Wednesday, December 27, 2023

Double Predestination: The "Dark Side" of Calvinism


Some years ago I heard Dr. Michael Vanlaningham on Moody’s Open Line radio program answering a caller’s question about Calvinism, and Vanlaningham was pushing “double predestination”: which is the view of extreme 5-point Calvinists that God not only unconditionally elects some people to heaven, but He also unconditionally elects some people to hell (even babies!) without their choice being involved at all. And I distinctly remember Vanlaningham saying that he believes God predestines some people to hell, and he described it as the “dark side” of divine providence. Let me just follow up by saying that Vanlaningham is a hardcore Calvinist. I noticed online that one of Vanlaningham’s students gave this critique of his teaching: “Dr. V is a Calvinist to the core and it even comes out in his Greek class!”[1]

But the Bible says that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and an all-loving God will not play favorites by capriciously choosing some people for heaven and some people for hell without them having any choice in the matter. That’s not the God of the Bible! (The Bible says that God does not show partiality or favoritism. See Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; James 2:9, etc.) Of course Calvinists have their proof texts, but they don't hold up to scrutiny. See the excellent response by Dr. Norman Geisler titled: “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”.[2]

Related to Dr. Vanlaningham’s comments about the “dark side” of God’s providence, notice the following transcript from Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik.[3] Here’s what Vanlaningham said in regards to “double predestination,” or what he calls the “dark side” of God’s providence:

Michael Rydelnik: “Okay, I got another question here. This one comes from Ed. He wants to know if some people, created by God, are also predestined to go to Hell and suffer forever exclusively for God’s glory?”

Michael Vanlaningham: “Um, yeah Ed. I’m gonna give you an answer that you’re not gonna like. And it’s a hard, hard, hard answer. In Romans chapter 9, it talks about that very thing. It says in verse 21, ‘Does not the potter’ (that would be God), ‘have a right over the clay’ (that would be all of humanity), ‘Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24], and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ Now in the context of Romans chapter 9, what we’re talking about is salvation. [Editor’s note: Actually, Romans chapter 9 is about the past national election of Israel, not individual election to salvation.] And so Paul’s point seems to be, that God has a right to save some — to take some from humanity for salvation, and to take others from humanity for condemnation. You have to read the context to get the idea of salvation. And then it says in verse 19, just before that, ‘You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? Who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Will it? Does not the potter have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24] and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ That is, Paul anticipates that there are going to be people who will object to the concept, and yet he says it is not our place to argue it with an angry sense against who God is and what He does. We have to be very careful about that. Finally, in the same passage it says (related to Pharaoh in verse 17), ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh’ (God said to Pharaoh), ‘For this very purpose I raised you up to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’ Pharaoh was born, he was put into the position of leading Egypt, he hardened his own heart [!] and God hardened his heart. [Editor’s note: Notice that Vanlaningham just admitted that Pharaoh first hardened his own heart, and then God confirmed Pharaoh’s choice.] Why? So that God could demonstrate His power and make His mighty name proclaimed. [Editor’s note: Exactly right. God's purpose was not to send Pharaoh to hell, but rather it was to "demonstrate His power and make His mighty name proclaimed" by raising up Pharaoh "into the position of leading Egypt" and bring him onto the stage of world events.] And so what happens is, yes, I think as hard as this is to hear, and it’s hard, and I have unbelievers in my immediate family — my brother and my sister and my mom, and yet I have to grapple with the idea that God may not have chosen them to accept Christ and to be saved. [Editor's note: Notice how Vanlaningham shifts the focus; the apostle Paul wasn't saying that God created Pharoah to go to hell.] I don’t know that. We don’t know who is among the elect and who isn’t. But those who are not, God has determined that, and He will bring glory to Himself — as he does with Pharaoh, eventually when He judges them. And that’s exactly what He did with Pharaoh, and that’s what God does with unbelievers, and that’s a hard, hard, hard, dark side to the providence of God. But it’s still providence. [Editor’s note: But the Bible says in 1 John 1:5 that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”!] And this is still how God functions [according to Calvinism] — hard to hear though isn’t it?”[4]

Tricia McMillan: “Yeah, it is.”

* * *

But in response to Vanlaningham’s Calvinistic (and unbiblical) view of God’s providence, Dr. J. Vernon McGee has well said: “There never will be a person in hell who did not choose to be there, my friend. You are the one who makes your own decision.”[5]

 
References:

[1] Comment by GREEKGRAMMAR1, “Mike Vanlaningham,” Rate My Professors website, December 17th, 2014 (accessed 12/27/2023). Interestingly, another student of Vanlaningham’s gave this critique of his class on Romans: “Had him for Romans. V[anlaningham] uses his teaching position to explain why he’s right and everyone else is wrong. Students’ questions are swatted down. Papers are graded on format more than actual content. A student was told to ‘shut up’ for voicing a contrary view. If you want a narrow-minded, unforgiving class on Romans, take V[anlaningham].” Comment by BI441002, “Mike Vanlaningham,” Rate My Professors website, March 7th, 2014 (accessed 12/27/2023).

[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist,” Richard Kalk YouTube channel (posted September 30, 2019, although Geisler’s original sermon appears to be from sometime around 2009), www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwNZhdPqGDE (accessed 12/27/2023).

[3] Michael Vanlaningham, Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik. Airtime: Saturday, May 12, 2018, 10:00am – 12:00pm. Hour 1: The Other Michael Answers Your Bible Questions, Hour 2: Bible Q & A with the Other Michael. My transcript is from Hour 2, timestamp: 33:26 minutes – 36:52 minutes. Note: Unfortunately this particular episode has since been removed from the Open Line website, but I transcribed the audio back in 2018 before it was deleted. 

[4] Michael Vanlaningham, Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik. “Bible Q & A with the Other Michael” (May 12, 2018), time stamp: 33:26 – 36:52 minutes, brackets added.
 
[5] J. Vernon McGee, Romans: Chapters 9-16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 32.

Tuesday, December 26, 2023

What's the Difference Between the Law and the Gospel?

The Difference Between the Law and the Gospel 

“rightly dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) 

The difference between the Law and the Gospel is admirably pointed out by John Foxe, the noted author of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, in the following words:
   
“[Read Martin Luther’s writings:] First for true comfort and spiritual consolation to such weak minds as in cases of conscience are distressed, and wrestle in faith against the terror of Satan, of death, of damnation, against the power of the Law, and wrath of God; wherein I see very few or none (without comparison be it spoken) in these our days, to instruct more fruitfully, with like feeling and experience.     

Secondly, for discerning and discussing the difference between the Law and the Gospel, how these two parts are to be separated and distincted asunder as repugnant and contrary, and yet notwithstanding how they both stand together in Scripture and doctrine [i.e. that “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,” Gal. 3:24], and yet in doctrine no repugnance. The knowledge whereof how requisite it is for all Christians to learn, the miserable lack thereof will soon declare. For where these two be not rightly parted, but confounded [as in John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus], what can follow there, but confusion of conscience, either leading to despair [when there is a lack of good works in one’s life], or else to blind security [when good works are present], without any order in doctrine, or true comfort of salvation? As by examples of time is soon seen, namely if we look into the later times of the Romish Church, where for want of right distinguishing between these two [i.e. between Law and Grace], great errors have risen; and no great marvel. For where the Gospel is taken for the Law, and the Law for the Gospel, and Christ received but only for a lawgiver: and where things go by works and law of deserving, what hope or assurance of salvation can be there, considering our works in their best kind be so imperfect and unprofitable? And what shall be said then of our naughty works? But especially what shall be said then to the mourning and lamenting sinner, who feeleth no good thing dwelling in him, but all wickedness? [Such a one] shall then despair, or how else will ye comfort him? For if Christ in His principal office be but a Teacher of the law and of works, and that be the chiefest thing to be required in a Christian, to work salvation by the law of working: where is then grace, mercy, promise, faith justifying, peace and rest of conscience, redemption from malediction of the law, if we be under the law still? Briefly, where is the new covenant of God made by His Son, if the old covenant made by Moses do yet remain? If it do not remain, then must there needs be a difference between the Law and the Gospel: between the old Testament and the new: between the law of works & the law of faith: between Moses and Christ, between the master and the servant: between Hagar and Sarah, and their two children. Now what difference this is, thou shalt not need, Christian Reader, by me to be instructed, having here the book of Martin Luther to read and peruse. Who as in his former Treatise before set forth upon the Epistle to the Galatians, so likewise in these his Commentaries upon the Psalms, doth so lively and at large discourse that matter, with many other things more, full of heavenly instruction and edification, that having him, though thou hadst no other expositor upon the holy Scripture, thou mayest have almost sufficient to make a perfect soldier against all the fiery darts of the tempting enemy. Again, having all other, and lacking this writer [i.e. Martin Luther], thou shouldest yet want something to the perfect practice and experience of a Christian Divine.”[1]

Reference: 

[1] John Foxe, “To The Christian Reader”, Martin Luther’s A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes (London: 1615), no page number. Editor’s note: The spelling of certain archaic words has been updated in order to conform to modern English spelling.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Biblical Repentance: Does It Mean "Change Your Mind"?


