by R.C. Sproul

The Relevance of Edwards's Distinguishing Marks

When signs of revival appear on the landscape of history, one of the first questions that is raised is that of authenticity. Is the revival genuine, or is it a mere outburst of superficial emotion? Do we find empty enthusiasm backed by nothing of substance, or does the enthusiasm itself signal a major work of God? In every recorded revival in church history, the signs that follow it are mixed. The gold is always mixed with dross. Every revival has its counterfeits; distortions tend to raise questions about the real. This problem certainly attended the eighteenth-century Great Awakening in New England, in which Jonathan Edwards was a key figure. His Distinguishing Marks provides a careful analysis of that revival, noting its substance as well as its excesses. But the Puritan divine's study of the matter has more relevance than its application to that singular awakening. It provides a map to follow for all such periods of revival and for that reason is of abiding value for us today.

A Preview of Edwards's Distinguishing Marks

This text functioned as the normative benchmark for Edwards. Ironically, the biblical mandate here is a call to unbelief. Certainly this call to unbelief does not summon us to the faithlessness of the ungodly; it is not a repudiation of true biblical faith. Rather, it is a red alert against the beguiling force of credulity, a readiness to believe on the basis of insufficient evidence. As Augustine had done centuries before, Edwards noted a difference between faith and credulity. Credulity is faith without substance, an easy-believism that lacks critical judgment and consequently discernment.

Any claim to spiritual power is to be tested to see if the claim is validated by the work of God. This rests on the axiom that not all spirits are holy. The Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of Truth whose operation is validated by the truth of Scripture that He Himself inspired and illuminates.

The testing of the spirits is made necessary by the presence of false prophets, who are both alluring and numerous. The Israelites' greatest threat in Old Testament times was never the warring nations that surrounded them and often invaded their borders from the outside. It was always the threat of the false prophets within their own gates. The false prophets of Israel had their own "revivals." Their congregations tended to be much larger than the true prophets' because their message and their religion had strong popular appeal. They preached a message that tickled the ears of those who had "itchy ears" but did not have ears to hear the Word of God.

The "worship" offered by false prophets was the worship of idolatry in which the creature was exalted above the Creator. Such worship was popular with the people but repugnant to God. We see a glimpse of this in Exodus 32:

And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." But he said: "It is not the noise of the shout of victory, nor the noise of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing I hear." So it was, as soon as he came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing.
--vv. 17-19, NKJV

The noise that Joshua heard was not the noise of battle. It was the noise of joyful religious celebration. The event in view was one of the best-attended religious gatherings recorded in the Old Testament. It was the noise of jubilant worship coupled with unbridled religious zeal. But the object of the worship and the focal point of the zeal was not God but a golden calf. This was not reformation but deformation; it was not the experience of revival or new spiritual life but the expression of spiritual death. Moses reported this to God, saying, "Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold!" (v. 31, NKJV). The response of God to this event, which was "a great sin" rather than a great awakening, was that "the LORD plagued the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron made" (v. 35).

Edwards warns that the influence, operations, and gifts of the Holy Spirit are aped and mimicked by Satan. That is why it is necessary to provide marks that can help us distinguish between the true Spirit of God and false spirits. Without such distinguishing marks the church is vulnerable to delusions and their dire consequences.

*****

This is part two of R.C. Sproul's Introduction to The Spirit of Revival. Taken from The Spirit of Revival by R.C. Sproul and Archie Parrish, ©2000. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

On this page, we've collected some of R.C. Sproul's teaching series on the subject of "Christian Living". God desires for us to not only understand His holy character, but to grow in holiness ourselves. These series are for those desiring to understand the process of sanctification and learn how the Word of God applies to topics such as spiritual growth, the Christian family, prayer, and worship.

For your convenience, we have a new resource for those wanting to get all Christian Living topical series in MP3 format delivered on a DVD-ROM. Click here to learn more.

Finally, this store page collects all of our resources on the topic of Christian Living.

In the eighteenth century, revival swept America as a Great Awakening woke thousands of Americans from spiritual slumber. While many were genuinely converted, discerning Christian leaders such as Jonathan Edwards became convinced of the need to determine how one could distinguish true revival from false. Edwards performed such a study and in 1741, just after the revival reached its peak, recorded his thoughts in a discourse entitled The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. This book has become a classic text on revivals and is as timely today as ever.

