The problem with OT Narrative

THE PROBLEM WITH OLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVE

If the average person were to find a newspaper from fifty years ago and read through it, what they would find would perhaps be interesting, but not life changing. Imagine going back farther in time, even thousands of years ago, and reading accounts of people and events. Certainly these people and events would be interesting as well, but to make a connection or establish any relevance to modern times would be hard for many people to do. Sadly, many Christians tend to view the Old Testament narrative accounts in the same fashion. Interesting, yes, but truly relevant, no. Even for those who attempt to use OT narratives in a relevant manner often end up falling into the trap of moralism, in which a “do this” and “do not do this” manner of interpretation is the overall byproduct. Are counselors today limited to the New Testament and Psalms/Proverbs in helping counselees address problems in living? Are the OT narratives best suited for providing a historical background to the NT, or is there a better way in which counselors can truly help counselees through use of the entire Bible, including OT narratives? While there certainly are challenges counselors need to consider when using OT narrative, the problem with OT narrative lies not in the genre itself, but in a lack of understanding of how it ties in with the rest of Scripture. A proper understanding of the genre and methods of interpretation can help counselors make full use of the genre, thus helping both the counselor and counselee see the sufficiency and relevance of Scripture to daily living.

To begin, a working definition of narrative should be established. Quite simply, a narrative is a story, and in the case of narrative in Scripture, true. A more technical definition is that narrative is “a literary form characterized by sequential time action and involving plot, setting, and characters.”[1] According to Robert Stein, narrative makes up around forty percent of the OT, which means understanding the rules regarding proper interpretation is critical.[2] What are some of the specific challenges to OT narrative and why are they not used as much in counseling as other genres, such as the epistles? Sidney Greidanus helpfully offers four categories of “difficulties” that relate to OT narrative. These difficulties are, “historical-cultural, theological, ethical, and practical.”[3] To help counselors work through the difficulties associated with narrative passages, interpretive rules and guidelines need to be established.

Before more specific rules and guidelines concerning narrative are discussed, the larger picture of how counselors view the relationship the Old and New Testaments must first be considered. In the big picture of hermeneutics, issues and questions concerning “the nature of interpretation itself: what it involves, what its presuppositions and criteria are, what its foundations need to be, and how it affects the practice of interpretation and its results” need answered before the counselor looks at the text itself.[4] The two main views on biblical hermeneutics are the historical-grammatical and the redemptive-historical. Space does not permit an exhaustive comparison or discussion on the two views, but some things need be said.

The historical-grammatical method seeks to study “the biblical text, or any other text, in its original historical context and seeking the meaning its author(s) most likely intended for its original audience(s) or addresses based on the grammar and syntax.”[5] The focus of it is on the historical setting and message for the audience to whom it was written. What the method does not do is “Read New Testament readings back into Old Testament texts…. It does not try to make all of Scripture ‘preach Christ’ unless there is historical and contextual evidence for doing so. It tends not to raise questions of contemporary significance, application or contextualization, or locate a biblical passage in the flow of redemptive history.”[6] There is benefit in the historical-grammatical method, and aspects of it should be utilized. For instance, the grammar, syntax, structure, historical context, and meaning to the original audience needs to be understood. Along with the good, one must consider the shortcomings. The historical-grammatical method does not adequately consider the Bible as one unified book of God’s revelation, seeing it rather like 66 individual books in the whole canon. The method also fails to do just diligence to the apostle’s hermeneutical method of bringing out Christ and God’s redemptive plan in the Old Testament. The apostles are seen as interpreting OT texts on the basis of their apostolic authority and divine inspiration, rather than proper exegesis. While the historical-grammatical method has value, a more accurate hermeneutic would add what the historical-grammatical method lacks.

The redemptive-historical method works well in incorporating the overall theme of the Bible and God’s redemptive work into the narrative passage. While not dismissing the importance of the meaning of a text to the original audience, the method places the main focus on the center of redemption, Jesus Christ. Graeme Goldsworthy puts it this way:

If the biblical story is true, Christ is the only savior for humankind for humankind and there is room for no other way to God. If the story is true, Jesus Christ is the interpretive key to every fact in the universe, and of course, the Bible is one such fact. He is thus the hermeneutic principle that applies first to the Bible as the ground for understanding, and also to the whole of reality. Interpreting reality correctly is a by-product of salvation. Thus we must assert that the person and work of Jesus Christ are foundational for evangelical hermeneutics.[7]

