Many years ago, when I
was a young man in Bible college, one of my theology professors said to the
class, “When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is fall out of bed
onto my knees and pray that I don’t sin!” I remember the discomfort I felt upon
hearing this stunning revelation. I knew immediately that I was a wash-out, a
spiritual failure, because the first thing I did in the morning was reach for
the coffee pot! Still today, I must drink at least two cups of “java” to clear
my head before I can vaguely contemplate the sins I am liable to commit before
lunch.
Even as a naïve and
inexperienced nineteen-year old, I knew there was something fundamentally wrong
with my professor’s view of God―at least I hoped there was! It seemed that his
“God” was more to be feared than loved. Behind his staggering confession lurked
a harsh taskmaster who meticulously keeps count of our sins and shortcomings,
so that he can finally mete out the just and terrible punishment we deserve.
Decades later, after years of study, I realize that the doctrine of God I was
taught in “Bible college” described a deity far different from the loving
Father that Jesus Christ came to reveal (Matt 11:27).
Purveyors of Legalism
Since that time, I
have encountered other preachers and teachers of “religion” who are fond of
portraying “God” as a harsh judge, whose primary concern is crime and punishment
or sin and guilt. Because of their one-sided emphasis on law, judgment and
penalty, they insist that the most important aspect of Christian life is
obedience, which often includes strict adherence to humanly-devised codes of
dress, diet and lifestyle.
For these messengers
of the “bad news” anti-gospel, obedience and discipline take priority over
relationship and grace. God is a judge to be feared or a taskmaster to be
served rather than a Father to be adored. Where legalism (i.e., “law”) takes
center stage, discipleship and Christian living are reduced to obedience
without faith, service without joy, and worship without gratitude. These
important aspects of Christian life become burdensome duties to be performed
out of fear of retribution rather than grateful responses to the Father’s love
revealed in Jesus Christ.
According to the
ministers of legalism, grace, forgiveness and justification are conditional. Rather than gifts to be
gratefully received, these Gospel promises are held out like carrots to spur
overburdened believers to obedience. For the purveyors of religion, the Gospel
is a threat rather than a promise, so
that discipleship is reduced to a fearful response rather than a joyful
encounter with the Father’s love.
The purveyors of law
present the Gospel in terms of a “contract”: “If the ‘party of the first part’ (you and me) meets certain
conditions, then the ‘party of the
second part’ (God) will be gracious.” God’s love and goodness are not offered
as gifts to be received but favours to be earned. Rather than the lavish
outpouring of God’s innermost heart, divine love is “conditioned” by
performance; that is, God will love us only “if” we meet the required
standard―and woe to those who fall short, for surely they will be “left
behind.”
In addition, a
persistent fear lingers among the purveyors of religion, who insist that an
emphasis on grace will lead to antinomianism
(i.e., “lawlessness”). They refuse to spare the “rod” of law for fear their
congregation will be spoiled. With furrowed brow and pointed finger, they try
to coerce repentance and piety with
the threat of judgment, hellfire and ever-impending doom. The “submission”
coerced by the purveyors of religion, however, does not glorify God. Rather,
obedience coerced under threat of punishment is “sin,” for it is not of “faith”
(see Rom 14:23). Legalism’s emphasis
on adherence to law by the power of the will forces believer’s into a
“faithless obedience.”[1]
To be sure, “legalism is obedience without faith.”[2]
Relationship between Grace and Response
Legalism, with its
emphasis on law, judgment and penalty, is founded on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the relationship between grace and law, forgiveness and
repentance, and justification and faith. Legalism reverses the proper relationship between divine grace and human
response portrayed in scripture, so that grace is conditioned by performance
and forgiveness is begrudgingly bestowed following repentance. The legalist
bellows, “If you repent, you will be
forgiven.”