A few years ago, Archie Parrish edited a book called The Spirit of Revival, an adaptation of The Distinguishing Marks. R.C. Sproul provided an extended introduction to the book in which he summarized the book's main arguments and compared Edwards' time to our own.

With news of a supposed revival in the news today, Christians would do well to discern the marks of true revival. Edwards is a steady guide and Dr. Sproul aptly summarizes what he would teach us in his Introduction to The Spirit of Revival. In the coming days we will serialize that portion of the book, trusting that it will equip you to understand revival and to distinguish a true work of God from one that is false.

*****

by R.C. Sproul

Revival and Reformation

With the rescue of the Gospel from darkness and distortion, a revival was evoked that transcended any revival of faith witnessed either by previous or subsequent periods of Christian history. The Reformation was not merely a Great Awakening; it was the Greatest Awakening to the true Gospel since the Apostolic Age. It was an awakening that demonstrated the power of God unto salvation.

It is noteworthy that this period in history is commonly referred to as the Reformation and not the Revival. What is the difference between revival and reformation? As the etymologies of the words suggest, revival describes a renewal of spiritual life, while reformation describes a renewal of the forms and structures of society and culture. It is not possible to have true reformation without first having true revival. The renewal of spiritual life under the power of the Holy Spirit is a necessary condition for reformation but not a sufficient condition for it. Therefore, though it is not possible to have reformation without revival, it is possible to have revival without reformation. Why is that the case? There are at least two reasons. The first is that revival brings with it the conversion of souls to Christ, who are at the moment of conversion spiritual babes. Infants have little impact on the shaping of cultural institutions. It is when vast numbers of converted people approach maturity in their faith and sanctification that the structures of the world are seriously challenged and changed. If vast numbers of people are converted but remain infantile in their spiritual growth, little impact is made by them on society as a whole. Their faith tends to remain privatized and contained within the confines of the arena of mere religion.

The second reason concerns the scope and intensity of the revival. If the revival is limited in scope and intensity, its impact tends to be restricted to a small geographical area and also tends to be short-lived. Yet it may have rivulets of abiding influence into future generations. Such a rivulet is the work of Jonathan Edwards presented and discussed in this book. The Great Awakening that occurred in New England in the mid-eighteenth century has left an indelible mark on America, though that mark has faded dramatically over time. No one would today confuse New England with a mecca of vibrant gospel faith. Nor is there any danger of the works of Jonathan Edwards pushing any contemporary authors off the New York Times's list of best sellers.

Nevertheless, the influence of Edwards as well as that of the magisterial reformers Luther and Calvin continue to this day. Their words are still in print, and there is a cadre of Christians who devour their writings. The things of which those men of God wrote maintain a vital relevance down to our own day. William Cooper's original preface to Edwards's The Distinguishing Marks describes the state of the church prior to the Great Awakening. It could just as well serve as a commentary for our own times.

The Cultural Context

In the eighteenth century the western world witnessed two major revolutions--the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The two have often been compared and contrasted by historians. The chief difference between the two may be seen in the root causes of the conflicts.

In the case of the French Revolution, the objective of the revolutionaries was to bring a radical change to French culture including the political institutions, customs, mores, and ethos of the old order. In a sense it was a revolt against the status quo and deeply entrenched traditions. The conflict was one of profound bloodshed accompanied by a reign of terror.

By way of contrast, the American Revolution was not fought to overthrow or destroy the old order but to preserve it. The colonists resisted changes enacted by Parliament that threatened the established American way of life.

Sometimes we tend to forget that America did not begin as a nation at the end of the eighteenth century. The settlers began the task of colonization of America in the early years of the seventeenth century with the Jamestown settlement in 1607 and the Massachusetts settlement in 1620. We tend to forget that between 1607 and the inauguration of George Washington, more than 175 years of time elapsed, only slightly less time than has transpired between George Washington and William Jefferson Clinton. We tend to telescope our history to the extent that we see Miles Standish and Thomas Jefferson as virtual contemporaries.

The point is, the time that elapsed between the beginning of colonial America and the Revolutionary War was ample time to establish an American way of life with its own traditions, customs, mores, and cultural ethos. Those elements were not suddenly and dramatically overthrown by the American Revolution. Indeed, as is the case with all cultural customs, they were exposed to gradual changes and adaptations--but without radical overthrow until the Second American Revolution.

