A Response to L. Ray Smith’s Criticism of “Concordant Teachings” (Part Two)

As demonstrated in the previous installment of my response to L. Ray Smith’s criticism of certain “Concordant teachings,” the measure of divine grace that Paul variously described as “super-exceeding,” “super-abounding” and “super-abundant” was not being manifested or bestowed prior to Christ’s ascension. At no point did Christ, during his earthly ministry (when our Lord was “confirming the patriarchal promises”), make known or dispense this grace.

This fact notwithstanding, Mr. Smith went on to express his bewilderment that anyone could possibly believe that the Lord’s teaching concerning grace during his earthly ministry was different than (and should be kept separate from) what the Lord revealed to and through the apostle Paul:

UNBELIEVABLE! And that is not a slip of typewriter keys, this author and thousands who believe in the salvation of all firmly believe this to be true. Where on God's earth do they think "grace" came from in the first place? Was Paul the "inventor of grace?"

"For the law was given by Moses, but GRACE AND TRUTH came by JESUS CHRIST" (John 1:17).

Not Paul!!

I highly doubt that the “Concordant” believer to whom Mr. Smith was responding believed that Paul was the “inventor of grace,” or that grace was something exclusive to the administration given to Paul or to the body of Christ. In any event, this is certainly not something I’ve ever believed or claimed to be the case. God’s grace has always been present and operative in human history. In Gen. 6:8, for example, we’re told that Noah – who is described as “a righteous man” who “became flawless in his generations” and walked with God – “found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.” And we’ve already noted how James and Peter both quoted a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures in which God is said to give grace to the humble. What changed with the beginning of the administration of the grace of God was not the fact that divine grace began to be bestowed; rather, what changed was the extent to which (and the kind of people to whom) it began to be bestowed.

Since John didn’t mean that grace and truth had no existence before Christ came into the world (or that humanity had no prior experiential contact with grace and truth before Christ’s earthly ministry began), what, exactly, did John mean when he wrote that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ?” Significantly, besides its three occurrences in the prologue (John 1:14, 16, 17), the term “grace” is not found anywhere else in John’s account (in contrast, the word “truth” occurs 25 times). However, the two terms “grace and truth” (charitos kai aletheias) can be understood as echoing the Hebrew pairing of “benignity” and “truth” (Heb. hesed, emet), which are central in the covenantal self-disclosure of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. Concerning this self-revelation of God, we read the following in Exodus 34:6-7:

“Now Yahweh passed by before [Moses’] face and proclaimed: Yahweh, Yahweh El, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant with benignity and truth, preserving benignity to thousands, bearing with depravity, transgression and sin…”[1]

Yahweh declared these words to Moses shortly after Moses asked Yahweh to show him His glory (Ex. 33:18). Keeping this fact in mind, let’s now compare Ex. 34:6 with the following from John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Just as Yahweh revealed himself to Moses as a God who is “abundant with benignity and truth,” so Yahweh’s only-begotten Son – who, we’re told in John 1:18, “unfolds” the Father” – is said to be “full of grace and truth” (with the expression “full of grace and truth” corresponding to the Hebrew expression translated “abundant with benignity and truth” in Ex. 34:6). We can therefore understand John to have been presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s previous revelation to Israel (which Christ himself affirmed when, in John 14:9, he declared, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father…”).

Concerning what John meant when he wrote that he and his fellow believing Jews had obtained “grace for grace” (John 1:16), I think it’s significant that the “benignity” with which God said he is “abundant” is associated with his “bearing with depravity, transgression and sin” (Ex. 34:7). The words translated “bearing with” in this verse communicate the idea of God’s not reckoning sins against those with whose sins he’s “bearing” (see Ex. 34:9; cf. Num. 14:17-20 and Ps. 32:1, 5; 85:2; Mic. 7:18). Moreover, those to whom we’re told God is “preserving benignity” in Ex. 34:7 are clearly members of God’s covenant people, Israel (for it was on behalf of Israel alone that Moses had been interceding; see Ex. 32:11-14; 33:12-16; 34:8-9).

In light of this fact, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the expression of divine grace to which John was referring in John 1:16 is that of which he later wrote in 1 John 1:7, 9:

“Yet if we should be walking in the light as He is in the light, we are having fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, is cleansing us from every sin…if we should be avowing our sins, He is faithful and just that He may be pardoning us our sins and should be cleansing us from all injustice.”

