Go, And Sin No More

I think most of us are familiar with the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus for judgment. If nothing else, we all know better than to cast the first stone, based on what Jesus said (some of us end up throwing a lot of stones anyway, but that’s beside the point). One thing that I think some people miss, though, Jesus told her that He didn’t condemn her, but He didn’t say that what she had done was okay.
She was fortunate enough to have been caught in the middle between Jesus and the Pharisees. She probably didn’t feel fortunate at the time; under Roman law, adultery did not carry a death sentence, but under the Law of Moses, it did. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to either affirm the Law of Moses, which would lead to a charge of insurrection against the Roman government, or not, which they could then use to accuse Him of heresy. So this woman, who ordinarily would have been left alone, is arrested, and taken to Jesus, presumably on her way to be stoned. That must have been a frightening experience. In any case, Jesus sidestepped the question entirely, and did not address her guilt or punishment, and instead addressed the guilt of her accusers. Once the men who were prepared to stone her walked away, then Jesus asked her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She, fortunately, had the wisdom to say, “No man, Lord.” He responded, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
I think some people get the idea that Jesus didn’t condemn her because she had done nothing wrong. I don’t think that the Scripture suggests that. He didn’t say that she hadn’t sinned, rather, He told her not to sin any more, which, in fact, suggests that she had sinned. I think that it is safe to say that the entire episode had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, but on the willingness of sinful men to accuse other people. Are any of us truly guilt-free? Yet, we have this ideological flaw that, if we look at our sin, and we look at someone else’s sin, well, at least my sin isn’t as bad as his sin… But, in God’s eyes, sin is sin. At judgment day, you can’t tell God, well, at least I never killed anybody, He will just remind you of the people that you have hated for no real reason badly enough that you would have been glad if they had died.
I don’t imagine that it was easy for the adulterous woman to walk away from the lifestyle that she was accustomed to. Of course, having come that close to death because of the way she lived was probably enough incentive to keep her on the straight and narrow. Some people don’t turn to Christ until they have had a similar experience. The rest of us need to learn that kind of urgency. Either way, none of us can keep from sinning for any length of time, it is only the grace of God that sustains us. We need to give God our best, and pray that our efforts will be blessed.

Scarcely Saved

The Bible says that if the righteous scarcely be saved, than where will the ungodly and the sinner appear? Now, of course, the question is, why are the righteous scarcely saved? In Isaiah we are told that our righteousness is as filthy rags. The very best that we can do is nowhere near good enough for God. Fortunately, He has made a way. What people don’t seem to understand is that His sacrifice, by which we have obtained mercy and grace, is not a blank check to go and do whatever we want. Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. Run that you may obtain the prize, but keep in mind that not everyone who runs in a race wins a prize. Even in marathons, where they have lots of people sign up to run, and they award a medal to everyone who crosses the finish line gets a medal, they generally don’t order enough medals for everyone who pays the fee to run the marathon. Some people end up not showing up, and some people drop out during the race. Why would you enter a race and not finish? I’m sure that there are many reasons, but it really comes down to the basic idea that sometime during the race, something else became more important; something else took precedence. Maybe one just becomes discouraged; the medal at the end doesn’t seem worth the pain in the side and the burning lungs along the way. That’s at least somewhat legitimate, but keep in mind that in the race that we are running the prize that we are striving for is not a trifle. We are not striving for a few dollars worth of metal fashioned into a fancy design as a symbol of accomplishment (and by saying that, I don’t mean to downgrade the accomplishment of completing a marathon. That is an accomplishment, and I have a lot of respect for those people that have done that, but it’s kind of like getting an A+ on an important test in high school compared to graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard medical school). We are striving for an eternal reward, a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Jesus told us to strive. I think sometimes we get confused as to what exactly that means. To strive means to work hard at something, to really put your back into it, to struggle with it. So often we treat salvation as something that we can simply say a few words to obtain, and live how we want to. So many people make a profession of faith, and then go right back to the way we were living, just like a sow that was washed goes back to her wallowing in the mire.
You've probably seen the T-shirt with a picture of guy wearing jeans with the knees completely worn out, and a caption that says, "Pray Hard." So often, we send God a cursory prayer simply saying I want... And sometimes that's all the prayer we need right at the moment; after all, the Spirit intercedes for us, when we can’t find the words, right? Don’t use that as an excuse, though, prayer should be an expression of gratitude, of praise, and, yes, occasionally, of request. If you don't ask, you won't receive. Of course, if you don't thank God for what He's given you already, or if you don’t praise God (show an appreciation just for who He is), He's going to be considerably less inclined to give you more. Sometimes, though, prayer needs to have more intensity than we really want to commit to it. I think about Jesus praying in the garden, and it says that his sweat was as great drops of blood. There has been some discussion as to just exactly what that means, but the bottom line is, it means He was praying really hard. In some ways, it seems a little strange, He knew ahead of time what was going to happen; His impending crucifixion was not a surprise. Yet, here He was praying in the garden with a kind of intensity that most of us never reach. I have to believe that He prayed the way He did as an example to us. I don't mean that every time you pray, you should pray until sweat just rolls off of you, but that there should be an intensity to your prayers, and if you ever get into a situation that is as serious as the one He was in, then, yes, pray as hard as He did.

