Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
~ Psalm 139:7

Holmes, of course, is the famous fictional detective and his actions and preoccupations appear most singular, but they were a part of his life’s work. He had a theory on a case in Doyle’s short story, “The Adventures of Black Peter.” Nonfictional detectives, investigators, and forensic scientists research and test various ways of ending life. They find out such things as that it is impossible to crush a human skull with your bare hands. If I recall correctly, it takes somewhere around 1,100 pounds of pressure to crush a human skull, but certainly more pressure than a human being can produce with his hands alone.

We can safely conclude that Cain did not crush Abel’s skull, at least not with his bare hands. To crush his brother’s skull, Cain would have had to use a very heavy object like a big rock, which would’ve been difficult to wield in a close quarter fight. Of course, Cain didn’t have to crush Abel’s skull to kill him. He could’ve caused enough blunt force trauma to do that with a smaller rock, a tree limb, or some of his farming tools, since he was a worker of the soil (Genesis 4:2). Maybe Abel’s death didn’t involve his cranium directly. Perhaps Cain used a stone knife, or throttled his brother with his bare hands. I suppose a spear could’ve been thrown, or used as a lance. We can probably rule out a slower weapon such as poison. Though Cain obviously thought of this act beforehand (Genesis 4:5-7), the language of Genesis 4:8 lends itself to a crime of passion and some sort of fatal act.

Cain’s Arc

The Genesis account doesn’t tell us how Cain murdered his brother Abel, but that he did is crucial to the account. I’m referring to the narrative in Genesis 4:1-18, which gives us the history of Cain and the primary mention of him in the Bible. This account follows directly after the fall and curse narrative in Genesis 3 and is drawn on later in the Bible. The writer of Hebrews included Abel among the faithful in Hebrews 11:4, noting he acted by faith and was righteous. The Apostle John used Cain in his warning against hating your brother in 1 John 3:12. John notes that Cain was evil and murdered his brother out of hatred and jealousy, and that he was of the Devil.

These later mentions are admittedly brief, but they confirm what type of story Cain’s is. His protagonistic arc is downward, ending lower than where it began. So, in classical terms, we would call it a tragedy. Though it is a well constructed story, it is history, Scripture, and theology. For Cain there is no redemption, so his is an anti-redemption story. He is an archetypal sinner experiencing judgment after causing the death of his brother. His account moves the meta-narrative of Scripture forward after the fall and the curse.

The post-fall curse narrative includes the prophetic promise of the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent and reconcile the enmity caused by sin (Genesis 3:15). The birth of Cain is a man from the Lord and instigates reflection on the promise. Is this the promised seed? As the story unfolds, it is clear Cain is not the promised seed, but is of the seed of the serpent (1 John 3:12).

About the Ground

Cain’s brother Abel is born and we are told their vocations. Abel was a shepherd and Cain a farmer, a tiller of the soil. By verse 2, we have tapped into an important biblical theme, the ground. Two different Hebrew words are used to refer to the ground. They have some synonymous overlap, but also have nuanced distinction across their respective semantic ranges. Both terms are used in chapters 1-4 and combine to 47 uses, which is about once every couple of verses. Given the creation narrative of the first two chapters and the fall and post-fall narrative in chapters 3 and 4, we would expect high usage of terms referring to the earth and ground. However, the land is an important biblical theological theme that traces throughout the rest of Scripture. References to the land carry intertextual weight and play an important role in this account.

The first and most common term in this account is the Hebrew `adama, which means ground or soil in this context. The word appears six times in the text. Cain was a tiller of the soil (Genesis 4:2). He brought from the produce of the soil for an offering (Genesis 4:3). Abel’s blood cried out from the soil (Genesis 4:10). Cain was cursed from the soil (Genesis 4:11) and his tillage would not produce the strength of the soil as a result (Genesis 4:12). Finally, Cain was driven out from the soil, the face of the earth (Genesis 4:14).

The second term used is the Hebrew `eres, which means land or earth. It can refer to the entire earth, or any part of the earth, especially in territorial terms. The word is used three times in the text. It is mentioned in the second part of the curse, where Cain is fated to be a wanderer in the land (Genesis 4:12), which Cain repeats in his complaint (Genesis 4:14). The last usage is a territorial reference to the land of Nod (Genesis 4:16).

