The Man of Romans Seven

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not: but what I hate, that do I.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.  Oh wretched man that I am!  Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.  Romans 7:14-25

I remember many years ago after my initial conversion, reading through the letter to the Romans.  I remember how the words from the first eight chapters seemed to leap off the pages, and I remember the intense effect that that time of study had upon my mind.  I felt as though I clearly understood the apostle, and that in some way, I knew him as well.  At that particular time, I had not as of yet been indoctrinated in any school of theological thought, nor had I ever read or heard any commentary on this portion of scripture, thus, my initial understanding of the Epistle was unaffected by any influence other than my own relationship with God.  Remarkably, my understanding of the first half of Romans, thus this portion from chapter seven, has undergone little change since that time.  It seems that my theology regarding this book was forged in my own private study, and has remained intact until the present.

Now I do not in any way wish to suggest that the right way to interpret scripture is to ignore the opinions, commentaries, and understanding of theologians past and present, and to exalt one’s own opinion as the truth.  God forbid.  Indeed, the surest way to doctrinal error is to close one’s self off from the influence of godly scholars past and present and to be foolish and arrogant enough to believe that one’s own understanding is complete in and of itself.  Rather, I wish to suggest that in some cases our initial impressions, unaffected by traditional views, may give us a solid understanding of scripture that will stand the test of time.

Having stated this, I wish to present my viewpoint- my initial viewpoint as a new convert- and the viewpoint which I still hold to today, regarding the passage of scripture at hand, inasmuch as I have never heard an argument to the contrary that I felt adequately addressed this text. 

It would appear that although there are a number of viewpoints regarding Romans seven, that ultimately they fall into one of four interpretations: (1) It is Paul’s Christian experience, (2) It is the Christian’s experience, (3) It is Paul’s experience under the Law, and (4) It is the common experience of those under the Law.  Indeed, this passage from the start provokes, or should provoke, the question of the Ethiopian:  Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or some other man?  Is Paul speaking of his own Christian experience, or is he speaking of the experience of Christians as a whole?  Is He speaking of an experience that he has had as a believer, or of one that he is currently undergoing?  Or perhaps, is he speaking of his experience prior to conversion, as a Jew under the Law, or simply relating the common experience that those familiar with the Law undergo prior to true conversion?

Now before I address this passage, and attempt to establish that viewpoint which most adequately represents the original intent of the writer, I think it is vital to first provide certain keys which are critical to an understanding of this text, and to properly establish the framework within which this passage occurs.  To lift a passage of scripture from its proper framework, by ignoring either its historical setting, or those verses which precede and succeed it, is to jeopardize the process of proper biblical interpretation entirely. 

Following are three important keys to this passage.

1. Recognizing the Jewish element found in this epistle is a key to understanding the whole epistle.  It is impossible to read this epistle and to not notice the abundant statements that Paul makes to and about the Jews.  In Rom. 1:16, we are told that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth:  to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  All of chapter two deals with the Jews: their failure under the Law, their hypocrisies as those which rest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God, and their blindness to recognize that a true Jew is he which is one inwardly, and that, circumcision is that of the heart.  In chapter three, the apostle recites all of the advantages that the Jews have over the Gentiles with regard to their spiritual heritage, how in spite of this both Jew and Gentile are equally under the dominion of sin (Rom. 3:9), and thus, how neither can be justified apart from faith.  Chapter four, the great chapter on justification by faith for all men, also includes for the Jews and explanation of the history of circumcision, and how it fits within the community of faith.  And space will not allow for me to expound upon the Jewish element found in chapters nine through eleven, concerning their election, disobedience, rejection, and future restoration in Christ.

Now having established that a Jewish element indeed exists within this epistle, would it not be then a gross mistake to attempt to understand any passage in the letter while ignoring said element?  Why when we come to chapter seven, and the above text, would we attempt to interpret the passage from a medieval perspective?  Why when we read this, would we approach it through the eyes of a Gentile monk per se, as opposed to through the eyes of a Jew and former Pharisee, which indeed is the perspective from which this text is penned?

2.  Another important key to understanding this epistle is to understand that the Jewish element within it is a mere reflection of the audience to which it was written. The fact that there existed within the church at Rome many believers who were converted Jews is well established.  Again, you will better understand this epistle if you keep this in mind.

3.  Paul himself was a Jew, and although his theology underwent drastic changes after conversion, it is also certain that his ideas regarding many subjects such as the nature of sin remained unchanged.  It is likely that Paul’s definition of sin prior to his conversion was also his definition after.  The Jews considered sin to be a transgression of the law, and to be voluntary in nature. They did not consider it to be some natural misfortune, or a force existing within man contrary to his will. That the New Testament writers also held this view is evident, for the apostle John clearly defines sin in the same way: 

Whosoever commiteth sin tansgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1John 3:4

This is important to consider when addressing Romans seven, for it will steer the reader away from the multitude of interpretations that represent Paul as having taught some form of dualism regarding the moral character of man.

With these things in mind, we are now ready to address the passage under examination. 

Our study of this passage must begin at the beginning of the chapter, for the first verse of Romans seven is vital to the rest of the chapter.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Romans 7:1

I speak to them that know the law!  Who is it that knows the Law?  It is the Jews.  Therefore, it makes sense that the verses which follow, though encompassing all believers, would resonate most strongly within those from a background in Judaism.  It also follows that the experience described in our text would coincide with the experience of those that know the law, and know what it is to be bound in an unhappy “marriage”- the Old Covenant (7:2-4). 

Paul here uses the analogy of marriage, in this case an unhappy marriage, in representing the Jews' relationship with God under the Old Testament- for in that marriage is a covenant, and binding upon the parties involved as long as they shall live, it accurately portrays the Jews' covenant with God based upon the Law.  Indeed this was the unhappiest of marriages, inasmuch as the Jews in this covenant never pleased their “husband.”

But does not this analogy of an unhappy marriage, in which the Jews’ experience under the law is represented, harmonize well with the “man” described in our text?  Consider the similarities that this “man” has with the Jews under the Law.  The man of Romans seven declares that the desire to do right is present within me, but how to perform that which is good I find not (7:18).  Many Jews could have said likewise.   The man in Romans seven approved of, or delighted in the law of God after the inward man (7:22).  The Jews did as well.  The man of Romans seven states that with his mind he serves the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (7:25).  This too was the experience of those Jews which in theory embraced the truth of God revealed in the Law as the standard by which to live, but yet in practice found themselves to be contrary to it.

Now this begs the question: If the experience described in Romans 7:14-25 shares such similarities with the Jews’ experience under the Law, could it be possible that Paul actually was indeed describing a legal experience rather than a proper Christian experience? 

As we move from Paul’s marriage analogy, we encounter another statement which further suggests that what is described in our text is not the Christian experience.  In Rom.7:5, we read for when we were in the flesh, the motions (passions) of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members…  This statement clearly establishes the time frame of the experience described in our text.  The experience in 7:14-25 must coincide with the time frame established in 7:5, or there would of necessity be a verse in between to denote that a change in time had occurred.  No such verse appears.  Consequently, the discourse in 7:14-25 describes an experience which is in the past tense- when we were in the flesh.

This is significant, when we consider Paul’s very own words in Rom. 8:9- But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Do you see this?  Do you see that biblically a man is either in the flesh, or in the Spirit?  He cannot abide in each of these states simultaneously.  Do you also see that the statement in the Spirit is descriptive of those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, thus it is definitive of the Christian experience, whereas the contrary statement in the flesh is therefore of necessity definitive of the unregenerate state?   Consequently, the experience described in Romans seven- which we have established as having occurred when we were in the flesh- was never intended to be descriptive of  the Christian experience.

I realize that all too often our text does describe the experience of many believers, but this in no way proves anything other than that a believer is capable of living contrary to what he or she should live like.  The issue at hand is not whether a believer can live a life of habitual failure, but rather whether Paul intended his discourse to facilitate such failure, condone such bondage, and excuse such weakness.  The issue is one of intent, and from scripture, we have seen and will see evidence to support that Paul in no way intended his words in 7:14-25 to be exalted as the Christian norm.

