How Martin Luther Came to Understand Repentance

Luther translating the Bible.

The following is a quote from Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, showing how Martin Luther came to understand the true meaning of repentance: 

The Reformation started as a protest against false or inadequate conceptions of repentance. “Luther, it will be remembered, first saw the practical value of philological study, when he was puzzling over the expression poenitentiam agite, ‘do penance,’ which the Vulgate uses for the Greek word that in the English translation is rendered ‘repent.’ Was it possible, he said to himself, that Christ and the Apostles could really bid men do penance? Did the New Testament really stand on the side of his opponents, and of all the gross corruptions which the doctrine of penance had introduced? Melanchthon solved this difficulty by showing to Luther that the Greek word metanoeite, which Jerome had translated ‘do penance,’ really and etymologically meant ‘change your mind.’ From that moment the Reformation entered into a conscious alliance with the new learning, to which it was already akin in its independent love of truth, its rebellion against human authority, and its interest in the Bible as a real living book.”[1]

According to the Protestant theologian and church historian Philip Schaff, Luther first learned the true meaning of the word repent (from the original Greek) in 1518, a year after he famously nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg. Thus it should come as no surprise if Luther's Ninety-five Theses (written in 1517) don't specifically reflect his later understanding of metanoia as meaning “a change of mind”. Indeed, Philip Schaff writes: 

“The Theses represent a state of transition from twilight to daylight. They reveal the mighty working of an earnest mind and conscience intensely occupied with the problem of sin, repentance, and forgiveness, and struggling for emancipation from the fetters of tradition. They might more properly be called ‘a disputation to diminish the virtue of papal indulgences, and to magnify the full and free grace of the gospel of Christ.’”[2] 

In a letter to John von Staupitz, dated May 30, 1518, Luther affirms: “Afterwards, by the favor of the learned, who are so zealously transmitting to us the Greek and Hebrew, I learned that the same word in Greek is metanoia, so that repentance or metanoia is ‘a change of mind.’ This corresponded so aptly with the Pauline Theology, that, in my judgment, scarcely anything can more aptly illustrate Paul.”[3]  This is the meaning of repentance (Gr. metanoia), which Luther came to understand in 1518 with the help of Melanchthon by going back to the Bible in the original language, as opposed to following the man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic church. 

Sadly, nowadays some proponents of Reformation theology are following in the footsteps of the Roman Catholic church rather than in the footsteps of the Reformers (who went back to the Bible in the original languages) and are adding their own man-made traditions to the meaning of repentance! For example, although John MacArthur states that the word repentance literally means a “change of mind,” he goes on to embellish that definition with his own man-made theological traditions about repentance so that in the end, his definition of repentance doesn't simply mean “a change of mind” but instead he says it means all kinds of other things in addition to simply meaning “a change of mind”![4] Charles Bing (a Free Grace author) points out this tendency among Reformed theologians to embellish the meaning of the Greek word for repentance when he says, “it is unfortunate that the basic meaning of ‘to change the mind’ is eclipsed by the Lordship [Reformed] insistence on something more from the word itself in the New Testament.”[5] Bing goes on to say: “It is interesting how often Lordship teachers agree with the meaning ‘change of mind,’ then invest the term with theology that demands much more.”[6]

Let's follow in the footsteps of Luther by going back to the Bible in the original languages (rather than relying on our own man-made theological traditions) to understand the meaning of repentance!

References:

[1] James Hastings, Editor, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1919), Vol. 10, p. 734.

[2] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: 1916), 2nd Edition, 8 Vol., Vol. 6, pp. 158-159, italics his. Note: A very clear statement by Luther on God's free grace is appropriately found in his Commentary on Galatians, in which Luther writes that “we do constantly affirm with Paul (for we do not reject the grace of God) that either Christ died in vain, or else the law justifieth not. But Christ died not in vain: therefore the law justifieth not. Christ, the Son of God, of his own free grace and mercy, has justified us: therefore the law could not justify us, for if it could, then had Christ done unwisely in that he gave himself for our sins, that we thereby might be justified. We conclude therefore, that we are justified neither by our own works and merits before grace or after, neither yet by the law.” (Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians [Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860], p. 280, commentary on Gal. 2:21.)