As is the case with the letters written by James, Peter, Jude and the author of the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John were not written to believers among the nations (of whom the ecclesias to which Paul wrote were primarily comprised). Rather, John ministered to (and thus wrote to) believers among God’s covenant people, Israel. Paul affirmed this divinely-made arrangement when he wrote that he and Barnabas would be “for the nations” while James, Peter and John would be “for the Circumcision” (Gal. 2:9). And John implied as much when, in his third letter, he referred to “the nations” as a company of believers who were distinct from the saints on whose behalf he ministered (3 John 1:7).[2]

With this fact kept in mind, notice the conditional “if” used in the above verses. For the believing Jews to whom John wrote his letters, the obtaining of God’s sin-pardoning grace was conditional, and required “walking in the light as He is in the light” and “avowing” one’s sins. Thus, the fact that we’re told “grace and truth” came through Jesus Christ does not contradict the fact that, with regard to the bestowing of his grace, God deals differently with the believers among his covenant people (the “Israel of God”) than he does with the body of Christ.

Mr. Smith went on to write that a certain believer presented him with the following two options regarding the gospel heralded by Paul among the nations:

1. Either we work, keep laws, do good deeds, apply human will and human effort as part of our salvation, or

2. Salvation is accomplished without ANY good works or ideal acts, without ANY human will, choices, or effort (which is considered PURE GRACE).

According to the first option provided, our salvation involves and requires some obedient action/volitional effort on our part. In contrast, the second option affirms the exact opposite. So far, so good. Either our eonian salvation as members of the body of Christ requires some kind of volitional effort/obedient action(s) on our part, or it doesn't. However, Mr. Smith then responds to these mutually exclusive options as follows:

“Nothing could be further from the truth--BOTH of these options are wrong.”

Mr. Smith claimed to have rejected both options. But what other option is there? By rejecting the second option, Mr. Smith must have affirmed that the accomplishment of our eonian salvation involves at least some good works/ideal acts/volitional effort on our part (and that our salvation cannot and will not occur apart from this). But that’s precisely what the first option affirms. Either our salvation as believers is at least partly based on (and partly accomplished by) our own works/volitional effort, or it isn't. Either doing something (i.e., obeying what Mr. Smith referred to later as certain “spiritual laws commands”) is part of our salvation, or it’s not. There’s no middle ground here.

As we’ll see, it’s clear that Mr. Smith firmly rejected the second option while (perhaps inadvertently) affirming the first. This being the case, the only way that I can make any sense at all of Mr. Smith’s claim to reject the first premise is that he misunderstood it to be affirming that our salvation is solely based on good deeds/obedience/volitional effort on our part, and that it depends entirely on something we must do. However, that’s not what’s being affirmed in the first option (at least, insofar as I understand it). We're not told in this option that our salvation is solely dependent on our own effort and obedience here (hence the words, “as part of our salvation”).

In any case (and despite Mr. Smith’s claim to reject both options), Mr. Smith’s rejection of the second premise can only mean that he believed that our eonian salvation as believers is accomplished with some good works/ideal acts, and with some volitional effort and contribution on our part. And regardless of whether or not Mr. Smith correctly understood what’s being affirmed in the first option, it seems clear from what he went on to write that he affirmed that the believer must live a righteous and godly life to some degree in order to be saved before the rest of humanity, and denied that we could receive this eonian salvation apart from doing what Smith later referred to as “…OBEYING all the spiritual laws commands that are far far superior to the law of Moses and its administration of death.”

Mr. Smith continued:

Jesus Christ is coming to put down His enemies when He returns, but not because they didn't "BELIEVE" the gospel, but because they didn't "OBEY" the gospel. And just who would ever propose such a thing? Let's try The Apostle Paul: 

II Thes. 1:8--"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST."

Or, let me quote it from their own Version:

"...in flaming fire, dealing out vengeance to those who are not acquainted with God and those who are NOT OBEYING THE EVANGEL [gospel] OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST..." (Concordant Literal New Testament).

The problem with Mr. Smith’s use of this verse to support his position (which is that obedience to what he referred to as “the Seven Spiritual Laws in the New Covenant” is essential to the eonian salvation of the believer) is that the evangel/gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to which Paul was referring is not a law, precept or command. Rather, it’s a message that’s constituted by certain truth-claims. This message – which Paul elsewhere referred to as “the word of truth, the evangel of [our] salvation” (Eph. 1:13) – concerns what Christ did for sinners (he died for our sins) and what God did for Christ (he roused him from among the dead). So how does one obey this message?

The Greek word translated “obey” in 2 Thess. 1:8 is hupakouō, and means “to hear and to heed” (according to the CLNT’s Greek-English Keyword Concordance, the translated elements of which this word consists are “UNDER-HEAR”). When one obeys (“hears and heeds”) a certain precept, one does what is commanded in the precept. For example, one obeys the precept “you shall love your associate as yourself” by loving one’s associate as oneself. However, when a message is in view (as is the case in 2 Thess. 1:8), obedience to the message necessarily consists in believing the message. Thus, one obeys (“hears and heeds”) the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ simply by believing the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Smith goes on to appeal to a certain definition of “obey” in an attempt to support his position that “obeying the evangel” necessarily involves obeying what he calls “all the spiritual laws in the New Covenant”:

And let's not misunderstand the meaning of that word "obey" from the Greek word "hupakouo" which means "to HEED or CONFORM to a command" (Strong's #5219, p. 256). 

