CHAPTER ONE
CHRISTIANS WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS AT THE REWARDS JUDGMENT, BUT NOT AT THE FINAL JUDGMENT
ROBERT N. WILKIN
Calls for Christians to persevere occur throughout the New Testament. 1 There is no dispute on this point. The issue is what is at stake. Many people teach that what is at stake is eternal salvation. For example, concerning Matthew 10:22 (also 24:13; Mark 13:13) Tom Schreiner and Ardel Caneday state, “Jesus promises salvation, but he conditions the promised salvation on perseverance ‘to the end.’” 2 And concerning 2 Peter 1:5–11, where Peter urges his readers to diligently add godly virtues to their faith so as to “receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” Schreiner and Caneday add, “Those who practice these virtues will never fall, that is, they will obtain final salvation. The word fall refers here, then, to apostasy. Those who practice godly virtues will not turn decisively away from the gospel of Christ.” In other words, “final salvation is at stake in [Peter’s] call to obedience.” 3 Similarly John Piper writes, “The condition of final glorification is persevering in this same faith and hope … (Colossians 1:22–23).”4
Of course, it is not only Calvinists who believe that perseverance is necessary for “final salvation.” Arminians (e.g., Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and many types of Protestants) also see the necessity of endurance to escape eternal condemnation. 5 Though Arminians say that everlasting life can be lost and Calvinists do not, they agree on the necessity of perseverance in faith and good works until death.
However, not all evangelical Christians hold that one must persevere to obtain “final salvation.” For example, Jody Dillow writes:
Contrary to the Arminian, we do not believe [the warnings] are given to raise concerns about forfeiture of one’s eternal destiny. Contrary to the Calvinist, they are not the means by which professing believers are to be motivated to examine to see if they are truly regenerate. Nor are they intended to motivate true Christians to persevere by causing them to wonder if they are really saved. God has more sufficient means than fear of hell to motivate His children. Rather, the warnings are real. They are alarms about the possibility of the forfeiture of our eternal rewards and of learning at the judgment seat that our lives have been wasted. 6
Earl Radmacher agrees:
As believers, our home with Christ in heaven is secure, but our position of service with Christ in the Millennium depends on whether we endure hardships patiently and faithfully or whether we “deny” Him by failing to undergo difficulties with patience and loyalty to Him. 7
Let’s now consider what the Bible says.
Proof That Perseverance Is the Condition for Eternal Rewards and Not Final Salvation
The Perseverance-Free Promises in John’s Gospel
Merrill Tenney famously called the gospel of John “the gospel of belief”8 since the word pisteu? (“I believe”) occurs more times in this book than in any other New Testament book. Jesus said it is the one who “believes in Him” (pisteuōn eis auton) that “has eternal life.” The one who believes “will not perish” (John 3:16), “will never [ou mē] hunger … will never [ou mē] thirst” (6:35), and “will never [ou mē] die” (11:26). The Lord also affirmed, “he who hears My word and believes in the One who sent Me [pisteuōn to pempsanti me] … shall not come into judgment but has passed from death into life” (5:24).
John 3:16, for example, concerns “whoever believes in Him,” not “whoever perseveres in Him.” Clearly the one who simply believes in Jesus has eternal life. 9 The New Testament is united on this point. 10
Not once in John does Jesus ever say that one must persevere in order to obtain or retain eternal life. Rather, He promises eternal security the moment one believes. Once a person drinks the water of life—believes in Jesus—he or she “will never thirst” (John 4:14; 6:35). No perseverance is required. Even the Samaritan woman understood Jesus to mean that a one-time drink would forever quench her thirst (4:15). The one who eats the bread of life—another figure for faith in Christ—“shall never hunger” (6:35). It’s a simple point: perseverance in faith or works is excluded by such promises.
We find no statement from Jesus declaring that a believer must persevere to retain eternal life or show evidence of it. 11 Jesus told Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (11:25–26a). He then asked Martha, “Do you believe this?” She replied in the affirmative. Jesus did not rebuke her and say, “But what of your life? How do you know you will persevere? Is it not possible your faith is mere intellectual assent rather than persevering faith?” No, He accepted her profession.
Mind you, while these promises are decisive, they do not prove anything about the relationship between perseverance and rewards. They only say that in John’s gospel Jesus did not make perseverance a condition for eternal life. How could He? For John himself wrote “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31).
The Parable of the Minas in Luke’s Gospel
The parable of the minas starts as follows:
A certain well-born man planned to travel to a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then to return. Before leaving, he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas and told them, “Invest the money until I come back.” But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, “We do not want this man to reign over us.” When the nobleman returned after having received the kingdom, he commanded to be called to him those servants to whom he had given money so that he might know what each had gained by investing. (Luke 19:12–15)
Jesus then recounts the story of three of these servants, each of whom had received the same sum of money (one mina) and been told, “Do business till I come.” The issue in the judgment is productivity, not belief. 12 But only the servant who turned his one mina into ten hears, “Well done, good servant” (19:17). He receives praise and is promised rule over ten cities in the kingdom. Since only those who endure will reign with Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12), we can be sure this first servant endured.
The second servant was halfhearted in his service. Though he could have produced ten minas, he only managed five. His halfhearted commitment leads to a lack of praise from his master. Rather than hearing, “Well done, good servant,” he hears, “You also will be over five cities” (Luke 19:19). That he is given authority to reign with Christ in the age to come shows that he too endured. But clearly his effort was lacking. 13
The third servant showed no profit and is given no cities to rule over. Rather than hearing, “Good servant,” he hears, “Wicked [ponēre] servant” (Luke 19:22). While some conclude that this servant represents an unbeliever, there are strong reasons for thinking otherwise.
First, Scripture occasionally uses disparaging language to describe believers elsewhere. Jesus’ disciples are described as “wicked” (ponēroi) (Matt. 7:11), the Corinthians as “unrighteous” (1 Cor. 6:8), the Hebrew Christians as “dull of hearing” (Heb. 5:11), and the church at Laodicea as “lukewarm” (Rev. 3:16). Obviously Christians can fail to endure, fall away, and prove to have been wicked. However, salvation is based on faith in Christ, not faithful service for Christ. Therefore we should not doubt this third servant’s salvation simply because he is called “wicked.” 14
Second, the third servant is not part of the group that hated the nobleman. Jesus clearly makes a distinction between “the servants” who received ten minas (Luke 19:13) and the citizens who hated the nobleman (19:14). Take note: the third servant is called a servant, not a citizen. Furthermore, he does not call himself a servant. Jesus calls him a servant. That is quite telling. The citizens who hated the nobleman represent unbelieving Israel while the servants who received money represent believing disciples.
Third, Jesus uses a reflexive pronoun to emphasize the fact that all three of these servants belonged to the nobleman: “So calling ten of his own [heatou] servants, he gave to them ten minas” (19:13). These servants belong to Jesus.
Fourth, the judgment of the third servant (19:20–26) stands in marked contrast to the judgment of the citizens who hated the nobleman (19:27). The third servant’s mina is taken from him and given to the servant who had ten minas (19:24–26), meaning that he will not rule with Christ in the age to come. 15 However, this servant does not suffer the fate of the unbelievers: “But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me” (19:27). Significantly, the third servant is not slain as the enemies are.
Leon Morris agrees that the distinction between the third servant and the enemies is significant:
The story finishes on a note of frightening severity. Those who rejected the nobleman and sent their embassy after him (14) are not forgotten. Safely installed in the kingdom and with accounts with his trading partners finalized, the nobleman commands the destruction of those he calls plainly these enemies of mine. They have set themselves in opposition to him; they must take the consequences. 16
Morris implies that all of Jesus’ servants are “safely installed in the kingdom” since he does not put the third servant in the same category as Jesus’ enemies.
Even clearer on the importance of this distinction is Marvin Pate:
Even though the action taken toward the disobedient servant was severe (even as it will be on Judgment Day for the unfaithful Christian), there is no hint in the text that the salvation of the faithless servant of the Lord was in jeopardy. Not so for the enemies of the nobleman, i.e., Christ, according to v. 27. The strong adversative “however” (plēn) seems to contrast the punishment of the unprofitable servant with that of the master’s enemies (cf. v. 14) who did not want him to rule over them. 17
All this suggests that the first judgment (of the servants) is the Judgment Seat of Christ while the second judgment (of the enemies) is the Great White Throne Judgment. At the first judgment believers are judged according to their works to determine their rewards (Rom. 14:10–12; 1 Cor. 3:5–15; 4:1–5; 9:24–27; 2 Cor. 5:9–10; 1 John 4:17–19). At the second judgment unbelievers are judged according to their works to determine their degree of eternal torment (Rev. 20:11–15). The first judgment concerns only believers, but not their eternal destiny, which has already been decided. They “will not come into judgment” (John 5:24).
This parable shows that believers and unbelievers will appear at separate judgments. Once the servants (i.e., believers) are judged, the nobleman asks that his enemies be brought to him to be slaughtered (Luke 19:27). Thus servant judgment precedes enemy judgment. We should not miss the fact that the third servant escapes being slain. This indicates that perseverance is not a condition for “final salvation.” However, perseverance is a condition for ruling with Christ.
