The Historical Transition From Home Assembly and Passover to Church and Easter
From Christ’s Assembly to the Institutional Church: Part 1
http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-4.html
From Christ’s Assembly to the Institutional Church: Part 2
http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-5.html
A Thought for Good Friday: What Is The “It”?
“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” ~ John 19:30
τετελεσται (teh-tel-es-tai) – verb; indicative mood, perfect tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular. It is derived from the Greek noun telos which is used to refer to something set out as a goal or an aim, or the conclusion of an act or state.
All Churchians most likely at some point in their life have heard the explanation that when Jesus uttered these words that He meant that he had finished what He had come to earth to accomplish. And what was it that Jesus accomplished? The orthodox interpretation of that would be that Jesus accomplished the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, it would be that Jesus lived a perfect life of obedience. Now having demonstrated perfect obedience to the Law, Jesus could fulfill his purpose as the perfect sacrifice for sin. His job was done.
It is true that Jesus did accomplish the forgiveness of sin with His death on the cross. But how exactly did this happen? Furthermore, Reformed orthodoxy would have us believe that Christians need to preach the gospel to themselves every day. They must daily return to the cross to continually have Jesus’ obedience imputed to their lives as a covering. This is accomplished by “faith alone” works through the “means of grace” administered by the local church. If Christians need an ongoing imputation of righteousness from Christ through His obeying the law for us in our stead, how exactly can one say that Jesus’ work is “finished”?
Lest I be accused of setting up a “straw man” argument, consider that after almost nine years of research here at TANC ministries, all of the problems with Protestant orthodoxy and the institutional church can be boiled down to one thing: a misunderstanding of the Law. Reformed orthodoxy keeps Christians “under law” (the Biblical definition of an unsaved person) by making perfect law-keeping the standard for righteousness. Because Protestantism’s metaphysical assumption of man is “total depravity”, man cannot keep the law, so he must rely on Jesus to keep the law for him.
But the Bible says that righteousness is apart from the law (Romans 3:21, 28). If Jesus must keep the law for us, not only does that make Jesus’ work not “finished”, but it is also not a righteousness apart from the law. What could Jesus have possibly meant when He said, “It is finished”?
It is important to note the grammar of that phase, which is only one single word in Greek. First of all, it is in the “passive voice”. That means the subject is the recipient of the action. Jesus did not say I have finished something. Some subject “it” received the action of being finished, and Jesus’ death accomplished that.
Second, the word “tetelestai” is in the “perfect” tense. The perfect tense is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself. Although this gives information about a prior action, the focus is likely to be on the present consequences of that action. In fact, the King James rendering of this verb is incorrect. The correct rendering of this phrase in the perfect tense would be, “It has been finished.” Jesus declared that His death produced a resulting state of something that now exists that is different from an earlier state.
Third, “tetelestai” is in the singular third person. The subject is not Jesus and something He did. The focus is on some third party subject that was the recipient of some action being performed upon it. Therefore, the statement, “It is finished” could not be a reference to Jesus finishing His work of perfect obedience to the Law. Something else had the action of “finished” performed upon it.
The question then remains, when Jesus said, “It is finished”, what exactly then is the “it”?
For one thing, the Law was actually a living will or “testament”, a covenant made between God and Israel that was ratified with Moses by the sprinkling of blood (Hebrews 9:18-21). This covenant of the Law acted as a guardian until the promise made to Abraham and his “seed” was fulfilled. (Galatians 3:16, 22-24). The Law took Old Testament saints into protective custody, protecting them from the Law’s condemnation upon their death. All sin was imputed to the Law. This was the “atoning” or “covering” aspect of the Law.
The Law’s testament pointed to the coming “promise” to Abraham that all the nations would be blessed. There would come one who would “take away” sin once and for all. This was so clearly symbolized by the picture of the “scapegoat” in Leviticus 16. The high priest would lay his hands on the head of a goat, signifying the imputation of sin to the Law. The goat would then be delivered into the hands of a strong man who would carry that goat into the wilderness and release it, signifying the taking away of sin as far as the east is from the west.