As we read the accounts canonically, the creation narrative in chapter 1 is a cosmic scale account and chapter 2 gives a synoptic creation narrative that shifts focus from the cosmic to the terrestrial scale, and even further focuses to the garden and Adam and Eve. Verse 4 reiterates that God created the heavens and the earth and verse 5 builds expectation by noting there was no man to till the soil that produced plants and herbs. We see a balanced harmony intended in the creation between the soil and the man.

The first man was created out of the soil (Genesis 2:7) and the soil produced food for the man (Genesis 2:9). The animals were created out of the soil and Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19). The Lord made a woman as a complementary mate for the man and chapter 2 ends with harmony and balance between humans, animals, plants, and the soil.

Chapter 3 has the fall and curse narrative. After Adam and Eve sinned, God cursed the soil for man’s sake so he would have sorrowful and frustrating labor to eat the produce of the soil the rest of his life (Genesis 3:17). Further, man was cursed with death. He had been taken from the soil and he would return to the soil in death (Genesis 3:19). Adam was then driven from the harmony of the garden and the alienation motif emerges. He went forth from the garden to till the soil to sustain his life (Genesis 3:23), but he did not have the harmony he had before.

History of Cain

The Cain narrative in chapter 4 tells of the first human death. It is no death by natural causes, but rather death by a direct act of sin (Genesis 4:7-8). Abel’s body not only returned to the soil in death, but the soil swallowed his blood and cried for judgment (Genesis 4:10-11). However, we might expect Cain’s blood would be given to the soil to recompense Abel’s blood, but that is not what happened. Let’s look at the narrative as it unfolds.

Verses 3-5 recount the inciting incident for the action of the story. Cain and Abel both brought an offering to Yahweh. The word for offering means a gift or tribute. It is the word typically used of grain offerings and freewill offerings. These offerings were typically bloodless, but the word could apply to blood sacrifices in some contexts. Readers may be tempted to make much of the difference between the offerings—Cain brought his farmer’s fruits and Abel brought a firstborn of his flock. The word used indicates the offering was a gift, or a voluntary offering. We are not told that they were instructed to bring it, or instructed what to bring. Hebrews 11:4 emphasizes that Abel’s offering was brought by faith and therefore accepted. The implication is that Cain’s was not brought by faith and that agrees with Yahweh’s words to Cain in Genesis 4:6-7.

Cain’s situation was progressively complicated by the rejection of his offering and acceptance of his brother’s. Cain was very angry and obviously contemplated what to do about it. Yahweh speaks to Cain in verses 6-7 and sets up Cain’s crisis choice. Cain’s rejection highlighted his alienation from his Creator, and removing Abel will not reconcile him to Yahweh. Cain must master sin rather than being ruled by it. Cain must choose whether he will humble himself and put faith in Yahweh and be accepted, or kill his brother to get him out of the way. The climax of the story is reached in verse 8 when Cain kills Abel in the field.

The resolution of the story begins when Yahweh confronts Cain about his brother Abel in verses 9-10. Cain is given opportunity for confession but chooses evasion. Yahweh knows what Cain has done already and reiterates how the soil cries out for justice, building the suspense and expectation for Cain’s blood to be shed. The reader is prepared for Cain’s death, but the author gives us a different resolution instead.

Yahweh curses Cain in verses 11-12. Cain had already inherited the curse from his father in Genesis 3, but now he is doubly cursed. He is further alienated from the soil and the human race. Cain’s complaint in verse 13 highlights the fact that Cain is suffering the fate worse than death, a living death. Cain is cursed to wander as an alien from the soil and man and live in that unreconciled state in constant fear. He adds in verse 14 that his alienation from the creation also means his alienation from Yahweh the Creator. He will live out his existence without reconciliation, without redemption.

The consequence of Cain’s alienation is that everywhere he goes, he will be hunted and killed (Genesis 4:15). Yahweh responds by setting a mark on Cain that will dissuade people from killing him. Here the reader may get distracted by speculations about what this mark was. Was it like a tattoo, a birthmark, a scarlet M, a hideous alteration of his appearance, etc.? If that was important, we would be told enough to know what it was. It is more important what the mark means than what it was in terms of appearance. Some suppose it was a token of mercy or grace, but that is not how the story reads.

