The Authority Of One Jot And Tittle.

The Authority Of One Jot And Tittle.

As anyone familiar with the debate surrounding the place of the old covenant civil code under the new covenant administration will acknowledge, Bahnsen’s ‘Theonomy In Christian Ethics’ has never been adequately refuted. (In fact I put this out as a challenge to any and all – don’t read it if you are hell bent on opposing his thesis, because it is so thorough your conscience will give you no rest till you change your mind). In his famous defence of Matthew 5:17-20 he proves conclusively that whatever ‘fulfill’ means, with respect to both the law and the prophets, it does not mean ‘abrogate’.

Here I would make this further point, with the help of one of my favourite authors – Dr E. J. Carnell. Jot and tittle refers to the least stroke of a letter. Authority therefore is based on the precise meaning of each and every word, with the level of distinction going to the level of a stroke of the pen. One must ask the obvious question – how can you have authority without inerrancy, when the very meaning is based upon the least stroke of a pen? In particular, Jesus said this of the old covenant scriptures.

“Jesus assigned authority to the details, as well as to the whole, of the Old Testament.” Carnell then quotes the following from Kuyper’s ‘Principles Of Sacred Theology’. “In Matt xxii.44, the strength of Jesus’ argument hangs on the single word ‘Lord’. ‘The Lord said unto my Lord’; yea, even more precisely, on the single iod. The emphasis falls on the ‘my Lord.’ In John x.35 the entire argument falls to the ground, except the one word ‘gods’ have absolute authority. In the same way it can be shown, in a number of Jesus’ arguments from the Scripture, that in the main they do not rest upon the general contents, but often upon a single word or a single letter. The theory therefore of a general tendency in the spiritual domain, which in the Old Testament should merely have an advisory authority, finds no support in Jesus.” [Carnell ‘The Case For Orthodoxy’ (36) – Kuyper (435-436)]

For those who suggest that we should rest our authority in Jesus and not in the bible, they repudiate what Jesus Himself taught. Furthermore, “since Jesus rested his Messianic office on the authority of the Old Testament, a Christian offends consistent procedure if he accepts Christ’s Messianic office, but rejects the divine authority of the Old Testament. In John, ch. 10, for example: ‘Jesus’ defense takes the form of an appeal to Scripture; and it is important to observe how he makes his appeal. In the first place, he adduces the Scriptures as law: ‘Is it not written in your law?’ he demands. The passage of Scripture which he adduces is not written in that portion of Scripture which was more specifically called ‘the law,’ that is to say. the Pentatuech; nor in any portion of Scripture of formally legal contents. It is written in the Book of Psalms; and in a particular psalm which is as far as possible from presenting the external characteristics of legal enactment (Ps. lxxxii.6). When Jesus adduces this passage, then, as written in the ‘law’ of the Jews, he does it, not because it stands in the psalm, but because it is part of Scripture at large. In other words, he here ascribes legal authority to the entirety of Scripture, in accordance with a conception common enough among the Jews (cf. Jn. xii.34)….But our Lord, determined to drive his appeal to Scripture home, sharpens the point to the utmost by adding with the highest emphasis: ‘and Scripture cannot be broken.’ This is the reason why it is worth-while to appeal to what is ‘written in the law,’ because ‘the Scripture cannot be broken.’…It is impossible for the Scripture to be annulled, its authority to be withstood, or denied. The movement of thought is to the effect that, because it is impossible for the Scripture…to be withstood, therefore this particular Scripture which is cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority. What we have here is, the strongest possible assertion of the indefectible authority of Scripture.” (Carnell (36-37) – Warfiled, ‘The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible’ (138-14).