Salvation by Grace versus Rewards by Works
While eternal life comes to the believer as a gift, the same cannot be said of rewards. According to Paul, Christians are to work hard to win the prize (brabeion) (1 Cor. 9:24). The term brabeion is “an award for exceptional performance, prize, award.” 18 It comes to those who compete. 19 Fighting and running are vital athletic illustrations. As Paul’s execution drew near, he confidently declared that he had run well and would soon obtain “the crown of righteousness” (2 Tim. 4:6–8). But he was not so confident some ten years earlier when he penned 1 Corinthians. He realized he would need to discipline his body and bring it into subjection if he was to avoid being disqualified (1 Cor. 9:27).
We must be clear on this. Salvation is a free gift that comes through faith in Jesus Christ (e.g., Rom. 4:1–8; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:5, 8–9; Phil. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5), but rewards come as a result of work and perseverance (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:14–15; 9:24–27; Jas. 1:12; Rev. 3:11). “And whatever you do, work from the soul, as to the Lord and not to men, since you know that you will receive from the Lord the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ” (Col. 3:23–24).
What is remarkable is that the same speaker/writer can speak of salvation as a free gift on the one hand and rewards earned by works on the other. 20 (See chart on p. 33.)
Not All Believers Persevere
Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof responds to some common objections to the doctrine of perseverance. One objection states, “There are also exhortations urging believers to continue in the way of sanctification, which would appear to be unnecessary if there is no doubt about it that they will continue to the end.” Berkhof counters this objection with, “But these are usually found in connection with warnings [against apostasy] … and serve exactly the same purpose. They do not prove that any of the believers exhorted will not persevere, but only that God uses moral means for the accomplishment of moral ends.” 21
But this is no answer at all. If God guarantees that believers will persevere, then they will persevere with or without warnings. Even if they tried, they would not be able to fall away.
A much better way to approach this dilemma is simply to admit that appeals to persevere in the New Testament are legitimate warnings. By their very nature warnings suggest that believers may in fact fail to persevere. Therefore they should not be twisted into promises guaranteeing that saints will persevere. We do not find such promises, nor do we find salvation dependent on perseverance.
Answering Biblical Objections
The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25)
In his commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson introduces chapters 24 by stating, “Few chapters of the Bible have elicited more disagreement among interpreters than Matthew 24 and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21. The history of the interpretation of this chapter is immensely complex.” 22 Indeed the way we interpret this discourse is crucial for how we understand Jesus’ teaching on perseverance. Many contend that Jesus teaches perseverance as a condition for “final salvation.” The context, however, shows otherwise.
He Who Endures to the End Will Be Saved (Matthew 24:13) 23
Jesus’ declaration that “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 10:22) would appear to put an end to the rewards view. 24 In truth, though, there is more to this verse than meets the eye. Context is everything, and we must clarify the context Jesus has in mind.
First, what “end” is in view? In short, it is the future (eschatological) tribulation. The Old Testament background for Jesus’ statement can be found in Daniel. We see this from Matthew 24:15, where Jesus warns His hearers about “the abomination of desolation spoken of through the prophet Daniel.” Daniel prophesied that history would run for another seventy sevens (or weeks) (Dan. 9:24–27), with an undisclosed gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth seven. The last period consists of one seven/week (Dan. 9:27), which suggests that this time of tribulation will last seven years. 25 It is during this end-time period, according to Daniel, that “the abomination of desolation” occurs (“in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,” Dan. 9:27). The “end,” then, is the “end of the age,” a phrase that only occurs once outside Matthew (Matt. 13:39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Heb. 10:26). This “end” will come after a period of tribulation unlike anything experienced since the beginning of the world (Matt. 24:21).
Second, what is this future salvation of which Jesus is speaking? The term “save” (s?z?) occurs twice in chapter 24, the latter being verse 22, where Jesus says that unless those days (of tribulation) were cut short, “no flesh would be saved.” Jesus is not talking about eternal salvation. His point is that no one would physically survive the tribulation if God did not limit its duration. Since only enduring believers will survive, no unfaithful believers will be alive at the end of the tribulation. We find further support for this in Matthew 25:31–46 (to be discussed shortly).
The Destiny of Unfaithful Servants (Matthew 24:45–51) 26
In this parable Jesus discusses a servant who was serving faithfully, but who lost faith in his master’s soon return and then became an unfaithful and wicked servant:
But if that bad [or wicked] servant should say in his heart, “My master is delaying his coming,” and he should begin to beat his fellow servants and to eat and to drink with the drunkards, then the master of that servant will come on a day which he does not expect and at an hour which he does not know. And he will cut him in two and will appoint him a place with the hypocrites. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 24:48–51)
In this parable the servant is doing well and is in position to rule when his master returns. However, he gets tired of waiting and becomes reckless. As a result, his master “will cut him in two and appoint his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (24:51). This refers to a painful experience in which the servant is verbally cut up at a future judgment (cf. Heb. 4:12; Rev. 1:16). Since this person is a servant of Christ, it is the Judgment Seat of Christ (the Bema) that is in view and not the Great White Throne Judgment. Believers are judged at the former and not the latter (cf. Rom. 14:10–12; 2 Cor. 5:9–10).
Furthermore, since faithfulness is the issue, not faith, eternal rewards rather than eternal destiny are at stake. The reference to weeping and gnashing of teeth is an oriental expression of grief and pain. 27 The New Testament elsewhere affirms that unfaithful believers will incur rebuke resulting in grief and pain at the Bema (cf. e.g., Luke 19:20–26; 1 Cor. 9:24–27; 2 Tim. 4:6–10; 1 John 2:28).
The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1–13)
The second half of the parable of the ten virgins reads:
At midnight a cry went out, “Behold, the bridegroom is coming! Go out to meet him!” Then all the virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. But the foolish ones said to the wise ones, “Give us from your oil because our lamps are going out.” But the wise ones answered, “No, lest there not be enough for us and for you. Rather, go to the ones who sell and buy oil for yourselves.” But as they were going away to buy oil, the bridegroom came. And those who were ready went with him into the marriage feast. Then the door was shut. Afterward the remaining virgins came, saying, “Lord, Lord, open for us.” But he answered and said, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you.” (Matt. 25:6–12)
The parable of the ten virgins is often understood to refer to the “final judgment.” 28 Yet all ten are called virgins, an odd name for unbelievers (cf. esp. 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 14:4). All ten are expecting the bridegroom’s soon return; again, this would be odd for unbelievers (cf. esp. 2 Tim. 4:8b). All ten have oil to light their torches, but only five have sufficient reserves of oil to keep their torches lit. The five with insufficient supply are not told that if they simply believe in the bridegroom, he will give them the needed oil. As Plummer points out, they were told to “go and buy” the needed oil themselves. 29
So what does the presence or absence of sufficient reserves suggest? The midnight cry here refers to the “abomination of desolation” at the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation (Dan. 11:31; Matt. 24:15; see above). The point is that only tribulation believers who have stored up sufficient spiritual reserves in the first half will make it successfully through the persecutions of the second half. And those excluded from the torch dance 30 and other wedding festivities, while saved, will fail to rule with Christ in the life to come. It is a stretch to think exclusion from the torch dance equals spending eternity in hell.
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30) 31
Jesus describes what was given to the first two servants and what they did with it.
Then the one who had received five talents went and invested them and made another five talents. And likewise the one who had received two talents also gained two more. But the one who had received one went off and dug in the ground and hid the silver of his master. Then after much time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. (Matt. 25:16–19)
The Lord then explains the judgment of the third servant. This parable contains the last of the three New Testament “outer darkness” passages. Once again, since a servant of Christ is being judged, the Bema is in view. The fact that he is judged to be an unfaithful servant does not mean he is going to hell. Hell is not for believers (John 5:24).
Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, “Master, I knew that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter seed. And since I was afraid, I went off and hid your talent in the ground. Look, you have what is yours.” But his master answered and said to him, “You wicked and lazy servant…. Therefore take from him the talent and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has more will be given, and he will have abundance. But from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And cast the useless servant into the darkness which is outside. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 25:24–26a, 28–30)
The “outer darkness” is more literally “the darkness outside” (to skotos to ex?teron). Jesus is alluding to a brightly lit banquet hall outside of which is darkness (cf. Matt. 22:1–14). Since this parable is parallel with the one discussed above (Luke 19:11–27), the fate of the third servant is the same. But recall that in Luke’s parable the third servant is not slain, which means he is admitted into the kingdom. The same is true here in Matthew. Therefore though he is “in,” that believer will miss out on the joys associated with ruling with Christ. The weeping and gnashing of teeth merely indicates that there will be shame at the Bema.
Elsewhere John urges believers to persevere so as to avoid shame at Christ’s coming (1 John 2:28). Shame is a real possibility for believers when Christ returns. Indeed, we can understand why it is that those who belong to Christ and yet are found unfaithful would grieve and be ashamed at the moment they see the look of disapproval on their Lord’s face.
The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46) 32
In this passage we read of the judgment of the sheep and the goats.