Question #1:
“1. Acts 28:4-6 ‒ The locals were expecting Paul to drop dead, but after seeing that nothing happened to him, they ‘changed their minds’ ‒ from the Greek metaballomai. Pruitt’s argument is that if metanoeō means to change the mind, why not use it here? Instead he uses an entirely different verb.”

Answer:
In response I’d ask, what’s wrong with using a synonym? We do it all the time! Basically Pruitt is arguing that we are not allowed to use synonyms, or that doing so somehow calls into question the “change your mind” meaning of metanoeō. But this is hardly the case, as the following example from Josephus shows. Notice that in the following quotation, Josephus uses both metanoeō and metaballomai in the same context and synonymously. I will copy and paste the quote from my article “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”. Notice the following statement from Josephus:

Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 6, section 3 (Whiston translation):
“And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance [metanoias], to see whether they would change their minds [metabalointo; cf. Acts 28:6] before it came to a battle, and at the same time he got things ready for besieging their strong holds. And indeed this sight of the general brought many to repent [metanoian] of their revolt...”

Question #2:
“2. In response to the accusation that Lordship salvation is works-based, he responds saying that since repentance is a gift from God, then the resulting change is a work of God’s grace, not our work. So, it is not works-based after all (I can imagine his smug grin). How does one counter that argument?”

Answer:
But in the Calvinistic view, everything is a work of God’s grace! They teach that God is hyper-sovereign (in the extreme Calvinistic sense of the word), and God “makes” everything happen. Does this mean that people are “off the hook” and not responsible for anything, including works? For example, clearly the apostle Paul tells Christians to do good works! Are these actions not to be called “works” because they are wrought by the Holy Spirit? Hardly. And furthermore, Christians will be rewarded for their works at the Bema Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor. 3:10-14), even though such works are clearly wrought by the Holy Spirit. So Pruitt’s argument trying to redefine or dismiss works wrought by the Holy Spirit from somehow not being our works is a faulty argument. Just because works are wrought or produced by the Holy Spirit does not make them something besides “works”: they are still “works”! 
 
In answer to Pruitt’s claim that Lordship Salvation is not works-based because the works are wrought by the Holy Spirit, I like the statement by Todd Vierheller from his amazon book review of Wayne Grudem’s book on “Free Grace” theology. Vierheller says: “When your salvation directly depends upon your works [Holy Spirit wrought or not], I have trouble calling that salvation by faith—because it’s not. Salvation is either by grace or it’s by works – not both (Rom 11:6). If you are not saved unless you turn from sin [i.e. sinful behaviors] and do additional good works, that isn’t salvation by faith regardless of how much wild gesticulation [hand gesturing] accompanies the claim.”

Question #3:
“3. Epistrephō [in the NT], or shub, in the OT, implies a turning from sin in obedience to the law. So, in Acts 26:20, how is the turning spoken of there (epistrephō) somehow not connected to turning in obedience or forsaking sin? Also Acts 3:19 ‒ repent and be converted (turned, epistrephō, OT turning...)”

Answer:
I would say that what the “turning” is in reference to depends on the context. You mentioned Acts 26:20. This is where the apostle Paul says that he preached that all men “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.” I would point out at least three things in regards to this: (1) the “performing deeds” is separate from and comes after the repentance and turning to God, (2) the turning is described as being “to God,” (3) the turning is connected with the repentance: “repent and turn to God”. It reminds me of when Jesus says: “Repent and believe the gospel!” (Mk. 1:15). These are not two separate conditions for salvation, but rather two parts or two aspects of one condition. I like to describe it like two sides of the same coin, the coin being saving faith. Dr. Scofield has well said, "Saving faith...includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance." (C. I. Scofield, Editor, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1909], p. 1174, note 2.)

In 1 Thessalonians 1:8-9 Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians and commends them by saying, “For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything. For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols...” (vv. 8-9a). Then Paul adds the purpose: “to serve a living and true God” (1:9b). That last part of the verse (1:9b) has to do with service, not salvation. It is salvation first (vv. 8-9a), then service (v. 9b). So here in 1 Thess. 1:8-9 we see that the turning to God from idols is a description of saving faith, and has to do with their belief system: they changed their minds about God and transferred their trust to Him alone. They realized that their idols were worthless false gods, and they turned in faith (transferred their trust) to trust in the one true God!

So getting back to Acts 26:20, the way I understand the phrase “repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (v. 20b), is in other words: “change your thinking and transfer your trust to God: the one and only true God, then do good works appropriate to that change of mind” (Acts 26:20; cf. Eph. 2:8-10; 1 Thess. 1:8-9). You mentioned the Old Testament. Some OT examples of turning to God for salvation would be in the illustration that Jesus told to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, about how the dying Israelites had to turn in faith and look to the bronze serpent lifted up on a pole in order to be healed. Jesus explained that sinners must look to Him “lifted up” on the cross in order to be saved (Jn. 3:14-17). People must turn to Him in faith to be saved, or as it says in the Old Testament (from the illustration that Jesus gave to Nicodemus about the bronze serpent lifted up on the standard): “And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived” (Num. 21:9, emphasis added). As Pastor Chuck Swindoll has said: there was no issue made of Lordship-looking, no clean-up-your-life-looking, no I-promise-to-do-better-looking. It was just look and live! Regarding this, Jesus said to Nicodemus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes [turns in faith or transfers their trust to “the Son of Man ... lifted up”] may in Him have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-15). It reminds me of another OT Scripture where God says through the prophet Isaiah: “Turn to Me [some Bible translations say “Look to Me”], and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22, NASB). This again is a transfer of trust ‒ not a transfer of allegiance, not a commitment of “I-promise-to-do-better,” but a simple look of faith to the Savior! “Look and live!” “Look and live!” It reminds me of the old hymn that says: “There’s life for a look at the Crucified One, there’s life at this moment for thee!” Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has well said: “It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times”.[1]

 
Reference:

[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. 7, p. 265, emphasis his. For more information see the article by Dr. Charlie Bing titled: “Is Repentance in John’s Gospel?” (GraceNotes, Number 83).

Saturday, December 9, 2023

Grudem's "Free Grace" Excludes Its Founders

I recently noticed how Wayne Grudem misrepresents “Free Grace” theology BIG TIME! Although Grudem's book on the topic is titled “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway Publishers, 2016), it really does not fairly critique mainstream “Free Grace” theology, because it mostly focuses on minority views within the movement (i.e. the teachings of Zane Hodges and his followers). For example, I looked at the General Index of Grudem’s book (pp. 152-156), and to my shock and surprise I realized that Charles Ryrie’s name isn’t even listed! For those who may be unaware, Charles Ryrie is probably one of the foremost Free Grace theologians of all time. Yet strangely, Grudem never mentions him anywhere in the book! The same can be said in regards to Lewis Sperry Chafer, arguably one of the most influential voices in the Free Grace movement. You won’t find Chafer’s name in Grudem’s book either, not even in a footnote! How can anyone honestly write a book about “Free Grace” theology and never once mention two of its most well-known proponents? If the “shoe were on the other foot,” this would be like writing a book purporting to be about “Calvinism” and then never once mentioning John Calvin or Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), but instead discussing a minority view. It would be like writing a book purporting to critique “Calvinism” but only discussing the off-shoot view of Amyraldianism. (Amyraldianism is generally rejected by mainstream Calvinists.) This is the logical fallacy called “The straw man argument”: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. There are actually more references to Zane Hodges in the General Index of Grudem’s book than there are references to Jesus Christ and John MacArthur combined! Grudem strangely has a myopic fixation on Zane Hodges, to the exclusion of other (more prominent) Free Grace voices. And worse, Grudem seems bent on giving the (false) impression that the views of Zane Hodges characterize the Free Grace movement. Sadly, Grudem's book appears to be built on the premise that the views of Zane Hodges are representative of Free Grace theology in general. But this is hardly the case, as even a novice could tell from reading a single Wikipedia article on the subject! Thus, Grudem’s entire book is built on a completely false premise and is a misrepresentation of Free Grace theology.

Friday, December 8, 2023

Debunking Calvinism: How Is Saving Faith "Not Alone"?

John Calvin
In his book So Great Salvation, Free Grace theologian Charles Ryrie says that “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.”[1] From a Free Grace perspective, Ryrie’s statement is helpful because it explains (and defuses) the often-quoted Calvinistic axiom that: “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.” Calvinists interpret this axiom to be referring specifically to good works,[2] but notice that’s not what the statement actually says! It simply says that the faith that saves is not alone. Thus, Free Grace people can agree with the statement as it is stated (i.e. without the Calvinistic twist), in that we agree that the faith that saves “will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.” And thus, the faith that saves is “not alone”! It will bear spiritual fruit: somewhere, sometime, somehow. And what is “spiritual fruit” according to the Bible? The apostle Paul says in Galatians 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,” etc. These qualities are spiritual, and are in distinction to overtly “good works”.[3]
 
Let’s take a closer look at the Calvinistic view of saving faith and how they inject good works into the whole equation. Wayne Grudem says “that ‘the faith that saves is never alone’ because it is always accompanied by good works [in a person’s life], and numerous New Testament passages such as Galatians 6:7-9 point to that conclusion.”[4] When Grudem says that numerous NT passages “point to that conclusion,” he’s basically admitting that those passages don’t explicitly prove his point; thus he merely says they “point to that conclusion.” It’s obvious that Grudem is looking at the biblical text through the rose-colored stained glass windows of his Calvinistic belief system! But if we let the Bible speak for itself, it does not point to that conclusion. 
 