One can thank Dr. Carnell for saving one from reading 400 pages to get to these points – although both are surely worth the read. The point is a simple one. That there is no grounds for liberalism in Jesus teaching, (which would ultimately require them to redact out these elements of his authority), there can be no doubt. However, there can also be no doubt that the pure unadulterated understanding of the word also casts the neo-orthodox like Barth, and the neo-Evangelicals like Donald Bloesch in the same light. When the latter writes about ‘The Essentials Of Evangelical Theology’, let us be very clear that he is redefining the meaning not only of the words of Scripture, but of the historical meaning of the word ‘Evangelical’. Is this not the bearing of false witness? Authority does not exist without verbal inerrancy – to every jot and tittle.

Justification, Sanctification-Definitive And Progressive, And Entrance To Heaven.

Justification, Sanctification-Definitive And Progressive, And Entrance To Heaven.

There are a number of reasons why it is right for people to be confused by the current discussions on justification, works, and sanctification, because the terms and concepts are not clearly defined. With the following criticisms it is not my intent to hold court on the orthodoxy of certain writers. However, at the very least there are truths here that are not clearly stated.

First of all, justification. Too often the definition of justification is itself wrong. Justification is not being “right with God” or “a right relationship with God.” Justification is nothing more or less than God declaring a sinner righteous based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Justification is very precisely this declarative act based on Christ’s imputed righteousness. If we miss this crucial definition or stray from it we are already off course.

Secondly, by contrasting justification with what is required to enter heaven, namely works as some suggest, a false contrast is set up. At the very moment that an elect sinner is declared righteous by the Father, through the imputed righteousness of Christ, this declaration is as final in heaven as it is on earth-period, full stop! By drawing the contrast as some have, they are giving the impression, at the very least, that this declarative act is not good in heaven.

Third, it is absolutely true that true faith will evidence itself in how we live, but this kind of faith is also a gift. When Paul wrote that, “by grace you have been saved through faith,” it is this entire package that is in view, the entire thing, including faith, “is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Faith and its evidences share this in common, they follow regeneration, they do not precede it.

Four, in confusing justification with sanctification many also fail to properly define sanctification. It is important to remember that there are two aspects to sanctification-it is both definitive and progressive. It is not uncommon for people to jump from justification to progressive sanctification and worse still, to do so in such a way that it gives the impression that having begun by the Spirit we are to carry on living by our own strength. In reality, progressive sanctification actually flows from definitive sanctification.

There are many passages of scripture which speak of sanctification in the past tense-that is, definitive-it is done. One good example is the epistle to the Hebrews. “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Note it well, our writer, and through him the Holy Spirit, does not say here, “we are being sanctified,” but “we have been sanctified,” and this through the once and for all finished work of Christ alone! Our writer could have said “are being sanctified” because he did so earlier (2:11).

“For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:11). These are his points: First of all, sanctification is as definitive as justification-we have been sanctified through the finished work of Christ alone. Second, sanctification is also progressive-we are being sanctified. Thirdly, even progressive sanctification is the work of God for, “for both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one.” We are being progressively sanctified by God because we have been definitively sanctified by the finished work of Christ alone.

Sanctification is rooted in our union with Christ. People would do well to remember the ordo salutis, or order of salvation. Definitive sanctification is simultaneous with regeneration and effectual calling. No one was clearer on this than Dr. John Murray. Read his ‘Redemption Accomplished And Applied’. If you have not read his definitive work on definitive sanctification, then you should do so-here it is-

As Murray notes, Paul addressed the Corinthians as those “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1:2), and “sanctified” as definitively as “justified” (6:11). “We are thus compelled to take account of the fact that the language of sanctification is used with reference to some decisive action that occurs at the inception of the Christian life and one that characterizes the people of God in their identity as called effectually by God’s grace. It would be, therefore, a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work.” Murray, (‘Definitive’).

As Paul wrote to the “foolish” Galatians, “Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?” (3:1-3) Lets be clear, the only works that are acceptable to God are “works of the law,” but they are no more conditions of our sanctification than they are of our justification. Works are but the evidences of true faith.

Works can no more be “conditions” for entrance into heaven than they can be for justification or sanctification-definitive or progressive. Works are evidence of definitive and progressive sanctification. James does not contradict Paul, Paul simply takes us back to first principles, which is exactly where one must begin. This is the point, progressive sanctification is every bit as much the work of the Holy Spirit as is regeneration and effectual calling, and sanctification is as definitively a work of Christ as is justification.

