# Justification, Sanctification, and Revelation 19:8



## biblelighthouse (Jan 1, 2006)

We will wear bright robes in Heaven, at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. And what will those robes be? Those robes will be made up of *our* righteous works! As it is written:

"Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for *the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.*" (Revelation 19:7-8)

Simultaneously, we can see that even our good works are a gift from God. As it is written in the passage above, "to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen". Thus, even when discussing our good works, God's Sovereignty still shines through. (Also see Ephesians 2:8-10, where we see salvation is not by works, and yet find out immediately thereafter that we were created for good works, which God has prepared for us to do!)

My pastor just preached a fantastic sermon today! He preached about justification, sanctification, and the intimate connection between the two. Of course we should never confuse them with each other, but we definitely should recognize the unbreakable bond between them. Once a person is justified, sanctification is sure to follow. Jesus not only saves us from the consequences of sin, but from the power of sin as well. He does impute His righteousness to us (justification). But he nevertheless imparts righteousness as well (sanctification).

If you get a chance, please listen to this great sermon:

http://albert.familynet.net/mbc/messages/January_2006/

The title of the sermon is "Klider Machen Laute", and is centered around Matthew 22:1-14. The sermon date is January 1, 2006.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 2, 2006)

I'm just curious if anyone has listened to Pastor Nelson's sermon yet (the link is above). If so, what did you think about it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I'm just curious if anyone has listened to Pastor Nelson's sermon yet (the link is above). If so, what did you think about it?


No, haven't listened to it yet. So, what follows is in no way a prejudgment, analysis, or vindication of the sermon. Merely observations on the text...

text:
...kai h gunh autou htoimasen eauthn
8 kai edoqh auth ina peribalhtai 
bussinon lampron kaqaron
to gar bussinon ta dikaiwmata twn agiwn estin

literal translation:
... and the woman of him she made ready herself
And *it* was granted to her in order that she might array herself
*fine linen bright clean*
for *the fine linen* the righteousnesses of the saints *it* is

The most obvious point of the verse is that whatever his wife stands dressed in was 1) given to her, and 2) for the express purpose she should dress in it; but also 3) that she does dress herself. She puts on a donation. She did not produce this righteousness.


> He asserts not ... the righteousness of the saints is this fine linen, but this fine linen, thus granted her to be clothed withal, is that which is the righteousness of the saints, that only righteousness which they stand righteous before God withal; even they that are most holy need to be clothed with it to come to the presence and enjoyment of their husband, and to be clothed with it over and besides their own righteousness.


Thomas Goodwin, _Works,_ vol. 7, p. 380.

I would not class the genitive "of the saints" as a genitive of production (r. produced by s.); rather I view it as a simple possessive genitive (r. belonging to or possessed by s.). In the second case, there is a lot more room to describe the _origins_ of this righteousness, for that which belongs to me need not have been produced by me. I cannot affirm that I will stand before God in robes that consist of anything that had its origin in me, or upon which I even made alterations or additions. For another thing, this material is the same stuff in which the saints go to war (v. 14). I do not want to wear the breastplate of my own righteousness (cf. Eph. 6:14).

Yet, if the term "righteousnesses" be insisted on for "righteous acts", as pertaining to men's deeds done in sanctification (as though amplifying _her_ preparation), one must forcefully emphasize the God-initiated quality of the works. Why? Because all our "righteousnesses are as menstruous rags" (Is. 64:6, the Heb. is plural just as Rev.), but God clothes us with the garments of salvation (Is. 61:10, cf. Mt. 22:11--the undressed man was cast out into hell because he wasn't justified). Whereupon she walks in those God-prepared-beforehand works (Eph. 2:10), which he is active in her to produce both will and work (Phil. 2:13). What he works in her to complete her in every good work is what will finally be pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ (Heb. 13:21). In other words, those deeds are only acceptable because Christ perfects them, and owns them as _his works_ before the Father.

In whatever of *him* he chooses to dress me, I will wear it gladly. But I don't expect to be appreciably better dressed than the man saved at well beyond half-past the 11th hour. And I hope the pastor's sermon reflected similar thinking.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 4, 2006)

Bruce,
So what you are saying along with good old Goodwin is that this is not righteous acts the saints have done. Doesn't the greek imply it is their righteous deeds they are clothed in? That does appear to be what later translations say.