Now the very first verse of our passage also further strengthens my position.  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin (7:14).  This cannot be descriptive of the Christian experience, and to think that Paul is referring to his own Christian experience is ridiculous!   Imagine Paul standing in front of the great church of Rome, with all of the sincere believers of the Empire gathered about to receive “some spiritual gift”(Rom.1:11) which he promised to hopefully impart to them.  As they quietly wait to hear the words of the illustrious apostle, Paul begins with, “We know that the law is spiritual, of a spiritual nature.”  The Romans quietly nod in agreement.  Paul continues:  “BUT I AM CARNAL!  I am fleshly and self-indulgent, and even though I am a Christian, I am YET a slave to sin, for I am sold under its dominion!  This is my testimony; this is what I live!” 

Some spiritual gift!  Some holy impartation! Did we come to Rome to hear this revelation: that our leaders in the faith are carnal, slaves to sin?  That their testimony consists only in wishing to do that which is good, while lacking the strength to actually do good (7:19), and that they are yet serving the law of sin (7:25)!   

But if Paul was actually carnal, how then could he rebuke the Corinthians for their carnality (1Cor.3:1-4) and be anything other than a great hypocrite?  It is certain that Paul wrote to the Corinthians from a spiritual state, and thus was not carnal.  And if not carnal in Corinth, then not carnal at Rome, and thus the experience described in Romans seven is NOT Paul’s Christian experience.  And if it is not Paul’s Christian experience, how then can it be considered to be “the Christian” experience? 

It cannot.

Now certainly one will argue that the fact that the Corinthians were carnal proves that carnality is part of the Christian experience.  It proves the opposite.  If carnality was a normal part of the Christian experience, and thereby something to be accepted, or at least tolerated, why then did Paul rebuke them for their behaviour, and accuse them of walking according to man rather than God?  If carnality is part of the “Christian walk,” it certainly could not be referred to as walking contrary to God, and should not bring down a rebuke from the apostle.  Yet, rebuke did come, indicating that carnality was not to be considered acceptable among the professors of Christ.

Furthermore, to interpret Paul’s words in Romans seven as being representative of the Christian experience is to set Paul against Paul within the same epistle!  For consider Paul’s words in the very chapter prior to Romans seven:

What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid.  How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Rom.6:1,2.  Also,

Knowing this, that are old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin. Rom.6:6,7. And again,

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom.6:14

Now consider how at odds the truths set forth in chapter six are with the experience described in chapter seven. With regard to continuing in sin, Paul declares in chapter six, God forbid! Yet the man of Romans seven indeed does continue in sin.  In chapter six, Paul states that believers should not serve sin, in that they are dead to, and freed from sin.  But the man of Romans seven is very much alive to sin, is no way freed from it, and by his own confession is still serving sin (7:25) as if it were a law that he was obligated to keep!  And lastly, in chapter six, sin shall not have dominion over the believer, whereas our man in chapter seven is, once again by his own admission, sold under sin (7:14), thus proclaiming that sin does indeed exercise dominion over him.

And thus the question: If Romans seven is the Christian’s experience, then whose experience is described in chapter six?

Indeed, Paul’s words from 6:14 make it abundantly clear that the true sign that a man or woman is indeed under grace is that he or she bears this fruit, possesses this attribute: Sin shall not have dominion over you.  And contrariwise, we may see from this verse that those which are under the law and thus not under grace, are they which lack this freedom and are indeed those which are yet sold under sin.

Therefore, having abundantly established that the man of Romans seven is yet under the dominion of sin, we must then conclude that he is not under grace, and subsequently is yet under the law.  And if he is under the law, and not under grace; and if he is yet a slave, being sold under sin as such, and thus not freed from sin; and if, as we have established, he is in the flesh, rather than in the Spirit, and thereby the Spirit of God does not dwell within him; and if, by his own admission he is yet serving the law of sin, and not the Lord Jesus Christ- for nowhere in our text does he say that he is, nor does he say that he serves in heart, or in the Spirit, or in spirit, or with his spirit- all expressions which describe the Christian’s service, but merely that he serves in mind only; in what sense is this man a Christian?

This man may be considered religious in mind only, as he himself states.  His religion consists in having the right opinions, the right convictions regarding moral responsibility, and a strong approval of the laws of God- but it does not translate into any true obedience.  He is like the man, who although well versed in the virtues of proper diet and physical exercise, who exalts and longs for the physique of an athlete, and who at times resolves to whip himself into shape, is never dedicated enough to take the necessary measures to achieve the standard of which he in mind is most approving of (an example that is perhaps all too familiar with all of us!).

Is it any virtue to will, but not perform (7:18), to do, what we in mind allow not, and carry out what we in principle hate (7:15)?  To consider the man of Romans seven to be virtuous is comparable to considering our “would be athlete” above to actually be the Adonis he dreams of being, while he sits on the couch with his pizza and beer in hand!   

In conclusion, what is the best way to consider Paul’s words in Romans seven?  It is this: They are descriptive of the experience of those who although converted in mind to delight in the law of God after the inward man, are not yet converted in heart to actually live according to that principle.  It is the experience of those which are convicted, yet not converted; who are in principle persuaded to the right standards, but are in practice still committed to self indulgence.  This is the experience of those which believe in God, which agree with his standards, which approve of his ways, but whose hearts have not yet experienced that true love for Him, from which victory over sin does flow. 

How the Jewish Christians at Rome could relate to Paul’s wonderful discourse!  They had lived this prior to their conversion to Christ. Although Paul’s words may seem unclear to us at times, the believers at Rome knew exactly what he described. Though he spoke these words in the first person, they knew him to be masterfully representing the plight of their nation under the law, and what it was to be enlightened to “do good,” but lack the moral strength to accomplish it.  

And as Paul concluded his discourse with O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? (7:24) they all could identify fully with that helpless cry, and could as well in unison with Paul loudly proclaim the answer:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord (7:25)!

Though Hand Join in Hand...

Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.  Proverbs 11:21

Strange winds are blowing through the evangelical church today.  While each of these winds begins as a gentle breeze, at first having little effect, they eventually gain enough force to reshape the topography of our minds, and carve an opening in the structure of our beliefs.  These “winds” come to us in the form of teachings, doctrines, philosophies, and ideologies, which compromise the morality of Scripture, and eat away at the foundation of historical, biblical Christianity. Indeed, this is not new, for the apostle warned of such “winds” in the first century, less than thirty years after the Resurrection (Ephesians 4:14).  It should be consoling to note that the gales which buffet us today are not entirely peculiar to this generation, but rather have been endured– and overcome- by those saints in the first centuries of the Church.  To those early saints which so endured, thus passing down the legacy of a morally excellent Christianity, which continued until recent times, I am forever grateful.

But to those who would redefine the moral standards of Scripture, and would once again sing the song of the early infidels and heretics, all while claiming to be enlightened with the proper interpretation of the Bible, even though they are bereft of the knowledge of the rules which govern biblical interpretation, as well as being entirely ignorant of that which the church has always believed with regard to morality, to these I am eternally opposed.  I desire no friendship, no terms of peace, and no acceptance with those “who change the truth of God into a lie,” or with those who sympathize with them.

For both they who twist the scriptures to accommodate their wretched lifestyle, and they who lend their sympathetic ear to them who do, are equally deplorable in the sight of God.  For the former, having “cast off their first faith,” and having long ago “put away a good conscience,” are indeed those false prophets and teachers which introduce “damnable heresies,” and “bring upon themselves swift destruction,” while the latter are they, which having witnessed the shipwreck of the former, are senseless enough to “follow their pernicious ways,” and ruin themselves upon the same hidden reef.    

Now in the above text from Proverbs, we have a reminder of an important eternal truth: Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.  In other words, no matter what agreement, alliance, or confederation the wicked may form, their destruction remains inevitable.  No matter how many men may “agree together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord,” to corrupt the word of God, to justify that which the Scripture condemns, their numbers and their strength are insignificant to him who is both their Judge and Executioner.

