The Nature of Divine Wisdom: 1 Corinthians 2:6-16

This message was preached at the Evangelical Theological College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 05 March 2018.

 

Cultural Background

The Apostle Paul had apparently been judged by the Corinthian Church for his lack of logical and rhetorical argumentation in his presentation of the Gospel of Christ (4:1-5).  The Corinthians evaluated the validity of any speaker and his message by the wisdom he presented and the style with which he presented it.  Before examining this element of the cultural background in Corinth, we pause to reflect on the larger social context of the First-Century city as one marked by personal and professional advancement.  One helpful scholar notes,

The denizens of Corinth in Paul's day were known for their wealth and ostentation. The new city allowed many aggressive freedman and their heirs, who would have been freeborn, the chance to acquire wealth through commercial ventures. Without an entrenched aristocracy, the citizens of Corinth … had a real opportunity for upward social mobility, primarily by attaining wealth and buying friendships and clients.[1]

The citizens of the city, apart from personal and professional advancement, had also become quite accustomed to gathering in the public forum – surrounded by numerous shops and various pagan temples – to hear the latest news and philosophical ideologies proclaimed by the professional Sophists.  This was a group of competitive teachers who sought to win “disciples” (students) and thereby to climb the social ladder.  The individual sophist would enter a given town and invite her citizens to hear him speak.  At the appointed time, he would provide an introduction and offer his personal qualifications in an egocentric and self-exalting manner.  Then, he would speak on a topic that the crowd had collectively decided.  If he were to respond immediately, he would show himself to be very skilled.  But if, as the rules allowed, he were to take up to 24 hours to study and prepare, he would be judged by the citizens and either embraced or rejected on the basis of his argumentation.  We learn of this group indirectly in the letters of 1^st & 2^nd Corinthians and through historians.  One such historian writes,

Originally the term [‘sophist’] described ancient wise men. By the first century A.D. it was used to designate those rhetoricians whose ability in oratory was such that they could both secure a public following and attract students to their schools. [The ancient world defined] a sophist as a ‘virtuoso rhetor [rhetoric] with a big public reputation.[2]

This situation is reflected in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians.  There the Apostle Paul speaks of the factions that existed within the local church because of the influence of sophism.  The believers in Corinth had begun to treat the apostles as sophists, creating strife in the congregation as to which one was more professional, sophisticated, and/or convincing in his presentation of the gospel.  Thus, some were following Peter (see “Cephas” as the Aramaic equivalent), some were following Paul, Apollos, and some who considered themselves to be spiritually elite were following Christ (1:12).[3]  This “strife” was one cause of divisions among them, and it had betrayed their spiritual immaturity and corresponding worldliness.  The specific nature of these divisions had to do with Christian preachers.  Where the other divisions that centered on sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, food offered to idols, head coverings in corporate worship, the practice of the Lord’s Supper, and spiritual gifts were largely impersonal for the Apostle Paul, the division created by “Christian Sophism” struck at the heart of his apostolic ministry.

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16

As we approach our assigned passage, then, we find in the immediate context that, even though Paul did not engage in a sophisticated oral presentation of the gospel, he does display his rhetorical skills in the written correspondence of 1 Corinthians.  As a skilled orator, the Apostle Paul shows that his “unskilled” proclamation of the gospel was intentional.  He says, “My speech and my message [Greek: logos] were not in plausible words[4] of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (2:4-5, ESV).  In other words, Paul says that he did not engage in professional argumentation in his public proclamation of the gospel for the sake of the foundation of his hearers’ faith.  But now that his skills may have been questioned, he is more than willing to engage in this kind of argumentation to delineate the nature of divine wisdom.

At this point, a word concerning interpretive methodology will be important.  Because of the nature of Paul’s argumentation in our passage, it will be helpful to move backward through the text.  Instead of moving chronologically through verses 6-16, by which we might uncover premise after premise leading to a conclusion, we will first attempt to uncover the conclusion and then connect each of the premises to it.  Perhaps this technique will only prove helpful for me.  But I trust that God will move by His Spirit in making it helpful for a wider audience.  So instead of pursuing the conclusion in the uncovering of premises, we will allow the conclusion to be our guide in the exegesis of the preceding text.