When I speak of the Second American Revolution I am thinking of the cultural revolution that took place in the decade of the sixties and early seventies. This revolution was far more drastic in its consequences for American life than was the first Revolution. It ushered in a new order that has left our culture gripped in an ongoing cultural war that has a nation divided and fragmented over issues of sexual morality, the relation between church and state, the collapse of the family unit, the emergence of a drug culture, and a radical change in the customs of polite speech. A culture that once embraced normative ethics has given way to an ethos of relativism. The impact on education, law, the press, and virtually every societal institution has been enormous. Clearly we are living in a new order, which some, including myself, view as a new disorder.

It is this cultural context we must keep in view when we speak of spiritual revival and/or reformation. It is this present order, including the state of the church, that we must understand when we seek to find relevance or application for Edwards's work to our own time.

During the same time that the cultural revolution was in high gear, significant events were unfolding within the church. During the decade of the sixties we saw the explosion of the charismatic movement that spread far beyond the confines of Pentecostal churches and penetrated mainline denominations. Subsequently it has become a major force within contemporary evangelicalism. In the years since the sixties we've also seen a large decline in the membership of liberal churches and a corresponding rise in membership in conservative and evangelical churches. Polls indicate a marked increase in the adherents of evangelicalism since 1960.

During the same period we have witnessed a rising involvement of people in occult practices and the advent of New Age philosophy and religion. A new fascination with supernaturalism has slowed the tide of the creeping naturalism so entrenched in the secular culture.

****

Taken from The Spirit of Revival by R.C. Sproul and Archie Parrish, ©2000. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

by John H. Gerstner

Augustus Hopkins Strong used the analogy of the coupling that joins a train of railroad cars to a locomotive. The coupling has no power in itself; it cannot move a single car one inch. All the power is in the locomotive; but the coupling is the line by which the power of the locomotive is transmitted to the cars. Faith has no power in itself; it is not a ground of salvation; it is not a good work. It is merely that by which all the goodness, grace, and glory of Christ comes to the sinner.

How emphatically Romans 4:5 states this central truth of the Bible: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." From this one verse we learn that:

• The justified person is one who does not work for it.
• He believes rather than does.
• He is ungodly when justified, rather than godly, or one who has something to his credit.
• It is his faith, not his deeds, that is the instrument of his justification.
• His justification is counted or reckoned to him rather than awarded him on the basis of merit.

If it were possible to state the gratuitousness of justification more clearly than this, I doubt if even divine inspiration could find the words. Five separate expressions in one part of a sentence setting forth the absolute freeness of salvation leave no room to doubt that the way to God is wide open. There is nothing standing between the sinner and his God. He has immediate and unimpeded access to the Savior. There is nothing to hinder him. No sin can hold him back because God offers justification to the ungodly. Nothing now stands between the sinner and God but the sinner's "good works." Nothing can keep him from Christ but his delusion that he does not need Him, that he has good works of his own that can satisfy God.

If men will only be convinced that they have no righteousness that is not like filthy rags; if men will see that there is no one who does good, not even one; if men will see that they are all shut up under sin--then there will be nothing to prevent their everlasting salvation. All they need is their need. All they must have is nothing. All that is required is acknowledgment of guilt. Just confess your sins and repent of them. But, alas, sinners cannot part with their so-called "virtues." They have none that are not imaginary, but they are very real to them. So grace becomes unreal. The real grace of God they spurn in order to hold on to their own illusory virtues. Their eyes are fixed on a mirage, so they will not drink real water. They die of thirst with water all around them.

Why do men not accept the gospel? How can they refuse the tender overtures of the gracious Son of God? Why do they even take offense at the cross? Let us consider an analogy. An etiquette book is a very valuable accessory. It is useful on many important occasions. A good one costs considerable money. Who would not be glad to have one if it were given to him?

You wouldn't? Why wouldn't you be glad to be given a book on etiquette? Because it would imply that you needed it! And that is the reason proud sinners do not come to Christ! Their coming would imply that they needed Him. They are too proud and self-righteous in their natural state to admit that!