Why is it that the wicked do always seek to multiply their numbers?  Why is it that they cannot be content to continue in their sinful ways without attempting to persuade the masses to come over to their side?  This phenomenon is manifest at every level of wickedness, from the young girls who having engaged in fornication cannot be content until all of their acquaintances have done likewise, from the youths who are drunken and stoned which do always seek to persuade yet one more to join their ranks, to the homosexual activists of our day which cannot be content to sodomize one another in private, but are militant in their efforts to intimidate all of society- and the church as well- into accepting their actions as normal, natural and respectable.

This need for the wicked to form alliances and to have hand join in hand, initially arises from a violated conscience, which at the first fights against them, chastising and condemning them for their departure from proper behaviour.  Within the depths of their souls they sense the disapproval of God, and are troubled with an instinctual fear of impending punishment.  When they can find no rest- for indeed they cannot, for the prophet has said that they “are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest,” and again, “there is no peace saith my God to the wicked”- they turn to one another for strength, comfort, and approval, and unite together to fight against, mock, scorn, and to ultimately overthrow those truths, moral standards, convictions and creeds, which stand as an eternal opponent of their lewd conduct and as constant reminder of their reprobate condition.

But what does the Lord say to the people who “imagine a vain thing,” who “counsel together against the Lord and against his Christ?”  What does he say to the ever growing homosexual noise and clamour, both in society and amongst the church as well?  What is his response to the army of atheists both in the university and seminary, in high places and low, who with one accord seek to render the word of the eternal God obsolete and of no consequence?  What does he say to those “believers” who have “agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord,” by setting aside holiness, justice, and the fear of God- regarding these as unnecessary and in some way irrelevant- to allow for drunkenness, carousing with the children of darkness, fornication, and adultery?  What is the Lord’s response to these multitudes that join hand in hand in their errors and iniquity?

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:  The Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall He speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.  And again, Thou shall break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.  Psalm 2: 4-5,9

See with what ease the wicked are overthrown?  While they “imagine a vain thing,” and unite in their determination against the Lord and against his anointed, to “break asunder his bands” and “cast his cords” away from themselves, their destruction is being prepared by the Lord.  And as they break through all the barriers of conscience, and cast off their moral restraints, and make for themselves a religion in accordance with their own lusts- or reject religion altogether- as they seem to make progress in this mad quest, their calamity draws nigh.  Suddenly they shall be broken, “with a rod of iron,” and their alliances, confederations and organizations of evil shall be “dashed in pieces.”  Though hand join in hand in solidarity against the Lord, He shall nonetheless divide them and summon them to his judgment, where each will stand trial alone- the wicked shall not be unpunished.

Now if the overthrow of the wicked is certain, and also swift as it is sure, why is it that many which profess to be followers of Christ are foolish enough to also be in league with the ungodly?  For when evangelical believers which profess to believe in the scriptures, begin to have their opinion regarding homosexuality moulded by the mantra of today’s homosexual movement, and become more and more accepting  of the idea of a person being a “Christian” while remaining a homosexual in a homosexual relationship, are they not in league with the wicked?  Likewise, when believers unite together in a form of Christianity which allows for drinking, fornications, and adulteries- in themselves, their children and their leaders- and yet believe that these practices have no bearing upon their eternal destination, have they not joined ranks with the early heretics which did likewise, who were the enemies of the apostles and condemned by the same?

Yes Christian, I did refer to homosexuality as wickedness. For this is exactly what God, the Law, the apostles, and the New Testament have stated it to be, in language so clear that only an infidel, heretic, and apostate of the highest order would dare attempt to alter it.  Indeed, here in is the infidel, heretic, and apostate made manifest:  He is that man or woman who has departed from the clear statements of Scripture regarding morality, and now proclaims a creed that allows for his immoral practices. And with flattery, and smooth speech, he gains an audience among those “believers” who are too afraid, too drunk, or too immoral themselves to reject him. 

 

But Christian, you must be drunk if you have come to see homosexuality as natural and acceptable. Never has a “stranger wind” blown through the church; never has the devil so blatantly introduced a lie.  Christian, have you forgotten how to read? Or more probably, you have forgotten to read the word of God.  Now Christian, shake yourself, and for a moment forget all of the ridiculous mantra of the gay activists, of how loving and caring and wonderful they all are, of how they were born homosexual, and how God accepts them as long as they are in a loving homosexual relationship, and think for a moment as to what they actually do. Do you have that image in your mind?  Now tell me honestly if God has ever, or will ever sanction that as acceptable behaviour.

    

What is that noise I now hear?  Ah yes, the famous battle cry of the “Christian” homosexuals and their bleeding-heart evangelical supporters:  “Homosexuality, if it is a sin, is just like any other sin, and God has forgiven everyone’s sins.”  To this I say that (1) Homosexuality is indeed sin, (2) that it is not just like any other sin, and (3) God grants forgiveness to homosexuals in the same manner in which he grants forgiveness to any other sinner: when they repent and forsake their ways.

But those which raise this battle cry are greatly mistaken, being grossly ignorant of the teaching of Scripture, which clearly distinguishes certain sins to be worse than others.  Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination.  The same cannot be said of other sins.  If you want to say that homosexuality is an abomination just like any other abomination, then I suppose you would be right in that.  However, I do not think that that would help your cause, O defender of the homosexuals.

Now the truth is that those which say that homosexuality is just like any other sin do not actually believe their own words.  For with one statement they assert that God will forgive homosexuality as easily as he forgives any other sin, and in the next statement, they will speak as though the homosexual will always be just that- a homosexual.  Now if this is true, how is this sin just like any other sin?  If one can never be free from homosexuality, then it is a sin like no other- it is unconquerable and all powerful.  Now if you maintain your position, that this is a sin like any other, but that a homosexual will always be a homosexual, to be consistent, you would of necessity have to conclude that all sinners will as well continue in their sinful state after they have believed in Christ. The liar therfore,will always be a liar, the thief always a thief, and the prostitute always a prostitute!  But where then is salvation?  If men and women will always be the same wretches that they once were, the gospel is powerless.  Therefore, if you assert that God loves homosexuals as He loves all sinners, and that He forgives homosexuality as easily as he forgives any other sin, then you should not think someone harsh or strange who expects the homosexual upon true repentance and conversion to no longer be what he was.

Christian, do you see these strange winds blowing in society and in the church as well?  The hands of the wicked are joined together.  They march in parades together they sit in high places together; they make our laws, and even worse, interpret them.  Sadly, they also join hands within the church, promoting “liberty” while they silence conscience, proclaiming the love of God, whom they neither fear nor respect, while they deny him his right to execute justice as they abide in sin without fear.    

But the wicked shall not be unpunished.  Their striving and raging against God and his servants has an end.  They will seek to alter the Scripture and to define a new moral standard, as they have done in every generation since the days of the apostles until the present, asserting that the Scripture is outdated and can no longer speak to an educated, tolerant society without being “reinterpreted.”  They will spew forth false doctrines and heresies worthy of damnation, and may even succeed in persuading the masses to join hand in hand with them, yet in the end, their punishment will come upon them and their alliances will be powerless against the vengeance of God.

Yet the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.  Blessed is he that can trace his faith back to the faith of the early saints, who himself is the fruit of the apostle’s doctrine and is continuing in it. Blessed is he that abides in the faith that he first received, who endures to the end- for to him are the eternal promises given.  Though hand join in hand against him, and though he may be alone, God will cause him to see the end of the wicked- for they shall not be unpunished.

The Little Man on the Beach

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip (or, “drift away from them”).  Hebrews 2:1

I remember when I was fourteen years old spending a week on the north shore of Lake Erie with my two closest friends, and the father of one those friends.  That week produced certain fond memories that have stayed with me through all of the years since that time.  Like all of our childhood memories, some are more vivid than others, and some are rather vague, requiring a little coaxing to bring them back to the front of our minds.  There is however, a certain memory from that week at the cottage that has been etched in my mind forever- not necessarily a fond memory- but a memory that throughout my Christian life has always served as an illustration of the very real danger of drifting away from God.

