Meditations on Isaiah 40:1-2

1        Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

2        Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

 

Verse 1 speaks of comforting the people of God, and what shall we say to such?

It is, again, God speaking to Isaiah, but as the type of those who would be accepted in Christ, and as the type of the ministers of the Gospel, for the gospel is the promise of setting aside those heavy burdens that even those chosen from before the foundation of the world labor under, and learning of the humility and gentleness of heart that is to be found only in their Messiah, who Himself took all their burdens upon the cross. His words of tenderness are multiplied in the gospel, when He speaks of those whom the Father has given to Him, so that He wills to reveal the Father to them in Himself, for the Spirit of Truth, who is another comforter, has given them a new heart, a new spirit, and Himself resided within them, for such proximity of the Triune God making Himself at home within them: what more comfort can there be than to know we are children of God through the promises He made in His Beloved Son, setting such as us, who deserve the wrath that He endured, yet are exonerated from it, and even more, given life, into that Life and Light of the world, by the Father of Lights, to become children of light, empowered by His Spirit to live as those who are of the light in His glorious kingdom now, and in the age to come?

We are all ministers of the gospel, though each has his gifts by that Spirit of God, as He wills, and so the word of comfort includes all that is in the gospel, which is much more than merely being saved from the penalty of sin, or the presence and power of sin in this life; so should we offer such consolation to one another, as the apostle Paul, by God’s Spirit, speaks of in 2 Corinthians 1. There is joy in such comfort, for it is of God – times of misgivings and sins will be washed away, trials of persecutions and passions that are sorely tempted will be inundated with the grace of God in Jesus Christ, who so comforted the saints and the apostles in the church He built, for He is yet building it – no other foundation can be laid than that which has been laid, which is our Lord Himself, and we are but workers who build upon it. One thing we must remember is that the comfort of He who became sin for us is the same comfort that the apostle to the Gentiles speaks of, that our Lord spoke of when He called us to take His light and easy burden and yoke and lay down those of our own working, that we may see that comfort of God in the work of the Holy Spirit as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the reflection and emanation of this light of glory, which is His alone, showing forth His holiness, is the greatest comfort, as we know we are His, for we received it of Him, and show it forth of Him, and Him alone. There is joy and more joy – rejoicing ever more – in this comfort, for we were indeed lost in the darkness of sin, yet have found the light of life by being found of He who is the Light of life.

How many and varied are the comforts with which He has provided us with in Himself, that we may share this comfort with our fellow saints, according to the gifts He Himself has apportioned  to each, and in these various comforts, how great is the entirety of comfort that He has given to those who are His!

In verse 2, we see that this comfort extends to that fact that Jerusalem has its warfare ended, and has received double for all its sins. Historically, the time would be the second temple period of Nehemiah and Ezra, and indeed there was a time of peace after the long captivity that started with the Babylonians laying siege and taking away the majority of Israel after punishing her sins according to God’s words by the prophets; however, even in the rebuilding of the temple, there were those who sought ill for Israel, and they had to have their tools of war with them, along with the tools of rebuilding -  the peace was tenuous, at the first, and we find that it did not last, nor does it last, for Israel, as they face others whom the Lord gave them to be conquered by, until we have passed the intertestamental period and entered into the period of the New Testament, where we find Jerusalem conquered and subject to the Romans from before our Lord came until long after. Thus, we see that the warfare has not ended, completely, nor does it show itself to have ended up to this time; as the nation Israel is surrounded by enemies, they are continually prepared for warfare.

This speaks to that which is spiritually true for “the Israel of God,” by which we mean, of course, not the nation, or those of the heritage of the flesh, but of the promise (Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:16; 6:14-16), which consists of both Jews and Gentiles and people from all ethnic groups from all over the world (Galatians 3:26-29).

