Home » Posts tagged 'Jesus' (Page 6)
Tag Archives: Jesus
Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?
A few weeks ago on 9/17/2021 we answered the question “Why is the Holy Spirit named the Holy ‘Spirit'”? We learned that the answer to that question is that, most fundamentally, the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit” because He proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner comparable to being breathed forth, just as the Father and the Son are Father and Son because the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.
What about the “Holy” in this most frequent designation of the third Person in the Trinity? Just as we saw in the last post that the Holy Ghost is not in His essence “Spirit” in a sense any different than the Father and Son are Spirit, so the Father’s essence is infinitely holy, the Son’s essence is infinitely holy, and the Spirit’s essence is infinitely holy (for the three possess the identical undivided essence, as they are homoousios), so the Holy Spirit is not in that sense any more or any less holy than the infinite holiness that is a glorious attribute of the Father and the Son.
So why, then, the “Holy” Spirit?
First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits (and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.) Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son–that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy. In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures.
So the title “Holy” is not expressive in particular of the Spirit’s procession or spiration from the Father and the Son; the Name expressive of the Spirit’s manner of subsistence in the Trinity is “Spirit,” as “Father” and “Son” are the Names expressive of the first and second Person’s manner of subsistence. “Holy” is not indicative of His ontological personal property, but “Spirit” is indicative of ontology, like Son and Father. “Holy” instead is a title frequently adjoined to the personal Name “Spirit” of the third Person in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which “Lord” is affixed to the name “Jesus.”
Since the Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son, He draws us into fellowship with the Father and the Son. He is termed the “Holy Spirit” because He is infinitely consecrated to the Father and Son, perfectly holy in His own essence, and set apart from created spirits as possessor of Divine holiness to the highest degree, who is holy the way only God is holy. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, He is the One who applies the work of Father and Son He makes us holy.
John Owen in his Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit provides a helpful explanation (pgs. 55ff., Owen, Works vol 3):
Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. 51:11, רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, “The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit.” Isa. 63:10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ,—“The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּהַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ and רוֹּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἄγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. 20:8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. 21:8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.
But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. 1:4. And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. 15:11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark 3:29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit,—that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. 11:9], Zeph. 3:5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews,—one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts 13:41,—he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. 6:3, 9–12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25, 26.
There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. 18:10, 19:9. …
To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. 143:10, רוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּגְחֵנִי;—“Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:—rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bono deduc me,”—“Lead me by thy good Spirit.” … So Neh. 9:20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. 19:17; as also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects.
Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 pg. 277) summarizes why the third Person is called “Holy” and called the “Spirit”:
And although the divine being we call God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) and “holy” (Isa. 6:3), in Scripture the term “Holy Spirit” is still a reference to a special person in the divine being distinct from the Father and the Son. He owes this name to his special mode of subsistence: “spirit” actually means “wind,” “breath.” The Holy Spirit is the breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4), the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6). Jesus compares him to the wind (John 3:8) and “breathes” him upon his disciples (John 20:22; cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. And he is called “holy” because he himself exists in a special relation to God and because he puts all things in a special relation to God. He is not the spirit of humans or of creatures but the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11–12; Isa. 63:10–11).
You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here.
–TDR
Reality and Truth: Celebrity Conservatives Versus True Bible Believers
Perhaps you, like me, as a Christian, pay attention to certain celebrity conservatives, who take many of the same or similar viewpoints as you. You know there are differences. Where is the overlap?
Shabir Ally / Thomas Ross Debate over Jesus and the New Testament with Reviews now on Rumble
The videos of my debate with Shabir Ally, and the reviews of the arguments made, are now on my new channel, KJBIBLE1611, on the video sharing platform Rumble. I created the channel on Rumble because I am concerned that YouTube might be censoring or reducing the viewership of the debate now, and if that is not taking place now that it might do so in the future. Please feel free to subscribe to my Rumble channel, which will help other people to see the video. It also helps if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. I intend, at this point, to keep posting content on both the KJB1611 YouTube channel and on the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel, Lord willing; Rumble because it does not censor Biblical or conservative content, the way YouTube tends to do, and also YouTube because so many more people watch YouTube at this point. I have also added links to the Rumble videos on the Shabir Ally debate post at FaithSaves. The evangelistic Bible studies are also going up on Rumble.
–TDR
What Is the Righteousness of the Pharisees That Ours Is Supposed to Exceed According to Jesus?
In what’s called the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:20:
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I’ve heard this explained in a number of different ways, often, I’ve found, in convenient ones to make room for false doctrine or practice. One error I’ve heard says something like the following and maybe you’ve said it. I’m going to indent it, so that you’ll know it’s representing what other people say it means:
The Pharisees were super righteous people. They were fastidious at keeping the law, since they were experts and were so, so into the law. They were very righteous people, just not perfect, which is what it had to be in order to be saved.