Could it also be compared to what Paul is saying here.

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 

This text also makes me struggle because I will not be clothed in any of my righteousness. I don't even want to be. For if I am I would definitely not even be wearing underpants. I would be stark naked. Undone and a goner without hope.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

The righteous acts of the saints are theirs indeed, because God worked through each of them to perform the works of the law by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Faith without works is dead, because true faith is manifested by the fruit of the Spirit.

Simply because I say someone is doing good works, does not mean it is intrinsic to them apart from Christ. All our righteousness is as filthy rags apart from faith.

But the gift of faith, produces a righteousness that is clean. That is how sins as scarlet can be made white as snow. 

Saying "look at Martin's righteous deeds" is the same as saying "look at what Christ has done through Martin".


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

I just noticed this in the verse:


Rev 19:7 
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, f
or the marriage of the Lamb has come, 
and his Bride has made herself ready; 
Rev 19:8 
it was *granted her* to *clothe herself* with *fine linen, bright and pure*"-- 
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. 


The Bride has made herself ready with the clothing that the groom provided for her.

God's sovereignty, and man's responsibility.

God gives us the armor, but Paul still tells us to put it on.
In Christ we will win the race, but we still have to run it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 4, 2006)

Just to acknowledge, we are verging on a "thread hijack" here. The original topic had to do with a sermon, which I do not have time at present to listen to, but I commented on the text, without prejudice to the sermon. I also said I neither want to, nor expect to be clad in my own righteous works, considered as such, when appearing in heaven.

Martin,
I incline to such interpretation as Goodwin gives, for I think it harmonizes with the theology of Scripture (see the associated references). The Greek speaks of "righteousnesses," a noun (here pl.), which can have quite a few nuances: a rightful act, an act of justice or fairness, just condemnation or justification, a decree, a good work or perfect righteousness, a state of righteousness (Analytical Gk. Lex.). "It was granted" covers ALL of the following clause: the participle and the nouns/adjectives. I believe it is the linen _in particular_ that the text states she was granted.

Also, the word "in" must be supplied as (presumably) necessary for English sense under the alternative rendering, whereas the straightforward rendering does not demand its addition. One might also wonder why the noun form is nominative/accusative instead of either dative (in) or genitive (of) if that was the intended understanding.

The text says that the fine linen (which is given) is the _saint's_ righteousnesses. Is this purely _possession,_ speaking nothing directly about how they came to possess it--except to say that it was "granted", or is it _production,_ thus righteousnesses that they produce (thus indicating that the only thing "granted" or "given" was the allowance that she should dress herself up in good works?

Obviously if this is the latter then *nothing at all* is being said in this verse about justification, period. It is not even being mentioned remotely. All that is being said is something about sanctification, and now it is just as clear that such sanctification cannot be viewed from the standpoint of human behavior, but exclusively from the standpoint of the Holy Spirit's work within us. And in that vein, I would add the text you chose (1 Cor. 15:10) to the ones I used.

As far as the modern print translations go, I can only say that they are most often consensus documents among folks with fairly divergent theological committments, and depend much on the editorial process for their final form. And that's all I can safely say. I am certainly *not willing* to say that the KJV producers had _more improper bias_ in their choice for the rendering.

Mark,
I would say that if the text should be read along those lines, certainly you are correct to say that we must not think of our contribution to the work as worthwhile. "For *it is God at work* in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 4, 2006)

Thanks Bruce.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 6, 2006)

Bruce wrote,


> literal translation:
> ... and the woman of him she made ready herself
> And it was granted to her in order that she might array herself
> fine linen bright clean
> ...



Absolutely right, Bruce! The text must surely be read in the light of Gen 3:7, 21; Isaiah 64:6; 61:10. Our righteous acts are no more than a pathetic fig leaf or fithy rags. It is God Himself who must clothe us in the garments of salvation, the righteousness of Christ. Therefore the 'fine linen' is the righteousness of Christ, which is the righteousness of the saints. 

Martin


----------