And He will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on His left. Then the King will say to the ones on His right, “Come, the ones blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in….” Then He will also say to the ones on His left, “Go away from Me, the cursed ones, into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the devil and for his angels: for I was hungry and you did not give Me anything to eat; I was thirsty and you did not give Me drink….” And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous ones will go into life everlasting. (Matt. 25:33–35, 41–42, 46)
The judgment of the sheep and the goats will be an actual judgment following the tribulation (cf. Matt. 24:29–30; 25:31). All Gentiles who survive the tribulation will be judged. In his book, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? Alan Stanley has a chapter entitled, “The Role of Judgment in Salvation.” 33 The entire chapter is devoted to Matthew 25:31–46. 34 He suggests that the goats “are cursed, though not because of their works per se, but because of their unfaithful actions toward Jesus [i.e., toward His emissaries]. Their lack of mercy has merely served to demonstrate their rejection of Him.” 35
Many would agree that there is a necessary connection between believing in Jesus and obeying His commandments. I would not. Before the judgment begins, the Son of Man will separate the sheep from the goats. He already knows which is which. The reason the blessed (Gentile believers) will inherit the kingdom is because of their good works (25:34–40). They aided Jesus’ “brothers,” that is, Jewish believers during the tribulation. 36 The reason the cursed (unbelieving Gentiles) receive eternal punishment is because they did not aid Jesus’ brothers during the tribulation (25:41–46). If we recall Matthew 24:13 (“He who endures to the end will be saved”) discussed above, the meaning of this judgment becomes clear. All believers, including those who did not befriend Jewish believers in the tribulation, receive eternal life and admittance into Christ’s kingdom. The reason why we find no unfaithful believers here is because the only believers who will survive the seven-year tribulation will be those who endure in loving service until the end.
Note that the text does not say that these people have eternal life but that they inherit the kingdom. While many equate inheriting the kingdom with entering it, that is erroneous. Whenever inheriting the kingdom requires perseverance, it refers to more than spending eternity with Christ, namely, ruling with Him. 37 Jesus is saying that because they faithfully served Him during the tribulation, evidenced by their treatment of Jewish believers, they will be rewarded with the privilege of reigning with Him forever.
That not all believers will reign with Christ is brought out by texts like Romans 8:17; 1 Corinthians 9:24–27; 2 Timothy 2:12; 4:6–10; and Revelation 2:26. All believers have eternal life. Only persevering believers will inherit eternal life/the kingdom. The judgment of the sheep and the goats, which occurs immediately after the tribulation and before the millennium, cannot be the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11–15 since that judgment occurs after the millennium (20:1–10). For the unbelievers at the judgment of the sheep and the goats, their judgment is merely an arraignment. They are sent off to Hades to await final judgment. 38 After the millennium, they will appear at the Great White Throne Judgment. At that judgment the book of life will be opened and they will not be found in it—because they never believed in Jesus. They will then be sent to a new place, the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). 39
We Reap What We Sow (Galatians 6:7–9)
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Sowing and reaping are agricultural terms. Farming is hard work. Farmers do not reap a harvest based on faith alone. They must work hard in order to reap a crop (cf. 2 Tim. 2:6). Paul continues, “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:8). The conclusion emphasizes the need to persevere, “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart” (6:9).
It is impossible to harmonize this text with Ephesians 2:8–9 if both are speaking of the same aspect of eternal life. Though both texts do speak of eternal life (“saved” in Eph. 2:8 clearly refers to the new birth, as v. 5 shows), Ephesians 2:8–9 refers to the definite present possession of it as a gift, whereas Galatians 6:7–9 speaks of the possible future possession of it as a reward for work done.
Reaping is only for those who do not grow weary or lose heart while doing good (Gal. 6:9). The simple explanation is that reaping eternal life as a future reward refers to inheriting the kingdom and ruling with Christ, not simply to inhabiting the kingdom. 40 Donald Campbell adopts a similar view: “If a person sows to please his sinful nature, that is, if he spends his money to indulge the flesh, he will reap a harvest that will fade into oblivion. On the other hand, if he uses his funds to support the Lord’s work, or sows to please the Spirit, and promotes his own spiritual growth, he will reap a harvest that will last forever.” 41
If You Continue in the Faith (Colossians 1:21–23)
This passage is often cited to prove that perseverance is a condition for “final salvation.” 42
And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before Him, if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not drifting away from the expectation of the gospel which you heard. (Col. 1:21–23a)
Commentators often understand the condition in Colossians 1:23 (“if you continue …”) to refer not to the near antecedent (the presentation in 1:22), but to the far antecedent (reconciliation, mentioned earlier in 1:22). According to this view, one’s reconciliation with God is not a settled matter, but hinges on perseverance in faith. The matter would then be settled at the Great White Throne Judgment; thus, the eternal destiny of the believer hangs in the balance. This view is well expressed by Peter O’Brien in his commentary on Colossians: “The prospect of the Colossians’ standing irreproachable before him at the Great Assize is conditional upon their remaining firmly founded and established in the faith.” 43 And, as Doug Moo asserts:
Paul is genuinely concerned that the false teachers might “disqualify” the Colossian Christians (2:18). This being the case, Paul would clearly want his words here to be taken with great seriousness. He wants to confront the Colossians with the reality that their eventual salvation depends on their remaining faithful to Christ and to the true gospel. Only by continuing in their faith can they hope to find a favorable verdict from God on the day of judgment. We have in this verse, then, a real warning. This warning, along with many similar ones, presents the “human responsibility” side in the biblical portrayal of final salvation. God does, indeed, by his grace and through his Spirit, work to preserve his people so that they will be vindicated in the judgment; but, at the same time, God’s people are responsible to persevere in their faith if they expect to see that vindication. 44
However, Charles Bing has argued that the condition more naturally refers to the believer’s presentation rather than his reconciliation. 45 So yes, believers must indeed persevere, but not in order to attain “final salvation” or prove their reconciliation. Rather, believers must persevere to be found “holy and blameless and irreproachable before Him.” This being the case, this presentation will not take place at the “Great Assize” (O’Brien), the “day of judgment” (Moo) (i.e., the Great White Throne Judgment), but rather at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Hence what is at stake is not the eternal destiny of believers but their eternal rewards.
This interpretation is supported by the words Paul uses to describe believers at the time of presentation: “holy” (hagios), “blameless” (amōmos), and “above reproach” (anenklētos). These three words occur elsewhere to describe mature Christians. One of the requirements for elders (as opposed to all Christians), for example, is that they be “above reproach” (anenklētos) (Titus 1:6). Blamelessness is exemplified by the 144,000 who “stand without fault [amōmos] before the throne of God” (Rev. 14:4–5). 46 Finally, “holy” (hagios) is used frequently to describe the expected or actual experience of believers (e.g., Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 7:34; Eph. 1:4; 5:27; 1 Pet. 3:5; 2 Pet. 3:2; Rev. 20:6; 22:11). Peter, for example, reminds his readers that “as He who called you is holy [hagios], you also be holy [hagios] in all your conduct” (1 Pet. 1:15–16, citing Lev. 11:44). The point is that believers may indeed fall short of holiness, though that does not make them unbelievers.
These three terms (“holy,” “blameless,” and “irreproachable”) do not necessarily describe the experience of all believers. Therefore, Bing defends and sums up the rewards view:
When Colossians 1:21–23 is studied in the context of the entire epistle, it is clear that Paul wrote to believers who were in danger of having their assurance undermined by the false and legalistic doctrines of certain teachers. If they moved away from the truth of the gospel and the hope that is based on it, they would lose the prospect of a good presentation and therefore a good evaluation before the judgment seat of Christ, because hope is inexorably related to the believer’s practical relationship to God and others. 47
Persevere to Receive the Promise (Hebrews 10:36)
Here is another verse that many understand to refer to “final salvation” at the last judgment when endurance is taken into account. “For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise.” However, the promise cannot refer to “final salvation” for these readers are already eternally secure. They are “holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1); they “have a great High Priest … Jesus Christ” (4:14), and “by this time … ought to be teachers” (5:12). Hence they are “partakers of the Holy Spirit” (6:4) who “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (10:10).
The promise, then, rather than referring to “final salvation,” refers to being Christ’s partners (metochoi) in the life to come (cf. 1:9, 14). This, however, is not automatic. Only believers who persevere will be partners (metochoi) with Christ (3:14)—a matter to be decided at the Judgment Seat of Christ (cf. 10:39). Thus J. Paul Tanner writes, “The Lord’s return should mean good news for believers, but for some it could mean shame (cf. 1 John 2:28).” 48 Tanner rejects the final salvation option:
Any thought, however, that [Heb.] 10:39 might have soteriological faith in view must certainly be rejected in light of the fact that the author clearly portrays in chap. 11 that the faith he has in mind is a life of walking by faith in which one pleases God. 49
Jesus Will Praise Believers Who Overcome (Revelation 3:5)
In light of His imminent return Jesus commands the church at Sardis to “be watchful” (cf. Matt. 24:42; 25:13; 1 Thess. 5:6, 10) and to persevere: “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the book of life; but I will confess his name before my Father and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5). The book of life contains everyone who will escape the lake of fire (20:15). However, there are major differences between 20:15 and 3:5.
Revelation 20:15 does not mention the term “name” (onoma), over-comers, blotting out names, or confessing names before the Father. But in 3:5 the term “name” is emphasized by both the repetition of the word itself and its connection with Jesus’ confession. Jesus affirms that He will not blot out the overcomer’s name from the book of life. He promises to confess the name of the overcomer before His Father and the angels.
Note that Jesus does not say that He will blot anyone’s name out of the book of life. Many regard this as litotes, a figure of speech in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite. If I say, “It is no big deal,” then I mean, “It is a little deal.” If this is litotes, then what Jesus is saying is that He will exalt the name of the overcomer. Another option, resulting in essentially the same conclusion, is that the term “name” (onoma) does not mean name here but reputation. Thus J. William Fuller suggests that verse 5 is a promise:
God will remember and preserve the onoma [name/reputation] of the Christian who overcomes, implying a particularly close relationship between God and this believer. But the implicit warning is that the Christian who denies the faith will lose that privileged position and identity and relationship, even though that Christian will enter eternal life. The concept of an honorable name versus a shameful one is somewhat foreign to the western mind. The difference in perception, however, may be the very reason this verse has been misunderstood for so long. 50
This does not mean that the believer who fails to persevere is no longer found in the book of life. It means that his “name” (i.e., his exalted reputation) has been blotted out. The point is that Jesus will praise the overcomer at the Judgment Seat of Christ, but He will not praise those who fail to overcome (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15; 4:5). It is important to remember that Christ will save all believers, even those who do not overcome. However, He will only exalt the names of those who overcome.