Since we have a picture of that which is the world that hates us, and so our Lord Jesus Christ, in this verse, how much more ought we to abound in Christian graces towards one another; to count, esteem, others as better than ourselves, not thinking ourselves better by dint of any seeming advantage we have, for the tenderness required of brethren in the Lord Jesus Christ is to take the place of He who came to serve and give His life a ransom for many, and though we cannot ransom one drop or molecule of anyone, because He did, how much more ought out lives to be living sacrifices that extol His greatness and glory, and in such a way that we do not contend, but exhort one another, and even more as we see the day approaching?

To extol the solo glory of God in Jesus Christ our Lord - Bill

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Pharaoh

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills (Ro 9:14–18). 

To be clear God did not love Pharaoh. At least not in the only way that really matters- salvifically. Sure God was benevolent to him for a time. He provided for him (Matt. 5:45). He gave him plenty of opportunities to let His people go. But that is a far cry from saying that God "loves" Pharaoh with a divine love, the ultimate love, the love that matters. It is quite absurd to assert or imply that God "loved" Pharaoh, especially, the same way that He loves the redeemed. It is very strange to insist that God "loved" and "loves" Pharaoh, who is now perishing, with the same love that God has for those in Christ. That would be to diminish the love of God for those "in Christ." It is to wreck havoc on this most precious truth, "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:4-5).


We live in a day and age where many people are presenting that idea. Not in so many explicit words but from implication on how they understand and present the love of God. In fact many of those people, if they are reading this, may find themselves gasping at my "audacity." For anyone to claim that God did not "love" Pharaoh is blasphemy (on near to it) in their minds. It is at this juncture that we must turn to one of the most avoided and distorted chapters in all of the Bible. Romans 9. A chapter in which many desire to avoid and if by chance they venture to it, they end up reading into it their own ideas and thoughts of what God should do and say. Thus (in their view) it is not about salvation but only the blessing of nations or still about man's choosing God.

Before I proceed further it is wise to take the wisdom of Calvin:

The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, exceptwhat Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.*

It is unavoidable to speak of the love of God without discussing predestination and election. Because it is what makes grace so amazing. So divine. It is why God receives all the praise and glory just as Eph. 1:1-10 proclaims.

Sometimes the problems arise when we venture too far. When we go beyond what has been revealed in God's written Word. We can become so inquisitive that we try to pry open God's infinite mind to only confuse and frustrate ourselves. Yet we still have a clear declaration from God that He loves sinners and extends his mercy and grace towards them while at the same time withholding it from others thereby hating them (Esau for example in Ro. 9:13). Clearly from both the Old Testament and New, Pharaoh falls into the latter category.

Of this many do not like and many Christians would even dare accuse of being "unjust," "unfair," or "unrighteous." As if we define what righteousness, justice and fairness are. Would sinners dare put God on trial? In what court? By what standard and with what judge? Oh, but the objections are still around as they were in Paul's day. Just as many in his day took exception with God's declaration:

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Ro 9:8–13).

It is clear from v. 14 that people well understood what the Apostle was saying. They understood that Paul was teaching that God sovereignly loves some and extends them His mercy and grace while hating others and withholding it from them to suffer His judgment. He is glorified in both cases hence v. 21-23. Let it be known that if you are making the same objections that Paul is answering in v. 14-23. You are on the wrong side of the argument. You are the person to whom Paul says in v. 19-20, "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”


Speaking on to the objection that this would make God "unrighteous," Calvin says of v. 14:

Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledgehis righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.