Take Galatians 6:7-9 as an example, the biblical reference that Grudem cited. How does it show that saving faith “is always accompanied by good works”? If anything, Galatians 6:7-9 shows exactly the opposite! How so? Well, look at the text. What does it say? The apostle Paul specifically says that “those who sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). In context, Paul is talking about believers who are selfish and don’t share (cf. Gal. 6:6). Commenting on Galatians 6:6, H. A. Ironside writes: “He who seeks only to be benefited by others and is not concerned about sharing with them, will have a Dead Sea kind of life [i.e. stagnant; nothing flowing out].”[5] Ironside goes on to say: “whether it be the case of the unsaved worldling, or the failing Christian, the inexorable law will be fulfilled—we reap what we sow.”[6] Maybe Grudem doesn’t understand this, but according to the Word of God, believers can indeed “reap corruption”! (See Gal. 6:8; cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11.) Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 3:15 that it’s entirely possible for some Christians to get to Heaven “by the skin of their teeth”—with no good works, everything “burned up” (Gr. κατακαήσεται = “to burn up, consume entirely”), i.e. “saved yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15, NASB). And the apostle Peter says that some Christians will be “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NET Bible). D. L. Moody has well said: 
 
“Salvation is as free as the air we breathe; it is a gift, to be obtained without money and without price. [Isa. 55:1.] You cannot have salvation on any other terms; it is given not to him that worketh but to him that believeth. [Rom. 4:5.] But, on the other hand, if we are to have a crown, we must work for it. I want to speak of the overcoming life, the victorious life, and to show the difference between having life and having a reward. Let me read a few verses in 1 Corinthians. ‘For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.’ 1 Cor. 3:11-15. We see clearly from this that we may be saved, but all our works burned up; I may have a wretched, miserable voyage through life, with no victory, and no reward at the end; saved yet so as by fire, or as Job puts it, ‘with the skin of my teeth.’ [Job 19:20.] I believe that a great many men will barely get to heaven, as Lot got out of Sodom, burned out, nothing left, works and everything destroyed.”[7]  
 
Commenting on Galatians 6:8, H. A. Ironside affirms that “at the judgment seat of Christ, we shall reap according to our sowing. They who live for God now will receive rich reward in that day. And they who yield now to the impulses of the flesh and are occupied with things that do not glorify God will suffer loss [cf. 1 Cor. 3:15].”[8] Commenting on the same verse, Everett F. Harrison similarly states: “A selfish Christian soweth to his flesh, spending his resources to gratify his own personal desires. He may expect to reap corruption. That which might have brought reward by being invested in the Lord’s work will be nothing but a decayed mass, a complete loss in terms of eternity. On the other hand, by responding to the Spirit in love and kindness, and gladly participating in the extension of the Gospel by supporting Christian workers, believers will be adding interest to the capital of eternal life. This passage is capable of broader application, in line with the proverbial character of the statement in verse 7. But flesh and Spirit suggest primary application to the believer (cf. 5:17, 24, 25), in line with the immediate context.”[9] 
 
In light of these biblical truths, it becomes clear that Galatians 6:7-9 does not point to the conclusion that saving faith will always be accompanied by good works; if anything, it shows exactly the opposite! There are “Dead Sea” Christians who are stagnant: they are doing nothing for the cause of Christ. These believers are saved because their foundation is Christ, but they will not have any reward to show for their earthly life. They “will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). 
 
And yet this faith is still a productive faith because it has born the spiritual fruit of “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1; cf. Gal. 5:22) and joy in the presence of the angels in heaven (Lk. 15:7, 10; cf. Gal. 5:22). Commenting on Romans 5:1, even John Calvin affirms: “We have peace with God and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith.”[10]
 
For more information see my blog post series titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith”, Parts 1-4.


References:

[1] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 45.
 
[2] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of Lordship Salvation”] (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 139, footnote 31. 
 
[3] For more information see my article: “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Part 2”.

[4] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of “Lordship Salvation”], p. 139, footnote 31. Also see pp. 20, 34, 35, and 38.
 
[5] H. A. Ironside, Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1941), pp. 217. 

[6] Ibid, p. 218.
 
[7] D. L. Moody, “The Overcoming Life.” An address delivered Saturday morning, July 6, 1895. Northfield Bible Conference, Summer 1895. Northfield Echoes, Vol. II, p. 452. Note: The Roman numerals in the original statement have been updated to the current format.

[8] Ibid, p. 219.
 
[9] Everett F. Harrison, “The Epistle to the Galatians.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1962), pp. 1297-1298, emphasis his.
 
[10] John Calvin, “Commentary on Romans 5.” Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible. www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/romans-5.html. 1840-57

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

More Thoughts on Phil Johnson's Sermon: "Answering the Antinomians"

Phil Johnson
After listening to Phil Johnson’s 1 hour and 15 minute sermon titled “Answering the Antinomians”, what I noticed is that he didn’t mainly go back to the Bible, but rather he kept pushing John MacArthur’s books, particularly The Gospel According to Jesus, and The Gospel According to the Apostles. I thought Mr. Johnson’s arguments were very weak, he basically just name-called the opposing side in the debate, labeling them as “Antinomians” because we believe that “we are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). And no, in case anyone is wondering, Mr. Johnson didn’t even attempt to explain that verse! I also noticed that it was not until the 1 hour and 5 minute mark when Mr. Johnson finally admits a key distinction between Law and Grace: that “the Law condemns us because we can’t obey perfectly, grace grants us forgiveness on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience.” That’s a key distinction and a big difference between Law and Grace, and Mr. Johnson even admits it! Mr. Johnson wants to preach the Law today because it is good; Paul says yes, but only if we use it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8-11): meaning to show a person how far we all fall short of God’s perfect and holy standard (see Romans chapters 1-3). But in this age of grace, the Mosaic Law should not be used as a rule of life (a measuring stick), but rather the Law today should be used as a mirror to show us that we all fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness and we are therefore sinners in need of a Savior. As the apostle Paul says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-24). Mr. Johnson says that Law and Grace have mostly similar messages, such as loving God and loving other people. Okay, but that doesn’t mean believers today are under the Law, just because there are similarities. Take the 10 commandments for example. Most of them are repeated in the grace teachings of the apostles to the church in this age of grace, but from the standpoint of grace, not Law. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not repeated for believers today in the age of grace is the commandment about Sabbath-keeping. Again, that doesn’t mean we are under the Law (Paul expressly says we are not!), but rather we are to do those things from the standpoint of (as Jesus said to his disciples), “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). I talked about this in the Free Grace Notes for my blog post titled: “Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?” | 1959 Eternity Magazine. In that blog post I reprinted the 1959 Eternity magazine article and added some Free Grace Notes at the end of the article responding to John R. Stott (an early proponent of “Lordship Salvation”). And for endnote 41 in that blog post, I made the following statement which relates to the discussion here:

[John] Stott says, “We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate.” I would ask Stott: Are they benefits or requirements? Stott is turning the benefits given us at salvation into legalistic requirements that one must commit to in order to be saved! I like the following statements by Dr. J. Vernon McGee on this topic. Commenting on Ephesians 1:7, McGee writes: “We looked at the Greek words for redemption and saw that it involved the paying of a price which was the blood of Christ: we can have forgiveness because He paid the price. We know that God went into the marketplace where we were sold on the slave block of sin and He bought us, all of us. He is going to use us for Himself — He establishes a personal relationship. We saw also that He bought us in order to set us free. Now somebody will ask, ‘Doesn’t that upset the hymn that says, ‘I gave, I gave My life for thee. What hast thou done for Me’?’ My friend, it surely does. The very word for redemption in verse seven, apolutrosis, means that God never asks you what you have done for Him. That is the glorious thing about grace: when God saves you by grace, it doesn’t put you in debt to Him. He bought you in order to set you free. Someone else will ask, ‘But aren’t we supposed to serve Him?’ Certainly. But it is on another basis, a new relationship — the relationship now is love. The Lord Jesus said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15). He didn’t say, ‘Because I’m dying for you, you are to keep My commandments.’ He said, ‘If you love Me.’ Today, if you love Him, He wants your service. If you don’t love Him, then forget about this business of service. One hears so much today about commitment to Christ. Friend, you and I have very little to commit to Him. We are to respond in love to Him, and that is a different basis altogether. We love Him because He first loved us. . . . He paid a price for you. He gave Himself and shed His blood so that you could have forgiveness of sins. This is all yours if you are willing to come to Him and accept Him as your Savior.”

The late Miles J. Stanford wrote an excellent response specifically to Phil Johnson’s false charge of “antinomianism,” which is available here.