[3] Martin Luther, quoted by Henry E. Jacobs, Elements of Religion [Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913], p. 281. Cf. “To John von Staupitz, Wittenberg, May 30, 1518,” Martin Luther, Edited and Translated by Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 55 Volumes, Vol. 48., pp. 66-67. Another English translation, which is in some ways clearer, is titled: “Letter of John Staupitz Accompanying the ‘Resolutions’ to the XCV Theses” by Dr. Martin Luther, 1518, Works of Martin Luther, Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al., Translators and Editors (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Volume 1, pp. 39-43.

[4] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), p. 162. Cf. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Revised and Expanded Anniversary Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), p. 178. For example, commenting on 1 Thessalonians 1:9, MacArthur says that “Paul...described the repentance of the Thessalonians: ‘You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1:9). Note three elements of repentance: a turning to God, a turning from evil, and the intent to serve God. No change of mind can be called true repentance if it does not include all three elements. The simple but all too often overlooked fact is that a true change of mind will necessarily result in a change of behavior.”  (Ibid., p. 178.) But MacArthur here seems to be combining repentance with the fruit of repentance, which is a change of behavior (cf. Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). When the apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, “You turned to God from idols”: that is biblical repentance. When Paul goes on to say, “to serve a living and true God”: that is the fruit of repentance, i.e. service for Christ (cf. Rom. 7:4-6). MacArthur is saying that good intentions (“the intent to serve God”) must be part of true repentance, but as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions!”

[5] Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, Chapter 3: Repentance and Salvation. www.gracelife.org/resources/lordshipsalvation/?id=3

[6] Ibid. See footnote 32. www.gracelife.org/resources/lordshipsalvation/?id=3#ref32

B. H. Carroll on the Gospel

"We set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible, and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself and mean what it wants to mean."  —B. H. Carrol.

 

B. H. Carroll (1843-1914), the founder and first president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of An Interpretation of the English Bible, offers some keen insights in regards to "the facts which constitute the gospel." Carroll affirms that the biblical gospel includes the four facts of Christ's substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. Notice what he says in his commentary on the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11:

"THIS chapter commences with the statement of the facts which constitute the gospel. The first fact, 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.' Three ideas are involved in that fact: 1. Christ actually died. It was not a mere trance; it was actual death. 2. It was a vicarious, substitutionary, expiatory death. 'He died for our sins.' 3. He died for our sins 'according to the Scriptures'—that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament up to the time of his crucifixion clearly foretold his actual, substitutionary, and expiatory death. 

The second fact in the gospel is that he was buried—he was dead and buried—and that was according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testified that he would be buried. The third fact is that on the third day, according to the Scriptures, he rose from the dead; and the fourth fact of the gospel is, that risen, he was visible to men, recognized by men, and identified by men. 

Paul goes on to tell of the numerous appearances, including an appearance to him. He was buried, he rose again, he was visible after death with spiritual evidence, and his body was identified. In other words, John says, as if to anticipate many foolish statements, 'We don't know what we shall be, but we do know that when he comes we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.' 

The next thing that Paul presents is that this was not merely a preaching of his, but all the apostles preached it, as verse 11 of that chapter shows. And the next thought is that they did not originate it. He says, 'I have delivered unto you that which I also received, and you received it from me.' That was according to the sign which Christ submitted: 'He died, he was buried, and was raised.' The next argument that he makes is that every Christian in the days of the apostles believed what he said, 'As I delivered it, so you received it, and that so believing it, you are saved by it,' making it a doctrine of salvation."[1]

 

Reference:

 

[1] Excerpted from B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 17 vols., vol. 13, pp. 246-247. Note: This 17 volume set was first printed by the Fleming H. Revell Company in 1913. Broadman Press bought the copyright in 1942, and it was reprinted by Baker Book House in 1973. The 1916 edition of the material (which is volume 10 in the 1916 edition) can be read online here. See chapter XXIV: "DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD" (pp. 276-277 in the book).

The White Stone in Revelation 2:17: Is it a Gift or Reward?