The Conclusion: We have the mind of Christ (2:16).  The use of the first person plural here may indicate Paul and his fellow apostles – namely, those identified in the previous chapter – have the mind of Christ.  If this is the case, he considers himself to be one of the “mature” among whom spiritual wisdom is imparted.  It is unlikely that Paul widens the scope to include the believers in Corinth, for he will speak of them only one verse later as “people of the flesh” and “infants in Christ” (3:1, ESV).  He is arguing that they are not yet spiritually mature and, in both their theology and lifestyle, they do not yet have the mind of Christ.  Mature spiritual believers have the mind of Christ, a mindset that is evident in their lives of peace, unity, and right judgment.[5]  This spoke powerfully against the mindset in Corinth, where maturity was thought to divide the church into “primary” and “secondary” believers.  This division is evident in the way the church practiced Holy Communion, for example.  It is clear from 11:17-22 that some of the wealthy believers were gathering in the portico of a wealthy “patron” believer before all had arrived.  They were then eating the Lord’s Supper without consideration for the poorer, later arriving brothers.  The food might be mostly gone, so as to leave the first group “drunk” and the second group “hungry.”  In the larger context of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul does not refer to ranks of Christians or of spiritual status, but only about the application of gospel truth.  Thus, the mature are those who are changed by the gospel in both wisdom and its practical application.  The immature are those who live according to the principles of the world: their actions and their ways of thinking are still worldly.

The meaning of the phrase “mind of Christ” is further developed first in the Gospel of John.  In the “High Priestly” prayer of Jesus in John 17, Jesus prays that the disciples would be united in the name of Christ (17:11) and that all disciples everywhere would be unified as a testimony to the unbelieving world (17:21).  What is on Christ’s mind as he prepares to leave the company of the Twelve?  Unity; the unity of the Godhead is the basis for the unity of believers.  What is on Paul’s mind as he concludes that mature believers have the mind of Christ?  Unity; the unity of mind, thought, judgment, and lifestyle is the evidence of the gospel’s power among them.

This is confirmed in Philippians 2, where Paul speaks of the necessity of personal humility in order to bring about corporate unity.  The believers in Philippi are to have “the same mind [and] the same love, being in full accord and of one mind” (2:2, ESV).  This “same mindedness” is to be among them as they too have the “mind of Christ.”  The mind of the believer is to center on the model of Christ.  It is to reflect the believer’s union with Christ.  The mature believer will find that his theology matches his lifestyle.  If one is to believe in the gospel and become a united with Christ as a partaker in the divine nature, then he is to live a life of unity among his fellow believers.  In Philippians, the outworking of this unified mindset is found in selfless humility.  Returning to the 1^st Corinthians text, the same unified mindset is found in judgment – considering human wisdom “folly” and embracing divine wisdom in the gospel.  This unity focuses on the content of the gospel, not on the one preaching or the style of his presentation.

We who have the mind of Christ…

Premise #1:  We have understood the mind of God (2:16).  Those who are spiritually mature are guided by the Spirit in all things.  Therefore, the depths of divine wisdom and the mind of Christ are his fundamental, guiding principles.  And, because he has understood such wisdom, he acts according to that which he has already judged to be valid and true.

Premise #2: We are spiritual (pneumatikos) people (2:14-15).  This is probably a way of describing the mature, spiritual man (believer) in contrast with the immature, natural man who although he has believed is still carnal in the way he discerns and applies wisdom; he judges based on the flesh and its considerations.

Premise #3: We are re-defined spiritually (pneumatikos) in a variety of ways (2:14).  What I have done in this section is trace the main verbs backward throughout the text of 2:6-16.  It reveals the facets of the spiritual man doing things in a new, spiritual way.  Thus, he is defined spiritually, according to the shifts evident in the following actions.

·         Judging: he judges all things but is not subject to anyone’s judgment.  The kind of judgment Paul refers to repeatedly in this letter is one of examination.  The spiritual person is to judge his own conscience, motives, and spiritual effectiveness as he examines his own heart.  As we have already said above, the spiritual man is guided by the Spirit of God in every thought and action.  Thus, while he is not perfectly above reproach, he is not to be judged according to human wisdom, for no higher judgment than that according to God’s wisdom can be made.[6]  The examination from an external human source (e.g.: the judgment of the immature believer that only follows worldly wisdom) is unnecessary and, indeed, unwarranted.  Paul says in 4:3 that he does not even judge himself because “it is the Lord who judges me” (4:4).  However, the mature Apostle Paul is rightly judging the immature believers in Corinth.  This is not a self-centered judgment, but one according to the gospel and the revealed wisdom of God.  Thus, though it is a human judgment, it is essentially a divine judgment.

·         Discerning: he discerns the “things of the Spirit of God.”  This can only mean that he discerns the secret and hidden wisdom of God that is proclaimed openly in the new, Spiritual and Christological period of redemptive history.  By the power of the Spirit, he knows and understands the gospel, which is short-hand in this text for the overarching purposes of God in redemptive history.