Cain’s fate was the opposite of redemption—damnation. Cain was evil and of the devil (1 John 3:2). Cain was an archetypal sinner whose story depicts alienation and the need of reconciliation. Reconciliation and redemption were denied Cain, and rather immediate death, Cain lived on in that miserable state. Yahweh did not promise to prevent his death, but to dissuade people from killing him. The mark on Cain prolonged his life of unbelief and alienation. This is confirmed in his final act in the biblical record. Rather than trusting Yahweh and believing his word, he built a city to live in (Genesis 4:17). The word for city indicates a guarded settlement. The guard could possibly have been a wall, so he lived out his life in a prison of his own making. From there the Genesis account leaves Cain and follows his descendants.

What About the Mark?

The story of Cain is an historical narrative. The Bible contains various literary genres such as prophecy, like the oracles in Isaiah, poetry, as in the Psalms, discursive instruction, like the Sermon on the Mount, and historical narrative, like the history of Cain, among others. God inspired Scripture to communicate his revelation to man and instruct in the knowledge of God and the way of truth. The different genres are different devices used to communicate that truth. So the history of Cain is for our learning and edification as well as being accurate, factual history. Cain’s history teaches us the consequences of sin and our need for redemption and reconciliation. It is clear and not some sort of riddle or code we have to scour for hidden meanings.

What was the mark of Cain? No one knows. If it was important, it would’ve been clearly communicated. What does the mark mean? It meant alienation and warns of the consequence of eternal damnation. We will all go the way of Cain except we repent and trust in Jesus Christ and be reconciled to the Creator and his creation.

And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.

~ Numbers 10:9

Know your enemy and know yourself

Sun Tzu was a firm believer in knowing your enemy and yourself. He warned that failing to know your enemy would lead to as many losses as victories and failing to know yourself puts you in jeopardy in every battle. By knowing your enemy, Tzu referred to knowing your enemy’s capabilities, his strengths and weaknesses. The same holds for knowing your own strengths and weaknesses.

Having a known and named enemy can also be useful for tribal reinforcement. Giving your enemy a name creates a rallying point and defines a target for aiming at. Having a named, common enemy can provide strategic partnerships. Even Pilate and Herod could get along when they were both against the same thing (Luke 23:12). If you’re driving the bus out of town, you can fill the seats with malcontents who will push and shove to board that bus without worrying about where it’s going. But where is the bus headed? That’s the question.

The Enemy Approacheth

In 2017, I was in conversation with some friends and fellow pastors about the benefits and blessings expositional preaching had been to us personally and to our congregations. Among the conferences, fellowships, revivals, and such commonly held by churches, there wasn’t a lot being said about the task of preaching itself. We agreed to have a seminar focused on expositional preaching. Our goal was to offer help and encouragement to all who wanted it in the task of biblical exposition in the pulpit. We primarily had young preachers early in ministry in mind. We put out some feelers to see if there was enough interest to make such a seminar feasible. After all, it would take a lot of planning work and expense to put on. Two things happened that I did not expect.

First, the bare mention of a seminar to encourage biblical exposition in the pulpit caused an immediate hue and cry to rise up across the land. The opposition to exposition was fierce. Preachers lashed out on social media, in articles in papers and church bulletins, from the pulpit, and in personal conversations. Some made phone calls and such behind the scenes to persuade other preachers to never attend such a seminar. Biblical exposition from the pulpit was called heresy, both publicly and privately, and all those who suggested the pulpit was a good place for biblical exposition were called heretics and convicted of apostasy, or departing the faith.

I don’t know about you, but that reaction struck me as odd. How could exposition be such an enemy? Do you know what exposition means? Put simply, exposition means exposing or opening the meaning of a text. To put it more preacherly, exposition means explaining the meaning of any Bible verse or passage in its original contextual meaning. That’s it. Again, being simple, expositional preaching means preaching the Bible accurately, cutting it straight, or rightly dividing the word of truth. What Bible believing Christian, much less preacher or pastor, would object to that?

