I Want to Be Called an Antinomian

Yes, that's right. I want to be called an antinomian.

Why? Because Jesus (Matt. 5:17, Luke 6:1-11), Stephen (Acts 6:13), and Paul (Acts 18:13, 21:28) were all called antinomians, and since they were called antinomians, I want to be called an antinomian.

To be called an antinomian means to be charged with being opposed to the law. Jesus and the early Christians were charged with being opposed to the law. Whatever they were saying and doing brought upon them this charge. I also want to say and do the same things that prompt others to charge me with being opposed to the law.

I want you to notice carefully my words. I want to be called an antinomian. I don't want to be an antinomian. Neither Jesus, Stephen, nor Paul were antinomians. They were not opposed to the law at all. They were actually unopposed to it. They preached the truth about the law. The upheld the law and its perfect standard and cooperated with the law to accomplish its purpose. They preached that all men are guilty before God, that no one will be justified before God by keeping the law, and that salvation is a gift from God, apart from the law, through faith alone in Jesus Christ. For this reason they were accused of antinomianism, but they were not actually antinomians. Therefore I also want to preach the truth and uphold the perfection of the law and cooperate with the law to accomplish its purpose. I want to preach that the law does not justify us but that it only shows us we are sinners, and I want to preach that we are not saved by keeping the law but through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Only if I do this will I be called an antinomian, and only if I do this will I actually not be an antinomian.

Real antinomians are those who don't uphold the perfection of the law and who preach that men must keep the law to be justified before God. Real antinomians are those who don't cooperate with the law to accomplish its purpose in showing that all men are sinners who need Christ for salvation. But real antinomians think that they aren't antinomians and accuse Christ and his followers of being antinomians.

So I want to be called an antinomian.

There are many Christians who don't want to be called antinomians, but they forget that this charge comes with being a follower of Christ. We cannot escape from this charge without changing Christ's message. Therefore those who seek to avoid being called antinomians change the message so that no one can accuse them of being antinomians. They cease from preaching the gospel in such a way that actually communicates the gospel message, that people are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ without obedience to the law, and are spared the humiliation of being labeled an antinomian. But you can only be spared from this charge when you stop preaching the gospel. Ironically, when you stop preaching the gospel you become an actual antinomian.

I want to be called an antinomian rather than actually be an antinomian. I want to stand with Jesus, Stephen, and Paul. This is why I say that I want to be called an antinomian.

Let's not be people who seek to avoid the false charges and slanders of the world, who never speak the truth lest we be misunderstood and maligned. Let's be followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the most misunderstood person of all time, who patiently bore the charges and slanders of the world for the sake of the truth of the gospel. Let's proclaim the only salvation there is: that salvation is through faith alone in Jesus Christ and not through obedience to the law, even if we are accused of being antinomians. If we are called antinomians, then we are in good company, and are most likely doing something right.

A.T. Robertson on Repentance

The following is A.T. Robertson's comment on Matthew 3:2 from his Word Pictures in the New Testament. Robertson underscores the fact that the word "repentance" is a tragic mistranslation of the Greek word metanoia.

----------------

"Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word “repent” means “to be sorry again” from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it “do penance” and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: “Turn ye.” The French (Geneva) has it “Amendez vous.” This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word. The Greek has a word meaning to be sorry (metamelomai) which is exactly our English word repent and it is used of Judas (Matt. 27:3). John was a new prophet with the call of the old prophets: “Turn ye” (Joel 2:12; Isa. 55:7; Eze. 33:11, Eze. 33:15)."

----------------

For more information on metanoia, see The Great Meaning of Metanoia.

Book Review: "Justification" by N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright is a prolific author and his popularity continues to grow. His appeal is obvious when one reads any book of his, and "Justification" is no exception, for in this book, as well as his others, Wright has a powerful point. He emphasizes the need to connect the gospel with the larger story of the Bible, and points to the general lack in Christian circles of doing just this. To this concern we should all respond with a hearty amen. It is a critical question: How does the gospel of Jesus Christ fit with the promise God gave to Abraham and the larger story of the Bible? I truly applaud Wright's concern for this question. But when it comes to answering the question himself, Wright miserably fails. His handling of the Scriptures does justice to neither the gospel nor the larger story, leaving instead a confused, exegetical mess. Nor does Wright inform his readers about the excellent answers that have already been given by Christians to this question in the past. After reading Wright, if a person didn't know any better he would think that no one had ever entertained the question before Wright came along. Thus in "Justification", Wright fails to answer the question and fails to point us in the direction of answers.

