Because You Say...

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see.  Revelation 3:17,18

I have had on occasion a certain image course through my mind.  I wonder if you might bear with me, and as I describe this image, try to picture it as well.  This is a fictitious image, yet one that may make a strong impression upon those which “have ears to hear” it, and even upon them which do not, in which case it may serve as a “thorn in the flesh,” an unwanted challenge to an established ideology.

Ready?

In my mind, I have pictured a large gathering of believers assembled in a certain place.  Whether a large church building, or a convention center is irrelevant.  There is an excitement in the air, as this large assembly awaits a highly respected evangelist to enter.  At last, the awaited speaker arrives, with not a hair out of place, perfectly manicured nails, a suit and watch which speak of considerable success, and lastly, a large ring.  Shortly thereafter, he is officially announced and enters the pulpit, and enjoins the great congregation to stand with him. He then begins to speak in a strong voice:

Evangelist:  “Praise the Lord!”

Congregation:  “Praise the Lord!”

Evangelist:  “Say this with me, ‘I am the righteousness of God.’”

Congregation:  “I am the righteousness of God.”

Evangelist:  “I am blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.”

Congregation:  “I am blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.”

Evangelist:  “I am the head, and not the tail, I am only above, and not underneath, I have authority over all the power of the enemy.”

Congregation:  “I am the head and not the tail, I am only above and not underneath, I have authority over all the power of the enemy.”

Evangelist:  “I am not poor, I am rich, my needs are met and I have need of nothing.”

Congregation:  “I am not poor, I am rich, my needs are met, and I have need of nothing.”

Evangelist:  “AMEN!”

Congregation:  “AMEN!”

Then the congregation breaks into spontaneous praise and loud applause- for what, I know not.  Do they applaud themselves? Or is it the evangelist? Or is it the Lord?  I think it’s the Lord.

But as the applause begins to wane, and before the speaker begins his message, a most outstanding thing occurs.  A certain figure appears at the rear of this great room.  He does not speak, but slowly walks toward the stage.  His eyes are crystal clear, and his face radiant.  Many, who see him, recognize him immediately- others do not- but all feel compelled to look upon him, sensing that He has something to say.  When he reaches the podium, He opens the evangelist’s bible to the third chapter of Revelation, and hands it back to him. And looking over the great congregation He begins to say:

“BECAUSE YOU SAY, ‘I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing;’ and you do not know that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; I counsel you to buy from me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich, and white garments, that you may be clothed, so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear; and anoint your eyes with eyesalve, that you may see.’”

And without a further word, He passes through their midst, and He is gone…

As I said earlier, this is obviously a fictitious scene.  However, other than the appearance of the Lord, The rest of the scene could possibly play out exactly as I have described.  I have often thought that the corporate “faith confessions” quite common in certain evangelical circles often sound very much like the attitude of the Laodicean church which Christ so severely rebuked.  In fact, I am quite certain that it would be easy to get many Christians within these circles to zealously stand and confidently confess, “I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing!”  And this they would boldly confess, thinking themselves to somehow do the word of God great honour, when in truth, they actually repeat the very thoughts of them which were indeed in gross error regarding the whole of God’s word, and which were contrary to the spirit of the true Christian faith.  Sadly, not only do I think that this scenario is possible, and easily created, but I am confident that it indeed has happened already as I have described.

So one may argue, “What does it prove if the above scenario has occurred?  The people, who confess these things, though they may unwittingly use the words of the Laodiceans, certainly intend something different.”  But it does indeed prove something.  It proves that they are not as familiar with the word of God as they think- else they would be ashamed to use the same words, or similar words of the Laodiceans.  And if so oblivious to the word of God here, does it not follow that their particular expression of the Christian faith may be grossly flawed in other areas as well?  For if one can be so foolish as to parrot the very words which drew such a scathing rebuke from Christ, then how many other foolish ideas has he swallowed along the way?

Thus, I write, in the hope that the comparisons that I make between the modern evangelicals - especially they of “charismatic” persuasion- and the ancient Laodiceans, may stir some to re-evaluate their position and philosophy regarding their beliefs. Now I must state for the record that I am neither “anti-charismatic,” nor “anti-Pentecostal,” but rather one who is opposed to a certain mentality, attitude, and philosophy that unfortunately are prevalent within these camps.

