Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: covenant

  • John Wesley’s Sermon 6 – The Righteousness of Faith

    John Wesley’s Sermon 6 – The Righteousness of Faith

    The following sermon is translated according to my prompts by Google Gemini AI. Note that the sermon was translated in blocks, and in this case I’m choosing to include those translation notes after each block. All bolding is a reference to these notes and is not for emphasis.

    I refer to this as “translation,” but it is really simply a modernization of language.

    You can find the original sermon here.

    Sermon 6: The Righteousness of Faith

    “Moses describes the righteousness that comes from the law: ‘The person who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that comes from faith speaks like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down from above); or, “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we preach.’” – Romans 10:5-8

    1. The Apostle Paul here is not contrasting the covenant given by Moses with the covenant given by Christ. If we ever thought that, it was because we failed to notice that both the latter and former parts of these words were spoken by Moses himself to the people of Israel, and they concerned the covenant that was already in place at that time (Deuteronomy 30:11, 12, 14). Instead, Saint Paul here is contrasting the covenant of grace—which God, through Christ, has established with humanity in all ages (both before and under the Jewish system, as well as since God was revealed in the flesh)—with the covenant of works, which was made with Adam in Paradise. This covenant of works was commonly, but mistakenly, supposed to be the only covenant God had made with humanity, especially by those Jews about whom the Apostle writes.
    2. It was of these Jews that he speaks so affectionately at the beginning of this chapter: “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness” (meaning the justification that flows from His pure grace and mercy, freely forgiving our sins through the Son of His love, through the redemption which is in Jesus), “and seeking to establish their own righteousness” (meaning their own holiness, which they believed must come before faith in “Him who justifies the ungodly,” as the basis for their pardon and acceptance), “have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” and consequently are seeking spiritual death in the error of their lives.
    3. They were ignorant that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes“—that, by the one offering of Himself, He had brought an end to the first law or covenant (which, indeed, was not given by God to Moses, but to Adam in his state of innocence). The strict condition of that covenant, without any exceptions, was: “Do this, and live.” And, at the same time, Christ purchased for us that better covenant: “Believe, and live;” believe, and you shall be saved—now saved, both from the guilt and power of sin, and, as a consequence, from its penalty.
    4. And how many are equally ignorant today, even among those who are called by the name of Christ! How many who now have a “zeal for God,” yet do not have it “according to knowledge,” but are still seeking “to establish their own righteousness” as the basis for their pardon and acceptance? And therefore, they strongly refuse to “submit themselves to the righteousness of God!” Surely, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for you, brothers and sisters, is that you may be saved. And, to remove this major obstacle from your path, I will try to show: First, what the righteousness that comes from the law is, and what “the righteousness that comes from faith” is; Secondly, the folly of trusting in the righteousness of the law, and the wisdom of submitting to the righteousness that comes from faith.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law

    1. And, first, “the righteousness that comes from the law says, ‘The person who does these things will live by them.’” This means: Constantly and perfectly observe all these things to do them, and then you shall live forever. This law, or covenant (usually called the Covenant of Works), given by God to humanity in Paradise, required an obedience that was perfect in all its parts, complete and lacking nothing, as the condition for humanity’s eternal continuation in the holiness and happiness in which they were created.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Sermon Title: “The Righteousness of Faith” is kept.
    • Introductory Scripture (Romans 10:5-8): Modernized the language while retaining the key phrases “righteousness which is of the law,” “righteousness which is of faith,” and “word is nigh thee.” Clarified parenthetical explanations.
    • “Covenant given by Moses, to the covenant given by Christ”: Clarified with “by Moses” and “by Christ.”
    • “Jewish dispensation”: Modernized to “Jewish system.”
    • “God was manifest in the flesh”: Kept, as it’s a key theological phrase for the incarnation.
    • “Covenant of works, made with Adam while in Paradise”: Kept these specific theological terms.
    • “Ignorant of God’s righteousness”: Wesley’s own parenthetical explanation is crucial, so I’ve maintained it: “(meaning the justification that flows from His pure grace and mercy, freely forgiving our sins through the Son of His love, through the redemption which is in Jesus)”.
    • “Seeking to establish their own righteousness”: Again, Wesley’s parenthetical clarification is important and maintained: “(meaning their own holiness, which they believed must come before faith in ‘Him who justifies the ungodly,’ as the basis for their pardon and acceptance)”.
    • “Justifieth the ungodly”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Come short of the glory of God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Consequences seek death in the error of their life”: Modernized slightly to “consequently are seeking spiritual death in the error of their lives.”
    • “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Oblation of himself once offered”: Kept as a key theological term for Christ’s sacrifice.
    • “Strict tenor thereof, without any abatement, was, ‘Do this, and live’”: Retained this precise summary of the Covenant of Works.
    • “Purchased for us that better covenant, ‘Believe, and live;’”: Emphasizes the contrast.
    • “Guilt and power of sin, and, of consequence, from the wages of it”: Key Wesleyan distinctions, maintained.
    • “Grand stumbling-block”: Modernized to “major obstacle.”
    • I.1: “Righteousness which is of the law saith, The man which doeth these things shall live by them”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Covenant of Works”: Maintained this theological term.
    • “Obedience perfect in all its parts, entire and wanting nothing”: Kept this emphasis on absolute perfection required by the law.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law (Continued)