The Bible then tells the story of God’s redemptive plan starting in Genesis and continuing through Revelation. The framework of the redemptive-historical method “treats each text’s and epoch’s distinctiveness with integrity and at the same time does justice to the progressively unfolding clarity by which God sustained his people’s hopes for the redemption that has now arrived in Jesus.”[8] Jay Adams notes that if a sermon would be acceptable to a Jew or Unitarian, then it is lacking, for Christ would not be at its center.[9] Even though Adams specifically mentions sermons, he also makes it clear that what applies to preaching also applies to counseling. Through the redemptive-historical method, moralism is avoided, as the focus on the text is to see the work of God rather than a moral lesson to follow or avoid. Daniel Doriani explains, “The central character in every Bible story is God, and some aspect of his redemptive purpose attaches to the main theme of every narrative. Therefore, while interpreters rightly draw moral lessons from biblical history, theological lessons should come first.”[10] While avoiding a moralistic reading has been applauded, the redemptive-historical method has been charged with “reading the book backwards,” which is to say reading the NT back into the OT. Should the Bible be read “in order”? Should the NT be brought in at all when reading OT narratives? Johnson replies in answer to the charge that the redemptive-historical method incorrectly reads the NT back in, that:

Precisely because we are aware that the Old Testament text, ‘standing on its own,’ leaves so many crucial questions unanswered and ‘loose ends untied,’ we must follow the apostles example, within the methodological boundaries established by the apostolic canon, to show our hearers the One who is the End of the Story, and the Solution to all the riddles. Reading the Bible’s story “backward,” allowing the light of Jesus to illuminate the shadows that anticipated his saving mission and showed its contours in rough outline before his incarnation, does not “flatten” the topography of biblical revelation…[11]

Both the historical-grammatical and redemptive-historical methods have value. Rather than completely rejecting one in favor of the other, the best aspects of both can be combined in biblical interpretation. G. K. Beale explains, “I would argue that that this broad redemptive-historical perspective was the dominant framework within which Jesus and the New Testament writers thought…”[12] Beale then goes on to explain that while the historical-grammatical method has value in examining the immediate literary context of OT verses, it is not enough and the redemptive-historical aspect must also be considered. The important thing to remember is that while Scripture is inerrant, the hermeneutic method is not. This does not mean that the meaning of the text is out of reach or unattainable, but it does mean that interpreters must be willing to adjust their methodology when necessary so they can become more faithful and accurate interpreters of Scripture. Note that this does not mean a postmodern approach to the text where the reader controls the meaning is needed, nor any dismissal of the inerrancy and infallibility of it either. However, a danger lies in the interpreter making the interpretation process “mechanical,” meaning the assumption of a correct interpretation is guaranteed if steps A through X are followed. Jonathan Pennington points out that, “This danger is a paradox in that, while we can and should develop our skill set to being competent readers of Scripture, this method and these skills can distract us from focusing on the most important thing, reading the Bible as Holy Scripture.”[13] Pennington further explains that:

Unfortunately the scientific methods that we have developed in recent centuries tend to ‘objectify the text’-that is, they turn the biblical materials into an object to be examined.’ Rather than emphasizing a separation and distance between us and the texts of Scripture-a distance that can be transcended only by an elaborate set of exegetical tools-we must come to see that the biggest difference is our lack of knowing and loving God; the real divide is between us and God in the text.[14]

While not all readers will totally agree with Pennington, his point is that interpreters should be willing to examine their hermeneutical methods, and adjust them to better understand and love God. In summary, the method that the counselor uses should be the one that is most faithful to understanding the biblical text, rather than the method that best fits the counselor’s personal theology or tradition. Both the grammatical-historical and redemptive-historical methods have value and can be adapted for best obtaining the meaning of the passage in historical and redemptive history, and for use in the personal ministry of counseling.

After having a big picture understanding of hermeneutics and how it applies to OT narrative, more specifics in the process of interpretation are needed. Michael Emlet suggests a three-step approach with understanding a passage in its original context, then understanding the passage in the larger context of redemptive history, and finally going into application.[15] Similarly, Greidanus argues for first understanding the passage in the historical context in which it is located, for, “Only after we have heard a passage the way Israel hears it can we move on to understanding this message in the broad contexts of the whole canon and the whole of redemptive history.”[16] Within the historical context the type of genre, author’s intended meaning to the original hearers, and theocentric (God revealing aspect) are taken into consideration.[17] Context is important because “Since a biblical narrative is always part of a larger narrative, the author assumes that his readers will seek to discover the meaning of a particular narrative in light of the overall meaning of the book.”[18] As passages are considered in the context of the chapter they are in, and then in turn the context of the book, and finally in context of the whole canon, the temptation to rip verses out of their proper context and misapply them will be greatly reduced. Since narratives are usually more than several verses, simply reading the entire story rather than only a few lines will help counselors give a context to the point they are making with counselees. Besides the narrative itself, counselors should explain the reason the book was written, and how that particular narrative would fit in with the theme.