One afternoon during that week, the four of us headed to the beach for a swim.  I remember that it was overcast and very windy, the type of weather that has the potential to usher in a summer storm.   The waves were unusually high due to the wind, and provided a great time for my two friends and me as we engaged in some sort of game that involved knocking each other off of the two large inner tubes that we had taken out with us.  At some point, my friend’s father had had enough of the water and made his way to the beach to rest and keep an eye on us while we continued.

As the time went on, the wind increased, and the waves reached heights that I have never seen since on this particular lake.  As we continued with our game, we were unaware of how far we had strayed from shore.  Not one of us ever looked back toward the beach.  What we did not realize was that an undercurrent was at work, and although the wind was blowing fiercely toward the shore, and the large waves were rolling toward the shore, this subtle undertow was with each wave taking us further and further from the beach and into deeper and rougher water.  Yet, we played on, with our backs toward the shore and our faces toward the open water!

Now right around the time that the three of us started to have difficulty hanging on to the inner tubes, as well as keeping our heads above the waves, we barely heard a distant voice.  In retrospect, it is a wonder that we heard it at all given the distance and the wind.  Although we could not make out what was being said, we all turned around toward the shore.  And there he was, the little man on the beach- my friend’s father – appearing so small in the distance, waving his arms like a windmill.  I only heard his voice for a moment, and then the wind silenced any further communication.

I vividly remember the feeling of surprise and fear when I looked back to the shore and realized how far I was from it.  How did we get that far out?  Were we able to swim back?  My fears increased when I started to swim toward shore, and a large wave went over my head causing me to choke and sputter.  As the three of us started to head toward the beach, I was aware that there was a current working against us.  The same current that had so easily taken us out to open water was now fighting against our return, making our return the more difficult.

So we swam with some effort, and I kept my eye on the little man on the beach, until after quite a struggle he began to grow larger, and eventually once more became audible.  And as we made it to water that was no longer over our heads, I felt relieved, although the little man on the beach now seemed rather large and angry! 

Thus we came to safety exhausted.  But the little man on the beach was now the angry man on the beach, and proceeded to yell at us with all of his might- a tongue lashing that was well deserved to which none of us dared answer back. 

We silently returned to the cottage, and no one spoke for a while.  Some time before evening, however, my friend’s father broke the tension, said something funny, and fixed us some supper- we were forgiven.

Now I am certain that many of you reading this little story can see where I am going, as it indeed illustrates well the text from Hebrews.  For in both my story, and in the admonition to the Hebrews, the theme is the same: the very real danger of drifting away.  In my case, the danger was that of drifting away from the safety of the shore into deep and increasingly rough waters; in the case of the early Hebrew believers, the danger consisted in drifting away from the faith that they had initially received. In both cases, the drifting resulted in dangerous situations, which if unaltered could lead to tragic ends. 

Now, it is this spiritual drift spoken of in Scripture that we should be concerned with- for if the Hebrew church, that wonderful and precious church that had sat under the ministry of Christ himself, and was begotten by the preaching of Peter and the twelve apostles of the Lamb, could be in danger of drifting away from God, then how much more the church of our day?  And if the Hebrews needed to be exhorted to give the more earnest heed, lest they should drift away from their initial faith, is it outrageous to suggest that modern believers should seriously consider their ways as well? Likewise, if Paul, after writing two lengthy epistles to the Corinthians in which he addresses many sinful practices that had crept into and corrupted that particular church, closes his epistle with this exhortation , “examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith ”(2Cor. 13:5), is it too harsh, too judgmental, or too negative, to recommend that believers today do likewise?

For when those who profess to be the followers of Christ no longer abide by the same spiritual disciplines and moral standards that they had initially received as right, when they discard their early convictions and allow for and even condone behaviour that they at one time would have strongly opposed, it is evident that they have either drifted from God, or have never truly been in “the faith that was once delivered to the saints.”  

So how is it that a believer, or a group of believers, or a church, drift away from the things which we have heard?  The text tells us that the preventative measure against drifting away is to give the more earnest heed, or to pay closer attention.  Consequently, all that may be necessary to facilitate one’s drift from God is one’s own carelessness with regard to his spiritual life.  For certain this was the case in the story from my youth.  We drifted into danger because we were careless, being so preoccupied with our own enjoyment that we did not pay attention to where we were in relation to the shore.  So it is with many believers.  They are so consumed with the pursuit of their own happiness, and with enjoying this world to the fullest, that they have no accurate sense as to where they really stand with God.  Their happiness is to them the supreme objective, and their faith, prayers, doctrine, and devotion to God, are merely means which they employ to secure this end. 

But is this why you came to Christ, so that you through the power of the Son of God might have everything this world offers as well as the one to come?  If so your coming is in vain, your faith is in vain- you are yet in your sins.  But if you came to Christ for the forgiveness of sins, because he first loved you, and in turn you loved him and desired to follow him and obey him, why now make the Gospel something shallow and self-serving?  Is this the Gospel that you first believed?  Are these the things which we have heard?  Or have you at any time let them slip?

But it is not merely carelessness that causes believers to drift away from the truth, for indeed there are other forces at work more deadly than this.  Indeed, my two friends and I were not only in danger through our own carelessness, but it was the effect of an undercurrent or undertow, a subtle force, which proved to be our greatest foe.  Likewise, the greatest dangers for believers are those subtle influences, those “undercurrents,” which work to drag them further and further from the safety of historical, biblical Christianity.

In Hebrews chapter 3, the writer sets forth two of these spiritual “undercurrents”: (1) an evil heart of unbelief, and (2) the deceitfulness of sin.

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.  But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Hebrews 3:12,13

This passage, inasmuch as it is only a number of verses removed from our initial text, can safely be viewed as conveying a similar theme to that of the text.  However, in this passage we are not only dealing with drifting away from the things which we have heard, but rather with facing the tragic results of that drift- a departure from the living God. You see friend, it is impossible to drift away from biblical Christianity, from the gospel of the first century, and from the morality of the Scripture, and yet maintain a genuine relationship with a living God. 

Consider these two “undercurrents” which the writer exhorts the Hebrews to beware of.  It is an evil heart of unbelief that facilitates our departing from the living God, or our drifting away from him.  But what is meant by unbelief, and why is it considered evil?  Firstly, the writer in no way uses the term “unbelief” as the modern minister tends to.  To the modern preacher, unbelief has to do with lack of confidence with regard to receiving temporal blessings, or with possessing a less than ultra positive outlook toward life.  But if this is what is meant by a heart of unbelief, it hardly seems proper to attach the adjective evil to it.  No, the writer’s idea of unbelief is this: it consists in taking the warnings, commandments, and moral standards of Scripture lightly, or rejecting them altogether.  It is synonymous with disobedience, for when one lives in disobedience, or is contrary to the scriptures, he shows that he does not believe them, for if he believed them, he would consequently fear the wrath that they predict for those who transgress them; and thus, he would not be able to continue as he does- for he would realize that his days are numbered, and that the time of his judgment is at hand.

But the unbelieving and disobedient have no such fear, for they have put to silence their conscience a long time ago.  They may imagine themselves to possess a relationship with God, to be the “sheep of his pasture,” but in truth, they do not hear the Shepherd’s voice.    Jesus Christ has become to them the little man on the beach, whose voice they can no longer hear.  He calls, but they are far from shore.  He waves, but they do not look back.  They have drifted away; they have departed from the living God.

Now we move to the second “undercurrent.”   Notice that the writer does not merely warn regarding sin, but rather the deceitfulness of sin.  He who practices sin will of necessity be deceived by it.  It may appear harmless, it may appear to be of little consequence, but its fruit is death.  And the destructive effect of sin is that it not only separates the transgressor from God, but it in turn hardens the sinner’s heart.  With each disobedience and transgression, the sinner becomes duller, his conscience quieter, and his boundaries and standards become increasingly vague.  It becomes easier to transgress further, to live by different standards, and to condone those things that he once condemned.  And with each step he takes, he justifies himself, concluding that he must yet be acceptable to God, for within himself he does not sense God’s disapproval.  But he has been hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, for though he can no longer hear the Voice of disapproval, the Divine disapproval regarding his life is certain, being clearly set forth in the word which he has transgressed.