    1. It required that humanity should fulfill all righteousness, inward and outward, negative and positive. This meant not only abstaining from every idle word and avoiding every evil work, but also keeping every affection, every desire, every thought, in obedience to the will of God. It required that they should continue holy, as He who had created them was holy, both in heart and in all their conduct. They were to be pure in heart, even as God is pure; perfect as their Father in heaven was perfect. They were to love the Lord their God with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with all their strength. They were to love every soul God had made, even as God had loved them. By this universal benevolence, they were to dwell in God (who is love) and God in them. They were to serve the Lord their God with all their strength, and in all things aim solely at His glory.
    2. These were the things that the righteousness of the law required, so that whoever did them might live by them. But it further required that this complete obedience to God, this inward and outward holiness, this conformity of both heart and life to His will, should be perfect in degree. No reduction, no allowance could possibly be made for falling short in any degree, as to any tiny detail, either of the outward or the inward law. If every commandment relating to outward things was obeyed, yet that was not sufficient unless every one was obeyed with all possible strength, to the highest measure, and in the most perfect manner. Nor did it satisfy the demand of this covenant to love God with every power and faculty unless He were loved with the full capacity of each, with the whole potential of the soul.
    3. One thing more was absolutely required by the righteousness of the law, namely, that this universal obedience, this perfect holiness both of heart and life, should also be perfectly uninterrupted. It had to continue without any break, from the moment God created humanity and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life, until the days of their trial should end, and they should be confirmed in everlasting life.
    4. The righteousness, then, which is of the law, speaks in this way: “You, O person of God, stand firm in love, in the image of God in which you are made. If you wish to remain in life, keep the commandments, which are now written in your heart. Love the Lord your God with all your heart. Love, as yourself, every soul that He has made. Desire nothing but God. Aim at God in every thought, in every word and work. Do not deviate, in one motion of body or soul, from Him, your goal, and the prize of your high calling; and let all that is within you praise His holy name, every power and faculty of your soul, in every kind, in every degree, and at every moment of your existence. ‘Do this, and you shall live:’ Your light shall shine, your love shall flame more and more, until you are received up into the house of God in the heavens, to reign with Him forever and ever.”
    1. “But the righteousness that comes from faith speaks like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down from above; as though God required some impossible task for you to perform before you could be accepted) or, “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead; as though that still needed to be done for your acceptance). But what does it say? “The word,” according to which you can now be accepted as an heir of eternal life, “is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we preach—the new covenant which God has now established with sinful humanity through Christ Jesus.’”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • I.2: “Fulfil all righteousness, inward and outward, negative and positive”: Kept, as it’s a very precise and comprehensive description of legal righteousness.
    • “Every idle word” / “every evil work” / “every affection, every desire, every thought”: Retained for the exhaustive nature of the requirement.
    • “Holy, as he which had created him was holy, both in heart, and in all manner of conversation”: Modernized “conversation” to “conduct.”
    • “Pure in heart, even as God is pure; perfect as his Father in heaven was perfect”: Kept, as they are direct biblical echoes/commands (Matthew 5:48).
    • “Love the Lord his God with all his heart…”: Kept as direct biblical quote.
    • “Universal benevolence”: Kept, highlighting the scope of the required love for others.
    • “Dwell in God, (who is love,) and God in him”: Kept as direct biblical reference (1 John 4:16).
    • “Singly aim at his glory”: Modernized to “aim solely at His glory.”
    • I.3: “Perfect in degree”: This is a crucial point for Wesley; the law demanded perfection in quality as well as scope. Retained.
    • “No abatement, no allowance… for falling short in any degree, as to any jot or tittle”: Emphasizes the absolute nature of the demand, using biblical idiom “jot or tittle.”
    • “Full capacity of each, with the whole possibility of the soul”: Stresses the complete and utter demand.
    • I.4: “Perfectly uninterrupted”: Another key requirement of legal righteousness.
    • I.5: Summary of the law’s demand: This paragraph beautifully summarizes the law’s requirements as a direct address. I’ve modernized the language while retaining its poetic and commanding tone: “Thou, O man of God, stand fast in love, in the image of God wherein thou art made…” changed to “You, O person of God, stand firm in love, in the image of God in which you are made.” “Swerve not, in one motion of body or soul, from him, thy mark, and the prize of thy high calling” is retained as a powerful image. “This do, and thou shalt live” is the quintessential legal command.

    I. The Righteousness of the Law (Continued)

    1. By “the righteousness that comes from faith” is meant that condition for justification (and, as a result, for present and final salvation, if we endure in it to the end) which was given by God to fallen humanity through the merits and mediation of His only-begotten Son. This was partially revealed to Adam soon after his fall, being contained in the original promise made to him and his descendants concerning the Seed of the Woman, who would “crush the serpent’s head” (Genesis 3:15). It was revealed a little more clearly to Abraham by the angel of God from heaven, saying, “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, that in your offspring all the nations of the world will be blessed” (Genesis 12:15, 18). It was made known even more fully to Moses, to David, and to the Prophets who followed; and, through them, to many of God’s people in their respective generations. But still, most of even these individuals were ignorant of it, and very few understood it clearly. “Life and immortality” were still not “brought to light” for the Jews of old as plainly as they are now to us “by the gospel.”
    2. Now, this covenant does not say to sinful humanity, “Perform perfect obedience, and live.” If this were the term, they would gain no more benefit from all that Christ has done and suffered for them than if they were required, in order to life, to “ascend into heaven, and bring Christ down from above”; or to “descend into the deep,” into the invisible world, and “bring Christ up from the dead.” It does not require any impossible act to be done (although for mere human beings, what it requires would be impossible; but not for human beings assisted by the Spirit of God). This would only be mocking human weakness. Indeed, strictly speaking, the covenant of grace does not require us to do anything at all as absolutely and indispensably necessary in order to our justification; but only to believe in Him who, for the sake of His Son and the atonement He has made, “justifies the ungodly who does not work,” and credits their faith to them for righteousness. Even so, Abraham “believed in the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that comes from faith—that he might be the father of all who believe—that righteousness might be credited to them also” (Romans 4:11). “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it,” i.e., faith, “was credited to him; but also for us, to whom it shall be credited”—to whom faith shall be credited for righteousness, shall stand in the place of perfect obedience, in order to our acceptance with God—”if we believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered” to death “for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:23-25); for the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, and of a second life to come, to those who believe.
    3. What, then, does the covenant of forgiveness, of unmerited love, of pardoning mercy say? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” On the day you believe, you shall surely live. You shall be restored to the favor of God; and in His pleasure is life. You shall be saved from the curse and from the wrath of God. You shall be brought to life from the death of sin into the life of righteousness. And if you persevere to the end, believing in Jesus, you shall never experience the second death; but, having suffered with your Lord, you shall also live and reign with Him forever and ever.
    4. Now, “this word is near you.” This condition for life is plain, easy, always accessible. “It is in your mouth, and in your heart,” through the operation of the Spirit of God. The moment “you believe in your heart” in Him whom God “has raised from the dead,” and “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus,” as your Lord and your God, “you shall be saved” from condemnation, from the guilt and punishment of your former sins, and shall have power to serve God in true holiness all the remaining days of your life.
    5. What is the difference, then, between the “righteousness that comes from the law” and the “righteousness that comes from faith“? Between the first covenant, or the covenant of works, and the second, the covenant of grace? The essential, unchangeable difference is this: The one supposes the person to whom it is given to be already holy and happy, created in the image and enjoying the favor of God; and it prescribes the condition on which they may continue in that state of love and joy, life and immortality. The other supposes the person to whom it is given to be now unholy and unhappy, having fallen short of the glorious image of God, having the wrath of God resting on them, and hastening, through sin (by which their soul is dead), toward bodily death and everlasting death. And to humanity in this state, it prescribes the condition on which they may regain the treasure they have lost, may recover the favor and image of God, may retrieve the life of God in their soul, and be restored to the knowledge and the love of God, which is the beginning of eternal life.
    6. Again: The covenant of works, in order for humanity’s continuation in God’s favor, in His knowledge and love, in holiness and happiness, required of perfect humanity a perfect and uninterrupted obedience to every point of the law of God. Whereas, the covenant of grace, in order for humanity’s recovery of God’s favor and life, requires only faith; living faith in Him who, through God, justifies the one who did not obey.
    7. Yet, again: The covenant of works required of Adam and all his children to pay the price themselves, in consideration of which they were to receive all the future blessings of God. But, in the covenant of grace, seeing we have nothing to pay, God “freely forgives us all”: provided only that we believe in Him who has paid the price for us; who has given Himself as a “Propitiation for our sins, for the sins of the whole world.”
    8. Thus the first covenant required what is now far beyond the reach of all humanity; namely, sinless obedience, which is far from those who are “conceived and born in sin.” Whereas, the second requires what is near at hand; as though it should say, “You are sin! God is love! You by sin have fallen short of the glory of God; yet there is mercy with Him. Bring then all your sins to the pardoning God, and they shall vanish away as a cloud. If you were not ungodly, there would be no room for Him to justify you as ungodly. But now draw near, in full assurance of faith. He speaks, and it is done. Do not fear, only believe; for even the just God justifies all who believe in Jesus.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering Conflict: As noted, my translation numbers this section II.7 onwards to follow the preceding text from your prompt. We can adjust the final numbering of the entire sermon easily after the last section is translated.
    • “Merits and mediation”: Kept these theological terms.
    • Genesis 3:15 / Genesis 12:15, 18 / Romans 4:11, 23-25: Modernized the biblical quotes while retaining their core meaning.
    • “Unsinning obedience”: Changed to “perfect obedience” for clarity.
    • “Invisible world”: Added clarity for “the deep.”
    • “To mere man, what it requires would be impossible; but not to man assisted by the Spirit of God”: Maintained this crucial Wesleyan distinction.
    • “Justifieth the ungodly that worketh not”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion.
    • “Imputes his faith to him for righteousness”: Kept the theological term “imputes.”
    • “Stand in the stead of perfect obedience”: Kept for clarity on the legal nature of justification by faith.
    • “Frankly forgives us all”: Modernized to “freely forgives us all.”
    • “Propitiation for our sins, for the sins of the whole world”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion.
    • “Nigh at hand”: Modernized to “near at hand” or “always accessible.”
    • Romans 10:9-10 allusions: “Believe in thine heart… confessest with thy mouth… shalt be saved” are maintained as essential to the Roman 10 passage.
    • “Power to serve God in true holiness all the remaining days of thy life”: A key Wesleyan emphasis on present and ongoing sanctification.
    • I.11: Comprehensive Contrast: This paragraph is key to the entire sermon, clearly delineating the two covenants. I’ve maintained the rich theological language used to describe the fallen state and the recovery.
    • I.12 & I.13: Further Distinctions: These paragraphs reiterate and deepen the contrast, using terms like “perfect and uninterrupted obedience” vs. “only faith,” and “pay the price themselves” vs. “God ‘freely forgives us all’.”
    • I.14: Poetic Conclusion to the Section: This strong, evangelical call to faith is maintained, including the powerful rhetorical questions and direct address (“Thou art sin! God is love!”). “Just God justifieth all that believe in Jesus” is a key paradox Wesley embraces.

