Jul 6, 2009 | Articles
If a Brother Sins against You
As is clear from this statement, a person can sin against another individual. Sin need not only be that which one commits against God. Here the term “brother” refers to any believer, male or female, who has committed some trespass against a fellow believer. Whether this sin is intentional, unintentional, known, or unknown is unstated. In reality the focus at this point in Jesus’ instruction is not so much aimed at the guilty part as it is at the responsibility of the one who has been injured. The injured party has the responsibility of illuminating his counterpart as to the grievance. And clearly this is a grievance which is real. It is not the product of a hyperactive imagination or narcissism. Neither is this a petty, insignificant mistake that all commit every day. This is a sin that if left uncorrected jeopardizes one’s eternal relationship with his brother and with God.
Go and Tell . . . Him Alone
That this is a personal sin is again clear from this statement. At this point in the process only two (and perhaps under some circumstances only the injured party) knows that a sin has been committed. This is not a public act committed against God or the community of believers we call the “church.” This is an action committed against a single individual which likewise requires a singular reaction. Far too often when Christians are injured they go to the “church” via gossip rather than going to the individual who allegedly committed the sin. When this is done the guilty party is maligned, alienated, humiliated, and put on the defensive. When such an environment has been created battle grounds are often drawn and reconciliation is all but impossible. However, when the guilty party is approached quietly, calmly, and with brotherly love there is much more likelihood that he will respond in a gracious and repentant way. He is not embarrassed or publicly humiliated. The word Jesus uses here for “go and tell” literally means “reprove” and comes from the Greek “elencho” meaning to expose or bring to light. Thus the offender is to be made aware of the problem and his sin exposed. The injured party is not to wallow in his grief. He is not too let his wounds fester. He is not to hold a grudge. Rather he is to quickly take proactive steps leading to resolution. When Matthew 6:23 and 18:15 are combined we get a picture of two parties (the injured and the guilty) rushing towards each other, meeting in the middle, not with clinched fists, but with open arms as they confess and repent of the sin.
You Have Gained Your Brother
“Restoration” is the desired result in each of these proceedings thus Jesus says “thou has gained thy brother” – to oneself and to God and salvation – to friendship and brotherhood. “Gained” is from “kerdaino” which was originally a term of commerce referring to financial profit or gain. Here is refers to the precious soul of an erring brother. See Proverbs 11:30, Galatians 6:1, and James 5:19-20.
Again it should be noted that the context of this teaching is “real sin.” In other words Jesus is talking about that which can convincingly be shown to endanger Christian fellowship. Jesus is not suggesting that every time a brother or sister does something that irritates us or demonstrates some minor fault that we beat down their door with our complaint. In fact scripture seems to indicate that petty grievances should be overlooked without malice realizing each is imperfect before God. Longsuffering is a Christian virtue (1 Corinthians 13:5).
But if He Will Not Hear You
Here we reach that which the title of our article suggests. There may be times when our initial attempt for reconciliation falls on deaf ears. In fact there may be times when “forgiveness is not an option” simply because the sinner refuse to repent.
Why the guilty party refuses to hear the injured pleas is not specifically stated. It could be because the guilty does not believe that he has injured anyone. It might be that in an initial state of shock at being approached he denies the allegation or seeks to dismiss it as trivial. Or it might be because the guilty party has a heart out of tune with the Lord thus he is not willing to admit his fault and take the proper steps producing repentance unto life. When this is the case the initial infraction actually begins to take a back seat to the more serious problem in this person’s life: the problem of rebellion.
Whatever the case, caution should be maintained on the part of the injured party as his contemplates what action to pursue. Again we remember that the purpose of Jesus’ teaching is to reconcile an erring brother. It is not to find convenient reason to drive him from the community of believers. Before the accuser rushes to get others involved he must make sure that he himself has a proper attitude, that he goes in humility and love, and that his repeated attempts to reconcile his brother have failed. Lenski says that the injured party might need to go more than once to the offender. Lenski further notes that the phrase “will not hear thee” carries the idea of a definite refusal to hear and be convicted (Matthew, p. 700). In other words the injured party must make sure that the sinner has time to fully process and understand the accusation against him. Only when it is absolutely certain that the dispute cannot be rectified are others to be informed.
How different is the procedure Jesus describes in these verses than that which so often occurs in Christian circles? Without patience and love an injured Christian may find himself tempted to become the real aggressor as he seeks to retaliate against his brother. But remember, revenge is never the proper motive for discipline. The procedures Jesus describes, which call for action on the part of first the individual and eventually the church, are aimed at restoration. At their core is a genuine concern for the sinner’s soul. Jesus’ instruction is not a recipe for ridding ourselves of those with whom we have personality problems.
