The Great Gift of our Union with Christ.

Here is a passage by John Owen celebrating our union with Christ. Owen stops and marvels at what a miracle it is that we have the Spirit of Christ indwelling us.

Hereby we have union with Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, and become 'members of his bones and of the flesh' (Eph. 5:30); as Eve was of Adam; she had the same nature with him, and that derived from him; so we are of him, partakers of the same divine nature; for he that is 'joined to the Lord is one Spirit' (I Cor. 6:17). How excellent then is this grace! It is the same in kind with the holy nature of Christ, and makes us one with him. How great a privilege it it! What an honour and security to the soul that has it. What duties are hence required, and how should we admire the grace and love of Christ through whose mediation we receive it. This is our life, but we cannot perfectly comprehend it, for it is hid with Christ in God' (Col. 3:3). (p. 307, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power

John Owen on Self Cleansing from Sin is Impossible.

John Owen addresses directly the people who think they can cleanse themselves from sin by their own efforts. According to scripture we are too filthy and too weak to accomplish the task. External law and forces cannot do it. We need to be cleansed from the inside out.

We are unable of ourselves, without the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, to free ourselves from this pollution[the effects of sin]. It is true, it is frequently prescribed to us as our duty. We are commanded to wash ourselves, to cleanse ourselves from sin, and the like, but these expressions do not imply a power in ourselves to perform what is so required; but they teach us, that whatever God works in us in a way of grace, he prescribes to us in a way of duty; and though he does it in us, yet he also does it by us; so that the same work is an act of his Spirit and of our wills as actuated thereby. We are not able by an endeavours of our own, to cleanse ourselves from this defilement. 'If I wash myself with snow-water' saith Job, 'and make my hands ever so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and my own clothes shall make me to be abhorred' (Job 9:29). Means may be used whereby an appearance of cleansing may be made, but when things come to be tried, in the sight of God, all will be found filthy and unclean, 'In vain', says the prophet, 'shalt thou take to thyself soap and much nitre; you shalt not be purged' (Jer. 2:22). The most probable means of cleansing, and the the most effectual in our judgement, however multiplied, shall fail in this case. Some speak much of washing away their sins by the tears of repentance; by repentance, as prescribed in the Scripture, is of another nature, and assigned to another end: men's tears are but 'soap and nitre', which will not produce the effect intended. The institutions of the law were of themselves insufficient for this purpose; they purified the unclean legally, and as to the flesh (Heb. 9:13); of themselves they could go no further, only they signified that whereby sin was really cleansed. The real stain is too deep to be removed by any outward ordinances, and therefore God, as it were rejecting them all, promised to open another fountain for that purpose (Zech. 13:1).

John Owen has another chapter on how the filth of sin is purged by the Spirit and blood of Christ. The introduction to the chapter reveals his argument.

The purification of believers from the defilement of sin, is assigned in Scripture to various causes--to the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause; to the blood of Christ, as the procuring cause; and, to faith and affliction, as the instrumental causes.

The Holy Spirit is the craftsman who is making the sanctification happen. The blood of Christ is the price of our redemption. Faith and affliction are the tools the Holy Spirit is using to cleanse us from our sin.

John Owen on Where Holiness Comes From

John Owen on writing about sanctification points out the fallacious reasoning of his day that holiness can be achieved without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. There was an argument in the churches in his day that all holiness consists of is moral honesty and virtue. Many liberal churches make the same assertion today. Owen in the following paragraphs clarifies the issue of gospel holiness.

And hence we may detect many pernicious mistakes about this matter, both notional and practical. For there are some who would carry holiness beyond the bounds of a special relation to Christ, or that relation beyond the only bond it it, which is faith. For they would have it to be no more than moral honesty or virtue, and so cannot with any modesty deny it to those heathens, who endeavoured after it according to the light of nature. And what need then is there of Jesus Christ? I commend moral virtues as much any man ought to do, and am sure there is no such grace where they are not. Yet to make any thing to be our holiness that is not derived from Christ, I know not what I more abhor. Such an imagination dethrones Christ from his glory, and overthrows the gospel.

Others proceed much further. They have notions of good and evil, by the light of nature; these are improved by convictions from the law, and produce great effects. For where the soul is once effectually convinced of sin, righteousness, and judgement, it cannot but seek deliverance from the one, and the attainment of the of the other, that so it may be well with it at the last day. These convictions are still more improved, according to the means of knowledge men enjoy, or the errors and superstitions they embrace. From the latter proceed penances, vows, uncommanded abstinences, and other painful duties. Where the light received is in general according to truth, it will engage men to a reformation of life, a multiplication of duties, abstinence from sin, and a zealous profession of religion in one way or another. Such persons may have good hopes that they are holy, may appear to the world to be so, be accepted in the Church of God as such, and yet be utter strangers to true gospel holiness. And the reason is because they have missed it in the foundation; and not having in the first place obtained an interest in Christ, have built their house on the sand whence it will fall in the time of trouble.