·         Understanding (x2): he understands the freely given wisdom of God revealed in the gospel of Christ.  The church in Corinth may have placed too much emphasis on the language of the Spirit (tongues), perhaps considering it to be a special manifestation of God’s power available to the “wise” or “primary” believers.  But they had not understood God’s true intent in giving His Spirit.  The Spirit was to point believers to the truth of God’s salvation in the work of Christ.  Further, the Spirit was to empower the self-sacrificial and deeply humble lifestyle of Christ within the followers of Christ.  It is ironic, then, that those who claimed to have spiritual maturity betrayed the very lack of it in their actions.

·         Accepting: In a mental sense, the spiritual man accepts the gospel.  It is not enough to say that he understands the functional elements of the gospel by mere theoretical ascent.  He believes, embraces, receives, and accepts Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God.

·         Interpreting: he interprets spiritual truth to others who are spiritual people.  The Spirit enables believers to understand ultimate reality.  They are not to interpret historical events according to human wisdom.  In other words, they are not to take the Apostle Paul’s proclamation of the gospel and judge it according to their rhetorical standards.  Instead, they were to understand the spiritual nature of all reality, having been given the Spirit of God who is the interpreter of the Mind of Christ.

·         Imparting (x2): he offers to others the same gift that he has received.  This is not a self-serving accumulation of wisdom as it was so often with the Sophists.  Followers of Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God, were to operate based on a self-giving model of life evident in the life of Christ.

·         Comprehending: he understands the wisdom of God because the “Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” (2:10b).  Having been given the gift of the Spirit, then, the mature believer has received revelation concerning the secret and hidden wisdom of God.

·         Knowing: in all these verbs, it is clear that the positive qualities of knowing, comprehending, imparting, and so forth are given as the gift of God.  The Apostle Paul makes this point explicit in 4:7 with a series of rhetorical questions.  There he asks, “Who sees anything different in you?  What do you have that you did not receive?  If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”  The implication is that a gift demands humility on the part of the recipient.  The gift of the Holy Spirit should not cause any boasting, but should instead create a deep and abiding sense of humility.

Premise #4: Those who receive the “Spirit who is from God” must be re-defined in these ways (2:12).  Otherwise, they show that they have received “the spirit of the world.”

Premise #5: If anyone has received the “mind of Christ,” it is those who are “in Christ,” (1:30) and “of the Spirit of God” (2:10) by God’s sovereign election (1:27-28).  They are people who are led and empowered by the Spirit of God.  They are people to whom God has revealed the gospel through Christ.  Note two things about the wisdom of God: (1) it was “decreed before the ages,” to suggest that, unlike human philosophy, it was ancient and “true since before time began.”[7]  We recall that the first-century Greeks valued antiquity, saying that all truth was to be found therein.  Thus, as Paul argues for God’s wisdom following the cultural standard of professional, rhetorical argumentation, he does so according to the worldview of his Greco-Roman audience.  Truth does lie in antiquity!  In fact, it lies in the eternal mind of God, revealed in Christ, and interpreted by the Spirit.

Premise #6: Those with the “mind of Christ” actually do impart wisdom, but it is a “secret and hidden wisdom of God” (2:7) and not a “wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age” (2:6).  This is probably a response to Paul’s critics, who likely said that he had not imparted any wisdom because the form of his presentation was so seriously lacking in the professionalism of the sophists.  Form was elevated over content.  But in Paul’s economy,[8] the content of the gospel displayed the power and wisdom of God.

Exhortation

The first exhortation is for the church to be a counter-cultural organism that transforms the values of society.  The church was not to be a club that merely adopted the values and views surrounding her.  On this very point, the renowned American Pastor and social activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wrote,

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed.  In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society.  Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”  But they went on with the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven” and had to obey God rather than man.  They were small in number but big in commitment.  They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.”  They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

Things are different now.  The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound.  It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo.  Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's often vocal sanction of things as they are.  But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before.  If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.[9] 
 

The second exhortation follows: It is not impossible for “people of the flesh” to become “people of the Spirit.”  Likewise, it is not impossible for “infants in Christ” to become “mature in Christ.”  Therefore, what Paul is encouraging in this passage is that believers live out their faith.  The Corinthian believers have faith – it is evident that they had begun the journey of following Christ – but they had not yet begun to imitate Christ in their lifestyle.  This imitation is to take on four specific characteristics, all of which have instructional value and great applicability for the modern Ethiopian church:[10]

1. Christians should be more concerned with keeping the message of the cross than the attractiveness of the preacher or teacher.  Our faith, like our brothers in ancient Corinth, should rest on God’s power and not human wisdom. 