    II. The Folly of Trusting in the Law; The Wisdom of Faith

    1. Considering these points, it would be easy to show, as I planned to do in the second place, the folly of trusting in the “righteousness that comes from the law,” and the wisdom of submitting to “the righteousness that comes from faith.”The folly of those who still trust in the “righteousness that comes from the law”—whose terms are, “Do this, and live”—can be clearly seen from this: They start off wrong; their very first step is a fundamental mistake. For, before they can even think of claiming any blessing on the terms of this covenant, they must assume they are in the same state as the one with whom this covenant was made. But how foolish an assumption this is, since it was made with Adam in a state of innocence! How weak, therefore, must that whole structure be which stands on such a foundation! And how foolish are those who thus build on the sand! They seem never to have considered that the covenant of works was not given to humanity when they were “dead in trespasses and sins,” but when they were alive to God, when they knew no sin, but were holy as God is holy. They forget that it was never designed for the recovery of God’s favor and life once lost, but only for the continuation and increase thereof, until it should be complete in eternal life.
    2. Nor do those who are thus trying to establish their “own righteousness, which is of the law,” consider the kind of obedience or righteousness that the law absolutely requires. It must be perfect and complete in every point, or it does not meet the law’s demands. But which of you is able to perform such obedience, or, consequently, to live by it? Who among you fulfills every tiny detail, even of the outward commandments of God? Doing nothing, great or small, which God forbids? Leaving nothing undone which He commands? Speaking no idle word? Always having your conversation “fitting to give grace to those who hear”? And, “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, doing everything to the glory of God?” And how much less are you able to fulfill all the inward commandments of God!—those which require that every disposition and motion of your soul should be holiness to the Lord! Are you able to “love God with all your heart”? To love all humanity as your own soul? To “pray without ceasing”? “In everything to give thanks”? To have God always before you? And to keep every affection, desire, and thought in obedience to His law?
    3. You should further consider that the righteousness of the law requires not only obeying every command of God—negative and positive, internal and external—but also doing so in the perfect degree. In every instance whatever, the voice of the law is, “You shall serve the Lord your God with all your strength.” It allows no reduction of any kind. It excuses no defect. It condemns every falling short of the full measure of obedience, and immediately pronounces a curse on the offender. It regards only the unchanging rules of justice, and says, “I know not how to show mercy.”
    4. Who then can appear before such a Judge, who is “strict in marking what is done wrong?” How foolish are those who desire to be tried at the judgment bar where “no living person can be justified!”—none of Adam’s offspring. For, suppose we did now keep every commandment with all our strength; yet one single breach that ever occurred completely destroys our whole claim to life. If we have ever offended in any one point, this righteousness is at an end. For the law condemns all who do not perform uninterrupted as well as perfect obedience. So that, according to its sentence, for someone who has once sinned, in any degree, “there remains only a fearful expectation of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” of God.
    5. Is it not then the very height of folly for fallen humanity to seek life by this righteousness?—for humanity, who was “shaped in wickedness, and in sin did his mother conceive him?” For humanity, who is, by nature, entirely “earthly, sensual, devilish;” “altogether corrupt and abominable;” in whom, until they find grace, “dwells no good thing;” indeed, who cannot of themselves think one good thought; who is truly all sin, a mere lump of ungodliness, and who commits sin with every breath they draw; whose actual transgressions, in word and deed, are more numerous than the hairs of their head? What stupidity, what senselessness must it be for such an unclean, guilty, helpless creature as this to dream of seeking acceptance by their own righteousness, of living by “the righteousness that comes from the law!”
    6. Now, whatsoever considerations prove the folly of trusting in the “righteousness that comes from the law,” prove equally the wisdom of submitting to the “righteousness that comes from God by faith.” This would be easy to show with regard to each of the preceding considerations. But, to set this aside for a moment, the wisdom of the first step toward this—the disclaiming our own righteousness—plainly appears from this: that it is acting according to truth, to the real nature of things. For, what is it more than to acknowledge, with our heart as well as lips, the true state in which we are? To acknowledge that we bring with us into the world a corrupt, sinful nature; indeed, more corrupt than we can easily conceive, or find words to express? That by this, we are prone to all that is evil and averse from all that is good; that we are full of pride, self-will, unruly passions, foolish desires, vile and unrestrained affections; lovers of the world, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? That our lives have been no better than our hearts, but many ways ungodly and unholy; so much so that our actual sins, both in word and deed, have been as countless as the stars of heaven? That, on all these accounts, we are displeasing to Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and deserve nothing from Him but indignation and wrath and death, the just wages of sin? That we cannot, by any of our righteousness (for indeed we have none at all), nor by any of our works (for they are like the tree upon which they grow), appease the wrath of God or avert the punishment we have justly deserved? Yes, that, if left to ourselves, we shall only grow worse and worse, sink deeper and deeper into sin, offend God more and more, both with our evil works and with the evil dispositions of our carnal mind, until we fill up the measure of our iniquities and bring upon ourselves swift destruction? And is not this the very state in which we are by nature? To acknowledge this, then, both with our heart and lips—that is, to disclaim our own righteousness, “the righteousness that comes from the law”—is to act according to the real nature of things, and, consequently, is an instance of true wisdom.

