Does Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality Apply Today?

In my re-visitation of the topic of homosexuality, I decided to re-read Victor Paul Furnish's chapter on homosexuality in his book The Moral Teaching of Paul.(1) What resulted was another revision of my thinking on the issue, to include even more nuances. I found this passage particularly challenging, in which Furnish talks about the presuppositions of Paul and the first century mind:

First, it was commonly presupposed that all human beings are erotically attracted to the opposite sex. . . . [It was also] commonly presupposed that all homoerotic sex is against nature . . . because it violates the male's superior and dominant role in relation to the female. The reasoning was that a man who, like a woman, submits to penetration by another male is surrendering his manliness. . . . And sex between females was denounced because imitating the male's role amounted to a challenge of male superiority. . . . [It] was widely viewed as undermining the patriarchal and hierarchical structures of the political order and of society as a whole.

Finally, it was commonly presupposed that all homoerotic sex, consensual or not, is the wild raging of inordinate passions and lusts, the wanton indulgence of one's sexual appetite. . . . None of these presuppositions, and none of the stereotypes that went with them, has stood the test of time. [Because of more] than a century of research in the biological, social, and behavioral sciences . . . , the ancient presuppositions about sex and gender have been rendered obsolete.(2)

This understanding is supported by examples of ancient literature that Furnish provides. Philo said of male homosexual activity that it "forces the male type of nature to debase and convert itself into the feminine form, just to indulge a polluted and accursed passion."(3) He elsewhere described it by saying that men who engage in homoerotic activity "emasculate their bodies" because they "submit to play the part of the women."(4) With regard to female homosexual activity, Furnish provided a quote from Pseudo-Phocylides, who said, "let not women imitate the sexual role of men."(5)

We have to take into account the social constructs under which Paul operated, which included an assumption that natural attraction is towards one's opposite sex, that the proper order of society includes men acquiring women and women coming under men, and that homosexual behavior is a perversion of the natural order.

Because of these presuppositions, homosexual activity was considered perversion from a spirit of perversion, depravity from a spirit of depravity. I am inclined to deny that this idea applies to homosexuality as seen in our culture. Today, there are many people who have never had an attraction to the opposite sex but have only ever been attracted to their own sex. These people often seek a faithful and loving union with one person of their own sex. This is not the result of wild, untamed lust, but merely people following their own seemingly natural attractions.

Could it be that this particular teaching of Scripture does not perfectly represent God's opinion of homosexuality today? Could it be that homosexual activity, which was once thought to be wholly unclean, should now no longer be thought of as such, just like the Gentiles in the early church? After all, the person considered unclean in the story of the good Samaritan was the one who represented Christ. 

These are not easy questions to answer.

For more on this issue, see my blog, "Is Homosexuality Sinful?" (here)

Notes:
(1) Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009).
(2) Ibid., 90-91.
(3) Quoted in Ibid., 68.
(4) Quoted in Ibid., 69.
(5) Quoted in Ibid., 68.

Predestined in Christ: Ephesians 1 and Calvinism

A couple months ago, I discussed Romans 9 and whether or not it supports Calvinism (here). That was the first of a series of blogs I'm doing about the passages in Scripture typically used to support Calvinism. Here, I am dealing with Ephesians 1:3-14:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

At face value, this passage seems to support Calvinist ideas of predestination and election: "he chose us . . . before the foundation of the world," "he predestined us for adoption," "[we were] predestined according to the counsel of his will." This sounds like Calvinism, and I sympathize with everyone who reads this passage and either thinks, "See? There it is!" or "Well, I guess it is in Scripture." However, when one analyzes the passage, and considers its historical context, not only is the Calvinist understanding unnecessary, but also unlikely.

ELECTION

Before Christ, Israel was the elect. Such is common knowledge. Israel was the chosen vessel through which salvation would be brought to the world. However, as N.T. Wright observes, the people of Israel were "bound up in the problem instead of being the bringers of the solution."(1) Thus, if salvation was going to spread to the world, it would have to be accomplished through a very different means. Enter Jesus Christ. The story continued with the "Messiah [doing] for the world what Israel was called to do."(2) Christ, then, is the new elect. Paul spells out God's redefinition of election with Christ at its center. As Markus Barth states, "God administers and carries out election through Jesus Christ."(3) Likewise, Ralph P. Martin states, "Election is . . . universalized to include all who are in Christ."(4)

It then follows that, since Christ is the elect, Wright says, "those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, his elect."(5) This can be seen quite clearly in our passage: "God . . . blessed us in Christ . . . [and] chose us in him. . . . he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. . . . he blessed in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood. . . . he set forth [the mystery of his will and purpose] in Christ . . . to unite all things in him. In him we have obtained an inheritance. . . . In him, you also . . . were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

It is clear in this passage that the elect ones are what they are only in Christ. This may seem like a simple, commonsensical statement, but we have to stop and think about how this completely redefines election: election is no longer a chosen people group, nor is it made up of specific individuals who are chosen; rather, it is Christ who is chosen, the elect, and, subsequently, all those who are in Christ. Those who accept the gospel and believe in Christ become in him, they become elect: "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (v.13).