But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if’God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet,notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declareswhat he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and. pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on. his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.*

And Dr. Thomas Schreiner writes:

God is righteous because he is committed to proclaiming his name and advertising his glory by showing his goodness, grace, and mercy to people as he freely chooses. The righteousness of God is defended, then, by appealing to his freedom and sovereignty as the Creator (cf. Murray 1965: 25; Käsemann 1980: 267; Hafemann 1988: 46). His righteousness is also trumpeted by the appeal to his mercy. No human being deserves his mercy. The choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau must be construed as a merciful one. In other words, the stunning thing for Paul was not that God rejected Ishmael and Esau but that he chose Isaac and Jacob, for they did not deserve to be included in his merciful and gracious purposes. Human beings are apt to criticize God for excluding anyone, but this betrays a theology that views salvation as something God “ought” to bestow on all equally. Piper (1993: 88–89) rightly observes that what is fundamental for God is the revelation of his glory and the proclamation of his name, and he accomplishes this by showing mercy and by withholding it. God’s righteousness is upheld because he manifests it by revealing his glory both in saving and in judging.*

It is rather interesting that some people would treat Pharaoh as if he had some claim to the love and mercy of God. That Pharaoh was a poor victim. But such thinking knows nothing of the holiness of God, nor the sovereignty of God, nor the righteousness of God. It is to impose upon God that He must "love" as humans define it and how we express it. They are quick to forget what God says in Ps. 50:16, "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips?"


Concerning the raising up of Pharaoh  Dr. Schreiner writes:

The purpose (ὅπως, hopōs, in order that) for which Pharaoh was raised up accords with my analysis of verse 15 and along with that verse represents the answer to the question regarding God’s righteousness.  I conclude then that God’s righteousness here consists in the revelation of his saving power and mercy that results in the proclamation of his name (i.e., character) in all the earth. The righteousness of God, then, is vindicated in God’s sovereign freedom primarily in mercy but also in judgment to reveal his name. Cranfield (1979: 472, 488–89) goes astray in placing both hardening and mercy under the umbrella of God’s mercy. The very point of verse 18 is that mercy and hardening are antithetical, and no indication is given that those who are hardened receive God’s mercy (rightly Hübner 1984a: 39). Thus both mercy and hardening depend wholly on his will (v. 18), and the sovereign freedom of God is heralded in a most stunning way.

From the “raising up” of Pharaoh (ἐξήγειρα) Paul concludes that God “hardens” (σκληρύνει) whom he wills. I have already observed that this confirms that Pharaoh was raised up for judgment. A careful analysis of the OT text also reveals that God’s hardening of Pharaoh precedes and undergirds Pharaoh’s self-hardening (see Beale 1984; Piper 1993: 159–71), and it is an imposition on the text to conclude that God’s hardening is a response to the hardening of human beings. One cannot elude the conclusion that Paul teaches double predestination here, and this is not contrary to his gospel, but it secures the theme that faith is wholly a gift of God (rightly Müller 1964: 80–81; Käsemann 1980: 268–69; Beale 1984: 150, 152–53; Räisänen 1988: 183–84; contra Mounce 1995: 199).

It is amazing that all in Christ would be the recipients of God's love, mercy and grace! To this I bow in fear and love that in His sovereignty He has not glorified His name in my destruction, even though He has every right to, as He did Pharaoh. He could have let me continue to let me hate Him to my own judgment but instead He set His love upon all in Christ, of which I am, and made me to love Him all the more for His grace towards me.


“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16–17). 


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Ro 9:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.


*Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Ro 9:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

*Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (507–508). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

*Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

We can summarise the position we have arrived at like this: the ultimate goal of our quest is a knowledge of God. We are not interested in doctrines merely as doctrines, but simply as they bring us to know God. The supreme ‘end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever’ (The Shorter Catechism)...

But the Bible is not like that—merely literature. We do not go to the Bible in that way. The question, therefore, arises: How are these doctrines to be found in the Bible? How is one to discover them? Now that is no idle question, as I think I can show you very easily. But it is never enough to say, ‘I am not interested in doctrines. I’m a Bible person. Let these clever people argue about doctrines if they like; you give me the Bible and I am satisfied.’ That is a very foolish, indeed, a ridiculous, statement to make, because people who come to the Bible must believe something as the result of reading it. The question is: Are they believing what they ought to believe?

