Articles
"I Will Build My Church"
Saturday, February 08, 2025“13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:13-19
At a pivotal moment in his ministry, Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. The popular opinion of Jesus was positive but fell short of the mark. But what did Jesus’ closest followers think of him? Peter, speaking for the group as usual, boldly confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16).
The confession (16-17) — They knew he was much more than a mere prophet. He was the long awaited “Christ,” the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah,” which means ‘anointed one.’ God anointed prophets, priests and kings to mark them out for special service to him, but he promised the Anointed One, par excellence, in places like Psalm 2:2 and Isaiah 61:1. This Supreme Anointed One was also “the son of God,” which could also be used to refer to the Lord’s ‘anointed’ king from the line of David (2 Sam. 7:14; Psa. 2:7; 89:27). Not only this, Peter confesses he was the son of the “living God,” distinguished Israel’s God from the myriad ‘dead’ gods of the pagans surrounding them at the various shrines and temples of Caesarea Philippi (1 Sam. 17:26; Psa. 42:2; Jer. 10:1).
Peter’s confession was bold, clear and full of conviction. He may not have understood all the implications of his confession yet but he was “blessed” because he came to this conclusion not by mere human insight but by means of divine revelation. Jesus says that his Father in heaven “revealed” it him. That is, Peter saw that the Father was bearing witness about Jesus (Jn. 5:30-47) and he drew the correct conclusion, something many others either could not or would not see (for example, Mt. 16:1-4).
The construction (18a) — When Jesus first met Peter, he changed his name (Jn. 1:41-42), something God did for key people at key moments in his redemptive plan (see Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:28). When God does this he is not just making a prediction of that person’s future but declaring what he can make of such a person. Here, Jesus changes his name from “Simon” (a Hebrew name derived from the verb “to hear”) to “Peter” (a Greek name which means “rock”), anticipating his future as a man of great strength and leadership in the church (see Acts 1-10). Jesus also promises to build his “church,” a word meaning an ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ of people.
The confusion (18a) — Upon what “rock” does Jesus promised to build his church? He makes a wordplay on Peter’s name. Semantically, “Peter” sounds similar to “rock” in Greek but they are two distinct words with slightly different meanings. “Peter” (petros) is masculine and is used to describe small stones or pebbles, whereas “rock” (petra) is feminine and is used to describe large, solid rocks. Therefore the foundation of Christ’s church can’t be “Peter” the apostle for then Jesus would have said, “You are petros and on you I will build my church.” Moreover, when the word “rock” was used figuratively in the Old Testament, it was never used of man but always of God (Psa. 18:2). When Peter later wrote about the church, he pictured it being built upon the cornerstone of Jesus, not himself (Acts 4:8-12; 1 Pet. 2:4-8). Paul does the same in his writing, naming Jesus as the church’s one foundation (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20). Therefore, the “rock” upon which Christ’s church is built is not Peter himself, as the Roman Catholic Church purports, but rather the confession Peter made about Jesus. Only Jesus can provide a solid enough foundation for his people (Mt. 7:24-27).
The continuation (18b-19) — Jesus also promises that no power can conquer his church or stop him from building it. The “gates of Hades” is a Greek idiom meaning death, akin to the Old Testament ‘Sheol.’ The Hadean realm was thought to be inescapable, but after Jesus defeated death in his resurrection he promises to liberate the dead who have turned to him in faith (Rev. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; see Acts 2:24ff). Not only is the kingdom indestructible, it is also accessible. Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” that is, the authority to open its metaphorical gates to welcome people into it. This is precisely what Peter did in the book of Acts. Peter preached to many people, turning their hearts to Jesus. But there are two occasions which stand out: first, he is pictured as the lead voice on the day of Pentecost that initially preached the gospel and those first three thousand were saved (Acts 2); second, years later, the Lord chose Peter to be the first to preach to Gentiles, and Cornelius and his family were welcomed into the kingdom (Acts 10). Thus, Peter was the ‘key’ figure who escorted the lost into the early church to be saved.