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering: I’ve kept the Roman numeral II.1 and subsequent Arabic numbering as they appear in your provided text for now. We can harmonize the full sermon’s numbering later.
    • II.1: “Abundantly appear from hence”: Modernized to “can be clearly seen from this.”
    • “They set out wrong; their very first step is a fundamental mistake”: Kept, as it’s a strong, clear statement.
    • “Vain a supposition”: Modernized to “foolish an assumption.”
    • “Building be, which stands on such a foundation”: Kept the metaphor.
    • “Dead in trespasses and sins”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • II.2: “What manner of obedience or righteousness that is which the law indispensably requires”: Modernized to “kind of obedience or righteousness that the law absolutely requires.”
    • “Every jot and tittle”: Kept as a direct biblical idiom (Matthew 5:18).
    • “Meet to minister grace to the hearers”: Modernized to “fitting to give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).
    • “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, doing all to the glory of God”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (1 Corinthians 10:31).
    • “Every temper and motion of your soul should be holiness unto the Lord”: Kept, as it’s a powerful description of inward holiness.
    • “Love God with all your heart…” / “pray without ceasing” / “in every thing to give thanks”: Kept as direct biblical quotes/commands.
    • II.3: “Perfect degree”: Emphasizes the law’s absolute standard.
    • “Thou shalt serve the Lord thy God with all thy strength”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “Coming short of the full measure of obedience”: Kept, conveying the concept of failing to meet the standard.
    • “I know not to show mercy”: A strong personification of the law’s strictness.
    • II.4: “Extreme to mark what is done amiss”: Modernized to “strict in marking what is done wrong.”
    • “No flesh living can be justified”: Kept as a direct biblical quote.
    • “One single breach which ever was, utterly destroys our whole claim to life”: This is a critical point about the law’s indivisible demand.
    • “Fearful looking for of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Hebrews 10:27).
    • II.5: “Very foolishness of folly”: Kept this emphatic phrase.
    • “Shapen in wickedness, and in sin did his mother conceive him”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Psalm 51:5).
    • “Earthly, sensual, devilish”: Kept as direct biblical quote (James 3:15).
    • “Altogether corrupt and abominable”: Kept this strong language about fallen human nature.
    • “Dwellth no good thing”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Romans 7:18).
    • “Mere lump of ungodliness”: Kept this vivid, strong metaphor.
    • II.6: Transition to “Wisdom of submitting to the righteousness which is of God by faith”: This paragraph marks the significant pivot of the sermon.
    • “Disclaiming our own righteousness”: A key action in Wesley’s understanding of justification.
    • Comprehensive Description of Fallen State: The long list of human sinfulness (“corrupt, sinful nature,” “prone to all that is evil,” “pride, self-will,” “lovers of the world,” “ungodly and unholy,” “actual sins… as the stars of heaven for multitude,” “displeasing to Him… deserve nothing but indignation and wrath and death”) is kept to fully convey Wesley’s view of humanity’s natural state, making the subsequent embrace of faith all the more reasonable.
    • “Purer eyes than to behold iniquity”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Habakkuk 1:13).
    • “Wax worse and worse, sink deeper and deeper into sin”: Kept this vivid image of continued decline.

    II. The Folly of Trusting in the Law; The Wisdom of Faith (Continued)

    1. The wisdom of submitting to “the righteousness that comes from faith” appears further from this consideration: that it is the righteousness of God. I mean here, it is that method of reconciliation with God which has been chosen and established by God Himself—not only as He is the God of wisdom, but as He is the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, and of every creature He has made. Now, as it is not fitting for humanity to say to God, “What are You doing?”—as no one who is not utterly devoid of understanding will contend with One who is mightier than they, with Him whose kingdom rules over all—so it is true wisdom, it is a mark of sound understanding, to accept whatever He has chosen; to say in this, as in all things, “It is the Lord: Let Him do what seems good to Him.”
    2. It may be further considered that it was out of pure grace, of free love, of undeserved mercy, that God has granted sinful humanity any way of reconciliation with Himself—that we were not cut off from His hand and utterly erased from His remembrance. Therefore, whatever method He is pleased to appoint, out of His tender mercy, out of His undeserved goodness, whereby His enemies—who have so deeply revolted from Him, so long and obstinately rebelled against Him—may still find favor in His sight, it is doubtless our wisdom to accept it with all thankfulness.
    3. To mention just one more consideration. It is wisdom to aim at the best goal by the best means. Now, the best goal any creature can pursue is happiness in God. And the best goal a fallen creature can pursue is the recovery of the favor and image of God. But the best, indeed the only, means under heaven given to a person, by which they may regain the favor of God (which is better than life itself) or the image of God (which is the true life of the soul), is submitting to the “righteousness that comes from faith”—believing in the only-begotten Son of God.