Now it is certain that one’s safety, or security, cannot be determined by his own feelings or opinion regarding the subject.  It is quite possible to be in real danger and to be completely unaware.  So it was for my two friends and me.  We were in trouble, yet were ignorant of our state. In this is deception defined.  It is that state of mind in which an individual believes himself to be secure, to be right, and to be acceptable in the sight of God, when in truth he is none of these.

As I have over the years thought back to that day on the lake, I have sometimes wondered what might have happened if we had continued to drift away.  Would the three of us have made it safely to shore?  Thankfully, we were somehow able to hear the faint cry of my friend’s father at the right moment, and begin our return to safety.

Sadly, I have also often wondered what will happen to the many believers whom I have known, who have drifted away from the clarity of true Christianity, and into various other forms which in truth are contrary to Jesus Christ.  Many have drifted from the simplicity that is in Christ, and have exchanged it for a self-centred, shallow, success driven expression of Christianity-  supported only by a relatively few verses of Scripture, but condemned by the whole of the word of God, and contrary to that which the saints have believed throughout every century of the church’s history.  And others have abandoned the purity that is in Christ, that moral excellence that is begotten in all that are born of Him, to allow for adultery, drunkenness, homosexuality, fornication, and all manner of corruption- within themselves, their children, their “brethren,” and their leaders!

How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath.

But my concern is with you who read my exhortation, who although you have drifted, may still be within earshot of the Man on the beach, the Son of Man, whose voice may be for the present hard to hear, and whose influence may now be “little” in comparison to an earlier time when you were “closer to shore.”

Can you see him there now, the little Man on the beach?  Made little only in your conscience through transgression, but in truth remaining large in both judgment and mercy.  Will you begin your swim back to shore?  I am confident that as you swim, the Man on the beach will become larger in your sight, and his voice will be as the sound of many waters once again.  And who knows, He may even have fixed a table for you on the shore, and you may hear him say:

“Come and dine.”  

Cain or Abel?

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.  Hebrews 11:4

Ah, the story of Cain and Abel.  After opening the Bible, one does not have to read very far before coming across it.  It is a story of sibling rivalry, of envy and enmity, and of eventual murder- fratricide to be specific-  it is the record of the first martyrdom, the first case in history in which a man would lose his life because of his faith. The story also provides for us a brief history of the first family, as well as insight into the early stages of sacrifice and offerings as part of divine worship.

Although this story is of great importance due to its historical contribution, it is even of greater value with regard to its spiritual significance, for this record sets forth the contrast between true and false religion, true and false repentance, inward and outward obedience, righteousness and unrighteousness, pride and humility, and light and darkness.  It is a commentary upon the workings of fallen human nature, how that nature is capable of pursuing the favour of God while maintaining deep-rooted rebellion against him, how it may strive to gain the approval of God while harbouring hatred toward those who indeed possess it.

Now the story of Cain and Abel, as it appears in Genesis 4:1-16, may be broken down into five parts: (1) the offerings of Cain and Abel, (2) God’s response to the offerings, (3) God’s admonition to Cain, (4) Cain’s response toward God and Abel, and (5) the final dialogue between God and Cain. 

The offerings of Cain and Abel

The Scripture tells us that in the process of time, or in the Hebrew “at the end of days,” both Cain and Abel brought an offering to the Lord.  Cain, being a farmer or “tiller of the ground,” brought an offering of the fruit of the ground, whereas Abel being a shepherd or “keeper of sheep,” brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.   

Although we are all perhaps familiar with the fact that the offerings of the two brothers met with very different results regarding the Divine response, we may not however be completely sure as to why these results occurred.  The most accepted view is that Abel showed obedience in that he brought a blood sacrifice -for God now required sinful men to bring such an offering when approaching him- and that Cain demonstrated disobedience by neglecting to bring the prescribed sacrifice. Another view argues that this offering was not intended to be a sin offering, but rather was an offering of the fruits of their labours, and that the difficulty resided in the fact that Cain did not give the “first part” of his produce in the way that Abel did.

While I think that the more accepted, traditional viewpoint is the better of the two, it is true that the Scripture does not specify what type of offering this was to be.  The Scripture does however provide a very important distinction regarding the quality of the offerings, for it is said that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof, or of the richest part, while it is said of Cain that he merely brought an offering of the fruit of the ground.   There was nothing special about Cain’s offering; it was convenient and comfortable inasmuch as he had it readily available.  It was the only offering that Cain was willing to make, and an offering that he deemed as acceptable and “good enough”- and if “good enough” for him, then surely “good enough” for God as well. 

Now it is this attitude and mindset which first dwelt in Cain that not only defined his faith, but also has defined the faith of the falsely religious throughout history.  It is the attitude that has resided, and does yet reside in many who have professed to be followers of Christ who in truth are not- for there has always been, and always will be, those professing followers, who in evaluating their conduct, their faith, their spiritual commitment, and their spiritual experience, wrongfully conclude that because it is “good enough” for them it must be “good enough” for God as well.

As for Abel, he was of a different spirit altogether.  For when Abel considered bringing an offering to God, he was willing only to bring that which was dear to him.  He brought of the firstlings of his flock- not just any flock, but his flock.  He brought the firstlings which were the future of his flock, lambs that he had cared for and cared about.  He offered the richest part; he gave his best, yet it was no burden to him, for he loved God and cared about honouring him.  Unlike Cain, Abel would not be satisfied with “good enough”- for he was mindful of his state and considered the greatest of sacrifice to be an insufficient token of his appreciation for the grace and mercy of God.  Thus, Abel became the “father” of the truly religious, for his outward service to God was merely a reflection of his inward submission and conformity to the Spirit of God.

God’s response to the offerings

The Scripture is clear here: And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. God respected, or received Abel’s offering, but rejected Cain’s.  But the most important fact here is that the Scripture states that not only did God reject the offering, but that he rejected the one who offered it as well.  Contrariwise, in the case of Abel, both the offering and the one who offered were respected and received.  This then is the greatest truth communicated in this story: it is not the offering or outward service that makes a man acceptable or unacceptable, but rather it is the man’s true moral character that determines whether the offering is acceptable or not.   Is the man righteous?  So also is his offering.  Is the man contrary to God?  So also is his service.  As it is written, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.”(Proverbs 15:8) 

Now consider Cain’s rejection.  Apparently “good enough” was not, and therefore Cain’s evaluation of himself and his offering was greatly flawed, and not at all in harmony with God’s evaluation concerning him.  And this also is the error of many modern evangelicals as well- they are willing to believe, to follow, to serve, to sacrifice- but only on their own terms, and yet they expect that God should fully receive them, as if they had done God some great favour by believing.   

Almost certainly there is someone who will take offense with this, who will say in essence: “God will accept us on any terms, though we may yet be unyielding and stubborn, unrepentant and unchanged- as long as we believe, it is good enough for God.”  But on the contrary, for who are you, O Cain, that you should dictate to God what is and what is not acceptable?  Shall the backslidden and compromised sit at the bargaining table with God and negotiate a more convenient salvation agreement?  I thank God that this will never be the case, that no matter how many “Cains” of the current church era stand together, justifying themselves and one another, fighting for the right to compromise and to yet be considered righteous, that they will never change the truth: for true faith still “offers to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.”

God’s admonition to Cain

Herein lies the true mercy and love of God: it does not consist in accepting that which is unacceptable, but rather in admonishing those which are unacceptable to do that which is right and proper, that they too might be received.  The “love message” of today portrays God as accepting men on any terms, whereas the true message of love found in Scripture reveals God as willing to receive all men, yet only on his terms. This was certainly the case with Cain.  Although God had no respect for Cain or his offering, he was yet willing to correct him and give him another opportunity to repent and do right. 

But Cain was outraged that God had disregarded his offering and that He had not received his compromised service, and the idea that God had preferred his brother- his younger brother- was too much for Cain’s proud, competitive, and jealous spirit to bear. I mentioned earlier that this was a story of sibling rivalry, but the rivalry and jealousy were entirely one-sided, for Abel was indeed righteous and bore the fruits of righteousness within his heart.

But Cain bore the fruits of darkness, and in this section of the story he is warned by God that those fruits will be multiplied if he continues in his present state, for sin lieth at the door, as it is written, and the powers of darkness are already set in motion to incite Cain into even greater transgression. 