Most of the cults which are so prominent in the world today claim that they are based upon the Bible. ‘Of course,’ they say, ‘we believe everything that the Bible says; our teaching is based upon it.’ Indeed, you will find that some of these people appear to know their Bibles very well. So it is no use just saying to them that you do not believe as they do because you believe the Bible. We must know how doctrine is to be found in the Bible if we hope to deliver these people in any way at all, if we are anxious to make them true Christians and to bring them to a real knowledge of God. We must be in a position to explain to them where they go wrong and where they are not biblical, and to help them to understand the source of their error.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (34–36). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Adam and Eve

It hasn't been until the last two centuries that the love of God that, instead of His holiness helping define His love, His love has defined His holiness. In other words many Christians believe and present the notion that God is holy because of the way He loves. The idea says that God loves us the way no one else can and will. Therefore, in large, that is what makes Him holy.

It is true that God loves sinners in a way that only He can. But that is a far cry from understanding His holiness. It is one thing to say that God has infinite love and compassion on people that cannot be experienced elsewhere. But it is quite another to identify His holiness or His being in primarily (or only) those terms.

It has never been that way biblically and historically. Men have always had a difficult time understanding how an absolute holy God could love people of whom He says, "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds" (Je 17:9–10). 


Adam and Eve post fall were no different. Before the treachery, the great rebellion, the act of defiance they enjoyed the interaction they had with God. He loved them and they loved Him and interacted with Him. But after they sinned and betray their God we find that they fear Him. They attempt to hide from God in fear and terror:

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. 

 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” (Ge 3:6–10 emphasis mine). 

Oh, something changed. Now they were hiding in fear of God. I believe it was genuine fear. Not as some assert that it was they were embarrassed only because they disappointed God. Although I believe that has some bearing but they really did now fear God. The act of sin changed everything. They (and all humanity with them) became "dead in their trespasses and sins." Their hearts, thoughts, emotions all effected by sin. They became corrupt. They defied their Maker. The One that loved and created them. He kept them in His presence and interacted with them. Then they become turncoats. Traitors. Committing evil against Him.

That is why they cowered in fear. They knew how infinitely holy He is. They know nothing evil or wrong resides in His being. He is pure, righteous, just and good. They on the other hand mad themselves the exact opposite.

What was God's  response? It wasn't just to brush it all aside and say, "don't worry I love you." No, His holiness takes precedence in the account. He immediately brings justice and pronounces curses on all guilty parties:

The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” 

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return "(Ge 3:14–19). 

Clearly the holiness of God is emphasized here. It is on display. He acted for His own sake. He brings swift justice and judgment so that we may know He is the Lord. God's concern is for His glory because He is, "holy, holy, holy." There is none, nor will ever be, any like Him.

After the display of His holiness in there judgement we see Him turn and act in love. After bringing curses upon them He then turns and provides a temporary atonement to foreshadow the ultimate atonement of Christ. A promise given back in the curse of the serpent (Ge. 3:15). They needed to be clothed (proof of the need for the imputed righteousness of Christ). We find God lovingly, graciously and mercifully providing it through through the killing of an animal and covering them with the skins. Of course this was to foreshadow the killing of His own Son to glorify His name in the salvation of His people; by washing them in His blood and clothing them with His righteousness (imputation).

Do you now see how much more God's love is meaningful viewed in light of His holiness? How much more glory He receives in lavishing it upon His sheep? How much more loved we are than the overly humanistic idea of what passes for "love?" How much more His love says about Him than us yet does not nullify the meaning of His love for us?

This is why we can plead to the stead fast love of God. Why we can at the same time plead that He do it for His own goodness. That it is about His glory but yet He glorifies His name in His love for us:

   Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O LORD! Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in the way. He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.All the paths of the LORD are steadfast love and faithfulness,for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies. For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great (Ps 25:7–11 emphasis mine).