The authors of the biblical narratives also provide contextual clues to the readers in order to help them see the intended meaning. For instance, Stein indentifies introductions and conclusions of the narrative passages as clues for what to expect to come and summaries of what has happened.[19] Other clues that counselors should look for in understanding the passage as meant to the original audience are comments and summaries by the author of the narrative, who often seems to be an unseen character in the story, possessing knowledge and insight that others in the narrative do not have. Besides watching for comments and summaries, Stein calls for readers to look for repetition, proportion, authoritative speakers, and dialogue within the narrative.[20] All of these clues help counselors to see the author’s main point in the passage. One major issue still remains in determining the meaning, however. While it is clear that the narrator is telling a true story, the question arises of whether or not the author intended every part of the story to be followed and obeyed. For example, are accounts describing polygamous marriages suppose to be obeyed? Is the invasion of foreign lands justified because there are accounts of the same in Scripture? Counselors need to remember that the narrative contains both prescriptive and descriptive aspects. Prescriptive aspects should be followed, but descriptive aspects do not always need to be.   

After the meaning to the original audience is attained, the narrative must be understood in light of the whole canon and redemptive history. Counselees cannot be “left” in the OT, since redemptive history has moved to the cross and towards the final end. While it is true that many narratives do not specifically reference Christ or his work, “No text exists in isolation from other texts or from the overarching biblical message.”[21] This means that narrative is related to redemption and Christ, and these aspects need to be addressed concerning the passage. Even when the context of the passage does not specifically mention Christ or his work, every passage does contain something on the predictive work of Christ, preparation for the coming Christ, reflections on the need for redemption or God’s basis for it, or results of God’s grace and love in the lives of people.[22] There are several valid ways to move from the OT passage to its relationship to Christ, and then to application. Greidanus gives a number of these ways, including redemptive-historical progression, promise-fulfillment, typology, analogy, longitudinal themes, New Testament references, and contrast.[23] The Fallen Condition Focus is another valid way, in that it focuses on the similar human condition between the original audience and the modern hearer. Since the human condition has not changed, there is always a spiritual need in the passage for God’s redemptive grace. Indentifying what the passage says, what the concerns that the passage addresses, and what similarities the modern reader shares with the original will help the counselor bring out biblical truth that matches the meaning to the original audience in their current setting and redemptive history, as well as application for the counselee.[24]

Greidanus gives some questions that counselors should be able to answer to help understand the passage in light of the canon and redemptive history. For example, “What does the passage mean in the context of the whole Bible? In light of Jesus Christ? And what does it reveal about Jesus Christ?”[25] Chapel includes two other questions that are relevant to counselors in, “What does this text reveal of God’s nature that provides redemption? What does this text reflect of human nature that requires redemption?”[26]

At this point, it would be helpful to see how the framework and method described above would specifically work in a given OT narrative passage to help a counselee. Suppose the counselee came in, and data gathering indicated he or she was caught up in personal sin and struggling to have any hope of a positive outcome. Many counselees can be so caught up in the dirtiness and messiness of sin that it seems nothing good could come from the situation. One passage that could be used in counseling here is Genesis 38. At first glance, counselors probably would skirt away from using this story because of the sexual details and the unfamiliarity of how this story fits in this particular place in Genesis. When the story and its place are understood however, counselors will be able to see how useful it really is.

First, the meaning to the original audience must be considered. This particular account of Judah and Tamar is in the context of the story of Joseph, almost seeming to interrupt it. As counselors and counselees read the text, counselors want to make sure counselees are following what happens. The Lord kills Judah’s sons for their wickedness, and Judah’s daughter-in-law ends up becoming pregnant by Judah after he lies to her about giving her his last son in marriage.  Counselees may need to be reminded of Judah from the previous chapter, in which his plan to rescue Joseph was deflated after his brother sold Joseph while Judah was away. Before the book of Genesis goes any further with Joseph’s life, it switches to look at his brother’s. Certain themes and elements of the account are very visible, such as deceit, lying, sexual immorality, the emphasis on children, and judgment. Both Judah and Tamar are shown to be people who are deceptive, manipulators, and liars who become twisted up in their own sin, and well as the sin of others. The lack of reference to God is also very apparent. Before going deeper into the passages, counselors may wish to ask counselees if they can identify the familiar themes of the text in the passage, and to make sure they have the proper understanding of the importance of children in the OT.

Next, counselors will want to go deeper in the passage to examine the elements of the account. Judah starts off by taking a Canaanite wife for himself, and then later for his firstborn son. Counselors will want to explain the significant of this action, in light of God calling Abraham and his descendants to be a separate people, and in light of the tendencies of the Canaanites to draw God’s people into idolatry and away from God. Just as Esau earlier married a Canaanite, thus displeasing his parents, Judah does likewise. The counselee should know that even though the narrator does not speak directly against Judah’s action, the emphasis he places on it serves to warn readers of the consequences that will follow. The story then turns to Judah’s sons who are killed by the Lord for their disobedience. Onan’s selfishness should be noted, in that he was concerned for his own inheritance and family name above his brother’s, and even willing to sin to try to keep what was most important to him. Counselees may need to know why the firstborn was seen as such a high priority and position, and about the custom in which a brother would marry his brother’s widow and have children with her, so that her family could continue. These details can be summed up in a few minutes, rather than in an hour-long discussion. The important details of verses 6-10 include the selfishness of Onan and his deceptiveness in pretending to be fulfilling his task in public, but in private refusing to do so. The judgment of the Lord on sin can also be explained, as well as the grace of the Lord for not bringing instant judgment that would be fair for all sin.