This fits perfectly with what Jesus said in Matthew 10:32–33. He will confess before His Father those who confess Him before others, whereas the ones who deny Jesus before others He will also deny before His Father. It is precisely along these lines that we should understand Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 2:12: “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He will also deny us.” What is at stake in all these passages is not the believer’s eternal destiny at the final judgment but rather the believer’s praise, or lack of it, at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)
Revelation 20:11–15 delineates the Great White Throne Judgment and is a key passage in this discussion.
And I saw a great white throne and the One who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. And books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by the things which had been written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found having been written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Some think this judgment is for both believers and unbelievers. 51 However, I maintain there are actually two eschatological judgments: one for believers, called the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:9–11), and one for unbelievers, called the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11–15). Yet even if we were to grant that there is but one eschatological judgment, Revelation 20:11–15 does not support the contention that works determine one’s eternal destiny. Zane Hodges comments:
At the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:11–15) people are temporarily released (paroled!) from hell (Hades) and the issue of their permanent eternal abode becomes a legal matter in the presence of their Judge (Jesus Christ: John 5:22). They are first judged according to their works to see if these works justify their permanent release from eternal judgment (Rev 20:13). As we know, there will be no justification based on works (Rom 3:20). Next, search is made in the Book of Life to see if they qualify for release because they have eternal life. They do not and are therefore placed in an eternal abode (the Lake of Fire) in separation from their Judge forever.
Although the outcome of this whole process is a foregone conclusion, the justice of God requires the process to take place. Even in our own society, a man caught red-handed in the act of murder (or some other crime) must have his day in court. Every unsaved person will have his or her day in God’s court. 52
There is no hint in this passage that persevering in good works is the condition for escaping the lake of fire. In fact, if we carefully observe what the text says, being found in the book of life is the only requirement. Since the sole condition of having eternal life, and thus being found in the book of life, is faith in Christ (e.g., John 3:16; 6:35), the Great White Throne Judgment underscores the promise of life to all who simply believe.
Exegetical Problems with the View That Christians Will Appear at the Final Judgment
Eternal Life Is Everlasting
Charles Ryrie famously said, “Everlasting life is ever-lasting life. If everlasting life could be lost, then it has the wrong name.” Jesus made it crystal clear that eternal life can never be lost. The one who believes in Him shall never hunger or thirst (John 6:35), shall never die (11:26), and shall not come into judgment (5:24). Once a person has eternal life, he or she has it forever.
Eternal Life Is by Faith Alone
We look in vain in the New Testament for any condition pertaining to eternal life other than faith in Jesus Christ. Perseverance and works are excluded. 53 The only requirement is faith (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35; 11:26).
Eternal Life Is Not of Works
We are saved by grace through faith. Salvation is a gift of God and not of works (Eph. 2:8–9). Jesus himself taught that eternal life is a gift (John 4:10) and not from works (6:28–29). And since perseverance is work, perseverance is not a condition for salvation. Christians should work hard, but not for eternal salvation (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:24–27; 2 Tim. 2:3–6; 4:6–8).
Eternal Life Is Decided at Conversion
John 5:24 refutes the notion that believers will appear at the final judgment. That is where eternal destinies are decided, and Jesus specifically taught that believers “shall not come into judgment [krisis].” The eternal destiny of believers has already been decided. Unfortunately, many commentators maintain that believers will come into judgment (krisis). For example, many say that references to judgment (krisis) in James 2:13 and to salvation in 2:14 mean that brothers and sisters in Christ who are without works will be condemned at the final judgment. 54 But none of these commentators attempt to show how this can be so in light of John 5:24.
Practical Problems with the View That Christians Will Appear at the Final Judgment
Assurance Is Impossible55
If perseverance is a condition for “final salvation,” and if we cannot be sure we will persevere (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:27), then assurance concerning “final salvation” is ultimately impossible. But imagine being convinced of hell and yet uncertain as to whether you will be there. That’s a terrible way to live, and it’s not of God. Even Reformed theologian Michael Horton acknowledges, “If my faith is too weak to have full assurance based on an unconditional promise, how on earth can I expect to get any better handle on my assurance by turning inward and taking inventory?”56
Evangelism Is Garbled 57
It’s strange that when many Christians share their faith, they don’t simply call people to believe in Jesus; rather, they call them to give their lives to Him. Commitment, rather than faith, is presented as the condition for having everlasting life. Yet the Lord Jesus said that whoever believes in Him has everlasting life (e.g., John 3:16).
Motivation Is Marred
What would your motivation be to serve God if you believed that the verdict on your salvation awaited the final judgment? Would you not be motivated by fear rather than love (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14)? This is what I find among Christians who believe they must persevere until the end to be saved. Fear of hell motivates them to give money, to attend church, to try hard to please God. Gratitude goes out the window, and some even quit the faith under the pressure of having to perform.
The Bible Is Unintelligible
There is no sense in teaching that Jesus died for helpless sinners, only to leave them with the crushing burden of having to attain “final salvation” by persevering in good works. If we do not recognize the difference between the free gift of eternal life, which is received by faith apart from works, and the rewards that are earned by persevering in faithful works, the Bible will seem needlessly paradoxical and self-contradictory. Distinguishing between the two allows us to maintain both the freeness of everlasting life, and the importance of good works.
Conclusion
No one can be sure that he or she will persevere in faith and good works. If Paul thought he could be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor. 9:27), then so should we. But that uncertainty concerns only the “prize,” not eternal life. If we believe the promise of everlasting life (e.g., John 3:16), then we are assured; it’s that simple. We do not look to our works for assurance. We do not harbor hidden fears that we will appear at the final judgment only to find we were never saved. Rather, we believe Jesus’ promise that the one who believes in Him “has everlasting life [present tense], shall not come into judgment [future tense], but has passed from death into life [past tense]” (John 5:24). We rejoice in this security. Let us not go through life fearful of the final judgment. Believers will not be judged there.
RESPONSE TO ROBERT N. WILKIN
THOMAS R. SCHREINER
Agreements
Robert Wilkin makes a valiant attempt to defend the notion that works are assessed for rewards only, so that they play no role in whether one receives eternal life. Unfortunately, his exegetical support for his thesis is singularly unconvincing. Let me step back, however, and point out where Wilkin and I agree. Like Wilkin, I understand the New Testament to teach that eternal life is irrevocable. Those who have eternal life will never perish (John 10:28–29). Those whom the Father has given to the Son and who believe in the Son will never be lost. Jesus will raise them on the final day (6:37–40). Or, as Paul puts it, God will complete the saving work he began in believers (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1 Thess. 5:24). Nothing will ever separate believers from the love of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:35–39).
Wilkin is also correct in saying that faith alone saves. The work God requires is to believe in the sent one, Jesus Christ (John 6:29). Luther interpreted Romans 3:28 correctly in adding the German word allein (which means “alone”), so that the verse teaches that justification is obtained through faith alone. I point out in my essay that the outstanding Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer sides with Luther here.
Disagreements
The Nature of Saving Faith
Yet while Wilkin and I agree that faith alone saves, we disagree on the nature of faith and on its relationship with works. Here is where James comes in, for James teaches that a genuine and living faith always produces good works (Jas. 2:14–26). Yes, justification is by faith alone, but such faith is never alone.
Space is lacking to engage the texts fully here, but there is a kind of faith that isn’t saving. Mental agreement with propositions doesn’t mean someone has saving faith. Believing that there is one God doesn’t save, for demons believe such but they don’t belong to God (Jas. 2:19). Similarly, demons rightly identified Jesus as “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24), but they remained his opponents. Saving faith embraces, prizes, and treasures Jesus Christ for salvation. A full study of the gospel of John would be illuminating, for John teaches us that faith comes to Jesus, follows him, obeys him, and receives him. The dynamism of faith is communicated with other metaphors as well: faith eats and drinks of Jesus’ flesh and blood respectively. Faith receives Jesus and abides in him.
Wilkin defines faith as mental assent, but such a definition does not accord with the biblical witness, with the breadth and depth of faith as we find it in the Scriptures. We can think of Hebrews 11, where faith functioned as the wellspring for Abel’s sacrifice, Noah’s building of the ark, Abraham’s migration to Canaan, and Moses’ identification with pitiful Israel instead of powerful Egypt. The relationship between faith and works is conveyed well by Hebrews 11:8, “By faith Abraham obeyed.” Despite Wilkin’s protestations, the scenarios in John 2:23–25 and 8:31–59 illustrate the truth that there is a kind of faith that isn’t saving. There is a false faith that must be distinguished from genuine faith. Not everyone who speaks in Christ’s name belongs to him (Matt. 7:21–23).
