives. The
Ascension led to the sending of the Holy Spirit on Whitsunday. At Whitsunday St. Peter proclaimed Christ to
the multitude and three thousand were converted. Later, after healing the man lame from
birth, he proclaimed Christ to the crowd at Solomon’s Porch in the Temple. He and St. John were arrested and brought
before the priests and the Sanhedrin who ordered them not to speak or teach in
Jesus’ name and they answered that they “cannot but speak the things which we
have seen and heard” (Acts. 4:20).
Arrested again and miraculously delivered from prison, the Apostles were
brought again before the Sanhedrin where St. Peter with the others declared “We
ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Much later, St. Peter was indeed crucified
as a martyr for Christ, as Jesus Himself predicted when after His Resurrection
He forgave and restored him (Jn. 21:18-19).
It was
the Cross that made the difference. Up
to that point, the call to discipleship operated on the principle of Law which
cannot produce that which it demands.
Then Jesus fulfilled the Law at the Cross and ushered in the
Gospel. Under the Gospel, discipleship
operated on an entirely different basis, the basis of grace and liberty and the
power of the Holy Spirit, and what was demanded under Law was produced under
the Gospel.
Had a
certain evangelical celebrity from Sun Valley, California understood this he
would have written a very different book indeed.
(1)
The multiple references to the carrying of the transom, both in
Jesus' call to discipleship and in the Gospel accounts of His and Simon's being
made to do so, demonstrates that the familiar T/t - shaped complex cross
was the Cross of the Crucifixion and not the crux simplex or "torture stake". All the
earliest writers who make any allusion to the kind of cross used indicate that
it was the T-shape. Claims to the contrary arise from the delusions of
hyper-Protestants like the nineteenth century Rev. Alexander Hislop who start
from the premise that the Catholic - not just papal, but actually Catholic,
held by all Churches everywhere since the most ancient times - understanding of
everything is wrong. In Hislop's case he thought that everything Catholic
was not just wrong but a fraud designed to pass off Babylonian paganism as
Christianity. He saw the T in the familiar cross shape as a reference to
Tammuz, the Sumerian/Babylonian deity with some similarities to the Adonis of
Greco-Roman mythology after whom the Babylonians named a summer month which
name was borrowed by the Jews for their tenth civil month/fourth religious month in the Babylonian Captivity
and remains the name of that month in the Jewish calendar to his day. Hislop, on the basis of no evidence other
than his own conjecture and imagination, identified the mythological Tammuz with
the son and supposed reincarnation of the Nimrod mentioned in Genesis as an
early king of what became Babylon. All of this deserves to be mocked
as the risible nonsense that it is.
(2)
The same year (1989) that this book, The Gospel According
to Jesus, was published, MacArthur was defending his "Incarnational Sonship"
doctrine before the Independent Fundamental Churches of America.
Incarnational Sonship is a gross heresy. By denying the
Eternal Sonship affirmed in the Nicene Creed and deriving Christ's Sonship from
the Incarnation it implicitly teaches Sabellianism by confusing the Persons of
the Father and Holy Spirit, the Latter being the Agent in the
Incarnation. MacArthur has since recanted this view.
(3)
“It is finished” also has the sense of “paid in full”.
(4)
“Who was delivered for our offences, and was
raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The parallel structure of the verse indicates
the second “for” has the same sense as the first.
(5)
Proclaiming the Gospel is something done both by
individual believers and by the Church collectively. With regards to the Church it is a more
formal Ministry than it is with the individual believer. Proclaiming the Gospel is part of the
Ministry of the Word which includes preaching in the sense of giving a sermon,
teaching if that is distinguished from preaching, and even just the reading of
the Scriptures. The Ministry of
Sacrament is another form of proclaiming the Gospel. Unlike the Ministry of the Word, which involves Law as well and is the Ministry where the danger of confusing or mixing the two must especially be guarded against, the Ministry of Sacrament is pure Gospel. In Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the physical
elements of water, bread, and wine become vessels through which the Word of the
Gospel is conveyed tangibly. The Absolution
is another form of proclaiming the Gospel although it is a bit of a stretch to
maintain that it is also another Sacrament as our Lutheran friends do seeing as
there is not really a physical element comparable to water, bread, or wine. It is part of the Ministry of the Keys, the
Gospel Key that is the counterpart to the Discipline/Excommunication which is the
Law Key, and as such belongs to the Apostolic Government of the Church. Those who have inherited the errors of the Puritans,
and specifically the Puritan error of associating the priestly office with the
Law and the prophetic office with the Gospel - it is obviously the other way
around, the prophetic office being all about rebuking people for sin, the
priestly office being all about provision for forgiveness of sin – would regard
the sacerdotal assertions in this footnote as legalistic. Ironically, these also generally follow the
Puritans in advising people to look to their own works for evidence of their
election, which is another way of telling people to put their faith in their
own works. With regards to individual
believers, proclaiming the Gospel is less of a formal Ministry and consists of
verbal communication – although the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi (amusingly
fact checkers assert he didn’t say it even though what they really mean is that
no evidence exists from his own time that he said it which hardly constitutes
proof of the negative assertion – they would be on firmer ground if they could
find an alternative attribution) “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words” bears keeping in
mind. So does the similarly themed poem
that includes the lines “The Gospel is written a chapter a day/In the deeds
that you do and the words that you say/Men read what you write whether
faithless or true/Say what is the Gospel according to you?”
No comments:
Post a Comment