Following the death of Onan, Judah and Tamar’s reactions need to be covered. Judah lies to Tamar in promising her his only remaining son, and then failing to give him to her when he is of age. Tamar will do anything to have a son, and so she disguises herself as a prostitute and sets a “trap” for Judah. Judah’s selfishness and self-concern is now evident, as he unfairly treats Tamar as the reason for the death of his sons, and then refuses to do what he promised in order to try to keep his last son alive. Now on a journey, Judah is looking for sexual pleasure after the death of his wife. Ironically, the same one he deceived, Tamar, deceives him, thus revealing the destructive nature of sin. Judah makes a promise to bring her a present, and in the attempt to fulfill his promise, the reader is reminded of the missing absence of God in Judah’s life as the prostitute is referred to as a “cult” prostitute (even though she really is not one). Judah then is more likely to engage in an intimate relationship with a “cult” prostitute” in a pagan religion, than in relationship with the Lord in true religion. Judah’s self-righteousness is seen as he quickly condemns Tamar for her immorality when it is discovered she is pregnant. Judah sees his sin revealed to himself as Tamar gives Judah back his own identifiers as the father of her child. He then recognizes that she is more righteous than he is, even though he is an “insider” in the family of God and she is not. The story seems to end with the birth of Perez and Zerah, but the narrator’s emphasis indicates there is more to come.

So far counselees should be able to relate to the common fallen human condition of Judah and Tamar. Lying, deceptiveness, selfishness, and consequences of sin can be familiar talking points with counselees dealing with the same sins. A helpful comparison can be made between Judah and Joseph in character and action, to show counselees how the character of a godly Joseph stands out in light of the sins of those around him, and that disobedience to God does not have to be the result of difficult circumstances. For instance, Judah gave into sexual immorality and was a victimizer, while Joseph displayed sexual morality and was a victim.[27] Helping counselees see that they are not the only people caught up in a mess of sin is an application of the passage as well. Even with all the sinful elements and drama in the passage, there is still more to examine for the point of the account was not just to show how sinful people are. 

As the story of Joseph progresses, Judah becomes the brother who intercedes for the others, thus displaying a change in his life since his sin with Tamar. The book of Genesis ends with the expectation of God visiting Jacob’s family in Egypt and fulfilling his promise to them of the Promised Land. Blessings are given to each one of Jacob’s sons, and Judah is especially singled out in Genesis 49:8-12, which promises the descendants of Judah future power and royalty. Honor and respect are given the tribe of Judah throughout the Bible, especially as the promises for Judah are realized in King David and eventually fully fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Perez, son of Judah and Tamar, appears in the genealogies of Ruth (4:18-22), 1 Chron. 2:5, 9-15; and then in Matt. 1:3-17 in the genealogy of Christ. To the audiences of the OT, the greatness of Judah is balanced by seeing how flawed Judah as a person was, and how great the Lord is to have used such a sinful man. The hope of the sinful future readers of the story of Judah in the OT lies in the God who extends grace to them and does not forget them either. Herein lies hope for the counselee as well, that the sinfulness of people does not stop the plans of God, even when it seems they have really messed up their lives. No one, not even an outsider of the people of God, is too far beyond God’s grace and mercy. The use of analogy makes the display of Christ from this passage perfectly legitimate, even though the passage does not mention him directly. The analogy would compare God’s use of a sinful Judah in the OT to his use of sinful people in the NT ( and by implication the church today), and would show how God uses disobedient people to fulfill his purposes. Even as God seems to be absent from the story, he still is working things out behind the scenes for good (Rom. 8), and counselees can be comforted in knowing that God is at work in their sin even when they do not see it.

While there is a great deal of example that can be given counselees in the nature and blindness of sin, the narrative should not and does not have to be turned into a “Don’t be like Judah” study. Counselees need to see the greatness of God’s grace even in the worst of situations and sin, so that they can turn to the Lord with hope. In terms of application, counselees can be asked to identify similar sins and lusts in their hearts and lives, and then the effects. For example, “Where do you see selfishness in this passage? How does it affect the people in the story? Can you identify any selfishness like this in your life? How does it affect those in your life?” Of course, identifying the sin of the counselee is not enough. The next challenge is to show counselees how their identity in Christ should change the way they live. For instance, “In light of Judah’s family and calling by God, how should he have acted in this story? As part of God’s family, how would God have you to act in your situation? What enables you to live in this new way?” Counselors need to be specific in application, as they help counselees specifically see how they should now live and change in light of God’s grace and forgiveness. Four questions that should be answered are “What does God now require of me? Where does he require it of me? Why must I do what he requires? How can I do what God requires?”[28] When counselors walk through the specifics of these, they help counselees see where and how they need to change.