PREDESTINATION

How, you might ask, does this perspective explain the references to predestination in this passage? Doesn't the passage suggest that those who are in Christ were predestined to be so?
Not necessarily.

I think all Christians can agree that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, were predestined. But do passages like these suggest that we go a step further and say that all those who would be saved by his sacrifice were also predestined? It is unlikely that Paul was saying that in writing this passage, for one only has to affirm that Christ's saving act was predestined in order to say with Paul that we were predestined for adoption.

God predestined that Christ would be the elect and that he would call all people to salvation. Thus, when one says 'Yes' to Christ through faith, one becomes one of the elect and it can rightfully be said that he/she was predestined for adoption (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rom. 8:29-30), because it was predestined that Christ would be the elect for all people, and that all who accept him would then be the elect. I was predestined to for adoption, because it was God's purpose in Christ to adopt all who believe in him, and I chose to believe in him. Consider Greg Boyd's analogy:

Suppose you attend a seminar in which a certain video is shown. You might ask the instructor, 'When was it decided (predestined) that we'd watch this video?' To which the instructor might respond, 'It was decided six months ago that you'd watch this video.' Note that it was not decided six months ago that you individually would watch this video. What was decided was that anyone who took this seminar would watch this video. Now that you have chosen to be part of this seminar, what was predestined for the seminar applies to you. You can now say, 'It was decided six months ago that we would watch this video.'(6)

In the same way, Christ's saving act was predestined; it was predestined that all who would believe in Christ would be the elect. Election is an open invitation to all people, and all who say 'Yes' become the elect, who are predestined for adoption, "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (v.11).

ROMANS 8:29

I believe this is the way we should look at Romans 8:29: 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

If we look at the context, "those whom" does not refer to individual people that God elected for salvation; it refers to "those who love God" and "those who are called." Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that this verse refers to "all who have responded to the divine call."(7) Must we draw from this that the individuals who responded to the divine call were foreknown and predestined?

The Greek word οὓς ('those whom') does not go that far. In Romans 11:2, the word refers to the people of Israel in general. 8:28-30 tells us that God predestined to call people to be conformed to the image of his Son, and that those who love God are justified and glorified. That there would be a group of people--the elect--that would respond to God's call by loving him was indeed predestined and foreknown.

God predestined that he would call people to be conformed to the image of his Son. He foreknew the elect as all who would believe in Christ. Just like the presenter of the seminar in Boyd's analogy foreknew the attendees as all who would arrive for the seminar. The passage does not suggest that God predestined and foreknew the elect as specific individuals chosen for salvation. The passage does provide that God predestined that all who are in Christ would be justified, glorified, and conformed to the image of Christ, but it does not go beyond this. It does not suggest that individuals were foreknown and predestined. To say that would be to go beyond what the text itself provides.

Notes:
(1) N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2005), 119.
(2) Ibid., 120.
(3) Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Vol. 34 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 107.
(4) Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 18.
(5) Wright, 122.
(6) Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 47.
(7) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 524.

The Historical Romans 9, or Why everything you thought you knew is wrong

I was planning on writing a book against Calvinism from a biblical-theological perspective. The theological books against Calvinism out there don't engage scholarly Scriptural study in the way that they could, and the scholarly Scriptural evidence against Calvinism has not been gathered together and put into a layman's book. I wanted to write such a book. I still might some day, but I don't think it will happen any time soon. Thus, I am going to write a few blogs dealing with the main Scripture passages that seem to support Calvinism. This one, as you can tell, is on Romans 9.