 2. Christian spirituality cannot be reduced to a human worldview or reflection on life.  Materialism, atheism, and forms of corporate Christianity must be rejected if the church is to become a thermostat and not merely a thermometer.

3. Christian maturity is demonstrated in the application of God’s wisdom.  This is not to be confused with giftedness, eloquence, or homiletic perfection, though these things in-and-of themselves are not bad.  It’s just that they do not equate to spiritual maturity: “Christians evidence their maturity when they exhibit the mind of Christ – that is, when their whole perspective on life is so guided by the message of the cross that their attitudes and actions are changed by it.”[11]

---

[1] Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003 (pg. 2).

[2] Winter, Bruce W. Philo and Paul among the Sophists, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002 (pgs. 3-4).

[3] On this point, we must conclude that Apollos, who we meet first in Acts 18 & 19, was a very good orator and his warm welcome in Corinth after Paul’s departure was at least partially due to his impressive rhetorical skills.  We may also rightly assume that the Apostle Paul knew him well (1 Cor. 16:12).

[4] Emphasis is mine.  Note the word “plausible,” which conveys the meaning of convincing argumentation.

[5] See 1:10, which says, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (ESV).  The NIV translates “judgment” as “thought.”

[6] Vang, Preben. 1 Corinthians. Teach the Text Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014 (pgs. 36-37).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Here used to mean the “arrangement or mode of operation of something: organization” and “a system especially of interaction and exchange: an economy of information (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economy: accessed 05 March, 2018 @ 11:35am).

[9] King Jr., Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail in The Atlantic Monthly, August 1963: Vol. 212, No. 2 (pgs. 78-88).

[10] The following list is adapted from Vang 2014, 37-38.

[11] Vang, Preben. 1 Corinthians. Teach the Text Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014 (pg. 38).

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Letter From Birmingham Jail (August 1963)

Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.
From the Birmingham jail, where he was imprisoned as a participant in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in longhand the letter which follows. It was his response to a public statement of concern and caution issued by eight white religious leaders of the South. Dr. King, who was born in 1929, did his undergraduate work at Morehouse College; attended the integrated Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, one of six black pupils among a hundred students, and the president of his class; and won a fellowship to Boston University for his Ph.D.

WHILE confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling our present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all of the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would be engaged in little else in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should give the reason for my being in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the argument of "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every Southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliate organizations all across the South, one being the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Whenever necessary and possible, we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago our local affiliate here in Birmingham invited us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promises. So I am here, along with several members of my staff, because we were invited here. I am here because I have basic organizational ties here.

Beyond this, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the eighth-century prophets left their little villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns; and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet and city of the Greco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my particular hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the inter-relatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider.

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.

IN ANY nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police brutality is known in every section of this country. Its unjust treatment of Negroes in the courts is a notorious reality. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in this nation. These are the hard, brutal, and unbelievable facts. On the basis of them, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the political leaders consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants, such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises, Reverend Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstration. As the weeks and months unfolded, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?" We decided to set our direct-action program around the Easter season, realizing that, with exception of Christmas, this was the largest shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this was the best time to bring pressure on the merchants for the needed changes. Then it occurred to us that the March election was ahead, and so we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that Mr. Conner was in the runoff, we decided again to postpone action so that the demonstration could not be used to cloud the issues. At this time we agreed to begin our nonviolent witness the day after the runoff.

This reveals that we did not move irresponsibly into direct action. We, too, wanted to see Mr. Conner defeated, so we went through postponement after postponement to aid in this community need. After this we felt that direct action could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that our acts are untimely. Some have asked, "Why didn't you give the new administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well timed" according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say "wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger" and your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodyness" -- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

YOU express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.

Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured?

These are just a few examples of unjust and just laws. There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws.

I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. Butcan this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

YOU spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.

But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic. Maybe I expected too much. I guess I should have realized that few members of a race that has oppressed another race can understand or appreciate the deep groans and passionate yearnings of those that have been oppressed, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too small in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some, like Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, and James Dabbs, have written about our struggle in eloquent, prophetic, and understanding terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They sat in with us at lunch counters and rode in with us on the freedom rides. They have languished in filthy roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of angry policemen who see them as "dirty nigger lovers." They, unlike many of their moderate brothers, have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

LET me rush on to mention my other disappointment. I have been disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand this past Sunday in welcoming Negroes to your Baptist Church worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Springhill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say that as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say it as a minister of the gospel who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom, who has been sustained by its Spiritual blessings, and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

I had the strange feeling when I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery several years ago that we would have the support of the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some few have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and with deep moral concern serve as the channel through which our just grievances could get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother. In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sidelines and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "Those are social issues which the gospel has nothing to do with," and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely otherworldly religion which made a strange distinction between bodies and souls, the sacred and the secular.