Although one can certainly “heed” the evangel (by believing it), the evangel is not a “command” to which one must “conform.” So the very definition of “obey” to which Mr. Smith appealed actually serves to undermine his understanding of 2 Thess. 1:8. Since the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ is not a command (or a set of “spiritual laws”), it’s clear that obeying it does not involve carrying out a command or keeping a precept. In contrast with (for example) the command to love your neighbor as yourself, one does not obey the evangel by doing good works (or by refraining from doing bad works). Again, the sense in which one obeys the evangel is simply that one responds to it with faith. But what, then, is the connection between obeying the evangel (i.e., believing it) and doing good works?

Answer: In Eph. 2:8-10 we read the following concerning those who had obeyed the evangel (and who had thus become members of the body of Christ):

“For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting. For His achievement are we, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them.”

When Paul wrote, “for His achievement are we, created in Christ Jesus for good works,” he was referring to members of the body of Christ. That is, Paul was referring to that company of saints whose eonian salvation has never been dependent on works of any kind. Since our salvation is “not of works,” it necessarily follows that any works done after we’ve been justified by faith have no effect whatsoever on whether or not we will receive life eonian. Thus, although good works should characterize the “walk” of those who believe/obey the evangel, doing the good works that God “makes ready beforehand” is not how we believe/obey the evangel. Although good works should follow from one’s obedience to the evangel, such works do not constitute one’s obedience to the evangel (and with regard to those who hear the evangel of the grace of God but don’t believe it, any good works subsequently performed by them will be works done by those who have not obeyed the evangel).

The only obedient response to the evangel is to believe it. Those who have believed it “should be walking in [good works],” but the eonian salvation of the believer is not dependent on such works (it’s dependent on God’s grace). Although a believer should do good works, a believer does not need to do good works – or live a life that’s characterized by good works – in order to receive the salvation that Paul had in view in Eph. 2:8.

Continuing in his attempt to defend the position that the salvation of those in the body of Christ involves a process of precept-keeping obedience/godly living, Mr. Smith went on to write the following:

“Notice how this same Greek word is used in Acts 6:7—"And the word of God grows, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem multiplied tremendously, Besides, a vast throng of the priests OBEYED THE FAITH" (Concordant Version).

Wow! Imagine that: The collective teachings of Jesus which are classified as "THE faith" is something that can and MUST BE, OBEYED!”

However, even in Acts 6:7, the obedience that is in view likely involved simply hearing and heeding the “word of God” referred to in this verse (i.e., the evangel that was being heralded by the apostles, and which is constituted by the truth that Jesus is the Christ; cf. Acts 2:36). It is this heralded message that is likely being referred to in this verse (by the figure of speech “Association” or “Metonymy”) as “the faith.”

After stating that one is not likely to ever hear it quoted “at a Concordant meeting,” Mr. Smith goes on to quote (and comment on) Titus 2:11-12 as follows:

”For the GRACE of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, TEACHING US [image that, 'grace' is a VERB THAT DOES SOMETHING--IT TEACHES US SOMETHING. What?...] ...TEACHING US that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, RIGHTEOUSLY, AND GODLY, in this present world" (That again would be, The Apostle Paul to Titus, Titus 2:11-12).”

I seriously doubt that anyone teaching at a “Concordant meeting” would shy away from what Paul wrote in Titus 2:11-12. In any case, I have no problem whatsoever with what Paul wrote in these verses. Everything I believe concerning how members of the body of Christ are saved is perfectly consistent with the fact that the saving grace of God is “training us that, disowning irreverence and worldly desires, we should be living sanely and justly and devoutly in the current eon” (as Paul’s words are translated in the CLNT). Apparently, Mr. Smith thought that being taught/trained by the saving grace of God is equivalent to being saved by grace. However, the salvation of the believer and the teaching/training of the believer are not the same.

As important as Paul’s words in Titus 2:11-12 are, Paul was not talking about how members of the body of Christ are saved/qualify for eonian life, or explaining what the believer must do in order to receive immortality before the rest of humanity. That is, Paul was not saying that if a believer doesn’t live “righteously and godly in this present world” then he or she won’t receive eonian life. Paul makes clear in Titus 3:3-7 that our salvation – which, in the immediate context, Paul equates with “being justified in [Christ’s] grace” (and which qualifies the believer for the allotment of life eonian) – is something that’s unrelated to “works wrought in righteousness which we do.”

