Called to Holiness
Introduction: I collect lawyer jokes. Would you like to hear a couple of my new additions? It seems that a lawyer and the Pope both died about the same time and were met by St. Peter, who said he would take them to their respective dwelling places. They came to a little hovel with nothing but a table, a chair and a lamp, and St. Peter said to the Pope, “This is where you will live for all eternity.” The lawyer was a bit concerned, wondering where he would end up if the Pope got such an ordinary residence. But he followed St. Peter, who finally stopped in front of a beautiful mansion and said, “Here is your dwelling place.” The lawyer couldn’t believe his eyes and was moved to say to St. Peter, “I’m afraid you may have gotten things a bit mixed up. Are you sure the Pope and I weren’t supposed to trade places?” “Oh, no,” said St. Peter. “We have a lot of Popes up here, but you’re the very first lawyer.”
Then there were the two lawyers who were bosom buddies. Much to the amazement of one, the other became a Sunday School teacher. “I bet you don’t even know the Lord’s Prayer,” he fumed. “Everybody knows that,” the other replied, “It’s, ‘Now I lay me know to sleep . . .'” “You win,” said his friend, admiringly, “I didn’t know you knew so much about the Bible.”
I just hope the lawyers in church have a good sense of humor, especially those who tithe! But. I have to admit, when a person is in trouble, a good lawyer is a sight for sore eyes. Have you ever needed an attorney? Well, whether you realize it or not you need one every day and every night, and if you’re a believer you have one every day and every night. You would think the retainer fee for such services would be astronomical, and in fact it is, but it’s already been paid. But we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves.
As we saw clearly last Sunday in our study of chapter 1, the believer must be aware of, and honest about, sin in his life. There are some who claim they can sin and still be in fellowship with God at the same time; there are others who claim they have defeated sin in their lives and it’s no longer a problem for them; there are still others who claim they have never sinned. All three claims are lies.
The alternative to denying sin is to walk in the light and confess our sin, calling it what God calls it instead of excusing it or offering euphemisms for it. If we do that, God promises us forgiveness and continual cleansing. As we come to chapter 2 we find John expanding upon the problem of sin and its solution as he makes a clear call for holiness. That call includes a marvelous provision for sin, as revealed in three aspects of Jesus’ ministry: Jesus is the Believer’s Advocate, the Believer’s Substitute, and the Believer’s Example.
Jesus is the believer’s advocate. (1)
I would like to convey John’s point here by reference to four general truths, which we will then seek to illustrate from our text:
The law (any law—national, state, local, or home) sets certain standards.
When those standards are broken, accusations result.
When accusations are leveled, an advocate is needed.
When it is God’s laws that are broken, a unique kind of advocate is needed.
Now let’s take those one at a time:
The law sets certain standards. (1a). God has set a standard for us that can easily be expressed in one word—holiness. In fact, He said, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” John expresses it this way in verse 1: “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin.” Tough standards; in fact, impossible standards! And if that’s where John stopped, the result would be a lot of guilt and hopelessness, because even those with the strongest commitment to holiness sin on occasion.
Fortunately, John doesn’t stop there, but before looking at his solution, I want us to ask what happens when God’s standard of absolute holiness is violated? Accusations result, principally from Satan, the god of this world. I want you to look at two passages that speak of Satan as the accuser of the believer.
When those standards are broken, accusations result. (Rev. 12:10, Zech. 3:1-7. First, Rev. 12:7-10:
“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.”
Here Satan is described as one who accuses believers before God day and night.
Consider another passage that gives a bit more detail about the nature of Satan’s accusations. It is found in the book of Zechariah, the next to last book in the O.T., chapter 3:1-7. The prophet writes,
“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest (this is not the Joshua of Moses’ day, but another man of God centuries later) standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’ Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.'”
Joshua in this scene is a picture of the believer whom Satan accuses of being unfit for heaven because of our dirty clothes, illustrative of our sins. The Lord responds not by denying that we are unworthy but by calling us burning sticks snatched from the fire. The angel is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ who orders us to get rid of our dirty clothes because he has taken away our sin and made available to us rich royal garments in their place.
