October 20, 2008

Zane Hodges, “Legalism is Not a Very Nice Word.” (Part 3)

Dear Guests:
We continue with Greg Schliesmann’s third installment from his series critiquing Zane Hodges’s The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism.

Jesus Never Invited the Lost to Believe in His Death?
With another sweeping claim Hodges says, “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in...” Hodges then lists eight truths, none of which are part of the saving message according to Hodges. Those truths include “His death on the cross for our sins” and “His bodily resurrection.”

However, most Bible students can immediately think of verses in the Gospel of John in which Jesus connected believing in His death with the offer eternal life. For example:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” (John 3:14-15).
With John 3:14-15 in mind, one author described salvation as a matter of “looking to Christ and his cross alone”; “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for all our sins” (1John 2:2; John 1:29); “...look to the cross and find peace by believing,” “trust completely in Christ and what He did on the cross;” and claimed “any system of doctrine that forbids us to find complete peace by simply looking to God’s Son, who was lifted up for us on the cross, can by no means claim to be the true Gospel.”

So what? That author was Zane Hodges in the postscript of The Gospel Under Siege[11]. How could Hodges offer John 3:14-15 as the support of such statements and then claim “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death on the cross?
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day ,” (John 6:51-54).
How does this passage fit with Hodges claim that “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death on the cross?

In offering eternal life in this passage, Christ did not describe it being found simply in the letters J-E-S-U-S or the “promise.” Rather, he spoke of “life” being found in the “bread” of His “flesh” (6:51). Likewise, the requirement “drink His blood” illustrates an appropriation of his death, not belief in the mere promise of life apart from His death.

Advocates of Hodges’s position will deny these rather obvious observations by pointing out people were saved during Jesus’ earthly ministry without understanding or believing the picture Christ illustrated in this passage. While that is true, it is still essential to interpret this passage.

Crossless Gospel advocates fail to deal with the proleptic nature of this statement. In other words, Christ spoke in anticipation of His death and resurrection to a general audience that was neither saved nor yet prepared to believe in Him (cf. 6:15, 26, 36). It was impossible to meet His condition to “drink my blood” before His blood was actually offered. Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross. Once the blood and flesh were given, it would then be incumbent upon them to meet the requirement that Christ set forth in the illustration with the words “eat my flesh...drink my blood.” It would be incumbent in the sense that their eternal destiny depended upon it (v. 53, 54). It is very significant that John uniquely included this and other proleptic statements in his Gospel.

Yet Hodges contends, “Theological legalism maintains that the saving message has ‘changed’ since the cross...Yet the ‘theological provisos’ required by theological legalism are absent from the Fourth Gospel....” One would have thought that Hodges would have dealt with such passages as John 3:14-14 and 6:51-54 before making that claim. But if Hodges interpreted this passage in a way that upheld any real meaning in Christ’s words, he could never claim, “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death.

It is also notable that the Apostle John, writing on this side of the cross, first appealed directly to His readers to “believe” in connection with and upon describing the death (19:35) and resurrection of Jesus (20:29-31).

Finally, Jesus Christ now invites the lost to believe in His death for our sins. Jesus Christ Himself preaches through the ministry of the Gospel:
“...and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near,” (Ephesians 2:17).

“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” (2Cor. 5:20-21 ).
Unlike Hodges’s crossless saving message, God’s saving message is actually described as “the message of the cross” (1Cor. 1:17-18). And unlike Hodges’s insistence on separating the name of Christ from the work of Christ, the Gospel invites the lost to believe on “Christ crucified” (1Cor. 1:23).

Greg Schliesmann

[11] Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, pp. 147-150.

Greg Schliesmann’s critique of Hodges’s polarizing Hydra’s Head article will be continued.


LM

39 comments:

  1. I like very much how part 3 begins. Many people either turn a blind eye to, or are unaware of, just how much Hodges, and GES, have changed their doctronal statements, GES in particular. While the subject has not been mentioned in part 3, I find it laughable that even the false GES/Hodges gospel has certain checklists that must be believed in at the moment of saving faith (e.x. their insistance that eternal security must be believe, as well as one must have assurance for their faith to be real -- which of course would have left out the theif on the cross). Excellent articles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good morning Gojira,

    Yes, the changes to GES' Affirmations of Belief are quite telling. When we were researching BW after he spoke at our church, and caught unaware with his strange teaching, the changes to the GES AoB provided strong evidence of the significant and deliberate drift. You'll find some previous discussion of these changes here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Stephen. I will read those.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gojira, Do you have any thoughts on the minimum content of saving faith? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Lou,

    With regard to Hodges' claim about the Lord's speaking I'm reminded of Mark 8:31, and the first part of verse 32

    31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke this word openly....