John Sanders rightfully states that double predestination is what happens "when Romans 9 is divorced from its historical setting and universalized into a timeless truth."(1) Indeed, it is because this chapter has been read the way it has since Augustine that it seems to obviously support double predestination. Rather than dealing with the topic of individual salvation, James Dunn provides, Paul here "is thinking solely in terms of salvation-history, of God’s purpose for Israel."(2) He is talking about Israelites, addressing their history and their future, and is defending God's righteousness and faithfulness in his dealings with them: "It is not as though the word of God has failed" (v.6). With that, let's dive in:

11-16: For when they were not yet born nor had done anything good or evil, in order that the purpose of God should stand in terms of election, not from works but from him who calls, it was said to her, "The elder will serve the younger," as it is written: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? Certainly not! For to Moses he says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I show compassion." So then, it is not a matter of one who wills or the one who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

With this passage, rather than supporting the doctrine of arbitrary or unconditional election, Paul is making known that the election of the Israelites never had anything to do with what they did: "not from works . . . not a matter of one who wills or the one who runs." Dunn states Paul here is using Israel's own scriptures on their election to refute the idea that their "obedience to the law . . . was a factor in sustaining their covenant status before God."(3) He is making known that their election was solely an act of God's mercy and compassion. One would have to read the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election into the text, because Paul is not referring to all the elect people in Christ, he is talking about elect Israel.

17-23: For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this purpose I raised you up, in order that I might demonstrate in you my power and in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then, to whom he wills he shows mercy, but whom he wills he hardens. [I explore this last verse in my blog on divine hardening here]

You will say to me then: "Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?" On the contrary, who are you, man, who answers back to God? Does the thing made say to its maker, Why have you made me thus? Or does the potter not have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, bore with much patience the vessels of wrath made ready for destruction, in order that he might make known the wealth of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory?

It is no coincidence that Paul brings up both the rejection of Esau and the hardening of Pharaoh within a few verses of each other. Dunn provides, "God's redemption of Israel from Egypt meant that Pharaoh had filled the same sort of antithetical role" as that of Esau, who became the counterpart to his brother when Jacob was chosen and he was not.(4) Paul is using these examples to build up to a point, and that point is this:

The antithetical role filled by Esau and Pharaoh in relation to Israel's election and redemption is now being filled by the bulk of Israel in relation to God's calling of Gentile as well as Jew through the gospel.(5)

Whereas, before, Esau was the counterpart to Jacob's chosenness and Pharoah was hardened, now Israel is the counterpart to the inclusion of the Gentiles and they are hardened. In this, God remains faithful because the gospel was always the goal of God's covenant.(6) Israel is the one who failed by rejecting the gospel. Thus, Paul's question, "Who are you who answers back to God?" is valid, since the "disobedient and obstinate" Israelites (Rom. 10:21) are the ones who are questioning God's treatment of them.

The 'vessels of wrath' are "the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the community/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel."(8) The 'vessels of mercy', then, are the Gentile as well as Jew recipients of the gospel.

Vessels of wrath are not arbitrarily chosen by God before time to be prepared for destruction; nowhere is that provided. Vessels of wrath are such vessels because they made themselves that way. This is indicated by the potter and clay quotation from Isaiah, in which Israel was defying God's will (Is. 29). It is also indicated by the statement, God "bore with much patience the vessels of wrath" (v.22). In 10:21, Paul makes this point a second time, quoting Isaiah again, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Why would God have to bear with much patience a people that he molded to be vessels of wrath? Why would he hold out his hands all day long to a people he made disobedient and obstinate? It would simply not make any sense at all.

Additionally, we must also consider the nature of God's wrath. I explore this topic more here and here, but suffice it to say, Romans 1:18-32 shows us, "God's wrath comes upon man's rebellion. . . . [M]an cannot escape responsibility for his fitness for destruction; on the contrary, in striking free from God he assumed the primary responsibility for what he became."(9)

Paul's point is that God can deal with the Israelites however he wills, and that he is righteous and faithful in his judgment. They have been hardened because they made themselves vessels of wrath, just as Pharoah was hardened because he made himself a vessel of wrath.

However, vessels of wrath do not have to stay that way. This is indicated by the use of the potter analogy, which Dunn states was most likely a "deliberate echo of the most famous of the scripture's potter passages (Jer. 18:1-11) [and] would be an invitation to his Roman readers to recognize that the divine purpose could be tempered and changed, that the pot made for a disreputable use could be remade into a work to be treasured."(10) Here is the potter passage in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:1-10: This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Robert Chisholm comments on this passage: "there is no room for fatalistic determination here, for the 'clay' is depicted as exercising its own will, prompting an appropriate response from the divine 'potter.'"(11) The potter responds to the clay and adapts to its movements. Paul and his readers definitely would have thought of this passage in response to the use of the potter and clay metaphor--something that was most likely intentional on Paul's part.