Cain’s response toward God and Abel     

Cain’s response was one of impenitence toward God and hatred toward his brother.  He should have been ashamed for offering the way in which he did.  If this was an offering for sin, he should have been terrified- for this was a flat out rejection of the will of God regarding atonement.  But what is his response?  Grace is still being made available to him after his offering has been rejected, but he cannot receive it without repentance.  But repentance is loathsome to him for it involves being abased, it involves accepting that his religion is wanting, it involves acknowledging within himself that his brother is better than he, and possesses the favour of God which he knows himself to be without.  He cannot do it.  He will not do it.  He will not take the low place; he will not humble himself.

And there is Abel continually before his face, serving as a constant reminder of his failed service.  He cannot bear anyone being exalted when he is not, anyone being blessed when he is not, anyone pleasing God when he does not.  The thought that God prefers his brother above him fuels his enmity toward both God and Abel.

Now the falsely religious and impenitent do bear this same attribute of Cain. For when exposed whether by word, providence or pang of conscience as to their true spiritual state, rather than fly into an open clash of arms with God, they masterfully suppress their enmity toward him, deny that any such enmity exists, and turn their resentment toward those saints, who by their consecration to God do always serve as a source of unwanted conviction. And in this the spiritual descendants of Cain are manifest: they are those which oppose, resent, and despise them which are committed to offering a “more excellent sacrifice” or service than they, and are those which cultivate the poisonous roots of envy, pride, and rebellion within their souls.    

Now as the enmity of Cain escalated, a peculiar thing took place- Cain talked with Abel his brother, or as another version states, he, “told Abel his brother.”  It appears that Cain informed Abel of his dialogue with God.  But why would he confide in his brother whom he resented?   It is common for the unrighteous to alternate between a respect for the faith of the just and a resentment for them as well.  Consider some biblical examples of this paradox: Saul and David, Herod Antipas and John the Baptist, Ahab and Micaiah, etc…  

So what did Cain hope to gain from his discourse with Abel?  More than likely, his restless soul sought sympathy and reassurance.  THIS is the universal response of the impenitent.  When they sense within themselves that they have incurred the displeasure of God, and are conscious of his disapproval, they inevitably seek the sympathy, assurance, and approval of another- whether this be a brother, a friend, a fellow impenitent, or most likely an unsuspecting minister, who desirous of being an “encourager” of the downcast, unknowingly falls into the snare set for him, and gives his blessing and approval to him whom God has neither blessed nor approved.

But Cain did not find such sympathy and false assurance with Abel.  For when the Scripture states that he talked with Abel his brother, the word “talked” could be translated as “quarrelled”- for Abel could not give Cain such sympathy as he desired, for Abel, like God, was also offended with Cain’s irreverence and sinful ways.  This is something that the “Cains” of this world do not, and cannot understand: that their compromised religion is an offense to those who do not compromise, their painful treatment of God is painful to those which love him, and their impenitence is a grievous burden to those which know repentance.

Now when the “Cains” of this age are unable to secure sympathy and approval from the just, they resort to murder in whatever form they are comfortable with carrying out.  In the original account it was murder in the literal sense.  Throughout history, the number of “Abels” which have lost their lives in this way is beyond counting.  Yet the spirit of Cain may manifest itself in less violent ways as well- it may be satisfied with the murder of one’s reputation, the assassination of one’s character- a slower yet in some ways equally painful death. 

The final dialogue between God and Cain

After the murder of Abel, God poses the question to Cain: Where is Abel thy brother?  To which Cain responds: I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? Observe the wickedness of his response.  It is a blatant lie to the face of his Creator.  It is filled with defiance and irreverence toward God.  The true nature of Cain is no longer hidden behind his insincere religious service, his wickedness is out in the open and he is revealed for the rebel and devil that he truly is, for who but a rebellious devil would dare answer the audible voice of God in such a manner, especially after the crime he has committed?

It also seems that this response bears some self justification.  It is not improbable that Cain felt that Abel in some way deserved the treatment he received.  After all, in the mind of Cain, Abel had treated him wrongly as well by neither approving of his religious service nor of his moral character.  The impenitent do always justify their malicious treatment of those whose only crime is that they disapprove of the religion of the unjust. 

But this self justification goes even further, for Cain’s statement suggests that he reasoned thus: if Abel is so special, if he is so dear to God, if he is righteous, then why is it that his Divine “Keeper” did not deliver him from such an end?  Even as the chief priests and elders, who also were of the same spirit, likewise reasoned: “If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.  If He be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him,” and again, “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if He will have him: for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

But the fact that the righteous are often allowed to experience great suffering at the hands of the unjust, and that the righteous may at times appear to be without the help of God, in no way indicates that God has forsaken them, and certainly is no vindication of the impenitent and their wicked ways.  If the impenitent justify themselves by concluding that if their righteous opponents were truly just, they would not suffer so, then the impenitent are fully deceived- for the rewards of both the just and the unjust are not fully realized in this life.  

So it was with Cain and Abel.  The just had his life cut short, was robbed of the blessings that this life would have bestowed upon him, and received in this world treatment which he did not deserve.  Cain, on the other hand, lived out his life- though cursed and miserable- and never received in this world that which he truly deserved.  Yet Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, while his brother Abel was ushered into that same Presence.

Thus to conclude the matter, consider this to not only be the story of Cain and Abel, but also a question of Cain or Abel, a question as to what kind of faith do you truly possess.  Are you offering to God a convenient service, a disobedient service, or are you yielding to God from the heart?  Are you determined to defend compromise, or are you promoting a “more excellent” faith.  Do you carry on in an outward faith while silently harbouring envy, competitiveness, and enmity toward those who you find a thorn in your conscience, or do you know what peace of conscience truly is, being free from malice and envy?  Are you unable to rejoice when others are exalted and you are not, or are you content with being lowly?  These are the questions that determine just what type of faith you truly have.

And so bear with my little commentary on Cain and Abel.  Certainly the Cains of this world will not, yet I think that an Abel or two might, for my language is not foreign to them.  But to the rest who read may it be a candle that searches the innermost parts, and a voice that asks whether our religious service be that of, “Cain or Abel?” 

 

How Can You Believe?

How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?  John 5:44

As I read through the Gospels, I often think about what it must have been like to have actually been there, to witness first-hand the life, teachings, and miracles of Christ.  I have often imagined the scene outside the tomb of Lazarus when Christ raised him from the dead, the chaos in the temple when the Lord gave sight to him who was born blind, and the heavenly atmosphere that must have been present during the Sermon on the Mount.  I have wished many times, if such a thing were possible, to transport back to that time to observe a day, or even a moment, in the life of Christ.  What a wonder that would be!

  

On the other hand, I have also often marvelled at the fact that the generation which did indeed see and hear Jesus directly was not as a whole profited by such a privilege.  They were a generation which saw God in the flesh, yet did not recognize him; they listened to him speak, but they did not hear his voice; they followed what they believed to be true, but never embraced the Truth when it was set before them.  All their lives they believed in and waited for the Messiah, only to reject and despise him when He came.

This rejection of Jesus of Nazareth by the Jews of his day is both a marvel and a tragedy.  How did such a thing take place?  How could such a devout people reject the very Messiah whom they had believed in and waited for, and who was the fulfillment of their religious hopes?  How could “they seeing see not; and hearing hear not,” and not understand?  I realize that in the great plan of redemption the Son of God was to be offered for the sins of the world, and that the Jews’ rejection of Christ was the occasion by which this sacrifice was accomplished.  But my question is this: Why did the Jews as individuals not believe in Christ? What was it that rendered them unable to perceive truth and embrace it?   And ultimately, is it possible for those who profess faith in Christ, to be guilty of the same errors as the Jews, and consequently be partakers of the same spiritual darkness? 

