A proposal: what if the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is really at bottom the same thing as, "Treat other people the way you want God to treat you" -- and what if Jesus gave us the Golden Rule because He knows that God does, in point of fact, decide how to treat us based on how we treat other people?
When you think about it, there's a lot of Scripture that seems to imply that God takes His cue on how to treat us, from the way we treat other people. The parable of the sheep and the goats, for example, tends to be a source of distress to redneck Southern Baptists who want to fit everything into a simple Salvation by Faith Alone model, because the eternal fate of the nations is, according to Jesus, a matter entirely of what people did, not a matter of the profession of faith. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously says:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matt. 7:21-23, NIV)
In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus expands on what he means by "doing the will of my Father who is in heaven" -- and it seems (in that parable) to have everything to do with how we treated others:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 25:31-46, NIV)
And the Tanach weighs in as well: for example, "A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed [Proverbs 11:25, NIV]," or, "Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless [Exodus 22:22-24, NIV]."
So, if God treats us the way we treat other people, then that raises two obvious questions:
1. What happened to justification by grace rather than works?
2. Given the fact that even the best of us frequently treat other people like jerks, doesn't "you get what you give out" pretty much mean we're all hosed?
But as it turns out, the answer to the second question, is precisely justification not by works, but by grace set free by works -- once we understand one of the most critical insights of Christianity.
God is going to treat us like we treat other people. But we frequently are jerks to other people. But that doesn't mean we're completely hosed, not yet at least. What it means is that God now has on his hands Kenny, who has been acting like a jerk; and He intends to treat me like I treat other people. So that makes the following question absolutely critical:
How does Kenny treat other people when they act like jerks?
You see what I mean? Since we frequently act like jerks, and since God looks at our own behavior to others to establish the rules by which He treats us, the most important thing about how we treat other people is precisely how we behave to the jerks. And once you get that insight, you'll see it throughout the teachings of Jesus. For example, the Sermon on the Mount:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
It isn't Jesus' main point, but still, doesn't it come through very clearly that being nice to the people who are nice to us just doesn't buy us much -- it's how we treat the jerks that matters? And this is just one example of the way in which this basic principle underlies so much of Jesus' teaching, even when it isn't His main point.
But there are at least two places in which it is, in fact, His main point, two places in which He leaves no room for confusion on the point. Here is the parable of the unforgiving servant, from Matthew 18 (my reading of which, this morning, kicked off this whole post):
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
He couldn't possibly have made it plainer, could He?
And that brings us to my final passage for this morning. When Jesus' disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, He put smack into the middle of the Lord's Prayer one of the most fearsome sentences ever uttered by human lips, a sentence that I hear people repeat by rote every Sunday morning:
"And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Every person who repeats the Lord's Prayer, of his own free will asks God to bind him to the rule that God will do to us as we do unto others. How does one say those words without fear and trembling? -- unless we really can look at our hearts and be confident that we hold no grudges or enmity against any of those who have wronged us. How many of us can really stand that examination? Ought we not see to it that one of the main businesses of our lives, is the rooting out in us of all resentments and all grudges, and the granting of peace and grace to all those who have wronged us, no matter how badly?
Thus the argument about grace and works turns out, as such arguments almost always do, to turn in the end on a false dichotomy, or at least to turn on life at the periphery of our relationship with God rather than on life at the deepest core. There is a place where the distinction between grace and works breaks down, at place at the very center of our life in Christ, a place where our works and God's grace meet and kiss each other. We are saved by grace, not by our works -- except that there is one of our works that is, actually, a precondition for grace: namely, our own granting of grace to others. There is one "work" that plays a direct role in our salvation, albeit even then in the role of a necessary precondition, not a sufficient agent.
And that "work" -- is grace.
3 comments:
You appear to me, coming from a Reformed perspective, to be walking a thin line and, probably, to have your toes sticking over onto the wrong side. I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, essentially that faith without works is dead and that therefore we must be very careful to obey all the commands, especially those that are so particularly linked to judgment. However, to come to the conclusion that this work of offering grace to others is a precondition of receiving grace from God seems to get the cart before the horse.
As far as I can tell, however, the primary point of the law and then of Jesus' even higher standard of inner perfection is to illustrate the dual truths of God's holiness and man's sinfulness. It is all designed to bring us to the point of realizing, "I can't do any of this! I am lost and hopeless before God." Then comes the gospel.
So, I would argue that it is impossible for anyone to offer grace to someone else (i.e. true grace with no selfish motives attached, no desire to be magnanimous, etc.) without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit first.
So what about the statements that we will be judged by these standards? Those standards can only be fulfilled in the completed work of Christ, otherwise we all fall into the category of those who have broken at least one part of the law and are guilty of the whole. However, once that's done, of course, the Holy Spirit begins his work of conforming us to the image of Christ. We will begin to offer grace to others and, increasingly, for the right reasons.
Nonetheless, we are dead in our trespasses prior to salvation, and dead men can't fulfill preconditions. They must wait for a resurrection.
Probably much more that should be said, but this is somewhat rushed.
Butch,
Many thanks for the comment. Don't feel rushed; take your time...but can I suggest that you start with, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins," and explain how you interpret that passage in a way that doesn't make our forgiveness of others a necessary pre-requisite (logically, not temporally) of God's forgiveness of us?
I have plenty of confidence that you can provide a valuable interpretation along those lines, by the way, or I wouldn't be asking for one.
Actually, upon previewing this comment it occurred to me that I might inadvertently have referred to the source of our apparent disagreement, in my parenthetical aside "logically, not temporally." I went back and re-read your comment and it all seems to be about the order in which things happen in time, moving along our timeline. Having long ago abandoned the idea that causality in our interaction with God is constrained by temporal succession, I tend to forget that other people are apt to hear me say "precondition" and think I mean "something that has to happen first in the temporal order of events."