Wherefore let them wisely consider these things, who have any conviction of the necessity of holiness. It may be that they have laboured hard in duties that materially belong to it; many things they have done, and many things forborne, on account of it; and it may be, they think that for all the world they would not be found among unholy persons on the last day. This may be the condition of many young persons, who have lately engaged in the ways of religion upon their convictions: it may be so with others, who for many years have followed after righteousness in a way of duty. But it is observable, that the duties of obedience seldom prove more easy and pleasant to such persons than they did at first, but rather more burdensome every day. Besides,they never arrive to a satisfaction in what they do, something still is wanting; and hence they often become apostates. But what is worse still, all they have done, or can do on this bottom, will come to no account, but perish with them at the great day. Would we prevent these fatal evils; would we have a real, thriving, everlasting holiness; let our first business be to secure a relation to Jesus Chris, without which it can never be attained. (pp. 275-276, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power

Ephesians 4:30 -- Do Not Grieve the Holy Spirit

I thought this argument defending Paul's exegetical technique was interesting. It is commentary from Peter O'Brien's commentary on Ephesians 4. It is a short typological comparison between Isaiah 63:10 and Ephesians 4:30.

The links between the two biblical passages [Isaiah 63:10 and Ephesians 4] are so significant as to suggest a typological correspondence between the two events in the history of God’s covenant people. In Isaiah 63, which looks back to the exodus, Yahweh is presented as the Saviour of Israel, who redeemed his people from Egypt, brought them into a covenant relationship with himself, led them by his own personal presence (i.e., his Holy Spirit) through the wilderness, and gave them rest. For its part, Israel the covenant people had rebelled against its Lord ‘and grieved his Holy Spirit’ (v. 10). In Ephesians Paul addresses the new covenant community, ‘the one new man’ (2:15) comprising Jews and Gentiles who have been redeemed (1:7) and reconciled to God through the cross of Christ (2:14-18). They have become a holy temple in the Lord, the place where God himself dwells by his Spirit (2:21, 22). Using the language of Isaiah 63:10, Paul issues a warning to this new community not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, ‘as Israel had done’ in the wilderness (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-11), the more so since they have been sealed by that same Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (4:30). The change from the indicative (‘they [Israel] grieved his Holy Spirit’) to the imperative (‘do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God’) is deliberate and makes eminent sense in the exhortatory context. Paul picks up the Isaianic text in a chapter that highlights the work of God’s Spirit (=God’s personal presence; Isa. 63:10, 11, 14) in relation to the major salvation-historical event of the Old Testament, namely, the exodus. As he handles this scriptural passage, the apostle is obviously not engaging in some kind of atomistic exegesis, as he is often charged. Rather, he reads the Old Testament text with an understanding of its immediate context, its place in the flow of salvation history, and, apparently, within a pattern of new Exodus typology. Paul interprets the passage according to its plain sense, applying it to the new covenant community upon whom the ends of the ages have come (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). (pp. 347-348, The Letter of Ephesians)

John Owen: Temptation Unsettles the Soul

John Owen is writing about sanctification. In the following paragraph he masterfully uses the illustration of a tree surviving a storm as an analogy of how God uses temptations and strife to encourage spiritual maturity and sanctification.

Perplexing temptations or strong corruptions may so disturb the soul for a season, that it may not be able to form a right judgement of its progress. A ship at sea may be so tossed by a storm, that the most skilful mariners may be unable to discern whether they make any way, while perhaps, they are carried on with success and speed. In such cases, grace is engaged chiefly in opposition to its enemy, and so its thriving in other respects is not discernible. If it be asked, 'How may we know that grace thrives in opposition to corruptions and temptations?' I say, that as great winds sometimes contribute to the fruit-bearing of trees, so do corruptions and temptations to the fruitfulness of grace. The wind comes with violence on the tree, ruffles its boughs, beats off its buds, shakes its root, and threatens to destroy the whole: but by this means the earth is loosed about it, and the tree gets deeper rooted, which renders it more fruitful, though it bring not forth fruit visibly till a good while after. In the assaults of temptation and corruption the soul is woefully ruffled, its leaves of profession blasted, and its beginnings of fruit-bearing much retarded; but in the mean time it secretly casts out its roots of humility, self-abasement and mourning, in constant labouring of faith and love after that grace whereby holiness really increases, and way is made for future visible fruitfulness.(p. 268-269, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power by John Owen

Ephesians 4:26 -- How to be Angry and yet not sin

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,(Ephesians 4:26)

O'Brien comments on Ephesians 4:26 using scholarship and biblical wisdom.