Take Two or Three Witnesses
Whether the offended party takes one or two witnesses seems to be left up to him. In any event those chosen must be impartial, wise, and godly men (1 Corinthians 6:5). This step in the procedure is not for the purpose of forming of a lynch mob or a gang. The witnesses’ role is not to brow beat the offender into submission. Neither are they to show favoritism between parties. Their role is one of wise counsel and impartiality toward the facts and proceedings of the case. These witnesses are present to verify that a sin actually took place and to make sure that the offender is properly and lovingly handled. Lenksi says, “In case the matter is ever inquired into, and any dispute or uncertainty arises, the case can be properly settled as to the facts by the two or three witnesses” (Matthew, p. 701). Broadus says, “These witnesses can declare what passed in the private interview” (Matthew, p.388).
The principle Jesus sets forth is not only logical but actually has its roots in the Mosaic Legal system. Moses commanded that accusations be confirmed by two or three witnesses to ensure that innocent people were not falsely accused (Deuteronomy 19:15). Thus every Jew, including the apostles, knew the precept and used it on various occasions (John 8:17, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28).
Tell it to the Church
In outlining the steps mentioned above we see yet again the truth of Matthew 18:14. God is not willing that any should perish and thus provides ample opportunity for restoration. Note that as time passes the process expands to involve more Christians. At first the rebuke is private. Then with the addition of witnesses it becomes semi-private. Only if this fails is the matter to be opened to public scrutiny.
By this time in the process the matter may not be so much about the initial infraction as it is the attitude of the brother in question. If after witnesses are called and the allegation has been probed and proved legitimate the sinner refuses to make amends, then there is obviously a deeper problem than the initial sin. When any believer is stubborn to the point of refusing to hear the pleas of righteous witnesses, then he is insubordinate and out of line with the authority of Christ. Thus the first sin that initially brings the action is simply an indication of a much deeper spiritual sickness within the guilty party. Hence it is also on this level that the church must now be made aware of the situation.
If He Neglect to Hear the Church
By “church” (ekklesia) Jesus means the “assembly” or “congregation” of baptized saints. Here Jesus anticipates those congregations that his own apostles will establish after Pentecost.
Of all influences in ones life, the church should be that body which most likely convinces the sinner to repent. For one to refuse the advice of the church indicates a deep spiritual rebellion against Christ and God. It should be noted, however, that in order for the church to positively affect its own members when they go astray there must already have been some preventative work done. If bonds of fellowship and friendship have been nurtured then an erring member will more naturally want to return to the fold. He will remember the genuine love of his spiritual family. If, however, the church has done nothing to foster spiritual unity and fellowship their rebuke may seem more an affront than a demonstration of love. He might well respond, “”The church was never concerned about me before why should I return? What right do you have to meddle in my affairs?”
In any event the sinner by this point has had repeated time and opportunity to repent and amend his ways. He has been approached quietly and privately – perhaps more than once. He has been approached by a small group of spiritual witnesses. Finally he has been approached formally by the church in all of its official capacity. In each instance, for whatever reason, the sinner has refused to repent of his sin. Therefore the sin that was once private is now a matter of public concern. It now becomes the obligation of the entire community of believers to take action. Once again, in such a case forgiveness is not an option. Sin that is not confessed and repented of cannot be forgiven. Christ cannot wash the feet that are not willingly presented to him.
Let Him Be a Heathen
Admittedly Jesus language may seem harsh and uncaring if taken out of context. However, as we have shown the individual in question has stubbornly shown his resistance to the gospel and to spiritual persons who are interested in his soul. Thus, for all practical purposes this man is already a “heathen.” He has shown disregard for the basic component of God’s plan: forgiveness of sins.
In addition, however, Jesus’ words probably stem from a special Jewish context. Most Jews of Jesus’ day fellowshipped only those whom they held to be ceremonially clean. To rub shoulders with outright sinners such as tax collectors brought spiritual contamination. While this belief was not true in a literal sense (befriending a sinner does not in and of itself automatically make one unclean) Jesus uses the idea to demonstrate a spiritual truth. Evil company corrupts good morals. If the church were to harbor the guilty party in all his rebellion it would indeed expose the body to spiritual contamination. One cannot “buddy up” with sin and not eventually be affected by it. In the case before us the one who refuses to hear the church must be withdrawn from so that his insubordination does not destroy the entire body. This is the same concept that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5:6 as he too deals with an erring brother. His warning that sin spreads like leaven is to ever be a legitimate concern.
By saying that the sinner in Matthew 18:17 is to be as a tax collector is the same as saying that one is not to have intimate association with him. In the similar case that we have noted in 1 Corinthians Paul says, “Not even to eat.” In other words there is to be no social (let alone religious) communion with this person.
Finally, that the church has the authority to withdraw fellowship from an erring brother is seen in Jesus’ comments in verses 19 and 20. When, after the proper procedures have been followed a brother or sister demonstrates contempt for the authority of Christ the church has no other option but to withdraw that the fellowship which Christ once extended through the waters of baptism – this because in reality Heaven now withdraws its fellowship. The church is simply doing that which Heaven has already placed its stamp of approval upon.