In conclusion, OT narrative passages are a critical part of the counselor’s toolbox. The proper and actual use of OT narrative will help both the counselor and counselee see the sufficiency and relevance of all of Scripture to daily living. Narrative passages engage the counselee and help them to see their sin and circumstances in ways that other types of genres cannot do. Narratives also are easily remembered, thus serving to help counselees implement long-term change. Both counselors and counselees will benefit from using OT narrative in counseling.

---

[1]J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 306.

[2]Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 79.

[3]Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 22.

[4]Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell, “Introduction,” in Biblical Hermeneutics Five Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 11.

[5]Ibid., Craig L. Bloomberg, “The Historical-Critical/Grammatical View,” 27.

[6]Ibid., 40.

[7]Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 48.

[8]Dennis E Johnson, Him We Proclaim (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 49.

[9]Jay Adams, Preaching with Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 147.

[10]Daniel M. Doriani, Putting the Truth to Work (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 86-7.

[11]Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 160.

[12]G. K. Beale, “Positive Answer to the Question,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 394.

[13]Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 137.  

[14]Ibid.

[15]Michael R. Emlet, Cross Talk (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2009), 101.  

[16]Greidanus, Preaching Christ, 228.

[17]Ibid., 230.

[18]Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting, 87.

[19]Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting, 89.

[20]Ibid., 89-96.

[21]Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 275.

[22]Ibid., 282.

[23]Greidanus, Preaching Christ,  235-277.

[24]Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 270.

[25]Ibid., 231-2.

[26]Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 284.

[27]Richard L. Pratt, He Gave Us Stories (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1993), 216.

[28]Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 214. 

You aren't the hero of the story

         In church we recently started on a series that covering some of the characters in the Old Testament and  their lives. For example, this past week we look at Lot, the worldly-minded man. While character studies are helpful, the tendency can be to read ourselves into the story as the hero. How many times, for instance, have you heard David and Goliath presented in such as way that encourages us to be like David and kill the "Giants" in our lives? This type of approach really appeals to us because we love being the hero, or at least being inspired to be one. However, while the OT certainly was written for our instruction, it is more than a moral code or presentation of people to be like/not like. The OT, just as the NT, is part of the entire canon of Scripture and is about God's story before it is about ours. The problem is, we often get it backwards and think the Bible is suppose to be all about us. Well, we do have a place in the story, but the story is God's and not ours. Rather than see David and Goliath as a story about being like David, I would suggest we see ourselves in the story not as David, but as the Israelites, helpless and in need of a Savior. We see the battle in the story then not primarily about a man and a giant, but between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, as foretold in Genesis 3.
       When we look at OT characters, there is a level at which we can and should examine their lives, and learn from their successes and failures. I'm all for that. But we can't stop at that level. To stop here is to move straight from an OT truth into application, which is moralism. In other words, "Here's what Lot did that was wrong. Now don't be like Lot. Be like Abraham instead." Ok, so it's true that we don't want to follow the example of Lot. And certainly Abraham was a man of faith, which we can learn from. But this type of instruction is about change of behavior rather than change of heart. An unbeliever could follow the same principle, to a large degree, and still be an unbeliever just the same. Moralism is also frustrating, in that we just can't be good enough to be the hero on our own.
       Don't stop at the first level of character comparison then. Move on seeing how the passage fits into the particular book and audience to which it was written, and then in the whole picture of the Bible. More on this coming.

Sanctification: The Biblical View

Reformed View

The third view of sanctification that will be examined is the Reformed view. In this view, sanctification is “that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which He delivers the justified sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”[1] The Reformed view includes several different elements. First, sanctification is related to but distinct from justification, and is dependant upon “other steps [in the order of salvation] such as effectual calling, regeneration, justification, and adoption. All of these bear intimately upon sanctification.”[2] While justification is a one-time event, sanctification includes both a definitive and progressive aspect. Definitive sanctification is a moral change in which Christians are set free from the power of sin and have become new creatures, with new desires of the things of the Spirit rather than things of the flesh. Progressive sanctification is the process for the Christian of being renewed in the image of God and becoming more like Christ that continues throughout life, and is not completed until glorification. Since verses for these aspects have been given in the discussion of Lutheran sanctification, they will not be repeated here.  Secondly, union with Christ is an essential element. Ferguson notes, “Two features are central to sanctification: Jesus Christ himself is our sanctification or holiness; and it is through union with Christ that sanctification is accomplished in us” (48).” Without being in union with Christ, change (in the biblical sense) cannot occur. Thirdly, unlike justification, both God and man cooperate in sanctification, and the Christian’s responsibility is to use the means that God has given him or her, including Scripture, prayer, church community, and the ordinances. Murray explains, “God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Neither is the relationship strictly one of co-operation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction of co-ordination of both produced the required result. …the relationship is that because God works we work.”[3] Fourthly, justification looks the same for all Christians, but sanctification has different results in some than in others.[4]