Again, from Murray: “it might be said that by his death and resurrection Christ has procured every saving gift — the death and resurrection are therefore the meritorious and procuring cause of sanctification as well as of justification and in this respect are as directly related to sanctification as to justification.” (‘Definitive’) “The truth is that our death to sin and newness of life are effected in our identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, and no virtue accruing from the death and resurrection of Christ affects any phase of salvation more directly than the breach with sin and newness of life.”

To conclude, justification is a definitive act whereby an elect sinner is declared righteous based solely upon the finished work of Christ imputed. Secondly, sanctification is also a definitive act of Christ, and upon this definitive sanctification we are progressively sanctified by that same Spirit by who we have been regenerated and effectually called. Thirdly, any contrast between justification and with it sanctification, and conditions of entrance into heaven is a false one. Justification and sanctification are as definitive in heaven as they are at conversion. Finally, even progressive sanctification is God working in and through us to apply that which has been definitively secured.

Thoughts On The Person And Work Of Christ.

Messiah Has Come Clothed In Blue, Scarlet, Purple, And Gold.

The significance of so much of what we find in the scriptures often escapes us, especially in the deep recesses of the Old Testament system. We also often forget that the pattern was always in heaven-from the very beginning (Heb. 8:5). Speaking of that earthly sanctuary the writer to the Hebrews had to say, “of these things we cannot now speak in detail.” (9:5) One has the sense that he really wanted to though. However, thankfully we have the same scriptures that he did, and there is indeed much profit and blessing in this search.

One of those points of interest was the place of the colours of blue, scarlet, and purple. These were to be among the offerings of linen given by the people (Ex. 25:1, 35:5, 23, 25, 35, 36:8, 38:23). Together the three colours accompanied the Cherubim of the glory presence seen in the artistic curtains and veil of the tabernacle of meeting (Ex. 26:1, 31, 36:35; II Chron. 3:14), with the three colours found in the screen to the door of the tabernacle/temple (Ex. 26: 36, 36:37) Also in the court there was to be a screen “woven of blue, purple , and scarlet thread.” (27:16, 38:18)

They would be used to make the “garments of ministry, for ministering in the holy place.” (Ex. 39:1) We see them combined, along with gold, in the clothing of the high priest in the ephod and breastplate of judgment. (28:5-8, 15, 39:2-5, 8). Furthermore, hanging from the robe of the ephod were to be pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet, interspersed with bells of gold (v.33, 39:24-26). This would come into play when Israel would enter the promised land, and lots would be cast at the door of the tabernacle in the glory presence of the LORD (Joshua 14:1, cf. Ex. 28:30; Nu. 34:16-29; Joshua 19:51). The priest had on his chest the representation of the twelve tribes of the people of God, with the Urim and the Thummim in the breastplate of judgment.

They also made for the high priest “the plate of the holy crown of pure gold” (39:30), engraved with the words, “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” (cf. Ex. 28:26), showing that to which the gold symbolized. If the holiness was gone the bells would not ring, and the people could assume the death of the high priest. For this cause he had to make atonement for his own sins, as much as for the people (Heb. 5:3; 7:27; 9:7; Lev. 9:7; 16:6). One day there would come a greater High Priest who would not need to offer for Himself, but would forever be “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” (Heb. 7:28; 9:8-10)!

Concerning the ephod, it was of particular significance that, the breastplate of judgment was bound to it by blue cord (Ex. 28:28, 39:21), and the robe of the ephod itself was all of blue. (v. 31, 39:22) The loops of the curtains were also made of blue yarn (Ex. 36:11), as was the covering of the ark for transport (Nu. 4:6), the covering of the table under the showbread (v. 7), the covering for “the lampstand of the light.” (Nu. 4:9), the golden altar (v. 11), and the utensils of service (v.12).