Conclusion
We began our study with the title “When Forgiveness is Not an Option.” Matthew 18 clearly shows that while it may be painful there are times when it is outside of human prerogative to extend forgiveness. When a sin has not been confessed and repented of it cannot be forgiven (1 John 1:9). While we must anxiously stand and wait for the sinner to return, while we extend our hand and beckon him home, and while it may even be necessary to take the first step, in the end it is the sinner who must turn his heart toward home. Christians have no right to forgive sins that Christ has not forgiven.
Mike Criswell
mikecriswell@sbcglobal.net
Like this:
Like Loading...
Jun 30, 2009 | Articles
A common trend in modern evangelical thought is that a Christian must forgive unequivocally and regardless of the circumstances. If someone offends or hurts you it becomes your obligation to forgive the perpetrator even though he or she demonstrates no remorse and refuses to correct the transgression. In other words the “stronger” brother must forgive the “weaker,” overlook the sin, draw no lines of fellowship, and just be the bigger person in the whole situation. To carry the burden, so the theory goes, damages the injured party even more emotionally. Therefore to be psychologically whole he needs to release the anger, turn it over to God, forgive the infraction, and carry on as if nothing ever happened.
If the above description seems an unfair assessment of modern day evangelicals then may I suggest listening to a few of the self help sermons that float across the airways of “Christian Radio.” Admittedly the theory sounds good. Did Christ not look down from the cross on unrepentant sinners and say, “Father forgiven them for they know not what they do”? Is it not true that anger saddles the heart with untold burden? Is it not more righteous when wronged to simply suffer for it? And what of someone who has harmed us and then dies before they make restitution. What of the alcoholic father who abuses his children and then dies before he sees the error of his ways? Is the child to simply carry the infraction of his life and not bring closure to his grief by forgiving his deceased parent?
Obviously nothing good ever comes from harboring the emotional weight brought on by wrongs that others have committed against us. And it is certainly true that Jesus asked God to forgive the unrepentant reprobates that nailed him to the cross. But the above theology of forgiveness is not entirely biblical in spite of how righteous it sounds. Certainly Christians must be willing to suffer abuse without retaliation (Matt. 5:39). We must be willing to be a bigger person in the petty grievances that mark every day life. But to forgive someone that neither seeks restitution nor demonstrates any regard for God’s law is quite a different matter.
At the outset we must remember that biblical forgiveness is not simply an emotional exercise whereby we release our anger. While releasing anger may be very helpful to our psychological disposition, and may be scriptural (Eph 4:26), it does not take into account the fact that biblical forgiveness involves more than just me and the person who harmed me. Biblical forgiveness involves God. I have neither the right nor the ability to wholly forgive someone whom God has not forgiven. Now there may be situations where we have no choice but to defer to God and ultimately let Him be the judge. However, this does not erase the fact that forgiveness of another’s sin ultimately brings is God’s decision for He alone forgives sin.
We must also understand that biblical forgiveness has strings attached. Biblical forgiveness must be accomplished in accordance with God’s will. His word must be the guide for how and when one is forgiven. To simply decide unilaterally that we will forgive someone is not our ultimate prerogative. Even after Jesus prayed to God that his murders be forgiven, he commissioned the apostles to take the gospel (God’s saving plan) to them. As demonstrated at Pentecost until sinners repented of their sins and obeyed the gospel they were lost (Acts 2:38).
While the modern theology of unconditional and unilateral forgiveness probably stems from noble motives it is not biblical. Society, so enamored with its no-fault polity, would rather sweep sin under the rug than hold a guilty party accountable for their actions. Society teaches us that to keep from offending others we must not demand accountability. God, on the other hand, does not forgive until His stipulations have been met. We may sweep things under the rug and walk away feeling good about our generosity. In time we may “forgive” and forget. However, God does not forget when His criterion has been satisfied.
At first brush the above analysis may seem harsh and unchristian. As we will see, however, even though biblical forgiveness is conditional once God’s terms have been met it must be offered without reservation. There is never one so willing and eager to forgive as the true follower of Jesus Christ. With this in mind let us look at what Jesus has to say about dealing with a sinning brother in Matthew 18. What we will see is that forgiveness is never passive. So precious is the restoration of a sinning brother that the injured party, in spite of being hurt, takes the initiative of reconciliation. Much as God did with a sinful world, the wounded party steps outside himself and his own pain to pursue peace.
As with all scripture, Matthew 18:15-20 must be interpreted in light of its broader context. Generally speaking Matthew 18 is about “seeking the lost.” From verse 10 to the end of the chapter the theme is reconciliation and forgiveness. In verse 10 Jesus begins his assessment of the value of each “little one” (ie: believers, no matter how humble in status) as he tells the parable about a lost sheep. The point of this parable is that when lost the “one” takes precedent over the “many” that are safe in the fold. Thus Jesus concludes his teaching in verse 14 by saying, “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (NKJV). Luke’s parallel poignantly sums up this parable and notes, “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (15:7). Notice that Jesus emphasizes the effort of the shepherd who goes into the rugged mountainous terrain to seek the wandering sheep. Though it is not the shepherd’s negligence that causes the sheep to go astray; nevertheless as a mature leader the shepherd takes the initiative to restore the wanderer. In the next section, which we will return to later and which serves as a bridge in the chapter, the same principle is taught.