Theological Paradigms
Dispensational theology. Another weakness of Wilkin’s essay is its inextricable tie with a certain kind of dispensational theology. I say a “certain kind” since there is diversity in dispensationalism today. But here is the problem. If his kind of dispensationalism collapses, so does Wilkin’s interpretation. I don’t have space to unpack all that could be said here. But it must be said that the dispensational reading offered is artificial and strained. When I first encountered solutions like Wilkin proposes regarding the judgment, I found it impossible to remember in the judgment passages whether the judgment of believers or unbelievers was in view. For example, the judgment of the sheep and goats is allegedly restricted to Gentiles and placed at the end of the tribulation (Matt. 25:31–46), whereas the judgment at the great white throne is supposedly limited to unbelievers (Rev. 20:11–15). I would suggest it is difficult to remember such distinctions because they have no textual warrant. The most natural way to understand the sheep and goat judgment in Matthew 25:31–46 and the great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11–15 is as the judgment of all people. I won’t linger on this point, since I will argue Wilkin’s reading fails even if one grants his dispensational scheme. Still, many today widely acknowledge the weakness of his dispensational paradigm, even those nurtured and raised in that tradition.
Extraordinary presuppositions. Now I come to the fundamental and most serious problem with Wilkin’s essay: he forces every text to fit his paradigm. All of us, of course, bring our theology to the text. None of us, if we’re honest, are free from presuppositions. There is no neutral reading of the text. Nevertheless, there would be no point in doing exegesis if our preconceptions could not be altered. We must be willing to listen to the text and ask ourselves if we have adopted a system that is alien to the scriptural text.
Weeping and gnashing of teeth. In reading Wilkin, I sincerely wonder if there is any evidence that could ever overturn his convictions. Let me illustrate the point. It is patently clear in Matthew that those who weep and gnash their teeth are cast into hell. They won’t sit at the banquet with Abraham and the patriarchs (Matt. 8:11–12). Those who do evil are removed from God’s kingdom, thrown into the fiery furnace, and weep and gnash their teeth (13:41–42). Similarly, “at the end of the age” angels will segregate “the wicked from the righteous” and cast the wicked “into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:49–50). So too, the man without the wedding garment is thrown out of the banquet hall into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (22:11–13). Jesus makes clear he wasn’t among the chosen (22:14). So it is astonishing to read Wilkin say that the unfaithful servant who is among the hypocrites who weep and gnash their teeth and is “cut … to pieces” (24:51) is simply losing his reward. What language would convince Wilkin to say that hell is in view if being cut to pieces and placed among the hypocrites doesn’t refer to eternal punishment?
Colossians 1:21–23. Wilkin argues that the condition in 1:23 that demands perseverance in the faith does not pertain to reconciliation but to the eschatological presentation. He may very well be right about this, but it is a distinction without a difference for the discussion we are having, for holiness is necessary to obtain the final reward, to receive eternal life.
Other texts in the New Testament confirm this judgment. For instance, in Philippians 2:15 “without fault” (amōma), which must not be confused with sinlessness, is necessary to belong to the “children of God.” Being a child of God is not a reward above and beyond eternal life. Being a child of God is another way of saying that one belongs to God, that one is a member of his people. So too, in Jude 24 “without fault” (amōmous) does not refer to a reward but represents the character of those who stand before God. Such a theme fits with Hebrews 12:14, which affirms that no one will see the Lord without holiness. Seeing the Lord isn’t a reward for a few but is the privilege that will belong to all those who are in the heavenly city. Entrance into the city is granted only to those who are holy, only to those who do the will of God and do good works. Hence, the eschatological presentation in Colossians 1:22 doesn’t refer to rewards above and beyond eternal life, but to the necessity of perseverance in faith to stand before the Lord.
Galatians 6:7–9. These verses serve as another example of a jaundiced reading of the text. Paul asserts that those who sow to the Spirit “will reap eternal life,” while those who sow to the flesh “will reap corruption [phthoran].” This seems to be a clear example of the necessity of good works and life in the Spirit to obtain everlasting life. “Corruption” is the antithesis to “eternal life” (Gal. 6:8), and thus it must refer to final judgment, to exclusion from eternal life. Wilkin dissents. Eternal life, he claims, can’t have the same meaning in Galatians 6:8 as it does in Ephesians 2:8–9 since in the latter instance it is a past gift and in the Galatians text it is a future reward. Hence, eternal life in Galatians “refers to inheriting the kingdom and ruling with Christ, not simply inhabiting the kingdom” (p. 41).
Once again, what can be said in response? First a minor quibble. Contrary to Wilkin, Ephesians 2:8–9 doesn’t speak of eternal life. Paul refers to God’s past saving work here and doesn’t use the expression “eternal life.” That brings me to the second point, which is more substantive. Notice how Wilkin’s argument works. Paul can’t mean by the term “eternal life” in Galatians 6:8 the same thing meant by this term in other texts, for then eternal life would require works, and we know from other texts, according to Wilkin, that he would never say such a thing.
Hence, the main problem with Wilkin’s essay surfaces again. Yes, we all have presuppositions. We all interpret texts in light of other texts. Scripture interprets Scripture, and so it is fitting to consider other texts in interpreting any particular passage of Scripture. Nevertheless, there comes a point where a doctrine needs to be revised because other texts speak so clearly against the doctrinal formulation. I would suggest that Galatians 6:8 is such a text (and it isn’t a rare exception!). Those who do not sow to the Spirit will experience eschatological corruption. To put it another way: they will go to hell. Wilkin rejects this reading, claiming that eternal life can’t mean inhabiting the kingdom since that would contradict other texts.
I ask again: What could ever convince Wilkin and those who support him that they are wrong? If the text says good works are necessary for eternal life, then (according to Wilkin) the eternal life is different from the eternal life that brings salvation. His reading is unfalsifiable. He has already decided that works aren’t necessary for eternal life, so if the text says that works bring eternal life, then we have a different kind of eternal life. I truly hope I am not being unkind, but this seems like a can’t-lose proposition. No evidence could ever be adduced that would prove the contrary. For even if the Bible were to say, “Good works are necessary for eternal life and to escape hell,” it seems that Wilkin would say, “Eternal life and hell have a different meaning here.”
Hebrews 10:36. The same pattern plays itself out in the entire essay. Hebrews 10:36, for example, states that one must do God’s will to receive the promise. The promise is clearly eschatological rescue, for it is contrasted a few verses later (10:39) with a typical word for eschatological destruction (apōleia). Wilkin waves aside such a reading by saying, “However, the promise [in 10:36] cannot refer to ‘final salvation’ for these readers are already eternally secure” (p. 44). The necessity of works for final salvation is ruled out dogmatically and presupposition-ally from the outset.
Revelation 3:5. Wilkin says that Revelation 3:5, where Jesus threatens to blot out a person’s name from the book of life, refers to their reputation but not their identity. In other words, they will experience eternal life but will not enjoy rewards and privileges granted to those who obeyed. But in Revelation 3:5 John draws on Jesus’ words, “But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:33 NIV). Paul picks up the same saying in 2 Timothy 2:12. The one who denies Jesus will be denied by him. It is not merely the reputation of the person that is denied but the person himself. The text doesn’t say that they will not be given rewards but that Jesus himself will deny them. So too, in Revelation 3:5 being blotted out of the book of life most naturally means that those who defile their garments by pursuing a life of sin will not be in the book of life.
Conclusion
To sum up, Wilkin rightly sees that eternal life is a gift that the elect never forsake, and he is right in affirming that it is received by believing. Furthermore, I sympathize with his ultimate goal. He wants to protect the purity of the gospel so that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and in Christ alone. But his exegesis of texts that demand good works for final salvation is forced and unconvincing. A better approach would be to integrate the necessity of good works for final salvation with the claim that eternal life is a gift of God.
RESPONSE TO ROBERT N. WILKIN
JAMES D. G. DUNN
Major Disagreements
A Canon within the Canon
Robert Wilkin’s essay is a classic case of a solution to various problem texts drawn from an unequivocal reading of one or two texts and imposed on the problem texts with the sole justification that they resolve the problem. In this case the problem is that so many New Testament texts envisage that Christians will be subjected to divine judgment before the throne of God or of his Christ. These seem to conflict with other texts that give assurance to believers, that they (already) have eternal life, and since they already have it, it cannot be taken away (otherwise it wouldn’t be “eternal”). In this case the solution-providing texts, the texts on which everything else turns, are John 5:24 and Revelation 20:11–15. This is interpretation by “canon within the canon”—the “canon within” in this case being these two verses. Expressed less provocatively, this is an extreme case where the perspicacity of Scripture hangs on a particular interpretation of two verses being allowed to determine that many other verses should be interpreted in a way that seems to run counter to their most obvious sense.
Some people find it hard to accept that their reading of a text is an interpretation of the text. They may think and claim that their understanding of the text accords with the “plain sense” of the text. But they do need to acknowledge that what they take the text to mean is an interpretation, an interpretation that has to be justified. The debates about the authority of Scripture are never going to be finally resolved by arguments about its inspiration. The actual authority of Scripture depends on its interpretation. And when conclusions about a particular text are then applied to or enforced on other Scriptures, the responsibility to justify the procedure is even greater. Are the various texts speaking the same language? Are they theologizing in the same way? Is one chalk and the other cheese? If they are singing even slightly different tunes, do they harmonize quite so readily?
The “Already/Not Yet”’ Tension Is Neglected
In the case of John 5:24, it would be generally agreed that John’s presentation of the gospel can be well characterized as “realized eschatology,” and that John 5:24 is one of its strongest expressions—indeed, probably the strongest affirmation of realized eschatology in the New Testament. That is to say, that in the already/not yet understanding of the process of salvation characteristic of most of the New Testament writings, John gives special emphasis to the “already” aspect of the process. In John’s gospel the coming into the world of the light is decisive; everything depends on how one responds to that light. The light of Jesus is the critical factor (krisis as a separating force as well as judgmental force). The judgment is the separation of those who respond to the light from those who turn away from it, those who believe and those who do not (John 3:17–21; 9:39).