Now what precisely did Christ take issue with regarding the Laodiceans?  He begins with the nature of their devotion:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.  Rev.3 15, 16

The Laodiceans were not entirely contrary to the Christian faith. They were a church, they regularly came together, and they professed faith in Jesus Christ.  However, their devotion was void of passion for Jesus himself. They were compromisers; they were not altogether in the world, but they were definitely not in heart committed to Christ.  They thought themselves acceptable, but were unacceptable in his eyes and offensive to him.

I am certain that this could be applicable to various churches throughout the ages, this charge of being lukewarm. However, it is especially applicable to the modern evangelical church as a whole:  For the evangelical church of today is becoming less and less distinguishable from the world with each year that passes.  The enormous amount of moral compromise that is accepted among today’s evangelicals, I have addressed in other posts, and thus I will refrain from commenting again on those specific issues here.

After taking issue with the offensive nature of their lukewarm devotion, The Lord addresses their attitude.  This is addressed in our text: Because thou sayest, I am rich… and have need of nothing.  I am not sure if they actually said these words with their lips, but they certainly said them with their attitude.  It would appear from this verse, that the Laodicean believers interpreted their prosperous natural state as being somehow confirmative of a prosperous spiritual state as well.  I have need of nothing indicates an air of cockiness, of having “already attained,” and of spiritual superiority.  They considered themselves to be quite secure in God.

Now is not this attitude of the Laodiceans reproduced “a hundredfold” in certain evangelicals today?  I do not think that the Laodiceans necessarily verbalized the words of our text, but rather that Christ addressed the attitude of their heart.  How much more offensive to Christ are those believers today who not only have this same attitude in heart, but are actually zealous to proclaim it with their mouths?  Likewise, the Laodiceans erred in interpreting a prosperous natural state to be indicative of a healthy spiritual state.  But evangelicals today take it further by preaching and asserting this to be actual truth!  And if any dare raise an objection to their particular slant on scripture, he or she will be considered “unbelieving” and “unenlightened.”

But these modern “charismatics” have surpassed the Laodiceans in cockiness and arrogance many times over.  For these believers cannot abstain from proclaiming great things about themselves and one another.  They also openly mock and taunt the devil, boasting of all their triumphs over him, and exalt themselves as they whom the devil should fear.  And this some of their leaders do while at the same time they themselves serve the devil in adultery, homosexuality, embezzlement, fraud, and greed.   

And yet the angels of God would not dare to address the devil in the way that these do.  As it is written:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.  Jude 9

Still, the attitude of arrogance proceeds:  For this is a movement which can only receive “truth” from itself.  They know very little regarding church history, or the history of doctrine.  They are ignorant of what the church has believed throughout its history, and they do not care to know.  It means nothing to them that many of their views are contrary to that which the saints have held as true from the first century onward.   Moreover, they believe themselves to possess more light than all of the generations before them: for they often flatter their hearers with these very words.

So what can be done with believers who believe that they possess more spiritual insight than all of the saints and martyrs that have gone before them?  Who believe themselves to be as righteous as Jesus Christ regardless of how they live?  Who in their own minds have the power to control the “heavenlies” at will, and the ability to “bind and loose” all things seen and unseen?  Who anxiously wait, not only for the coming of the Lord, but for the wealth of all secular institutions to be released into their hands!

If there is hope for these believers, it is found in our text.  Jesus said to the Laodiceans, “Because you say… and do not know… I counsel you …” In other words, Because you say and profess high and lofty things regarding yourself, when in truth the exact opposite is so, and because you do not know the depth of your error, and your true moral state- I counsel you.  

You see, just because you say, does not make it so.  The Laodiceans rejoiced that they were wealthy, but their riches were only of this world.  They claimed to be rich; Jesus said they were poor.  They confessed that they had need of nothing; Christ told them they were naked.  They thought themselves to have achieved a high spiritual state; the Lord charged them with being wretched.  They believed that they possessed insight, but Christ declared them blind.  They confessed that they were blessed; Jesus exposed them as miserable.

And what response would our modern Laodiceans have if they were charged with being wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked?  They would not receive it, they could not receive it.  They have been trained to view any charge against them as being of the devil, and to believe that God is only capable of telling them wonderful things about themselves.  If the fictitious scene that I earlier described somehow did occur, the congregation would reject the very words of Jesus himself as being “condemnation” and “negative,” and would then break into a confession of their own righteousness, of how they were “the children of God,” and of how “no weapon formed against them will prosper!”