Shadows of Things to Come

In literary circles, the term foreshadowing is used to indicate that the author of a piece of fiction suggests that something is going to happen, before he or she actually gets to that part of the story. It’s kind of a hint as to what lies ahead.
The Bible talks about things in the Old Testament being shadows of things to come. Paul talks about the law being a schoolmaster, teaching the Israelites about the things of God; providing a framework that Christ could build on. Jesus said He had come to fulfill the Law, but, at the same time, we are not under the law, but under Grace.
Christ brought about a lot of changes in the way things are done; for example, dietary restrictions were pretty tough under Old Testament Law, but there’s really very little that we can’t eat, now (some of our doctors might wish that we were following Old Testament Law in that regard, though—bacon double-cheeseburgers aren’t kosher, you know). At the same time, there are a lot of things in the Law that foretell the life of Jesus.
I have posted before about how the Passover sacrifice was an image of Christ’s crucifixion. Beyond that, though, the Bible says that Pharaoh had the infants killed at the time of Moses’ birth, just as the Bible says that Herod had the infants killed at the time of Jesus’ birth. Moses spent forty days on the mountaintop without food or water; Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness without food or water. Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt, to the Promised Land; Jesus came out of Egypt, into Israel. Peter also tells us that the story of Noah and the Ark is a figure of baptism.
The point is that the Law was a stern ‘schoolmaster,’ and yet, it provided a framework for the coming of Christ. A lot of those things were physical commandments, but intended to show the kinds of actions that would be taken by one with a right mindset. We aren’t under the Law, now, and yet, we shouldn’t completely ignore the Law, either. I think it’s pretty safe to say that we can ignore the dietary restrictions (not only did God indicate as much to Peter, but refrigeration and better cooking techniques mean that foods that were once dangerous are not any longer). Still, if you are living a life that is completely inconsistent with Old Testament Law, then I think that you should be asking yourself why that is. If you are being led by the Spirit (the Spirit that dictated the law to Moses), shouldn’t your actions be somewhat in line with Old Testament Law? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that you should make an effort to live according to the Law, because if you are under the Law, then you have forsaken Grace (and you don’t want to do that, believe me). But, the Law was the schoolmaster that helped prepare the way for Christ. Many of the commandments in the Law are still good things to do, with the understanding that Jesus is our sacrifice, we don’t have to sacrifice sheep and goats any more. Jesus said that the whole Law was really fulfilled in two commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and Love thy neighbor as thyself.
If you call yourself a Christian, but you worship some other God, then obviously that would be wrong. If you are a Christian, but you are also a murderer, then what kind of Christian are you? If you lie about other people, or covet things that other people have…
If you are led by the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

What's the Use?

