John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar [and] put [it upon] hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

Hyssop (as a modern word) is a short bush, and not a very rigid object for holding a sponge full of liquid (though it can have woody stems). What John meant by hyssop may be a kind of a reed, or it may refer to mixing parts of the hyssop bush into the sour wine.

In Mark, a different word than hyssop is used. Mark uses a word that is sometimes translated as “reed”, which implies the sense of rigid (though see Matt 11:7), from which the translators then say that the sponge was put on it. But, again, the translators made some choices in translating; I put square brackets around the words they added:

Mark 15:36 And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put [it on a] reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

In Matthew, the same choices were made for the translation:

Matthew 27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put [it on a] reed, and gave him to drink. (see Psalm 69:21 — the gesture here is not one of helping, but of mocking, cmp. Luke 23:36)

The translators could have made different choices. If the description in John gives more details, then it may explain Matthew and Mark. That is, based on John, maybe “hyssop” clarifies the plant that was used. John’s use of “hyssop” may indicate that an herbal plant (one that is not primarily rigid) was added to the drink. If so, this is a good case where scripture interprets scripture.

There is a common notion of Jesus being so high up that his face was too far away to reach without a rigid plant. And that may be. But I am suggesting that it may be that the plant was not used as a pole, but was added to the drink. If this is the case, then the point is not the physical height of the cross, which then, over the history of the church, became iconic (with a very tall cross in the middle, and two shorter ones on either side).

By saying all of this, I am not trying to make some earth-shattering observation; I’m making a passing observation of a possibility. Maybe the head of Jesus was not out of reach? Maybe he was lifted high not because the cross was really tall, but because he was magnified in lowly obscurity in his love of the Father.

Archaeological Artifacts
When the passersby were near Christ as he was dying, how near could they get to his face? When they looked upon him, how high up was he? The following bits of archaeological evidence may be the earliest data, and together they help to paint a picture of how high up Jesus was (click on any of the images to be taken to lengthier articles):

2nd century graffito of a Roman crucifixion from Puteoli, Italy,

The Alexamenos graffito. An inscription carved in plaster on a wall near the Palatine Hill in Rome, now in the Palatine Antiquarium Museum.

The way this picture is copied from the original offers something of a challenge to my suggestion that Jesus was low to the ground. But crucifixions may also have varied as to their nature, or this may be a badly executed carving, or this may show the already developing idea that Jesus was up very high off the ground. Either way, the date of the original wall carving is unknown, but it may date anywhere from late 1st to late 3rd century.

The heel bone of Yehohanan ben Hagkol with a still attached crucifixion nail. This man was a Jewish resident of Jerusalem. The bone and nail are fused together, and were found in an ancient bone box dated to 27 AD (on display in Jerusalem).

This seal is in the British Museum and was found in Gaza (dates from the second or third century)

Ancient Texts
In addition to the above early drawings (which, admittedly, we have few) there is textual evidence. I will not summarize the relevant data from all the textual sources. Rather, I merely direct you to three of them.

Two of the best written sources from the 1st century that explain the nature of how Rome did crucifixion are the New Testament and the works of Josephus. For more on the particulars of what Josephus wrote, see Dr. Tabor’s collection of quotes here.

The crucifixion of Jesus is the best known crucifixion in history. Perhaps second to it is the crucifixion of the gladiators who rose up to form an army. In his book, The Civil Wars, Book 1, Appian speaks of the demise of 6000 men in the first century BC:

On account of this vote Crassus tried in every way to come to an engagement with Spartacus so that Pompey might not reap the glory of the war. Spartacus himself, thinking to anticipate Pompey, invited Crassus to come to terms with him. When his proposals were rejected with scorn he resolved to risk a battle, and as his cavalry had arrived he made a dash with his whole army through the lines of the besieging force and pushed on to Brundusium with Crassus in pursuit. When Spartacus learned that Lucullus had just arrived in Brundusium from his victory over Mithridates he despaired of everything and brought his forces, which were even then very numerous, to close quarters with Crassus. The battle was long and bloody, as might have been expected with so many thousands of desperate men. Spartacus was wounded in the thigh with a spear and sank upon his knee, holding his shield in front of him and contending in this way against his assailants until he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain. The Roman loss was about 1000. The body of Spartacus was not found. A large number of his men fled from the battle-field to the mountains and Crassus followed them thither. They divided themselves in four parts, and continued to fight until they all perished except 6000, who were captured and crucified along the whole road from Capua to Rome.

These gladiators were part of the Gladiator Revolt led by Spartacus.

Summary
The crucifixion of Jesus happened within a historical context that has plenty of archaeological and textual evidence for us to ponder afresh the traditional iconic versions that have been popularized by books and television shows. There is real history that sheds light on the details of crucifixion, and so Scripture interprets Scripture, and history itself is the handmaid to interpretation. Even within the text of scripture itself, there is yet more to be discovered. Prior translations and traditions are not definitive, but we can go to the Greek and the Hebrew, and check the traditions and the translations.

In the Bible, faith is not the belief that invisible things exist, but it is the right-seeing of Christ. In the Bible, faith is not generic but specific. It is about Jesus. Faith is a right view of Christ and his Kingdom. Once activated, that right view causes a chain-reaction on the inside. It causes war. We fight against our own internal visceral feelings because we see Jesus rightly–knowing that Christ is the judge of the intents of the heart.

Alas, our appetite battles to be satisfied, and itself must be battled. Faith does not come and pretend away our appetite, but it mobilizes us so that we assail it. Flamed emotions desire to spread to the limbs and become actions. In this struggle, faith does not prevail by presenting itself as a better object of our affections, but by war. The battle is unto death. We die daily. Flamed emotions are not tamed by satisfaction, but caged by faith. Faith sees that Jesus is the great King, coming with the scepter of his power.

In this battle, there are other kinds of faith (false kinds), just as there are false versions of Jesus, “For if someone comes preaching another Jesus, whom we have not preached…or another Gospel.. you might well bear with him.” The world is awash with rival ideas of faith and Jesus and Gospel. And the false ideas are all synonymous in that a false notion of faith is also a false idea of Jesus. The world is a sea of these false faiths.

Finding faith, in this way, is like finding water in the ocean. It’s everywhere, but not ingestible. Faith without works is a dead and poisonous thing, so that where the street-notion of faith abounds, death super-abounds. Faith that does not see Jesus rightly is a faith that does not work.

– For EKU and the Louisburg Herald, November, 2012

1. administration and outreach pastor
2. assimilation pastor
3. associate minister
4. associate music and single adults pastor
5. associate pastor
6. associate pastor and music
7. associate pastor of family ministries
8. associate pastor of students and worship
9. associate pastor of youth
10. associate youth pastor
11. campus pastor of The Fellowship at ______
12. children’s ministry
13. children’s pastor
14. communications specialist
15. community impact pastor
16. connect pastor
17. counseling ministry
18. director of children’s ministry
19. director of weekday activities
20. director of worship and music arts
21. discipleship pastor
22. executive pastor
23. family ministry pastor
24. global impact pastor
25. grow pastor
26. high school pastor
27. interim family ministries and children
28. interim minister of youth
29. Kid City director
30. lay ministry
31. lead pastor
32. lead teaching pastor
33. minister of administration
34. minister of ethnic liaison
35. minister of missions
36. minister of music
37. minister of youth
38. missions pastor
39. music minister
40. operations director
41. pastor
42. pastor emeritus
43. pastoral assistant
44. preschool minister
45. senior adult pastor
46. senior adults pastor / pastoral care
47. senior pastor
48. singles pastor
49. worship leader
50. worship pastor
51. youth minister
52. youth pastor
53. youth pastor (high school)
54. youth pastor (middle school)

Addendum
My friend, Mark, looked over this list and came up with some categories. He observed this:

31 types of pastors
13 position types dedicated to youth
7 kinds of office that have to do with some area of focus
6 types of office dedicated to external outreach
5 types of office dedicated to music
5 types of senior rank
2 kinds of temporary positions
1 kind of honorific-retired office
1 way to describe a position that is dual, which is lay

Grace vs. Works
Today the error was about the relationship between unfair and fair (about divine grace vs human merit). The skeptic before the Chicago pastor said he couldn’t believe in a god who would save a notorious and evil villain (apparently, pastors routinely run into folk who despise God’s grace on the basis that it would be unfair to save a hardened criminal).