    III. An Exhortation to the Sinner

    1. Therefore, whoever you are, who desires to be forgiven and reconciled to the favor of God, do not say in your heart, “I must first do this; I must first conquer every sin; break off every evil word and work, and do all good to all people; or, I must first go to church, receive the Lord’s Supper, hear more sermons, and say more prayers.” Alas, my brother or sister! You are completely off track. You are still “ignorant of the righteousness of God,” and are “seeking to establish your own righteousness,” as the basis of your reconciliation. Do you not know that you can do nothing but sin until you are reconciled to God? Why, then, do you say, “I must do this and this first, and then I shall believe?” No, but first believe! Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Atonement for your sins. Let this good foundation first be laid, and then you shall do all things well.
    2. Neither say in your heart, “I cannot be accepted yet, because I am not good enough.” Who is good enough—who ever was—to deserve acceptance at God’s hands? Was any child of Adam ever good enough for this? Or will any be until the consummation of all things? And as for you, you are not good at all: “There dwells in you no good thing.” And you never will be, until you believe in Jesus. Rather, you will find yourself getting worse and worse. But is there any need of being worse in order to be accepted? Are you not bad enough already? Indeed you are, and God knows that. And you yourself cannot deny it. Then delay not. All things are now ready. “Arise, and wash away your sins.” The fountain is open. Now is the time to wash yourself white in the blood of the Lamb. Now He shall “cleanse” you as “with hyssop,” and you shall “be clean”: He shall “wash” you, and you shall “be whiter than snow.”
    3. Do not say, “But I am not contrite enough: I am not sensible enough of my sins.” I know it. I wish to God you were more aware of them, a thousand times more broken-hearted than you are. But do not wait for this. It may be that God will make you so, not before you believe, but by believing. It may be, you will not weep much until you love much because you have had much forgiven. In the meantime, look to Jesus. Behold, how He loves you! What more could He have done for you that He has not done?O Lamb of God, was ever pain, Was ever love like Thine?Look steadily upon Him, until He looks on you and breaks your hard heart. Then shall your “head” be “waters,” and your “eyes fountains of tears.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • Numbering: I’ve kept the Roman numeral II and III as they appear in your text, and the Arabic numbering within them. We will need to reconcile the full sermon’s numbering in a final pass.
    • II.7: “Meet for man to say unto God, ‘What doest thou?’”: Modernized to “fitting for humanity to say to God, ‘What are You doing?’” (referencing Romans 9:20).
    • “Utterly void of understanding”: Modernized to “utterly devoid of understanding.”
    • “Contend with One that is mightier than he”: Modernized to “contend with One who is mightier than they.”
    • “Acquiesce in whatever he hath chosen”: Modernized to “accept whatever He has chosen.”
    • “It is the Lord: Let him do what seemeth him good”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (1 Samuel 3:18).
    • II.8: “Vouchsafed to sinful man any way of reconciliation”: Modernized to “granted sinful humanity any way of reconciliation.”
    • “Cut away from his hand, and utterly blotted out of his remembrance”: Kept the strong imagery.
    • “Revolted from him, so long and obstinately rebelled against him”: Kept, emphasizing the severity of sin.
    • II.9: “Aim at the best end by the best means”: Kept, as it’s a clear maxim.
    • “Recovery of the favour and image of God”: Key Wesleyan concept, kept.
    • “Better than life itself”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Psalm 63:3).
    • III.1: Exhortation’s Direct Address: Wesley’s direct address (“thou art clean gone out of the way,” “alas, my brother!”) is maintained, changing “thou/thy” to “you/your” for readability while preserving the intimate, urgent tone.
    • “Ignorant of the righteousness of God” / “seeking to establish thy own righteousness”: Kept as direct biblical quotes (Romans 10:3).
    • “Thou canst do nothing but sin, till thou art reconciled to God”: A very strong Wesleyan statement on natural inability.
    • “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Propitiation for thy sins”: Kept this core evangelical command and title for Christ.
    • III.2: “Not good enough”: Addresses a common spiritual struggle directly.
    • “Consummation of all things”: Kept as a theological term.
    • “There dwelleth in thee no good thing”: Kept as a direct biblical quote (Romans 7:18).
    • “Arise, and wash away thy sins” / “fountain is open” / “wash thee white in the blood of the Lamb” / “purge thee as with hyssop” / “be clean” / “wash thee, and thou shalt be whiter than snow”: These are powerful biblical allusions (Acts 22:16, Zechariah 13:1, Psalm 51:7) kept for their imagery and theological weight.
    • III.3: “Contrite enough” / “sensible enough of my sins”: Addresses a common misconception about the prerequisite for faith.
    • “Not before thou believest, but by believing”: A crucial Wesleyan emphasis on the relationship between faith and repentance/conviction.
    • Poetry: The Charles Wesley hymn stanza is retained in its original form.
    • “Head” be “waters,” and thy “eyes fountains of tears”: Kept as direct biblical allusion (Jeremiah 9:1).

    III. An Exhortation to the Sinner (Conclusion)

    1. To conclude. Whoever you are, O person, who has the sentence of death within yourself, who feels yourself a condemned sinner, and has the wrath of God resting on you: To you the Lord says, not, “Do this,”—perfectly obey all My commands—“and live;” but, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” “The word of faith is near you:” Now, at this instant, in the present moment, and in your present state, sinner as you are, just as you are, believe the gospel; and “I will be merciful to your unrighteousness, and your iniquities I will remember no more.”

    Notes on Translation Choices:

    • “Whosoever thou art, O man, who hast the sentence of death in thyself, who feelest thyself a condemned sinner, and hast the wrath of God abiding on thee”: This powerful, direct address is maintained, with “thou/thy” updated to “you/your” for readability while preserving the urgency and personal nature of the appeal.
    • “Do this,” — perfectly obey all my commands, — “and live”: Retained to emphasize the Law’s impossible demand.
    • “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”: Kept as the core evangelical command.
    • “The word of faith is nigh unto thee”: Modernized to “near you.”
    • “Now, at this instant, in the present moment, and in thy present state, sinner as thou art, just as thou art, believe the gospel”: This emphasizes the immediacy and unconditional nature of the call to faith, a hallmark of Wesley’s preaching on justification. This is a very critical part.
    • “I will be merciful unto thy unrighteousness, and thy iniquities will I remember no more”: Kept as a direct biblical quote/allusion (Hebrews 8:12), signifying the promise of complete forgiveness.
  • Psalm 119:76 – Comfort

    Psalm 119:76 – Comfort

    Let your lovingkindness comfort me
    as you have promised your servant.

    Lovingkindness is the Hebrew word hesed, which can also refer to faithfulness, favor, goodness, or grace. It also refers to the loyalty involved in a covenant relationship.

    I think one of the most commonly forgotten aspects of Christian faith (also true in Judaism) is living in the knowledge of being in a relationship with God. A covenant is a relationship. We often talk about our relationship with God as a sort of romantic adventure based solely on emotion.

    I don’t want to deny emotion. Emotion is important. Experience and the emotion that grows out of it is as critical as the facts on which it is based. One can get lost either way. The idea of meeting a God who demands that we keep his commands outside of such a relationship is quite daunting.