Quite how this “judgment,” which marks the decisive beginning of the process of salvation, correlates with the final judgment at the resurrection of the dead (John 5:28–29) is not clear, or at least, John does not make it clear. The beginning of the process is clear, since that is where the emphasis is placed in John’s gospel. How it should be correlated with those Scriptures that have greater focus on the end of the process, on the final judgment, is not clear. Paul, for example, strongly emphasizes the decisiveness of the “already” (Rom. 6:2–4; 7:4–6; 8:1–10), but he goes on to indicate that the “not yet” completion is not yet assured (6:12–19; 7:14–25; 8:12–13). In the light of Paul’s treatment of the issue, one might well ask whether John’s gospel overemphasizes the “already” and underemphasizes or even neglects the “not yet.”
The point becomes still clearer when Wilkin turns to “what the Bible says” (p. 27). He picks up immediately on the strong words of assurance in John 3:16 (“will not perish”), 6:35 (“will never hunger and … will never thirst”), and 11:26 (“will never die”). Doesn’t he recognize hyperbole when he sees it? To take such expressions as literal statements of fact runs so counter to the experience of Christians from day one as to undermine any belief in them. A literary pedancy makes such biblical language less credible, not more credible.
Revelation Mentions Only One Judgment
So far as Revelation 20:11–15 is concerned, it is clear that the throne of judgment is in view; references to “judgment” in Revelation usually refer to judgment of condemnation. But did John conceive of an earlier judgment, involving only “the elect and faithful,” a judgment where they receive varying rewards? None of that seems to be in view in the promises to the faithful in chapters 2–3, or to those with their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb (7:14). The only judgment in view is that of 20:11–15, in which, it would appear, all the dead will be judged “according to their works,” and those whose names are not in the book of life will be thrown in the lake of fire. The emphasis is still on judgment of condemnation, but the implication is that those whose names are in the book of life will be judged favorably. 58 Since no other judgment is mentioned in Revelation, that would seem to be the plainest of senses.
Neglecting the Distinct Emphases of Biblical Authors
What we have, in other words, in these two passages are emphases being placed at quite different points in the range of New Testament teachings on believing and judgment. It is not realistic to draw both elements of Wilkin’s reconstruction from either of the writings in view (John and Revelation). It can only be achieved by taking the emphasis from one and reading it into the other, inserting an apocalyptic emphasis into a nonapocalyptic writing, and vice versa. Is that fair to either? I question the legitimacy, and wisdom, of taking verses from different New Testament writings and blending them into a system, as though they are all written in straightforward prose and all make propositional statements for a rule of faith. But even if it was appropriate, surely we should first inquire whether the system is fully rooted in and true to each of the writings being drawn on. Can a systematized treatment such as that of Wilkin be genuinely described as New Testament teaching when it cannot be shown to be the teaching of each, or any, of the particular New Testament writings being drawn on?
Paul Envisioned Only One Judgment
When we try to bring Paul fully into the discussion, Wilkin’s resolution/interpretation becomes even more questionable. Is there any indication whatsoever that Paul envisaged different judgments—one for believers judged for their lives and doings as believers, the other for unbelievers whose doom is already sealed, simply because they are unbelievers? Paul obviously envisaged that judgment would be “according to each one’s deeds” (Rom. 2:6–11); there is not even the barest hint either that this would be a judgment exclusively for believers, or that believers would be excluded from it, having already been judged. And the following paragraph speaks of “the day when, according to my gospel, God through Jesus Christ will judge the secret thoughts of all” (2:16)—that is, the normal, traditional concept of a day of judgment, a final judgment when all will be judged. Likewise 1 Corinthians 3:13 envisages a “day” of judgment; anyone hearing that read would naturally think of the traditional concept of a day appointed by God for final judgment; 59 the judgment of believers and of what they had done would be part of that day—as clearly implied also, we might note, in 1 John 4:17.
Returning to Paul: Are we to argue that the appearance “before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10) is different from the appearance “before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5.10)? Are we to interpret Paul as envisaging a judgment for believers before Christ, quite different and separate from a judgment for everyone else before God (before the Great White Throne of God)? 60 But both clearly have in view the judgment of believers (“we will stand before the judgment seat of God”—Rom. 14.10; “all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ”—2 Cor. 5.10). And there is no hint whatsoever that Paul would have wanted the audience to whom each letter was read to think of anything other than the same final judgment, as in Romans 2.
Galatians 6:7–9 Is So Clear
I have probably said enough in my own essay about Paul’s warnings about possible failure of believers to persevere (to use Wilkin’s language). But I cannot fail to respond to his treatment of Galatians 6:7–9. It is clear that Paul directs his exhortation to the Galatian believers (“you” and “us”). It is equally clear that “corruption/destruction” (phthora) is the opposite of “eternal life.” The conclusion can hardly be avoided, then, that Paul envisages the possibility that believers may indeed “sow to their own flesh” and in consequence be excluded from “eternal life.” This presumably ties into Paul’s usual concept of salvation as a process of being saved, a process of which salvation is the end result. So, Paul envisages the possibility of the process not being completed, that is, of a final judgment that goes against those who once believed but did not “persevere.” Does Wilkin really think that when people first believe, they believe forever, so that it can be said finally and for every case that “eternal life is decided [that is, finally and irrevocably decided] at conversion” (p. 48)? 61 Surely the history of Christianity, and probably Wilkin’s own experience, have known many cases where those who once believed no longer believe.
Jesus’ Warning Parables
Finally, I cannot really let Wilkin’s interpretations of Jesus’ warning parables pass without comment. The warning of Matthew 24:48–51 seems clear beyond doubt: that the returning master “will cut him [the reckless servant] in two and appoint his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (24:51). Can Wilkin really think that this means merely being “verbally cut up at a future judgment” (p. 35)? And in 25:1–13 the warning is equally clear: the unprepared bridesmaids will be shut out from the wedding banquet, and the bridegroom will tell them, “I never knew you” (25:10–12). Can Wilkin really think this means simply that they will be “excluded from the torch dance and other wedding festivities” (p. 37), but otherwise will “eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (8:11–12)?
Equally feeble, I would have to say, is Wilkin’s interpretation of Matthew 25:14–30. The “worthless slave” is to be “thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (25:30). Does Wilkin really ask us to believe that Jesus meant simply to contrast “the darkness outside” with the “brightly lit banquet hall outside of which is darkness” and that the worthless slave really was “in” after all (p. 38)? Matthew uses the same phrases several times in his gospel—“thrown into outer darkness” (8:12; 22:13; 25:30), equivalent to being “thrown into the fire” (3:10; 7:19), the “unquenchable fire” (3:12), “the hell of fire” (5:22; 18:9), thrown into “the furnace of fire” (13:40, 42, 50), “the eternal fire” (18:8; 25:41), “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). Since this is the lot of those thrown out from the kingdom (8:12; 13:42), for “the evil” as distinct from “the righteous” (13:50), for the man without the wedding robe (22:13), and for “the devil and his angels” (25:41), there isn’t really any room for a nice softer interpretation that allows something much less fierce and less eternal for “worthless” believers, is there? Or should we revive a belief in purgatory? 62
Summary
Exegesis that consists of special pleading and is guilty of petitio principii is never going to prove satisfactory.
RESPONSE TO ROBERT N. WILKIN
MICHAEL P. BARBER
I am grateful to Robert Wilkin for his essay. His approach springs from an effort to affirm truths reiterated numerous times in the New Testament, namely, that God is faithful to his promises and that salvation is the result of God’s free gift of grace. As those who read my article will see, as a Catholic I affirm these beliefs. I am grateful to his commitment to proclaim the gospel.
Notwithstanding this common ground, I find his specific interpretation of various biblical texts unconvincing. In this response, I cannot offer a point-for-point response to all of his claims. I will therefore focus my attention on four major areas.
Are Grace and Good Works Really Antithetical Categories?
Wilkin’s attempt to distinguish between “salvation” and “rewards” in various passages ultimately flows from his commitment to the belief that salvation is by grace alone. I echo that affirmation. I would, however, challenge the dichotomy he seems to assume exists between God’s gift of grace and the believer’s response to it. For grace to be grace, Wilkin seems to insist it must be isolated from all human effort.
I take a different view. It is true that no good work prior to the reception of God’s grace can save a person (Eph. 2:8). However, once united to Christ by grace, the believer is empowered to do good works (2:9–10). The good works accomplished by believers are recognized as the work of Christ. Just as saving faith is the “work of God” (John 6:29), the good works accomplished by the believer are really and truly likewise the work of God in the believer; they are Christ’s work (cf. Gal. 2:20; Phil. 2:12–13; Eph. 3:20). Church fathers such as Jerome explained things in this way. 63 These works are meritorious not because of human effort, but because of grace. This is why the New Testament speaks of the salvific value of good works (e.g., Jas. 2:24–26)—and why we do not need to engage in exegetical gymnastics to explain such passages away.
Salvation and Rewards
Wilkin’s attempt to link good works to “rewards” distinct from salvation is fraught with difficulties. Tom Schreiner does a fine job in his essay highlighting New Testament passages that link salvation to good works. 64 In fact, Wilkin seems to almost rule out a priori the possibility that salvation is described metaphorically in the New Testament, e.g., as a “reward,” “prize,” or “crown.” This becomes especially problematic when one is dealing with something like the parables of Jesus, since, by virtue of their genre, they speak of spiritual realities allegorically. 65 This leads Wilkin to idiosyncratic interpretations.