The last section of Matthew 18 takes a bit different turn as Jesus describes the believer’s responsibility to forgive in view of God’s forgiveness. The “king” (vs. 23) represents God with the first servant (vs. 24) representing the believer who has been forgiven of his sin debt. In turn, the second servant (vs. 28) represents others who might from time to time stand in the need of our forgiveness. Though much less guilty in comparison to our guilt before God, our fellow man gives us a chance to demonstrate how we really feel about forgiveness. God will not forgive those who do not forgive.
Jesus summation is found in verse 25 when he says, “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.” Recall that Jesus began is ministry with similar teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:14-15).
The last section of Matthew 18, however, is not without its own context. In verse 21 Peter comes to Jesus and poses a difficult question. Having heard Jesus say that a Christian must forgive one who has trespassed against him, Peter wants to know the limits of this forgiveness. Peter asks, “Up to seven times?” Jesus replies, “Seventy times seven.” Peter’s statement probably stems from scribal tradition which held that forgiveness should be extended but three times to a fellow brother. Peter, thinking he is being generous, doubles the number and then adds one to make it a perfect seven times. Jesus’ response to Peter’s munificence is shocking. Obviously Jesus does not have in mind forgiving a literal 490 times, which might be impossible to keep track of anyway, but is teaching that forgiveness must be open ended. As long as there is true repentance on the part of a sinner then forgiveness is to be extended. Luke 17:4 qualifies Matthew 18 and adds “and seven times in a day returns saying I repent.” Thus the initial point of our study is sustained that forgiveness is not a unilateral action but requires some kind of repentance on the part of the sinner before true reconciliation can be brokered. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the king, after initially offering forgiveness to the first servant, retracts his offer when it becomes apparent that the servant rather enjoys justice over mercy. The first servant, by rejecting his fellow man’s request for mercy, demonstrates insincerity in his own previous request to the king. One cannot ask for that he refuses to give!
In any event, Peter’s question in verse 21 no doubt comes as a response to Jesus’ teaching on reconciliation in verses 15-20. As we shall now notice, Jesus reminds his disciples of the value of a single soul and, like a sheep, the erring must be sought and saved. In reality the instruction that Jesus gives on dealing with a sinning brother is simply a practical application of the parable he has just completed (vss. 10-14).
Mike Criswell
mikecriswell@sbcglobal.net
Like this:
Like Loading...
Jun 16, 2009 | Articles
In regard to the use of the term I have no hesitation in saying that, as a people, we have fallen into error. This I well know has not been intentionally done. Still it has been done; and the circumstance should make us feel how extremely necessary it is that, while detecting small motes in other’s eyes, we do not overlook the large ones in our own. The word ‘christian’, according to the New Testament, is applicable to nothing but a ransomed human being. It is there never applied to things, but only to persons. To us this should be a suggestive thought. If it be true, and this we shall assume, that nothing but a human being can be a Christian, then it follows that whatever the term denotes is limited to man; and from this again, that to apply the term to any thing else is an abuse of it, and inexcusable. If these positions be correct, they will certainly suggest to our brethren the necessity for some curtailment and reform. I need not tell the reader that the term occurs but twice in the New Testament, but this is enough to determine the extent to which it may be applied. No use but that there made of it is tenable. Every other is unauthorized and dangerous. We shall now proceed to point out some of the applications of the word to which we particularly object:
1. The Christian Scriptures.
We shall not be accused of an inclination to depreciate the word of God, or of a willingness to see its power in the least impaired. Neither do we wish its distinctive character to be in any sense affected. Why, then, it may be asked, do we object to prefixing the term ‘Christian’ to the Scriptures a qualifying epithet? I object to it, first, because it is useless. The expression, ‘the scriptures’, is now the appropriate designation of the sacred writings. No epithet we can use can render it more intelligible or more definite. It is clear and enough, and for more than this there is no necessity.
I object to it, second, because, even allowing the term to be applicable, it is not correct. In no view could it apply to more than the New Testament; yet it is generally understood to embrace the ‘old’ as well as the ‘new’ sacred writings. While the Christian accepts as profitable all these writings, yet it is the ‘new’ which embraces the matter of his faith, and constitutes his rule of life. This therefore is peculiarly his book; hence to this alone could the term apply, if to either.
It is proper to add that popular usage certainly sanctions the expression ‘Christian scriptures’. This we well know; but in this, as in many other things, we think popular usage wrong. In matters purely worldly the decision of popular usage is generally final, but not so in matters of religion. Here usage is no standard.
2. The Christian Church.
With us a people this is certainly an ambiguous expression. Whether it denotes a meeting-house, or a congregation of disciples, the phrase itself, as used by us, does not determine. Indeed it may mean either or both. This is an evil imperiously demanding correction. I respectfully, then, submit to our brotherhood that we adopt it as a universal custom never to apply the word ‘church’ to a meeting-house. Let us apply the word ‘church’ only to the whole body of Christ, and to the individual congregation. This will remove a serious blemish in our present speech. I would further suggest that our houses of worship be called by the modest and becoming title of ‘meeting-houses’. This is free from all ostentation, and to my taste faultless. Purity and simplicity are characteristics of the gospel, and should be of every thing connected with it.