Sunday, December 3, 2023

Phil Johnson Refers to John MacArthur as "God"

In a very revealing slip of the tongue, Phil Johnson earlier this year referred to John MacArthur as “God”, and his audience of MacArthurites applauded it! Here’s the statement by Johnson, from a sermon he delivered at this year’s Shepherd’s Conference:

“The first time I met John MacArthur face to face was in 1981. I had spent three years in youth ministry in Florida, shepherding a group of students who believed that they were Christians because they had invited Jesus into their heart [?] when they were toddlers, but they were as carnal and as unsanctified as the un-churched hoodlums in my neighborhood. [Editor’s note: It reminds me of the carnal Corinthian Christians that the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.] And so I had taken my youth group through a study of 1 John, and some of them along the way realized that they were not Christians at all, and they were soundly converted [to ‘Lordship Salvation’]. And to my surprise, their parents at first were pretty upset with me! They would scold me for teaching their kids ‘Lordship Salvation’ – a big thing in Florida because that’s where Ray Stanford was. And I was listening to Grace To You by then. Tampa was one of the first three stations that carried John MacArthur on the radio. I listened to him every day and he was preaching through 1 John, and that was extremely helpful and encouraging to me [in accepting ‘a different gospel,’ 2 Cor. 11:1-4]. And after three years I left Florida because Moody Press wanted me to return to Chicago and work for them. It would have been my second tour of duty with Moody Press. And they wanted me; they arranged for me to be at a meeting with John MacArthur to talk about The MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. And that was where I met John for the first time, around a little table with a bunch of editors and we talked about the commentaries. And afterwards we were sort of doing the social thing with coffee or whatever. And I saddled up to him because he was there by himself kind of, and I said, ‘You know, I listen to you every day on the radio, and I think you need to do a book on the Lordship issue.’ And he brightened up immediately and he said, ‘You know, I plan to. I want to. I even have a title in mind,’ he says, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’. ‘That’s what I want to call it.’ And that was the start of my relationship with God. Or, with John MacArthur. [The audience roars with laughter and applauds.] Freudian slip! [More laughter from the audience.] There’s a bit of truth in that. [The audience laughs.] There is a bit of truth in that! [More laughter.] It had a massive impact on my relationship with God. But that was the start of my relationship with John, and uh, his book [The Gospel According to Jesus] and the sequel that came [The Gospel According to the Apostles], have been so formative in my life and thinking that they helped me finally untangle the confusion that I had carried for years between what I had read in Louis Berkhof [in his Systematic Theology] and what I had read from Charles Ryrie [in his book Balancing the Christian Life, in the chapter titled ‘Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?’].”[1]

 
Reference:
 
[1] Phil Johnson, “Answering the Antinomians” (March 9, 2023), Shepherd’s Conference 2023: “Shepherding the Remnant” (time stamp: 44:00 minutes – 46:30 minutes), brackets added. www.gracechurch.org/sermons/20917

Saturday, December 2, 2023

The Resurrection Signs and John 20:30-31 (Pt. 2)

In my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior,” I ask the following question: “Do the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John?” To this question I answer: “Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.” 

To further solidify my premise that the “signs” cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John, four more evidences can be added to the six listed above: common sense, claim, composer’s usage, and clarifying comments. These evidences are explained as follows:

Common sense: Commenting on my article, Greg Schliesmann says: “Jon, I was only able to spend a short time reading your paper but enjoyed it. I think the thesis of the paper is very strong. Recently I've been thinking of a couple facts that would support your thesis of John 20:31 relating to the resurrection signs. First of all, it’s interesting the so-called ‘purpose statement’ comes near the end of the book. It is well known that purpose statements for letters of the time came at the beginning, not the end.”1 Similar to this, Charlie Bing writes: “It would be natural for any author to put the purpose statement for the entire book at the beginning”.2 Even Zane Hodges affirms: “The mistake made here is simple. . . The purpose for the epistle [of 1 John] is given precisely where we would expect it to be – in the Prologue (1:1-4) [i.e. at the beginning of the book].”3

Claim of the writer: Greg Schliesmann asserts: “John 20:31 does not claim to be the purpose statement for the book but the purpose statement for the writing of ‘these signs’ (whatever they are).”4 Similarly, O’Day writes: “[A]ccording to the majority opinion, ‘many other signs [sēmeia]’ in v. 30 is a summary statement of all of Jesus’ activity in the Gospel. By reading the reference to signs in v. 30 so broadly, however, one misses the importance of this verse in clarifying the Evangelist’s understanding of both the resurrection appearances and signs. Rather than referring to Jesus’ entire ministry, the narrator is identifying the events of John 20 as signs.5 Note that also in 2:11 and 4:54 the reader is not informed that the miracles Jesus performed were “signs” until the end of the story (so also 12:18). In addition, in 2:18-20 Jesus Himself pointed to his [death and] resurrection as a sign.6 The narrator’s comments about signs in v. 30 thus echo the narrative commentary of 2:21-22, in which the disciples’ faith is linked to the completion of the events narrated in John 20.”7 As I wrote in my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior”, Matthew Henry also understands the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 as referring to the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples, not all the signs in the book of John. Concerning this Henry writes: “[John] instructs us in the design of recording what we do find here; (v. 31.) ‘These accounts are given in this and the following chapter [i.e. John chapters 20-21], that ye might believe upon these evidences; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, declared with power to be so by his resurrection.’ . . . [This is the] duty of those that read and hear the gospel. It is their duty to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record given concerning him, 1 John 5. 11.”8

Composer’s usage: Greg Schliesmann writes: “[S]imilar purpose statements, using the same near demonstrative pronoun (‘these’ [Greek: tauta]) found in his first epistle (1 John 2:1, 26; 5:13) refer to the immediate context, not the entire book. This would fit about your point of John 20:31 fitting solely within the scope of resurrection signs.”9 Similarly, speaking of John’s first epistle and 1 John 5:13 in particular, Bob Wilkin says: “Such an interpretation hinges on a questionable understanding of the first words of v 13: ‘these things I have written’ (tauta egrapsa). It is suggested that ‘these things I have written’ refers to the whole epistle. . . . This interpretation is questionable for two reasons. In the first place the expression ‘these things I have written’ occurs in two other places in the epistle—in 2:1 (with the present tense) and in 2:26. It is clear in both of those passages that ‘these things’ refers not to the whole epistle but to the immediately preceding words. That is, ‘these things I have written’ in 2:1 looks back to 1:5-10 and in 2:26 to 2:18-25. It thus is evident that ‘these things I have written’ in 5:13 looks back to 5:9-12, not the whole book.”10 Concerning 1 John 5:13 and the near demonstrative pronoun “these” (Gr. tauta), Zane Hodges affirms: “Strangely enough, the idea has taken hold in some circles that the words These things refer to the contents of the whole epistle. This view is a centerpiece for the school of thought that treats the entire epistle as a test of its readers’ salvation. We have already noted how completely far afield this perspective really is. . . . The phrase These things (Greek: Tauta) by no means refers to the entire content of the epistle, but rather to verses 6 through 12. Indeed, this near reference is consistent with John’s style elsewhere in the letter. Thus in 1:4, the words ‘these things [Greek: tauta] we write to you’ refer to what has just been mentioned in the prologue (1:1-3). In 2:1, the statement ‘these things [Greek: tauta] I write to you, so that you may not sin,’ refer to the previous discussion on sin found in 1:5-10. In the same way, the words of 2:26, ‘these things [Greek: Tauta] I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you,’ obviously refer to the preceding discussion about the antichrists in 2:18-25.”11

Clarifying comments: Concerning this point O’Day writes: “[T]he intrusion of the narrator’s voice directly into the storytelling (vv. 30-31) is not unusual in the Fourth Gospel; indeed, it is one of the distinctive traits of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative style. For example, at 11:51-52 the narrator interprets the story of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in order to ensure that the reader understands the full meaning of Caiaphas’s prophecy; at 2:22 and 12:16, the narrator makes explicit connections to the disciples’ situation after Jesus’ glorification; at 12:33, the narrator interprets Jesus’ words about his death for the reader (see also 18:32); and at 19:35, the narrator comments on the source and veracity of the testimony in 19:34. The narrator’s words in 20:30-31 belong to this same category of interpretive comment; the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the flow of the narrative to ensure that the reader grasps the significance of what has just been recounted. On this basis, John 21 is not an addendum. The Fourth Evangelist uses the narrator’s comments in vv. 30-31 to underscore for his readers that Jesus’ blessing in v. 29b is addressed to them; ‘you,’ the readers, are among ‘those who have not seen.’”12

In light of these ten truths, it is clear that John 20:31 refers to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John!

 
References:

1 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

2 Charlie Bing, “Interpreting 1 John”, GraceNotes, Number 37: 1.

3 Zane C. Hodges, “We Believe In: Assurance of Salvation”, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3 (Autumn 90): 3.

4 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

5 At this point in the original statement there is a footnote citing: Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 550; P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 88-90.

6 In the original statement there is a footnote citing: P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 90.

7 Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12 Vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 9:851.

8 Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:949.

9 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

10 Bob Wilkin, “Assurance: That You May Know”, Grace in Focus (Dec 90): 1.

11 Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 226-227.

12 Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 9:851.

Saturday, November 25, 2023

Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior


Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior
A Study in the Gospel of John

Jonathan D. Perreault


Introduction

While this study does critique the teachings of Zane Hodges as set forth in his articles “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of our Message”1 and “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation to Respond,”it should not be viewed so narrowly. The tenor of this treatise is actually broader in scope, and involves a subject that is immensely important but often overlooked. More than simply a response to Zane Hodges, this exposition is a study in the Gospel of John with a focus on the signs of Jesus “in the presence of His disciples” (Jn. 20:30, NKJV).3 It will be argued that these signs constitute a separate group of signs specifically highlighting the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that these so called “resurrection signs” provide the basis for belief that this Johannine, resurrected Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (cf. Jn. 20:30-31).