The main problem is that Wright takes a single point that tends to be lacking in traditional Protestantism and emphasizes it beyond its due, reducing just about everything into what he thinks the connecting theme of the Bible is. He argues that the Reformers were wrong in their teaching on the gospel. The gospel, for Wright, is essentially nothing more than a program of racial integration. This program is supposed to be the connecting link of the Bible. Just about every possible text regarding the gospel of Christ is reduced to this program. The gospel, for Wright, is not about being saved from your sins through the death and resurrection of Christ; it's about the breakdown of Jew/Gentile distinctions. He is reactionary and, like all reactionary theology, goes too far with his emphasis. He grabs onto one true aspect of the gospel and makes that aspect everything, excluding the very gospel of Christ itself. Wright unfairly criticizes the Reformers and speaks too harshly about them throughout the whole book. The issue, however, is more complex than Wright says it is. The Reformers in fact discovered and understood the gospel (the most important thing of all, and woe to us if we lose it!): the gift of righteousness by faith alone in Jesus Christ which saves us from the coming wrath of God. For this they are to be honored, even if they were not as perceptive in their day to connect this truth with the bigger story of the Bible. However, the answer is not to throw away the true doctrine of imputed righteousness which the Reformers discovered, as Wright has done, but to better understand how that doctrine fits with the larger story (as it most certainly does). To throw away the Evangelical gospel would be the proverbial 'throwing away the baby with the bathwater'.

The thing that disturbed me the most about "Justification" is that Wright sucks the moral content out of Pauline theology. His definition of righteousness has nothing to do with man's moral status, but has solely to do with God's status, not as a moral God, but as a covenant-keeper, and concerning man, righteousness is nothing more than a statement of man's membership status in the covenant. Thus everything is reduced to non-moral covenantal terms. It almost seems like Wright speaks of morality with contempt. It would appear that the foundational teaching by Jesus on righteousness--the Sermon on the Mount--is non-existent for Wright. Had he taken it into consideration, he would have understood that righteousness is the determining factor as to whether a man enters the kingdom of heaven or not, and that it is decisively moral. Wright's interpretation of Galatians utterly ignores the connection between Galatians 2:16 and 3:10, as well as the Deuteronimic context of Galatians 3:10, which is all about morality. Wright is also inconsistent throughout the book, denying one thing only to affirm it later. For example, he argues repeatedly that Abraham is not an example nor illustration of justification, as the Reformers say he is, but then on p. 209 he affirms that he is.

Wright's exegesis is not carefully executed verse by verse, but is very generally pieced together section by section; it sweeps, skips and leaps, grabbing onto words and thoughts and weaving them into the narrative that he has decided is there. His interpretations will not leave you with a clearer grasp of the epistles, but will leave you with a confused, non-intuitive picture.

In the book Wright has four main re-definitions that he argues for: 1) "the righteousness of God" should be defined as God's faithfulness to His covenant, 2) "justification" should be defined as our identification as covenant members, 3) "the works of the law" should be defined as Jewish ceremonies which mark you as God's people, not moral works. These ceremonial works are opposed with faith in Christ as the badge of membership, and 4) the Spirit's work in the lives of God's people should be understood as the cause of final justification. Wright fails to show how these ideas are connected in any real and organic way. Such definitions, even if there are elements of truth to them, fail to present the full Biblical truth contained in those words, and destroy the moral focus of Scripture, the true doctrine of justification, assurance of salvation, and makes the Spirit of God a magical force with no connection to the inspiration of love stemming from the truth of the gospel.

I do not recommend Wright's "Justification" at all for those who are wanting to understand the doctrine of justification as it is taught in the Bible. It is perhaps only useful for understanding the New Perspective debate. The best book by far on the theology of the death of Christ in the New Testament is James Denney's "The Death of Christ". Also indispensable is Denney's "The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation." For understanding the connection between the gospel and the Abrahamic covenant, read "Israel in the Plan of God" by David Baron, "The Divine Unity of Scripture" by Adolph Saphir, as well as Saphir's "Christ and Israel". These men will explain clearly and beautifully how only the Reformed discovery of justification through faith fits exactly with God's promises to the great patriarch Abraham.

George Herbert - The Agony

Here's a beautiful hymn by the Anglican George Herbert (1593-1633), who showed how the profoundest knowledge of both our sin and the love of God is obtained by contemplating the cross of Christ.