    While the Word does not explicitly say this was an evangelistic message, clearly the Lord God was proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it has the purpose of being the Power of God to Salvation, and since the Lord's Word does not return vain then surely this is an evangelistic thing and the Lord God did indeed proclaim His death as part of evangelism.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  6. Delivered:

    Greg answered a question you posted to him that is similar to what you just asked Gojira. You never responded to Greg’s reply. Why not? Go back to Part 1 of Greg's series and you find his answer that I am repeating for you here. o back to that thread and respond to his answer.

    You asked, “Do you think that a person can deny these truths and be born again? Thanks.”

    Here was Greg’s answer, “In order to be born again I believe a person must believe that Jesus Christ is the unique God-man who died for our sins/rose again and provides reconciliation to God through faith in Him alone. If he believes this message, even if he denies other orthodox doctrines, he will still be born again. I believe the answer is that simple.”

    Crossless gospel advocates and their sympathizers have a long track record of dodging issues, question and/or answers that are a problem for them. You are beginning to exhibit this trend.

    Go back to Greg’s answer/extended comment and address it.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gojira:

    I'd like for you to postpone answering Delivered's question until he/she shows the willingness and character to interact on a two-way street. I want to see him/her interact with Greg's reply and comment.

    Thanks,


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kev:

    "...since the Lord's Word does not return vain then surely this is an evangelistic thing and the Lord God did indeed proclaim His death as part of evangelism."

    Yes He did!

    As we have seen, however, Hodges/Wilkin and their extremist followers in the GES disregard, twist and or redefine any passage that is not favorable toward their reductionist heresy toward the content of saving faith.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Lou,

    No problem, as the asked question is unBiblical to begin with. It is , however, a question that old time liberals loved to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lou, I have no reply to Greg's comment in the other thread except, "Greg, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question." I am not reading these posts in order to give my opinion on them. I am reading them to further my understanding of the issues involved here. I have read Gojira's comments in other threads and forums and appreciate his insights. I was hoping he would share more of his understanding of the issues involved here. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello there Delivered,

    You asked what I thought of all this minimalist stuff. Well, if I can just be perfectly honest, I personally think it is a load of foul smelling doctrinal stupidity. For example, I mean, can you really imagine telling someone (as Marty Cauley told me on the previous thread), that it is a universal requirement that before a person can be persuaded to believe in Christ then the basic facts of His Person and work must be told, and then turn right around to a theological system that would then tell you that those facts aren’t essential to be believed in? That is stupidity on a galactic scale. By the way, that isn’t simply Marty Cauley being stupid as I happen to think he is ten times more intelligent than me (I am rather low on the brain pole), rather that is the whole of GES. There are plenty of other things I could tell you what I thought about this subject, but it is extremely hard to get passed the grand stupidity of it.

    I hope you had a good day Delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lou, Greg,and All,
    Really good, compelling points are brought out here in these articles. I appreciate this very much, and agree, the crossless message is wrong. But something isn't right here. I have seen, all during this time of controversy, a glaring inconsistency on our side. It is this. If we are going to claim that during the earthly ministry of Christ people were saved by belief in His coming death and resurrection, we will have the impossible task of explaining verses like Luke 18:34, "And they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken," even as Hodges points out, "For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead" (John 20:9). We simply cannot disprove Hodges on this point. His case for salvation without understanding the cross is very solid before the cross.
    Our case, of necessity, must therefore be based upon a change of required understanding. For me, this change took place when Christ gave the gospel of the grace of God to Paul, but certainly no earlier than the day of His resurrection when He opened the eyes of the disciples to understand the Old Testament prophecies that required His death and resurrection (Luke 24:45). The disciples just didn't grasp this any earlier than that. Therefore, I cannot agree that, before the cross, Christ taught people to believe Him for eternal salvation with an understanding of the cross. I just can't see how that can be possible in light of the statements that this wasn't understood, not even by the twelve.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Delivered:

    You wrote, “I am not reading these posts in order to give my opinion on them. I am reading them to further my understanding of the issues involved here.”

    I appreciate the reply, but here is how I expect interaction to work here.

    If you ask a reasonable question you should expect a reply. And, of course, if you are asked a question you will respond as well.

    We (Me, Stephen, Rachel, Greg, Art, Bret and Kevl) have too much experience with Crossless gospel extremists coming to our blogs, NOT to see what they can learn, but instead to spread Hodge’s reductionist heresy and all the while dodging questions that are posed to them.

    This has been the practice of Antonio da Rosa, Jim Johnson, Alvin, Jeremy Myers and of late goe (Gary) who used subterfuge to post here.