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven" and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's often vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are presently misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson scratched across the pages of history the majestic word of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. For more than two centuries our foreparents labored here without wages; they made cotton king; and they built the homes of their masters in the midst of brutal injustice and shameful humiliation -- and yet out of a bottomless vitality our people continue to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

I must close now. But before closing I am impelled to mention one other point in your statement that troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I don't believe you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its angry violent dogs literally biting six unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I don't believe you would so quickly commend the policemen if you would observe their ugly and inhuman treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you would watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you would see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys, if you would observe them, as they did on two occasions, refusing to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I'm sorry that I can't join you in your praise for the police department.

It is true that they have been rather disciplined in their public handling of the demonstrators. In this sense they have been publicly "nonviolent." But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the last few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.

I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most inhuman provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, courageously and with a majestic sense of purpose facing jeering and hostile mobs and the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman of Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride the segregated buses, and responded to one who inquired about her tiredness with ungrammatical profundity, "My feets is tired, but my soul is rested." They will be young high school and college students, young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience's sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Never before have I written a letter this long -- or should I say a book? I'm afraid that it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else is there to do when you are alone for days in the dull monotony of a narrow jail cell other than write long letters, think strange thoughts, and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that is an understatement of the truth and is indicative of an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything in this letter that is an overstatement of the truth and is indicative of my having a patience that makes me patient with anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; August 1963; The Negro Is Your Brother; Volume 212, No. 2; pages 78 - 88.

Faith, Obedience, & Assurance

This message was preached at Saint Matthew's Anglican Church in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on Sunday 21 January 2018.

Faith, Obedience, and Assurance

1^st John 2:1-17

Introduction

It was nice to have Bishop Mouneer with us last week.  I’m always impressed when I meet someone of status who is so humble and approachable.  I think we would have felt the same way meeting the Apostle John.  Those fortunate enough to live in Ephesus around the end of the 1^st Century would certainly have known a man humbled by grace and enlightened by personified Wisdom.  If we had lived in Asia Minor, we doubtless would have recognized the competing worldviews that took shape in her most prominent cities.

It was a complicated climate of blended religious beliefs.  It was well known that some Jews, enraged with jealousy at the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles, had been challenging the early church by seeking to blend the practices of Judaism with the beliefs of Christianity.  Obeying the commands of God in Judaism had become a self-justifying moralism that resulted in a sense of spiritual superiority.  Additionally, some Hellenistic Jews or Gentile converts sought to blend the beliefs of Gnosticism with the practices of Christianity.  Obedience within Gnosticism took the form of unrestrained freedom that sought a mystical encounter with the divine through self-discovery.  Believers in Ephesus and beyond were struggling with the polemical nature of these two worldviews in light of their relatively new-found Christian beliefs.  And then the Apostle John, the old man who had been with Jesus, wrote a letter to confront this impure mixture of belief and practice in the church.  Though many outside the church – and even some elders within the church – had been teaching false doctrine, the grand-fatherly Apostle had corrected them in this letter that outlines the role of obedience in the life of faith.  Through these corrections, we hear the voices of the false teachers, as outlined in the chart below:

The Voices of the False Teachers in 1st John
The False Teachers were saying…	The Apostle John corrected, saying…
1:6 = We have fellowship with the light (with God).	They “walk in darkness.”
1:8 = We have no sin.	They “deceive” themselves.
1:10 = We have not sinned.	They “make him (God) a liar and his word is not in [them].”
2:4 = We know him (God).	They do not “keep his commandments.”
2:9 = We are in the light.	They “hate” their brothers and remain “in darkness.”
3:7-8 = (Implicitly) We are righteous.	“Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… [and] whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil.”
4:20 = I love God.	They “hate” their brothers and are liars.

As we come to this morning’s text, we recognize one element of this false teaching being corrected; and it relates to the link between righteousness and keeping the commandments of God.  It appears that the opponents of the church – and probably even some within the church – were claiming to have a relationship with God that had nothing to do with one’s external and visible way of life.  And John’s correction takes this shape:

Obedience serves the believer’s faith; it does not create faith, but itself, having been created by faith, in turn creates assurance; and all these (faith, obedience, and assurance) are anchored in Christ.  Thus, as we will come to see, there is a causal succession in the development of the passage.  The first step – that obedience merely reflects an inward reality (faith) – is fairly easy for us to recognize.  We have the framework for understanding…

Visible signs confirm inward realities.  They do not create the inward reality, but point to the existence of that inward reality.  Everyone wearing a wedding band this morning is aware of this concept.  The ring itself is a symbol, an external reality that points to an inward reality.  You are not married simply because you slipped a ring around your finger.  You are married because you took solemn oaths before God, a minister, and a group of witnesses.  As I recall, it is only after the oath ceremony that you slip the ring on the finger of your beloved.