Jesus was the promised “seed” of Abraham. He was the “testator” of which the Law’s covenant spoke. Just as with any will, it could not be in force until after the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16-17). It would seem reasonable then that the perfect tense of the verb “tetelestai” would put focus on the Law, its testament, and its role as guardian. The initiating of the Law was an event or circumstance of the past, but Jesus’ death now causes us to focus on its resulting change of state. The passive voice indicates that the Law is the recipient of this change of state. What is now changed?
- The testament of the Law is finished. Jesus’ death now allowed its promises to be fulfilled; that is, sin would be ended because the Law was ended. All sin that was imputed to the Law would be taken away forever. The Law can no longer condemn.
- The Law’s role as a guardian is finished. Since the “promise” had been fulfilled, believers are now the righteous offspring of the Father. There is no Law to condemn them, and where there is no law there is no sin. And since there is no sin there is no longer any need of a guardian. The covering aspect of the Law is ended.
- The distinction between Jew and Gentile is finished. Now every born again child of God would be baptized into one Body. This is the mystery that Paul spoke of in Ephesians. He called it the New Man. Every person who is a member of the Body is given a gift to exercise to the edification of the Body and to demonstrate love to God and others. The Law is the means by which believers show love through obedience.
One could say that because of Jesus’ death to end the Law, there is now a new relationship to the Law. There is a change of state; not only of the law but the state of the believer as well!
It was God’s plan to reconcile every man to Himself by putting to death the “old man” who is “under law” and replacing him with a new creature who is the literal offspring of the Father. In this way sin is ended because the Law is ended for those who are born again. The Law is fulfilled in us, every believer, each time we show love to another.
On this “Good Friday”, take time to consider this: Sin sought to bring death by condemnation and alienate man from God. God defeated Sin by providing a way to make man part of His own family!
Andy
Dear Reformed Brother, Was Jesus Righteous Before He Kept the Law?
Wait, Believers Fulfill The Law?
Do You Believe a False Gospel?
Is John MacArthur Totally Confused, or Simply a Liar?
Yesterday, I was sent a link from a series going on at Grace to You Blog. Of late, advocating the free and civil exchange of ideas is in vogue among the Neo-Protestants. Susan and I heard this theme echoed at the recent TGC conference in Indianapolis by Kevin DeYoung.
As one who has painstakingly documented Neo-Protestantism’s claim to God’s authority by proxy for years, the need to respond to such an absurd notion; specifically, that Protestantism advocates the free exchange of ideas, is much like getting motivated for oral surgery at the dentist’s office. Nevertheless, I will take one for the team.
However, instead of comparing MacArthur’s criticism of Pentecostalism’s authority claims with his own claims of authority and thereby painting a picture of gargantuan hypocrisy, I will instead explain what is really going on here.
First, the basics. All disagreements flowing from the church in general are disagreements over different expressions of the same basic doctrines. Whether Catholicism, Protestantism, or all other flavors that flow from church ice cream, the fundamental doctrines are exactly the same. Let me name them: collectivism and progressive justification. For that matter, even religions that are of temple worship like Hinduism and Islam are predicated on the same basic doctrines.
Collectivism is based on particular presuppositions concerning mankind and reality. Like all churchians and templetons, MacArthur is neither confused or a liar per se, but totally driven by these exact same fundamental doctrines. Am I saying that when it’s all boiled down MacArthur is little different than a Hindu priest? Pretty much.
Collectivism is the idea that mankind cannot comprehend reality. The epitome of wisdom is defined by knowing that you can’t know. Those who think they can know are defined as having a god complex and are detrimental to the world in general and the collective good of others specifically. Hence, those who know that we cannot know should rule over those who struggle with the temptation of thinking they can know, and this for the common good of mankind and its ultimate survival. In other words, individual knowing is the destroyer of wellbeing that will eventually annihilate mankind. Therefore, all collectivists whether Protestant, Catholic, or Hindu are on a mission to save mankind from itself.