Furthermore, there are versions of Pharisees today. They try to keep all the laws and are very strict. This strictness is Pharisaical, and it produces people who are self-righteous and are trying to impress people with their righteousness by being stricter than others.
This representation of the “righteousness of the Pharisees” doesn’t fit the context in the sermon of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t talking about how greatly righteous the Pharisees were, but how poor their righteousness was. That is seen in the preceding and the proceeding context of Jesus’ sermon. I contend that evangelicals use this false interpretation of the sermon to attack both keeping the law and strict keeping of the law.
A misrepresentation of Jesus, that He wishes to disabuse His audience, was that He, as a teacher, was trying to destroy the law. He says in verse 17:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
You could hear, “Just the opposite.” What Jesus came to preach didn’t result in people not being righteous. They couldn’t and wouldn’t be righteous the Pharisee way. The Pharisees were the ones diminishing the law, not Jesus, and Jesus illustrates that in the post context of verses 21 to 48. The standard remained God and not the Pharisees, as Jesus ends the chapter in verse 48.
As Jesus described His position on not destroying the law, He talked about the perpetuity of every jot and tittle (verse 18) and that the greatest in His kingdom kept the least of His commandments (verse 19). The salvation that Jesus taught would produce righteous people. They could and would keep the law — more than that.
Jesus first illustrates His position by giving several examples of the application of “Thou shalt not kill.” His audience had been taught that a particular law or standard of righteousness and if they were at the Pharisee level, they wouldn’t still be keeping the law like Jesus taught that it should be kept. Because of that, they weren’t being righteous.
If Jesus’ audience hated people in their heart, they were guilty of murder before God. If they said certain hateful things, they were committing murder. If they wouldn’t reconcile with someone, they were as much murderers likewise.
Pharisaical righteousness was designed around something less than law keeping. They didn’t really keep the Sabbath, didn’t really not murder, and didn’t really not commit adultery. They didn’t really love God or their neighbor.
The Pharisees concocted means of appearing to keep the law or just keeping their own minimization of the law, what we might call today a deconstruction of the law. With the Pharisees, you could keep the law without actually keeping it. Jesus pointed this out again and again.
You don’t have the righteousness of God when you have that of the Pharisees. You weren’t keeping the law, when you were a Pharisee.
There is an irony to the false interpretation. It is Pharisaical. It purposefully diminishes the law and therefore diminishes the righteousness of God. What I’m saying also fits into what the Apostle Paul said that they did in Romans 10:3:
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
The righteousness of justification by faith produces a righteousness greater than what the Pharisees believed and lived. It would look like the righteousness of God, because it was a righteousness of the power of God. This was having your house built on the rock of Jesus Christ and not the sand of the Pharisees.
The Coddling of the American Mind, Questioning One’s Salvation, and Showing Grace and Mercy
Three veins of thought I recently read and heard come together into one theme for this post. Each of them intersected into a common orbit, like three strangers meeting at an English roundabout and deciding to stay. First I want to credit the three sources.
The first, The Coddling of the American Mind, was mentioned by popular linguist and author, Columbia professor John McWhorter at Substack in a part of his anti-anti-racist series, the article titled, Black Fragility as Black Strength. He borrowed from the recent conservative book, The Coddling of the American Mind, for the outline of his article. The title of that Lukianoff and Haidt book also takes from a now classic published in 1987 by University of Chicago professor, Allan Bloom, titled, The Closing of the American Mind. The coddling of the American mind is a later iteration of closing the American mind, both occurring on university campuses. Truth approaches a coddled mind and it closes like the Mimosa pudica to escape injury, remaining in error.
Questioning salvation is scriptural. At least two books of the New Testament, 1 John and James, have this as their subject matter. Parts of several other New Testament books speak to the unconverted in a mixed multitude, including Hebrews. Jesus Himself addresses this crowd. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.”
With an attitude of great surprise, Tim McKnight on his post, “Social Media: 7 Tips for Christians,” started with these two sentences:
Last night I experienced a first on social media. A person claiming to follow Jesus Christ questioned my salvation.
McKnight, a person claiming to follow Jesus Christ, questioned someone questioning his salvation. The Apostle Paul said, question people’s salvation, Jesus questioned people’s salvation, and every true evangelist will question someone’s salvation. It shouldn’t have been a first on social media, but this was considered an offense.
The above offense of questioning salvation then also dovetails with number three, a sermon I was listening to on Christian radio in our area, where the speaker was emphasizing “showing grace and mercy” to others. As I listened to his defining the practice, I tried to connect the practice to scripture. I understood from what he said that “showing grace and mercy” was a kind of toleration of unacceptable behavior, putting up with how others behave without saying anything. That might have become the standard understanding of the concept of showing grace and mercy.