Visible signs confirm inward realities.  They do not create the inward reality, but point to the existence of that inward reality.  Everyone who has ever had children is aware of this concept.  The ultrasound images or the billowing belly speak of an inward reality: there is a baby about to be born.  The images themselves are not the baby, but only point to the reality that there is a baby and he/she is coming relatively soon!

Visible signs confirm inward realities.  They do not create the inward reality, but point to the existence of that inward reality.  Everyone who has seen a hurricane report knows that the swirling cyclone on the radar is not the actual storm, but it points to the reality on the ground.  The beleaguered reporter on the ground testifies to the reality that the image reflects.

Visible signs confirm inward realities.  But when we come to the biblical text, we find there is a deeper significance between specific signs and realities.  This is particularly true in the book of 1^st John.

1.      The visible sign, according to the Apostle John, is clearly obedience to the commandments of Christ – namely, loving the Lord God with the entirety of one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength and subsequently, loving one’s neighbor as oneself.

2.      The internal reality, again according to the Apostle John, is the transformation of the heart by the power of the Gospel and the indwelling Holy Spirit.  This is the essence of what John calls the “New Birth” in chapter 3 of his Gospel.  It is faith, or belief, or the restored sight of the spiritually blind that is the gift of God imparted as a result of the obedient life, sacrificial death, and awe inspiring resurrection of the Son of God.

3.      And the relationship between the two is increasingly apparent in this short little letter: the sign and realities are necessarily inter-connected.  In other words, there is a fundamental – almost symbiotic – relationship between the two.  It is not sufficient in John’s mind to say that obedience to the command of Christ simply points to the existence of faith and heart transformation.  Indeed, for John, such transformation creates obedience.[1]  In fact, the two cannot exist independently of one another, such that the obedience validates the inward transformation.

As one old sage put it, “We are saved by faith alone.  But the faith that saves is never alone.”

Secondarily then, obedience to the command of Christ creates a third organism in this chain linking salvation and sanctification: it creates assurance of faith in the believer’s life.  So we move from salvation to obedience to assurance.  But what we must not say is that the reverse is true.  For the Apostle John, and indeed the larger biblical witness, it would be heretical to say that obedience creates salvation.  Works do not create; they validate.  They confirm.  So the order is absolutely crucial.

Now that we have drawn these conclusions, let’s walk together through the text to find out how and why we arrived at them.

The Apostle John is very clear about his intent for writing.  He appears to have four significant reasons for addressing the beloved churches of Asia Minor:

1.      Primarily, “so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13).  This is a complementary purpose to that of the Gospel of John.  The initial concern of John, as revealed in his Gospel – that you might believe and have life in Christ’s name – is complemented by the second purpose of John, as revealed in this epistle – that you might have assurance of that salvation.  This is a faithful example of one who follows the Great Commission; he engages in evangelism and then in discipleship.

2.      And additionally, “that our (your) joy may be complete” (1:4).  So we can see by the bookends of the epistle that John is concerned with ASSURANCE & JOY.  Assurance and joy.  We further recognize the connection between these two concepts: they are related in terms of causality.  Assurance causes joy.  This joy is the same joy that Jesus spoke about (John 15:11) in the context of abiding in Him, as in branches abiding in the vine that results in the production of fruit.  There Jesus teaches that abiding in Him (or in His love) means keeping his commandments… abiding, by keeping the commandments, leads to full or complete joy.  The parallel is striking, for John writes in this, his first epistle, that assurance, which comes from keeping Jesus’ commandments, leads to the same fullness of joy.  We will see how this works in our passage this morning.

3.      John is also writing about those who are trying to deceive the faithful (2:26).  We have already highlighted the content of these false teachers in some depth, but it is important to see that John recognizes and directly confronts the issues that threaten the church.  It should also be noted at this point that he is also addressing the implicit question about why some, who have already fallen prey to that deception, have gone out from the church.  Some have left the fellowship and the Apostolic Father explains not only how they departed, but more importantly, why they went out.  They were not part of us.  In other words, they had not been transformed by the gospel such that they belonged to the elect of God.    