*****

This is part eighteen of John H. Gerstner's small book entitled Theology for Everyman, originally published in 1965 (Moody Press, Chicago). That book was subsequently republished by Soli Deo Gloria in 1991. It has since fallen out of print and we thought it would be good to revisit this book here on the blog. Over the next couple of months, we'll work our way through the book. Here is where we've been so far: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

by John H. Gerstner

The epistle to the Romans has already shown us that man is guilty before God. Their sins have incurred the wrath of God: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). And this wrath is further intensified by every sin that is committed: "thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:5).

Later, the same epistle tells us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Death refers to eternal death in hell because it is set in contrast with eternal life. Did not Christ Himself say the same thing? "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). He said, "This is My body which is given for you" (Luke 22:19). Did He not say that like "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14)? Why would the Son of man be lifted up as a vile serpent, the symbol of sin, to become sin and cry out in His desolation, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46) except that, as Paul says, God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ Himself did not say so much about His death. He was making the sacrifice, so He left to others the privilege of explaining it. For 2000 years now the church has been glorying in His cross and exploring its wondrous meaning.

The positive element, making sinners just or righteous, is really the central aspect of justification, though it is commonly less noticed. But, as we have said, if Christ did not procure our righteousness as well as secure our remission, the latter would have been of no avail to us, for we would still be outside paradise and exposed to the recurrence of sin and ultimate damnation. God could not bestow righteousness on us, to be sure, without removing our filthy guilt. But on the other hand, it would have been no use to remove our guilt if He did not bestow a new righteousness on us. This is what the first Adam failed to do. He was never asked to die for the remission of sin, but he was placed on probation to fulfill the law and secure the perpetual favor of God upon all whom he represented--and he failed in this. The second Adam, the man Christ Jesus, both washed us from our sins by His blood and clothed us in the white raiment of His righteousness, justified.

In order to do this great thing, Christ had first to be justified Himself so that those whom He represented might share in His justification; and this He did. He fulfilled the law perfectly, not for Himself alone, but for His people. He was holy and undefiled, a Lamb without blemish. He was the only one who could say, "The prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in Me." He was the Son in whom the Father was well-pleased, made in all points like as we are, but without sin. Therefore God vindicated the second Adam, as we read in 1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit." And 1 Timothy 3:16: "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Here we see that the man Christ Jesus was justified by His own keeping of the law; but in Romans 4:25 we see that this justification was not for Himself alone, but representatively for His people; "Who was delivered up for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." So 1 Timothy tells us that He was raised again for His own justification, and Romans 4:25 shows that He was raised again for our justification.

In justification, as in all other works as a Mediator, Christ does not act as a private person, but as a public one; not for Himself alone, but for all of His own; not for the Head only, but for the members of the body as well. So that we are quickened, raised up, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. You are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Again, Romans 8:34: "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." So, being justified, being endowed with a title to life as well as a reprieve from death, "we have peace with God . . .access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice [triumphantly] in hope of the glory of God."

That these two elements together constitute justification is shown in Acts 26:18: "that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me." And John 5:24: "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation."

You may ask, "Why is faith the means of justification? Is it a kind of good work?"

I answer, no; the Bible is very plain in teaching that salvation is not by works of any kind. If it were, we would have something to glory about; we could not boast that we did this or that, but we could glory in our belief. We could alter Toplady's hymn like this: "Nothing in my hands I bring, except my faith!" No other work could avail, only the work of believing. If faith were a kind of good work, we would be back again at the old heresy of salvation by works--and the work that saves would be the work of faith. Romans 4:5 makes it clear that we are not saved by faith as a good work; for that text says that we are justified while still ungodly in ourselves. God "justifieth the ungodly." So, at the moment of justification, we are still ungodly. If we are still ungodly then, our faith cannot be a good work.

But if you ask why faith is the means of justification, it is simply because it is the act of union with Jesus Christ. Faith is our coming to Him, our trusting Him, our resting in Him. The moment we are united to Him, we are immediately endowed with all that He has secured for us. We are immediately justified before we have done a single good deed, because we are His and He is God's. A very poor woman is a very poor woman until the very moment that she marries a wealthy man; but at the moment that she becomes his wife, she becomes a wealthy woman. It is by means of her acceptance that she becomes a wealthy woman; but her acceptance does not make her wealthy--it is her husband's wealth that makes her so. And faith does not justify, Christ does--but faith unites us to Christ.