One strength of the Reformed view of sanctification is that the imperatives and commands in Scripture are dealt with in a way that takes the text seriously. For example, Rom. 8:13 and Col. 3:5 speak of the putting to death the deeds of the body, while Col. 3:19 and Eph. 4:24 speak of putting on the new self. The Reformed view of sanctification does not see these verses as “remembering justification,” or waiting for a second experience of the Holy Spirit to help, but rather as what Christians are to actually be doing by the power of the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 5:29, where believers are to take radical measure in fighting sin such as, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away,” the Reformed view sees these verses as having real meaning (symbolic-not literal), and would call Christians to practical and active fight against sin rather than a passive waiting upon God. In Phil. 3:17 and 4:9, Paul has no problem with telling the Philippians to imitate and follow his example and teaching. Hansen points out here that, “Paul’s command [4:9], put into practice, challenges his readers to move beyond contemplation to action. The imperative calls for them to ‘bring about or accomplish something through activity. The time has come to get out of the chair of theoretical reflection about Christ and the Christian life and press on towards the goal.”[5] The Scripture then calls for believers to do more than “remember their justification.” The Christian and his or her whole being are actively involved in the change process.

A second strength of the Reformed view of sanctification is that sanctification is shown to affect the whole person, and not just a part. Colossians 3:10, Phil. 1:9, and Rom. 12:2 each speak of the mind and knowledge being renewed, a process rather than an instantaneous event. Related to these verses, 2 Cor. 10:5 also gives encouragement to take thoughts captive, which is an active rather than passive process. Besides the mind, other parts are to be sanctified as well, such as the emotions. Grudem writes, “growth in sanctification will affect our emotions. We will see increasingly in our lives emotions such as ‘love, joy, peace, patience.’”[6] The will (Phil. 2:13), spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), and physical body (Rom. 6:4; 1 Thess. 5:23) are all to be changed to be more like Christ.

A third strength is that the texts that speak of God’s work in sanctification and the texts that speak of the Christian’s work are both taken into account. The Reformed view of sanctification emphasizes that both God and man work together, so that texts that refer to both aspects are reconciled in a way that is most faithful to Scripture. Texts such as Heb. 13:20-21; 1 Thess. 5:23; and Phil. 2:13 emphasize God’s role in sanctification, while texts like Phil. 2:12; Rom. 12:1; Heb. 12:1, and Col. 1:29 show the Christian’s role. When both these aspects are properly understood, then there is no need to explain away passages for fear of undercutting grace. As a result, real change in the life of the Christian can happen because they are not neglecting the aspect of Scripture that shows God’s work, nor the aspect of Scripture that shows their part. In terms of the role that the Christian plays in sanctification, it is not a “grit it out by one’s own power” kind of role. Both a passive and active aspect is involved. In the passive role, Christians are to “trust God or to pray and ask that he sanctify us.”[7] This is not a “let go and let God” approach, but rather a diligent seeking of God’s grace and help to change and become more like Christ. In the active role, Christians specifically put off sinful actions, thoughts, etc. and put on righteous actions, thoughts, etc. Jesus does not obey for Christians, but rather Christians obeys Jesus by the grace that he has given them to do so. Philippians 2:12-13 shows this relationship, where Paul says “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” On this passage, Hansen notes:

            God’s working in believers precedes and empowers their work, but it does not obviate the

            need for their work. Paul is not telling Christians to ‘let go and let God’ or ‘get out of God’s

            way so God can do it.’ Such slogans for the Christian life express a passivism not

            consonant with Paul’s call to the persistent obedience of working out salvation in the life of

            the church. Nor is Paul advocating a God of the gaps: ‘Go as far as you can, then leave the

            rest for God’ or ‘God helps those who help themselves.’[8]

A fourth strength of the Reformed view of sanctification is the emphasis on the means that God uses in the sanctification process. Without community in the local church, God’s Word, prayer, and spiritual disciplines, the sanctification process will not be as effective or fruitful as it could be. Scripture is rich in describing these various aspects like prayer, reading God’s Word, and fellowship, and clearly calls God’s people to use these means (cf. Heb. 10:25).

From the practical aspect, the Reformed view of sanctification has the strength of helping Ernie truly change in his struggle of lustful thoughts. While Ernie would be reminded that he is a new creation, has been justified, and has been definitively sanctified so that he is no longer a slave to sin, Ernie would also be helped, in practical and specific ways, to deal with the lustful thoughts. For instance, Ernie would be helped to remember his position in Christ, but also to replace his lustful thoughts and desires with ones that glorify God instead. Ernie would be instructed to make changes in regards to the things he looks at or thinks about (“putting off”), repent where he has sinned against God, and helped to “put on” new thoughts, actions, and desires. For Ernie, this will be much more than simply praying that his lustful thoughts will be taken away by an “experience” or by a mere remembrance of his justification, although prayer will be involved. Sin will be called sin, and effort will be demanded of Ernie. In all this, Ernie will be pointed to the grace of Christ that enables him to follow and obey Christ. Ernie will also be reminded that sanctification is a lifetime process, and that he should not expect that his lustful heart will be changed instantly. In the change process, Ernie will be encouraged to participate in fellowship with a local church, meditate and feed on God’s Word, and pray for God’s grace to help him.