Passages like this teach that Satan has some sort of access to God’s presence, which he utilizes to constantly level accusations against us. I can imagine him saying, “God, you know that preacher who speaks constantly against lust? Did you see how he looked at that young woman in the sports car this morning, hoping she would give him a come-on look? Did you see that housewife who portrays herself as a godly wife and mother but spends three hours a day watching trashy soap operas? Did you see that student at Parkway North who is a leader in the youth group but gets high almost every weekend? Aren’t you embarrassed that such people call themselves your children? Do you claim them?” Friends, when such accusations are leveled at us, we need a lawyer.
When accusations are leveled, an advocate is needed. (1b). There are some who try to defend themselves in court, but it a well-known aphorism that “he who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” That may be a bit of propaganda from the American Bar Association, but there is some truth in it. One who stands accused needs an advocate, particularly so when it comes to God’s bar of justice. There is absolutely no hope for self-defense when facing Satan’s accusations, principally because most of his accusations are true!
But thanks be to God, we have an advocate. “But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” Look carefully at the phrase, “one who speaks in our defense.” That is just one word in Greek, a word some of you are familiar with—paraklete. It is used of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John, where it is translated “comforter.” But literally it refers to someone who “comes along side of” someone else, a helper. In the legal arena a paraclete is a lawyer or advocate. And don’t overlook the present tense, “we have.” It tells us notthat an advocate is available if we meet all the requirements, or if we pay the fee the fee in advance, or if we beg, but that we have, right now, someone defending us.
I am very grateful for Jesus’ continuing interest in His people. We are not to think of him as having gone through his life upon the earth and his death upon the Cross, and then being finished with human beings. He still bears His concern for us upon His heart; He still pleads for us; Jesus Christ is our advocate.
When it is God’s laws that are broken, a unique kind of advocate is needed. (1c). Think for a moment about the various defenses that are used in a court of law. There is the insanity plea, dismissal on the basis of a technicality, the alibi defense, the necessity defense, the provocation defense, and the coercion defense. How many of those defenses are going to work before the Judge of all the Earth? None, of course. Think also about the kind of lawyers there are. Some are out to make a name for themselves. Others serve their own financial interest rather than those of their client. Still others are just too busy to prepare an adequate defense.
Friends, when we stand before the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God who is all-knowing, all powerful, holy, just, good, etc., what we need is not a clever lawyer, not a brilliant logician, not a moving orator, not a greedy lawyer, not a lawyer who is too busy. What we need is just what is described in our text—”one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” Jesus can defend us because He is not pleading our righteousness but His own. He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Which brings us to the second great ministry that Christ performs for us as a remedy for our sin.
Jesus is the believer’s substitute. (2)
Verse 2 reads, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” The translators of the NIV have used the words, “atoning sacrifice” in place of the King James’ and NASB’s “propitiation.” I know why they did that, because “propitiation” is a big theological term that is intimidating to the average person, and often such terms are more trouble than they’re worth. But sometimes theological terminology is appropriate because the concept is impossible to express without it. Jesus certainly is our “atoning sacrifice,” but that doesn’t express fully the truth conveyed by the word “propitiation.”
What does “propitiation” mean? To propitiate means to gain the favor of, to appease, to conciliate, or to satisfy. Naturally the one being propitiated is someone who is upset or angry. Down through the years many husbands have used flowers to propitiate their wives and many congressmen have used money to propitiate their constituents.
When the term is used theologically the meaning is that God is angry at human sin and His wrath must be satisfied. Now this is not a popular notion in liberal theology. God is seen as a God of love who is favorably disposed to mankind, while the notion of an angry God demanding that His wrath be appeased is viewed as pagan. After all, don’t the heathen deities require human sacrifice and other offerings to mollify their wrath? Yes, that’s true, but just because a notion has been borrowed and distorted by the pagans doesn’t mean it has no validity. In fact, most heresies start with an element of truth. The fact is God is angry at human sin, and He could not be satisfied until that sin was paid for, which raises a second question:
How is propitiation achieved? If God has never demanded, nor could even accept, human sacrifices of any kind as payment for our sin, how can His wrath be satisfied? He solved the problem Himself by sending His son to die in our place. 1 John 4:10, which also uses the word “propitiation,” reads, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent His Son as the propitiation for our sins.” Our advocate does not plead our innocence; he acknowledges our guilt and presents his life as a sacrifice and a substitute for our acquittal.
Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain;
He washed it white as snow.
To whom does propitiation apply? (2b). Verse 2 says that “Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” That’s a fairly straightforward statement that ought to be easy to understand, but from the history of biblical interpretation we find that it has generated a great deal of debate. Let me mention two unsatisfactory ways of looking at verse 2 and then offer what I believe is the natural, common-sense, and balanced position.
The universalist answer. Universalism is the view that everyone will eventually get to Heaven, and it is rapidly gaining popularity in Christian circles. In fact, the next major theological issue to engulf the church will not be the doctrine of the Holy Spirit or the inerrancy of Scripture or the Trinity, but rather universalism. Not surprisingly, universalists love 1 John 2:2, for they interpret it to mean that Jesus has paid for the sins of believers, but not for theirs only but also for the sins of everyone. Therefore, everyone must be going to heaven.
If I were speaking to a different audience I would at this point stop and examine with you the dozens of Scripture references which categorically deny that everyone is going to Heaven, but my suspicion is that few here this morning would see any validity to the universalist position. Should there be someone who would like to explore that with me later, I welcome the opportunity to talk to you in person.[i]
So much for universalism and its interpretation of 1 John 2:2. There is another inadequate interpretation of this verse that goes to the opposite extreme, and I would call it the
The strict Calvinist answer. I use the term “strict Calvinist” (perhaps hyper-Calvinist would be even better) rather than just Calvinist, because if I myself had to accept a theological label, I would certainly be a Calvinist rather than an Arminian. But there are those who are so Calvinistic that they allow their system of theology to blind them to simple biblical truth. The hyper-Calvinist is compulsively concerned with protecting God’s sovereignty in the plan of salvation (sometimes I think they should let God protect His own sovereignty). Two of their main tenets are unconditional election and limited atonement. Unconditional election means that all who have been, are, or will be believers were chosen by God in eternity past, and they have been chosen, not because God knew in His omniscience and foreknowledge that they would some day believe, but rather He chose them of His own freewill, unconditionally. Limited atonement means that the saving effects of the death of Christ are limited to those whom God has chosen.
Now I personally believe both of these truths (when carefully stated and properly understood), but some Calvinists go to seed with them. I have many Presbyterian friends, conservative Bible-believing people, who read 1 John 2:2 as though the Apostle were addressing his congregation in Ephesus as follows: “Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, i.e., for those of us who are believers here in Ephesus, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world of the elect.” By interpreting it that way they feel they have protected their doctrine of election. By the same token, those same people would interpret John 3:16 the same way: “For God so loved the world of the elect . . .”[ii]
I believe that such interpretations are unnecessary and distorted. They are unnecessary because the doctrines of election and limited atonement stand quite well without such finagling, and they are distorted because they are not the natural way to read the Scripture. One of the truths we must constantly keep in mind when studying the Bible is that the Bible was written by common people for common people and it can be understood by common people. When an average person, not a theological scholar, looks at 1 John 2:2 what does he see? He sees that Christ’s propitiation extends not only to believers but to the whole world.
But we’re not quite out of the woods yet. If we reject the universalist’s contention that everyone will be saved and also reject the Calvinist’s contention that propitiation is only for the elect, where does that leave us? The resolution, as I see it, is found in the fact that the death of Christ was sufficientfor every human being but efficient only for the elect, those that actually believe. Jesus has satisfied God’s wrath in respect to all human sin, but only those who confess their sins and thus have the blood of Jesus applied to their guilt, actually have their sins forgiven and experience salvation. Such a view fits well with the frequent statements in the Bible that offer salvation to all, while at the same time affirming the many statements that make it clear that only a portion of those who are offered salvation actually appropriate it.
Very quickly we want to look at the third great ministry that Christ performs to help us live up to our call to holiness:
Jesus is the believer’s example. (3-6)
Do you remember that last Sunday we mentioned there are three key tests of faith offered again and again in the book of I John: the moral test (are we obedient), the social test (do we love one another), and the doctrinal test (do we believe the truth?). The moral test was first presented in verse 6: “If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.” Now here in chapter 2:3 we find
The moral argument restated (3-5). Let’s read it: “We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands.” You say you know God, but how do you know that you know Him? You can only be sure if obedience is evident in your life. There is a moral basis for the believer’s assurance.