Let me put this together. Coddled minds, who don’t want their salvation questioned, need us to show them grace and mercy by leaving them alone. The Apostle Paul didn’t coddle the Corinthians when he called on them to question their own salvation. Would he have done better to coddle them and would this have been to show them grace and mercy?
Often the Apostle Paul starts his three pastoral epistles with these almost identical statements:
Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
Jesus Made the Cross a Symbol and Paul Took It Further
The word “cross” is found in the New Testament 28 times. The mere expression “cross” doesn’t mean anything without some explanation. Jesus started us off by using it in Matthew 10:28:
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
*1 Corinthians 1:17-18: 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.*Galatians 5:11: And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.*Galatians 6:12-14: 12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14 But 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.*Ephesians 2:16: And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:*Philippians 3:18: (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:Colossians 1:20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.Colossians 2:14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 6:6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.1 Corinthians 1:23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;1 Corinthians 2:2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.Galatians 2:20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.Galatians 3:1: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?Galatians 5:24: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.Galatians 6:14: But 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.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand: How Old Were the Bread and the Fish the People Ate, That Jesus Gave Them?
When I go to the grocery store and I select my items, I don’t very often think of the process. I just push the cart and put into it what’s on my list. My wife was gone for quite awhile recently, so I grocery shopped. A few times I picked up one or two of those tubes of hamburger you’ve maybe seen. It didn’t occur to me when I did that a calf was born, it grazed in a field, grew to full grown size, was herded into a truck, shipped to a meat plant, driven into a building and was butchered, then parts of that full grown cow were ground into beef, which was squeezed into a tube and through various machinations of the supply chain, arrived in my store in Southern Oregon.
I didn’t look at that tube of hamburger and assume that it just sprung up there in the meat department of Walmart with the appearance of age. I know it didn’t. However, something different happened when the Lord Jesus Christ served the five thousand bread and fish in Matthew 14:13-21. I now know that just one cell of a fish exists according to a very complicated code of DNA, information from powerful and intelligent design antecedent to its emergence, let alone the origin of the matter from which it formed. Further along, there’s the fish eye, it’s gills, brain, internal organs, scales, and fins. Its musculature, that allowed for its under water propulsion, becomes the fleshly substance of a meal, also the subject of future digestion and incorporation into a human body.
Everything everyone ate at the feeding of the five thousand had the appearance of age. That was the miracle of it. Sure, it would have been a great miracle if everyone was able to stand or sit there that day and wait for a seed of wheat or corn to grow into the grain necessary to mill to flour, work into dough, and baked to yummy goodness. How long would that take? Perhaps the moment of the feeding was actually an age, once we’ve decided that we’re permitted to conform measurements of time to our preferred version of a scriptural narrative. We all know that a loaf of bread couldn’t have appeared in a moment according to known dating systems, so to help with the believability of Matthew 14:13-21, we allow for our own adaptation and maneuverability of the story.
No. Jesus created bread and fish, skipping the time and the process. He went straight from point A to B or A to Z, depending on how many steps you want to imagine were skipped. That’s the wonder of His power, wisdom, and love. God by nature is supernatural and He divinely intervenes in His creation however He wants. He is not bound by the very natural laws He originated. He’s more than the state highway police traveling as fast as He wants to enforce His own laws.
What’s harder? An instantaneous universe with an apparent appearance of fourteen billion years or thousands of separate bread loaves and fully grown fish? Think of even the milling process for flour. Where was the mill stone? There was none. Flour itself was skipped. What’s harder, the instantaneous creation of matter or the instantaneous formation of that matter to a mature appearing universe? Both are impossible, except with God. If you can believe the first, you can also believe the second.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
The Elimination of Practices and Activities Deemed Dispensable By the Truth About Real Gain
You can do certain things. They’re permissible, sure. They’re not wrong per se. Paul argue that’s not how we should choose to do things. We might like them. They might be fun.
Paul could have made money off of his preaching. According to him in 1 Corinthians 9, he even deserved it. Those who preach of the gospel, he said, should live of the gospel. However, he willingly gave up that support for the sake of the gospel. As an evangelist or missionary, taking monetary support for preaching the gospel could diminish the effects of his preaching.
The money Paul could have made was a type of gain. It’s still a well-known type of gain. Gain is an economics term, like “capital gains.” Adam Smith in his classic, Wealth of Nations, begins chapter ten by saying:
The five following are the principal circumstances which, so far as I have been able to observe, make up for a small pecuniary gain in some employments, and counterbalance a great one in others.