There's an interesting article in the July/August 2020 edition of the Grace In Focus magazine, titled "Looking at the White Stone from a Different Angle (Revelation 2:17)". The author is Ken Yates, and he begins the article by saying: 

“In Rev 2:17 Jesus promises to give to the overcoming believers at Pergamos a white stone. This is clearly a reward for faithfulness. It is a reward that will be given at the Judgment Seat of Christ, when the Lord rewards believers for their obedience.”

Apparently Yates believes that the promise given by Jesus to the overcomers in Revelation 2:17 is not intended for all Christians. In Yates’ view the promise of Rev 2:17 is instead “a reward for faithfulness.” This is a common teaching among some Free Grace advocates—particularly those who follow Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society. By way of contrast, most Free Grace advocates take the view that every Christian is an overcomer (see 1 John 5:4-5). Thus, the promises given to the overcomers in Revelation chapters 2-3 (Rev. 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:26-28, 3:5, 3:12, 3:21) apply to each and every believer in Christ! 

Something else I noticed about Yates’ article is that he provides no exegesis or cross-references to support his contention that Revelation 2:17 “is a reward that will be given at the Judgment Seat of Christ”. Yates simply assumes it to be true without providing any support or basis for his belief. What’s more, he seems to be confusing the “precious stones” (lithous timious) mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:12 with the “white stone” (psēphon leukēn) promised by Jesus in Revelation 2:17. But the Greek word for stone is different in the two contexts. Paul uses the Greek word lithos, while Jesus uses the word psēphos. What’s the difference? 

Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon gives this helpful explanation of the “stone” (psēphos) that Jesus is talking about in Revelation 2:17: 

psēphos, psēphou, ē (from psaō [meaning to rub; to handle, touch], see psallō), a small, worn, smooth stone; pebble [from Pindar, Herodotus down; (in Homer psēphis)]; 

1. since in the ancient courts of justice the accused were condemned by black pebbles and acquitted by white…and a man on his acquittal was spoken of as nikēsas [“having been victorious”]…and the psēphos [pebble] acquitting Him called nikētērios [“winning” or “belonging to a conqueror”]… 

2. a vote (on account of the use of pebbles in voting): katapherō (which see), Acts 26:10. 

Commenting on Revelation 2:17, A.T. Robertson similarly writes: 

A white stone (psēphon leukēn). This old word for pebble (from psaō, to rub) was used in courts of justice, black pebbles for condemning, white pebbles for acquitting. The only other use of the word in the N.T. is in Acts 26:10, where Paul speaks of “depositing his pebble” (katēnegka psēphon) or casting his vote. The white stone with one's name on it was used to admit one to entertainments and also as an amulet or charm. 

I especially like what William R. Newell says about the white stone in his commentary on The Book of Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935). Commenting on Revelation 2:17, Newell writes on pages 52-53: 

     A white stone and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth it, was promised. Christ is infinite in His excellencies; and each member of His Body sets forth what no other member could. Also there is a personal character in all trials, through which the overcomer (that is, the true believer), will be brought to know the Lord in a peculiar way shared by no other. Dean Alford beautifully comments: 

    “These very terms (a new name written) seem to require that it should be the recipient’s own name,—a new name, however; a revelation of his everlasting title, as a son of God, to glory in Christ, but consisting of, and revealed in, those personal marks and signs of God’s peculiar adoption of himself, which he and none else is acquainted with. If the heart ‘knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger intermeddleth not with its joy,’ (Proverbs 14:10), then the deep, secret dealings of God with each of us during those times by which our sonship is assured and our spiritual strife carried on to victory, can, when revealed to us in the other blessed state, be known thoroughly to ourselves only.” 

These three statements offer some idea of what Jesus is talking about in Revelation 2:17 when He promises to give us “a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.” Yates in his article immediately jumps to the conclusion that Jesus is talking about rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, but why could the “white stone” promised by Jesus not be a special amulet which is given to all believers in Christ? This would certainly fit with the particular word that Jesus uses for stone (psēphos), and the fact that every believer in Christ is said to be an overcomer (1 Jn. 5:4-5). 