The Greatest Sign

And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Thy house will consume Me.” The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:13-22)

How important is the sign of Christ’s death and resurrection? Jesus indicated this sign to be His greatest. When the Jews questioned His authority to cleanse the temple by demanding of Him one incontestable sign to justify His actions, Jesus did nothing but prophesy of His own death and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 2:18-22)! “‘Christ Himself,’ as B. B. Warfield puts it, ‘deliberately staked His whole claim to the credit of men upon His resurrection. When asked for a sign He pointed to this sign as His single and sufficient credential.’”4

There seems to be agreement among many scholars that Christ’s death and resurrection was the greatest sign of all in the book of John.5 Thomas Arnold, former Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, and one of the world’s greatest historians, made the following statement: “I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead.”6 Wilbur M. Smith affirms this statement.7 Similarly, Merrill C. Tenney says, “These seven signs culminating in the resurrection of Jesus, the eighth and greatest of all.”8 And John Niemelä declares, “That sign was the cross and resurrection. It was the greatest of all the signs in a number of ways.”9

Why are the two momentous events of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day considered to be one sign (and not two)? In John 2:18 the Jews specifically asked Jesus, “What sign [singular] do You show us”? In Jesus’ answer to this specific question, He links his death and resurrection together by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19, italics added). Furthermore, the disciples understood the cross and resurrection to be one sign: “When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this [singular]” (Jn. 2:22a, italics added). Even John Niemelä argues that Christ’s death and resurrection is one sign.10

In reading through John’s narrative, it becomes clear that no other sign approaches the prominence given to the great climactic Passover sign of the Lamb’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day! While the death and resurrection of Jesus is the greatest sign in John’s Gospel, there are three unique signs that cannot be separated from it. They are the three resurrection signs of the Savior.

Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior

A number of Scriptures verify that Jesus Christ manifested Himself specifically to His disciples after He rose from the dead:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31, italics added)

until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:2-3, italics added)

The word which He sent to the sons of Israel [in context], preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all). . . You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One [i.e. the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, the Son of God] who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:36, 38- 43, italics added)

And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. (Acts 13:28-31, italics added)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5, italics added)

In the Gospel of John, chapters 20-21, the beloved disciple recounts three post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to gatherings of His followers. These appearances of Jesus are described as “signs . . . in the presence of His disciples” (Jn. 20:30, NKJV). In his narrative, John describes only three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples:

Resurrection Sign #1:

When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. . . . But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus [i.e. the Twin], was not with them when Jesus came.11 (John 20:19-20, 24, italics added)

Day: Resurrection Sunday (the very same day Jesus rose from the dead), evening (Jn. 20:1, 19)
Location: Locked room (Jn. 20:19)
Audience: Only the disciples (Jn. 20:19), excluding Thomas (Jn. 20:24)
Key Sign Miracle: Jesus miraculously appears to His disciples after his resurrection from the dead and shows them His hands and side (Jn. 20:19-20)

Resurrection Sign #2

And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:26-29, italics added)

Day: Eight days after first resurrection appearance (Jn. 20:26)
Location: “again” in locked room (Jn. 20:26)
Audience: “again” only the disciples (Jn. 20:26), this time including Thomas (Jn. 20:26)
Key Sign Miracle: Once again, Jesus miraculously appears to His disciples after his resurrection from the dead and this time specifically invites Thomas to touch His scarred hands and side (Jn. 20:26-29)

(In the context of John’s narrative, John 20:30-31 occurs here, between the second and third resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. These verses read as follows: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may have life in His name.”)

Resurrection Sign #3

After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself . . . This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to the disciples after He was raised from the dead. (Jn. 21:1, 14, NKJV)

Day: Unknown (Jn. 21:1)
Location: Sea of Tiberias (Jn. 21:1)
Audience: Only certain disciples: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (James and John)12, and two others – possibly Phillip and Andrew13 (Jn. 21:1-2)
Key Sign Miracle: Jesus “again” appears to His disciples a “third time” after his resurrection from the dead, displays omniscience and eats food (Jn. 21:1-14).14

The Resurrection Signs and John 20:30-31

Do the “signs” cited in John 20:30 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John? Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the “signs” cited in John 20:30 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.

First, the context surrounding John 20:30-31 clearly indicates that in these two verses the apostle John speaks of Jesus’ three resurrection signs in the presence of His disciples. The skilled exegete of Scripture will recognize that John 20:30-31 is not an island of two verses by itself. Instead, these two verses are directly connected to and associated with the surrounding context of John chapters 20-21 (which describes the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples). John 20:30 begins with the connective word “and” (NKJV), tying verse 30 into the surrounding context. Also, notice that in John 20:30-31a the apostle states that “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written” (italics added). This language clearly implies that the appearances which are written in the context are to be considered “signs”. Furthermore, John 21:1 continues the thought of the previous chapter (chapter 20) by describing yet another resurrection appearance of Jesus to His disciples: “After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias” (Jn. 21:1a). This is further proof that John 20:30-31 cannot be divorced from its surrounding context which involves the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.

Second, an important chronological fact is stated in John 21:14 which helps to confirm that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. What the apostle writes in John 21:14 is very significant: “This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead” (italics added). This is a key phrase because it unlocks an important truth: Jesus’ three signs in the presence of His disciples after His resurrection are numbered separately from the previous signs in the book of John! The apostle John obviously started counting a new group of signs after the resurrection of Jesus! To further verify this truth simply compare John 2:11 and John 4:54 with John 21:14:

This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (John 2:11, italics added)

This is again a second sign that Jesus performed, when He had come out of Judea into Galilee. (John 4:54, italics added)

This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. (John 21:14, italics added)

John 2:11 and John 4:54 are said to record the first and second signs of Jesus in John’s Gospel. In his narrative the apostle John goes on to describe many more signs that Jesus performed: healing an invalid at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem (Jn. 5:1-18), feeding the 5,000 near the Sea of Galilee (Jn. 6:5-14), walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee (Jn. 6:16-21), healing a blind man in Jerusalem (Jn. 9:1-7), raising Lazarus in Bethany (Jn. 11:1-45), and Jesus’ own crucifixion and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 2:18-22, chapters 18-21). If these signs are counted by addition, their total is more than three in number! Clearly, the three signs that Jesus performed in the presence of His disciples after His resurrection are grouped separately from the other signs in John’s narrative!

It is not accidental that in his narrative the apostle John includes three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. This numbering is by divine design and has significance. Concerning the symbolism of the number three, Birch notes: “As the number most distinctly marked with a beginning, middle, and end it seems to have been regarded as symbolic of a complete and ordered whole.”15 Birch goes on to say: “A threefold repetition of something not only has symbolic meaning but also is a method of expressing the superlative (e.g., Isa. 6:3).”16 John’s unique triad of resurrection signs are truly of inestimable value not only because they confirm Jesus’ greatest sign, but also because their message must be believed for eternal life: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn. 20:30-31). These truths underscore the fact that in John’s narrative the three resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples form a complete and superlative group of signs!

Third, Christ’s statement in John 2:19 further demonstrates that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to Jesus’ resurrection appearances in the presence of His disciples. The great “sign” of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection emphasized in John 2 is linked to Jesus’ resurrection “signs” evidenced in John 20-21! In John 2:18 the Jewish leaders ask Jesus a specific question: “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?” Jesus, of course, refers to the sign of His death and resurrection on the third day when He declares: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19b).17 Regarding this, the apostle John notes: “When therefore [Jesus] was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn. 2:22). John clearly presents Jesus’ great statement in the light of the resurrection!18 How do the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples relate to the one great sign of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day? The answer to this important question may “connect the dots” for many readers. In John 2:18-22 the sign of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection is prophesied. In John chapters 18-19 Christ’s crucifixion is performed and then proved (by His burial). In John chapters 20-21 Christ’s resurrection is performed and then proved (by His appearances, or resurrection signs). The three resurrection signs (as opposed to all the signs recorded in John’s Gospel) are the final proof of Christ’s original prophecy!19

Fourth, two key cross-references similarly highlight the fact that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples; they do not refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John. The book of Acts commences where the Gospels conclude. In Acts 1:1-3 Luke speaks of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and calls these appearances “convincing proofs”:

The first account I composed [i.e. the Gospel of Luke], Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3, italics added)

By simply comparing Scripture with Scripture, and on the authority of the Word of God, one can safely identify the “signs . . . in the presence of the disciples” (Jn. 20:30-31) with the “convincing proofs . . . to the apostles” (Acts 1:1-3)! Similarly, the apostle Paul writes that Jesus Christ “was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness” (Rom. 1:4a). Definbaugh affirms: “the resurrection of Jesus is the final and compelling proof that He is the Son of God and Savior of the world”.20 These verses simply verify that in John’s mind, he considered the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples to be powerful and climactic “signs” proving that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Jn. 20:30-31)!