The problem we are encountering today is the notion of "self-love" from understanding God's "love" for us.
Here Alistair Begg notes:

Consider the preoccupation so many have with finding a church that will "meet their needs," matched by the feverish attempt of many churches to find out what their "customers" want and then to supply it. And what about the almost wholesale acceptance of the notion that learning how to love ourselves is the key to loving God and others? What the apostle Paul described to Timothy as an essential problem-"in the last days [people] will be lovers of themselves" (2 Timothy 3:1-2)-has come to be seen as a solution. How different this is from the perspective of John Calvin: "Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself."*

The sovereign Lord is indeed, "holy, holy, holy" and his love must be understood in light of it. His holiness should not be understood in light of His love. May we say along with David, "For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great."


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Alistair Begg. Made For His Pleasure: Ten Benchmarks of a Vital Faith (Kindle Locations 74-75). Kindle Edition.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And The Apostle Paul

The fact that I can still say, even as a Christian, along with the Apostle Paul, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Ti 1:15) does not make me feel less loved by God because I am reminded that I am what I am- a sinner saved by grace. It really makes me realize how much I am loved by the Almighty. If a godly man like Paul could say it, of course in different words, at the beginning of his Christian life, he certainly did not feel any less loved  by calling himself a sinner at the end of his earthly Christian life.

Why? Because he was confronted by the glory of Christ ( Acts 9:1-9). A glory that immediately laid him to the ground, blinded him and caused the men with him to go speechless. Saul of Tarsus came to encounter the holy God that he hated and persecuted. Like others- Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, James, John and Peter he was granted a special encounter with the living God and received a glimpse of His Majesty. He was able to say, in different words as we shall see, what Isaiah uttered in the presence of the thrice holy God, "And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Is 6:4–5). And what Peter uttered in the presence of Christ, "But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:7–8). 


Paul encountered that same holiness and glory. He was humbled and laid waste by the holiness of Christ. A man who sought consolation is his own obedience, after that encounter and saw how vile he was, was able to write:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— (Php 3:3–9 emphasis mine).

Paul, it seems, had no problems being self-deprecating (even after being "accepted in the Beloved") after encountering the holiness of Christ. He is quite graphic. The word translated "rubbish" literally means  "dung," "refuse," or "excrement." Not a very flattering picture. But this is what happens when one understand the holiness of God. Of course he is not referring to his person per se. He is referring to everything he placed value in as his acceptance before God. He attributed everything to his own efforts. Today people go one step further and believe that just because God created them, then just by virtue of that, He must "love" them all with a sentimental "love." But the consistent biblical testimony of those that understood the holiness of God are statements like this:

“Dominion and fear are with God; he makes peace in his high heaven. Is there any number to his armies? Upon whom does his light not arise? How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!”(Job 25:2–6).

Of course what Bildad said was truth but his problem is he left no room for the love and mercy of God. We have reverted the problem. We leave no room for His holiness. We do not view ourselves in light of God's majesty. But when we do, we see how much God does love us. That is why many would ask God who is the son of man that you are mindful of him or like job, "What is man, that you make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him, visit him every morning and test him every moment?"(Job 7:17–18).We are the crown of his creation but the love of God says more about Him than it does us.

Paul certainly understood his unworthiness compared to God. At the same time Paul could confidently proclaim, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ro 8:38–39 emphasis mine). He therefore knew what the love of God is. But lest you read a false view of God's love in the above passage-there is one little word, one little preposition that undercuts the modern worldly understanding of "love" in verse 39. It is the word "in." That is God's ultimate and highest love is not for all people. It is for those He lavishes it on "in Christ." My friends, not all are in or will be "in Christ." It is the same kind of love that was poured on Jacob and withheld from his brother Esau, who was "hated" by God (Ro. 9:13).