There’s something else that I found interesting about the Grace In Focus article. To illustrate the white stone in Revelation 2:17, Yates shares an anecdotal story about a husband giving a beautiful diamond to his wife. And for what reason? Yates says it was because “her husband had great joy in giving it to her. Every time she wore it, she was reminded of how he loved her.” This illustration seems to argue against Yates’ understanding of Revelation 2:17 because it shows that the basis for Jesus giving us a white stone is not so much our works but is instead His love. I believe this is exactly how it will be for us when we receive a white stone with a new name on it, like Jesus promises in Revelation 2:17. Christians are called "the bride" of Christ (Rev. 22:16-17). This special relationship is for all those who know Christ as their "Savior" (Eph. 5:23). I believe that when we get to Heaven, Jesus will give each and every Christian "a white stone" with a new name on it that no one knows except you and Jesus (Rev. 2:17). It will be a special gift—a personalized gift—simply because He loves you!

William Lane Craig on the Gospel

William Lane Craig is a strong defender of the Christian faith and one of the foremost Christian apologist's of our time. He is well-respected in the Christian community and among his peers in academic circles.¹

Notice what Dr. Craig says in his lecture titled "The Work of Christ - His Resurrection" — he points us to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and highlights "the four essentials of the Gospel":

"For our Scriptural data on this subject, I want to turn to just two central passages in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the first Scripture that we want to turn to....What does Paul say? He says in verse 3, 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,' and now comes this four line formula: 'that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,' or Peter, that is the Aramaic word for 'Peter,' the name for him, 'then to the Twelve.' So notice here [in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5] that Paul lists as part of the four essentials of the Gospel the death of Christ for our sins, his burial, his resurrection on the third day, and then his postmortem appearances to various individuals and groups."²

Dr. Craig's analysis is in agreement with my basic premise that the Gospel emphasizes Christ's death and resurrection without excluding His burial and appearances. All four of these facts are part of the Gospel.

ENDNOTES:

¹ Reasonable Faith Reviews and Endorsements, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rf-tools/reviews (accessed March 24, 2014).

² William Lane Craig, "Doctrine of Christ (Part 14), The Work of Christ - His Resurrection," Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig website, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-14/

1 Corinthians 15:4: Is It More Than the Gospel?

In the book The Gospel of the Christ, the author Tom Stegall presents a fictitious case study about a man named Joe who doesn't believe that Christ "rose again the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4). Stegall writes: "Even though Joe believes wholeheartedly in Christ's substitutionary death and bodily resurrection and salvation by God's grace, he is vociferously denying the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Christ's resurrection occurred on 'the third day.' So, again, we must ask, is Joe saved or lost?"¹

Stegall goes on to say that "a person is saved by believing the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Thess. 1:8-10)".² But what is the gospel according to Tom Stegall? Apparently a gospel without any mention of Christ's burial or the fact that His resurrection occurred on "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4). Amazingly, Stegall goes on to conclude that these two facts included by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:4 are actually "more than the gospel",³ and he makes it clear that in his opinion "a person does not have to believe" these details in order to be saved!⁴

But there are at least three glaring problems with Stegall's reductionist reasoning. The first glaring problem with Stegall's reasoning is that he is using a completely hypothetical case study to define the gospel. In his book, Stegall actually presents two hypothetical case studies in which he attempts to show that the lost don't have to believe the truth of Christ's burial nor the fact that His resurrection occurred on "the third day". Ironically, Stegall prefaces his fictional case studies by saying: "when seeking to determine the contents of saving faith, we are not considering what is typical for most Christians, or even what is logical [is Stegall admitting that his groundless gospel is illogical?], but rather what is divinely required for eternal life according to the Word of God."⁵ In light of this statement the reader would naturally expect Stegall to explain what the Bible says about what's required for eternal life, but Stegall does just the opposite. Instead of addressing any biblical basis, Stegall goes on to present two fictional case studies of people who supposedly got saved even though they rejected the truth of Christ's burial and the fact that His resurrection occurred on "the third day".⁶ Amazingly, Stegall then concludes that these facts are not part of the gospel!⁷ The real problem with Stegall's fictional case studies is not the case studies themselves, but that Stegall uses them to form soteriological conclusions about the gospel. This mindset is more postmodern than it is biblical. Stegall would do well to follow his own doctrinal statement when it says: "We believe the Bible is the only infallible rule for all faith and practice, and it is therefore solely sufficient (apart from human wisdom and ecclesiastical tradition) to lead an individual to salvation".⁸