4.      And finally, the Apostle John is writing “so that you may not sin” (2:1).

(2:1) This is the beginning point of our section.  Note here that he addresses his congregations as “little children.”  This is not to say, “You all are a bunch of babies!”  No, instead it is probably the most appropriate address to communicate deep affection, sincere concern, and tender care.  And the children have embarked on a journey of dependence upon Christ and his unique merit.  The Christian life is about following Christ and living a life of obedience to the commandments of God.  But this is not a journey of sinless perfection.  The Apostle John is keenly aware of human nature, even redeemed human nature.  So he is a good shepherd of the sheep, a good pastor emeritus for the churches of Asia Minor.  The journey of faith is to be firmly anchored in Christ.  John calls him “Jesus Christ, the Righteous.”  There has only been one human being who perfectly kept the law and the commandments of the Father, and that is Christ.  He now stands, his blood having cleansed all who trust in him, as an Advocate.  Let us not make the mistake that Jesus is trying to convince God to keep loving us, keep supporting us, keep showering grace upon us… as if God is discontented with the people Jesus has purchased and is at every moment just waiting to damn them to Hell.  No.  This advocacy is for our sake.  Jesus standing before the Father is an image of glory that ought to be always on our minds.  Our weakness that leads us to sin no longer results in judgment, but mercy.  Because of justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, God is totally for us and never against us.  Note how this relates to the following verse. 

(2:2) Jesus is the perfect advocate because he is the propitiation for our sins.  By his perfectly obedient life, his sacrificial death, and his vindication in the resurrection, Jesus has purified from sin and has removed the wrath of God forever.  This is why we can definitively say that Jesus in his advocacy is not trying to eternally placate the Father.  The Father’s wrath has been removed and thus, his disposition toward his people is one of perfect love.  On a note of secondary importance, the death of Christ for the “whole world” is not an indication of universalism – neither does it negate Particular Atonement – but simply reveals the impartiality of God.  The term “world” here, as in many biblical passages, is probably best understood as “Jew and Gentile people groups,” or the ethnic peoples of the world.

What is of utmost importance, however, is that Christ as the Propitiation for sins is the foundational reality of the believer’s salvation; it identifies the means by which we have been justified and declared righteous.  And Christ as Advocate is the foundational reality of the believer’s walk of faith – from sanctification to ultimate glorification.  Because he is our advocate, we know that we will never be under God’s wrath again.  John clearly and powerfully states that performance has nothing to do with these realities, for he maintains that sin does not negate the advocacy or the justifying propitiation.

Do you see the freedom in verses 2:1-2?  Since Jesus has removed the wrath of God and cleansed his people from all their sins… and eternally stands as the Advocate of the believer, there is tremendous freedom.  And this underlying proposition creates one of two responses:

1.      The Ungodly Response: says we are saved and, as a result, we can live like the devil until our glorification, or…

2.      The Godly Response: says we are so shockingly and thoroughly loved by God that we want to offer ourselves as living sacrifices; we want to offer the praise of lips that have been purified; we want to offer hands in showing compassion, feet in bringing the good news of salvation, and hearts as nothing less than the throne of the King.  And we offer these things imperfectly, but in freedom – trusting that the Savior who made our hearts acceptable to God also makes our efforts a fragrant aroma before Him.

(2:3-6) Moving forward, verse 3 leads to the conclusion that works validate; they confirm.  Note the verb tenses here in the English translation: we have come to know Him, if we keep his commands.  The first is a perfect tense (indicative, active: Greek egnwkamen) that speaks of a past action that holds present consequences.  The second is a present tense (subjunctive, active: Greek thrwmen).  And the verse is couched in the context of assurance: we “know” that we have come to know him.  In verse 4, we are assured of knowing God by the validating and confirming presence of command keeping works: by faith in action.  Likewise, we are assured of the identity of false teachers by the absence of such things.  Verses 5-6 conclude this section by saying that, just as the Love of God was perfected in the sacrificial death of Christ, so also the Love of God is perfected in the lives of believers who walk the Calvary Road with Spirit-empowered faith, love, piety, obedience, and self-sacrifice.  This pattern of life provides assurance that we belong to God through Christ.  We have come to know him.  We are “in Him” and have evidence of these things by the Christ-like lifestyle.

(2:7-11) We might initially be confused at the presence of an old command that is new and a new command that is old.  But let’s try to get our minds around this in the next few minutes.  The old command appears to be the first and greatest commandment that Jesus identifies in the context of Mark 12:28-34.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.  The second, Jesus says, is to love your neighbor as yourself.  The Jewish Shema, or confession of faith, was found in Deuteronomy 6:4ff and was recited morning and evening by pious Jews as well as at the start of every synagogue service.  Thus, it was truly from antiquity.  However, John continues by saying it is a new commandment because, in Christ, it was renewed in John 13:34.  Not only was it renewed by Christ, but it was also made possible by the indwelling Spirit of Christ.  Thus, the old commandment that was impossible because of the unregenerate heart became a new commandment that was possible because of the New Birth.  This is what John means by the qualifying phrase “which is true in him and in you.”  The commandment to love God and neighbor is true in that Christ perfectly obeyed and accomplished it.  It is also true in John’s hearers because Christ, by His Spirit, is in them.  He is accomplishing the perfection of God’s love in them as they demonstrate it as light in the darkness.