Jesus also promised that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Binding and loosing is more authoritative language. This means that Peter had the right to teach and enforce the truth for those in the kingdom (Acts 8:14-24). This authority was not exclusive to him but extended to the other apostles as well (Mt. 18:18; cf. Jn. 20:23). However, the authority to “bind” and “loose” does not extend beyond the apostles. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and specially commissioned by Jesus to be leaders. Leaders in the church today are also delegated authority to govern the church, but in a much more limited way than the apostles. “Elders” or “shepherds” (Acts 20; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) are always subject to Jesus’ ultimate authority (1 Pet. 5:1-5) and can govern only through the proper application of God’s word (Acts 20:28, 32).
This passage teaches us many things about Jesus, Peter and the apostles. There are some wonderful promises and some much needed clarity about the church as well, especially amid the bewildering array of denominations on offer today. Let us do our best to ensure we are truly thinking, speaking and acting like the Lord’s church.
The Aim of Our Charge
Saturday, February 01, 20253 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1 Timothy 1:3-7
All was not well in Ephesus. Despite Paul’s warnings to the Ephesian elders years before (Acts 20:17-38), false teaching and disorder now plagued the church. A group of men were teaching myths based on speculations surrounding Old Testament texts (4). These men made “confident assertions” but were “without understanding” (7). Their claims were baseless and their teaching dangerous. It resulted in “vain discussions” (6) and “speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (4). The apostle entrusted his young protégé, Timothy, with the difficult task of silencing these teachers and stabilizing the church.
Paul gives the purpose for his command in verse 5: “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” The teaching of Paul’s opponents resulted in meaningless speculation. The goal of Paul’s “charge” that they stop their harmful teaching is “love.” Love is the greatest commandment (Mt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14), and because “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6), Paul cannot stand idly by while error is being taught to the detriment of the Ephesian church.
The heresy being taught at Ephesus, like those being taught at Corinth, was due to an absence of love. There may be an implicit warning for Timothy here as well. While correcting these men, he must remember to do so in an attitude of love lest he fall into the same trap (4:16; cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26). Timothy must set an example of love before the congregation (4:12) and pursue love in all things (6:11). Let’s turn our attention to Paul’s threefold description of the sources of love. The reigning theme of all three is sincerity. For love to be love it must issue from “a pure heart, a clean conscience and a sincere faith.”
Love comes from a heart cleansed of sin — Whereas the opponents’ minds were “depraved” (6:5), Timothy must love from “a pure heart.” The false teachers were insincere “liars” (4:2), “deprived of the truth” (6:5) because they “persist in sin” (5:20). Timothy must live as one whose heart has been cleansed of sin. The concept of “purity” reminds us of Old Testament rituals of cleansing that made one fit for God’s service. David prayed that God would forgive his sin and create a “clean heart” within him (Psa. 51:10). For Timothy to be effective in his teaching, he must protect his heart from moral pollution.
Love comes from a conscience free from guilt — Whereas the opponents’ consciences were “seared” (4:2), Timothy must love from a “good conscience.” All humans possess a conscience (Rom. 2:13-14), that innate and universal knowledge that condemns wrong and commends right. It is our inner moral compass. However, if we disobey our conscience long enough, it can become “seared” (4:2). That is, through persistent sin, our conscience can become so burnt and desensitized that we can no longer distinguish between right from wrong. There may be a progression at work in those who “reject” (1:19), “sear” (4:2) and “defile” (Titus 1:15) their own consciences. When we ignore the truth of God’s word (“reject”), it has the effect of hardening our conscience (“sear”) until it becomes totally “defiled.” Therefore, Timothy must protect his conscience from guilt by living in such a way so as never to violate it (Rom. 14:20-23).
It should be noted that the conscience is not the ultimate judge of right and wrong. It serves only as a guide (1 Cor. 4:4) and can be either misinformed, as was Paul’s (Acts 26:9), or seared, as was those in Ephesus (1 Tim. 4:2).
Love comes from a faith devoid of hypocrisy — Whereas the opponents’ faith was corrupt (2 Tim. 3:8), Timothy must love from a “sincere faith.” Because the false teachers had destroyed their consciences, they made “shipwreck of their faith” (1:19). Paul lays bare their hypocrisy by pointing out that their true motive for teaching was making money (6:5, 10). Sometimes, Christians teach error but are sincere (like Apollos in Acts 18:24-28). They show their sincerity by taking correction humbly. However, those mentioned here are knowingly and deceptively teaching the church what is wrong. Usually we deceive others only after we have successfully deceived ourselves (2 Tim. 3:13). To counter this, Timothy must maintain a trust in God that is “sincere” (literally, ‘without hypocrisy’). He must be honest with himself and with God, as David was in Psalm 139:23-24: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!”