The second glaring problem with Stegall's reductionist reasoning is that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 where the fact of the third day is included in the content of the gospel (notice the hoti content clause in verse 4: "that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"). While verses 1-11 give the context of Paul's gospel, verses 3b-5 give the actual content of the gospel message. Notice the four content conjunctions beginning in verse 3: "that Christ died...and that He was buried...and that He was raised...and that He appeared...." The word "that" (Greek hoti), repeated four times in verses 3-5, functions as a "content conjunction" and indicates a content clause. Greek grammarian David Alan Black affirms: "Content clauses involve a subject, predicate nominative, direct object, or an appositional noun clause. Such clauses are commonly introduced by hina, hoti, hopos, and hos."⁹ More specifically, Daniel Wallace cites 1 Corinthians 15:3 to illustrate a "content conjunction".¹⁰ And John Niemela notes under the heading "Indicating a Content Clause" that "1 Corinthians...15:3...15:4a-b, [and] 5" (but not 15:6ff) each indicate "a Content Clause".¹¹ Even Stegall affirms that "Paul begins by stating explicitly, 'I declare to you the gospel (to euangelion) which I preached (euengelisamen) to you' (1 Cor. 15:1a)....In the following verses Paul then specifies the content contained in that good news starting with the conjunction 'that' (hoti) in verse 3."¹² Ironically, Stegall points out the significance of the hoti content clause in relation to the gospel message when he says that "a content clause, express[es] essential content"!¹³

The third glaring problem with Stegall's reductionist reasoning is that Christ made it clear that He would rise from the dead "on the third day" according to the Scriptures (see Lk. 18:31-33; 24:44-48; Jn. 2:19-22; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:11-12). Thus, if someone is trusting in a "Jesus" who did not rise from the dead "on the third day"—who are they trusting in? Obviously not the biblical Jesus! In regards to Stegall's hypothetical scenario, if Joe is "vociferously denying the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Christ's resurrection occurred on 'the third day'"¹⁴ as Stegall asserts, then Joe is not trusting in the true Christ who predicted that He would indeed "rise from the dead on the third day" (Lk. 24:46). Robert Gromacki writes: "If Christ had been raised from the dead on the second, fourth, or any succeeding day, that would have been a remarkable, unprecedented achievement; but it also would have declared Him to be a false prophet."¹⁵ Sadly, Joe is trusting in a "false Christ" (Matt. 24:4-5, 24) and in "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4), neither of which can save.

It's easy to get side-tracked by hypothetical scenarios and fictional case studies! But our authority should be the Word of God, not the traditions of men (see Galatians 1:11-12). And in light of what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, it's clear that he included the fact of "the third day" in his inspired declaration of the gospel to the Corinthians. So if we are going "by the book"—in other words, if we are going by what the Bible actually says rather than according to man's opinions or hypothetical scenarios, then the fact of the third day is an important part of the gospel message which Paul passed on to the Corinthians and to everyone else (Acts 20:24; cf. Rom. 15:19; Col. 1:23). Have you believed it? If not, do so today!

References:

¹ Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 563, italics his.

² Ibid., p. 563.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., p. 561.

⁶ Ibid., p. 561-563.

⁷ Ibid., p. 563.

⁸ "THE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF THE WORD OF GRACE BIBLE CHURCH, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES" (accessed September 22, 2010).

⁹ David Alan Black, It's Still Greek To Me, p. 144.

¹⁰ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, p. 678.

¹¹ John Niemela, "For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6 (January 2000): 29-30.

¹² Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 532.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 393-394.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 563.

¹⁵ Robert Gromacki, Called To Be Saints, p. 182, bold added.