Grace is not a wage to
be earned, however; it is a gift to be received. The Gospel proclaims, “You
have been forgiven in Jesus, the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the
world; therefore, repent and believe
the good news!” The Gospel calls us to “change our mind” (i.e., “repent”) about
Jesus, repudiate the demands of religion with its “conditional” grace, and
embrace the Father’s love that is unconditionally poured out for all in the
incarnate Saviour of the world.
In the Book of Exodus,
we find the classic model for the proper relationship between grace and
response. After he miraculously saved the people from bondage by a series of
plagues that devastated Egypt, God led the Hebrew slaves to Mount Sinai, where
he “introduced” himself to his people. Speaking through Moses, God said, “I am
the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
You shall have no other gods before me….” (Ex 20:3ff). Notice the proper order
between divine grace and human response that is revealed in this passage. First, God introduces himself as the God
who saves: “I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the bondage of Egypt.” Second, God summons the people to respond to his gracious
initiative: “You shall have no other gods before me.” The relationship between
grace and law is set in the context of an indicative
(“I have saved you”) followed by an imperative
(“You shall have no other gods …”).[3]
After saving them from bondage, God gives the people the law as an act of
grace, so that this stubborn, stiff-necked band of slaves may learn to live in
right relationship with God and neighbour. In turn, God graciously provides the
ceremonial-sacrificial liturgy so that the people may respond to divine revelation in an appropriate and reverent manner
(Ex 20-40; Lev 1-27). In regard to the relationship between grace and human
response, grace is prior, so that law
and liturgy is a response to grace,
not a condition for it! This passage clearly establishes the relationship
between divine grace and human response and sets a pattern that runs throughout
both the Old and New Testaments: grace is
prior to and unconditioned by human response.
The relationship
between grace and response is clearly evidenced in the New Testament. Jesus
said to his disciples, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have
loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). The priority of grace is
glaringly apparent: “As I have loved you [grace],
so you must love one another [response].”
Again, Jesus says (John 15:9), “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you
[grace]. Now remain in my love” [response]. Perhaps the clearest
indication of the relationship between grace and response is found in 1 John
(4:19): “We love because he first
loved us” (emphasis added).
Grace Before Dinner
Luke (19:1-10) describes an encounter between Jesus and a notorious
sinner that perfectly illustrates the proper relationship between divine grace
and human response. When Jesus was passing through Jericho on his way to
Jerusalem, near the end of his earthly ministry, Zacchaeus, who was short in
stature, climbed a sycamore tree so that he might see Jesus pass. Seeing him in
the tree, Jesus said, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your
house today.” Upon hearing Jesus’ gracious request, Zacchaeus came down from
the tree and gladly welcomed Jesus to his home. Immediately the local villagers
began to mutter among themselves, for Zacchaeus, like other tax collectors, was
regarded as a swindler and a thief, who unlawfully kept for himself a portion
of the taxes he collected. Even worse, everyone regarded Zacchaeus as a
traitor, because he collaborated with the oppressive Roman regime. Because he
was a “sinner,” Zacchaeus was a social outcast, ostracized by the respectable
community. Jesus’ surprising request to dine at his home, therefore, was cause
for scandal. At dinner, however, Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord,
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I
have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Then Jesus said to Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house, because
this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save
the lost.”
This story perfectly illustrates the relationship between grace and
response. In the light of Jesus’ love
for him, Zacchaeus sees the darkness of his own sin. In response to the love and acceptance he encounters in Jesus,
Zacchaeus repents! His repentance, however, is not a shame-based response
coerced by law and condemnation. It is a joyful, grateful response to the love
and acceptance he encounters in Jesus. The grace of God embodied in Jesus is
the immediate cause of the tax collector’s repentance. Zacchaeus’ repentance is
not a condition for grace. It is a joyful response
to grace!
Grace is Always Prior
We can better understand the relationship between grace and response by
noting the difference between “legal” repentance and “evangelical” repentance.