Fifth, John’s particular audience of church-age readers is another reason to believe that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples. There is virtually no question that John’s readers comprise a church-age audience. Concerning the date of John’s Gospel, Scofield declares: “The date of John’s Gospel falls between A.D. 85 and 90. Probably the latter.”21 Similarly, Blum writes that “a date between 85 and 95 is best.”22 McGee suggests even later: “It was the last one written, probably close to A.D. 100.”23 Charles Ryrie and Earl Radmacher suggest similar dates around A.D. 90.24 Even Zane Hodges affirms, “In my view, [John’s Gospel] was written before 70 AD . . . At the time of writing, the cross was years ago”.25

The apostle John directly addresses his church-age audience in John 19:35 and again in John 20:31 with the words “that you may believe” (NKJV, italics added):

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. (John 19:34-35, NKJV, italics added)

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31, NKJV, italics added)

This directness of approach bestows great importance on the facts involved!26 What are the specific facts that John is emphasizing his audience believe in these two passages? Consider the following reasoning. If John wants his church-age readers to believe his testimony regarding Jesus’ blood death (Jn. 19:34-35), it follows that the apostle would be at least equally desirous (if not more so) that these same readers believe his threefold testimony regarding Jesus’ resulting bodily resurrection from the dead (Jn. 20:30-31)!27 In this scenario, John would be specifically drawing attention to Jesus‟ blood death and resulting bodily resurrection from the dead. Concerning this, Matthew Henry writes that in John 19:34 the apostle “give[s] an evidence of the truth of his death, in order to the proof of his resurrection. If he was only in a trance or swoon his resurrection was a sham”.28 John knows that if his readers are not assured of Jesus’ death, neither will they be assured of His resurrection! If they do not believe in Jesus’ death, neither will they believe in His resurrection from the dead! Based on this reasoning and evidence alone, it becomes clear that since John 19:35 involves Jesus’ death, John 20:31 most likely involves the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples (as opposed to all the signs recorded in John’s Gospel). John has drawn special attention to the two great events of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead in order that his church-age readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing . . . may have life in His name.” A logical flow chart of these specific Johannine truths might look something like this: Believe that Jesus died (Jn. 19:35) → Believe that Jesus not only died, but also rose from the dead (Jn. 20:31a) → Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Jn. 20:31b) → Eternal Life (Jn. 20:31c)! (The apostle John obviously elaborates more on these truths in his Gospel narrative. The previous diagram simply displays the logical sequence of certain important facts.) The main point is this: The apostle’s direct references to his church-age audience (“you”) in the contexts of John 19:35 and John 20:31 highlight the importance and coherence of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead as necessary elements of belief for eternal life. This double coherence (of John’s church-age audience and Jesus’ crucifixion-resurrection action) would be greatly reduced and even lost if the “signs” cited in John 20:31 referred to all the signs recorded in the book of John, and not specifically to the three resurrection signs of the Savior!

Sixth, certain scholars have correctly taught that the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. Alva J. McClain states:

1. Christ’s Post-Resurrection Ministry and the Kingdom

The first eleven verses of Acts describe this ministry of our Lord. The parallel passages appear in chapter 28 of Matthew, chapter 16 of Mark, chapter 24 of Luke, and chapters 20-21 of John. Luke only, in the first-named passage, states the length of this ministry as “forty days” (Acts 1:3).
. . . During this period of time Christ demonstrated to them the reality of His resurrection from the dead. In the words of Acts 1:3, “he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days.” Some of these “proofs” are described in detail by Luke in his “former treatise” (Luke 24:30-43). This testimony is confirmed by the other three gospel writers, and John adds that “many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:30-31). And, as we shall see, these visual demonstrations were supported by appeals to the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures (Luke 24:44). Thus by sensible signs and Biblical testimony were the disciples convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, and so prepared for further instruction about the Kingdom.29

Matthew Henry aptly writes:

The remark which the evangelist makes upon his narrative, like an historian drawing towards a conclusion, v. 30, 31. And here . . . He assures us that many other things occurred, which were all worthy to be recorded, but are not written in the book: many signs. Some refer this to all the signs that Jesus did during his whole life, all the wondrous words he spake, and all the wondrous works he did. But it seems rather to be confined to the signs he did after his resurrection, for these were in the presence of the disciples only, which are here spoken of, Acts 10.41.30

Thomas Scott makes a similar comment regarding the signs spoken of in John 20:30-31:

“The signs” here spoken of, seem to refer to the evidences of our Lord’s resurrection, of which there were far more than it was necessary to record: (Note, Acts 1:1-3.) but these were committed to writing, in order that all those who should ever read them, might believe that Jesus was indeed the promised “Messiah” . . . the Savior of sinners, and “the Son of God;” that by this faith they might obtain eternal life, through his name, for his sake, and by his mercy, truth, and power.31

A Resurrection Dimension

Zane Hodges makes the following statement regarding the content of faith in John’s gospel:

      Let me put it to you this way. The Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic. Of course, I am thinking of the famous theme statement found in John 20:30-31, where we read: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
     This statement does not affirm the necessity of believing in our Lord’s substitutionary atonement. If by the time of the writing of John’s Gospel, it was actually necessary to believe this, then it would have been not only simple, but essential to say so.
      Inasmuch as the key figures in John’s narrative did believe in Jesus before they understood His atoning death and resurrection, it would have been even more essential for John to state that the content of faith had changed. But of course he does not do this. The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that.32

Christ’s resurrection signs in the presence of His disciples will demonstrate that Jesus Himself modified the content of belief for eternal life as a natural result of His crucifixion and resurrection.33 Furthermore, an overview of related Scriptures will also evidence important changes resulting from Christ’s death and resurrection. John chapter 20 will be the key text because “the hinge point of the Gospel of John is the resurrection. That fact should not take us by surprise because the resurrection is in reality the hinge point of Christianity.”34 Furthermore, in the outline of the apostle’s narrative, chapter 20 speaks of “The culmination of faith”.35

A Resurrection Order

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. . . . Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the [resurrected] Lord, and that He had said these things to her. (John 20:1, 15-18, italics added)

Before the risen Savior appeared to the ten disciples, He appeared to Mary Magdalene. It was early resurrection Sunday morning. During this brief encounter, Jesus clearly described significant changes resulting from His resurrection from the dead. Ryrie notes that the words of Jesus in John 20:17 describe “His new relationship as resurrected Lord.”36 F. W. Grant writes, “[Mary] learns, not only that He is risen, but of a relationship that His resurrection has brought His people into.”37 Borchert adds, “A new resurrection relationship between Jesus and his followers was being established because Jesus was returning to the presence of God.”38 William MacDonald comments that Christ “told [Mary] to go to His brethren and tell them of the new order that had been ushered in.”39 Harrison echoes this idea of “the new order”.40 Similarly, Edwin A. Blum notes:

These words spoke of a new relationship, new relatives, and a new responsibility. . . . Jesus said, in effect, “This (the physical contact) is not My real presence for the church. A new relationship will begin with My Ascension and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church.” Jesus then explained the fact of the new relatives. He called His disciples His brothers. Earlier He had said they were friends: “I no longer call you servants . . . instead, I have called you friends” (15:15). Believers in Jesus become a part of Jesus’ family with God as their Father (cf. Heb. 2:11-12; Rom. 8:15-17, 29; Gal. 3:26). Mary’s new responsibility was to testify to His risen presence. She was the recipient of four special graces. . . . Christians today are also the recipients of special grace; they too are given this new responsibility to witness to the world (cf. Matt. 28:16-20[; Jn. 20:19-23]).41

Chafer asserts: “When Christ arose from the dead, Christianity was born, and the new creation was brought into existence. There is nothing in the old order for the believer. He stands on resurrection ground.”42 The death and resurrection of Christ was not simply another sign, but was instead “the ONE MOST IMPORTANT”43 “epoch-making event”44 that ushered in significant changes and a new order.

A Resurrection Message

After His pre-dawn encounter with Mary, the resurrected Savior appeared to ten of His disciples (Judas Iscariot having committed suicide and Thomas being absent) that same day toward evening (Jn. 20:1, 19). Jesus emphasized their need to believe in His resurrection by showing them His nail scarred hands and pierced side (Jn. 20:19-20). He commissioned them with a message of forgiveness that now involved His substitutionary death and resurrection (Jn. 20:20-23).45 The text reads as follows:

And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:20-23)

This is truly an amazing statement that Jesus declared to His disciples! Tenney exposits the Scriptural text from the original language with the following words:

The commission to forgive sins is phrased in an unusual construction. Literally, it is: “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorists, which imply the action of an instant; the second verbs are perfects, which imply an abiding state that began before the action of the first verbs. God does not forgive men’s sins because we decide to do so nor withhold forgiveness because we will not grant it. We announce it; we do not create it. This is the essence of salvation. And all who proclaim the gospel are in effect forgiving or not forgiving sins, depending on whether the hearer accepts or rejects the Lord Jesus as the Sin-Bearer.46

Similarly, Harrison strongly describes Jesus’ emphasis when he writes:

“It follows, then, that what our Lord here commits to His disciples, to His Church, is the right authoritatively to declare, in His name, that there is forgiveness for man’s sin, and on what conditions the sin will be forgiven” (Milligan and Moulton, Commentary on John) This scene involves the death of Christ (his wounds presented), his resurrection (declared by his living presence), the resultant commission to go and bear witness to him [which the apostle John is doing through his Gospel narrative], the equipment for this task, and the message itself, centering in forgiveness of sins.47