For the most part, reality is interpreted through Plato’s two worlds. The material world is a totally separate existence from the invisible world. Those granted wisdom via whatever spiritual/invisible realm authority seek the best wisdom for existence in the material realm, and of course, because they have been granted this wisdom from the other realm they should be vested with rulership over the great unwashed.
Farfetched? Keep these basic principles in mind and go to church on any given Sunday and listen carefully. Pay attention for a change and you might be surprised. Though the religious systems for our best material realm life now are innumerable, Protestantism claims an “objective” truth. What is that “objective” truth? All reality is interpreted through Christ’s redemptive act for the glory and self-love of God and this “truth” is “experienced subjectively.” It’s an ingenious system that posits Plato’s two world philosophy as objective truth. Sure, you can know something: here it is; “I know nothing but Christ and him crucified.” Reality, according to Protestantism, is a metaphysical movie produced by God to reveal one thing only: God’s holiness as set against mankind’s total depravity. The goal of all reality is a greater revelation regarding the dichotomy between mankind and God. Accordingly, you may note that the logical conclusion is the same outcome of all collectivist religions that make up the vast majority.
Now, Aristotle confused things a little. He made authority into authority light by making expertism a synonym for authority. Aristotle believed that the material world reflects reality in totality. Man can know reality. That glass sitting on the table is really a glass. A=A. Man can ascertain knowledge of reality through empirical observation and study. However, those who do the hard work of study and are able to comprehend should rule over the ignorant. This is where we get the following: “Dr. John Doe is a leading authority on…[fill in the particular discipline].” Unlike Platonism, authority is not mandated by force, but you are deemed an idiot if you do not obey the experts. This is why expertism is so prevalent in Western culture. Until Americanism came upon the world scene, freedom to ascertain reality for yourself could get you executed and often did. In contrast, Americanism didn’t go far enough with individualism; you are not executed for daring to think for yourself, but you are looked upon as ignorant. It’s character assassination versus physical assassination, and those who do the challenging work of study are rewarded with higher pay, attractive spouses, spacious living abodes, and collective accolades.
Either way, it’s a caste system. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that America’s tacit node towards individualism completely turned the world upside down for the better. It is fair to say that the historical metaphysical pendulum swung from Platonism to Aristotelism, but in regard to religion is swinging back to Platonism. And by the way, this issue, Plato verses Aristotle, and collectivism verses individualism is what sparked the Protestant Reformation. That’s just plain historical fact. If you believe that freedom of religion and sola scriptura sparked the Protestant Reformation, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you.
Speaking to the secular realm, not so much; Brexit and the election of Donald Trump signifies a rejection of expertism in exchange for collective individualism, or the ability of the individual versus “total inability.” At least in the secular realm, we may be seeing a movement that will go beyond Americanism. This probably poses an opportunity for the home fellowship movement which is greatly hindered by the idea of expertism. Home fellowships promote the idea of individuals contributing spiritual gifts to a body that is led, not ruled over by experts or those claiming authority over individual conscience in the name of God.
This brings us to the second fundamental, progressive justification. This is the basic soteriology of all religions. Why? Because if the new birth changes the individual’s state of being to a literal child of God and a family heir to Christ’s kingdom, where does that leave mere men regarding knowledge and authority? Answer: totally out in the cold with no clothing. In addition, authoritative institutional religion must have what we call reoccurring monthly revenue (RMR) to support infrastructure where the gods or cosmic authorities over men meet to dole out salvation on the installment plan. Salvation becomes a lifelong goal instead of being spiritually birthed into God’s family as a onetime finished, and permanent transaction. This lends no authority whatsoever to men claiming coregency with God.
So, MacArthur et al are not confused or lying per se, but are practicing Platonism’s “noble lie.” What they teach is driven by trending “concerns” coming from the great unwashed herd. Of late, it’s the idea that the church doesn’t tolerate critical thinking. What in the world might give them that idea? Therefore, the herd is calmed by statements of crass contradiction. Regardless of the obvious, MacArthur is the expert. Any contradictions must be “truth masquerading as a contradiction” otherwise known as “paradox.”
paul
1 comment