*****

This is part seventeen of John H. Gerstner's small book entitled Theology for Everyman, originally published in 1965 (Moody Press, Chicago). That book was subsequently republished by Soli Deo Gloria in 1991. It has since fallen out of print and we thought it would be good to revisit this book here on the blog. Over the next couple of months, we'll work our way through the book. Here is where we've been so far: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

by John H. Gerstner

From Romans 1:18 to 3:20, the Apostle Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of men. He shows the wrath of God revealed against the heathen because they would not have God in their thinking. He shows that the nominally religious people of Israel, by their condemning other persons for sins of which they were also guilty, were treasuring up "wrath against the day of wrath." In chapter 3 Paul shows that all have gone astray: "There is none that doeth good." With or without the law, men have sinned. Every mouth is stopped; the whole world is shut up under judgment. Then and only then does the apostle come back to this theme:

Now the righteousness of God without [or apart from] the law is manifested [revealed], being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God--to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).

Having shown most plainly that no man can be saved by the works of the law, Paul proceeds to show just as plainly that men may be saved by the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Now that he has shown men why they should not trust in themselves, he will show them how suitable it is to trust in Christ. Since their own works only condemn them, he will tell them of one whose works can save them. Furthermore, he says that this is no new or novel way of salvation; it is the only way of salvation in all ages. Abraham was saved in this way, and so was David.

In the beginning of chapter 4, Paul points out that "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? 'Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.' " Then in verse 5 he gives us a classic statement of justification by faith alone: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Justification is by faith alone without works.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has well summarized the abundance of biblical data on this great theme: "Justification is an act of God's grace wherein He pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone."

Justification has a positive and a negative element. It consists at once in the removal of guilt and the imputation [or granting] of righteousness. It rescues the sinner as a brand from the burning, and at the same time gives him a title to heaven. If it failed to do either of these, it would fail to do anything; for man, as a sinner against God, must have that enormous guilt somehow removed. But, at the same time, if he had the guilt removed he would still be devoid of positive righteousness and with no title to heaven, and would also be certain to fall again into sin and condemnation. If Christ only canceled our guilt, He would merely return the sinner to Adam's original state without Adam's original perfection of nature. There must be a "double cure" then, as Augustus Toplady wrote in his beloved hymn, "Rock of Ages":

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From Thy riven side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me from its guilt and power.

*****

This is part sixteen of John H. Gerstner's small book entitled Theology for Everyman, originally published in 1965 (Moody Press, Chicago). That book was subsequently republished by Soli Deo Gloria in 1991. It has since fallen out of print and we thought it would be good to revisit this book here on the blog. Over the next couple of months, we'll work our way through the book. Here is where we've been so far: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

by John H. Gerstner

Then the Savior departed from the apostles a second time and prayed again, "O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." The agony of the first prayer was not even over, but a new note is detectable. Realizing that it was not possible for the cup to pass from Him, and still agonizing at the thought of its horror, our Lord was now more definitely praying for the strength to drink the cup of God's wrath. As man He had shrunk from the cup; as man He will drink it; as man He looked to the Father for strength.

In John's account He prayed, "Father, glorify Thy name." Luke tells us that an angel came and ministered unto Him. Having submitted Himself to His sacrifice, He knew that He needed great strength to endure the cross. As a man, He was not equal to it. He looked to His heavenly Father, who had willed His death, to enable Him to perform what had become His own will also. John tells us that on this occasion God did speak: "I both have glorified it, and will glorify it." Possibly in connection with that promise, God sent an angel to minister to His Son.

The Redeemer was following the same pattern of prayer which He had taught to His disciples. First, He asked that God's will be done. Then He asked for His daily bread; that is, His strength for the day. God's will was difficult to perform, and only God could enable even the Son of man Himself to perform it. "Command what Thou wilt, and give what Thou commandest," was the plea of Augustine. That He needed superhuman strength desperately is shown in His asking God for the third time to do His will through Him. All the while the apostles, who needed strength so much more than the mighty Son, instead of maintaining their vigil during His, slept. In the sequel, the one who watched and prayed walked quietly to His horrible death while those who slept were scattered by mere danger.