After quoting Paul in Titus 2:11-12, Mr. Smith went on to say,

”And, so what I have said does not contradict salvation by faith for all humanity, but it certainly does add to it the teachings of Jesus and Paul and all the apostles, that there certainly is something to do, to obey, to live out. Failure to OBEY the Gospel will culminate in such an one not even being in the first resurrection or given eonian life ahead of the rest of humanity! There are hundreds and hundreds of commands by none other than Paul himself, clearly stating what a believe must obey. And you can take that to the bank, and you can take that to your grave.” 

Based on what Mr. Smith wrote here, it’s clear that he believed that the eonian salvation of those in the body of Christ was conditioned on doing/obeying/living out certain commands, and that a failure to do/obey/live out these commands would result in a person not being saved “ahead of the rest of humanity.” Thus, when Mr. Smith wrote that there are “hundreds and hundreds of commands” that clearly state “what a believer must obey” (emphasis mine), the implication is that the believer will not be saved before the rest of humanity unless he or she obeys these commands. And this conditional salvation that involves obeying certain commands was understood by Mr. Smith as being in accord with the salvation that Paul wrote was “in grace, through faith.”

I believe that Mr. Smith was greatly mistaken here. Although Paul’s letters are filled with exhortations for believers regarding how we should live and conduct ourselves during this wicked eon, our being saved before the rest of humanity in no way depends on anything we must do, obey and live out. According to Paul, every member of the body of Christ was foreknown and designated beforehand by God (Rom. 8:29-30), chosen in Christ “before the disruption of the world” (Eph. 1:4-5) and “preferred from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13). Those chosen beforehand by God are subsequently “called” by God through the evangel (2 Thess. 2:14). The sort of “calling” that Paul had in mind here is not a general “calling” that one can choose to ignore or fail to respond to. It is, instead, a calling from God that involves being graciously granted a measure of faith to believe the evangel (Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29), and which inevitably results in the justification of those who are called. This is evident from Romans 8:29-30, where we read the following:

”…whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.”

Although Mr. Smith was undoubtedly very familiar with these verses, I don’t think he fully understood or appreciated the implications of what Paul wrote here. The same individuals who are called by God are also justified and glorified by God (with the glorification in view involving an eonian salvation that those designated beforehand by God will enjoy before the rest of humanity is saved; cf. Rom. 8:15-25). And since everyone who has been justified will be glorified, it follows that the eonian salvation of everyone in the body of Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with our conduct. Those who have been called through the evangel heralded by Paul (and, having been given the faith to believe the evangel, have been justified by God) do not need to obey or live out any commands in order to be saved before the rest of humanity. Although Paul exhorted believers to “walk worthily of the calling with which [we] were called,” a failure to do so will not jeopardize or have any effect at all on our eonian salvation. Our salvation before the rest of humanity is as certain to take place as our justification was certain to occur when we were called by God. And just as our justification occurred apart from anything we did (or didn’t do) before we were called by God, so our glorification will occur apart from anything we’ve done (or haven’t done) since being justified.

Upon being given the faith to believe “the word of truth, the evangel of [our] salvation,” those called by God are then “sealed with the holy spirit of promise,” which is “an earnest of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured” (Eph. 1:13-14). No precept-keeping obedience/ works/godly living is required for any member of the body of Christ to receive the “deliverance” of which Paul wrote in the above verses. This salvation – which will occur for all who have been justified by faith in Paul’s evangel – is as certain to occur as anything else God has promised to do.

Moreover, the future glorification of all who have been (or will be) justified through faith in the evangel of the grace of God is not an event that’s going to take place at different times (i.e., with some members of the body of Christ being glorified before the rest of humanity and others being glorified later). Rather, everyone in the body of Christ is going to be delivered from mortality/death and glorified together at the same time (Rom. 8:15-25; 1 Cor. 15:50-57; Phil. 3:20-21; Col. 3:1-4; 1 Thess. 4:14-18; 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 2:13-14). And this, once again, means that the eonian salvation of every member of the body of Christ is not something that is based on our conduct, or on our keeping certain precepts or “spiritual laws.” There is nothing that anyone in the body of Christ must do in order to receive immortality before the rest of humanity, and there is nothing we could do (or fail to do) that could possibly result in our failing to receive this salvation.

---

[1] For similar uses of the Hebrew expression translated here as “benignity and truth” here, see Gen. 24:27, 49; 32:10; 47:29; Josh. 2:14; Ps. 40:10-11; 61:7; Prov. 20:28.

[2] Some have suggested that “the nations” to whom John made reference here were unbelievers. But there’s no good reason to think that John – or any of the Jewish believers to whom he wrote – would’ve expected unbelieving Gentiles to provide financial assistance to the Jewish ecclesias to which Peter, James and John ministered. On the other hand, we know for a fact that, in accord with the agreement referred to by Paul in Gal. 2:10, the ecclesias to which Paul wrote had been doing just this (Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15).