    I trust we have an understanding that this is a two-way street.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  15. Art,

    By addressing me in the above comments, you implied that I somehow claimed that people were required during Christ's earthly ministry to believe in His death and resurrection. I never claimed that. Furthermore, I believe you somehow missed a statement in this very article to the opposite effect. I stated:

    Crossless Gospel advocates fail to deal with the proleptic nature of this statement. In other words, Christ spoke in anticipation of His death and resurrection to a general audience that was neither saved nor yet prepared to believe in Him (cf. 6:15, 26, 36). It was impossible to meet His condition to “drink my blood” before His blood was actually offered. Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross. Once the blood and flesh were given, it would then be incumbent upon them to meet the requirement that Christ set forth in the illustration with the words “eat my flesh...drink my blood.” It would be incumbent in the sense that their eternal destiny depended upon it (v. 53, 54). It is very significant that John uniquely included this and other proleptic statements in his Gospel.

    Did you miss that statement or is it still unclear?

    I believe Christ's commission for His disciples to preach "the gospel" concerning His death and resurrection took effect on the Day of Pentecost (cf. Lk. 24:45-49; Acts 1:7-8), not at some undetermined later time that Christ supposedly first gave the Gospel to Paul.

    Actually Peter (cf. Acts 10:34-44) and the other Apostles (cf. Acts 8:29-35) preached the same Gospel in the book of Acts as the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 13:26-29), even prior to Paul's conversion.

    Likewise the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16-17) and its effect of placing a person "in Christ" (cf. Romans 16:7) began on the Day of Pentecost, prior to Paul's conversion.

    It is unfortunate that you have created a rift between God's revelation given to the Church based on whether it was conveyed through Paul or other Apostles. It's not only a false view of God's revelation concerning the history of the early Church but one that practically effects how believers today look at the revelation deposited to the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Greg,

    I made my comments reading this thread, not just your article, nevertheless, your article begins by calling into question: Jesus Never Invited the Lost to Believe in His Death? Granted, you have a paragraph further on, saying this wasn't understood, which is perplexing to me because you are objecting to Hodges saying "in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in" His death on the cross? Your article is against this, communicating that Jesus did invite belief in His death, offered eternal life through belief in His death. What then, does "inviting" and "offering" convey? If Jesus was inviting, offering this, how could that invitation/offer not be be understood by anyone at all? This thread suggests to me, some readers are deciding, with assistance from your article, that the so called invitation/offer was understood, despite your paragraph to the contrary. I don't think deciding that way helps in objecting to Hodges.
    Some matters you bring up in your post I don't see as expedient to address here, except to say I don't agree with you about the commission or "same gospel" or that my view creates a rift in Scripture or is unforturnate. My view is indeed different from yours in all these details.
    But if you believe the gospel of eternal salvation was changed when Christ spoke to His disciples right after His resurrection, with nothing further ever given by Him later about this, fine. That isn't my view, but I am glad if you really see that the apostles' preaching was changed. I think this is important if people are to see that the crossless message isn't valid. I would hope that you, and others, could think there is some value in someone opposing the crossless problem from another perspective that isn't exactly the same as yours. Maybe you can't do that. I can. But if agreement with you on all the details you bring up is necessary in order to be against Hodges' case then that makes matters very difficult for me. Surely, some things are more important than others.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gojira, Thank you for the reply.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Art,

    I am happy to take the opportunity to reiterate my comments.

    I understand that when we hear an interpretation or certain spiritual thought for the first time, it often needs to be repeated and articulated several times before we catch on.

    You stated:

    I made my comments reading this thread, not just your article, nevertheless, your article begins by calling into question: Jesus Never Invited the Lost to Believe in His Death? Granted, you have a paragraph further on, saying this wasn't understood, which is perplexing to me because you are objecting to Hodges saying "in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in" His death on the cross? Your article is against this, communicating that Jesus did invite belief in His death, offered eternal life through belief in His death. What then, does "inviting" and "offering" convey? If Jesus was inviting, offering this, how could that invitation/offer not be be understood by anyone at all?

    Actually, it is very simple. I can summarize in these three statements:

    1. It was never a requirement for salvation to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ until He actually died and rose again.

    2. Even though Christ knew His immediate audience would not understand certain statements about His death and resurrection at the time He spoke them during His earthly ministry, He made these statements with the anticipation they would be understood after His death/resurrection.

    3. People would be required to believe in His death and resurrection after it was accomplished and Jesus made certain statements during His earthly ministry in anticipation of this.

    John 6:48-58 is an example of this third point, and I interpreted the passage in a way that is consistent with all three points.

    In the article I stated:

    It was impossible to meet His condition to “drink my blood” before His blood was actually offered. Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross. Once the blood and flesh were given, it would then be incumbent upon them to meet the requirement that Christ set forth in the illustration with the words “eat my flesh...drink my blood.” It would be incumbent in the sense that their eternal destiny depended upon it (v. 53, 54).