"Paul's Defense of His Gospel" | by William R. Newell

WILLIAM R. NEWELL
(1868-1956)

Some Free Grace people teach that the burial of Christ is not part of the gospel. They love to quote William R. Newell because he's a proponent of Free Grace theology, but they conveniently fail to mention that he disagreed with their interpretation of the gospel! Did the apostle Paul preach more than one gospel? If he did not, then one gospel is true and the other gospel is false. That is to say, if Paul preached Christ's burial as part of the gospel, then the no-burial interpretation of the gospel is false. Notice what Newell says about the gospel in the following statements, excerpted from his books Old Testament Studies, Romans Verse-By-Verse, and Galatians 1 and 2, or Paul's Defense of His Gospel (popularly known as Peter vs. Paul: Remarks on Galatians 1 & 2):

1 Corinthians 15:3-5

“The beginning of the Gospel is CHRIST CRUCIFIED. See 1 Cor. 15:3. That, Paul says, is the ‘first of all’ truth. Then (1 Cor. 15:4, 5) follow the next two: CHRIST BURIED, and CHRIST RISEN.”¹

Romans 1:3-4

     “[Romans Chapter 1] Verses 3 and 4: Concerning His Son—Specifically (a) that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (b) that He was buried, (c) that He hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures, (d) that He appeared to various witnesses. The good news Paul preached is therefore scientifically specific, and must be held in our minds in its accuracy, as it lay in that of the apostle. (See 1 Cor. 15.3-8.) 

     These great facts concerning Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are the beginning of the gospel; as Paul says: ‘I delivered unto you (these) first of all.’ 

     The gospel is all about Christ. Apart from Him, there is no news from heaven but that of coming woe! Read that passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: ‘I make known unto you the gospel which I preached unto you: that Christ died, Christ was buried; Christ hath been raised; Christ was seen.’ It is all about the Son of God!”² 

Romans 1:16-17

     “[Romans Chapter 1] Verse 16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel…For it is the power of God unto salvation—The second ‘For’ gives the reason for Paul’s boldness: this good news concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearing, ‘is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth.’ There is no fact for a preacher or teacher to hold more consistently in his mind than this.”³ 

     “Again we repeat that it is of the very first and final importance that the preacher or teacher of the gospel believe in the bottom of his soul that the simple story, Christ died for our sins, was buried, hath been raised from the dead the third day, and was seen, IS THE POWER OF GOD to salvation to every one who rests in it—who believes!”⁴

     “Paul’s preaching was not, as is so much today, general disquisition on some subject, but definite statements about the crucified One, as he himself so insistently tells us in 1 Corinthians 15.3-5.”⁵ 

     “This story of Christ’s dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God’s mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak.”⁶

     “Therefore, in this good news, (1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (2) He was buried, (3) He hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures, (4) He was manifested (1 Cor. 15:3 ff),—in this good news there is revealed, now openly for the first time, God’s righteousness on the principle of faith. We simply hear and believe: and, as we shall find, God reckons us righteous; our guilt having been put away by the blood of Christ forever, and we ourselves declared to be the righteousness of God in Him!”⁷

Romans 10:8

     “[Romans Chapter 10] Verse 8: Now, answering all these inquiries, these sign-askings, came the simple word of faith preached by Paul. This expression, ‘the word of faith,’ involves the whole story of the gospel: that Jesus was the Christ, that He had come, died for sin, been buried, been raised, and been seen by many witnesses after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15.3-8).”⁸

Galatians Chapter 1

     “In Gal. 1:6 Paul is marveling—a very strong word. What is he marveling at? Who had ‘called’ these Galatians? Rom. 8:30. In whose grace had God called them? ‘The grace of Christ’ here means that these Galatians (as also all of us) had their whole salvation—forgiveness, justification, new standing in divine favor, as a free gift of God by Christ, for which they in nowise worked and of which they were in nowise worthy, nor could be. But what were they doing ‘so quickly’ after Paul's preaching to them? In Gal. 1:7 we find they were ‘removing’ not to a different gospel (for there was none other); but they were the objects of false teaching. What did these false teachers desire to do? Verse 7. See Acts 20:29, 30, and also 2 Cor. 11:13, 14. False teachers are whose ministers, and what will their end be? 2 Cor. 11:5  Are there teachers nowadays who also seek to corrupt the true gospel? 

     What terrible language does Paul use in verses 8 and 9 concerning men who teach ‘another’ gospel than his?