Despite the strengths of the Reformed view of sanctification, it is not without challenges or supposed weaknesses. Many challenges have been made against the Reformed position, and some of these have been addressed throughout the paper under the weaknesses of the Lutheran and Wesleyan views of sanctification. They will not be repeated in this section since they have been addressed earlier, however, two more challenges will be discussed here. One misunderstanding that can occur in the Reformed view happens when either God’s part or man’s part in sanctification is overemphasized or underemphasized. An overemphasis in the role of the Christian can elevate human works and minimize the necessity of grace, thus leading to legalism and a false sense of sanctification, thus undercutting the gospel. On the other hand, an overemphasis on God’s role can lead to spiritual apathy and frustration when change does not occur as it is thought that it should. Rather than dismissing the Reformed view on the grounds that this relationship is too complex and subject to misuse, the totality of Scripture regarding sanctification that shows God’s role and the Christian’s roles should be correctly emphasized and explained. For example, preachers or counselor should not be afraid to tell others to “do” what Scripture commands, but at the same time, must ground those commands in the power Christ gives to obey so that moralism is avoided.

A second challenge to the Reformed position is the idea that allows that sanctification can be completed in this life, in that Christians reach the stage of perfect love and maturity. The Reformed view, however, argues that sanctification will not be complete in this life. Those who argue for completed sanctification use 1 Thess. 5:23, which says, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This prayer does not say that the Thessalonians have been sanctified completely (that is only inferred by those who argue for completed sanctification), but rather asks God to continue working in them, so that when the Lord returns, they will be without blame (or faithful). This interpretation does not minimize the power and work of the Lord in believers in their sanctification, but recognizes the implications on sanctification that the Day of the Lord has. On this verse, Gary Shogren points out that, “It is theologically important to note that sanctification includes both the outer and inner person. As in 2 Cor. 7:1, Paul asks for the sanctification of the physical person; sin may also infect the inner person, whether termed soul or spirit. This truth overturns the misapplied Platonism that said the works of the body are not important…It also short-circuits the notion that the spirit is completely sanctified in this life.”[9] Both Phil. 3:12-13 and 2 Cor. 3:18 can be used to show that sanctification in not complete in this life. Philippians 3:12-13 says, “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead.” Hansen explains:

Although this is the only time that the verb ‘become perfect’ is found in Paul’s letters, the cognate adjective ‘perfect’ occurs seven times with a range of meanings. The adjective means ‘meeting the highest standard’ of goodness and virtue, ‘being mature, full grown,’ ‘being fully developed in a moral sense,’ and ‘being a cult initiate.’ The use of the adjective in 1 Corinthians 13:10 points to the future when ‘the perfect comes and what is in part disappears.’ In that context, Paul contrasts the present imperfection and the future perfection. This contrast comes very close to the point of Paul’s denial that he has ‘already become perfect’ in Philippians 3:12: precisely because he has not yet already fully grasped Chris, he has not already become perfect. Only when he sees Christ face to face will he be totally transformed by Christ’s power to be like him....Until then, he honestly admits his imperfections.[10]

In short, Scripture presents sanctification as a process not being completed until the Day of the Lord. Christians are being changed from one degree of glory to another throughout life, and are waiting the day when they will like Christ. 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” This is a future aspect, with present implications in living a life that puts off sin and puts on righteousness.

In conclusion, while both the Lutheran and Wesleyan views of sanctification have certain strengths, the Reformed view of sanctification best presents the biblical view of sanctification. Sanctification does involve effort on the Christians’ part and must be distinguished from justification. Sanctification is not an instantaneous event, and occurs over the lifetime of the Christian. To most effectively help Ernie and others like him, counselors should counsel using the Reformed view of sanctification.

---

[1]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4^th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 532.

[2]John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 141.

[3]Murray, Redemption, 148. See also Grudem’s explanation on the appropriateness of saying that both

God and man cooperate in sanctification in Grudem, Systematic Theology, 753.

[4]See Grudem, Systematic Theology, 747.

[5]G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 300.

[6]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 756.

[7]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 754.

[8]Hansen, Letter to the Philippians, 177.

[9]Gary S. Shogren, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1&2 Thessalonians, ed.

Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 234.

[10]Hansen, Letter to the Philippians, 251.