Blue symbolized the word of the LORD. It was the colour that the people were to use for the tassels of their robes so that they might be reminded to remember the word of the LORD (Nu. 15:37-41). It is therefore significant that the robe undergirding all that the high priest wore was all of blue, that which attached the breastplate was blue, that which attached “the holy crown of pure gold” was blue, and that which covered the tabernacle items in transport was blue. The word was what undergirded, bound together, and overarched everything to do with the worship of God in the place of judgment, down to the loops of the curtains.

Then there is the scarlet, crimson, or red. A symbol of sin (Is. 1:18), and the need for cleansing (Lev. 14:4-7, 49-53), purification (Nu. 19:6 cf. Gen. 38:28-30), and remission (Heb. 9:18-22). It was the colour of bloodshed (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 17:3). Such was the colour of Rahab’s cord (Josh. 2:18-21), symbolizing, as it did, the passover blood. On the table of the showbread was the blue, and on top of this were the dishes and the showbread, but over all this was the red cloth (Nu. 4:8). So undergirding the ministry of the sacrament was the word-it is the foundation. But what these elements of the sacrament symbolized was the blood of cleansing and forgiveness.

For others, red became a symbol of luxury and voluptuousness (II Sam. 1:24; Pr. 31:21; S of S. 4:3; Rev. 18:12, 16). But for some they would go from luxury to ashes (Lam. 4:5). Purple, on the other hand, was the colour of royalty (Judges 8:26; Esther 1:6; 8:15; S of S 3:10; 7:5; Dan. 5:7, 16, 29). Note how important was the business of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31-verse 22, and Lydia (Acts 16:14). It was thus also a status symbol of the rich (Ezek. 27:7, 16; Lk. 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16). But it was also the colour of the cloth that covered the ashes from the altar (Nu. 4:13 cf. Heb. 9:13-14).

There is something to the combination of the red and the purple. The woman upon the beast rules through bloodshed, clothed in purple and crimson, with her leaders (Rev. 17:4; 18:12, 16). These represent those who aspire to humanistic messianic aspirations. However, there is One alone who is clothed in scarlet and purple. How fitting that our Lord was clothed in purple and scarlet to accompany His “twisted crown of thorns”, as the soldiers gave their mock salute, “Hail, King of the Jews.” (Mk. 15:17-20 cf. Mt. 27:28; John 19:2-5). He is the one who rules through His blood which He shed.

There is only one person who could ever be clothed with the high priestly colours of blue, scarlet, and purple eternally-Jesus Christ. These colours symbolize the offices of prophet, priest, and king. It was forbidden for any one person to occupy all three, except as it would be a sign of the Messiah Himself. David was a prophet and a king, but he was no priest. Many were prophets and priests, but not also kings. This one, after the order of Melchizedek, is set apart to occupy all three offices in His own person and work.

Satan understood this stupendous truth, for he tempted our Lord, at the dawn of His earthly ministry, on all three-as Prophet (Luke 4:1-4; Mt. 4:1-4), King (vv. 5-8; Mt. 4:5-7), and Priest (vv. 9-13; Mt. 4:8-11). It was also understood by the writer to the Hebrews when he looked back upon the humiliation, exaltation, ascension, and enthronement of Messiah, as prophet (1:1-3), priest (v.3), and king (v.3), “having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (v. 4)

Satan, that fallen angel, has been crushed under the feet of the seed, the promised One (Gen. 3:15), who tore that tri-color veil in two (Mt. 27:51). “Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the Forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 6:17-20)

Here we are, guilty and running from the avenger of blood, when our Kinsmen Redeemer has run ahead of us into the city of refuge, to occupy the place of our High Priest, not for a time, but for all eternity. We need no other defence-our Kinsman Redeemer has become our High Priest (Heb. 2:14-18; 5:5-10). “What offices does Christ execute as our Redeemer? Christ, as our Redeemer, executes the offices of prophet, of a priest, and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.” (WSC. Q & A 23) Amen!