Let me give you a fictitious example to further clear up any residual confusion over exposition. Let’s take a sample verse:

And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
– John 13:27

How might this text be preached without exposition? The preacher might read the passage and then say, “I want to preach a message from this verse on the thought, ‘that thou doest, do quickly.'” Then he proceeds to preach a cleverly alliterated, three point sermon about time efficiency, productivity, and diligence in our jobs. You’ll have to supply the ‘p’ for each point. Let’s imagine you sat in the pew with your Bible on your lap and listened to this sermon. Regardless of how well the preacher may have spoken or how good the practical advice he gave was, is that what John 13:27 means? Is Jesus there telling us to manage our time wisely and work diligently at our jobs? If the text doesn’t mean that and that is not a valid, direct and necessary implication of the text, then that sermon is not expositional. But, it’s actually worse than that. That sort of sermon is actually abusing and twisting Scripture to support what the preacher wants to say, and it doesn’t matter how good or true the things he wants to say are. He is not preaching the Bible.

Admittedly, that’s a somewhat extreme example, so let’s take another example of the sort that you’ve more likely witnessed. A preacher might take John 13:27 as his text and proceed to preach a message on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Maybe he runs all over the Bible to suggest connections between the virgin birth and his text. The virgin birth is absolutely true and taught in Scripture, a Bible doctrine. Let’s assume that the preacher made completely accurate statements about the virgin birth. That is still not an expositional sermon. Some would object, What’s wrong with it, didn’t he preach the truth? He may have preached the truth of a Bible doctrine, but the problem is that Bible doctrine is not the original intended meaning of John 13:27. To say that John 13:27 teaches the virgin birth through some intricate web of dubious, fanciful, and forced connections is to mishandle the word of God. It is not preaching the Bible accurately. It doesn’t matter whether he’s using a passage to preach election, the church, or some other doctrine. If that is not the original contextual meaning of that passage, he is twisting Scripture to say what he wants to say.

What would exposition look like from John 13:27? The preacher would explain the setting of the verse at the Passover supper and that Jesus was speaking to Judas. Jesus had revealed that he knew Judas was betraying him and that’s what he meant when he told Judas to do quickly what he was going to do. Whatever points and applications are made in the sermon would come from the text. That is exposition. Exposition is merely preaching the Bible accurately and has nothing to do with style, type of sermon, or the preacher’s gifts. It means preaching verses in their original contextual meaning, and any message from John 13:27 must align with its original contextual meaning to be rightly dividing the word of truth. Exposition means a preacher will not take Jesus’ words and use them in any way not in line with what Jesus meant when he said them.

So that’s what exposition means? Yes, that’s what exposition means. Then why would any preacher object to that and oppose it? That’s a good question. It’s very odd to oppose the accurate preaching of the Bible. You would think accurately handling God’s word would be the preacher’s primary objective in the pulpit. I can understand why pulpit charlatans and hucksters oppose exposition, or think it unnecessary. Handling the Bible accurately doesn’t allow them to peddle their merchandise or fill up the large domes they have to pay for. They have a lot of ears to scratch after all. But I can’t give you any good reason why any preacher who valued truth and held to the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture would oppose exposition in the pulpit.

The second surprise came a little later, when we held the actual seminar. I was surprised by how many people attended. I figured we would have about a dozen and I was fine with doing the seminar under those conditions. We ended up with many more people than that and the conference room we used, which was bigger than I thought we would need, was pretty full. Nearly everyone that attended expressed appreciation and said they had benefited from it. Many of them returned to the second seminar almost two years later. For the most part, everyone that attended was overwhelmingly positive about it. There were some opportunists who crept in unawares to spy out our liberty and after a small sample proceeded forthwith to spread false reports about what we were saying, but that was a small happening and only received by those already disposed to hear it.

We later made the videos available on YouTube and had many watch and commend them. We heard from some that watched the videos and reached out to us secretly for fear of the Jews to give us thanks and express their appreciation for the seminar. Some of those that attended, confessed they were skeptical due to the opposition and some confessed to being accosted privately and warned to have nothing to do with such lewd fellows of the baser sort. Overall, the reception of the seminars was far better than I expected. I will leave this point with the links so you can see for yourself what monstrous heresies were spouted, what gross errors were embraced, and whether or not exposition is the enemy of truth. You can access the videos, audio, and PDF files for 2017 here and for 2019 here.