But I shall be asked what epithet I would use to distinguish the church of Christ in a given place from the other churches meeting therein. The expression other churches raises a new question, one whose correctness I am free to say is with me by no means settled. Certainly I should first require a case of other churches to be clearly made out by the New Testament before I should feel under the least obligation to provide an epithet which would amount to a virtual recognition of them as of the Lord. Confessedly Christ may have two or more churches in the same place, is in a large city, but the phrase other churches is not designed to denote these. It applies to the sectarian organizations of the day. These we do not recognize as churches of Christ, but as fragments of the great apostasy. Hence we feel under no obligation to provide a name which shall distinguish the church of Christ from them. But the New Testament furnishes us epithets, the only ones we should use; and if any distinctions exist which these do not mark, then we must insist that such distinctions are unrecognized by the New Testament, and hence should have no name.
Suppose, now, that Christ has a church in a given place. How shall we appropriately designate it? Call it simply the church of God, or the church of Christ. These are Scriptural names; no others are. But it will be asked: What is the distinction between the expressions church of Christ and Christian church? I answer: that is Scriptural and always will be; this is not Scriptural and never will be. Purity of speech requires that we speak of Bible things in Bible language. Church of Christ is Bible language; Christian church is not. Can we, then, as a people, hesitate as to which we shall use? But it may be said: this is becoming unnecessarily nice; there is no necessity for the observance of such minute and trivial distinctions. I shall not deny that the distinction is minute; but I trust no brother in our ranks will call it trivial; and as to whether we should observe it or not-this depends upon whether our speech should be pure or not. We have for some time labored under the belief that our popular vocabulary would be the better of revision; and not merely of revision, but of thorough revision. The work had just as well commence with the word Christian as with any other. Let us remember that this term applies only to persons, never to things, not even to organizations when composed of Christians; and we shall have no difficulty in [286] knowing how to use it. But in thus speaking, do I not pass sentence against many a line of mine own? Perhaps so; but is that a reason why I should not thus write? With me my own blunders can never become a plea for repeating them. When we complain of a fault we complain of it for self as well as for others. It matters not who may have practiced the abuses of which we speak; they are not therefore right, and should be corrected.
But we have other abuses of the word Christian besides the preceding. We have Christian Universities, Christian Colleges, Christian Academies-how many we can not tell. That a people claiming to be reformers, to have returned to the faith and practice of the New Testament, and to great extent even to its pure speech, should have fallen into this flagrant abuse of one of its most important personal designations, proves that even the most watchful have need still to watch and be watched. That a disposition to mark every thing in our ranks as consecrated to Christ, and to render even our institutions of learning subservient to this cause, has contributed to the abuse in question may be readily admitted. But this does not justify it. The thing is wrong and should be abandoned. A college or seminary, no matter by whom owned, or how governed, or for what end conducted, can never be Christian in any sense save a wrong one. There is just as much philosophy and as good sense in a follower of the Saviour calling his horse and his cart respectively Christian horse and Christian cart, as in calling the bricks and mortar which compose a house a Christian seminary, merely because it happens to be owned and managed by Christian men. We have grown familiar with the thing; hence its absurdity affects us but little.
– Moses Lard
Like this:
Like Loading...
Jun 12, 2009 | Articles
View of Taurus mountains near Colossae
Philemon sighed and wiped his brow as the encroaching shadows signaled the day’s end. He briefly considered working in the dark, but the appetizing smells drifting from inside his home encouraged him to finish quickly. His disposition lightened as he considered the prospect of spending the evening hours with his wife Apphia.
Apphia was a good woman–hard working, dependable, and (most importantly) committed to the spiritual growth of the whole family. She, perhaps even more than he, was excited about Jesus Christ and was an inspiration to the entire congregation that met in their home in Colossae. Before they became Christians, she had always been supportive of his status as a God-fearing gentile proselyte to Judiasm, but she was never truly enthusiastic. Since she had been baptized, however, her zeal for the Savior and the church continued to surprise and enthrall Philemon.
Apphia had not flinched when her old circle of friends (both Jewish and Greek) had deserted her because of her obedience to ‘the way’. Even when her lifelong best friend began to exclude her from their weekly visits to the agora, her Christian fervor didn’t fade. Apphia had lost none of her enthusiasm for the worship services, or reading the scriptures, or telling others about Jesus.
During a recent scripture study, Philemon had remarked that he felt sorry for Abraham’s nephew Lot. When his church brothers asked why, he told them Lot lacked the one essential blessing life could be built around–a spiritual mate. Philemon went on to explain to them that unlike Lot’s wife, Apphia’s response to God’s call was not to look back. Rather, she looked forward. She had become preserving ‘salt and light’ to her family and a great blessing to Philemon.