     

Now in the above quoted text, Jesus provided insight as to why they would not embrace him.  The Jews, though very religious and dedicated, were guilty of two specific sins, which kept them in spiritual darkness and ultimately defined the nature of their devotion.  Firstly, they received honour one of another, and secondly, they did not seek the honour that cometh from God only.  These two sins were their downfall, and kept them from a true knowledge of God.  Jesus said to them, “How can you believe, how can you perceive and embrace  truth, when within your religious community you receive honour, praise, and glory from one another, and do not ultimately care about receiving the honour and approval that comes from God only?” 

 

I asked earlier if it were possible for believers to be guilty of the same errors of the Jews of Christ’s day, and to thus be partakers of the same spiritual darkness.  When we consider that the errors of the Jews were religious in nature, and that they were committed by those who believed themselves to be the true people of God, we may thus logically conclude that those within the church, which as well profess to be the children of God, might indeed wander down the same destructive path.  As previously stated, their error was twofold.  It consisted in doing that which was wrong, in that they received honour one of another, as well as in not doing that which was right, in that they neglected to seek the honour that cometh from God only. 

   

Now may I suggest, that these errors which Jesus exposed within the Jews’ religious structure, have indeed been prevalent within the church throughout history?  It seems that fallen human nature, whether it be that of the Jews, or that of those within the church, will manifest itself consistently within a religious framework- it will receive honour to itself, and it will not seek the true honour which comes from God.  In other words, fallen man, upon entering into the church, continues to seek for the praise, recognition, position, prestige, and honour that he so longed for prior to his faith, yet was unable to attain, and now uses his religious involvements and exploits as new means to an old end- his own exaltation. 

This religious fallen nature requires some definition.  It is not a nature which objects to the concept of God receiving his due glory.  On the contrary, it will sing of it, preach on it, wax philosophical concerning it, and heartily “Amen” it.  What this nature objects to is being left out of it!  The religious sinner is zealous for the glory of God- provided that he too will also be honoured and glorified.  Take away his accolades and the religious sinner melts.  He cannot believe in or receive a faith that does not stroke his sense of his own spirituality.  Likewise, he is not opposed to receiving honour from God.  Indeed, he spends his lifetime imagining that he possesses this honour, when in truth he is a stranger to such things.   Yes, he welcomes honour and glory from any who will give it-  whether God or man-  but ultimately, if he must choose between the two he will forfeit the honour of God-  for he cannot bear this life without the constant approbation of his peers, his denomination, his fellowship, or his religious movement. 

   

So how does this translate to the church today?  In what ways is this receiving honour one of another manifest in our religious circles?  What are some of the practices common within the church today, that if Christ were present in the flesh, would cause him to shake his head and ask, “How can you believe?”

Let us consider those in leadership.  When those which are pastors within the church, desire and in some cases require, to be addressed by the title of pastor, is there not an improper desire for honour?  I am not suggesting that it is wrong to address someone as “pastor,” nor am I suggesting that it is necessarily wrong for a pastor to accept such an address.  As well, I certainly do not condone disrespect toward those in leadership in any form.  But what I am suggesting is this: that many in leadership are more motivated to receive honour than to actually do God service.  For when men (and women) long to be recognized as pastors, when they love to be called “pastor,” when they rejoice at being introduced as “reverend” or “pastor,” when they are quick to let everyone know that they are “Pastor so and so,” have they not gone too far in their thirst for spiritual honours?  In truth they are akin to the Pharisees of old, who according to Jesus loved “the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” 

 

But it does not stop here:  For it is becoming more common to see men (and women) bearing the title apostle and or prophet.  It seems that in certain circles pastor was not a high enough honour to garnish one’s self with.  No, in declaring to all that one has risen within the ranks of spiritual greatness, he must now bear the title Apostle or Prophet.  Question:  Whose idea was it that you should put the title “Apostle,” in front of your name?   Who told you that you were an apostle in the first place?  Are we to believe that Jesus Christ instructed you to bear this title, or are we to rightfully conclude that you have bestowed this honour upon yourself?  Of course, I am certain that others- who also seek the “high places”- indeed both recognize and confirm your lofty state; but ultimately, it is your scheming that has secured this illustrious title for yourself.

What is embarrassing about these modern “apostles” is that many of them would have difficulty spelling the word, let alone have any grasp as to what it means to claim such things for themselves.  Is it not obvious that those which crown themselves with the title of “Apostle” or “Prophet,” are in the business of not only receiving honour, but demanding it as well?

But church leaders receive honour one of another in other ways as well.  For who has not witnessed one minister stand up in a service to introduce another, proclaiming him to be a “true man of God, with a true message from God, a man who is anointed and who is a special servant of the Lord?”  And as this “man of God” ascends to the pulpit, he in turn tells the assembly how blessed they are to have the first minister (a true “man of God” in his own rights) as their leader, saying:  “I have ministered all over the world, and it is rare that I find such a godly man as you have in this your pastor.  He is truly special in the sight of God.”  And the assembly, giddy with joy, receives a triple portion of honour and glory:  For they bask in the honour that the two “men of God” receive one of another, and in some strange way feel that they have been honoured as well.

How can you believe?

And what can be said concerning those who are not pastors and leaders?  Will they be left out of this bestowing of honours?  Absolutely not!  For when they assemble together they are sure to have “words from God” for one another as to how special and gifted each of them is.  For John will tell Jane how “gifted she is, how anointed she is, and what a special ministry the Lord has for her,” all in the hope that Jane will tell him that he also is “wonderful, and powerful, and special.”  And like children on Christmas morning who cannot wait to show to each other the gifts that they have received, each will excitedly announce the spiritual gifts and callings he has claimed for himself, while also proclaiming these gifts to be in the other as well.

Now all this will take place in the name of edification, encouragement and brotherly love, when in truth there is a great deal more inflation than edification, flattery than encouragement, and insincerity than true love.  The outcome of which is a religious community that thinks “more highly of itself than it ought,” and fancies itself to have some special place with God.  And should the people of this community, church, denomination, fellowship or movement actually be contrary to God, or stray from the truth, it is nearly impossible to enlighten them:  For the praise, glory, honour, affirmation, and justification that they receive one of another, is the light by which they walk and interpret both the word and Spirit of God.

How can you believe? 

I mentioned earlier that the error of both the Jews and the church is twofold.  It is not only receiving honour one of another, but it is also seeking not the honour that cometh from God only.  There is an honour which comes from God only, and it is the only honour that we are to seek.  The difficulty in receiving honour from God is this: more often than not, you must forfeit the honour of men in order to attain it.  The man or woman which God honours will never be honoured by a worldly religion, or by those consumed with receiving honour one of another.  Nor will he or she fit in well with them.  As Jesus stated that “no man can serve two masters,” so also is it impossible to receive honour from men and at the same time truly seek the honour which comes from God.

Think about it.  Were the Jews really concerned about receiving honour from God?  According to Christ, they certainly did not seek it.  No, they were content to continue in a religious form, in which they received honour and approval from each other, without ever seriously seeking the approval of God.  This too is the error of many who profess faith in Christ.  They continue in their expression of the Christian faith, and because they have approbation and confirmation from their peers and leaders, assume that they must have the honour of God as well.  But can it be said of these that receive honour one of another that they are seriously seeking the honour which comes from God?

    

Here is a question for all.  From where do you derive your confidence that you have the honour that cometh from God only?  Do you assume that you possess this honour by merely believing Bible truths?  Do you answer questions regarding your state by running to your peers and leaders for affirmation?  What if those to whom you run for approval are also without this honour from God?  Where will this leave you?   Remember the words of Jesus that those which receive honour from men are without the honour of God.

So what profit is there in having the respect and approval of men, and receiving honour one of another?  In the end, I have an appointment with God at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ.  Will it matter then if you respected or disrespected me, if I was honoured or dishonoured in your eyes?  Will I go there bearing titles or to display gifts?  Will any of the honours (or dishonours) that were bestowed upon me have any bearing upon the outcome of that meeting?  No, the only thing that will matter in that day is whether or not in the mind of God I am considered one who has sought his honour.

  

The same is true for you as well.  May it not be said to any of us in that day, that we have in this life already received our reward in full.  And may Jesus– after considering how we behaved with regard to earthly honours- never look upon us and ask:

How can you believe?

Sins Forgiven: Past, Present, and Future?