All Quiet in the Camp

What sort of alarms were raised against exposition in Baptist churches? There were numerous objections, such as Jesus and Paul never preached expositionally, exposition is boring, exposition is too hard, exposition is too easy, exposition doesn’t address current issues, and more. I communicated with some directly about objections and was confronted at conferences with objections. If you’re interested in the objections and answers to them, I recommend you access the seminar links where there is an entire session devoted to answering them. Amongst all the objections and accusations against expositional preaching though, something was strangely absent. I never once saw or heard anyone take the Bible and show from the text of Scripture why biblical exposition was so wrong it ought to be opposed with the heat of a thousand suns and why it put fellows like me down among the Alexander the Coppersmiths and Judas Iscariots. I have yet to see a single Bible verse offered to justify condemning as heretics everyone who believes the Bible ought to be preached accurately. Odd.

As a drill or test of the warning systems, it is encouraging that the watchdogs lying at the orthodox gate can bark. They’re capable of raising a ruckus and that’s not bad when a ruckus is precisely what’s needed. When the enemy is approaching, you want a dog with stout throat and lungs to set to the business at hand of raising an alarm that can’t be ignored. They at least excelled the failed watchmen of Israel (Isaiah 56:10). A bit of zeal and exuberant barking can be good, but it has to be according to truth. The alarm has be raised over a proper enemy.

The most barked up objection was that expositional preaching would lead to the loss of Baptist doctrines. Upon examination, this assertion means that the accurate preaching of the Bible in context will result in losing Baptist doctrines. At the risk of repeating myself, I must say that is odd. Is the accurate preaching of Scripture the enemy of Baptists? If your doctrinal system is biblical, how could the accurate preaching of the Bible be any danger or threat to it? It wasn’t clear to me which Baptist doctrines were in jeopardy, but I assume they meant teachings Baptists have historically believed and defended, such as the gospel and justification by faith, Scripture as the sole and final rule of all faith and practice, the independence and autonomy of the local church, individual soul liberty and freedom of conscience, the priesthood of every believer, and so on. I cannot see why exposition would threaten any of those doctrines. I’ve preached on all of those and more while preaching sequential exposition through Acts and Romans in the last couple of years.

The dogs barked a lot about the loss of Baptist doctrines, but it’s difficult to measure the loss of Baptist doctrines today. Based on what Baptists are saying in the pulpit and in print, Baptist doctrines don’t seem to be fixed in stone. While the watchdogs raised alarms about potentially losing Baptist doctrines, there hasn’t been so much as a growl or a snarl when Baptist doctrines are actually being lost among them by the mishandling of God’s word. I’m afraid we don’t know the enemy and we don’t know ourselves. This is the position Sun Tzu thought most dangerous.

The Enemy Within

Exposition is not the enemy of truth. It’s actually the lack of exposition that is the enemy of truth. When we allow exposition to be neglected, we open up the pulpit for the mishandling of God’s word by preaching passages out of context. This may be done with good intentions, such as preaching true doctrines, but the result will be the same. True Baptist doctrine is lost when God’s word is not handled accurately.

In reading Baptist histories and the historic writings of Baptists, we regularly encounter their high view of Scripture. Baptists generally viewed the Scripture as the sole and all-sufficient rule for all faith and practice. They championed the translation of the Scriptures into the languages people spoke and understood. They stood for a Bible in every man’s hand that he could read for himself and abhorred anything that would be put between a man and his Bible, whether it be a church or a so called priest. They stood for religious freedom so every man would be free to follow his own conscience in subordination to the teachings of Scripture.

Such a high view of Scripture demands expositional preaching because God’s word is the only authoritative word and the only content that should be preached. The preacher should be tied to the text, speak where God has spoken, and be silent where God has not spoken. It’s odd that anyone claiming a heritage of high Scripture views would object to accurately handling that word through biblical exposition. Baptist pulpits and presses don’t seem to be too tied to the text when Baptist preachers claim to be getting their sermons from dreams and visions where God speaks to them, or they are speaking audibly with God when they lay on their left side at night because that’s where God shows up. Many claim that God has told them this or that, or God has told them to preach a particular message and they’re only being obedient by preaching it. If such preachers had Bereans in their audience who would search Scripture to confirm what they were saying, how would they confirm that God spoke to this preacher and told him to preach this message? What chapter and verse would verify the preachers’ words. Why aren’t the dogs barking when preachers are giving a “Thus saith the Lord” that isn’t in the text of Scripture?