What can be said of a belief system which cannot allow for Christ to speak to the church as He sees fit?  For it is certain within their beliefs, that a believer is not, and can never be considered wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.  That to even suggest this would in their mind be demonic.  Yet, Jesus uses these very words when addressing certain early believers, who in many ways did not go as far in the error and arrogance that has swallowed the modern “charismatics.”

So what counsel is there from the Lord?  He advises the Laodiceans to do three things: (1) buy of me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, (2) to anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, and (3) be zealous therefore and repent.

Gold tried in the fire speaks of gold of high value, one that has been refined and is pure.  Impure gold may have value, but it is cheap in comparison to that which has been in the fire.  It may have some lustre, but it lacks depth. The religion of the Laodiceans was similar: cheap and shallow, glorying in their earthly gain, but bankrupt regarding true religion.  How applicable to the modern evangelicals, who being determined to make Christianity more palatable to both themselves and the world, have systematically compromised, gutted, and prostituted the faith, making it a shallow and cheap imitation of that which is truly golden.

White raiment speaks of one thing- purity. The Laodiceans thought so highly of themselves adorned in their expensive garments, but were in truth spiritually naked.  Men may clothe themselves with the very best suits and jewellery, settle for nothing less than the most extravagant accommodations and transportation, and may carry themselves and expect to be treated as princes, but if their faith does not beget purity of life, they are naked.  The exhortation to buy white raiment is a charge to the lukewarm to embrace moral purity as an essential to faith.

Therefore, do not speak to me, O evangelical, about how “blessed” you are while you sit in your dens of iniquity imbibing your poisonous swill, deceiving yourself that you are moderate and thus do not transgress.  Do not speak of the love of God when you in truth do not love him, neither take the name of the Lord upon your lips- that Name which you openly disgrace by your own immoralities and by your friendship with those who would so live.  If you are to be taken seriously, you must clothe yourself- for the words that proceed from the naked are hard to hear. 

Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve implies taking measures to recover one’s ability to perceive truth again- that thou mayest see.  I understand how naïve believers can fall prey to the errors set forth by the leaders of the modern “charismatic” movement, but I cannot understand how some never come to see through those errors.   OPEN YOUR EYES!

Lastly, the Lord counsels the lukewarm to repent:

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Rev.3:19

And herein may the eyesalve be found.  For if you will be serious about truly submitting yourself to God, if you will “surrender all,” and with all of your heart turn from sin, then your eyes will be opened and your nakedness covered.  Your faith also will be as gold tried in the fire.   

And your righteousness will no longer be BECAUSE YOU SAY, but rather because it is.

Repentance Not to Be Repented of

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.  2 Corinthians 7:10

One of the most misunderstood, and I daresay neglected doctrines in the church today, is the doctrine of repentance.  When the word repentance is on occasion mentioned, it is usually either given a modern definition far from its true biblical meaning, or it is used by a preacher (with quivering voice) to shock the congregation into a rush for the altar for prayer.  Having observed both of these scenarios countless times, and having talked to countless Christians, as well as many, many ministers, I am convinced that it is a small minority within the evangelical church that actually understands what repentance is, and knows  what it means “to repent.”  For the most part, this small minority that does indeed understand, did not gain this understanding from the pulpit, but rather through a personal experience by the grace of God- for it is very possible, even probable, for one to attend church, or even bible school or seminary, and never hear a clear exposition of the subject. 

Now how can this be?  It is this simple.  If the pastor has never experienced true repentance, and if the bible teacher has not as well, they which hear them will certainly not gain much insight into the topic. For to be sure “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” thus, if the minister is inexperienced with true repentance, he will not with any conviction or clarity preach it.  Rather, for the most part, he will neglect to speak of it - for he is not conscious of the importance of the subject, inasmuch as it is unfamiliar to him, having never been an integral part of his religious experience.

But how can a minister, or teacher, become such without having any experience with true repentance?  The answer: In the same way that he became a Christian without true repentance! For to be sure, the gospel that is preached in our day, does not require repentance as a condition of salvation, consequently, many people become “believers” without it.  Then, by a natural course of events, some of these believers- which have never experienced true repentance- eventually become ministers themselves, thereby perpetuating the cycle in which neither preacher nor parishioner is enlightened upon this vital subject.