There are two types of gun owners in this country: those that got their guns legally, and those that did not. We know that we have a problem; guns keep getting used in robberies, or random shootings, or other crimes. We keep passing new and more restrictive gun-control laws, and the problem seems to be getting worse, instead of better. Why is that? Well, let's stop to consider: gun control laws may make accidental shootings less frequent, and they make crimes of opportunity or crimes of passion less frequent, someone who intends to use a gun to commit a crime probably isn't going to have much compunction about committing a crime in order to obtain a gun. At the same time, when gun-control laws are restrictive, a law-abiding citizen is considerably less likely to have a gun with which to defend him/herself. Statistically, one is much more likely to be victim of a violent crime in an area where gun-control laws are most restrictive, but we have to do something. The good thing about gun-control laws is that they do reduce accidental shootings, and they reduce gun theft (it's hard to steal a gun from somebody who doesn't have one). Unfortunately, the rate of other crimes goes up, and more than make up for the gains provided by those laws. So what do we do? The intelligent thing would be to sit down, do some careful research and figure out what we could do that would actually be effective, and if there are ways to better enforce the laws that we already have. Unfortunately, politics being what it is, any politician that actually tries to study the problem, gets accused of dragging his feat--kowtowing to the gun lobby, so our gun-control laws tend to be a series of band-aid solutions, resulting from knee-jerk reactions to real problems that Joe Taxpayer (understandably) wants the government to deal with. This results in a great deal of frustration for the law-abiding citizen in a high-crime area who just wants to protect his family.
Sometimes we, as Christians, become frustrated with ourselves. We set out, each day, to live the life that God would have us to live, and most days (if not every day), we find ourselves falling so far short of the potential that we have in God. That can be so depressing. Sometimes we just want to throw up our hands and quit. "What's the use?" we say, "I'm never going to get this right." And yet, we know that God has promised. He didn't promise to make us perfect, He promised that His Grace is sufficient. In First Thessalonians 4, Apostle Paul uses the phrase "we which are alive and remain." I've noticed that most people seem to think that he meant, "we which are alive and remain alive," but that would be redundant. It's redundant enough that he used the phrase twice (in verse 15 and verse 17); I submit that he meant, "we which are alive and remain faithful, which remain trying, which remain striving for the Kingdom..." What's the use? If we continue in His Word, we shall be given a crown of Glory that fadeth not away...
It just doesn't get any better than that.

Amazing Grace

Recently the movie, "Amazing Grace" came out on DVD, starring Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic) as William Wilberforce and Albert Finney (Ed Masry from 'Erin Brockovitch') as John Newton. The movie is not nearly as much about John Newton as one would think; it more has to do with William Wilberforce's campaign in Parliament to have the slave trade abolished. His campaign was influenced by his friend John Newton, a reformed slave trader himself who claims to be haunted by the ghosts of thousands of slaves that didn't survive the trip across the Atlantic in Captain Newton's ship. How much of the movie is actually true? That's hard to say; certainly the main plot is accurate, but the details are probably almost all conjecture. For some reason, I don't doubt that William Wilberforce actually stood up in a session of Parliament and sang 'Amazing Grace,' although not with that tune (the lyrics were not applied to the tune that we currently identify with 'Amazing Grace' until much later, but most of the audience wouldn't have known that, and would have been confused if Ioan Gruffudd had actually sung the tune that was used at that time).

It's a good story: A man who was, two hundred years ago, able to look past color and be outraged by the sufferings of his fellow man, even though that fellow man looked very different from himself. Another man, realizing that he has lived a despicable life, seeking redemption, and probably never really sure that he had found it. It's unfortunate that this didn't happen until after America gained it's independence, we might have been spared some of the most painful experiences that we, as a nation, have gone through. As it was, when the British outlawed the slave trade, we simply began dealing with Spanish and Portuguese slave traders. It took us a long time to learn the lessons of William Wilberforce (some of still seem to be learning).

Could a man like John Newton be redeemed, after causing so many deaths, and dealing in human lives? Certainly. God mercy knows almost no bounds. In this life, that may not seem fair, but in the life to come, no one will begrudge Reverend Newton his place (especially not those of us who love singing the hymns that he wrote the lyrics to).