“Legal” repentance is a fearful submission to the threat of law and judgment. “Evangelical”
repentance, on the other hand, is a joyous response to God’s love for the
entire world revealed in Jesus. Zacchaeus’ grateful response to Jesus is a
prime example of “evangelical” repentance. The Scottish Reformer John Knox disdained
the words “justification by faith,” noting that this recurring slogan implies
that justification depends upon the believer’s faith rather than the grace of
God. Knox preferred the fuller phrase, “justification by grace through faith” in Jesus, for it accurately represents the
proper relationship between grace and justification. Our “right-standing” with
God (i.e., “justification”) is freely and unconditionally given us in Jesus,
through whom the Father has reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19; Col
1:19, 20). Faith is not the cause of justification. It is the channel through
which we receive the “right-standing”
that is already ours in Jesus.
COMMENT: We are not “made right” with God because of our personal faith. To the
contrary, we were “made right” in Jesus long before we had a chance to profess
our faith. Personal faith is the channel that allows us to receive the grace
that is already ours in Jesus. In other words, we do not believe to make it so,
we believe because it is so.
The re-discovery of the God of grace revealed in Jesus Christ enabled Reformers
like John Knox to re-claim the New Testament promise that “God demonstrates his
own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom
5:8). The Reformers rediscovered the Gospel truth elegantly illustrated in the
story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. In the good news of God’s love for humanity
revealed in Jesus Christ, grace is prior
to human response. Divine love is the cause,
repentance and faith are the consequences.
Preaching and Missions
The proper understanding of the relationship between grace and response
has a profound effect on preaching and missions. An emphasis on grace frees
believers from the burden of legalism
(Matt 11:28) in favour of freedom for
love of God and neighbour empowered by the Holy Spirit. Discipleship as a
response to grace brings glory to God, for it is the expression of love rather
than duty (see John 14:23; 15:8).
Preachers and teachers who wish to promote love for neighbour in their hearers
must focus on Jesus’ love for the sinner, the outcast and the marginalized as
revealed in the Gospel. Pastors who want to encourage generosity, service and
self-giving should remind their hearers of God’s sacrificial love revealed in
Jesus, who heard the cry of the needy, healed the sick, fed the hungry, washed
his disciples’ feet and gave his life on the cross as a ransom for many (Mark
10:45).
When the proper relationship between grace and response is clearly
understood, God is glorified because love for God and neighbour rather than
fear of judgment and penalty becomes the motive for Christian living. When
believers fully understand the good news that underlies the proper relationship
between divine grace and human response, the ordinary concerns of Christian
life, including worship, Bible study, service and giving, become grateful
responses to grace willingly engaged rather than duties grudgingly carried out
in order to earn God’s favour. When grace is properly related to response,
legalistic demands for obedience and conformity—usually accompanied by an unbiblical
threat of hellfire and damnation—may be rejected in favour of the Gospel
proclamation of the good news of God’s love for all revealed in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world (John 1:29).
The proper relation between grace and response has a profound effect on
missions and the proclamation of the Gospel. Rather than a “rescue” operation
intended to “save” people from hell, missions becomes a joyful and confident invitation for all to receive the grace and goodness of the
loving Father, who “was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor
5:19). Like Jesus, who summoned his hearers to repent and believe the Gospel
(Mark 1:15), the messengers of the good news may confidently summon their
hearers to repentance, faith and appropriate form of life, not as conditions
for divine favour, but as grateful responses to the grace that is already
poured out on all humanity by the Father who sent his precious Son, so that he
might “lavish” his love upon us in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 1 John 3:1).
Martin M. Davis, PhD
[1] Deddo, G.W. 2007.
The Christian Life and Our Participation in Christ’s Continuing Ministry. In G. Dawson, ed. An Introduction to Torrance Theology: Discovering the Incarnate Saviour.
London: T & T Clark, p. 157.
[2] Ibid.
[3] I am paraphrasing theologian James
B. Torrance, who often said that “the indicatives of grace are prior to the imperatives of law.”