    I spoke of the proleptic nature of this statement. A proleptic statement is one where someone speaks in anticipation of a certain future reality. A statement is made in anticipation of a future event being fulfilled. There are several proleptic statements from Christ and about Christ, particularly in the Gospel of John.

    In this case, Jesus spoke in anticipation of His death. I am sure you would agree this statement refers to His death: "the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (6:51).

    In conjunction with that Jesus says, "except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (6:53).

    I can also summarize the interpretation of this passage in three points:

    1. Jesus spoke of His death in this passage (e.g. 6:51).

    2. The statement "eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood" is also a reference to His death (6:53), but this time He spoke not only of the objective reality of His death, but of the subjective response/requirement on behalf of His audience. In other words, "eat of the flesh" and "drink His blood" in something His audience must do in light of His death.

    3. The statement "eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood" is proleptic in nature. In other words, "drink His blood" assumed a reality that was yet future at the time Christ spoke these words, i.e., that His body and blood were offered in death. Christ's death was months away, and He expected His audience to understand these words only after He died and rose again. Actually, it only makes sense in the illustration that His audience would be required to "eat of the flesh" and "drink His blood" only after His flesh and blood were offered.

    In light of these points, there is no contradiction between the facts that Jesus invited people to believe in His death but did not actually require it as a condition of salvation until He died.

    If it still does not make sense to you that Jesus would make a proleptic statement during His earthly ministry, I would point out that there are several Scriptural examples, especially in the Gospel of John.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greg,
    There is no problem with Jesus making such statements. Certainly, He Himself knew perfectly well what He would do. The difficulty is with the people back then when they heard Him. Did they understand He was inviting them to believe in His death, that He was offering eternal life through faith in His death? If so, how can Luke 18:34 and similar texts be true? I just cant reconcile those ideas in my mind. Hindsight isn't something they had like we do with complete Bibles today.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Art,

    When you speak about lack of "hindsight" for people who lived during Christ's earthly ministry, I think you are forgetting the people who heard Jesus' words in John 6:48-58 would have "hindsight" on His words 6 months later, after He died.

    As I already stated as explicitly as possible, "Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross."

    Art, I am disappointed that all your comments so far ignore this vital fact I carefully pointed out. If you want to disagree with me, you could at least do so on the basis of what I explicitly stated several times.

    It is a strange thing to think that only we, living 2000 years later, have hindsight on Christ's words which He spoke 6 month's before His death!

    In reality, Scripture makes statements about how both the unsaved (e.g. John 8:24, 28; cf. 12:32) and saved (e.g. John 2:22; 12:16; 13:7; Luke 24:24) would have hindsight, after His death/resurrection, upon the words He spoke to them during His earthly ministry.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  21. correction: one of the above references should be Luke 24:44

    ReplyDelete
  22. Furthermore, if you deny "drink His blood" is a statement about the required response of believing in His death, then you are left to interpret these words in a way that somehow do not refer to His death. I think the unfaithfulness of such an interpretation would be tragic.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Delivered,

    Look, I know what I wrote was every harsh. But when I am asked what I think about something, I usually give the answer in a straight forward manner.. Greg himself has done an excellent job so far with his presentation, and I highly recommend that you read his words well. As I said, I have many reasons to not agree with the GES heresy. Here are a few more:

    The thinking of it, besides being stupid, goes hand in hand with old time liberalism. Go back and read the granddaddy of all that – Scheiermacher. Machen, in a few of his works spoke of those who wanted to minimalize the content of the gospel. The people he wrote against also stated that it was impossible to define the content of faith and the gospel. You will find a few GES proponents stating the same thing. Am I saying that these GES folks are liberals in evangelical garb? No, but their thought processes concerning the gospel find a very loving home with old time Liberalism.

    Another reason I think the GES heresy is, well, heretical, is because no one in the book of Acts proclaims the gospel as if the Person and work of Christ is optional or a nonessential to be believed in to be justified before God. As I said, GES’ ideals find a home in liberalism, not scripture. Allow a question from me: Do you think the Apostle Paul, through whom God wrote 1 Cor. 1:23, would say that the crucifixion and resurrection were not a necessary part of the gospel – in fact, THE gospel? Or how about 1 Cor. 2:1-2. What is said there is not presented as an unnecessary “part” of the gospel, but as the very testimony of God, the very heart and soul of the gospel.

    Another reason – there is one GES proponent who has publicly stated that the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus proclaimed in scripture is the same. If a person can read that statement and still don’t get it, then it is beyond me to explain. But that statement can only come about when the name of Christ has been gutted and scripture totally rejected. In scripture a person’s character is often known by that person’s name. But just to be clear, I am not saying that all in GES would approve of what that one certain person stated, but the thinking of GES doctrine is what leads to such a statement as mentioned above.