Sure go ahead and try to turn "hated" into "loved less." You still have the same objection that you are trying to avoid. That God, in some sense, did not "love" Esau in the same way He loved Jacob. And in the context it is in a salvific manner. Not, as some object, in simple reference to the blessing of nations. Let me foolishly try to use a human illustration (I'm aware that all analogies and illustrations break down at some point) to point something out. If my wife were to tell me that she loved all men the same way she loved me but that I was the only one that proposed to her and yet she still loves those men the same way she loves me. How would that make me feel "loved?" It wouldn't. How would it comfort  or console me? It couldn't.

When I look at Gods love, not just for me, towards sinners I am brought to my knees in tears. That God, in all His holiness, would love us when in all reality we deserve His hatred just like Esau. So it's, as has been pointed out before, that the struggle should not be why did God hate Esau? But why did He love Jacob? Of course God is love. Of that there is no doubt. But to understand this precious truth of God's love one must come to face His holiness. Then, like Paul, they can never be uncomfortable calling themselves sinners.The second a believer becomes uncomfortable being identified as a sinner is the moment they have taken amazing out of grace.

To wrap things up, a person must be confronted with the holiness of God before they will be amazed and comforted by His un -exhaustible love. Otherwise it is only the love of man they are mistaking for God's love.

As the "Good Doctor" said:

But let me come now to the third great attribute of God under this section of moral attributes, and here we come to the goodness or the love of God. You notice the order in which we are taking them—holiness, righteousness and justice, goodness and love. It is a dangerous and terrible thing not to put these attributes in the right order. People have often been guilty of that, and the result is that they have made shipwreck of their faith...

 God’s love is that attribute in God by which He is eternally moved to communicate Himself to others. The Scriptures make it quite clear that the love of God is something that communicates itself; God is eternal, and God is eternal love. That, incidentally, will be our introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity. The very fact that God is love is proof, in a sense, of the Trinity. Because God is eternal and eternal love, there must have been someone whom He always loved. That makes the doctrine of the Trinity an absolute necessity (emphasis mine).*

We will never know the depths of God's love for us. We can never separate ourselves from His love. We can never exhaust it. The cross of Christ is a public display of God's glory and His love for sinners. But we must never forget that one little preposition and the sphere of that love- "in Christ." Again, the love of God says more about Him than it does about us.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (74). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books

Nothing Wrong With Religion

I've been asked plenty about the video above. Here are my observations:

There is nothing wrong with religion, per se, but there IS something wrong with the use of the word, as used in this video. Religion as defined by our contemporary "Christian" culture is, "man working his way up to God". The problem with this definition, is that it is no where used in any dictionary. It might sound cool to tell your non-Christian friends that you "hate religion". But the reality of the matter, is that there is a "religion that is pure and undefiled before God, The Father" (James 1:27-ESV). Some argue that it is a matter of semantics, but, I believe that semantics is important. What words mean, have meant, are important in our use of them today. Others say that he qualifies his statement, but no where do we see a qualification in this video. "Jesus hates religion", the gentleman keeps repeating in his spoken-word, but no where in scripture do we see such a statement. What I think he means, and this is where I can appreciate the video, is that Jesus hates hypocrisy (surely, that is true). But, we cannot simply take words and turn them upside down. Art form (when it is Christian), no matter what it is (e.g., music), ought to carefully use words and not strip them from their historical meaning. Don't we rage in anger when people use the word "Christian" for something that is false and in contradiction to what Christianity has historically meant? Then is it not hypocritical for us to take the word religion and do the same?
The Christian church has historically used the word religion in a positive light (The classic work of John Calvin comes to mind, or Jonathan Edwards's treatise on true religion). I, and others, will continue to do the same. 

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Luther

This is not an easy subject by any means. We are far too accustomed to view God in, almost exclusive, terms of His love than any other attribute. We exacerbate the problem even more when we filter God's other attributes in light of a human definition of "love." The kind of "love" that is sentimental, demanded to be lavished on all people equally the same, and has to be about us and not God. A type of love that, well, doesn't give give me reason to bow before God in fear, worship, praise, love, thanksgiving and it certainly doesn't give me any comfort because, in some sense, He must love me (in however way you wish to explain it).