     If an angel from heaven (whom you knew to be such) were to appear to you and tell you some ‘new revelation’ contrary to the Pauline doctrine, what should be your attitude toward such a message? Gal. 1:8, last four words. And if any man (no matter how talented, ‘beautiful’ in life, ethically ideal or generally magnetic he may be) preaches other than the Pauline gospel, what does God say of him? Gal. 1:9, last four words. Paul's gospel is summed up in 1 Cor. 15:3-8: (1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (i.e., as the Passover lamb died shielding Israel from divine judgment by its blood; as the atonement goats died in Lev. 16, procuring, in type, the removal of Israel's sins from year to year through their shed blood, etc.); (2) Christ was buried; (3) Christ hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (i.e., in a physical body, though without blood; having flesh and bones, able to be seen, touched, and generally known. Luke 24:36-43, etc.); (4) Christ appeared—was seen of Cephas, the twelve, above five hundred, to James, to all the apostles, last of all to Paul.

     This great passage (1 Cor. 15:1-8) gives the foundation truths of the Pauline gospel. All the great doctrines that Paul was given to unfold or primarily to reveal spring from these four vital facts: Christ's Death, Christ's Burial, Christ's Resurrection, Christ's Personal Manifestation.

     Notice carefully that the gospel begins with Christ's death; not with his earthly life. This is the message the sinner needs. It is at the cross the sinner finds his Savior. Had Paul ever talked in this intolerant way before? Gal. 1:9. Was Paul a milk-and-water man? Are you? Why was Paul willing to be vehement concerning the truth? Gal. 1:10. Always distrust a preacher who is salving things over for you or is afraid to displease you. Such men are not servants of whom? Gal. 1:10. See Phil. 1:21.

     Paul now, verse 11, shows the absolute newness and independence of his gospel—and the consequent authority with which he spoke. First, his gospel ‘is not after man’; i.e., no human being ever would or could have conceived it. It is a heavenly, not an earthly thing. Did Paul receive it from man? Gal. 1:12. Was he taught it? (That is, possibly by angelic mediation, or imparted by instruction as a doctrine.) How alone was Paul's gospel given him? The expression ‘through the revelation of Jesus Christ’ should be compared, for instance, with Acts 26:16: ‘To this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee.’ And also Acts 18:9, and 23:11, together with such expressions as that in 1 Cor. 7:25, and 10, 1 Thess. 6:16. These passages show that the risen Lord conveyed directly to Paul (doubtless through the Holy Ghost, yet personally and immediately) not only the great fundamental truths of the gospel, but those new revelations concerning the body, the church, identification with Christ, and the heavenly standing of the church, etc., that make Paul's epistles a consistent body of truth as new and unified as was Moses’ law. Even the Lord's Supper, with the instructions concerning it and the deep doctrines connected with it were conveyed directly by the Lord to Paul, and not imparted from any other apostle. 1 Cor. 11:23.

     Surely it behooves us to learn most faithfully these things the Lord directly communicated to Paul, for if we are ignorant of them we will not know where we are in the purposes of God nor what our privileges and responsibilities are. A man who is ignorant of the Pauline gospel is constantly getting ‘mixed up’ both in his interpretation of the Bible and in his personal experience.”⁹

     “The man of grace will tell you that no good work, nor all of them together, is what he trusted in. ‘The blood of Christ,’ saith he, ‘of which God hath told me, hath answered before God's judgment bar for all my sin forever. And Christ Himself, being risen up and ascended to heaven, is alone my righteousness and my hope. Suppose I have no experience of joy, or delight, or hope; suppose I perform no works; Suppose I engage in no prayers, yet I see my Saviour at God's right hand. In Him and in His work on the cross do I rest. It is not in anything connected with myself, not even the fact that I am born again, or am filled with the Spirit, that is the ground of my assurance; but it is the shed blood of the Saviour, Christ, which I find spilled here at the cross, concerning which blood God mightily witnesseth, that it secures eternal redemption for those who rely upon it as sinners—unworthy sinners; yea, eternally unworthy of such a gift from the great and righteous God!’

     It is just here that the legalist flees away. He cries, ‘I must be this or that!’ ‘I must do this or that.’ He dares not rest in the word ‘finished,’ as spoken by Christ on Golgotha's tree. He does not believe it is finished, in his case. He dare not come out into the open before God in his inmost soul as a guilty sinner. He cries out with his mouth that he is guilty, but in his heart he hopes to put away his guilt. He speaks much about his utter unworthiness, but he never dares to smite upon his breast and wait for mercy from God. He flees to church membership, to baptism, to the Lord's Supper, to ‘Christian work,’ to fastings, prayers, anything—sometimes to the gospel ministry itself, to get relief from his accusing conscience.