With the skeptic’s complaint firmly set, the minister applied his craft to defeat the objection and show that God’s graciousness does what man’s works can’t do. Thanks to the visiting skeptic, the pastor got to preach on grace and explain afresh how a man’s works don’t save him. Everyone listening was able to put grace and works into proper order, and the pastor, once again, saved God from the charge of being unreasonably nice.

Pastors keep saying the same thing about Grace and Works
But I suggest that sinners and skeptics are not really as confused about works and grace as ministers suppose. The solution the pastor gave was a sermon on the definitions of grace and works. But let’s go back and revisit the skeptic’s original objection. Imagine a really vile criminal getting redeemed by God. You see, the skeptic wants the notorious criminal condemned. He doesn’t want salvation for the wicked, he wants justice. If he were judge, he wouldn’t pardon the rascal. We must then ask: Why wouldn’t the skeptic let the wicked criminal go?

Why won’t the skeptic let the notorious and hardened criminal go?
He wouldn’t let the criminal go because he is not satisfied to free the man. And if he won’t let the criminal go, then why should he think God would free him? But that leads to a more basic question: Why is the skeptic not satisfied to let the vile and notorious criminal go free? And letting him go is one thing, but let him go to enjoy reward? If he does not even want him free, why would he want to see him glorified and exalted in redemption?

Understand the questions, and you’ll find there is more to the skeptic than confusion about grace vs. works. You see, the skeptical sinner himself cannot be appeased, nor can any real or imagined god or judge that he has constructed. The wicked must pay. Projecting that heavenward, the skeptic concludes the same about God. Just as the wrath of the skeptic can’t be satisfied, neither can God’s wrath be satisfied. His problem is his belief that God himself can’t be satisfied.

Likewise, he doesn’t know who the real victim in the crime is. A rapist or a murder has sinned against God and God alone. This is David’s testimony in Psalm 51. But how is it that David could see his criminality as against God and God alone? The skeptic sees a hardened criminal, and mostly sees crimes against humanity — he can’t see crimes against Christ. Criminality, for the skeptic, remains man-ward. He can’t process what motivates the Trinity, nor what truly happened in the Garden of Eden, nor what moved God to get up and come down from heaven cloaked in flesh. God’s glory is hidden from the skeptic, and he sees no crimes against Christ. The very meaning of God and humanity is lost on him.

Skeptic and Ministers are not Always Theologically Different
When pastors try to engage the skeptic as someone who is merely unfamiliar with the relationship between grace and works, they miss all this. Maybe it is because they have their own devilish assumptions. Why should we assume that ministers are somehow less devilish than the skeptics?

Maybe the Clergy Class in my culture (the American Midwest) assumes that God need not be satisfied? In fact, I’d say that’s close to the truth of the matter. It seems to me that the American Midwest Clergy-Class articulates the distance between God and man as the difference between God being kind and us holding grudges. And these same clergy are the soft, clam, kind and gentle people who have come to tell us that the divine person is very nice like them (after all, they represent him).

But here the minister has gone sideways in his answer. He is not helping the skeptic; he is fueling idolatry by skipping over Jesus in order to speak about grace vs. works. Please, don’t be fooled. Of course the cleric will bring Jesus into his idolatry. He will make Jesus the servant of Grace. But talking about Jesus in order to get to the subject of Grace (where Grace is the real package, and Jesus delivers it) does not make the idolator any less idolatrous.

Jesus: A Better Way
What the wicked skeptic does not know is that Jesus is satisfying to God. Skeptics are not confused about grace and works, but about Jesus. Jesus is not pleasing to them, and they can’t see how Christ is pleasing to God. They know that the wicked ought to be condemned. And, with all things being equal, God himself would indeed hold a grudge (and so doing would not undo his goodness and divinity). God can justly eternally damn the wicked criminal and never change his attitude of eternal wrath and anger. The skeptic senses this, but he is blind to Jesus. He may be arguing from a sense of justice, but the pleasures of God allude him. He knows that Grace, by itself, does not erase justice, but he does not know about Christ.

And we learn in Christ that Grace is not what saves the wicked. Jesus satisfied the wrath of God. Grace does not satisfy his wrath, Jesus does. Grace won’t save the damned, Jesus saves the damned. The sinner does not need another fresh dose of kindness, the sinner needs Jesus. God is a God of justice and wrath, and God must be appeased. And God is not appeased by his kindness, He is appeased by Jesus.

The skeptic’s problem is idolatry. He himself can’t be appeased, so the god of his imagination is like him. His complaint to the pastor was not a complaint, it was an attack on why Jesus is not a source of satisfaction.

God is a God of Wrath, Satisfied by Christ
What is so satisfying about Jesus? What is it about Jesus that pleases the Father? This becomes the problem for the skeptic. This is the core issue that the Chicago pastor missed completely. This is the real topic. The pastor changed the subject. He skipped Jesus. And instead of explaining the excellencies of Christ, the minister pitted his Grace-Deity against the skeptics Unsatisfied-Deity. It was the battle of rival gods. Two idolators fought.

Their battle was a battle between rival claimants and usurpers conspiring to change the subject away from Jesus.

In Christ we learn that God’s wrath can be satisfied. We find out that God can retain his wrath. Jesus will judge the wicked and their torment shall be an aroma to him. In Jesus we learn what the skeptic needs to hear: God is both able to be appeased, and able to withhold grace. God raised the great judge, Jesus, from the dead. God’s wrath has been satisfied, but not for everyone. The Man who went into the tomb was brought out. Jesus was raised from the dead because the angry God was satisfied. Jesus is pleasing to the Father. Jesus is good. He is satisfying. Jesus is not satisfying to the Cleric and the Skeptic, but he is satisfying to God. The Lamb who was Slain is risen, and he will judge.

The problem for the skeptic is that Jesus is not pleasing to him. And working backwards, he assumes that Jesus therefore can’t be pleasing to God. From the skeptic’s perspective, God can’t forgive a hardened criminal, because Jesus can’t satisfy the wrath of God. Just as Jesus does not satisfy the wrath of some skeptic arguing with a cleric, the sinner concludes that Jesus did not satisfy the wrath of God. The sinner thinks of Jesus as nothing. Why (he wonders) would God be satisfied with him?

Jesus is not Satisfying to Them
The wicked cleric and his skeptical opponent are not satisfied with Jesus. For the one, no appeasement need be found and for the other, none can be. For one, no propitiation is required and for the other, none is available. For the Skeptic, only wrath remains. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus did not appease the wrath of Caiaphas, and it does not appease the modern Skeptic-Sinner. The sinner concludes that God ought to punish the harden criminal, with no avenue of escape. And, indeed, if God was not satisfied with Christ, then the conclusion would be the only known outcome. But worse, if God was not satisfied with Christ, then God would not be God, but the Devil.

When a wicked human can’t understand the work of God on the Cross, it is not because he is confused over the relationship between works and grace, it is because he hates Jesus and thinks God should hate Jesus too. The only god the wicked cleric and the wicked skeptic will acknowledge is the god that hates Jesus. Their god is the Devil.

Many Clergy are just Skeptics in Clerical Garb
Alas, the Devil-Clergy-Class wants to make the skeptic sound like a reasonable person simply confused over the relationship between works and grace. They do this because they themselves are not interested in Jesus. They want the subject to be something else. They are trying to change the subject away from Christ. It is their objective. They want to give a different answer because they hate Jesus. They are interested in the Clergy-Class-Deity they have invented, and they have named it Grace (a biblical sounding god, for sure).

They have a god who need not be appeased or feared, and so they make a divine personage in their own image. They have an idol that is a giant version of themselves (a lowly lover of people and a friendly soul with a weeping heart wearing clerical robes, hungry to extend grace to everyone, and always surprised when someone won’t have it). And this god of the Clergy-Class turns out to be a devil that is intensely zealous for a Lamb who is squeamish about Wrath and a Messiah who is reluctant to find anyone who really and deeply merits it. They may allow that there is wrath in their god, but it is lamentable and has nothing to do with his real heart and true character, so that even the deity wishes he did not posses any anger.

The sinner’s problem is not confusion over works and grace, but it is hatred of Jesus. And the Clergy-Class is just as hateful and wants to change the subject from being about a right understanding of Jesus (and how it is that God can be satisfied with him), to being about Grace. They name their churches after their deity. They preach their deity. They sing to their deity.

Objections to what I have been writing may be that 1. my argument is anti-Reformational, and 2. that I leave no place for Grace, and 3. my observations are contrary to those places in the bible where grace is spoken of highly. I will deal with these objections below (not by number, but with all three in mind).