Secondly, the Apostle uses a valuable and time-tested teaching device by making the same point negatively, as he speaks of the false claim of assurance. Verse 4 states, “The man who says, ‘I know Him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” That’s a scary statement to me, because many Christians have been taught that assurance of salvation is based solely on faith.
When I was trained in evangelism, I was told that after a person receives Christ you should ask him, “Do you know you’ll go to heaven when you die?” And if he answers, “I hope so,” you’re supposed to ask, “Is God a liar? Didn’t He say that if you put your trust in Jesus you will be saved?” As I see it John is suggesting to us that there is more to the issue of assurance than a glib profession. If we claim we know Him but consistently violate His commands, we are liars. No religious experience is valid if it does not have moral consequences.
A number of years ago when the so-called “new morality” was at the peak of its popularity, a number of Protestant theologians met to discuss it. Most were in favor of it and the consensus was that the only acceptable guideline for human behavior was love. Anything that flowed from love was permissible. Anything was allowed so long as it did not hurt someone else. Even adultery was permissible so long as it was motivated by love. Toward the end of the meeting a Roman Catholic priest, who had been invited as an observer, was asked if he had any comments. The priest replied simply, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15).
In verse 5 John follows up with another positive expression of the same truth: “But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in Him.” Having God’s love made complete in us speaks of real spiritual maturity. It is unachievable without obedience, for obedience is the moral condition for spiritual maturity. It is only natural to ask if the obedience called for here must be perfect obedience, and I think Calvin has spoken well in saying, “he does not mean that those who wholly satisfy the Law keep His commandments (and no such instance can be found in the world), but those who strive, according to the capacity of human infirmity, to form their life in obedience to God.”
Now how does John apply the moral argument?
The moral argument applied (6). Look at the end of verse 5 and 6: “This is how we knowwe are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” You see, Jesus is not just our advocate and our substitute; He is also our example. We have no right to claim to be in Him, to bear His name, or to pawn ourselves off as His disciples if we do not walk as He walked.
Conclusion: I’m glad John put it like He did, for to me it brings the issue of holiness right down where I can deal with it. The command to “Be holy as I am holy,” strikes us as idealistic and Utopian. How could we ever approach God’s holiness? But the very same truth is expressed in the tangible and practical exhortation to “walk as Jesus walked.” That too is a formidable task, but since He was a man like me and since His manner of living is described in so much detail in the Gospels I can at least relate to that command. May we accept the challenge to follow in His steps.
As we close in prayer, may I speak for just a moment to those who may never have surrendered their lives to Jesus Christ? Let me tell you something as plain as I can say it: you need a lawyer. If you will retain Jesus Christ the Righteous One to speak to the Father in your defense, no accusation Satan makes against you will stand. When he begins to recite your sins to the Father, Jesus will say, “Yes, he did that, yes he said that, yes he thought that, but I died for those sins.” Your only alternative is to speak in your own defense and have a fool for a client. Let’s pray.
DATE: September 17, 1989
Tags:
Attorney/advocate
Propitiation
Universalism
Calvinism
Arminianism
[i] Before leaving the subject of universalism, I should mention that there are some relatively recent modifications to universalism to which evangelicals are far more susceptible than to the clearly unbiblical view that everyone is going to heaven. For example, some widely respected evangelical scholars are teaching that those who have never heard the Gospel or the name of Jesus will be saved so long as they have a positive disposition toward God, even if they are Buddhists or Hindus or animists. I personally believe that such a position amounts to a denial of Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved.”
[ii] Now I will grant that the word “world” can mean either everyone distributively or everyone inclusively. In other words when we say that the whole world has been affected by the AIDS crisis, we do not mean that every single individual has been affected but that every area has been affected. So it is possible that John could mean, “He is the propitiation for the sins of us here and not for ours only but also for the sins of believers worldwide.” But I think it is even better to interpret our text as affirming that the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient for every human being but only efficient for those that believe.