As a result of His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples and set forth the good news of complete forgiveness involving not only His substitutionary blood death for the sins of the world and but also His subsequent bodily resurrection on the third day. John 20:19-23 narrates the saving message of Jesus’ substitutionary death (Jn. 20:20, cf. 20:23) for the forgiveness of anyone’s sins (Jn. 20:23) and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 20:1, 19-20), which the disciples were now commissioned to preach (Jn. 20:21, cf. Lk. 24:46-49).48 It is significant that Jesus emphasized this saving message of forgiveness centered on His death and resurrection in His very first resurrection appearance to His ten disciples! Chafer affirms: “On the first day of the week [Jesus] commanded the disciples to preach the new message to all the world.”49

A Resurrection Belief

Eight days later, Jesus miraculously appeared a second time to His disciples; this time Thomas was present (Jn. 20:26). But this doubting disciple still didn’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Jn. 20:24-25). Jesus graciously encouraged Thomas to believe in the reality of His resurrection by saying, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (Jn. 20:27). Keep in mind that Thomas already believed in the Jesus who turned water into wine and did many wonderful works, but Thomas didn’t believe in the “Lamb standing, as if slain” (cf. Rev. 5:6)! He didn’t believe in Jesus risen from the dead! But after being confronted with such irrefutable evidence, Thomas needed no further urging. John 20:28 states: “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” Thomas’ response of belief is the climax of John’s narrative. Concerning this, Ryrie says: “This marks the climax of John’s gospel.”50

The doubting disciple’s encounter with Jesus in John 20:26-29 conveys an elementary yet essential truth: As a result of Jesus’ resurrection, believing in Him now involves believing that He did, in fact, rise from the dead! According to Jesus, one must believe in the Man described in John 20:26-29! For those already possessing eternal life prior to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, such belief was an essential part of sanctification, as in the case of Thomas (cf. Jn. 13:10- 11, 20:24-28). For those coming to eternal life after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, such belief is an essential part of justification (cf. Jn. 20:23, 30-31).

In His encounter with Thomas, Jesus gave a special blessing to those who believe in Him apart from the physical reality of His resurrected presence. Notice the beatitude Jesus declared to Thomas in the Scripture text immediately preceding John 20:30-31: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (Jn. 20:29, italics added). Commenting on John 20:29, Definbaugh writes, “It is not too hard to see what John is leading up to. John is writing this Gospel for those who have never seen the risen Lord.”51 Similarly, Edwin A. Blum, writes:

Jesus then pronounced a blessing on all who would come to faith without the help of a visible, bodily manifestation to them (John 20:29; cf. 1 Peter 1:8). This blessing comes to all who believe on the basis of the proclaimed gospel and the evidences for its validity. Believers living today are not deprived by not seeing Him physically; instead, they are the recipients of His special blessing: Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.52

In John 20:30-31, John declares to his readers that the resurrection belief he has been describing is required for eternal life. In other words, in these two key verses the apostle explains that the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of the disciples have been written in order that his church-age readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing . . . may have life in His name.”

In John 21:1-14, John goes on to describe a third and final resurrection sign of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. By including this third resurrection sign in his narrative, John encourages belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus by highlighting His divine attributes and portraying Him involved in a very human activity, that of eating breakfast.

At this point it needs to be emphasized that believing in Jesus’ resurrection is different than believing Jesus will resurrect all believers! This distinction is important because some draw a connection between John 11:25-27 and John 20:30-31 based on the common phrase “the Christ, the Son of God” and argue that the contents of “saving faith” haven’t changed from the time Christ walked the earth before the cross in John 11:25-27 to the present day after the cross in John 20:30-31.53 While it is true that there are similarities between John 11:25-27 and John 20:30-31 (both passages contain the phrase “the Christ, the Son of God”, deal with the subject of resurrection, and evidence Christ’s power over death), one must realize that the two passages deal with different resurrections! John 11:25-27 occurs in a context that involves the resurrection of Lazarus, while John 20:30-31 occurs in a context that involves the resurrection of the Lamb. John 11:25-27 speaks generally of the resurrection of the saved, John 20:30-31 speaks specifically of the resurrection of the Savior. Interestingly, John Niemelä admits this. Concerning John 11:25-27, he writes: “[Jesus] will resurrect all who believe in Him, even though they may die physically. . . . Martha knows that now deceased saints will be in the Messiah’s kingdom, so obviously the Messiah will resurrect them and give them eternal life”.54 However, it must be stressed that the resurrection of “saints” described in John chapter 11 is different from the resurrection of the Savior described in John chapters 20-21! While John chapter 11 does not affirm Jesus’ own death and resurrection, John chapters 20-21 not only affirms these, but emphasizes them as well!

The death and resurrection of Jesus are of central importance to the One who makes “all things new” (Rev. 21:5). These key events clearly add a new dimension to the belief John encourages in his narrative. Tenney aptly comments, “Jesus’ postresurrection presence brought a new dimension to belief” (italics added).55 In speaking of the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples as the basis of Christian faith, Halley avows: “What a Halo of Glory this simple belief sheds on human life. Our hope of resurrection and life everlasting is based, not on a philosophical guess about immortality, but an historic fact.”56

A Resurrection Perspective

If the death and resurrection of Jesus naturally ushered in an original order of things, a modified message of eternal salvation yet still by grace through faith, and a different dimension of belief, why does John write so much of Jesus’ pre-resurrection miracles and ministry? Doesn’t this confuse the issue if John’s readers are ultimately to believe the resurrection signs and the resurrected Jesus? In answer to these questions it is helpful to understand the central theme and perspective of John’s narrative. The central theme, of course, is belief. Tenney notes:

the central theme [is] “belief”. The varied episodes and teachings of the Gospel are all subordinate to the definition and development of this concept. . . .The word “believe” (pisteuo) appears ninety-eight times in the Gospel, more often than any other key word, and is obviously the major theme. All the signs, teachings, and events in the Gospel are used to stimulate faith in Christ.57

The apostle John included the initial, pre-resurrection works and wonders of Jesus in his narrative because they support his overall theme of belief. “Clearly, to promote authentic believing in the living Lord is the reason why John wrote this gospel.”58

Furthermore, John’s narrative is written with a resurrection perspective. His Gospel is correctly understood in light of the resurrection of Jesus. Borchert writes:

While there are certainly many obvious themes in this gospel that could be studied profitably, such as: seeing, believing, knowing, signs, light, darkness, life, etc.; let me turn your attention to what may be for you a less obvious theme: the resurrection perspective in John. . . . in the Gospel of John the resurrection is an organizing theme . . . . the entire Gospel is built upon the foundation of the resurrection hope. It is the resurrection perspective that gives the focus to the evolving story of the rejection of Jesus. . . . Throughout the Gospel this resurrection theme is woven into the very core of the Johannine symphony.59

Similarly, the comments of Merrill C. Tenney are appropriate in highlighting the resurrection perspective of John’s narrative. Tenney writes:

[John’s] comment [in John 2:22] indicates that from the first of his ministry Jesus had the end of it in view. One can hardly escape the conviction that the fourth Gospel depicts the career of Jesus as a voluntary progress toward a predetermined goal. The allusions to the destruction of the temple of his body (2:22), to the elevation on a cross (3:14; 12:32-33), to the giving of his flesh for the life of the world (6:51), to his burial (12:7), and the announcement of his betrayal and death to his disciples (13:19, 21) attest to his consciousness of the fate that awaited him in Jerusalem. Though the disciples did not comprehend the situation of Jesus’ career, the Resurrection placed the memory of his saying in a new perspective. The author’s note [in John 2:22] illustrates the principle that the Gospel presents the life of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and of the apostolic experience based on the results of that event.60

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Edwin A. Blum says: “The focus of the Gospels is the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gospels have been called ‘Passion narratives with extended introductions.’”61 Instead of “blur[ring] the necessary focus on the Person of Christ as the object of faith”62, the death and resurrection of Jesus bring Him into focus!

The reader must understand that the Gospel of John is an unfolding narrative or “evolving story”63 that “depicts the career of Jesus as a voluntary progress toward a predetermined goal”64 and “presents the life of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and of the apostolic experience based on the results of that event.”65 In this context, the pre-resurrection works and wonders of Jesus are seen to support John’s central theme of belief and the resurrection perspective of his narrative.