For example, Wilkin takes the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) as referring not to the final judgment but as a teaching about endurance in the tribulation. According to him, those excluded from the feast are those who will fail to gain rewards (“ruling”). His reading strikes me as implausible. Significantly, he cites no commentator who agrees with his view. As we find elsewhere in Matthew (22:1–10), Jesus specifically likens the kingdom of heaven to a wedding feast (25:1)—not to ruling with Christ.
The last judgment imagery is also hard to miss. When the virgins who are left outside cry out, “Lord, Lord, open to us,” the bridegroom replies, “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt. 25:11–12; emphasis added). 66 Jesus elsewhere explains that many who call out “Lord, Lord,” will not “enter the kingdom” (7:21–23). These will be told, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” In light of such contextual parallels, Wilkin would seem to be suggesting something startling: that one can be saved and yet not know the Lord!
Wilkin also parses out other terms that are best understood as synonymous. He writes that it is “erroneous” to equate “inherit the kingdom” with “have eternal life” (Wilkin, p. 39). Yet a look at the Gospels reveals a fluidity of terminology. An example of this is found in the Sermon on the Mount. The section of the Sermon typically identified as the “six antitheses” 67 (Matt. 5:21–48) follows from Jesus’ statement, “Unless your righteousness surpasses [perisseus?] that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will in no way enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20; emphasis added). Others have noted that the language here is picked up in the final part of this section of the Sermon, namely, the instruction to love one’s enemies (5:43–48). 68 Once again, the language of “surpassing” appears, but this time in connection with a statement regarding gaining a “reward”:
“If you love those who love you, what reward [misthon] do you have? Do not also the tax collectors do the same thing? If you greet your brothers only, what surpassing [perisson] thing do you do? Do not also the Gentiles do the same thing?” 69 (emphasis added)
Here receiving a “reward” and doing something “surpassing” are obviously linked together as having a synonymous meaning. Since Matthew 5:20 links “surpassing righteousness” with the language of “enter the kingdom,” it is hard to believe that “entrance into the kingdom” and “reward” should be seen as relating different ideas.
Likewise, the use of different language to communicate the notion of salvation also appears in Matthew 19, a passage I treat in my article. Jesus answers a question about what is necessary to “have eternal life” (Matt. 19:16) with a statement about “entering life” (19:17). After the man walks away, Jesus explains that it is difficult for a rich man to “enter the kingdom of heaven,” using that particular phrase two times (19:23–24). That salvation is in view is clear from the disciples’ question that follows: “Who then can be saved [sōthēnai]?” (19:25). Jesus never corrects them by explaining to them that he is not speaking about salvation. Instead, the passage ends with Jesus describing who will “inherit eternal life” (19:29).
Are these terms (“have eternal life,” “entering life,” “entering the kingdom,” “be saved,” “inherit eternal life”) really meant to indicate different realities? While someone like Wilkin might attempt to argue that the meaning of Jesus’ teaching shifts back and forth from salvation to something else (and back again?), such would be a forced interpretation. The man received a direct call from the Lord, which he clearly understood and flatly rejected. His rejection entails something more than the loss of rewards, as the disciples’ response clearly indicates (Matt. 19:25). To be clear: it would be wrong to conclude that a rich man cannot be saved. Jesus goes on to say, “with God all things are possible” (19:26). The parable that follows in 20:1–16 further stresses God’s mercy. Still, there can be little doubt within the context in Matthew 19 that what is at stake is salvation itself. 70
Is Perseverance Necessary?
Wilkin holds that perseverance is not necessary for salvation. He points to passages that indicate that those having faith will receive eternal life. For example, in the famous passage in John 3:16, we read, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Yet as even Protestant scholars have noted, the present tense of the Greek word for “believe” (pisteuōn) is best read as indicating that salvation depends not on a single act of faith but rather that “whoever continues to believe in him … shall have eternal life” 71 (emphasis added).
Wilkin also seems to ignore the fact that salvation is spoken of as past, present, and future realities in Scripture (e.g., his treatment of Gal 6:7–9 and Eph 2:8–9). I treat this aspect of Scripture’s teaching more fully in my essay. Suffice it here to observe that there is nothing inconsistent in affirming that one might experience salvation in the present and then not attain it in the future.
Scripture is clear that this is a real possibility. Dunn highlights numerous passages that teach as much in his essay (cf., e.g., Gal 5:4). I think, however, the clearest text in this regard is John 15. Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine” and believers as “branches.” Yet he indicates that some branches can be removed from the vine:
I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:5–6)
Jesus describes those who “abide” or “remain” 72 in him as branches and yet goes on to indicate that some of these same branches may be “cast forth” (eblēthē), “wither” (exēranthē) and be “thrown into the fire and burned” (eis to pyr ballousin kai kaietai).
Wilkin fails to mention this passage in his article, but offers a discussion on it in print elsewhere. 73 He suggests that this passage speaks of temporary judgment on believers. While it is true that the disciplining of believers is described in terms of being “tested by fire” elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Pet 1:6–7), that does not seem to be the meaning here. Wilkin claims, “Since the Lord did not use the verb to be burned up, but rather the less intense verb to be burned, He is holding open the possibility that the unproductive believer may respond to the burning and return to fruitfulness.” 74
This is a tortured reading. First, it is hard to see how the viticultural imagery would make sense if “burning” does not refer to destruction. Why would a vinedresser cut off and “burn” a branch in order to restore it? As Keener observes, the natural implication of the burning of the branches is destruction. 75 Second, contrary to Wilkin’s claim, there is nothing in the Greek that suggests temporary judgment is in view. Note the burning that is referred to in Matthew 13:30, where Jesus teaches that the wicked will be “burned” (katakai?) with fire at the final judgment.
Thus, as many Protestant commentators agree, John 15 makes it clear that some who are united to Christ can in fact be cast forth from him. This makes sense of Jesus’ insistence on remaining in him—it is possible to not remain in him, that is, to be separated from him. 76 Attempts to explain the branches that are cast off as simply those who “appeared” to be Christians (e.g., Calvin) 77 are likewise not convincing. As Whitacre writes, “Jesus does not say, ‘those who appear to be in me’ but every branch in me.” 78
Assurance of Salvation
I would like to close by addressing the issue of “assurance of salvation.” In Catholic teaching believers have the assurance not of certainty but of “hope.” 79 Hope, not absolute certainty, is the language of Scripture (e.g., Rom. 8:24–25; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 4:4; Col. 1:5). As Aquinas explains, the object of the believer’s hope is not in what one has attained—e.g., by virtue of his act of faith—but in God’s mercy and faithfulness to his promises.
This should not lead us to be paralyzed by anxiety. Attempts to portray the Catholic view of this matter in such terms are wide of the mark. 80 Yes, nowhere in divine revelation is it stated that I, Michael Barber, am among the elect who will persevere. Yet Catholic teaching recognizes that in Scripture the promise of salvation is linked to the sacraments (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:21). While we do not have indubitable assurance that we are among the elect, we do have confidence in his promises (Heb. 10:23). There is no need to psychoanalyze oneself to determine whether one has truly authentic faith. Christ is the object of faith, not the knowledge of one’s own salvation. It is he who is acting in the sacraments. Because I am weak and fickle, I may turn away from God and reject his salvation—and he will respect my choice to do so. Nonetheless, if I remain in him, I know he will not disappoint me and will continue to remain in me (John 15:1–10).
1. See, for example, Matt. 24:13; John 15:1–6; 1 Cor. 9:27; Gal. 6:9; Col. 1:21–23; 2 Tim. 2:3, 12; 4:6–8; Heb. 10:36; 12:1–3; Jas. 1:12; 5:11; 1 Pet. 2:19; 1 John 2:28; 4:17–19; Rev. 2:26.
2. Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 147.
3. Ibid., 290–91 (italics original).
4. John Piper, Future Grace (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1995), 234 (italics original).
5. See, e.g., Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1960, 1961, 1989); Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996); Grant R. Osborne, “Soteriology in the Gospel of John,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man (ed. Clark H. Pinnock; Minneapolis: Bethany, 1989), 258.
6. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle, 1992), 243.
7. Earl D. Radmacher, Salvation (Swindoll Leadership Library; Nashville: Word, 2000), 207.
8. Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948, 1976).
9. See also John 1:12; 3:36; 4:10–14; 5:24; 6:35, 37, 39, 47; 11:25–27.
10. Compare, for example, Gal. 2:15–16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:17–18; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 2:25; 5:9–13.
11. John 2:23–25 and 8:30–32 are often cited as proof that more than “intellectual belief” is required for salvation. I argue elsewhere that sanctification is in view and not justification/conversion; see The Grace New Testament Commentary (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 1:372–73, 408.
12. Pistos in Luke 19:17 refers to faithfulness, not faith. This is evident in that it is linked with agathos (“good servant”). Goodness is a character quality as is faithfulness. In addition, to be faithful “in a very little” fits the work he did in investing his master’s money.
13. However, Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1537, says, “Jesus really only needs two figures to make his point that some are faithful and ‘others’ are not.” The problem with this is that Jesus chose three figures to make His point. While it is true that there is a difference between a faithful servant (servant no. 1) and an unfaithful servant (servant no. 3), there is also a difference between a faithful, wholehearted servant and a faithful, halfhearted servant. Why give the first servant twice as many cities to reign over if he was no more faithful than the second servant? More is going on here than distinguishing between servants who will and won’t rule in the life to come—namely, how much authority the faithful servants will have.