Indeed, Paul even echoes the Jeremaic understanding of the potter and the clay metaphor in II Timothy. Here is a comparison of his use of the metaphor in Romans 9 and in II Timothy:

Romans 9:21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object (σκεῦος) for honorable (τιμὴν) use and another for dishonorable (ἀτιμίαν) use?

II Timothy 2:20: In a large house there are utensils (σκεύη) not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable (τιμὴν) use, some for dishonorable (ἀτιμίαν).

σκεῦος / σκεύη = object (or vessel, or utensil)
τιμὴν = honorable
ἀτιμίαν = dishonorable

These two verses are virtually making the same point: there are vessels made for honorable use and others made for dishonorable use. But Paul continues in II Timothy to say this:

2:21: All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned will become honorable (τιμήν) utensils (σκεῦος), dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work.

If we apply the understanding of the Jeremiah passage and the II Timothy passage to Romans 9--which we have no reason not to do--all notions of double predestination disappear entirely. It becomes clear that vessels of wrath are not that way because of some divine decree, but because of their own actions.

It also shows Paul did not think vessels of wrath had to stay vessels of wrath. As Dunn provides, Romans 2:1-3:20 (and I would add 11:11-24) shows us "being outside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final condemnation, just as being inside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final justification."(12)

In fact, Paul writes so that the vessels of wrath will not stay fit for destruction! He says just a few verses later, "Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved" (10:1).

So here is the overall flow of Paul's message to the Israelites:

1) The covenant people were not chosen because of anything that they did (vv.11-12, 16), but their call to election was solely based on God's mercy and compassion (vv.15-16).

2) The roles that Esau and Pharaoh played in the salvation-history of Israel are now being filled by Israel herself in the coming of the gospel to the Gentiles. God chose Jacob over Esau and used Pharaoh's obstinate state to further his purposes for Israel, and now he is choosing the gospel over obstinate Israel and is using Israel's obstinate state to further his purposes for the world, "in order that he might make known the wealth of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory" (v.23). God prepared beforehand the gospel and that it would be presented "not only [to] the Jews but also [to] the Gentiles" (v.24; see also vv.25-26).

3) Paul emphasizes that God retains the right to do all of this, because he is the Creator, the Potter (v.18-21). However, it does not have to stay that way. At the beginning of chapter 10, Paul says his purpose is for Israel to be saved. If the vessels of wrath alter their behavior and embrace the will of God, they can be vessels of mercy.

It has been made clear that Romans 9 is not at all referring to predestination or individual salvation. Nothing in the text provides it. When you read the chapter with the understanding of its intended purpose for its intended audience, all notions of Calvin's doctrines fade away. I encourage you to read chapters 9-11 with this understanding and see how well the pieces fit together.
________________

This was just a general overview of the argument in Romans 9. If you want to research further, here are several places you can go:

• Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. New York: T&T Clark, 2002.
• Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
• Jewett, Robert. Romans. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2006.
• Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. 
• Sanders, John. "Romans 9-11." In The God Who Risks, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 127-130. This is another general overview, but a good one. 
• Shellrude, Glen. "The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: a Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29." Evangelical Quarterly 81, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 306-318. 
• White, Charles Edward. "John Calvin's Five-Point Misunderstanding of Romans 9: an Intertextual Analysis." Wesleyan Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (September 1, 2006): 28-50. 
• Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1992), 231-257.

Notes:
(1) John Sanders,The God Who Risks, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 129.
(2) James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 562.
(3) Ibid., 562-563.
(4) Ibid., 563.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Dunn says that Paul highlights "the continuity of the gospel with God's covenant election." Ibid., 568.
(7) Dunn states that Paul's "focus remains fixed primarily on the problems causes . . . by Israel's rejection of the gospel."Ibid., 566.
(9) Ibid., 567.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 177.
(12) Dunn, 564.

Concerning the Nature of Faith and Works

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."
Romans 2:13

"Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves."
James 1:22

"Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
Luke 11:28

Throughout Christ's teaching, there is an emphasis on one's righteousness. Indeed, the essence of being Christian is imitating Christ (Eph. 5:1; Phil. 2:5). However, since the Reformation, the term 'works' has become a scary word for many Christians. We do our best to avoid implying works-based salvation. We often think of works as penance or things we must do to earn salvation or to earn God's favor. Unfortunately, practicing good works can be and has often been perverted into something we must do to earn God's love--what one of my professors calls 'natural human religion'. That being said, performing good works is an important aspect of Christianity and a well-rounded philosophy of it must be established.