Since anger is not explicitly called ‘sin’, it has been suggested that the reference here is to righteous indignation, while the anger of v.[Ephesians 4:]31 which is to be put away is evidently unrighteous anger. There is a proper place for righteous anger, but also the ‘subtle temptation to regard my anger as righteous indignation and other people’s anger as sheer bad temper’. If ours is not free from injured pride, malice, or a spirit of revenge, it has degenerated into sin. The warning of James 1:19-20 makes the same point: ‘everyone should be … slow to become angry, for human anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires’.

In order to prevent anger from degenerating into sin a strict time limit is to be put on it: ‘Do not let the sun go down on your anger’. The particular term for ‘anger’ occurs only here in the New Testament. Elsewhere it usually signifies an active ‘provocation’ to anger that is, the source of anger rather than its result. Apparently this saying was proverbial. Plutarch mentions that if ever the Pythagoreans were led by anger into recrimination, they were never to let the sun go down before they joined hands, embraced one another and were reconciled. Similar texts appear in the Qumran literature. Sunset was regarded as a time limit for a range of activities, for example, the paying of a poor man his wages lest by failing to so one would be guilty of sinning (Deut. 24:15). In the apostle’s admonition this expression with its reference to sunset is used a a warning against brooding in anger or nursing it. It is to be dealt with promptly, with reconciliation being effected as quickly as possible. (O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesianspp. 339-340,

Ephesians 4:25 -- How to build up the body of Christ.

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25 ESV)

I thought Peter O'Brien's comments on the above verse rather poignant.

The means, by which this body is built, according to [Ephesians] 4:15, is speaking the truth of the gospel in love. Here at 4:25, the apostle’s point is that, in the body which is a model of harmonious relationships, there is no place for anything other than the truth. We are ‘no longer alienated, independent beings but people who now belong together in unity with others whom we must not rob of the truth according to which they decide and act. (O’Brien,The Letter to the Ephesians, p. 338)

John Owen on the Consistencies of Commands and Promises

In his age, John Owen argued against the prevailing arguments against the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Here Owen shows that the command and the promises are not antithetical, but complementary.

And here we may digress a little, to consider what regard we ought to have to the command on the one hand, and to the promise on the other; to our own duty and to the grace of God. Some would separate these things as inconsistent. A command, they suppose, leaves no room for a promise; and a promise, they think, takes off the influencing authority of a command. If holiness be our duty, there is no room for grace; and if it be an effect of grace there is no place for duty. But all these arguings are a fruit of the 'wisdom of the flesh'; the 'wisdom that is from above' teaches us other things. It is true, that works and grace are opposed in the matter of justification, as utterly inconsistent; 'If it be of works, it is not of grace; and it be of grace, it is not of works.' But our duty and God's grace are no where opposed in the matter of sanctification; for the one supposes the other. Neither can we perform our duty herein without the grace of God; nor does God give us his grace to any other end than that we may rightly perform our duty. He who denies either that God commands us to be holy in a way of duty, or promises to work holiness in us in a way of grace, may with as much modesty reject the whole Bible. Both these therefore we must duly regard, if we intend to be holy.

In our regard to the command, our consciences must be affected with the authority of it, as the command of God; for holiness is obedience, and obedience respects the authority of the command. We must also see and understand the reasonableness, equity, and advantage of the command. Our service is a reasonable service; the ways of God are equal; and in the keeping of his commands there is great reward. And hence we love and delight in it as holy, just and good, because the things it requires are upright, equal, easy, and pleasant to the new nature, without any respect to the false ends before exposed.

And we have due regard to the promise, when:

1. We walk in a constant sense of our own inability to comply with with the command in any one instance, form any power in ourselves, for 'our sufficiency is of God.'
2. We adore that grace which has provided help and relief for us. Seeing without the grace promised, we could never have attained the least degree of holiness, and seeing we could never deserve the least particle of that grace, how ought we to adore that infinite bounty which has freely provided this supply!
3. We act faith in prayer and expecation on the promise for supplies of grace for all holy obedience.
4. We have a special regard to it in particular temptations and particular duties; when on such occasions we do not satisfy ourselves with a respect to the promise in general, but exercise faith on it in particular for aid and assistance.

To come yet nearer to our principal design, I say it is the Holy Ghost who is the immediate peculiar sanctifier of all believers, and the author of all their holiness. (The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, pp. 253-254