    You know that YHWH your God, he is God. He is a faithful God who keeps covenant and lovingkindness – to those who love him and to those who keep his commands – for a thousand generations.

    Deuteronomy 7:9 (author’s translation)

    Now keeping all those commands is a lot of work! Works will not save you. Works will not make you a child of God. But the book of Deuteronomy doesn’t teach that the works are somehow earning the favor. Rather,

    Not because you were more numerous than all the peoples did YHWH passionately desire you and choose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples. Rather, because YHWH loved you and because he kept the oath which he swore to Abraham, YHWH brought you out with a powerful hand and ransomed you from the house of servitude, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

    Deutereonmy 7:7-8 (author’s translation)

    Now there’s something interesting about the word used to describe God’s passionate desire. It’s the same word used by Hamor of his son Shechem and his desire for Dinah, daughter of Jacob. I don’t bring this up to somehow ransom the sordid story of Shechem and Dinah. But this illustrates the strength of the emotional bond. Hamor, in using this word of his son, is telling the people of the town that the prince has to have the girl he desires. He can’t do without her.

    God’s love for God’s people is powerful, demanding, and must be satisfied. When God gives a covenant to Abraham, and repeatedly renews and restates it, God is saying that his love is overwhelming.

    In ancient times, the breaking of a covenant was regarded as a very bad thing, often resulting in a penalty of death. In Ezekiel 17:11-21 God’s message is that the people made a covenant with the king of Babylon and then violated it. God asks regarding the king who did this, “Will such a man be successful? Will he escape destruction if he acts in this way? Can he violate a treaty and escape unpunished?” (Ezekiel 17:15b). This is a condemnation of violating a human treaty.

    In Jeremiah 31:31, God says he will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah, and in verse 32 he says the old one was “one they broke.” Do you hear what’s going on here? Violation of a human covenant is condemned. And yes, violation of God’s covenant is condemned. But what does God do?

    God makes a new one. Why? Because he loves his people so much. He has to have that relationship. Notice that the new covenant is in what we Christians call the “Old Testament.” The same love expressed in Deuteronomy 7 as Israel prepares to enter the land, is again expressed by creating a new covenant to replace the broken one.

    So does this only apply to Israel? We have only to pay attention to the covenant from the start to realize that God invites Israel to be his to be a blessing to all. God claims sovereignty over all the nations and moves the save them.

    It is in this overwhelmingly faithful, overpoweringly loving relationship that we can find that comfort. That kind of love is the best atmosphere in which to grow. Holiness only occurs immersed in God’s all-encompassing grace.

    Can you feel that grace today in every moment?

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • On Christian Fiction and Covenant

    In the early days of my company, Energion Publications, I tried to post some reflections immediately after each new book release. Things have gotten much busier, and I’m behind, but I still hope to publish reflections. Perhaps if I’m diligent, I can catch up! I want to make clear that this isn’t a review, nor is it an official statement of my company. I don’t have anyone review or even proofread these notes. This may not (and in this case will not) be entirely about one book. It just contains my personal reflections on helping to bring a new book to the public.

    Before I look at the specific book, I want to say a few things about Christian fiction. There has been some debate about just what constitutes Christian fiction. Is it fiction that has a Christian theme? Does it include books that have (identifiable) Christians as characters? Does it have proclamation of the gospel as its central goal?

    I’m not too concerned with settling the debate. I doubt people will all come to agree. But here’s how I see it, and how I tend to divide Christian-related fiction.

    First, there are books that involve Christians in an identifiable way. They go to church (or not). They pray. They talk about their faith and how it relates to events. If the story is not portraying an explicitly Christian theme, I simply call this fiction. I’d like to see people of other faiths and of no faith at all portrayed as who they are in any novel. Just as we expect a good novelist to understand how various characters think and feel based on other factors, such as political views, family, culture, and psychology, we should expect a character to be portrayed accurately in terms of religious views and spirituality. A novel set in modern America should almost always have someone in it who is a person of faith, and just having a Christian in the book does not make it a Christian novel, any more than having a Muslim in it would make it a Muslim novel.

    But now let’s use the last example to bring us to the next category. A novel set in a Muslim community, in which characters attend prayers on Friday, fast during Ramadan, and search for answers from the Qur’an might well be a Muslim novel. But if the theme instead is one of a Muslim character who convinces a Christian to convert to Islam, that would certainly be a Muslim novel.

    Now just reverse the names of the religions. Many Christian novels have as a plot, or at least a subplot, the conversion of one of the characters. One form of this kind of novel is a Christian romance that does not involve Christians getting romantically involved, but rather has one lead character (most frequently the female lead) fall in love with the other (generally the male lead), even though he is not of her faith. Over the course of the novel the one is converted so that they can both be saved and live happily ever after, including going to heaven when they die. (Please don’t send me one of these. There are enough of them already.)

    Then there are works of fiction that portray a particular Christian theme. Our first fiction publication, Megabelt, is such a book. It portrays life in the large Christian churches of the Bible belt (mega=megachurch, belt=Bible belt). It is Christian themed and discusses Christian life. It even tends to push readers to try to get out of their “Christian” cultural ruts. At the same time, I know there are non-Christian readers who have enjoyed it. At the other extreme of this category (in our catalog) is Prayer Trilogy. By its title you can tell it has a religious theme. But it is not a book about converting people (though it does talk redemption). Rather, it portrays Christians who pray and try to live out their faith. You could enjoy this even if you saw coincidence (and just plain good people) where the author sees providence.

    As you can tell, I think the boundaries aren’t clear. For example, how would one view the works of Andrew Greeley? I’ve said before that he preaches the gospel in writing. Many conservative protestants will miss this, because there is an overt theme of sex, but he still gets God involved and even draws out the love of God as portrayed through human passion (Song of Songs anyone?). I know many non-Christian readers enjoy Greeley’s novels. So the boundaries are not absolutely clear.

    Covenant - the NovelSo let’s get to Covenant, the recent novel released by my company. It’s author, Daniel Martin, has written a definitely Christian novel. I think wherever you stand on the various definitions, this one is going to be labeled “Christian.” Its author wouldn’t want it any other way. If there was any chance you’d miss it, you might be clued in by the large angel on the front cover.

    Covenant isn’t going to convert anyone to Christianity. I take the time to say this, because people make this mistake frequently. Our books don’t convert people. We don’t convert people. Conversion is between God and the individual. It’s an act of the Holy Spirit, not of humans. What we can do, and what Covenant does, is bear witness. It’s a testimony in fictional form of someone who has been in the trenches, who knows Jesus Christ, and who has chosen this form to tell the story. I don’t mean here that it’s autobiographical, except in the sense that it’s a biography of every Christian. “It’s by grace you’re saved, through faith. And that’s not something you did yourself. It’s God’s gift” (Eph. 2:8)!