Conclusion

Toward the close of his Gospel narrative, the apostle John specifically describes three resurrection appearances of Jesus to various groups of His disciples. These three unique sign appearances furnish the final and compelling proof of Jesus’ greatest sign, His death and resurrection. The three resurrection signs of the Savior are seen to involve not only Jesus’ substitutionary blood death for the sins of the world, but also His subsequent bodily resurrection on the third day. These key facts are inherent in the three resurrection signs of the Savior! In John 20:30-31 the beloved disciple cites these three resurrection signs of the Savior as the rationale and reason his church-age readers should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they may have life in His name. If John’s readers indeed believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God as a result of the three resurrection signs of the Savior, they obviously believe the three resurrection signs of the Savior! Thus, in John’s mind, there is no dichotomy or bifurcation between the person of Jesus and His crucifixion-resurrection work! In this regard, Gregory Sapaugh says that “[Hodges] has artificially bifurcated the person and work of Christ. For sure, I believe that salvation is through faith alone in Christ alone. But my faith is in the Christ who died in my place, paying the penalty for my sin.”66 The fact is, if someone disbelieves the three resurrection signs of the Savior, they will disbelieve the substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, and they will disbelieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!67 Josh McDowell writes:

John Locke, the famous British philosopher, said concerning Christ’s resurrection: “Our Saviour’s resurrection. . . is truly of great importance in Christianity; so great that His being or not being the Messiah stands or falls with it: so that these two important articles are inseparable and in effect make one. For since that time, believe one and you believe both; deny one of them, and you can believe neither.”68

Tenney seems to convey this idea when he writes, “the signs are the basis of belief; the person of Christ is the object of faith, and eternal life is the result of belief.”69 By making this connection between the resurrection signs and the Savior, John makes it clear that his church-age readers need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who declared He will forgive anyone’s sins because of His death and resurrection (Jn. 20:19-23)! They need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who stood before Thomas with nail scarred hands and pierced side and said, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (Jn. 20:27)! They need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who appeared to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias and once again demonstrated the reality of His resurrection from the dead (Jn. 21:1, 14)! McDowell writes: “Michael Green makes the point well: ‘Christianity does not hold the resurrection to be one among many tenets of belief. Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all.’”70

Wilbur Smith asserts:

Christ Himself frequently predicted He would rise – even telling them on what day such a supernatural event would occur. When it did occur, He showed Himself to His disciples, bidding them to touch His hands and His side, to see that it was really and truly the crucified Lord, raised again from the dead. . . . Do not let any man tell you that this is a “myth‟ which attaches itself to the rest of the doctrine of the Christian Church, or do not even let one say, “Well you may believe it if you can.” No one says that about Waterloo. As the great Calvinist, Dr. Warfield, once said: “The resurrection of Christ is a fact, an external occurrence within the cognizance of man to be established by its testimony and yet, it is the cardinal doctrine of our system, on it all other doctrines hang.”71

Charlie Bing declares:

[W]e must give people something to believe. Since it is the object of faith that saves, there must be meaningful content about that object, which is Jesus Christ Himself. We should present Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins (1:29) and rose again. Content-less emotional appeals are not enough. It will do no good to call people to believe in something empty or erroneous.72

In this regard, even John Niemelä affirms,

The present author categorically rejects the idea that John minimizes the cross. A paraphrase of John’s salvific message indicates this: I am to believe that – through His cross and resurrection – Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gives me eternal life and resurrection, removing the death sentence that I deserve as a sinner.73

According to the three resurrection signs of the Savior cited in John 20:30-31, there must be a knowledge of the Johannine concepts of Jesus’ substitutionary blood death and subsequent bodily resurrection and a belief in them. Otherwise, John’s church-age readers might believe that someone is the Christ, the Son of God, but it wouldn’t be the Biblical, Johannine, resurrected Jesus that the apostle John climactically sets forth in his Gospel narrative!

Soli Deo Gloria!
(Psalm 115:1)

 
References:

1 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000). 

2 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation to Respond,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001). 

3 All Scriptures taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted. 

4 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1979), 182.
 
5 It is therefore especially odd when other scholars never even mention this sign when listing the signs in John’s Gospel! For example, see Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2004), 269; Mark Bailey and Tom Constable, Nelson’s New Testament Survey (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 155-156; Robert G. Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 134; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, New American Standard translation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 1678. 
 
6 Thomas Arnold, Sermons on Christian Life (London: 1854), 324, italics added. 

7 Wilbur M. Smith, “The Need for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Battle for the Christian Faith: Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 100 (October 1943): 541. 
 
8 Merrill C. Tenney, “Literary Keys to the Fourth Gospel, Part 1: The Symphonic Structure of John,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (April 1963): 121. 
 
9 John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 16 (Spring 03): 22-23. 
 
10 Ibid., 20-23.
 
11 Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org), affirms what the Biblical text indicates: “It would appear that this was our Lord’s first appearance to the disciples after His resurrection.” Also see Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:942, “In these verses, we have an account of his first appearance to the college of the disciples, on the day on which he rose.”
 
12 Cf. Mk. 10:35; Lk. 5:10. 
 
13 Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 5:950, seems to indicate that this was the prevailing opinion of his day. He writes, “The two not named, are supposed to be Philip of Bethsaida, and Andrew of Capernaum.” 
 
14 Jesus did not need to eat food because He possessed a glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13, Rev. 7:16). Yet in John 21, Jesus ate food to demonstrate to the disciples that His resurrected body was real “flesh and bones” (cf. Lk. 24:36- 43). 

15 B. C. Birch, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 Vols. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 3:558. 

16 Ibid.
 
17 It is interesting to note that in John 2:19a Jesus doesn’t say, “If you destroy this temple”. Instead, He prophesied that the Jews actually would destroy the temple of His body. Similarly, in John 2:19b, Jesus doesn’t say, “in three days I will rebuild it.” Instead, He says, “in three days I will raise it up.” This is a reference to His bodily resurrection. 
 
18 See Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 12 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:45; Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 1988): 503. 

19 These key truths are consistent with the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” 

20 Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org). 

21 C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1114. 

22 Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John, 268. 
 
23 J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible, 6 Vols. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 4:362. 

24 See Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, New American Standard translation, 1675.; Earl D. Radmacher, Gen. Ed., The Nelson Study Bible, New King James translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 1754. 
 
25 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000): 6. 

26 See Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:185; Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The Gospel According to John (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 1118; Leon Morris, The NIV Study Bible, John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1669. 
 
27 While John 19:34-35 involves the death of Jesus, John 20:30-31 goes further and involves not only the death of Jesus, but also His resurrection from the dead by way of the three resurrection signs of the Savior! 

28 Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 5:933. 

29 Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1983), 390-391.
 
30 Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 5:948.
 
31 Thomas Scott, Scott’s Bible, 6 Vols. (Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, and Crocker and Brewster, 1830), 5:596. 

32 Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000): 7-8. 

33 This relates to the doctrine of progressive revelation. 

34 Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 1988): 502. 

35 W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Plan of the Fourth Gospel, Part II,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (October 1968): 318.
 
36 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, New American Standard translation, 1721. 
 
37 F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible, The Gospels (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1904), 615. 
 
38 Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 1988): 509.
 
39 William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1567. 
 
40 Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The Gospel According to John, 1119.
 
41 Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John, 342-343, bold added.
 
42 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1995), 202. 
 
43 Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), 556.
 
44 Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 88): 503.
 
45 The apostle John clearly indicates that the death of Jesus was a substitutionary death. Besides John 20:19-23, see John 1:29, 1:35-36, 3:10-17, 6:47-54, 10:7-18, 11:47-53, and 18:14. 
 
46 Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:193.
 
47 Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The Gospel According to John, 1120. 
 
48 Also notice the many references to the deity of Jesus in the context: His miraculous appearance (Jn. 20:19), His resurrection from the dead (Jn. 20:20, cf. Rom. 1:4), His calling God His Father (Jn. 20:21, cf. Jn. 5:17-18), His equality with God (“[A]s the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”), His giving of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22, cf. Jn. 16:5-15), and His forgiving of sins (Jn. 20:23, cf. Lk. 5:20-21). In his narrative, the apostle John makes it clear that belief in the deity of Jesus is essential for eternal salvation (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 5:948, affirms: “We must believe his deity – that he is God; not a man made God, but God made man, as this evangelist had laid down his thesis at first, ch. 1. 1.” 
 
49 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 4:118; Cf. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace, 203.
 
50 Charles C. Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, 1722.
 
51 Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org).
 
52 Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John, 344, bold his.
 
53 See John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 16 (Spring 2003): 23-25. 

54 Ibid., 24.
 
55 Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:14. 
 
56 Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 557.
 
57 Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:12.; Also see Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John, 270. 
 
58 Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 1988): 510. 
 
59 Ibid., 501-503.
 
60 Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:45. 
 
61 Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John, 269.
 
62 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation To Respond,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001): 12.
 
63 Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” Review and Expositor 85 (Summer 88): 502. 
 
64 Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, The Gospel of John, 9:45. 

65 Ibid. 

66 Gregory P. Sapaugh, “A Response to Hodges: How to Lead a Person to Christ, Parts 1 and 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (August 2001): 29. 
 
67 My sincere thanks to Liam Moran for helping to clarify these issues. 
 
68 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 183. 
 
69 Merrill C. Tenney, “Literary Keys to the Fourth Gospel, Part 1: The Symphonic Structure of John,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (April 1963): 125. 

70 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 182. 

71 Wilbur M. Smith, “The Need for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Battle for the Christian Faith: Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 100 (October 1943): 539-540, bold added. 

72 Charlie Bing, “The Condition For Salvation In John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9 (Spring 1996): 34, bold added. 

73 John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 16 (Spring 2003): 18-19, bold added. Also see Ibid., 28, where Niemelä writes, “My paraphrase of John’s message to the unbeliever follows: I am to believe that – through His cross and resurrection – Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gives me eternal life and resurrection, removing the death sentence that I deserve as a sinner” (bold added). The aforementioned quotes appear to evidence an inconsistency in Niemelä’s position because on another occasion he writes, “How Does the Cross Relate to the Message for the Unbeliever? The bottom line is to believe that Jesus grants eternal life to everyone who simply believes Him for that gift” (Ibid., 27). By his own admission, John Niemelä’s “bottom line” is noticeably different than John the apostle’s bottom line!