-------------------

The Agony

"Vain man has measured land and sea,
Fathomed the depths of states and kings,
O’er earth and heav’n explored his way:
Yet there are two vast spacious things,
To measure which doth more behove,
Yet few that sound them—sin and love.

Who would know sin, let him repair
To Calvary: there shall he see
A man so pained, that all his hair,
His skin, His garments bloody be!
Sin is that rack, which forces pain
To hunt its food through every vein.

Wouldst thou know love? behold the God,
The Man, who for thy ransom died:
Go taste the sacred fount that flowed
Fast-streaming from His wounded side!
Love is that liquor most divine,
God feels as blood, but I as wine." -- George Herbert

Moses vs. Christ?

It seems the more I understand the Bible, the more I see that there is no conflict between law and grace. Law and grace are not boxing opponents, contending for sole authority in the ring. Nor are they like runners on a running-team, where the law runs first and then passes the baton to grace, after which law stops running because his turn is over. Law and grace are like two paddles on a rowboat. If you only have law the boat goes in left-circles, and if you only have grace the boat goes in right-circles.

The Bible teaches us that Christ is not the end of the law, but the establishment of the law (Matt. 5:17, Rom. 3:31). You might say: "Hold on, what about Romans 10:4?" Consider, however, that there it says that Christ is the "end of the law for righteousness", not that Christ is the end of the law. I think we tend to smudge these two things together - "law" and "justification by law" - but they are distinct. The conflict is actually between justification through law vs. justification through faith; or in other words, justification through Moses vs. justification through Christ. The conflict is not law vs. grace, or Moses vs. Christ. In Galatians, Paul isn't lambasting the law, nor is he rebuking the Galatians for embracing the law per se, but he is rebuking the Galatians for going to the law for their justification, and for not actually embracing the law for what it really is. He is lambasting justification by law, and showing the Galatians that by going to the law for their justification they are actually dishonoring and rejecting the law which they think they are honoring (Gal. 2:19, 3:21, 24, 4:21, 6:13). People are actually snubbing the law when they seek to be justified by it, and people are actually honoring and embracing the law when they do not seek to be justified by it, but learn from it to be justified through faith in Christ. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith." (Gal. 3:24) That is precisely what listening to the law enables you to understand.

"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." (Gal. 2:19) Through the law you died to it as a means for your justification, and to its obligations which held you in bondage to the necessity of seeking righteousness by it. It is not the law that is a curse, but it is being under the law - under the obligation to obey it for righteousness - that is a curse (Gal. 3:10). The law actually is a blessing when understood properly, in that it is a teacher, opening our eyes to see our sin and our need for Christ. The good purpose of the law is to make you die to it as a means for justification (something none of us are inclined to do). It is the law that teaches you this, so that you might live unto God. It is the ministration of death for all those who seek justification by it. By ceasing to seek justification by the law, and by seeking to be justified by Christ through faith apart from works, we are actually honoring the law and embracing it for what it is: the perfect righteous standard of God which shows us what goodness is, and which shows us that we cannot attain this goodness by our works. What an awesome thing the law is! It teaches us about righteousness, and points us away from ourselves to Christ!

This awesomeness and beauty of the law is what I see the Psalmist in Psalm 119 extolling. Psalm 119 should be the anthem of every Christian, even though that might at first seem strange. We tend to think that Christianity is about moving away from the law rather than to it. Indeed, we move away from justification by the law, but by doing this we are in fact moving toward the law. Throughout the Bible, God's complaint is that the wicked are refusing to listen to what the law is actually saying. Those who refuse to trust in God's salvation are those who are rebuked for refusing to hear the law of the Lord, for if they heard it they would immediately turn to Christ. We love the law because it is beautiful and because without it we could never know Christ and true righteousness. Without it we could never understand who God is. Christians do not choose between Moses and Christ; they choose Moses and therefore they choose Christ (John 5:45-47, Rom. 3:21).

Yet not only is the law beautiful and wonderful to the Christian, but the Christian can say, in a special sense, that he observes the law and runs the way of the commandments. This is the same way a Christian can say that he "does righteousness" (what is right). It does not mean that we do righteousness by our works, and it does not mean that we keep the law's commandments by our works. What it does mean is that we are in the way of the commandments when we are believing what the law says, seeing ourselves as guilty, and trusting in Christ for our justification. Since this is the purpose of the law (Gal. 3:21-24), anyone who has not fled to Christ is not listening to the law and therefore cannot say that they are observing the commandments. Those who think they are obedient to the commandments by their works, and those who think they can be, are not taking the law seriously. They accuse Christians of being antinomian and of not taking the law seriously, but the opposite is the case. We need to understand the phrases "I observe your law" and "I walk in the paths of your commandments" in another sense besides works. Isn't this obvious, since no one keeps the law by their works, and yet the Psalmist says these thing are true of him and others? Of course Jesus Christ can say these things according to His works, but we can also say them because we are in Him. It is not our works but our faith in Christ that enables us to say these things with Him. The Christian can say "I walk in the law of the Lord", not in the same way Christ can, but no less truly.