Grace is the right Word
First of all, Grace is a word that rightly describes the attitude of God as he loves enemies and is kind and patient with them. It is a good word. Paul writes, “in grace you are saved” (Ephesians 2:5,8). He did not say “Grace saved you.” He is describing the attitude of God (his kindness) that accounts for someone’s participation in the enjoyment of Christ. Grace is not the meritorious cause of our enjoyment of Christ, but Grace is necessary. Christ, by his works, is the cause of our enjoyment of Christ, which he brings us into through his Spirit according to the electing grace of the Father (see John 6:37,39,44).

Grace is the necessary attitude that God must have toward us without which we would not enjoy Christ. The cause of our enjoyment is Christ, and the necessary attitude of God is Grace (electing Grace, as evidenced in Acts 13:48) — where the two are simultaneously distinct and inseparable (and, certainly, the two are not to be pitted).

The Son’s Necessary and Causative Cross and the Father’s Necessary Election
The meritorious works of Christ are the grounds and the cause of forgiveness. He died for sinners. This is not to say that election is not necessary. God must elect (choose, by Grace) whom he will forgive. The point here is to see that many things are necessary for our redemption (including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit). In all of this, the Incarnation of God in Flesh is the grounding and the cause that makes the indwelling a reality (see John 14:1-4,23 where Jesus speaks of going to the Cross to create the temple-abode of God inhabitable by His Spirit). The Cross of Christ is the Cause, but it does not negate the necessity of election (without which, none shall abide with the Father, Matthew 22:14).

Grace in the New Testament
Sometimes it is instructive just to see the frequency of a word. Even the absence of the word “Grace” (in its Greek form) from some of the Gospels is noteworthy.

At this point, I would direct you to another article I wrote where I explain how God is enjoyed by elect angels and Christ not on the basis of receiving grace (for they have not sinned), but on the basis of who God is.

Jesus is God. He is as complex as God himself, and you see in him that Grace is not all that we have to say about God (which may explain why Matthew and Mark don’t have the word even once — though they certainly have the idea). We can speak of him as Gracious, but even that has a context and, yet more, it is only part of what is to be said.

Grace does not Operate Alone
The Grace of God must be operating for us to be brought into the enjoyment of Christ. But Grace, by itself, is not the Savior.

The Redeemer is the Redeemer. The King is the King. We are saved by King Jesus. Jesus is the cause of bringing us into the enjoyment of who he is (he did it!), and sinners come to enjoy him only as God elects. Jesus himself is the Cause (the Savior) and God’s Electing Grace is necessary. If someone uses Ephesians 2:5-8 to give to Grace that which belongs to Christ, then the two realities are more than divorced–they are forced to compete, causing some to wonder: Who shall we call King? Is it King Jesus or King Grace? Shall I sing, “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me?” or shall I sing, “Amazing Christ, how sweet the King who saved a wretch like me?”

Jesus, The King of Wrath, is also the King of Grace
A misreading of Ephesians 2 (and other texts like it) creates a false choice between Christ as Savior or Grace as Savior. But there is no choice. Jesus is Savior. He is also Judge.

Christ is the God of Wrath (see Revelation 6). Grace is embodied in him, and so is Vengeance. The one who is redemptive is also avenging. Grace is a part of a whole and not the whole itself (not that God has parts). Jesus is multifaceted and is thus Redeemer according to all that he is. He is not the Messiah only according to grace, but also as Judge (and much more). And being Judge is part of what constitutes him as the Christ. He is the savior in more ways than one. He saves sinners as he saves God’s name from ruin. He champions the salvaging of God’s glory in Humanity by being the King of Justice.

That Jesus is King spells out the damnation of the wicked under his trampling feet (see Revelation 14). Jesus died to secure his place as Vindicating-Judge (see Acts 17).

To speak of Jesus chiefly in terms of Grace would be to select that one attribute as chief. It would be to select an attribute that is most amiable to the one selecting. And this is what idolators do. They create a divine personage out of the favored attributes of God (if we can say that God has attributes). The maneuver seems beyond scrutiny, especially when Grace becomes the deity. The idolator easily presses Ephesians 2:5-8 into his service, and Jesus gets dethroned, and it seems anti-Protestant to raise an alarm. But we see in idolatry that any truth about God can be exalted to the seat of Christ and placed above Christ. The Alarm must be sounded.

This is Protestant Theology
This is not a Roman Catholic Alarm raised by someone wishing to find asylum in the treasury of self-justifying merit. This is not a call back to Trent or to Pelagian beliefs about the meritorious works of the saints. Far from it. This is an Alarm to not give away the meritorious works of Christ to a deity called Grace (all in the name of avoiding the errors of the Pope). By fleeing from the non-meritorious works of the saints (which Rome championed as meritorious), some have unwittingly kept running, and never stopped, and ran away from the works of Christ. The Alarm I am raising is thoroughly Protestant. Maybe more so!

“in grace you are saved”
This translation is from the Greek. Note that the word “by” is not in the sentence. The reason is that “grace” is in the dative case (by can be supplied, but so can in). Either way, Paul is not here trying to make Grace the savior. He is not trying to make grace an all-encompassing word that gets used in the place of Jesus. He does not use the word Grace so as to confuse the incarnation, person, work, and necessity of Jesus himself with the Love and kindness of God. He is not saying that Grace is our Savior.

God Employs Many Different Words to Summarily Describe Himself
God is gracious. God is love. However, God’s attitude, posture and position of Love (by itself) did not achieve forgiveness. Rather, Jesus came to do what love desired: “God loved the world like this: He gave his unique Son that the believing may not perish but would have life of the ages” (this is John 3:16, following the Greek).

Jesus had to die to secure forgiveness. Love, by itself, could not secure what had to be secured by blood. This does not contradict the fact that God is love. When the Bible says that God is love, it does not mean that love has independent existence (securing things on God’s behalf). God’s love is not separate from God or other than him. So when we speak of his Love and his Grace, we are talking about God himself. And it was a divine necessity for God to secure forgiveness on the basis of his own blood (Acts 20:28).

Distinction not Separation in John 3:16
John 3:16 does not pit Love against Jesus, but it properly relates the love of God and the incarnation. Likewise, Ephesians 2:5 does not pit Grace against Jesus. In the case of John 3:16, if we mistakenly erase the distinction between the Son and the Love, we will end up believing that God’s salvation could be secured on the raw power of his Love — we would imagine that Love could secure by fiat what Jesus had to secure by his flesh. The cross would devolve into a mere inspiring emblem of that fiat Love (the Incarnation would be emptied of any effectual or causal power).

Conservatives are completely aware of the error that comes from thus confusing the Love of God with the Incarnation. Oddly, they seem unaware (at times) that the same error attends that tendency which gives to Grace what belongs to Christ. They use Ephesians 2:5 to do what they would recoil to do with John 3:16.

Love, Grace and Mercy
Love and Grace described God’s attitude and posture and character. He is the Father of Mercies and the God of Love. And when we say this, we are not trying to get the attention off of God and onto Love or Mercy. We are talking about God himself. In the same way, if we said, “Mercy came down”, we would do so only as a way to further our speaking about Jesus.

In this way we can (indeed!) use the words “Love”, “Grace” and “Mercy” to summarize Jesus himself. God himself is praised when we say we praise his grace (Ephesians 1:6) — again, not because Grace has independent autonomous existence, but serves as a way of referring to the Incarnation and the victory of God in Christ. More particularly, by speaking of the one who is Grace embodied. Jesus is the embodied character, attitude and acts of God. Such use of language adorns our discourse. In a sermon length discourse about Christ, we would explain Christ, and then use this language to augment our explanation (and we would be following the pattern of scripture). However, we would not preach a sermon on “Grace” and assume that everyone knows what we really mean Jesus. Jesus does not adorn our discussion of Grace, Grace adorns our discussion of Jesus.

The Chicago minster was able to preach a sermon on Grace, and barely relate the word to Jesus. Jesus was hardly mentioned, and it does no good to assume that he meant Christ even though he preached Grace. For he erred. We preach Christ. We don’t preach something else assuming that people know what we really mean. Ephesians 2:5-10 is not a mandate to preach Grace as a surrogate way of preaching Christ. We need not give ministers the benefit of the doubt when they fail to preach Christ. We need not pretend that false-ministers really meant to preach Christ when they preached Grace. Rather, we know that Grace is the deity they preach. They preach exactly what they want to preach. Pretending that preaching (no matter its actual content) is the preaching of Christ, is the preaching of Satan. The Chicago minister preached Grace because Grace has taken the seat of Christ for him and his congregation.