These verses (1 Tim. 1:3-7) are sobering. They warn us that a church can go off the rails through poor leadership and speculative teaching. We may not all be evangelists like Timothy but we are all responsible for what kind of teaching and leadership we tolerate in the church. “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Mt. 15:14) To keep this from happening, we must continue to love “from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”
Nahash the Ammonite
Saturday, January 25, 20251 Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” 2 But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus bring disgrace on all Israel.” 3 The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days’ respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.”
1 Samuel 11:1-3
Last week’s article explored the significance of the Hebrew word nachash, translated “serpent” in Genesis 3:1. Satan, appearing in serpentine form in the Garden, successfully deceived the first human couple, introducing sin and death into creation. But God promised to destroy evil at its source. The seed of woman would come to crush the serpent’s head, while the serpent would strike his heel in a mutual destruction (Gen. 3:15). As Christians, we know Jesus fulfills this promise at the cross, but ancient Israelites reading Genesis would be left wondering about the identity of the snake crusher.
Fast forward to Israel’s nascent kingdom with Saul as its king. The previous chapter ended with naysayers badmouthing him, “How can this man save us?” (1 Sam. 10:27) Chapter 11 provides the answer: Saul can save them by the power of God’s Spirit. A theme emerges when we see words related to “save/salvation” three times (3, 9, 13).
And against whom does Saul make his military debut? An Ammonite king whose name, “Nahash,” is the very same Hebrew word for “serpent” back in Genesis 3:1. Notice the words and actions of this snake king. He besieges Jabesh Gilead, a fortified town about twenty miles south of the Sea of Galilee near the banks of the Jordan. Nahash may have already been on a rampage conquering the Transjordan tribes. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Q4Sama) includes additional material before 1 Samuel 11:1:
“Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were 7,000 men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead.”
This may explain the eagerness of Jabesh Gilead to make peace with Nahash (1). The conditions were clear. He would spare them but only if they gouged out their right eyes. This would render them unfit for military service, putting them forever in a position of subservience (the left eye would normally be covered up by the shield in battle leaving the right eye to sight the enemy; you can’t fight what you can’t see). But Nahash didn’t just want to cripple Jabesh Gilead’s soldiers. He wanted to heap “disgrace on all Israel” (2). His goal was not just dominance but humiliation. Add to this the pride of Nahash who, apparently, was so sure of himself that he allowed the elders’ request in verse 3 for a weeklong reprieve to look for a savior.
When the report of this comes to Gibeah “all the people wept loudly” (4). Saul comes in from the field and gets the news (5) and “the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul” (6). He dices up a pair of oxen, sends out the bloody parts to rile the troops (7), gathers his army (8), promises deliverance to Jabesh Gilead (9-10), splits his forces into three groups and crushes the snake king (11).
Did you hear the echoes of the book of Judges throughout the text? Notice the Spirit of God “rushing” upon Saul, just as he had Samson (6; also 10:6, 10). True, the Spirit equipped other judges (e.g. Jdg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29) but the verb “rush” was only used in connection with Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 19; 15:14). Saul’s division of his troops into groups of three (11) reminds us of Gideon (Jdg. 7:16). His hacking up the oxen (7) reminds us of the slaughter of the concubine in Gibeah (Jdg. 19:27), but instead of dividing Israel and igniting a civil war, Saul’s actions unite Israel and result in victory over their enemy. Saul is the “savior” (3) that Israel needed at the time, a word used of several Judges (Jdg. 3:9, 15). The point is, God’s Spirit took hold of this shy farmer and turned him into a super-judge to save his people.
Sadly, though Nahash resembles the serpent from the Garden, Saul was not the promised snake crusher of Genesis 3:15. His victory over Nahash was decisive but later Saul would fall prey to “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” (Rev. 12:9) Saul turned out to be a rebellious king that God would replace with a “man after his own heart” (13:14), a humble shepherd from Bethlehem. David served the Lord with great faith but he also fell prey to the ancient serpent. Another war with the Ammonites broke out but David, instead of defending his people against the enemy, took Bathsheba and murdered one his mighty men (2 Sam. 11).