Philemon paused at the doorway to their home, bowed his head and prayed: “My Father, thank you for Apphia. Aside from You, she is the best decision I ever made. Please help us together to do Your will in our Lord Jesus’ name, Amen.”
With a smile he turned and took one last look down the street. Unexpected sudden movement caught Philemon’s eye. At this time of evening the road should be as deserted as Aphrodite’s temple during weekend chariot races, but surprisingly, there was the shadowy form of a person rapidly coming toward the house. It was too late for vendors or street hawkers and even the begging pagan priests and propositioning temple harlots should have retreated inside.
This man (for Philemon was sure of his gender now) was certainly intent on approaching Philemon’s home. Philemon’s eyes strained to discern more details in the murky twilight. Strangely, the closer the stranger came the more his gait and stride began to seem familiar. Did he know this man?
Philemon’s memory failed to identify the guest as he quickly and purposefully traversed the last few yards to the front of the house. Just as the light from the doorway was about to illuminate the visitor, Philemon perceived that he gripped something tightly in his right hand.
At that moment Philemon saw his facial features. A warm greeting froze in Philemon’s mouth as electric and palpable shock rendered him speechless. Could it be? Was it possible that the man now bowing before him in traveler’s robes was him? With downcast eyes the visitor knelt before Philemon and in his right hand offered up a small tan scroll bound with a string.
Philemon was too astonished to make a move. Long seconds passed and the outstretched hand of the man wavered and quivered as in a faltering voice he said “Master, please.” With great effort Philemon willed his numbed muscles to reach out and take the scroll from the hand of his one-time servant, Onesimus, now seemingly returned. He untied the scroll and read the first few lines:
“Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer…”
Tears rolled down Philemon’s face and fell upon the parchment. He knelt down next to Onesimus and embraced his new Christian brother.
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON
If you haven’t read the epistle to Philemon recently, it is certainly worth your time to examine again. Philemon is the shortest and one of the most powerful epistles we have from the pen of the Apostle Paul. The letter was written to the Christian Philemon by the Apostle Paul on behalf of a runaway slave named Onesimus. Philemon had been robbed and defrauded by Onesimus who had then later become a Christian and returned home. The above scenario is a fictional representation of how the reunion of Onesimus and Philemon may have occurred.
It is true that the once worthless slave Onesimus had made the fateful decision to steal from Philemon, flee to Rome, and live in anonymity in the streets of that great ancient city. But it is also true that he became profitable to God and Paul by obeying the gospel. How long he lived as a rebel and a thief we don’t know, but one day he came across Paul who was under house arrest in Rome. Paul (himself a onetime spiritual fugitive from God) led Onesimus to faith in Christ and obedience to the gospel. Onesimus then became advantageous to Paul in his evangelistic work. Imagine the conversations that Paul and Onesimus had together as they agonized over the decision to send Onesimus back home!
We can certainly learn much from each of the three main actors in this historical event recorded for us by the Holy Spirit:
1) Philemon: Philemon was a man big enough to forgive one who had sinned against him.
“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.” Matt 11:25
2) Onesimus: This remarkable man (whose very name means ‘profitable’) demonstrates great courage and great dedication to the Lord. Though it was not easy to return to Philemon and give up his freedom, he was willing to make the tough decision and face the consequences. Even 2000 years later, Christianity demands everything from us! The Lord does not want us to be lukewarm, to be partially committed, or to be tepid and indifferent:
“But Jesus said to him, No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:62
We must become profitable to the Lord!
Secular history records that some 30 years later there was an elder in Ephesus named Onesimus. It may have been the same former slave who had in his possession Paul’s letter to Philemon and passed it down through history that we might read it today.
3) Paul: The apostle to the Gentiles was always the great example of Christian service! Here he is in his captivity thinking about others. Paul had been deserted by many, and Onesimus was ministering to him, but Paul sent him back to Philemon.
Do we have a similar deep abiding concern for the brethren? Do we put the welfare of the church first? Let us say to our brethren-“I will repay.” Shoulder the debt of your brethren, take on yourself their balance, place upon yourself their obligation for the sake of Christ and His church.
May God bless the church of Christ!
Bart Shaw, tbartshaw@hotmail.com 6/09
Like this:
Like Loading...
Jun 5, 2009 | Articles
Moses Lard
From the outset of the great work in which we as a people are engaged, purity of speech has been an object never lost sight of. We looked at first and still look upon the mixed and unsanctified dialect current in religious circles, not only as a reflection upon the word of God, but as a fertile source of error and a successful means of propagating it. Long years of observation have only served to confirm these early convictions. All authorized religious notions can find utterance in terms of the Bible, divinely appropriated to that use; and the moment the need is felt for other terms, the fair inference is that views unknown to the Bible are to be expressed. Terms not of the Bible will of necessity impart to the mind ideas not of the Bible; and thus the mind becomes confused in its religious contents. The thoughts of the Spirit inhabiting, as permanent fixtures, the human soul, and expressed, when need requires, in terms of the Spirit, constitute the highest learning and best literature of earth. How long will it be before the world will learn and appreciate this truth? Never, we fear.