Leaving off exposition that is committed to literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutics leaves room for a host of things to be preached and added to the historic Baptist faith. Today, we hear of Bible prophecies of America, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. We hear admonitions to pray for the dead. Even in churches that are pre-trib and pre-mill, we hear the covenant theology and the eschatology of the Reformers being borrowed to preach post-mill concepts of the kingdom and a hybrid replacement theology that says the New Covenant was made with the church and references being made to Israel and the temple as the church. Such replacement theology is advanced by spiritualizing or allegorizing passages, particularly from the Old Testament, to be speaking about the church. These doctrines do not come from exposition but from the lack of it.

Milburn Cockrell recognized the hermeneutics of hyper-churchism and how it contributed to the rise of the priesthood of the church doctrine in his 1979 booklet, Sacerdotalism and the Baptists. He was still warning about hyper-churchism twenty years later in his book, Here Comes the Bride. The church has become so elevated in the pulpit and print that we hear things at least sounding like the church can be worshiped because she is united to Christ and that other “Christians” will be bowing before Baptists in eternity. No, Baptist doctrines do not seem to be set in stone, but rather are open to addition. As it turns out, exposition doesn’t result in the loss of Baptist doctrines, but the lack of it clearly adds “doctrine” to the list of Baptist doctrines. If Baptist doctrines are in danger, it’s because exposition is not being practiced or demanded and the alarm is not being raised.

The War’s End

The war on exposition is a long mistake in the wrong direction. Exposition is not the enemy of truth, Baptist doctrine, or orthodox Christianity. Handling the Bible accurately only leads to and establishes us in the truth God has revealed in Scripture. If our doctrine and practice are not consistent with the Bible, they need to be corrected. Lack of exposition does real damage and sets preachers and churches on trajectories away from biblical truth and toward errors. By all means, raise alarms when threats arise, but take heed to the word unless you be barking up the wrong tree, or barking at the wrong enemy, so as to not mix my metaphors.

And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.
~ 1 Chronicles 12:32

In the early going, many conservative Christians had vowed on foundational principles they would never vote for Donald Trump. The terrifying prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, though, spring-fed water at about the midst of that block wall foundation. Directly, Donald Trump wasn’t all bad. He had a way of talking to his political opponents and the liberal media that made us snicker to our buddies. Never mind that spring produced both sweet and bitter water, he was saying some things out loud that many have wanted to say but lacked the courage or opportunity, or perhaps the sense of impropriety.

The prospect of draining the swamp and making ‘Murica great again began to resonate. Maybe some of those economic ideas weren’t so bad. The idea of American Made sounded good and decreasing foreign dependencies wasn’t a hard sell. Building a wall was something that somebody in the Bible somewhere was once in favor of, so that had to be good. Plus, a bunch of liberal celebrities were supposed to renounce U. S. citizenship should Trump win the election. That would be fun. Many embraced the inevitable and thought it was time to hold the nose and pull the lever.

Not HaHa Funny

But then something funny happened. Pinched noses became flared nostrils, supplying the lungs with abundant inflation to bellow full-throated support for Donald Trump. He was embraced and openly promoted. But it got stranger still. No longer were conservative Christians merely hopeful that the President’s policies would be good for the country, many are convinced Donald Trump is God’s choice instrument to restore America.

Some brethren of the more zealous sort are conducting a vigorous write-in campaign for Donald Trump. From pulpits and presses we have listened to Donald Trump being compared to the Persian King Cyrus, who issued the decree allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem. Trump has been compared to famous revivalists and reformers in Israel, like Jehu and Josiah. His “sufferings” have been viewed as messianic persecutions against a righteous leader who would establish justice in the land. The blessed hope of his presidency is the supposed appointment of righteous judges to the Supreme Court so there shall be justice from sea to shining sea. They have thus far stopped short of calling him God’s anointed. Something about that doesn’t set quite right, but they haven’t put their fingers on it yet. That may not be far off though.

The New Crisis

This brings us to the new crisis for conservative Christians. The new crisis isn’t quite like the old crisis. No, no. The old crisis involved a choice for the lesser of two evils … Ah, the lesser of two evils … Those were good times and simpler times. No, the crisis choice now is for the greatest of goods, for the trueness of conservatism. Loyal support for Donald Trump has become the new badge of conservatism and rightness. Never-trumpers today are mocked and dismissed. Such pestilent fellows are fit for nothing but treasons, stratagems, and spoils. The crisis choice is not whether to be a conservative, but what kind of conservative to be.