It was not until the coming of Jesus, born of woman (Gal. 4:4) and descended from David (Rom. 1:3), that the crushing blow was delivered to the serpent’s head. Today, Christ’s people also participate and share in his victory over the serpent (Rom. 16:20). All praise to the snake crusher, King Jesus!
Was Satan a Talking Snake?
Saturday, January 18, 2025“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
Genesis 3:1
Revelation identifies Satan as “the great dragon… that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev. 12:9; 20:2), connecting him to the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1). Does this mean Satan was a talking snake?
The Hebrew word translated “serpent” in Genesis, nachash (נחש), has a fascinating depth of meaning and web of associations. In ancient Hebrew, the vowels of a word can change its definition. Since Hebrew is a consonantal script, vowels are indicated by tiny marks above, below or inside the letters. Depending on those marks, nachash can mean either ‘serpent’ (when used as a noun, as in Gen. 3:1) or ‘divination’ (when used as a verb, as in Gen. 44:5), the act of gaining secret or forbidden knowledge through misleading and deceptive means. Therefore, because of its association with craftiness (Gen. 3:1) and divination, nachash can mean ‘deception.’ Lastly, because its root appears in contexts related to “bronze” (a related word, nechoshet), by extension, nachash sometimes carries connotations of luminosity or even burning (such as the burning sensation felt by a poisonous snake’s venom [Num. 21:1-9]).
Some scholars suggest that the author of Genesis may intend to combine all of these concepts with the serpent in Eden: he deceives with forbidden knowledge, poisoning our minds against God. But what about the aspect of brightness or burning?
In the Bible and other Ancient Near Eastern texts (ANE), spiritual beings are often linked with light or reflective polished bronze (Ezek. 1:7; Dan. 10:7; Rev. 1:15). For example, Isaiah 14:12-15 describes the fall of the king of Babylon as the falling of “helel ben shakhar,” probably the name for the morning star, Venus (or “Lucifer” in older versions). Other ANE literature describes the gods within pagan pantheons as stars and name “helel ben shakhar” as a minor god whose attempted coup on mount Zaphon failed. He was hurled to the underworld as punishment. Isaiah seems to be borrowing this language from Canaanite mythology and applying it to the king of Babylon. His delusions of grandeur led him to exalt himself “above the stars of God.” His pride caused him to be “brought down to Sheol” (the grave) instead. The fall of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 has long been viewed as a type of Satan’s fall from heaven. In response to the disciples’ victory over the forces of the devil, Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Lk. 10:18) Notice again, the concepts of light and debasement. Evidently, Satan (Hebrew for adversary) is a spiritual being who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Now his will is bent on accusing (“devil” is Greek for slanderer) and deceiving humanity (see Job 1; 2; Mt. 4, etc.).
Consider too that angels are often associated with light (Lk. 2:9; Acts 12:7; Rev. 10:1) and Paul’s warning to the Corinthians makes sense. “I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ… Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:2, 14)
In Isaiah 6, when the prophet is taken in a visionary experience into the throne room of the universe, he sees the LORD upon his throne, high and exalted, flanked by two spiritual beings called “seraphim.” In Hebrew, “seraphim” literally means it burns and has a parallel Egyptian word which means snake. The seal or bulla (an impressed piece of clay) of Ashna, a courtier of King Ahaz (2 Kgs. 16:1-20), depicts the LORD as a crowned glowing disk surrounded by two serpentine seraphs. There are many other artifacts that depict these beings as winged snakes like those described in Isaiah 6. In addition to this, the intertestamental book of Enoch uses the words “serpent” and “seraphim” interchangeably.