When Christ gave His cheek to the betrayer's kiss, He knew that He was putting the cup of wrath to His lips, the full dregs of which He would not taste unto the morrow when He would cry out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? . . . My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

This, then, is how Jesus made atonement, how He paid it all. The punishment which was due to us He voluntarily received. The death which was the wages of our sin He underwent. The stripes with which we deserved to be beaten fell upon His willing back. The chastisement which was owing us was borne by Him. The price we would have paid by endless suffering He paid by an infinite sacrifice. It should have been me who cried out, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" It should have been He who said, "I am persuaded that nothing shall separate Me from the love of God."

Because Jesus paid it all, it was He who was forsaken, and it is we who never shall be. Because He drank the full cup of divine wrath, we shall never taste it. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."

*****

This is part fourteen of John H. Gerstner's small book entitled Theology for Everyman, originally published in 1965 (Moody Press, Chicago). That book was subsequently republished by Soli Deo Gloria in 1991. It has since fallen out of print and we thought it would be good to revisit this book here on the blog. Over the next couple of months, we'll work our way through the book. Here is where we've been so far: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.

by John H. Gerstner

The preview of impending doom was so terrifying that the mighty Jesus Himself asked, if it were possible, to escape it. Normally His obedience was instant and without question. Only the extreme severity of the ordeal can explain the plea: "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." The Son appealed directly to His loving Father to save Him from this hour if it were by any means possible. Mark tells us that He even first reminded God of His ability to do all things, as He said, "Abba [a term of the utmost filial intimacy], Father, all things are possible unto Thee. . . ." To the same effect, Luke mentions that He said, "Father, if Thou be willing. . . ." John notes that Jesus said, on an occasion which appears to be identical with the one we are now considering, "Father, save Me from this hour." The fact that this appeal appears in all accounts, and the poignancy with which it is recorded, show clearly how fervently Christ must have asked about the possibility of escaping the dread hour.

It does not tell us that God answered His Son's plea on this occasion. There were other occasions when God did speak audibly from heaven so that His Son and those around could hear Him. On this occasion God seems to have been silent--but the Son knew the answer. Indeed, I believe it was a rhetorical question, a question to which the answer was already known. It was a cry of desperation, and not an inquiry at all. Jesus knew that if there had been any conceivable way whereby God could have redeemed the world other than by the horrible death of His Son. God would never have resorted to such an expense. He knew that there never could be any other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved. He knew that there was no one else good enough to pay the price of sin; no one else could open the door and let us in. Jesus knew that if those dear ones whom He had left were to drink of the vine again with Him in the kingdom of God there was but one way--He must drink of the cup of God's wrath.

So, looking directly into the furnace of the coming divine fury into which His own willing obedience alone could cause Him to be cast, Christ said, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt." He made God's will His will, even though He knew fully and terribly what such submission meant. God's will was His will; the Father and the Son were one in their redemptive love for the elect. This is made even more explicit in John's account where Christ said, "Father, save Me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy name."

"And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, 'What, could ye not watch with Me one hour?' " The Savior was surrendering Him-self to the wrath of God for His people. He had asked His chief disciples just to stand by, to understand, to appreciate, and to comfort. He did not ask them to do anything else; there was nothing else they could do. It was because they could do nothing that Christ had to do everything for their redemption. But could they not even stand by? Could they not sorrow that He had to suffer so much for them? Could they not even stay awake for one hour? What a heart-breaking ordeal it must have been to find those for whom He was about to die unable to stay awake for an hour to comfort Him in His great and terrible vicarious death for them! Yet our Lord, overwhelmed with the vision He had just had of the fiery torment before Him, to which He would submit Himself for the very elect's sake, very gently chided His sleeping disciples. Immediately He turned from His own concerns to theirs. "Love seeketh not her own," and so Love Incarnate quickly forgot His anguish and turned to the disciples'. Affectionately He warned them not for His sake, but for their own. "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." In that remark, grief-stricken as He was, bitterly disappointed as He must have been, Christ did not fail to notice and even praise the drowsy disciples for having the right spirit and meaning well, even though they were so very weak.

*****

This is part fourteen of John H. Gerstner's small book entitled Theology for Everyman, originally published in 1965 (Moody Press, Chicago). That book was subsequently republished by Soli Deo Gloria in 1991. It has since fallen out of print and we thought it would be good to revisit this book here on the blog. Over the next couple of months, we'll work our way through the book. Here is where we've been so far: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.