Love Has Been Conscripted by Liberals to the Same Erroneous Effect
Liberalism loves to preach on Love. But there is no Divine-Person behind the content. Their idea of love does not indicate a Lamb who has Wrath. They have a different Jesus. So a sermon on Love in a Liberal church is nothing more than a way to worship the idol they name Love. And in conservative churches, the same can be done with Grace.

If Protestant conservatives believe they are above the fray, it is a belief that allows them to do what Liberals do without scrutiny. But as I scrutinize the conservative Protestant sermons, Grace is their Love.

We Can Use Summary Words
Having said all this, there is a proper use of the word Grace that comes within the context of the clear exposition of Jesus. It can even be the word that summarizes God such that “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9), “the Spirit of God” (Rom 8:9) and “the Spirit of Grace” (Heb 10:29) are one and the same “Holy Spirit of God” (Eph 4:30). This does not make us wonder if there are many Spirits, but we know that words within a larger context, can be used dynamically without confusion. The author of Hebrews is not saying that the Spirit of Grace is someone other than the Spirit of Christ. The book of Hebrews is about Christ. Jesus is his message. And the word Grace finds its right use in Heb 10:29 so that it a shorthand for Christ himself, without causing us to wonder if we ought to speak of Grace instead of Christ.

Likewise, we can also use the word “Cross” to summarize his whole life and work (1 Cor 1:18). If someone said, “We are saved by the Cross” they probably mean we are saved by the man, Jesus, who died on the Cross. We can use the word “Cross” as shorthand. We can use words like Grace and Mercy in similar ways.

But the point of this article has been to address the issue where Grace has taken over as the topic, and Jesus has become the subordinating and supporting actor in a story about Grace. Protestantism has tended to encourage the take over. The order of language has become reversed. Grace, which was once a word to clarify a debate during the Reformation, has become the One Subject that has taken the seat of Christ. And here I have tried to show that when this happens, a minister becomes Christless precisely as he preaches about Grace (just as a Liberal can be godless while talking about Love). I have not tried to jettison the words Love and Grace from theology, but I have observed how these particular words can be co-opted for idolatrous purposes.

God’s love for God is rooted in who God is.

Grace is not the operating principle whereby God loves God. We observe this in Jesus: Jesus himself was not a recipient of grace, yet he loved God.  Sinless cherubim share in this love, and they, likewise had no need of grace–for they never sinned.  Jesus and the elect angels love God for who God is. Their love is rooted in the being of God, and not in the personal experience of grace. Redeemed humans are saved unto this. Christians love God because of who he is, and God, the Father of Mercies, graciously initiates this as he is the one to love those who cannot love first.

God loved his enemies while they were yet enemies. His love was not based upon their attractive qualities, or them loving him first; his love was based on God being the kind of God who loves enemies. God loves sinners because of who God is and not because of who sinners are. That is, God is not drawn to sinners on the basis of them being attractive. Indeed, and quite the opposite, they conduct a war against the God who loves. God places his love upon such enemies. This is not just Trinitarian Love (as if it is one kind of love among many), this is the only kind of love there is.  All love is rooted in the love of God. Love loves God for who God is. That is, humans don’t have one kind of love for which the Trinity has another kind. Rather, there is only one kind.

The Word Love is a Battleground Word

Human love, in this way, is only love if it is operating in reference to who God is. And who God is, is revealed in Christ. Anything else, no matter its name, is not love. Outside of loving Christ, there is no love nor any capacity for it. It is a concession of language that the word love is used to name the feelings that the ungodly experience. It is an ironic concession, for what they call love is of a different kind (if there were kinds), and finally fails to be love. The same concession is allowed to describe what Satan thinks of himself. We could use the word love to describe how the ungodly relate to sin (they love it) and what they feel about themselves. This concession, then, testifies to the crime they commit. For they take that which belongs to God and apply it criminally outside of Christ.

Outside of Christ, all Feelings of Love Find Their Antecedent in Hatred for God

Outside of Christ, all feelings of love are attached to hate for God. Pretended love for neighbor, no matter its emotional backing, cannot rise to the level of love if love for Christ is absent.  Where love for Christ is missing, love for neighbor is nothing more than an attack on God.  In this way, love for neighbor becomes damnable. The criminal application of love (attempted love that is independent of Christ) will become part of the war tribunal, and will testify against those who would not love Christ.

Outside of Christ, that which evokes the feelings we name love, has more to do with the feelings evoked, and is itself finally and ultimately loveless. There is no love outside of Christ (which is why God must first love us if there is to be love). To make the point clear, I can think of nothing more pointed than this: The feeling that a non-Christian woman has for her child is not rooted in love, but pure hatred for God. 

How can this be?

If we do not love Christ, we cannot love our neighbor or our brother or our parents or our children.  Any feelings we have will be the same feeling shared by cruel criminals and vial thieves. We will be like the holocaust guard who worked the camp by day, and then went home to kiss his wife and children at night.  Any human who is empty of actual conscious love for Christ, has, as it were, put God in a mental holocaust camp. Jesus is not deemed worthy of their love, yet they will give their feelings to a child and a spouse and tell themselves they are loving.  This is beastly.  And we are beastly by nature. We are born corrupted and hateful of God.  Despite this, the chemicals released in our brains will convince us that we have a thing called love, and these will be the same chemical reactions shared by addicts, rouges and rebels. Crimes against God are thus covered up by naming our feelings for friends, families and babies as loving.

Whatever we name these feelings, love, outside of Christ, is only hatred—and the purest form of it, veiled, as it is, by a thing we call love.  Placing our affections upon a child, and withholding the same from Christ, will testify against us on the day of our condemnation.  And here is where hatred pulls off its greatest heist. For what can be more pure than the love that a woman has for her newborn babe? And yet, in this, we see how rebels, rouges and hardened criminals seek asylum outside of Christ by hiding behind the shield of infants. Their feelings seek validity in the supposed symbol of innocence:  The human baby.  In this, the loving mother is sharing in the destiny of demons.  She is playing the part of the holocaust guard.  Only worse, for her crime is against Christ, the innocent and slain Lamb of God. 

We Must Be Shielded by a Human: The Man Jesus.

There was only one innocent baby, and we tried to kill him while he was young. This same baby grew up, and showed us what it means to love.  He loved the Father. He came for this. In the midst of a world seeking to kill God in the flesh, the same God loved God for who God is.  If we do not share in that love, then we partake with demons.  Even a godless mother who conceals her crime by loving a child is only nursing her hatred. She was born guilty. Her feelings for her baby do not betray her, rather, she betrays Christ. No matter how raptured she feels as her babe lay upon her breasts, or how pure her feelings as she takes in the the scent of her freshly bathed infant,  outside of love for Christ, she is demonic in her hatred of God.  And what is most needful for the child she claims to love, is that that the child be hidden in Christ and find asylum in the Cross. But she will not love the child to take it to the place of asylum, for she herself has found no refuge in Christ.

We cannot say that we love our brother if we do not love Christ. If we do, we lie, and the truth is not in us.

We are estranged from him. Not only are we at enmity with God, but God is at enmity with us. God is the natural enemy of corrupt sinners….On the cross by his work of propitiation Jesus reconciled the Father to the Father’s people….God was reconciled toward us while we were still estranged from him. The Righteous Shall Live by Faith., 164.

He is correct that man and God are at enmity in both directions (starting in the Garden and Adam’s attack on God). However, this warfare is not alike in both directions, though it is a common warfare. To the point: The death of Jesus did not reconcile the Father to us, but reconciled us to him.

The distinction is worth some effort to get straight. God, being the offended party (and rightly so), was the one who had to have his anger towards us satisfied. Of course, we were offended by God, but our dissatisfaction with him was not from being right, but from being sinners. In this mutually felt enmity, we were not the ones who needed to be appeased (as if we were right that God was the wrong kind of god), but it was God who had the just claim of being transgressed. He was the innocent party, and we the guilty.

That means that we do not need to be brought into right relationship with him as if the two parties have equal claims, and both must lay down their arms– “let’s meet in the middle and call it a truce.” We are, indeed, brought to peace, but not by him being reconciled to us, but by us being converted. In the peace process, there is a different thing that happens to us than what happens to him.