Now you may fairly raise an objection to my assessment of the state of the modern evangelical church regarding true repentance.  You may even feel it outrageous for me to suggest that many ministers are bereft of true understanding regarding the subject.  However, once we examine what true repentance is, as it is set forth in our text from 2 Corinthians, you may come to see things in a different light.

In our examination of what true repentance is it will of necessity be helpful to first establish what repentance is not.

Repentance is not confession of sin.  Although confession of sin may certainly be involved in true repentance, it does not, however, define it.   Confession of sin is an acknowledgement of guilt, whereas repentance involves a change of mind and conduct.  It is very possible- and very common- to confess sin without ever having a proper change of mind and conduct.

Repentance is not asking for forgiveness. Again, one might ask for forgiveness while they are repenting, but one might just as easily ask for forgiveness without repentance.  In fact, many ask for forgiveness while being conscious that they have no intention of breaking off from their sins.  They know that what they do is wrong, thus the request for forgiveness, yet are unwilling to change their behaviour.

Repentance is not mere resolution.  In truth, repentance is resolution of the truest form.  However, mere resolution, that resolution or effort to do better without having a proper change of heart, is weak and results in an endless cycle of broken promises to one’s self and to God.

Repentance is not faith.  Many Christians are confused about this.  They somehow think that as long as they believe the gospel, that they have no need for repentance.  In fact, some ministers give the idea that believing the gospel is repentance.  As wonderful and precious as faith is, it should not be exalted at the expense of other truths.  Many believers are so imbalanced in their ideas regarding faith, that they cannot, or will not see the whole of biblical truth.  They approach every issue in the same way- believe, BELIEVE, BELIEVE!  They are like a man who calls himself a mechanic, yet possesses but one tool- the hammer!

Repentance is not remorse.  Although remorse is definitely part of repentance, and they which have truly repented indeed know their share of deep remorse, it must be stated that an individual can indeed experience remorse without ever truly repenting.  There exists a definite distinction between the remorse that the truly penitent experience and the remorse that the impenitent may feel.  This is precisely what Paul addresses in our text. 

Now regarding the text in 2 Corinthians 7:10, I will make three points: (1) The definition of repentance, (2) The catalyst of true repentance, and (3) The character of true repentance.

The definition of repentance

Having already established what repentance is not, we must now define what it indeed is.  The word translated as repentance comes from the Greek word metanoia, which means “after-thought, change of mind “or a “perceiving after.”  Thus we get our simple definition of repentance: a change of mind. But this raises the question: What is that change of mind that may properly be considered repentance? 

It must be stated here that not every change of mind can be considered repentance.  A person may form new opinions regarding sin, or the Bible, or of God, thus experiencing a change of thoughts, but this can hardly be considered repentance.  Likewise, one may decide to become a “positive person,” and refuse to think any negative thoughts, and thereby change his mind, but this too fails to represent what the biblical meaning of repentance consists in.  In fact, this positive thinking approach, or “faith” as many wrongly call it, is quite contrary to biblical repentance. 

So what is that change of mind that is repentance?  Firstly, the term mind, as used in the translation of metanoia, is intended to mean something much deeper than the way we often use the word.  It is intended to represent the seat of moral contemplation.  It is that faculty within man that is capable of deep thought and consideration, and in this case, reflection upon his moral actions and conduct.  The word mind here should be understood to mean mind-set.  It is the mind-set, or the inclination of the will, the ultimate intention, that undergoes a change in true repentance.

Now according to Paul, there are but two mind-sets that men may choose between:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:5

Thus, repentance may be defined as that change of mind, or ultimate intention, from the gratification of self to the glorifying of God.

The catalyst of true repentance

A chemist may at times add a substance to increase the rate or efficiency of a chemical reaction.  These substances are known as catalysts.  In our text, Paul speaks of a vital component to true repentance that may be thought of as a catalyst of repentance: godly sorrow.  Notice what he says: godly sorrow worketh repentance.  The repentance that Paul was so thankful for having occurred among the Corinthians was directly the result of godly sorrow.  This godly sorrow induced the Corinthians to have a genuine and deep change of mind. 