    I hope these few things that I have noted has given you at least a rough outline of some of my thoughts. And just to be clear, I know that GES would say that they do preach the person and work of Christ. But I also know that isn’t the issue, and is a totally dishonest dodge of what the issue is. But the dishonest antics of GES is totally another story.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Greg,
    I can't help but wonder if you are skimming what I've been saying because I have not been ignoring your statement. I've been trying to explain why I think there is an inconsistecy. That's not ignoring anything. Somehow, you think I need to be shown John 2:22, etc., that I think only 2000 years later the hindsight exists that I talked about, that 6 months may be something I'm overlooking, that maybe I don't think "drink my blood" refers to Christ's death and faith in it. Communication really doesn't seem to be working very well for us here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Art, you asked:

    Did they understand He was inviting them to believe in His death, that He was offering eternal life through faith in His death?

    When I had already repeated:

    "Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross."

    Do you believe "drink my blood" refers to Christ's death and faith in it?

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gojira:

    I appreciate your extended comment to Delivered about the reductionist teaching coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.

    You wrote, “And just to be clear, I know that GES would say that they do preach the person and work of Christ. But I also know that isn’t the issue, and is a totally dishonest dodge of what the issue is. But the dishonest antics of GES is totally another story.”

    Just how genuine the claims of GES that they ALWAYS present the Person and work of Christ has been a mantra and tool to dodge the true crux of the doctrinal controversy.

    However, there is new evidence that this claim of Wilkin and GES is disingenuous, which we have suspected for months

    I invite you and all of my guests to read the new article, Clearing the Haze of “Always.”


    LM

    PS to Delivered: Gojira asked you a question; your turn.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Greg,
    I'm growing weary of this and thinking that trying to communicate with you isn't getting anywhere. Yes, I understand that when Jesus said "drink my blood" He was refering to the merits of His death and to faith in it and I think He Himself is the only person who understood what He meant at the time He made this statement.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Greg,
    I will try by asking you this. Why are you criticizing Hodges in your article for his claim that Jesus never invited faith in His death nor offered eternal life based upon faith in His death? Are your comments to me actually agreeing with Hodges on this particular point?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Art, I am criticizing Hodges because like you said, Jesus was speaking of believing in His death in John 6:53-58. Furthermore, He spoke of it as an explicit condition for eternal life. That directly contradicts Hodges's claims that 1) Jesus never invited anyone to believe in His death as a condition of salvation and 2) the book of John is absent of any indication that belief in Christ's death would be required upon His death and resurrection.

    As I stated repeatedly, Jesus did not expect anybody to understand His words at the moment He spoke them, but they would be understandable when He died and rose again. The illustration and its application came into effect only upon His death and resurrection.

    In light of you agreement that "drink His blood" refers to belief in His death, and in light of the fact Jesus said, "unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (6:53), do you believe Christ stipulated that belief in His death was a condition for eternal life? And secondly, what application did Christ words in John 6:53 have to his audience upon His death?

    I hope you will answer these questions directly.

    Thanks,
    Greg

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Greg,
    As per your request, I will try to directly answer the two questions you asked.
    1. Do I believe Christ stipulated that belief in His death was a condition to eternal life?
    Answer: "stipulated," no, I don't think so, unless you have a meaning for "stipulated" that I'm not following. I do understand that eternal life would be purchased by His blood and that all who had this life would eventually come to know and believe that this is why they have it. For me, "stipulated" suggests too much for the time, so I don't think so.
    2. What application did Christ's words in John 6:53 have to His audience upon His death?
    Answer: The application upon His death was not in the minds of former hearers but in the mind of God. All who had believed in ignorance of His blood now had His blood applied to them as per Romans 3:25 and as this became known by the gospel of the grace of God learned to believe it. Others, once this did become the gospel, would receive eternal life only upon belief in His death for sin and resurrection.
    In none of this do I see any "invitation" by Christ to His audience for them to rely upon His blood, not at that time for He knew they couldn't get it, and no "offer" was given to any of them to receive eternal life by understanding and believing in His blood. In that time frame I believe Hodges is absolutely correct in saying Jesus never invited anyone to depend upon His death. I really don't believe our answer to Hodges is to dispute this but that things changed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Greg,
    I need to turn my attention to other things. I have a lot to do this weekend in connection with Sunday services.
    I would like to repeat what I said when I first posted in this thread, that good and compelling points are brought out in your articles and that I appreciate this very much, and I agree, the crossless message is wrong.
    I think our emphasize in the crossless debate should primarily be that things changed. Your ability to express your understanding is something I admire very much and I am thankful to the Lord for you and your contributions against the crossless message.
    Art

    ReplyDelete
  32. Greg/Art:

    I appreciate your discussion here.