R. C. Sproul goes on to get it right: “On the day that God became satisfied and was no longer in opposition to his people, we did not automatically change.” He is hitting on one side of the equation squarely. He uses the language of change. And we see that on the day Christ died, God changed. God did not change in his character (i.e., he did not decide to become a different kind of God), but was changed in his posture towards us whom he loved. He loved us (his enemies) before he died for us, but he was not satisfied to bring us into his kingdom. We were yet alienated. The Cross of reconciliation brought about the change of reconciliation, and this is a descriptor of what happened to God. The Cross did its work on God. It is Godward in its effect.

That’s one direction. There is another. The work of Christ was both Godward and sinner-ward (just not in the exact same way for each).

We were reconciled to God by his death and God was the actor and object/recipient of this work. He reconciled us to himself. That’s the God-side of the equation. On the sinner side, we get resurrected from our warring hatred and our sin-death condition. We get re-made to see, love and enjoy his goodness. We are changed too. But our change is a different kind of change. He does not change in his Godness, but we become a different kind of human. God, when he changes, does not become a different kind of God, but the effect of the Cross causes him to become actionably favorable towards us (that’s the change). On our side of the equation, we become new creation, and we change in many ways, which is summarized by us moving from death to life. His is moving from dissatisfied to satisfied. He is to be reconciled, ours is to be made new.

“We were reconciled [to God] by his death, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” — Romans 5:10.

Here, in Romans 5:10, we see both sides. The difference of each may be accentuated by saying what the verse does not say alongside what it does say. Notice then, God was not saved. We were saved. Likewise, God was not reconciled to us, but God us to himself. And here Paul says it all in one verse. We were reconciled to God (he was the offended party), and so God changed in that way (and not some other), and then we become changed as well. Namely, Jesus came back from the dead and brings other humans with him. The righteous God-Man was slain, and the self-same dead human came alive again. The work of Christ is working both ways. He is reconciling us to God in his death, and bringing us into life by his life. We get resurrected with him.

Another way to say it all, is to deny the absurd. Namely, the wrath of sinners was not satisfied in the cross. We don’t have any righteous wrath that needs to be satisfied by justice. It would be absurd to think otherwise! It is God who is righteous; he is the one who must be reconciled and appeased and made satisfied. For us sinners, we are the ones who must be made new.

A little story may wrap it up nicely. There was an older brother who would fight his younger brother, and come against him; the younger was defenseless. He wished for his parents to stop the fights. Instead, they insisted that the two get along. The adults acted as if the violence was two-way. And in that, they treated the whole warfare as one event and all parties the same. In reality, one of them was defenseless, innocent and genuinely assaulted. It is an injustice when parents do not try to sift-out the facts of a fight–wishing to end the fight, they punish all parties equally. Ending a fight is not an act of justice (all by itself). Figuring out who the offending party is, and dealing out justice, that is the way of satisfaction.

We can’t look upon God and man as two quarreling parties with Jesus coming along and telling them to stop their bickering. That’s not the kind of enmity between God and man. It is the kind of enmity that is the aggression of a sinner against the one who is innocent, loving, kind, good and righteous. It is an unprovoked attack. And in that violent attack, God is assailed because his creatures have pure contempt for good and violent love of evil. Their throats are an open grave.

One thing have I asked of Yahweh,
that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of Yahweh
all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of Yahweh
and to inquire in his temple. (Psalm 27:4)

There is something wonderful about Jesus that is worth our attention, but to say what it is, I have to make some fine distinctions. And, to get to those distinctions, I start with this question:

Do we grow to love God for who he is (Ps 27:4), or are we fixated on what we have gained by Him (forgiveness, because of our sin)?

I know, it looks like a false either-or choice, but insofar as it points to a valid distinction (which I hope to show below), we will have found words that will help us say something truly magnificent about Christ and his love for God.

Proto-Things: Angels Love God
Consider the angels who have not sinned (in contrast to those who have, 2 Peter 2:4). Sinless angels do not need forgiveness, yet they still enjoy and worship God. They desire God and they need him still, though not according to grace.

You can compare this to how we are different. We contemplate God from the vantage point of being redeemed:

It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:12)

But, notice that they, like us, still need God. If they ever denied their dependence upon God, they would then join the ranks of sinful angels. They depend on God. They need him and want him as well.

Sinless angels are a clue for contemplating God from the vantage point of God, for God is also sinless. But before we get there, we must establish something about ourselves.

First-Things: Our Sinfulness and God’s Graciousness
Our sinfulness is First-Things relative to how we begin our thinking. Namely, we start out as sinners (Ps 51:5; Rom 5:19). We need God to be gracious to us because of who we are (and God is gracious to rebel creatures because of who he is).

Our condition is not mostly bad, it is all bad:

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost (1 Tim 1:15).

We don’t need some grace, we need all grace:

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. (2 Co 9:8)

And as we grow in grace (2 Peter 3:18), we want all grace as we want all of God–we would not have Christ in part, but in whole.

Even in wanting God to look upon us graciously, we are not (in our wanting) free from the stain of sin. We need God to forgive us even for our impure wanting. Our best works cannot survive the inspection of God, and even our righteous wanting is left wanting:

We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
(Isaiah 64:6)

We sin in our wanting God and we sin in being satisfied in him. Christian or otherwise, we bring sin into all of our activities:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do, (Gal 5:16-17)

We bring sin to our best acts of worship, our greatest longings for Christ, our volitional cross bearing, and even to the sincere love we have for our enemies.

All of our works are wrecked and ruined in our flesh, so that we agree with the servant who yet serves and realizes, “We are unprofitable servants…”

So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy [lit. worthless, from the Greek, ἀχρεῖος; used here and in Matt 25:30] servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ” (Luke 17:10)

Indeed, even our righteous acts are filthy rags. In wanting God, we stain our wanting. In resting in him, we bring sin into our rest. We have no pure works, for the infection of sin is ours by birth, and is always present with us:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)

Christians do differ, but not because we have escaped the need for God to be gracious towards us:

For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Co 4:7)

We need God to be gracious to us–and not just a little, but thoroughly:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. (Rev 20:12)

In Christ, we feel this to be true, and so we seek to grow in grace:

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:18)

We grow in grace because we never recover from our need for it. We do not grow independent of God’s grace and forgiveness. We sin. And in the quiet and in the dark, when we are alone, we lay in bed with our thoughts, and we know that our hearts are wicked, and we wish to be clean:

Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” (John 13:8-9)

We fear God, for we know who we are and who he is. We have lived in no other state except the state of sin. Forgiven sinners, yes, but yet we sin. We were born into it. So it colors how we even think of God.

Greater-Things: Can we think about God outside of thinking about our Sin?
Those First-Things may prepare us to ask about Greater-Things. That is: How does God, who has no need of grace, enjoy God? For God, sin is not the starting point for his self-contemplation. He is holy and righteous. What does it mean to love God without being a recipient of his Grace?

The question occurs to me because of Jesus himself. Here we have someone who has loved God for who God is — and not because he was a broken man on a quest to find an escape from judgement. God was not utilitarian to Christ.

Please don’t misread me. I am not saying we should diminish our gratitude for the benefits we have received! Not at all. In fact, God has granted himself to us in redemption. All along, when we are talking about receiving grace, we really have been talking about receiving God himself. Salvation means that we have gained God, and we praise him for it.

Rather, what I am observing is that prior to anything being broken or fixed, the elect angels and God himself loved God. What are we to make of this kind of love?

Or, as I asked above: Do we grow to love God for who he is (Ps 27:4), or does our sin make us fixate on what we have gained? Consider the angels who have not sinned, they yet enjoy God. They desire God and need him still.

The question is not purely speculative, because elect Angels do exist:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. (1 Ti 5:21)

This important piece of data allows us to turn away from ourselves and ponder what it means to enjoy God free from sin. Better, it leads to the logical contemplation of Christ, who did not sin, and it brings us right to the idea of God’s relationship to God.

What is God’s Perspective of God? How does God love God independent of receiving grace?
The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy God forever:

For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
10 Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (Isaiah 48:9-11)

The desire of God for God issues forth from him being who he is (from his aseity, as it were). And though we do not share in his aseity, we can yet desire him because he is desirable:

As a deer pants for flowing streams,
so pants my soul for you, O God.
2 My soul thirsts for God,
for the living God.
When shall I come and appear before God? (Ps 42:1-2)

His aseity is incommunicable, but that God loves God for who God is, is communicable. That kind of love is communicated to us in redemption.