     Now, if the gospel concerning Christ and His work is to be made clear, it must be separated utterly from the sinner and his work—even from the saved sinner, and his work. For we must believe that these Galatians were Christians, though weak indeed, in faith. For, if the gospel concerning Christ and His work (that is, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, which is Paul's exact statement of the gospel—1 Cor. 15:1, 3-5) be God's one only, sole, particular, necessary, final means of salvation, yea—if this good news about Christ and His work and His death on the cross be the very and only power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and all other works whatsoever, and by whomsoever performed in any age, and by howsoever renowned people, be nothing but filthy rags as regards righteousness before God, then the main business of the true preacher in his preaching of the gospel is to defend the gospel from all mixtures therewith of human religion and legal works, whether of Jew, pagan, infidel or professing Christian.”¹⁰

References:

¹ Newell, Old Testament Studies (Toronto: 1908), pp. 75-76, emphasis his.

² Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), p. 6. Note: This book was originally published in Chicago by Moody Press, 1938. 

³ Ibid., pp. 18-19. 

⁴ Ibid., p. 19, emphasis his. 

⁵ Ibid., p. 20, emphasis his. 

⁶ Ibid., p. 21. 

⁷ Ibid., p. 24.

⁸ Ibid., pp. 276-277.

⁹ Newell, Galatians 1 and 2, or Paul's Defense of His Gospel, pp. 8-9.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 11. For more information see my article: “What Gospel Did Paul Preach to the Galatians?”.

Martin Luther's Fifty Inconveniences

FIFTY INCONVENIENCES

That arise out of Man's own Righteousness proceeding of Works, 

gathered out of this Epistle to the Galatians.¹

 

by MARTIN LUTHER.

CHAPTER I.

1. To bring men from the calling of Grace.

2. To receive another Gospel.

3. To trouble the Minds of the Faithful.

4. To pervert the Gospel of Christ.

5. To be accursed.

6. To obey Human Traditions.

7. To please Man.

8. Not to be the Servant of Christ.

9. To build upon Men, and not upon God.

10. That the most excellent righteousness of the Law is nothing.

11. To destroy the Church of God.

CHAPTER II.

12. To teach a Man to be justified by Works, is to teach to be justified by impossibility.

13. To make the Righteous in Christ Sinners.

14. To make Christ a Minister of Sin.

15. To build up Sin again when it is destroyed.

16. To be made a Transgressor.

17. To reject the Grace of God.

18. To judge that Christ died in vain.

CHAPTER III.

19. To become foolish Galatians.

20. To be bewitched.

21. Not to hear the truth.

22. To crucify Christ again.

23. To hold that the Spirit is received by Works.

24. To forsake the Spirit and to end in the Flesh.

25. To be under the Curse.

26. To set the Testament of Men above the Testament of God.

27. To make Sin to abound.

28. To be shut under Sin.

29. To serve beggarly Ceremonies.

CHAPTER IV.

30. That the Gospel is preached in vain.

31. That all is vain whatsoever the Faithful do, work, or suffer.

32. To be made a Servant and the Son of the Bond-woman.

33. To be cast out with the Son of the Bond-woman, from the inheritance.

34. That Christ profiteth nothing.

35. That we are Debtors to fulfil the whole Law.

CHAPTER V.

36. To be separate from Christ.

37. To fall from Grace.

38. To be hindered from the good course of well-doing.

39. That this persuasion of the Doctrine of Works cometh not of God.

40. To have the leaven of Corruption.

41. The judgment remaineth for him who teacheth this Doctrine.

42. To bite and consume one another.

43. That this Doctrine is accounted among the works of the Flesh.

CHAPTER VI.

44. To think thyself to be something when thou art nothing.

45. To glory in others rather than in God.

46. Carnally to please the carnally-minded.

47. To hate the persecution of the Cross.

48. Not to keep the Law itself.

49. To glory in the Master and Teacher of carnal things.

50. That nothing profiteth, and whatsoever a Man doth is vain.

Reference:

¹ Martin Luther, A Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: 1833), p. lxxxvi.