In the book of Acts, there was a pharisee named Saul, who had letters that authorized him to do whatever was necessary to seek out members of this new cult of Christianity, and have them hauled in and incarcerated. Many faithful brothers and Sisters in the faith died, because of Saul. But God dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus, and Saul was converted, and became Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul became one of the most (if not the most) prolific evangelist of the early church, he was also one of the most prolific writers: 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul (some argue against Paul authoring Hebrews, but that would still be 13 of 27). Paul's past sins were remitted--separated as far from him as the East is from the West--and yet, I tend to believe that he never forgot what he had done, and always felt that he had much to atone for. I suspect that the actions of Saul, drove Paul to be a better Christian. Similarly, I think that actions of Captain John Newton kept pricking at the conscience of Reverend John Newton and caused him to work for God, to try to atone for some things that God had already forgotten. The irony here is that both men wrote about grace--Paul extensively in the book of Romans (and Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians...), and John Newton in the hymn, 'Amazing Grace,' and yet, both men's actions would tend to indicate that they had a hard time accepting grace, personally (perhaps they were each so individually thankful to be the recipients of grace that they wanted to make sure that others knew about grace...). I'm sure both men were haunted by that little voice in the back of the head that says, over and over, "You can never make up for what you did. You can never do enough. You will always be that man that did all those terrible things." The voice is partially correct: One can never do enough to make up for past sins, that's why God has extended grace to us. Will we always be the person who committed those sins? No; Jesus said you must be born again: You have to start your life over in God. We, being human, never forget what we did, but God looks past that, and gives us a fresh start. Grace truly is amazing.

Security of the Believer

A lot of people think that once you have made a profession of faith, that you can never fall from grace. Still others seem to think that the 'old man' waits around every corner. Let's spend a little time examining these two philosophies.

One passage that is commonly referred to in support of the idea that God will never allow one to fall from grace is Romans 8:35-39. This is an impressive list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God: tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, nor any other creature... Let's contrast this list, though, with a statement that God made in Isaiah 59:2: "...your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you..." The difference is that in Romans Paul lists things that could happen to us, while in Isaiah, it talks about things that we have done. Now, I realize that some would say that the bigger difference is that we are under a new covenant, God doesn't deal with us the way He dealt with Israel in Isaiah's time. That's true, but it's also true that God doesn't change.

Let's consider some other scriptures: Paul said, in Hebrews Chapter 6, that if one falls away, there is no way to renew them again unto repentance. Now, some have said that the word 'if' there denotes a hypothetical situation; it could never really happen. Seems like Paul spent an awful lot of time preaching about something that could never really happen, if that's the case. Wouldn't he have been more concerned about teaching us what we need to know? In Romans 3:3, Paul asks the question, "...what if some did not believe?" Does the word 'if' denote a hypothetical situation there, too; is it impossible for some people to not believe the gospel message? In Romans 4:24, Paul uses that word again, saying "...if we believe on him..." so, apparently we can't believe, either. In Hebrews 10:26, Paul uses that word again, but this time in very much the same meaning as in Hebrews 6. Was this a waste of ink?

Apostle Peter tells us in 2 Peter 2 that it is better to have never known 'the way of righteousness' than to know it and then turn from it. That would be pretty meaningless if one couldn't fall from grace, wouldn't it? He is clearly referring to the parable that Jesus taught in Luke chapter 11. So, did Peter misunderstand Jesus? I don't think so. Let's look at what else Jesus had to say:

In Luke 8, in explanation of the parable of the sower, Jesus compares different types of people to different types of ground, and he says the the rock represents people that, in time of temptation, fall away. In Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13, Jesus said that one must endure to the end to be saved. That doesn't sound like something someone would say if they believed it was impossible to fall away. In Matthew 25, Jesus taught a parable about ten women that had kept themselves pure, and yet, when the bridegroom came, five of them needed oil, because their lamps had gone out. It doesn't say that their lamps were never lit, it says that their lamps had gone out. If He wasn't talking about falling from grace, then what do you suppose that was about? I know already that there will be some people that read this and say, but those were just parables, it's not like those things actually happened. Keep in mind that Jesus told those stories to help us to understand how God's judgment works. He got to choose the details in order to make His point. Don't sell parables short.