God loves God. This is Trinitarian Love and it becomes the standard for measuring all human love for God.
By the Spirit and in Christ, we share in being like the Father when our love and desire for God is rooted in who God is. Christian love is a love that is not rooted in being mended; rather, in being mended, we share in the love that God has for God. We are sinners according to First-Things, but according to Greater-Things, sin is not the controlling referent for what it means to love God–which we learn when we behold the love that Christ has for the Father:

but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here. (John 14:31)

And we learn also what Love the Father has for the Son:

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. (John 3:35)

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. (John 5:20)

But note well, we would need him even if we were a being who had no need of grace (again, observe the sinless angels). And herein we see the obvious: Jesus is not a mere solution, but is himself the prize to which no greater reward can be known.

God loves God, but not because God is the solution to a God-sized problem. God is God, and that alone is sufficient for Christ and the Trinitarian love between Father and Son which is communicated and shared by the Spirit:

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:6, see also Col 1:8)

Our redemption is redemption from his wrath (which rests upon those who see him as the utilitarian means for escaping wrath), but is unto the enjoyment of God. He will not be loved for his utility alone. He is loved because he is the one who draws and sustains our attention in all of his excellencies.

God is God in Who He Is. This, and not being forgiven, explains the Divine love in the Trinity.
God is variegated goodness, greatness and grandeur

For Yahweh is a great God,
and a great King above all gods.
4 In his hand are the depths of the earth;
the heights of the mountains are his also.
5 The sea is his, for he made it,
and his hands formed the dry land.
6 Oh come, let us worship and bow down;
let us kneel before Yahweh, our Maker! (Ps 95:3–6)

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” (Re 4:11)

and his self-given name for all this is Jesus. Our thinking must then be saved so that we can enjoy Christ on the same basis that God enjoys Christ–not on the basis of grace received, but on the basis of the divine being — his divine essence:

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Heb 1:3)

The basis of God’s love for God is not that Jesus forgave God of his sins, but because God is excellent in his person. In the same way, we don’t want God because we need his grace, we need his grace to want him.

We want God because he is God; and God wants God not because God needs grace, but because God is excellent and highest and infinitely compelling for all praise and enjoyment. He is worthy. And Worthiness came as the incarnated Lamb:

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev 5:8-12)

Worth came. Embodied. And it came for the cause of championing God in the world.

God is God in How He Is. God is a whole, and is to be loved in whole, not in part.
God’s acts — which are of great value (and which evoke praise as they reveal to us his worthy character) — are the self-same embodiment of who he is. He is great, so he does great acts:

For you are great and do wondrous things;
you alone are God. (Ps 86:10)

Though we can distinguish between his character (being great) and his acts (doing wondrous things), we cannot separate them. God is gracious, but the incarnation of his graciousness puts flesh to it. We would not know him to be gracious if he did not actually practice it in the flesh. That is, God is not know in the abstract, but in Christ. Even his graciousness prior to Christ was unto the revelation of Christ. God did not destroy the world when Adam brought sin into it, but grace became operative so that he come and incarnate in a world of sin — his acts of grace prior to Christ were not graciousness for the sake of grace, but for the sake of being Christological:

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” (Acts 17:2-3)

For more on this, see also Rom 3:25, Acts 17:30 and my earlier articles: Part 1: Was God constrained, prior to creation, to create the world, send his Son, and reveal himself to humans? and Part 2: The Christlike God was Lifted High for Revelation and Redemption.

God is good for who God is, and this would be true even if we were elect angels. Jesus loves God on the basis of God being God, not on the basis of utility. God loves God because God is gracious in his character (it is what God is like), not because God receives grace. God is good for who God is, and this goodness cannot be divorced from what he has done. That is, we know his goodness because it has walked among us. We would not therefore say that God is good in the abstract, for He is also good in not wanting us to come to him in the abstract. We come to God through Christ alone. This too is good.

God Is God in all His acts, gracious or otherwise, and love for God is rooted in all of God.
God is good in all he does. Jesus could be glad that God would not permit other avenues of approach. None shall come to the Father except by the Son. The love of Christ for God includes this, and it is a love of how God is God. The revelation of God cannot be separated from who he is. That he would come in Word by coming in flesh, and then ascend into heaven, is not merely a revelation of what he is like, but is a revelation of God himself; the incarnation is not just a collected sampling of God’s attributes, it is really God come (Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”). The Word descended, and the Word was raised and ascended. And God wed himself to the proclamation of that same Word. He has come in Flesh and in Text, so that the work of the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the Word is not just “what God is like”, it is precisely the coming of God to sinners.

God is who God is, and God is also how he is God:

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 4:6)

The means he employs is also who he is, and what God has joined together, let no man separate. So that we name him as worthy in our redemption, we really naming him for who he is, and the angels enjoy him for the same reasons, though they themselves are not the objects of redemption.

Who is wise?
Let him discern these things!
Who is discerning?
Let him understand them!
For the ways of Yahweh are right;
the godly walk in them,
but in them the rebellious stumble. (Hosea 14:9)

That God is kind to us is part of who he is:

But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. (Ps 86:15)

Yahweh is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. (Ps 145:8)

The steadfast love of Yahweh never ceases;
his mercies never come to an end;
23 they are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:22-23)

It is who he is that compels us, and even if we were sinless angels and had no sins to be forgive, we would still sing his praises (Rev 4:8; Is 6:3) and admire his gracious character. Not being recipients of grace, they still admire God for being the Saving Lamb:

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”

13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Re 5:11–13)

What Shall we Say then? We don’t need Grace to Love God?
May it never be! I am not saying we don’t need his grace, I am saying that our sin (which necessitates grace and the rescue that comes by it) belongs to First-Things. It would be to give too much to sin if we only thought about how we are benefited by God, yet failed to consider God himself.

God is gracious. If he were not gracious, he wouldn’t be the God that is God. If he did not die for enemies, then God wouldn’t be the God that God himself loves.

I am not advocating that his graciousness is unnecessary to our enjoyment of him, I am saying that even if we were not the recipients of his grace (as in the case of righteous angels and Christ himself), he would still be the proper one to worship. But if he was not gracious, then he would be the devil.

There is only the God who is full of mercy and grace:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Cor 1:3-4)

And he has shown himself in Jesus and in redemption. What God has done in Christ is nothing less than be God. God is like this: He lays down his life for his friends:

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:13-15)

And he is the one who does the befriending. He lays down his life for those who would kill him, and then he draws them in and makes them friends.

This is what God is like.

Christ is God in the Flesh, and Christ the sinless one Loved God independent of receiving grace
In Christ God has put hands and feet to his goodness and love. He became flesh and dwelt among us. We know what God is like. He has come.

That we are benefactors of what he is like means that we experience the entire embodied Character of God in his kindness and graciousness. But all of his character is good, and not on the basis of our good experience of him. God is good even in the damnation of the wicked. It is good news that God has a future planned for those who remain unconverted to his enjoyment. The unmoved and uninspired look upon God as utilitarian at best, but they do not like him for who he is. They think of him as cruel, and unreasonable, unfair and someone who must be bested:

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ (Matthew 25:24-25)

It is reasonable and logical that God then deals with them according to the full magnitude of his grandeur.

God is good in all he does. God is good for loving God above all others (even God does not have anyone higher than himself unto whom he offers up his worship). When God came in flesh, the God-Man worshiped God.

God was not mere utility to Jesus. Indeed, Jesus is the sinless one:

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.(1 Peter 2:22)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:21)

It was Jesus, the sinless one, who truly enjoyed God–but not out of a utilitarian impulse. Jesus did not love God because God was fixing him; Jesus loved him of whom there are myriads upon myriads of reasons to offer up adoration and love. Jesus was not forgiven of any sins:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)

Jesus was not the recipient of grace, yet he praised God:

So they took away the stone [of Lazarus]. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41; see also Luke 10:21):

He praised God, and he commanded the same (Matt 4:10). He thus loved God because of who God is through-and-through

For God is the King of all the earth;
sing praises with a psalm! (Ps 47:7)

Being saved, we are saved unto this too. By his grace he brings us out of utilitarian thinking so that we too can enjoy Christ for who he is and not of utility.

Christ has Blazed the Trail of Loving God for Who God Is
Jesus loved God. He did not just show us the love of God (he did do that, showing us what a loving God is like), but he also showed us what it is to love God independent of utilitarianism. He embodied that God is worthy of being loved:

O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you;
my flesh faints for you,
as in a dry and weary land where there is no water. (Ps 63:1)

The law is so summed: love God with all your heart, soul and mind (Luke 10:27), and your neighbor as yourself (cf. 1 John 4:20).