    To All, In a few days I will be publishing the next installment from Greg's critique of the article by Hodges.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  33. Art & all,

    I'd like to make a point in summary, though I understand Art will not have time to respond.

    I will briefly summarize four views of John 6:51-58 including Art's view and my view, and why I believe the proleptic view is the only consistent view:

    1. The crossless gospel view. As far as I've seen crossless gospel advocates interact with this passage, they denied "eat my flesh and drink my blood" referred to faith in Christ's death. Instead, they claim it simply means to believe in the word J-e-s-u-s for sustenance.

    2. No change view. Some who see that "eat His flesh and drink His blood" actually does refer belief in His death may conclude that this condition was immediately effective or already in effect when Christ spoke these words. Therefore, they would see the required content of faith before Christ's death and after it to include Christ's death for our sins.

    3. Art Sims view. Art agrees "drink His blood" refers to faith in His death but denies Christ spoke of drinking His blood as a condition for eternal life. Instead, he claims, "all who had this life would eventually come to know and believe that this is why they have it" He therefore claims Christ did not speak of faith in His death as a condition for eternal life but as a result of having already received eternal life. The problem with this view is that it is contradicted by Christ's words: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). According to this statement, Christ was not speaking of a person starting with "life" and then later on coming to faith in His death as a result. According to this passage, it is the very opposite. Unless a person would believe in His death, he would not have life to start with. In fact, there is no way of more explicitly stating a condition to life than to say, “unless you________, you have no life in you ”. If that is not a condition, what is?

    4. Proleptic view. A proleptic statement is one where a person speaks in anticipation of a future event or as though the future event had already occurred. This view affirms 1) the meaning of Christ's words as an obvious reference to His death; 2) that Christ spoke of a condition when He stated, “unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood...”; and 3) the proleptic nature of the invitation/condition.

    This view is faithful to the text while avoiding the error of the crossless interpretation which denies “drink My blood” refers to faith in Christ's death; the error of Art Sims who denies a condition to eternal life is conveyed by the words “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you”; and the error of the “no change” view which would understand faith in Christ's death to be a condition of salvation prior to the cross.

    Most of Art's arguments against my view, as I understood them, were actually against the "no change view" (#2) above. Since I already disagree with that position, I do not think Art's points specifically addressed the proleptic view.

    Art summarized by saying that the cross is part of the content of saving faith and that we should emphasize the "change" in the content of saving faith between Christ's earthly ministry and the Church age. The proleptic view does reflect/emphasize that change in constrast to the "no change view".

    I would also like to state that the sort of (hyper) dispensational theology Art teaches would make it very difficult to accept the proleptic view. That is because he teaches that nobody (not even the original Apostles after the Day of Pentecost) taught the Gospel that Christ died for our sins and rose as the saving message until the Apostle Paul. If you believed this message originally came through Paul, it would make it very difficult to accept the applicability of Christ's words in John 6:51-58 to his audience.

    In the future, I may be interested in addressing the strengths/weaknesses of these various views in more depth. I actually started writing something on this but chose not to post it at this time.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  34. Greg
    Having conferred with several folks at our church this morning, I'm aware of another view concerning "drink my blood," i.e., no reference intended to faith in Christ's death but drinking done, unwittingly, through belief in Him as the Christ. Like drinking a beverage with unknown ingredients included; like baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ and not knowing it at the time. This fits perfectly with Luke 18:34. Also seems easier than either your view or mine. As to my dispensationalism, this isn't my blog. Lou doesn't agree with my dispensational view. I've referred to elements in relation the crossless issue but not for the purpose of challenging pentecostal dispenstionalism. I won't be discussing that subject here.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Art,

    You basically switched the interpretation I called the "crossless interpretation" above.

    Apparently now you can see it was untenable to argue "unless you drink His blood" refers to faith in His blood but is not stated as a condition. I do not expect you to be convinced of what I think is the clear implication of the passage because you already displayed your willingness to hold and promote a transparently untenable position in order to interpret the passage in a way that fits with post-Pentecostal "Pauline" dispensationalism. I mention your particular brand of dispensationalism not because I want to discuss it but because that paradigm prevents you from accepting the proleptic interpretation while the normal dispensational view would not.

    For other readers, I believe Art is arguing against the clear and logical interpretation of one of the key passages in the Gospel of John where Jesus anticipates His crosswork and the resulting offer/requirement to believe the message of the cross. So I believe it is worth defending. Since I already defended this interpretation from Art's prior view, I will also defend it against the crossless view.

    Art again made an argument that has nothing to do with the proleptic interpretation by pointing out Luke 18:34 which indicates Christ's disciples did not understand His predictions of His death and resurrection. You don't even need to turn to Luke 18:34. You can see that fact in the passage at hand, in John 6:52, 60, 61, 67 which I pointed out in my original explanation of the passage. That point perfectly fits with the proleptic view.