Let’s bring all this information back to the snake in Genesis 3. Satan’s serpentine form evokes the concepts of deception, forbidden knowledge and may hint at his angelic origin. He appears as a snake, either taking the form of a snake or speaking through a snake, to deceive Adam and Eve by undermining their trust in God. As punishment, God curses the snake by pronouncing its humiliation and future destruction:
The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:14-15)
There is more at work here than God cursing actual snakes. Like the arrogant king of Babylon (Isa. 14), this serpent is cast down into the dust, or Sheol (Jon. 2:2; Job 14:13; Isa. 14:9, 11, 15; the Epic of Gilgamesh refers to the underworld as “the house of dust”). This serpent is doomed to crawl and eat dirt, poetic descriptions of his humiliation and divine punishment. God prophesied an ongoing hostility between his offspring and the woman’s. As the Genesis narrative unfolds, we see humanity diverging into two groups, those who succumb to the serpent’s temptation (his spiritual offspring [ex: Cain]) and those who resist his deception and try to live by faith (the woman’s offspring [ex: Abel]). Suddenly, and without explanation, the offspring of the woman, plural in 15a, becomes singular in 15b. One will come from the woman to crush the head of the serpent, but the serpent will bite him on the heel in the process. Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross and triumphant resurrection are the beginning of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Genesis 3:15 (see also Rom. 16:20).
"I Never Knew You"
Saturday, January 11, 202521 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21-23
Can you imagine anything more terrifying than hearing Jesus say, “I never knew you; depart from me”? In the conclusion of his sermon on the mount, Jesus pierces our hearts with this warning against self-deception. His words describe the person who believes he is right with God when he is not.
The Lord speaks of the danger of a merely verbal profession of faith. He describes those who base their salvation on a credal affirmation, on what they “say” to or about Christ. “Not everyone who says to me…” (21) “On that day many will say to me…” (22) Jesus wants us to understand that our final destiny will not rest on what we say to him but whether we do what we say.
Jesus calls those he rejects “workers of lawlessness,” yet notice all their positive attributes. They confess Jesus as “Lord,” a necessary part of our salvation (Rom. 10:9-10). The address of “Lord” is more than a respectful title. It was a divine title equated with Yahweh in the Old Testament. Notice, too, their fervency in the repetition of the title (“Lord, Lord”). There is a strength of zeal there. Finally, they claim to have done many good things in the name of Jesus. These were not closet Christians. They worked in public, claiming Christ’s authority was behind their works, even supernatural ones such as miracles, prophecy and exorcisms.
If they confessed him as Lord with fervency and worked in his name, why does Jesus shun them on the day of judgment? They are “workers of lawlessness.” Though they used his name freely, their name was unknown to him. When he says “I never knew you,” he does not mean that he was unaware of their existence but that he did not recognize them for who they claimed to be. In other words, their profession was a sham. They called him “Lord” but did not submit to his lordship (24; Lk. 6:46). So the vital difference is between saying and doing. They did evil (“workers of lawlessness”). Works are crucial as they complete and confirm our faith (Jas. 2:26), but it is not enough to be engaged in religious works (6:1ff; Col. 2:20-23; Titus 3:5). To be pleasing to God we must do the works he has prepared for us to do (Eph. 2:10). Their works violated God’s law.
Whether or not they succeeded in performing these miracles is not the issue. They at least thought they did. Even if they did, Paul warns us that possessing and exercising a spiritual gift was no guarantee of God’s approval (1 Cor. 12:27; 13:1-3). Jesus warned of false Christs and false prophets who arise to “perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt. 24:24). Paul warns of false signs and wonders which the wicked use to deceive (2 Thess. 2:9-10).
There is no reason to doubt their sincerity either. The point is there is more to gaining a good standing with God than attaching Jesus’ name to what we do (even if those deeds are good; see for example, Acts 19:13-16). At the end of the day, their life testified against them. They worked lawlessness, despite what they said and despite wielding Jesus’ name. Taking Jesus’ name requires departing from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19).
Jesus is not impressed with our pious words. The proof of our sincerity is in our practical obedience to him as Lord, which he goes on to explain in his conclusion: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:24-27)
Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:21-23 are not meant to cause paranoia in the elect. His purpose is to warn the self-deceived. There will be surprises on the day of judgment. How can Christians be confident in their salvation? (cf. 1 Jn. 5:13) Perfect obedience is impossible but saving faith will give evidence of itself (1 Jn. 1:6; 2:4; Jas. 1:22-25; 2:14-20). Christ is not looking for mere verbal professions but a life that is changed by grace.