As we grow in the Grace of Christ, we put on the mind and love of Christ. And therein we find that God is desired by sinless angels and by Christ himself. God loves God, and not upon the basis of him being gracious to himself. I don’t need some of Christ, I need all of him. I don’t need Christ because my condition is dire (though it is). I would need him even if I was not in need of grace.

A Divine Corollary (God did not become Loveable)
The Son of God did not become essential or necessary when he died. He always has been.

The Trinity did not become indispensable on the Cross (being indispensable is what he is by default). God did not gain value. God did not become worthy of our love and adoration. He already had that worth.

Another way to say this is that the Cross was not the place where he reconciled himself to us, but where Christ reconciled sinners to God. The problem was not that he was unlikable and had to become likable by being gracious. God did not earn our love, nor did he need to.

God always has been worthy. The Cross was not the place of God becoming worthy of love. The Cross did not add to his character, but his character was employed for the satisfying of the wrath of God. The Cross was not the path to open up a new saying for sinners, “Oh, well, now that you’ve gone to the trouble of being gracious for us, well, now we see your value…” No!

God did not become worthy just as he did not become God, he always has been. God took on flesh, and in the flesh he changed the declaration of warfare into a declaration of peace.

God did not become Good News, he always has been good news. Jesus came declaring this news of God:

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)

He did not establish the basis for which God should be loved, but he made peace with God for humanity, and he did so when the Love of God became flesh.

A Divine and Human Corollary: Reconciliation

In Part 2, I will relate all of this to how God has reconciled humans to himself. This entire discussion will help to make fine distinctions when dealing with such verses as Romans 5:10.

Summary
Christian love is a love that is not rooted in being mended; rather, in being mended, we share in the love that God has for God. Like the sinless elect angels, and like the spotless Christ, and as in all the persons of the Trinity, the love of God is not rooted in receiving grace, but in the whole character and being of God (in all his acts and in all his character).

I want to make a very fine distinction here, but one that is important: Not everything that is called preaching is preaching that fulfills Peter’s command. That is, preaching in general is not to be confused with the preaching of Christ. Indeed, there are many ways to not preach Jesus, and I want to identify some of the more common disguises for Christless sermons. Failing to preach Christ can be done under the guise of 1) preaching the Bible, 2) in the name of preaching Paul, 3) in the name of being Reformed, 4) under the protection of following the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic, or 5) under the cloak of giving life applications.

Before we get into these five ways that Christ is not preached, it will be helpful to establish a baseline. The baseline comes from Scripture where we learn that Christ is the sum and substance of all Christian preaching.

They Preached Christ
The following verses are meant to be hovered over so that you can see the pop-up translations from the English Standard Version of the Bible (I don’t know how well this works on smart phones, but the verses are foundational to the whole article).

Over and against all rival preaching, the preaching of Jesus is a chief treasure of all real churches (Acts 5:42; Acts 18:5; Rom 1:15; Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:17,23; 1 Cor 1:21-25; 1 Cor 2:2; 1 Cor 9:18; 1 Cor 15:2; 2 Cor 1:19; 2 Cor 4:5; Eph 4:20-21; Phil 1:18; Col 1:27-28; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:3; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 1:1-3; Rev 19:10), and He is the content of all real preaching to believers and unbelievers alike (John 1:6-7; John 3:30-32; Acts 4:17-20; Acts 8:35; Acts 9:20; Acts 10:36; Acts 11:20; Acts 17:2-3; Acts 17:5-7; Acts 17:18; Acts 23:11; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31; Rom 15:20; Phil 1:12-15; Col 4:3). Jesus is the content of Scripture (John 1:45; John 5:39; John 5:46; John 8:56; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44; Acts 10:43; Acts 18:28; Acts 26:22-23; Acts 28:23; 1 Peter 1:10-11), the very Word in flesh (John 1:1) and the Word preached (2 Tim 4:2), as he is the one of whom God himself testifies by his Spirit — indeed! the Holy Spirit Himself preaches Christ (John 15:26; John 16:14; 1 Cor 2:8-10; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:6; 1 John 4:1-3; Rev 19:10). Jesus Christ and his name bind and define his people (Matt 10:22; Matt 18:5; Matt 18:20; Matt 19:29; Matt 24:9); Jesus preached the Gospel (Mark 1:14; Luke 8:1; Luke 20:1), as he himself is the Gospel (Acts 5:42; Mark 1:1).

Jesus is the content, substance and whole of true preaching. Jesus wants a Church where he is explained faithfully, and he wants his people gathered to hear his name proclaimed (Hebrews 10:23-25). Alas, not all claims on preaching Christ are authentic (2 Cor 11:4; 2 Cor 11:12-14). There are fake versions of preaching Christ. And that leads us to some critical distinctions worth our attention.

The Distinction between Scripture and Preaching
Paul probably did not envision that his letters would become sermons. For sermons, Paul preached Jesus. Indeed, he wrote letters to churches that reflected sermon-like exposition of Christ, but he definitely preached Christ. A distinction can be made between the two. As we make that distinction, it becomes fair to question sermons which are really just historical studies. That is, preaching is not explaining Paul and his culture (2 Cor 4:5), nor is it preaching what Paul wrote to the Romans, rather it is saying what Paul said when he preached. And in writing his letter to the Romans, he made a distinction between what he was doing and writing, and what he wished to do in person. He wrote about going to Rome to preach to the church there (Rom 1:15). His letter was one thing, and his going there to preach another. Paul preached Christ.

The Distinction between Circumstances of Paul’s Letters and Preaching
Paul’s letters seem to be mostly circumstantial (by which I mean, some circumstance at Rome, or Ephesus, or Corinth, etc., caused him to write). That a church was baptizing for the dead (cf. 1 Cor 15:29) might well be peculiar to a particular church, being an incidental issue. We don’t now preach about incidental problems that are not incidental to us, but we preach Christ. We learn about Christ from these incidental letters, but the incidents don’t become the subjects of our sermons (Christ remains the subject). We preach Christ. The letters of Paul with all of Scripture tell us who Christ is, and from the Bible alone, Christ the subject becomes the subject of every true sermon. Every sermon series is one subject and one subject only: Jesus. He is the whole theme, and the entire sermon.

It takes a steeled confidence to preach Christ with focused attention on him. Preaching is not preaching about how Paul preached Christ to the Romans, it is preaching Christ. Paul preached to the Ephesians. I preach to the Louisburgians. I can derive the content of what Paul preached by reading his letters (like the one to the Ephesians), but I don’t preach the letter to the Ephesians, I preach Christ to the congregation in Louisburg (which I may do from the letter to the Ephesians).

The Distinction between Preaching and Exegesis or Exposition
Preaching is not verse by verse exposition of the letters Paul wrote; preaching is preaching Christ. What I know about Christ comes from verse by verse exposition of the letters that Paul wrote, but he did not mean for me to then preach those letters verse by verse. This sounds counter-intuitive to our seminary training, I know, so bear with me. The letters that Paul wrote tell me what should be the content of my preaching (that is, who is Christ), but I don’t preach to Paul’s situation or his churches; I preach Christ.

Preaching is not reviewing what Peter said in Acts, it is saying what Peter said. But since Peter didn’t preach to an American and English people, I have to do that. I do the same thing Peter did, but in a different situation. If Peter were here in Kansas, he would have the same content as he did in Jerusalem (Christ), but he would not be pleading with the same people. A close example may help (one that comes right out of the Bible itself). Namely, the letter to the Colossians is not the letter to the Thessalonians. The two churches got the same preaching of Christ, but they got letters according to their situation — this is reflected in the letters they received.

Preaching is not Exegesis
What I am suggesting is that preaching is not equivalent to exegesis. Exegesis is super focused on the context of a given letter or book with the goal of discovering the exact message the author intended (as much as is possible, and accounting for the fact that the author of scripture is both man and God). It’s hard work, and the necessary work done prior to preaching. Paul’s letter to the Romans is not a preaching textbook, it is a letter to the Romans, and exegesis will work on the words and context and meaning of his letter in a Greek and Latin world where Jews and Greeks were trying to understand their roles in this new thing called the church. Preaching based on the doctrines and conclusions from Romans will be different than the work of exegeting Romans (that is, a sermon is not a commentary). Indeed, we exegete Romans. And then we preach Christ! We don’t preach the book of Romans. We preach Christ.