    There are several problems with the "crossless interpretation" (the interpretation that denies "eat of His flesh...and drink His blood" involves belief in His death):

    1. If Christ only wished to convey a promise of eternal life apart from the need to believe in His death in 6:48-58, there would be no reason to speak of drinking "His blood". That idea is especially shocking, especially to the Jewish mind at that time. In fact, it stumbled His audience (cf. 6:52, 60, 66). This would be an especially poor way of conveying the crossless promise of life, and there would have been no reason for Jesus to stumble His audience in this way unless He was actually speaking about faith in His death.

    This is similar to the fact Paul preached "Christ crucified" despite the fact it stumbled Jews (cf. 1Cor. 1:23) rather than acting as an effective apologetic.

    2. The argument that Christ could not yet be speaking of belief in His death just because His immediate audience could not yet understand it is self-refuting because they also could not understand the crossless interpretation of Christ's words. Neither the saved nor the unsaved could understand that "eat of the flesh...and drink His blood" simply means to believe in Christ for eternal life (or however Art interprets it) apart from any knowledge of His death. This is clear according to 6:52, 60, 61, 66.

    3. The "unwitting" appropriation argument does not fit with Christ's words. Art claimed: "no reference intended to faith in Christ's death but drinking done, unwittingly, through belief in Him as the Christ. Like drinking a beverage with unknown ingredients included".

    It is true that many blessings are conveyed in salvation that a person may not necessarily know about. But how can anyone read this passage and conclude that Christ is encouraging anyone to "unwittingly" drink His blood when He is saying "unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" and repeats that message 6 times (6:51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58)? Speaking of the beverage/ ingredients analogy, that would be like someone holding out a beverage and claiming "unless you get some sugar in you, you're going to run out of energy." How could anyone conclude that the speaker expects his audience to accept the beverage without knowing it contains sugar?

    Christ said, "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (v. 55). He indicated one must eat His flesh and drink His blood both in the form of a promise (v. 54) and an absolute requirement (v. 53). Clearly, His flesh and blood are the very things OFFERED for consumption, not some "secret ingredient" in a beverage or some hidden blessing of salvation to be realized later.

    4. Unlike any other passage, Christ specifically emphasizes his FLESH and BLOOD as the thing one must eat/drink.

    Notice how Art rewords "drink His blood" to "drinking done":

    "no reference intended to faith in Christ's death but drinking done"

    What a misrepresentation! This passage is different from other passages that use "drink" (such as John 4:14 and 7:37) because a) John 6:48-58 does not just mention "drink"; 2) John 6:48-58 specifically mentions "eat...MY FLESH and drink MY BLOOD; 3) Christ specifically emphasizes His flesh and blood (6:51, 53, 54, 55, 56); and 4) Christ defines the bread as His flesh which He gives up in a sacrificial death (6:51). Therefore, to claim that Christ is simply emphasizing "drinking done" rather than "drinking His blood" is misleading.

    5. Even the unsaved realize that Christ claimed that eternal life was not offered merely through belief in a bloodless promise, but that it was offered through appropriation of His flesh and blood. Notice their response:

    "...How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" (6:52).

    The question was not whether one had to personally appropriate His flesh or blood (contra the "unwitting" consumption argument), but the question was how would He provide it? They would have the opportunity to understand six monts later, once Christ died and rose again. This fits with the proleptic view.

    6. Art claimed, "no reference intended to faith in Christ's death but drinking done, unwittingly, through belief in Him as the Christ." However Art defines believing in Him "as the Christ", it cannot mean to simply believe in Him as the one who would come as the King of Israel, as His audience already believed in Him as that (cf. 6:14-15). In the context, Christ contradicted their view of the Christ by presenting Himself as a Christ who would die sacrificially (cf. 51) so that they would have to believe in Him as the "bread of life" (cf. 6:48ff). Christ then defines "the bread" (“the bread I shall give is...”) not simply as the letters J-e-s-u-s but as His "flesh" which He would give for (huper) the world (6:51).

    7. The crossless view ignores the proleptic nature of this passage. A proleptic statement is one where a person speaks in anticipation of a future event or as though the future event had already occurred. Several observations about this passage highlight its prolepetic nature --

    We recognize that while Christ gave the condition/invitation to “drink His blood”, this invitation would only be understood and accepted after His blood was offered in His sacrificial death. This condition did not actually come into effect until He died and rose again. This fits the illustration because Christ indicated His flesh would be offered in the future:

    "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give (future tense) is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (6:51)

    Therefore, when Christ said, "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (6:55) and spoke of the promise connected with partaking of His flesh and blood (6:54), He made statements that were obviously proleptic. Technically, His flesh and blood were not yet offered at the time He spoke these words (cf. 51), but He spoke in anticipation of that reality.

    Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross. Once the blood and flesh were given, it would then be incumbent upon them to meet the requirement that Christ set forth in the illustration with the words “unless you eat my flesh...drink my blood.” It would be incumbent in the sense that their eternal destiny depended upon it (v. 53, 54).

    Another proleptic statement is found in v. 56 where Christ states, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him”. This is significant because the phrase “abides in Me” is a truth unique to the Church Age. While Christ spoke of abiding in His word during His earthly ministry (cf. 8:31), the phrase “abides in Me” is unique. Nowhere does Scripture state believers could abide “in Me” during Christ's earthly ministry. Nor does it state that Christ would "abide in" believers during His earthly ministry. The phrase indicates a fellowship or communion with the risen Christ that is based upon (though not equivalent to) the believers's organic union with the Him. That is why the next place we read about abiding in Christ is on the eve of His crucifixion when He speaks to His disciples in anticipation of the new relationship they would have with Him upon His death, resurrection, and glorification (cf. John 14-16). The abiding relationship between Christ and the believer would only begin "at that day" when this new relationship of "you in Me, and I in you" became a reality (cf. John 14:17-20). This point simply highlights the proleptic nature of the passage in general.

    Furthermore, this was not the only time Christ described the content of saving faith in a way that anticipated His death/resurrection and that He only expected His audience to be able to see through the perspective of that future reality. For example:

    "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (8:24)

    "When you lift up the Son of Man, THEN you will know that I AM..." (8:28)

    Christ made many statements that He expected to be understood only after and through the light of His death and resurrection (e.g. e.g. John 2:22; 12:16; 13:7; Luke 24:44). Everything points to John 6:48-58 as such an example.

    It is also significant that John, writing with an evangelistic purpose (cf. John 20:31), is the one writer who included this discourse in his Gospel. Certainly he expected his readers to see this passage through the light of the Cross, the same light that was afforded to Christ's original hearers within about six months of the discourse.

    In summary, the proper intepretation of this passage affirms that Christ speaks of appropriation of His flesh and blood by belief in His sacrificial death while also affirming this offer and requirement only came into effect when His flesh and blood were actually offered in death (cf. 6:51).

    Both the "no change" and "crossless" views ignore the proleptic nature of this passage. The "crossless" view blatantly detracts from the meaning of Christ's words. It uses arguments against the "no change" view as a justification. However, there is another view, the proleptic view that is faithful to Christ's words and considerate of their anticipatory nature. So far, no proponents of the crossless view have made a single argument against the proleptic view to my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Greg,
    I can't even begin to address the the many unfair things you have said about me and my understanding and the insults in your remarks. But I would like to be clear about this. I am not a crossless preacher and I do not agree with you that dispensationalism is the totally controlling issue in this discussion that you desire it to be. Rather, the absurdities of your "proleptic" view speak for themselves, on their own, and any person can make up his or her own mind as they read John chapter 6 for themselves. I will be glad when you get past this argument in your series.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Art,

    I had already titled your current interpretation of John 6:48-58 the "crossless view" in my message on 10/25/2008 prior to you adopting it.

    I did not imply you preach the crossless gospel, but you now hold to a view of John 6:48-58 that is crossless in the sense you say that the promise/requirement does not involve faith in Jesus crosswork on the part of the hearers. You said: "no reference intended to faith in Christ's death but drinking done, unwittingly, through belief in Him as the Christ."

    Not only is that the crossless interpretation of the passage, but this is the way crossless gospel proponents interpret other passages--they say the cross was the grounds of our redemption but not necessary to the content of faith. So, in the same respect, your view of John 6:51-58 is crossless.

    In this passage, however, Jesus did not promote "unwitting" consumption of His flesh and blood but taught His body would be offered in death and insisted one must "eat...MY FLESH and drink MY BLOOD".

    The only thing your comments have done is make the absurdity of the alternative views more obvious to me.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  38. Greg,
    This has to end. I'm really tired of it. Therefore I will make this post and then you can have the last word, saying whatever unkind, ungracious thing you would like to. The great absurdity I see in your view is your claim that no conflict exists between your argument and Luke 18:34, and with this, the "elephant in the room" in John chapter 6, that Jesus' hearers knew very well He was addressing their unbelief or belief right then, at the time He spoke, not 6 months later. Unlike you, in this discussion I have refrained from saying many unnecessary, unkind things that I've been tempted to say, and I'm very glad I have so refrained. I've done this, remembering a rebuke I once received from a friend, "If grace doesn't translate into graciousness we are interfering with its work in our lives."
    I'm done here so far as this thread is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Art, I'm comfortable with everything I said.

    If anybody has questions on this passage or others where Jesus depicts saving faith involving the cross (e.g. John 3:14-15), feel free to let me know.

    ReplyDelete