The most helpful clue is found in the prophets. Consider this major theme throughout the prophets, best encapsulated in Isaiah: "O my people, they which lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." (Is. 3:12) Many readers think that what Isaiah means is that the leaders of Israel teach the people to sin and do bad things in their works (and there is some truth to this, especially in ancient Israel). But the essential thing that is missed by many is this: that the religious leaders of Israel continually taught the people that they were good and would have peace with God, despite the clear declarations of the law. "For they have healed the hurt of my people, saying 'Peace, peace' where there is no peace." (Jer. 8:11, 14:14-15, etc.) The leaders taught them that they were safe and pronounced blessings upon them from God. This was their serious sin. Only the preachers of sin and wrath, like Jeremiah, were taking justification by law seriously. It was the prophets who proclaimed that the people were unrighteous and were heading for destruction. For this message they were persecuted.

After the Babylonian captivity, when Israel as a nation became zealous for the law, it is crucial that we see that this rebuke against Israel's leaders remained in force. Contemplate the New Testament: the Pharisees were the religious leaders in Israel, teaching the people to be good and pronouncing peace over them, yet they heard the same prophetic rebuke from John, Jesus and the apostles that the nation had heard from Jeremiah and the prophets. As with Isaiah and the prophets, so with the Jesus and the apostles: everything has to do with the law of Moses. "Because they have cast away the law of the Lord, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel, therefore the anger of the Lord is kindled against His people, and He has stretched forth His hand against them, and has smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still." (Is. 5:24-25) God punishes His covenant people Israel because they have cast away His law. The Sinaitic covenant functions like this: if they keep the law God will bless them; but if they do not keep the law, God will curse them with famine, pestilence and sword. God's hand is stretched out in judgment against Israel because they fail to keep the law. The looming question is: how long will God's hand be stretched out in judgment against them? When will His hand of judgment be withdrawn, and His hand of blessing be extended? The answer is clear: the moment Israel stops casting away the law of the Lord. The Pharisees read these things, and in their day they thought they were listening to the law of God and leading the people in the way of the commandments. They thought they were righteous by their works, and they refused to hear John, Jesus and the apostles who preached to them that "no flesh shall be justified by the law!" (Matt. 5:20, 21:32, Rom. 2:1-25, 3:9-10) Clearly, even after Israel sought righteousness by the works of the law (Rom. 10:3) God's hand remained stretched out against them. The destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans was no less a judgment from God than the city's destruction under Nebuchadnezzar. Though the nation's spiritual condition appeared to be different on the surface, according to Christ and the apostles it was exactly the same. Israel still was not listening to the law of the Lord.

What does it mean to listen to the law of the Lord? How can we embrace and accept the law, even though it is clearly impossible to fulfill it by our works? The answer is: by seeing the law for what it really is, accepting its perfect standard, acknowledging our personal guilt, and by turning away from it as the way of justification unto Christ crucified for our justification. This is the purpose of the law, and only when we acknowledge this are we not "casting away the law of the Lord", and not "despising the word of the Holy One of Israel". Only then are we, in a special sense, observing the law, and only then will God's hand of judgment be withdrawn, and His hand of blessing be extended. This is what the prophetic writings are all about, and they are exactly in tune with the New Testament (and vice versa).

To be sure, Moses and Jesus serve different functions. The law came by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Yet they both were faithful in what God sent them to do. Moses serves to show us the true standard of righteousness required to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and to show us our sin and our need for Christ in light of that standard. Jesus came into the world to serve us by giving His life upon the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. His gracious salvation is the remedy for our unrighteousness problem. Moses makes us thirsty, and Christ offers us the water of life freely, received by all who believe. Moses exposed our unrighteousness and Christ covers us with divine righteousness; but we would never accept the latter unless we saw the former. Moses and Jesus are different, but they are not enemies. They work together, and are embraced together. As Christ Himself said about Moses: "If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47)