14. The reasoning sometimes used, though simple, is suspect: Believers are not wicked servants. The third servant is a wicked servant. Therefore the third servant is not a believer. This simply does not stack up with other examples in Scripture (e.g., King Saul, Solomon, Hymenaeus, and Demas). Note too the fleshly believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:1–3; cf. 11:30).
15. See Leon Morris, Luke (TNTC, rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, 1988), 302, and C. Marvin Pate, Luke (Moody Gospel Commentary; Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 357–58. Admittedly some commentators see the loss of the mina to mean that the third servant will not be with Christ in His kingdom; see, e.g., John Martin, “Luke,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary (NT ed.; Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 253.
16. Morris, Luke, 302 (italics original).
17. Pate, Luke, 358.
18. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; rev. Frederick William Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 183 (italics original).
19. Ibid.
20. Other examples could be given beyond those listed in the chart. For example, John also spoke of the free gift of everlasting life in John 4:10 and Rev. 22:17, and he spoke of rewards for work done in John 4:33–38 and Rev. 2:7, 11, 17; 3:5, 12, 21; 22:14. Paul also spoke of the free gift in Rom. 3:24; 5:15; and 6:23, and he spoke of rewards for work done in Rom. 14:10–12 and Gal. 6:7–9.
21. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, 1941), 548–49.
22. D. A. Carson, “Matthew” (EBC, rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 9:548.
23. For further discussion see David R. Anderson, “The Soteriological Impact of Augustine’s Change from Premillennialism to Amillennialism, Part Two,” JGES (Autumn 2002): 23, 26, 30–34, 36–38.
24. E.g., Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set before Us, 151–52: “Jesus’ words indicate that perseverance to the end is the necessary condition. Perseverance is a means that God has appointed by which one will be saved … in the final day. It is really this simple.”
25. See, e.g., John F. Walvoord, Daniel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 216–37; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986), 448, 465–66.
26. Zane Hodges has a helpful discussion of this parable in his book A Free Grace Primer: The Hungry Inherit, The Gospel under Siege, Grace in Eclipse (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2011), 467–70.
27. See Gregory P. Sapaugh, “A Call to the Wedding Celebration: An Exposition of Mat thew 22:1–14,” JGES (Spring 1992): 30–32; Michael G. Huber, “The ‘Outer Darkness’ in Matthew and Its Relation to Grace,” JGES (Autumn 1992): 14–16, 20–21; Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny (Monument, CO: Paniym Group, 2012), 767–73.
28. Commentators who express this view include R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 351–52; J. C. Ryle, Matthew (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), 240–42; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 624–25.
29. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 303.
30. In Jewish weddings, young women would be chosen to provide a celebratory procession and dance with torches as part of the festivities. For more information see http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/kno_chamblin/NT.Chamblin.Matt.25.1–13.pdf, under A. 3. “The ‘lamps.’”
31. For a detailed discussion of this parable and the three uses of the outer darkness in Matthew, see Michael G. Huber, “The ‘Outer Darkness’ in Matthew,” 11–25. See also Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings, 389–96.
32. For more details see Zane Hodges, A Free Grace Primer, 493–96.
33. Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?: The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels (ETSMS 4; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2006), 294–314.
34. See also ibid., 308–11, where Stanley offers a brief excursus on Jas. 2:14–26 since, in his mind “James … most likely explicates Matthew’s teaching on the last judgment” (308). See also 332–33, where Stanley summarizes his understanding of Matt. 25:31–46 (and calls this “the final judgment”).
35. Ibid., 314.
36. See ibid., 302–5, for an explanation of the five major views. Stanley defends the view that Jesus’ brothers are Christian missionaries (cf. Matthew 10).
37. For more information on inheriting the kingdom see Robert N. Wilkin, “Christians Who Lose Their Legacy: Galatians 5:21,” JGES (Autumn 1991): 23–27.
38. In light of Matt. 7:21–23, it is evident that some (many?) of those held in Hades for one thousand years will nonetheless feel they deserve to enter the kingdom because of the works that they did in Jesus’ name.
39. For a discussion of the distinction between Hades and the lake of fire, see Robert N. Wilkin, The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2012), 91–93.
40. Ibid., 33–35.
41. Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary (NT ed.; Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 610; see also Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings, 140.
42. See e.g., Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? 253; Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set Before Us, 192–93.
43. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC; Dallas: 1982), 69.
44. Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 144.
45. Charles C. Bing, “The Warning in Colossians 1:21–23,” BSac (Jan.-Mar. 2007): 85–87.
46. See, e.g., Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (WEC; Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 197–98.
47. Bing, “Warning,” 88.
48. J. Paul Tanner, “The Epistle to the Hebrews” (GNTC; Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 2:1077–78.
49. Ibid., 2:1078 (italics original).
50. J. William Fuller, “‘I Will Not Erase His Name from the Book of Life’ (Revelation 3:5),” JETS (September 1983): 305.
51. E.g., G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (2nd ed., NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1032–33; Leon Morris, Revelation (TNTC; Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987), 234.
52. Zane Hodges, “The Sin of Unbelief,” Grace in Focus (Nov.-Dec. 2007): 2–3, available at www.faithalone.org.
53. Contra Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? In his concluding chapter he writes, “Eschatological [= final, see p. 335] salvation then, in the Synoptic Gospels, is indeed by works…. Thus, even though works are necessary for [eschatological] salvation, the works themselves are only possible ‘with God’” (334).
54. See Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary of the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 120; George M. Stulac, James (IVPNT Commentary Series; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 107–9; Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 134–35; Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 129 fn.13, 136; Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 247.
55. For more discussion of assurance and perseverance, see Robert N. Wilkin, Secure and Sure: Grasping the Promises of God (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2005); see esp. pp. 107–111.
56. Michael Horton (ed.), Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 146. Horton, though not holding my view, is a Calvinist who believes it is dangerous to look for assurance by means of introspection.
57. For a handy evangelistic tool I recommend, Living Water: The Gospel of John with Notes (Glide, OR: Absolutely Free, 1996).
58. What a contrived interpretation of Rev. 3:5 is offered by Wilkin: to have one’s name blotted out from the book of life “means that his ‘name’ (i.e., his exalted reputation) has been blotted out” (p. 45). But the most obvious (plain sense) reading of the Revelation references is that to have one’s “name (in) the book of life” (3:5), to have one’s “name written in the book of life” (13:8), and to be “found written in the book of life” (20:15) are all alternative ways of saying the same thing, that is, a way of affirming, particularly for those suffering for their faith, that they will be vindicated in the final judgment.
59. Elsewhere in the New Testament—Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36, 41–42; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; Jude 6.
60. Wilkin seems to go down this road in his interpretation of Col. 1:21–23 (pp. 41–43).
61. “If God guarantees that believers will persevere, then they will persevere with or without warnings. Even if they tried, they would not be able to fall away” (p. 32).
62. But in reference to Matt. 25:31–46, Wilkin thinks that for unbelievers the judgment of the sheep and goats will be “merely an arraignment. They are sent off to Hades to await final judgment” (p. 40). So the first judgment will be of everyone after all?
63. See, e.g., Jerome’s explanation of Ephesians 2:8 (PL 26:469A–470A [575–76]).
64. See, e.g., Schreiner’s treatment of Romans 2:6–10 (pp. 78–79), Galatians 6:8 (p. 82), 2 Peter 1:5–11 (p. 94).
65. The allegorical nature of Jesus’ parables has been underscored by recent scholarship. See Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 15–17; Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 12–14.
66. See, e.g., David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 596; Donald Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33; Dallas: Word, 1998), 729.
67. The language of “antitheses” (i.e., teachings “antithetical” to the law) is not exactly representative of the section but I employ it simply because it represents the conventional language used to describe this section of the Sermon.
68. See Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7(Hermeneia; trans. J. E. Crouch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 289; Alan Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels (ETSMS; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 274; E. M. Sidebottom, “‘Reward’ in Matthew 5.46, etc.,” ExpTim 67 (1956–57): 219.
69. Here I use the translation in Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?, 274.
70. Protestant interpreters agree. See, e.g., the treatment of the passage in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1988–1997), 3:47–48; D. A. Carson, “Matthew” (EBC; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 8:423–24.
71. See Alan P. Stanley, Salvation Is More Complicated Than You Think (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 164–65, citing Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:570; George Beasley-Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 107.
72. The Greek word men? can be translated either “abide” or “remain.” See the treatment in George Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; 2nd ed.; Dallas: Word, 1999), 272.
73. Robert N. Wilkin, “The Gospel According to John,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary (ed. R. N. Wilkin; Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 357–479.
74. Ibid., 450.
75. Keener, The Gospel of John, 2:1002. See also Schreiner’s essay in this volume: “Burning most naturally refers to the final judgment” (p. 93).
76. Ibid., 2:998–1002.
77. John Calvin, The Gospel according to St. John: Part Two, 11–21 and the First Epistle of John (trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), in loc.
78. Rodney A. Whitacre, John (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 373–74.
79. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 18, art. 4. A fine treatment is found in Stephen Pfurtner, Luther and Aquinas on Salvation (trans. E. Quinn; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), 51–116.
80. See Michael Schmaus, Justification and the Last Things (Dogma 6; London: Sheed and Ward, 1977), 114–15.