    There are going to be challenging moments for people of various theological views. People in the mainline churches, for example, don’t like to talk about angels and demons (especially angels in this case) being quite this active. Redemption comes as God works through people and by sending angels. Spiritual warfare is very active and critical. If there weren’t challenging points, I would never have published the book. Sometimes a novel is a good way to encounter some of these things. Just what do you believe? Have you thought about it? Have you studied it?

    While I say this isn’t autobiographical, I recall remarking as I was reading the manuscript for the first time that it was clearly written by someone who had been in the trenches. The author knows how to describe the down and out, he knows how to describe trouble, and he also knows how to describe redemption. And yes, he even knows how to describe the struggles that go through redemption. Don’t look for any quick and obvious miracles to derail the plot. The angels are there, but they’re generally pushing (and helping) the people to find their way and do the things they are called to do. That is when they aren’t riding motorcycles or sliding down the noses of statuary. But you’ll have to read the book to find out about that.

    You don’t find a lot of preaching in the book. What you find is people acting and living. There is a sermon here, but it’s in the story. It merits the title Christian fiction. I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s witness may even be the means by which God speaks to you.

     

  • Interactive Covenants and Prophecies or God Has a Plan B

    It’s interesting to me how we (and I definitely include myself) often read scripture. One concept can easily override another. For example, I recall a conversation in which someone was claiming that no human being was ever righteous. I brought up Job, who is described as righteous in Job 1. “Oh, but that is only as he was seen through the righteousness of Christ,” I was told. Of course, Job 1 isn’t speaking of the righteousness of Christ, and in fact the entire book would be very silly with that change. Job is concerned that he has been punished, but that nothing he has done deserves these results.

    This post is a follow-up to Psalm 89: When Eternal Doesn’t Last, and you should read that post first.

    It’s funny that I begin this post with an illustration from Job, because Job provides a counterpoint to the theology I’m looking at. Jeremiah 18, which I cited in the previous post, talks about how if God is sending disaster, and the recipients of the disaster repent, God will repent of that disaster. One implication that might be drawn is that good deeds result in blessing, and bad deeds result in curses. One need look no further than Deuteronomy 28 to find this theology made explicit, and it is repeatedly hammered in through the various books of the Deuteronomic history.

    But what I’m more interested in here is the interactive nature of the texts, the way in which people’s actions are woven in with God’s will with the implication that you can change the future. Even if God has said things will go one way, that might be changed through human action.

    In theology we tend to reconcile the differences in some way. God might only appear to react to the actions of humans, but he actually knows precisely what is coming and he does precisely what he planned. It may be considered blasphemous to suggest otherwise. But open theism and process theology both suggest that God is more interactive than traditional theology holds, though to different degrees and in different ways.

    My interest here is in the way we read the biblical text, and the way that we understand prophecy and its fulfilment. I’ll get to the covenants shortly.

    Imagine a father who tells his children that he will take them all to the movies in the evening. Now think about the father’s mental processes. Did he suddenly realize that in the fixed future he would have taken his children to the movies, and thus he informed them of this information he had received (or divined, perhaps)? Or did he decide at this moment that he wanted to take his children to the movies, and that he would, in fact, do so this very evening?

    Given that this human father does not know the future, such as to see himself taking future action, we’ll have to assume the latter. He makes a decision in the present, and he announces it to his children by saying, “I’m going to take you to the movies.” At the point at which he makes that statement it’s true. Being an optimistic sort, this particular father doesn’t think of all the possible reasons he might not make it or might change his mind. He just says he’s going.

    Let’s imagine now that the children, having heard of their good fortune, decide that nothing else matters. They fail to do their chores. They ignore their mother. The fail to put away their toys. They say unfortunate things. In fact, they generally make life miserable for their parents.

    Now the father says, “Because you have been misbehaving, we are not going to the movies any more.” Does this make his earlier statement a lie? It was true (at least in intent) when he said it, but it does not actually take place.

    My suggestion is that prophecies are more like this father’s statement than they are like scenes which one might see in a crystal ball. (If crystal balls worked, which they don’t!) When God says “Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days,” he doesn’t mean that he has observed the future and seen that this happens, but rather that he intends, in 40 days, to destroy Nineveh. That’s clearly the way the Ninevites understand it. It’s the way Jonah is afraid it’s going to work.

    I’m not certain how much difference there is between these two ways of thinking when it is God making the promises or predictions. It makes a great deal of difference in the way we think about what God has to say.

    Now we come to covenant, and I’d like to call our attention to Jeremiah 31:31-34:

    31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (NRSV)

    (Note: I would use “lawful lord” rather than “husband” in this passage, but that gets beyond the scope of this blog post.)

    There are a few things to notice about this passage. First, the covenant came with promises (or are they predictions?). Does this make a difference? There are conditions. It is by violating these conditions that the covenant is broken. Once broken, the covenant is not in effect.

    Then comes the unheard of grace—a new covenant. It’s not a restoration of an old covenant. That one has been broken, and as we learned in Psalm 89, no matter what we do we cannot make the promises “have been” fulfilled, because they weren’t. David’s throne was removed. There was no one sitting on it. No amount of restoration years later can make what did not happen happen. Instead, there’s a new covenant. God is now on plan B, unless it’s plan C or D and we didn’t realize it. But at least it’s not plan A.

    And this is where Christians can go off the rail, especially considering how much this passage is used in the book of Hebrews. The easy Christian solution is to assume that the new covenant that God created is a covenant with the church. And I believe that God does indeed have a new covenant with the church.

    But having a covenant with his people the church does not really fulfil the words of Jeremiah 31:31-34, because there he says that a day is coming when he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That precludes one set of ideas, specifically that the church replaces Israel, and that Israel as such is no longer a player.

    But on the other hand we have the view that everything said in the old covenant, the one that was broken, must still be fulfilled. That is not, in my view, scripturally justified. In fact, that is to make the same mistake as those Jeremiah mentioned (7:1-20) who kept repeating: “The temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!” God calls attention immediately to Shiloh which had once been the seat of God’s tabernacle, but which had not done so well.

    So it’s now plan B, or perhaps plan C. (Shiloh?) How do we know the form that God’s blessing will take? Perhaps no eye has seen it nor any ear heard it, nor has it entered into any human heart (1 Cor. 2:9).

  • Psalm 89: When Eternal Doesn’t Last

    This week’s lectionary (RCL) texts for this week (Proper B11) form an interesting set, complete with the occasional weird cut-off for the scripture. For example, 2 Samuel 7:1-14a chops off the last part of Nathan’s message to David, the part about both the eternal covenant and the potential for God’s discipline. As I read this, I was thinking that they didn’t want to go into that “eternal covenant” territory.