But purity of speech has two sides from which to be viewed, and a double demand to be satisfied. It requires, first, that the things of the Spirit shall be expressed only in terms of the Spirit; and, second, that things not of the Spirit shall be expressed in terms not of the Spirit. That is to say, it requires that views and thoughts of the world, and pertaining to the world, shall be expressed in worldly terms, and not in Bible terms. To abuse a Bible term is an offense against the Spirit, falling but little, if any, below the abuse of a Bible idea. There is, of course, this distinction to be observed, that a term may be common to the Bible and to the world; in which case, clearly, it can be deemed no abuse to use the term in speaking even of worldly matters. But in the present connection we are speaking, not so much of this class of words, as of a very different class, namely, such as the names of persons, rites, and other things which have no existence independent of the gospel.
As a partial illustration of what we mean, let us take the word just used, the word gospel. This, if not exclusively a Bible term, is yet a term having its true and proper signification only therein. Now, to apply this term to aught else than what it here denotes, is, it seems to me, correctly called an abuse of it, and is unjustifiable. We often hear such expressions as the following: a gospel preacher, a gospel sermon, a gospel feast, etc. Is this correct? We certainly think not.
The word gospel has no counterpart in a man; hence it can never accurately be applied to one; and so of the other items. A sermon may be an hour long, and yet contain in it only a single element of the gospel; it is not therefore a gospel sermon. Even allowing it to be composed mostly of elements of the gospel; still it contains human elements, and hence is not gospel. If it contain no human elements then is it the gospel, and not merely something partaking of its nature. Hence the term should never be thus used. To all of which it may be replied, that perfection in speech is a thing not attainable in our present state; and that therefore it is useless to complain of the abuses of which we speak. This may be true, and yet we may not be wrong; hence we must insist on what we have said. Not even the semblance of abuse should have our sanction. Indeed no more should we sanction the abuse of a term which is Scriptural than we should the use of one which is not, to express an idea which is.
Purity of speech consists in the strict use of Scriptural terms to express Scriptural things. This excludes the use of terms which are not Scriptural, and ought to imply the non-abuse of those which are. The nearer we approach this standard, the greater and the more certain will be the effect with which we shall proclaim the truth.
As an illustration of a grossly impure speech we will cite a popular definition of baptism. It is thus worded: baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. If the manipulations of Satan ever approach so near the surface as to be sensibility felt, we should think that even the dullest touch might detect their presence in this. Baptism is a sign. In what book or verse of the Bible is it so said? Or, indeed, is any thing said bearing even the remotest resemblance to it? A more perfect figment never emanated from the human brain.
Baptism is no sign; at least it is no sign of any thing within us. If a sign of any thing, or if intended to represent any thing; if, in other words, it is either monumental or emblematic, then is it so of the literal burial and resurrection of Christ, and of our own future burial and resurrection, but of nothing within us. But not only is baptism a sign; it is an outward sign. Now this word outward was a most necessary epithet in the definition. But for this, some orthodox blockhead might have blundered into the conclusion that when a man is baptized really nothing outward had taken place. True, his eyes might have avouched otherwise, but what of that? When the eyes and conclusions of one of the orthodox are somewhat antithetic, what signifies a thing so mendacious as the eye?
But baptism is more than an outward sign: it is a sign of an ‘inward grace’. Ah! reader, in that phrase ‘inward grace’ you have the body and soul of orthodoxy, the ground and essence of its popular dimensions, and the jingle which has proved the hoodwink and ruin of many a soul of man. Baptism is a sign, a mere sign, nothing more; neither in itself, nor by appointment of the Saviour, has it any value or significance-it is only a sign, a mere shadow indicating the presence of a casting substance. Moreover, this ‘inward grace’ is first in order of time and first in point of importance. This must first be possessed; then on behind it may come that outward sign, of no more importance in procuring acceptance with Christ, or in giving rest to the soul, than is the flowing of the ink in my pen.
But what is that ‘inward grace’? Ask it not, presumptuous reader. It is orthodoxy; and dare you query as to that? Only this remains for you to know: that it is absolutely necessary to generate that ‘inward grace’; and that this adroitly, but very innocently, lays the foundation for all those hidden impulses and miraculous sensations vulgarly styled holy ghost religion.
Again: take the phrase we have last used: ‘holy ghost religion’. Here is an expression unknown in the Bible. What it means can never be determined. Indeed it means any thing and every thing which he who glories in it may see fit to make it mean. If, however, we were called upon to define it, we should not hesitate to say it is a designation for one of the purest forms of superstition. What folly has been committed and gone unrebuked, and what gross error has been and still is propagated under the cover of this expression, no living man can tell. Were a pure speech restored to the religious world, what then would become of this unauthorized expression? It would stand as a monument to their folly who use it, and as a proof of their disrespect for the word of God, because they had something to teach which that word does not sanction. Satan is never surer to eclipse the truth and ensnare the soul than when he can induce us to speak of the things of the Spirit in terms and combinations of terms not Scriptural, or to abuse and pervert those which are.