A love that that is divorced and not understood in light of God's absolute holiness (not vice versa) is not the love that God has expressed and revealed in His written Word and incarnation. Even a simple reflection of John  3:16 expresses this idea. Yet we've even managed to turn that verse into pure sentimentality even though God's holiness is evident in the verse and surrounding passages. To "perish," "be condemned already," "judgement," and "wrath" (v.31) are all expressions of God's righteousness and justice which are manifestations of His holiness. But we have so humanized the "love" of God that even unbelievers are no longer surprised that God would love sinners. Quite the contrary. They are so continually told that "Jesus loves you" or "God loves you" that they now demand that a loving God will never condemn them and they need not fear Him.

When I was a new Christian I attempted to share the Gospel with a very vocal God hating gentleman. My approach was to soften him up and hammer home on the "love" of God. I vividly remember the account. We were both walking back to our cells after a lengthy discussion on Christianity. His cell door was next to mine and as we were walking in closing our doors I looked to him and said, " Jaime, Jesus loves you." He responded with a very smug and confident look and replied "I know." That was it. No surprise, amazement or shock that an absolute holy God that hates evil would love a sinner that has committed such evil. There as no I want to hear more about this. Just utter confidence that God loved him and that is all that mattered. Even as he was standing in hatred of God.

He was not struggling as Luther (and most others before the last couple of centuries) did. That Luther feared and was tormented by the thought of God's holiness and the judgment that awaited sinners. He, in fact, hated God before his conversion because He believed that God demanded justice and righteousness, flowing from His holiness, that he fell far, far short of. He tried his best to attain it through his own life and efforts. The more he tried the more he failed and hated the righteousness of God until he came to the phrase "the just shall live by faith" and in his own words recounts his conversion:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

 At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scripture from memory. I also fount in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us wise, the strenght of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.*

Why was Luther such a godly and Christ loving man? Precisely because he understood what grace is. That an infinitely holy God, whom Luther deserved (and everyone else) His righteous fury, would be merciful to him and set his love and affections upon him, not by virtue of Luther's worth, but out of God's own will, pleasure and for God's own glory. That God would crush His own Son and raise Him from the grave to reconcile sinners to Him, was for Luther, the greatest expression of God's love.

Note what is lacking in Luther's conversion. The modern idea that all he needed to hear is a verbal, sappy, sentimental expression of how much Jesus "loved" him wouldn't, and couldn't, have helped anyone let alone Luther. I believe to the contrary, that if he were to have had someone come up to him during his great distress and say, "Don't worry Martin, Jesus loves you," Luther would have flung a candle at him instead of the devil. What Luther needed to know was how God's righteousness and glory could be maintained in the justification of sinners. He learned through the reading of the Holy Writ that Christ, at the cross, took his sins (Luther's) upon His (Christ's) shoulders and imputed (transferred to his account) His righteousness. Luther, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, was able to comprehend that the cross was about the glory of God first and foremost and yet His love for sinners was on display for His own glory. That is why he could later say that the cross is "where wrath and mercy meet."

Luther knew both biblical truths:

You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened. For I knew that you would surely deal treacherously, and that from before birth you were called a rebel. “For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Is 48:8–11).

You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities. “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins" (Is 43:24–25 emphasis mine).


And:


For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God"(Ro 5:7–9).

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" 

(Ro 3:21–26).

The Most High must be holy, holy, holy before you can grasp His love of sinners. I cannot and will not proclaim Christ to Christians and non Christians apart from emphasizing His holiness. For if one wants to understand the depth of God's love for rebels then they must come to terms with his holiness. I make no apologies for it.

Be on the look out for more to come on this subject.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


* Quote taken from this website