    (Note that for this post I am reading the Old Testament as a Christian and I am not making use of Jewish interpretation. I use “Old Testament” when referring to the Hebrew scriptures as a part of the Christian Bible. I use “Hebrew scriptures” to refer to them as a literary collection or as the Jewish Bible.)

    But then we have Psalm 89:20-37. Here they have all the stuff about the eternal covenant, but they don’t go on to deal with the most important topic of the Psalm. Verse 38 (not part of the reading) begins:

    But you have spurned and rejected him;
    you are angry with your chosen king.
    You have repudiated your covenant with your servant;
    you have thrown his crown to the ground (38-39 NET).

    If you continue reading you get a scene that sounds very much like the Babylonian exile or thereafter, though there might be a couple of other dates that would fit in. In fact, the author of this Psalm is addressing God specifically because he doesn’t see the eternal covenant being fulfilled. Rather, at this point it is impossible for that covenant to be fulfilled as originally written because it called for a descendant of David to be on the throne “forever” and “forever” is not to be interrupted. Unfortunately “forever” has been interrupted.

    Now there are a number of Christian workarounds for this issue, and most readers likely will have one so readily to mind that they may never have noticed the problem in the first place. We get so used to an imposed or traditional interpretation that we actually hear the interpretation when we think we’re reading the text.

    Many of our common answers involve what I call in my essay Facing the Proof-Text Method “text trimming.” Using this method we trim a text down to size so we can claim either that we obey the command or that a promise or prediction has been fulfilled. In this case a common interpretation for this eternal covenant is that Jesus is of the lineage of David, and either is now sitting on David’s throne (conveniently, if figuratively, transported to heaven), or that at a future date Jesus will sit on David’s throne, thus fulfilling the terms of the covenant.

    But somebody future sitting on David’s throne again, or someone sitting on a throne somewhere else doesn’t fulfill the terms of the covenant as expressed here. In fact, these terms cannot and will not be fulfilled because they have already been overcome by events–specifically there was and is a time when no son of David has been sitting on the throne of Israel. To make this seem like a fulfillment, we must make the covenant itself say less than it actually says.

    If we transport ourselves briefly to a time when the door was still open, but this very issue was front and center, we may see some of the difficulties. I refer to the time when Jerusalem was under its final siege prior to the 586 BCE fall of Jerusalem. There we have some people saying that the city cannot fall because it is, after all, the location of God’s house, and God has promised that there will be a descendant of David on the throne.

    Jeremiah has to argue that there is no safety here. The city can fall. The king can be removed. The temple can be destroyed. He makes an extended argument to this effect in Jeremiah 18, which is sometimes quoted to support God’s sovereignty. “Yes, indeed! God can do whatever he wants!” But that is not the intent at all.

    There are times, Jeremiah, when I threaten to uproot, tear down, and destroy a nation or kingdom. But if that nation I threatened stops doing wrong, I will cancel the destruction I intended to do to it. And there are times when I promise to build up and establish a nation or kingdom. But if that nation does what displeases me and does not obey me, then I will cancel the good I promised to do to it (Jeremiah 18:7-10 NET).

    I recommend reading the entire chapter. The message here is not so much God’s sovereignty, though that is a fundamental assumption of the chapter. Rather, it is that God responds to our actions. Eternal blessings involve responsibilities. You can reverse the blessing, but the good news is that you can also reverse the punishment.

    The book of Jonah illustrates this point in narrative form. Jonah assumes the type of theology that Jeremiah states explicitly. Jonah is actually afraid that God will be merciful and won’t fulfill the promise, yet the story does not include any notion that Jonah preached a possibility of repentance. He hoped the Ninevites would not repent. He was annoyed when they weren’t destroyed. (Again, read the whole book! It’s only four chapters.)

    So what do we do with eternal promises that don’t happen precisely as predicted?

    First, Psalm 89 itself makes it clear that any variation here doesn’t involve abandoning Israel. Canonizing this as part of Christian scripture (or accepting it as canonical) indicates that we believe God is in action in Psalm 89, after the king has been removed. God is still active with his people Israel. We acknowledge through this act that Israel is not abandoned, even if we don’t always remember that we did.

    Second, we have another explicit statement of God’s approach in Jeremiah, this time in chapter 31:31-34. (Again, if you are not well acquainted with this passage, shame on you, go read it!) This is the famous passage used extensively in the book of Hebrews. I am reading it in Jeremiah’s context (to the best of my ability), however, and what I want to note is that the new covenant made is not with someone else, but with the house of Israel.

    There is an argument that God transfers his promises from Israel (Israel is said to have failed) to either the church or in some cases to another nation. There are those who think the United States has become God’s chosen people in some way. But a sudden transfer of the promises from Israel to the church is not a good option, because the new covenant is made with Israel.

    I base my interpretation here heavily on Jeremiah, even though I started with Psalm 89, because Jeremiah is the guy who had to deal with this issue when it was live. He had to proclaim his view of the covenant and the results of violating it in the face of torture and death, not sitting comfortably in front of his computer screen or in a church office somewhere.

    At the same time, if we as Christians are to understand this as God’s will, and ourselves as part of God’s will, we will have to see some way in which we become connected. Thus we “trim the text” in some ways, allowing modification, but it’s a modification that is, I think, well supported. Jeremiah maintains there is a new covenant. Even the old covenant called for Israel to bless the entire world.

    Paul makes his argument in Romans 9-11, which is again less concerned with God’s sovereignty, though that is again a fundamental assumption of the passage, but rather with how God deals with Israel. Like a parent, God doesn’t say, “I think I’ll put aside this one son in favor of someone else.” Rather, he looks to extend his blessing. Thus we gentiles are grafted in and receive some of God’s blessing. (It would be interesting to spend some time on Paul’s use of scripture in Romans 9-11. He does some interesting things!)

    It’s easy here to imagine that the Jews must somehow be blessed less. It’s hard for us to understand that God’s love and his blessings are not a limited commodity. When I became a step-parent I was careful never to suggest that my step-children should love their birth father less. I loved them as my own, but I knew the love was shared, yet I felt no loss. Love isn’t a limited commodity either. And we, limited as we are, can add more people into our circle of love. So can God.

    But even here we can make a mistake. We often see “chosen-ness” as being chosen to receive blessings, to be the best loved favorite. But God tends to choose people to do things. Jeremiah was chosen, just as Israel was chosen. It was a different time and place and different purpose (though not as different as it might seem), but being chosen wasn’t fun for Jeremiah. In fact, it was quite miserable.

    So the gentile church has no cause for boasting or for thinking of themselves as better than others. That’s not the point of being chosen by God. The point of being chosen by God is mission–whatever mission God has for you.

    Thus while I say that the promise cannot be fulfilled as written, because it wasn’t, yet God is faithful to act with consistency. A rebellious church might consider a serious reading of Jeremiah 18.