The darkness is passing away and the light is already shining.  The NASB does something interesting with the word “light” both in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John that the NIV and the ESV do not.  The capitalization of “Light” in the NASB personifies the noun – and, I think, rightly so – associating it clearly with Christ.  The Apostle John communicates that his hearers are in a transitional phase in which wheat and weeds, good fish and bad fish, good soil and rocky soil, sheep and goats grow up together in the same kingdom (according to the parables of Matthew 13).  The reason that the new command is “true in Him and in you” is that the morning of redemptive history had already dawned.  The Light of Life in Christ is already shining, but it has not yet completely overtaken the darkness.  At first, wheat and weeds are relatively indistinguishable.  But the longer they grow, the more the difference becomes apparent.  This is the point of the following contrast.  One can grow to distinguish children of the light and sons of darkness by “love” and “hate.”  Though the kingdom is an impure mixture now, children of the light necessarily endure to the end (they do not stumble until all is revealed for what it was).  The contrast is developed further in 2:11 to show the desperate plight of the self-deceived.  They are in the darkness, blinded by it, and unable to alter their destructive path.

(2:12-14) Poetic Encouragement: this section does not need much exegesis or explanation, but simply a word of observation.  John appears to engage in poetic encouragement here in order to confirm the faith of his audience and to stimulate their endurance in that faith.  Remember, he has just drawn a contrast between those who love and are shown to be in the light and those who hate and are thus shown to be in darkness.  He brings them the encouragement of assurance in these phrases, regardless of the stage of their spiritual journey (the fathers are further along, the young men are moving toward maturity, and the children are perhaps just beginning the walk of faith).  Regardless, assurance is founded here not upon the validating presence of visible signs, but the fundamental realities the signs point to – namely, salvation itself.  In salvation, their sins had been forgiven.  In salvation, they had come to know the eternal God (repeated twice more, indicating emphasis).  In salvation, they had overcome the evil one.  In salvation, they had become strong because of the indwelling Word of God.  There was no fear, no condemnation in sinning, for they were standing on the Rock of salvation with an eternal Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous One.

(2:15-17) We recognize the exhortation to seek what is deepest in fullness and what is longest in duration.  If we are tempted to love the world (or the things of the world), we need only to look to the fact that it is passing away.  Its pleasures are not only fleeting, but they are fundamentally empty.  Thus, the encouragement is to love God – and that, by doing the will of God – because His pleasures are deepest in fullness and longest in duration.  If you could present me with a religious alternative that was deeper in fullness of pleasure and longer in the duration of that pleasure, I would convert to it from Christianity.  I’m safe in saying this because I’ve studied the major world religions and none make this kind of claim; none offer this kind of perfectly deep and eternally long pleasure.  All our desires should therefore be directed by and toward God.  This yields the eternal blessedness of all who follow him and abide forever.

Conclusions

We’ve spoken much about obedience as the work that creates assurance.  It is to be anchored in Christ, just as our faith is rooted in Him.  So how can we know that our obedience is rightly balanced?  We can recognize this balance in one simple way: has the measure of our worth become the quality of our work?  Have our successes in obedience created pride, as if they were the reason for our acceptance before God?  Or have our failures in obedience created depression, as if they were so powerful as to alienate us from God?  Both success and failure need to be handed to Christ, so that he is the source of our success and the propitiation for our failure.  This is the balance we so desperately need.  So we circle back to our opening conclusions in order to bring finality to our study: 

1.      Heart transformation (new birth to justification) creates obedience.

2.      Obedience only validates or confirms heart transformation.

3.      Obedience without heart transformation is impossible.

4.      Heart transformation without obedience is biblically unthinkable.

5.      Heart transformation with obedience leads to genuine assurance of salvation.

---

[1] This conclusion is based on the word τελειόω which is used in the perfect (indicative) tense three times in 1^st John: first in 2:5 where the love of God is “made complete/perfect.”  In 4:17, love is “perfected” in us so that there is no fear at the final judgment.  The maturation of love – the very work that John is proclaiming – speaks of stages that “unfold” until functioning at maximum capacity, or that develop from infancy to maturity.