Revelation consists in two parts: the thought, or matter revealed, which is the revelation proper; and the terms originally selected by the Spirit, in which the thought is expressed. Both these we call divine or sacred; and no more have we the right to abuse or pervert the one than we have the other. In a translation, of course, merely the thought is transferred, and that, too, into terms not of divine but of human selection. In this process perfection is not attainable, though certainly desirable. But when a translation is once made and accepted as correct, then purity of speech consists in expressing the revealed thought or matter in the exact terms of the translation. This with every Christian should become a rule never to be violated. But the point toward which we are mainly looking is this: whenever a term becomes appropriated in the Bible to an expression of a particular thought, it should never be used to express any other; and when so used, it is abused. This brings us to speak more particularly of the name Christian.
(end part one)
– Moses Lard
Moses Lard's gravestone in St. Joseph, Missouri ---------- It reads as follows: Moses E. Lard BORN In Bedford Co. Tenn. Oct. 29, 1818 DIED In Lexington, Kentucky June 18, 1880 AGED 61 Yrs. 6 Ms. 20D's
Like this:
Like Loading...
May 25, 2009 | Articles
The fox spoils the hen house and the wolf threatens the sheepfold, but what happens when the unbeliever marries into the Christian home? Does it imperil the home? Does it weaken the church? Does God approve?
Satan attacks the bride of Christ from the outside (Acts 20:27), but who doubts that the devil revels most over infiltrating our homes and congregations, attacking from within – snatching away our sons and daughters one by one. Satan and his forces also celebrate when they can water down the convictions of those that Satan cannot completely tear away from the Savior’s side. Then, the next generation is “easy pickin’s.” How many congregations will be crippled because we did not adequately warn of the spiritual dangers of marrying outside the faith? The Devil harvests divorce, desertion, and weakened disciples whenever he successfully sows the seed thought, “You can marry outside the faith.” He gladly concedes the crop of limited exceptions.
Fundamental Principles
The Holy Spirit has not left us without warning. One of the fundamental principles of the New Testament is found in I Cor. 15:33, “Evil companionship corrupts good morals.” The term “evil” is not restricted to violent criminals. James tells us (4:4) that “friendship with the world is enmity (hostility) with God.” In I John 2:15, we are warned not to love the things in the world and in 2 John 9-11 we are cautioned against intimate fellowship with the doctrinally dissimilar. God does care about who are our most intimate friends and closest associates. These principles should be sufficient to deter Christians from marrying outside the Lord.
But what principles include the marriage relationship specifically? We note in I Cor. 10:16-17 the apostle’s assumption that only one loaf will be on the Lord’s Table. The same is true in Ephesians 5, when Paul likens husband and wife to Christ and the church and in 1 Peter 3:7 where Peter refers to husbands and wives as “heirs together of the grace of life.”
Is Marriage a Yoke?
Perhaps the brightest red flag against marrying outside the faith is Paul’s command in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Some question why the majority of scholars directly or indirectly associate being “yoked together” with marriage. When first century Christians heard the term yoke, however, marriage was one of the first relationships that came to mind. Jesus declared in Matthew 19:6, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Lexicographers Vine, Thayer and Bullinger each offer the definition “yoked together” for the Greek word translated “joined together” in the King James Version. Adam Clarke says of this phrase, “Among the ancients, when persons were newly married, they put a yoke upon their necks, or chains upon their arms, to show that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life.”
In his commentary on 2 Corinthians 6:14, Burton Coffman writes, “This meant that no Christian had any business making alliances of any kind with pagans; and yes, that certainly includes marriage. Why should any Christian wife accept a pagan for a husband? This writer has known many who did it to their sorrow; but it was never anything but a sin. Paul was not here discussing the situation where one of a pagan couple had obeyed the gospel and the other had not; he had already dealt with that. Here he was laying down a rule that forbade such alliances in the first place. Furthermore, there is nothing here that limits the application to marriage. Any close alliance with a pagan partner in business, recreation, marriage, or any other kind of union can mean nothing but disaster for the Christian.”
Light and Darkness
One rhetorical question Paul asks in this context compels the objective disciple to conclude that marrying outside the faith misses the mark. He writes at the end of verse 14, “What communion has light with darkness?” Folks, every man and woman is in either the kingdom of light or in the kingdom of darkness. The Lord wills that those of us in the kingdom of light do not form intimate relationships – including marriage – with those in the kingdom of darkness.
Pleasing God
Our prayers are answered, according to I John 3:22, because “we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” Can a Christian please God when he marries an unbeliever? Can we fail to counsel a Christian against marrying outside the faith without bearing responsibility for the spiritual fallout? The Scriptures say, No!” Keep the fox out of the henhouse. – Brett Hickey (unityseeker@hotmail.com; P. O. Box 68 Mountain Home, AR 72654)
Like this:
Like Loading...