Wesleyan Sanctification: Weaknesses

Despite several strengths, the Wesleyan view of sanctification has weaknesses that outweigh the strengths. First, there is a high focus on an “experience,” or an instance in which the Christian would be perfectly sanctified. As noted earlier, this perfection is in terms of loving God, rather than absolute perfection in all things. For this position, Wesleyans argue that, “there is in the life of the believer an experiential distinction between receiving the Son and receiving the fullness of the Pentecostal Spirit” (100). Granted, there are passages that show the giving of the Holy Spirit coming after conversion, but if these passages are the exception rather than the rule, then the Wesleyan argument is greatly weakened.[1]  Sinclair Ferguson writes:

What took place in Samaria, in the house of Cornelius, and in Ephesus must be interpreted in terms of the unique historical setting of the early church. Pentecost is not ‘repeated’ any more than the death or resurrection of Christ is a repeatable event….It is an event in redemptive history (historia salutis), and should not be squeezed into the grid of the application of redemption (ordo salutis)….This is not to say that Pentecost has no existential dimension or contemporary relevance. But it does mean that we should no more anticipate a ‘personal Pentecost’ than we will experience a personal Jordan, wilderness, Gethsemane or Golgotha.[2]

The Wesleyan argument thus fails to show that Scripture speaks of two experiences of the Holy Spirit, one at conversion and another at an instant perfection of sanctification. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts should be best understood as a transitioning from the old covenant to the new covenant, or a “catching up” with Pentecost.[3] If it were the case that there were two different experiences of the Holy Spirit (including an instantaneous sanctification), one would expect that the Epistles would be filled with instructions to be seeking this “second blessing.” Passages that do refer to “being filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), or that speak of being sanctified completely (1 Thess. 5:23) are not in reference to second experience of the Holy Spirit in instantaneous sanctification. Rather, being filled with the Spirit in Eph. 5:18 is in contrast to being filled and controlled with wine (drunkenness). Peter O’Brien notes that, to be admonished, ‘Be filled with the Spirit,’ then, means that Paul’s readers are urged to let the Spirit change them more into the image of God and Christ, a notion which is consistent with Pauline theology elsewhere…Furthermore, although there is a strong emphasis on God’s activity in bringing his people to fullness, this transforming work is not done apart from their personal involvement.”[4] As O’Brien observes, this change is not instantaneous and will not be fully completed until “the final day when the readers are filled with all his fullness.”[5] To use this passage in a way that would suggest Christians should be seeking and expecting any sort of a “second blessing” is a misuse of the passage. Lastly, how do Christians know that they have experienced or reached this “perfection?” Experiences are subjective, and Christians could be waiting and hoping for a feeling that never comes.

A second weakness of the Wesleyan view of sanctification is the distinction that it makes between sin and mistakes. By viewing sin as only a voluntary transgression of a known law, the totality of the biblical view of sin is lost. Wayne Grudem defines sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.”[6] Hodge adds, “All sin, therefore, is not an agency, activity, or act; it may be and is also a condition or state of the mind.”[7] Sin is more than a voluntary transgression of a known law, for as Grudem’s definition explains, it includes thoughts and inner motives, and not just behavior. All Christians would agree that people make mistakes. The carpenter who cuts a board at the wrong angle has not (necessarily) sinned by doing so; he simple made a mistake. Mistakes do not call for repentance and the blood of Jesus to forgive. They are part of human life in a fallen world. On the other hand, to call what is sin a mistake is a huge error. Sin does need to be repented of and the blood of Christ to cover in forgiveness. Wesleyans err by limiting sin in such a narrow fashion, and by so doing, they elevate the status of man and weaken the holiness of God. 

A third weakness of Wesleyan sanctification is the view of perfect Christians in the Bible, and the location from which sin arises. Wesley believed that the “fathers” in 1 John 2:12-14 were perfect, and that the new covenant allowed Christians be go without sinning, at least in the outward sense.[8] Wesley states, “A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin….But elsewhere Solomon says, ‘There is no man that sinneth not.’ Doubtless thus it was in the days of Solomon; yea, and from Solomon to Christ there was then no man that sinned not. But whatever was the case of those under the law, we may safely affirm, with St. John, that since the Gospel was given, ‘he that is born of God sinneth not.’”[9] Wesleyans also believe the heart to be changed so that it is no longer evil, and no longer brings forth evil thoughts and desires. This would raise the question of where sin comes from, should a Christian commit it. As with the previous discussions, these views are only possible when the definition of sin is changed and holiness is misunderstood.

---

[1]See Acts 2 for the account of Pentecost, Acts 8 for the account of the Samarian believers who

received the Holy Spirit after conversion, and Acts 19 where those who were baptized into John’s baptism received the Holy Spirit.

[2]Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downers’ Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 86-7.

[3]See Darrell L. Block, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed.

Andreas J. Kostenberger (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 144.

[4]Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 392-3.

[5]Ibid., 393.

[6]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 490.

[7]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (London: Offset Litho, 1960), 187.

[8]Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 538.

[9]Wesley, Christian Perfection, 17.