This may sound like saying, “We don’t preach the Bible, we preach Christ,” as if I am pitting the two against each other. The two are not so pitted. But we do indeed make a distinction between the letters of the New Testament and preaching. Practically, then, Paul’s letter to the Romans may be the basis for a series on Christ, where we move through the letter section by section and each part prompts us to contemplate Christ in a fresh way, but it is not merely a study of Romans (that’s the distinction I want to make). Going through Romans is not to have a sermon series on the Letter to the Romans.

There is only one sermon series that began the day I took the office of minister, and which ends when I preach my last sermon. The sermon series is Christ; there is no other series. Jesus is not one topic among many, rather he is the sum and substance of every sermon.

The Essential Content of our Preaching comes from Scripture Alone
Exegesis can be done to any document. It is the analysis and explanation of a writing. In the case of the Bible, exegesis is not preaching. However, preaching that is rightly informed about Christ does not happen until after there is exegesis. First we examine the Bible and we learn of Christ. Then we preach him. Both are required. And in that preaching, we quote the Bible (see esp. Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:17-41). Paul preached Christ by showing the relationship of verses that span the Old Testament.

Scripture is our sole source of authority and it is without error. Our sermons are not independent of Scripture in any way–the only way we know of Christ is through the revelation of Scripture. We preach Christ, and we know him through his word, the Bible (which was written in Greek, Hebrew and some Aramaic). Our sermons are judged and controlled by scripture. And therefore, we must preach Christ — the Bible thus commands us! — as he himself is the whole content of Scripture. Scripture and the preaching of Christ are as united as are light and fire. There is a distinction between the two, but no separation.

In the Name of Biblical Preaching, Some Don’t Preach Christ
After 25 years of hearing sermons I still struggle to put words to these distinctions. What I am writing here is not easy to articulate–I stumble for words. In the religious culture I know, “preaching the Bible” is the oft-stated claim of most churches (usually it is the goal). And I notice that preachers do just that: they preach the Bible and not Christ. Yes, it is possible! And therein they miss the point of the Bible. In the name of Biblical preaching, most (yes, most!) preaching I have heard is Christless.

I know how this happens. It happens from a belief that being grammatical (paying careful attention to all the verbs, nouns, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) and being historical (seeing how those words worked when written, and how they were heard) is what constitutes a good sermon.

I was handed a Christless Pattern of Preaching
Midwest Christianity and Seminary taught me the above pattern (in the affirmative). We are practically told that the sermon is exegesis (if not explicitly, then implicitly by thousands upon thousands of unending examples). I was shown the pattern of explaining every word in a passage (or at least the big and important ones). That was the gold-standard of a sermon (implicitly and often explicitly). The preacher was the guy who gave background material on the key phrases. He was the commentary reader. To this end, in the name of exegetical and verse by verse exposition, I have heard thousands of sermons (and I do not exaggerate that number) that did not exegete Christ. They were grammatical and historical and Christless.

In the name of preaching the bible and preaching true things (preaching truth), many are they who say true things (even true things about Galatians and how Peter and Paul got into a scrap over grace), yet who do not preach Christ. Many are they who preach Paul, when even Paul himself did not preach Paul (2 Cor 4:5). Terribly ironic and horribly numbing.

Sermons that have been Grammatical and Historical have been Christless
My conclusions about the state of affairs in American Midwest-conservative Evangelicalism comes from years of hearing sermons. That is my sample set (along with all the online sermons, conferences, schooling and Christian radio preaching I have heard).

Many are they who preach on ancient slavery, covenant treaty structures, paganism and Baal, Roman legions, Jewish holy days, cleanliness rituals and baths, the fascinating Roman background material related to crucifixion, yet who do not actually tell me what Jesus was thinking or why exactly he was doing what he was doing. Jesus gets mentioned (for sure), but often to give the background to tell me why Peter did what he did and the historical nature of fisherman and taxes. And where the sermons are not filled with such historical material, then it is because I am learning about the preachers and their lives (how they trusted God and it worked for them). In all this, Jesus seems to be the missing subject of almost every sermon I have heard (as per Acts 4:17-18). And when he is the subject, it is for little bursts, and usually nothing more profound than what a child in Sunday school would hear.

Christless Christianity is advancing in the name of life application sermons. However, it may be advancing more commonly and rapidly under sermons that are Jesusless in a different way (and in a way that is harder to detect). I am referring to Jesusless sermons that are yet grammatical, historical, and verse by verse expositions (even containing some trivial sprinkling of Jesus throughout).

Christ has His Witness
The situation is not as bleak as it may sound! God is sovereign and the kingdom is advancing by His design. The Lord is on his throne; he has configured how he would be known (Matt 11:27), and he has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Cor 1:26-27). That the ministry of the Word suffers under tribulation is by his decretive will (Matt 24:24); this is the way of things (but woe to them who do not preach Christ, cmp. Luke 17:1).

Even in a world of world-destroying Christless Christianity (Rev 11:18), Christ, by his Spirit, has preserved his Word and his Bride (Rev 21:2). There are exceptions to the sorry situation of Jesusless sermons. I know ministers who are the exception (Geoff Smith, for example), and professors who do preach Christ. Alas, the exceptions prove the rule. They are the exception to which there is a rule; and it is according to Christ that there is this rule (Matt 7:14; Matt 22:14; Romans 11:5; 1 Peter 3:20; Rev 11:7).

A Warning for Preachers
I am no longer impressed when I hear that a church preaches verse by verse through books of the Bible. The Devil can quote scripture and try to explain it. And that is exactly what he does (2 Cor 11:13-15; Matt 4:6). Likewise, if you do not preach Christ, then all of your verse by verse exposition will be nothing more than anti-Christ rhetoric (Matt 7:22-23; Matt 12:30; Matt 12:36; James 3:1; 2 John 7-9).

A Warning for Reformed Preachers
Calvinism does not make a minister preach Christ centered sermons. This is hard to hear, please bear with me just a little longer. The fact is, being Reformed may be a worse form of evil if the sermons are true yet Christless. Reformed ministers can preach some of the most true sermons that are yet devoid of the exposition of Christ. I have heard it very often. In fact, a pastor who is reformed can preach on Psalm 51 and never mention Jesus. He can preach on Galatians and delve deeply into the notion of “Grace.” He can be against self-righteousness and explain all the mechanics of Justification apart from works. He can preach all about “works of the Law.” And in all of this, he may never preach Christ (or just barely).

A Reformed minster who is not preaching Christ is just as Christless as the next guy. Only in the case of a reformed church, they have the added feature of believing that their Reformed theology puts them above the fray. Some of the most Christless sermons are delivered with the self-confidence that attends to being doctrinally accurate about predestination and justification by faith alone.

A Warning for Grammatical-Historical Preachers
Parsing Greek verbs for the congregation and giving ancient Near Eastern background material is not preaching Christ. It is interesting, but it is not therefore full of Jesus. Telling us the range of meaning for a noun is interesting, but it is not necessarily preaching Christ. In the name of the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic, I have heard many a Christless sermon. Some of the most informed Christless sermons are delivered with the self-confidence that comes from being grammatical and historical.

A Warning for Application Driven Preachers
Because a pastor applied the Old Testament to his hearers lives, does not mean he preached Christ. Many are they who can tell us to be like Samuel (to listen when God speaks — cf. 1 Sam 3:4), and not preach Christ. Many are they who can preach life applications from any text, and not preach Christ. Many sermons treat application as the chief end of man, the eschatology goal, and the pinnacle high point. When the listener becomes ultimate, the application becomes central and dominant.

It is possible to have application in a Christ centered sermon, because Jesus is the Application. All of the scripture points to him. He is our water and our satisfaction. If the minister will explain how 1 Sam 3 points to Christ, the saints will have their application. The minister must leave-off the trivial matters, and move on to Christ (he must let people get their pop psychology elsewhere, for we preach Christ).

I have heard too many sermons that are Jesus-less in the name of application. In fact, it is the way of things in Evangelicalism today.

A Test for when You Hear Preaching
If you want to know if Christ is preached, download a sermon from a pastor. Download one of his sermons on the Psalms. That will tell you all you need to know. I have done this test with many sermons from churches throughout the Kansas City area. The results are always the same. In the name of exegeting the Psalms, Christ is not preached (or he is made into a footnote at the end of the sermon). Christless Christianity is a true famine, a true plague, and a true disease. The world is anti-Christ. Use your ears, and hear. Listen, and test the sermons. Test them even if they say they are reformed, or if they say are grammatical and historical, or if are full of inspiring life applications.

How shall you test?
I have written a longer exposition of how to test a sermon for Christ centeredness. I call it the Clicker-Test. If you would like to read more, see section VI. The Clicker Test of this article.