The Nature of Faith

James says, “Faith without works is dead” (2:14, 17-24, 26). Rather than advocating works-based salvation, he is describing something natural. The nature of faith needs works to survive. Works fuel faith. Psychologically, this is perfectly natural. A belief, if not fueled by some sort of application in one’s life, will fade. It will die. Likewise, if faith is not actively applied to one’s life, it will disappear. Not because it isn’t good enough, not because God didn’t give the person enough, but because the person did not provide the means necessary for the faith to thrive. As Douglas Moo aptly suggests, “[it] is not that works must be added to faith but that genuine faith includes works. That is its very nature.”(1) Thus, we could say that we are justified by our faith, and our faith is justified by our works. As Moo adds, “Perfect faith is produced through successive acts of obedience.”(2)
Martin Luther struggled with James' concept of faith needing works to survive, almost to the point of disregarding the book as part of the canon. Ironically, he brilliantly conveyed what I am trying to say here:

O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them.(3)

The Nature of Works as Participation

Works, rather than “things I should do or else I am not a good Christian,” are acts of obedience to God. They are contributions to God's Kingdom.
Furthermore, performing good works, rather than acting out of obligation or guilt, is actively participating in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. . . . And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. . . . And my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23)

Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love. (15:9b-10)

Works make us vulnerable to God’s work and influence. By obeying God, we say ‘Yes’ to his grace and we open up our hearts for him to enter in and transform our being. With works, we let him have his way in the molding of who we will become. By performing the works of his Kingdom, we involve him in our lives. Thus, by our works, our relationship with him is made stronger. “Draw near to him and he will draw near to you” (Jas. 4:8); not that God isn’t already Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23)—not that anything can objectively separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38–39), but subjectively we can be distanced from him. Thus, when we subjectively engage him, our hearts and minds become more intimate and personal with him.

Our work has the power to embrace or reject God's work. Thus, we can see how natural it is for James to say that faith without works is dead. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Heb. 11:1), but if the thing hoped for is not close to our hearts and minds, and not being manifested in our lives through our active engagement of it, what happens to the faith? It naturally dies.


The Nature of Works as Subjective Experience

The second thing we must discuss in relation to the nature of works is what the Cross accomplished for humanity. That is, salvation for all (1 Jn. 2:2), for each and every person who ever was and is and is to come. This was the objective reality accomplished on the Cross. Thus, our true nature is hidden in Christ (Col. 3:3). In Christ, we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), we are sinless, perfect, complete, and wonderfully Christ-like. As Paul says, “We, then, who are perfect, let us think on that!” (Phil. 3:15).(4) However, there is an absolutely essential subjective experience of that reality that is required in order for it to take effect.

First, one needs faith. One cannot experience what Christ accomplished on the Cross without faith. One must have faith in the new creation Christ has made him/her. In order to actually experience the benefits—if you will—of the Cross, one must believe in one’s new nature as a sinless, perfect image of the Amazing Creator. This cannot just be something with which one agrees (especially since it is such an absurd concept; me—perfect?). This cannot just be an idea that one believes and sticks on a shelf but is never actualized. One has to take upon that new nature and embrace it. One must begin to manifest the new creation that he/she really is.
This is where works come in. Works are subjective manifestations of the objective reality we have in Christ. Paul says, “Let us live up to what we have already obtained” (Phil 3:16). We have obtained perfection in Christ; "Therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

This is why Paul says, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). Faith in Christ means faith in what Christ accomplished for the one's entire being. Christ established in all people a nature from which works flow like rivers. Thus, when we sin, it is only because we do not have faith in our perfect nature in Christ. If we had perfect faith, we would always manifest the new creation and would never sin.
It is not unlike when Morpheus was trying to free Neo from the limitations of his mind. It was only the matrix that was telling him what he couldn't do. In reality, he could jump from building to building (a leap of faith, if you will), best Morpheus in combat, and stop bullets in mid-air; but he had to be opened up to that reality and embrace it so that it was made manifest in his life.

We should stop living in the pre-Cross period. We should stop living in the old, dead flesh. We must stop living in the matrix. Let us obey God's commandments so that we can embrace him with our lives and manifest the truth of our perfection in Christ. This is why works are so essential to the Christian life and why faith without works is dead.

Notes:
(1) Douglas J. Moo, James, reprint ed. (Downers Gover: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 103.
(2) Ibid., 116.
(3) Martin Luther quoted in Ibid., 117.
(4) This is Karl Barth’s translation of the verse. See his Epistle to the Philippians, 40^th anniversary ed., trans. James W. Leitch (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 111.