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

In recent years, a particular doctrine has increased in popularity within certain circles.  It has been, however, around for a lot longer than just a few years.  I have heard it, and renditions of it, for thirty years, and there are similar ideas that have existed since the dark ages.  The doctrine of which I speak is essentially this:  All of the believer’s sins - past, present, and future – have already been forgiven in Christ.  In other words (as some have confidently preached) the believer, at the time of the new birth, is forgiven of every sin that he has committed, is yet committing, and will commit in the future.  Some proponents of this view would also declare that God has granted this forgiveness “before the foundation of the world,” while others extend the idea to include all men, suggesting that every sinner is already forgiven through Christ and needs only to accept it personally.

Now before I express my opposition to this doctrine, I would like to acknowledge the fact that some who appear to hold to this view, in truth do not- they are merely mistaken with regard to the usage of terms.  Although they say that all of our sins- past, present, and future – are already forgiven in Christ, they actually mean that provision for the forgiveness of  these sins has already been made in Christ.  I have no contention with those who would convey the right idea, yet through a lack of knowledge are unable to do so properly.

Nevertheless, there are many who do indeed support this view and are zealous to defend it, who do understand what they are saying and are committed to it.  It is this deliberate promotion of this doctrine that calls for opposition- for the doctrine is erroneous and should be exposed as such.

I will now set forth three reasons as to why this teaching should be rejected:  (1) It is bad theology (2) It is contrary to Scripture (3) It is ridiculous

It is bad theology  

Theology is the study of God and of the things pertaining to God.  This study is vital to our faith and spiritual development.  Although good theology does not guarantee a true faith and proper spirituality, a bad theology almost certainly prevents it.  It is therefore important to develop a good theology, a theology that is useful to our spiritual growth.

For theology to be useful, it must meet certain criteria.  It must be systematic, consistent, objective, reasonable, and above all, based upon the clear statements of Scripture.  It cannot be haphazard, ambiguous, subjective, unreasonable, and supported only by vague portions of Scripture. 

Now the teaching that all of our past, present, and future sins, are already forgiven in Christ is bad theology for this simple reason: there are no verses in Scripture that clearly state this to be so!  It is clear from Scripture that our past sins are forgiven in Christ, but nowhere is it stated that our present sins- the ones that we are currently committing- and the ones that we are yet to commit are already forgiven.  Thus, this doctrine does not originate in the clear statements of Scripture, but rather in the subjective reasoning of certain teachers who claim that it does.

But this doctrine is bad theology in that it is unreasonable.  By unreasonable I mean that which is contrary to our sense of reason, and to our consciousness of that which we know to be true.  We are conscious of the fact that forgiveness of wrongdoing, within any system of justice, can only be granted- if granted at all- after certain conditions are met.  We cannot comprehend a system of government that grants forgiveness without a change of behaviour, let alone a government that grants pardons before crimes have been committed!  To declare that God has already forgiven us for sins that we are yet committing, and thus have not repented of, as well as for sins that we have not yet committed, but will commit, is certainly an unreasonable position to hold- it is bad theology.

It is contrary to Scripture

Not only is this doctrine unsupported by the clear statements of Scripture, it is actually in direct contradiction to them!  I will refer to a few of those statements.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  1 John 1:9

In the Bible, the word “if” is used extensively to set forth conditional statements and promises.  If a certain action is taken, then a certain result will follow.  In this verse, the word “if” establishes a specific condition regarding the forgiveness of sins.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive…etc.  Notice that the forgiveness of the believer’s sin is predicated upon his confession of that sin.  The clear meaning of this verse is that forgiveness of sin in the life of the believer occurs at the time of confession- not prior to this confession, and not at the new birth.  Likewise, the statement “God is faithful and just to forgive” is in the present tense, and thus the infinitive “to forgive” also indicates an action in the present.  Therefore, according to this verse, current and future sins are not yet forgiven, and whoever asserts that they are, is contrary to the Word of God.  Although this teaching may seem to some a great revelation, it is obviously one that the apostle John was lacking

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  James 5:15

This verse, which refers to physical healing, contains three promises:  (1) The prayer of faith shall save the sick, (2) the Lord shall raise him up, (3) if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  Promises are identifiable by their verbs, which are always in the future tense.  The verbs, “shall save,” “shall raise,” and “shall be forgiven,” are all in the future tense, and thus denote an action that has not yet occurred.  Notice the third promise which is concerned with the forgiveness of sins.  When does this forgiveness take place?  Has it already happened?  Clearly the sins that James refers to here are not yet forgiven, but rather shall be.  This is a second example of how this doctrine is contrary to Scripture.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

The Lord’s Prayer, from which this verse comes, was given to Christ’s followers as a guide for their prayer lives.  It was not to be a one-time prayer.  Each aspect of this prayer was to be a perpetual petition.  If therefore Christ himself instructed us to include in our prayers a continual request for forgiveness, would it not then be reasonable to assume a continual need for forgiveness, as well as a continual granting of forgiveness?  And if a continual granting of forgiveness exists, then a one-time forgiveness for current and future sins does not.

It is ridiculous

This teaching should be seen for what it is: it is ridiculous.  It is ridiculous for the same reason it is bad theology.  I showed earlier how this doctrine is bad theology in that it is contrary to reason.  The fact that we would be unable to accept any earthly system of justice that would pardon crimes while they were yet being committed, as well as crimes which had not yet occurred, but will occur, proves the doctrine in question to be unreasonable.  Thus, to ascribe such a system of justice to God is ridiculous.  This idea of forgiveness of sins being granted before the commission of sins is not very far off from the medieval system of indulgences, in which men were guaranteed forgiveness for sins that they had not yet committed, but were intending to.  

Again, this teaching is ridiculous, for if taken to its logical conclusion the believer would never need to deal with God regarding his sin.  Think.  If I am already forgiven of my current and future sins, I do not need to confess them or ask for forgiveness.  What need would I have to confess sins that I have already been forgiven of?  My confession of sin, or lack of confession, would have no bearing upon the act of forgiveness which would have already taken place apart from any action on my end.  If I am already forgiven, then I am forgiven regardless of what I do.  

Likewise, I have no need for the Lord’s Prayer, for every debt that I have, or will incur, has already been forgiven without my asking.  Why ask for that which I already possess?  Furthermore, if I am already forgiven of current and future sins, then I certainly do not need to repent of them.  Repentance is for those in need of forgiveness.  But I have no need for forgiveness inasmuch as I am already forgiven.  Consequently, I have no need for repentance either, for I have already been forgiven without it.  I may repent if I like, but it has no bearing upon my condition- I am already forgiven.  In fact, if in the future I deny Christ and become an apostate, I yet have cause for rejoicing- I have already been forgiven of those sins too!  Hallelujah! 

RIDICULOUS!

Now some may argue that I just do not understand this revelation.  They may argue that because God is beyond time and exists in the eternal past, present, and future, that all of our sins past, present, and future are in his mind already forgiven.  In his mind, they say, we are already perfect.  To this I say that although there may be truth with regard to God existing beyond time, what profit is there for us to attempt to relate to that which is beyond our understanding?  I might just as easily say that in the mind of God, you are already in hell!  In the mind of God, you are already reprobate!  Or on the contrary, in the mind of God, you are already in heaven, on the sea of glass, with a glorified body!  But this type of theology is useless, and to attempt to interpret Scripture from the perspective of the eternal future, of which you can only fantasize, is foolish.  This only reaffirms that the doctrine under scrutiny is ridiculous.

In conclusion, why would any believer hold to this view?  Does it offer some special comfort to think that our future sins are already forgiven?  Could you not derive the same sense of comfort from believing that provision for the forgiveness of these sins has already been made in Christ?  I think that the real problem here is this:  People tend to treat sin lightly, and gravitate to doctrines which allow them to avoid any personal dealings with God regarding sin.  It is more pleasant to believe that sin is already forgiven, thereby eliminating any uncomfortable introspection, or any possible unpleasant conviction of the Holy Spirit that may accompany true cleansing.  In any event, the doctrine of sins forgiven –past, present and future- is bad theology, contrary to Scripture, and ridiculous. 

Let’s reject it.