Then he names those five principles circumstances and elaborates on them. You see his use of the word “gain.” He uses it 17 times in that chapter. In the next paragraph, he writes:
Honour makes a great part of the reward of all honourable professions. In point of pecuniary gain, all things considered, they are generally under-recompensed, as I shall endeavour to show by and by. Disgrace has the contrary effect. The trade of a butcher is a brutal and an odious business; but it is in most places more profitable than the greater part of common trades. The most detestable of all employments, that of public executioner, is, in proportion to the quantity of work done, better paid than any common trade whatever.
He says that honor is the reward of certain honorouble professions, rather than “pecuniary gain.” “Pecuniary” is “related to or consisting of money.” He implies there are other types of gain, like honor. Honor is a kind of gain, not pecuniary, but one to be chosen over money apparently. The profession brings honor, if it doesn’t bring money.
The Apostle Paul refers to gain again and again in scripture, and this is seen in 1 Corinthians 9 in a section that most label as a section on Christian liberty. I respect that idea that 1 Corinthians 6-10 is about Christian liberty. I don’t mind it, but it is worth looking at it from the perspective of the definition of real gain.
God created man for a relationship with Him. The Lord Jesus said in Matthew 16:26,
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
There’s that word “gain.” The implication here is that someone profits nothing, even if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul. Luke 9:25 says,
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
In the King James Version, Paul uses the word “gain” five times. He writes first in 1 Corinthians 9:19,
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
Defining Pharisaism By Fleshing Out Its Confrontation by the Lord Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount
Terms like Pharisaism and legalism are often blunt instruments used today against churches and individual believers. They can be much like the word, racism. People weaponize terms to protect a belief or lifestyle through castigation. At the worst, they want to eliminate the objects of their scorn. Maybe they’re right about the ones they want to cancel and what they believe and practice. Is it true though? Are their targets really Pharisees and legalists?The Lord Jesus confronted Pharisaism and legalism with His Sermon on the on Mount in Matthew 5-7. The sermon explains salvation, but in a unique way to cast down the corrupt view of the Pharisees, the religion of the day. Their teaching was so prevalent everywhere, what Jesus then preached was also dealing with the thinking of everyone in His audience. Even if He wasn’t preaching to Pharisees, He was preaching to Pharisaism and legalism.
Worth Your Salt
When taking the opportunity to portray true Christian identity, Jesus used salt and light in Matthew 5:13-16. Through these two metaphors, He painted a picture of the expected nature of a genuine believer. In so doing, Jesus adhered to His original representation of salvation in the beatitudes (verses 3-12) and invoked the association with the Word of God (verses 17-20).
Salt can and will retard corruption and enhance taste if it retains its fundamental characteristic of saltiness. Salt without saltiness is worthless. Jesus said, “Ye are salt.” Specific people are salt, those who have saltiness. Very often scripture portrays unbelievers as worthless. They aren’t functioning according to the image of God in which He created man. They are like the branches of John 15, bearing no fruit and so thrown into the fire. They are worthless branches.
At the time Jesus spoke, salt was of great value. Roman soldiers were paid in salt, which pay meant they operated in a competent way. They were worth their salt.
The blessed man, one with the ultimate fulfillment of true salvation and receives the kingdom of heaven, is persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The righteousness stands up to and contrasts and conflicts with evil. This is being salt. A true believer’s righteousness will clash with false doctrine and practice. He’s not salt if he doesn’t.
The standard for the genuine believer’s conflict to retard corruption is scripture. The true believer lives according to and propagates the Word of God. Scripture manifests the nature of God. To take on the nature of God, the true believer retards decay by detecting and correcting false doctrine and practice according to the Word of God.
The nature of the world conflicts with the nature of God. This results in persecution. Rather than succumb to the pressure of that persecution, the true believer will continue as salt, retarding the corruption. This doesn’t occur by destroying the law, but by fulfilling it, every jot and tittle (verses 17-18). The genuine believe retains saltiness in the face of persecution. It’s his nature and that won’t change with opposition, a characteristic Jesus front loads in His description of salvation.
The opposition to darkness isn’t selective. It’s every jot and tittle. As Jesus continues, it is teaching not just the “essentials,” but even the least of God’s commandments. The righteousness of true Christianity supercedes the righteousness of the Pharisees. It doesn’t dumb down righteousness to a standard that can be kept by men. This is the salt losing its saltiness and becoming worthless.
Churches today are becoming worthless at retarding the unrighteousness of the world, because they are not standing up for righteousness. They stand up for selective or relative righteousness, not every jot or tittle. They are ashamed of many points of scripture and refuse to be salt where Christianity most clashes with the world. They are not worth their salt.
Recent Comments