Now for those believers which consider anything negative to be of the devil, and only happy, positive things to be from God, there is a problem.  For this verse of scripture declares that there exists a sorrow- which is a negative- that is indeed godly, or of God.  Thus, as I stated earlier, those believers who in the name of faith, reject, resist, and rebuke all things which are negative are indeed quite contrary to the biblical doctrine of repentance, which we see is induced by a sorrow which is spoken of as godly.  I have known many Christians who are in doctrinal error, living contrary to the proper morals they once espoused, who yet hold to a “positive confession” of victory while they have none, and blessing while they in truth are fallen.  They are determined to maintain a faith in a positive only Christianity, when they would do well to let the misery which is their state lead to a godly sorrow which worketh repentance.

Now Paul contrasts two types of sorrow in this verse: godly sorrow, and the sorrow of this world.  Godly sorrow, as we have seen works or produces repentance, the sorrow of this world, or worldly sorrow, worketh death. We will now consider what is intended by these terms.

Godly sorrow is that sorrow which takes into consideration the feelings and welfare of God.  It is that sorrow which is characterized by deep regret for how we have treated God, how we have injured his Person, and abused his feelings.  Godly sorrow takes the individual out of his obsession with securing his own happiness, peace, and relief, and brings him into a state where he truly sympathizes with God.  In godly sorrow, the individual cares ultimately for God’s well-being; his own welfare he no longer regards.  He is no longer driven to relieve his own guilt, nor is he fixated with finding forgiveness; he cares only for the Lord whom he has offended.

I am certain that many which read what I have just written will find this very foreign language.  Sadly, many “believers” will consider this unnecessary, and even sadder, some will scoff at this, stating that “no one” comes to God, nor experiences repentance in this way.  Yet they which are truly penitent can and do identify with what I have written: for it is their experience, and they know it to be true.  And they which have experienced such things, and felt such things, can only wonder at those believers which have never experienced the same, and shudder at those which would dare to scoff.

Now the sorrow of the world of which Paul speaks is to the contrary.  It is that sorrow over sin which is self-centered.  It laments over how wrong decisions have affected one’s self, and is ultimately concerned with how those sins may jeopardize one’s eternal state, or ability to receive divine blessing and assistance.  The sorrow of this world laments its own losses, and never rises to consider the sufferings of God.  It does not despise sin, but only the effects of sin.  It is the grief of Esau, weeping over the realization of forfeited blessings, but unable to weep over the sins that secured this forfeiture.   It is called the sorrow of the world, for it is ultimately selfish, and thus bears the same characteristic of the unregenerate or worldly.  It worketh death- for it never leads to repentance acceptable to God.

The character of true repentance

The character, or nature, of true repentance is set forth in our text by the expression not to be repented of. A repentance not to be repented of may seem to be a strange statement.  However, it simply means this: A changing of the mind from which one will not return.  It is a repentance that we will not take back or regret, a repentance that we will continue in, and one in which we will not have a “change of mind” concerning our initial change of mind.

And herein must the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints be understood.  The saints do not possess an eternal security by the arbitrary will of God regardless of what fruit is or is not manifest within their lives, but rather the saints persevere because they have experienced repentance not to be repented of.  They have sympathized with God, they have felt his pain that their sin has caused, and they cannot return again to behaviour that is offensive to him.    Thus, they persevere in godliness- not merely a profession of godliness- but an actual practice of godliness as it is defined in scripture.

So we see that the character of true repentance is that of continuance.  For time, and the course of life, will prove that many which seemed to begin well, in truth did not.  For when believers condone the practices that they once condemned, and return to the things that they have once repented of, thereby repenting of their initial repentance, does it not suggest that perhaps in the beginning they were amiss?  It does for certain show their inexperience with godly sorrow, for if they had begun on that path, they would be constrained to continue in it.

And so the question, “How do you define repentance?”  If my commentary is strange to you, know that it is familiar to the saints throughout the ages.  I would suggest that you do not dismiss it, for true repentance has always been the same in every generation whether we have experienced it or not.  It is quite certain that men will define repentance according to that which they have experienced. If your definition is wanting, it is likely your experience is as well.

Have you godly sorrow?  Have you true remorse?  Does your heart feel for Christ and his sufferings? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are they which mourn, blessed are the meek: for theirs is the kingdom, and the comfort, and the joy of a repentance-   not to be repented of.

                                                                                         

 

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.”