Does it help if I specify that God's grace, given that He sees the entire timeline simultaneously, can frequently be anticipatory, and thus a "precondition" can be a logical precondition that is both a cause (in the very limited sense of being a precondition) and an effect of grace? For example, I would imagine that a lot of the reason that God made lots of promises to Abraham long before the birth of Isaac, had to do with the fact that God already could see Abraham passing the test on the mount of sacrifice -- and that had Abraham not passed the test at one point in God's eternal Now, he would never have received the promises at a different point in God's eternal Now.
We have no problem saying that God answers prayers, i.e., that God's behavior in what we see as the "future" is affected by our choices in what we see as the "present." I see no reason to think that God's behavior in our own now is not quite often a response to something He has seen in another part of His Now, and further that it really doesn't matter at all to Him which part of His now He happens to be looking at.
My real point, you see, is that at the core of reality, the distinction between Faith and Grace and Works disappears in a fundamentally reality that is Faith and Grace and Works all simultaneously because it is none of those things -- in the same way that light is fundamentally neither a wave nor a particle but is just itself, and our necessity of speaking of it in some contexts as if it were a wave and in others as if it were a particle, is purely a limitation in our own linguistic and conceptual capabilities, not an actual conflict within the reality itself.
God treats us as we treat others, I believe. Now, if John Calvin wants to come along behind me and say, "Yes, but those whom God wishes to save, He predestines to treat others graciously" -- why, certainly, that's also quite true. That is to say, it's as true as anything human language can say about the unique relationship between God and man and the interplay of His initiative and our response can very well be -- in other words, more or less as true as saying, "Light is a wave," or, "Light is a particle."
If you want to say that the true initiative is always with God, I won't disagree. But I will argue that it must, at least in some contexts, be valuable and indeed analogically true to talk as though God waits to see how we treat other people and then treats us accordingly -- because the Bible in general and Jesus in particular frequently talk exactly that way.
Put it like this: if you want to say that when Jesus says, "If you don't forgive other people their sins, God won't forgive your sins," He doesn't really mean to imply that God responds to our behavior in exactly the sense that ordinarily would be implied by those words...well, I agree; things predicated of God are predicated not univocally, but analogically. But then you have to be willing to smile and nod when I say, "But also, when the Bible says that God is sovereign and always takes the initiative in our relationship, the Bible doesn't really mean to imply that God determines our behavior in exactly the sense that ordinarily would be implied by those words" -- for things predicated of God, including sovereignty and relational initiative, are predicated not univocally, but analogically.
One last way of putting it (which is to say, one last analogy -- since I am myself using analogies wildly throughout this comment): you say I have my toes sticking over onto the wrong side. I think that's pretty much exactly the same thing as if one scientist were to say to another, "Coming from a light-as-wave perspective, I think you probably have your toes sticking over onto the wrong -- that is, the light-as-particle -- side." There are contexts in which if you try to treat light as a wave you will get the wrong answer. I also think there must be contexts in which if you try to talk as though God's role is initiative rather than responsive, you will get the wrong answer -- because Jesus Himself spends a heckuva lot of time talking as though God's role were responsive rather than initiative.
Make sense?
Thanks for the reply. Actually, my "rushedness" was due to the fact that my parents were coming for a visit and I wanted to get you some sort of reply since you said you were teaching on this subject. And, of course, these days most things are rushed :-).
I don't believe that the root of our disagreement here is temporal, for I too believe we must be careful not to put God in the time box. He is clearly outside of time, sovereign over time as He created time. In fact, I'd probably argue that it is only from a temporal, not logical, standpoint that Jesus says "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
Here's the way I think about it. You have what we see from this side of the veil and what God chooses to reveal to us in His Word about the other side of the veil. Seen from this side of the veil, you have several things that appear to happen in a given order or at least simultaneously, such as faith, regeneration, justification. These can rightly only be ordered logically, not temporally, as we can't discern a temporal order.
In reality, from the other side of the veil you have God's sovereign decree from before the foundation of time and apart from anything we do either good or bad (Rom 9:11-13). We have that our faith is the basis of our salvation, but is itself a gift from God (Eph 2:8) so that we are not even responsible for providing that, otherwise we would have some ground for boasting in ourselves (Rom 3:27). So, logically, God cannot be said to be dependent on any action of ours, even forgiveness, or else we could claim some part in our own salvation.
So in what sense does Christ say that our forgiveness is contingent on our forgiving of others? Only in a temporal sense from this side of the veil. From our limited, temporal perspective we cannot see the sovereign divine election and thus we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12) This is not because God is fickle and might change his mind about salvation, but rather because we are prone to self-deceit and the authenticity of our salvation is best evidenced by a life spent in the pursuit of holiness. We are to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
And, once again, we must remember that finally this command, as well as the one to forgive others, will only be fulfilled to God's satisfaction by the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to our account. He alone it is that fulfilled these commands and thus, I put my hope in being forgiven by God as I have forgiven others ultimately only in Christ's perfect forgiveness credited to my account. Otherwise, my best efforts at forgiveness would still leave me far short of the standard of perfection.
Finally, I would agree that God's sovereignty and initiative don't equate in the same way that we might assign those to a despot or monarch. God is able to do those things in a way that doesn't
remove human responsibility and freedom, as least as experienced from this side of the veil. But that doesn't limit the extent God's sovereignty in any way or make it subject to any acts, foreseen or not, of man. It simply means that he is able to shape the desires of man such that, when we do what we want, we serve His sovereign purposes as well.
Post a Comment