The deep divides in this country extend to the ranks of conservatives. We have political conservatives, economic conservatives, moral conservatives, and probably many more than I can recall. There is no necessity for any of these to overlap. They can, but they don’t have to. Conservative Christians giving unabashed support to Donald Trump have clearly chosen to move more conservative, whether we call it political, social, economic, moral, etc.

Of course, they must needs find justification in Holy Writ for such exuberance and support for Donald Trump as missio Dei. The great irony in all this is that efforts to become more conservative politically have resulted in becoming biblically liberal. Liberal expositors mishandle, misuse, twist, and even rewrite Scripture to suit their purposes and justify their choices. Such support for Donald Trump has bent and crimped the Scripture and rewritten the biblical narrative to tell us all about what God is doing to save and restore America. Is that what the Bible is about? Conservatives cry out for textualists on the Supreme Court, but apparently textualists aren’t needed in church behind pulpits.

Not About Voting

I don’t care who you vote for in November. Voting is a right, a privilege, and a free choice of conscience. You will account for your stewardship before God, as will I. But, don’t tell me how Donald Trump is “like Jesus” and voting for him is sure to dispatch the signalmen to the middle of America so they can direct the New Jerusalem to set down somewhere between Chicago and New York. Don’t misuse the Bible to tell me how God plans the salvation and restoration of America. Don’t insert Donald Trump into the lines of Scripture so that he runs parallel the heroes of the faith. Be a conservative. A biblical conservative. Conserve the original contextual meaning of the text of Scripture.

How did we all the sudden get so many biblical liberals among conservative Christians? That’s a good question and my first suggestion would be that it hasn’t been as all the sudden as you might think. Mix together a penchant for spiritualizing Scripture, a neglect of contextual exposition, a habit of using the Bible for support, and a strong dose of Americanism, and you have a recipe for all sorts of textual tampering and tomfoolery.

The pulpits in small conservative churches in America left the text decades ago in favor of tribalistic indoctrinations. They’ve been mishandling the Bible this way for years. What is all the sudden about it is mishandling it to justify a politician, as if his presidency is some sort of holy quest.

The pulpits and pews are more attuned to the conservative news outlets than they are the 66 books. The Bible tells us repeatedly not to put our trust in horses and princes, but every four years we’re assailed by professing Christians telling us how this is the most important election and if we don’t elect this or that candidate all is lost.

We all need to calm down and have a long hot soak in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. We need to listen to the story the Bible is actually telling and quit trying to write America and Donald Trump into the narrative of Scripture. Write-ins are for ballots, not for Bibles.

The Bible has things to say to America, as well as it does to China, Mexico, Canada, Zambia, and Chile. However, the Bible is not about America. God has made no covenant with America, nor promised this new land to her founding fathers. Actually studying the Bible will show that America is not a nation per se, at least not in the biblical sense. America is not an ethnicity or family, it’s a melting pot. There is only one man who will establish justice on the earth and cover it with God’s glory. He is the King Jesus Christ. He is God’s Anointed and the Bible is about him.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
~ Acts 10:47

I don’t have much more to go on than the text of the article, and that’s what I want to interact with. I am using the text as the article was sent to me in Word format. The article contained 3,647 words in 21 paragraphs. I will put the text of his article in blockquotes and number the paragraphs in brackets for reference, e.g., [1]. I do this in hope I don’t misrepresent him and to help anyone interested to follow the interaction. Hereafter, I will address Bro. Enyedi directly.

The Problem Stated

[1] Some time ago I learned about a practice among our churches which is strange to us: that of baptizing young children. We in Romania were perplexed when we heard of it because it seems to us so contrary to the strong stands our kind of churches take on baptism and church truth. We expressed our concerns both in private and public. Since this practice seems to be gaining more of a foothold, we would like to call everyone’s attention to the potential harmful effects that such a practice may have in the life of individuals and in our church life. Some may find this article offensive and think it exaggerated, but I wish it would be perceived as a token of our love and appreciation for our sister churches in the U.S. All I ask is that they give us a fair hearing.

The problem identified is “baptizing young children,” and since you qualified the churches as, “our churches,” and “our kind of churches,” I am assuming you mean Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Churches. It is important to note that my remarks are not concerning Southern Baptists, or any other groups, or the Arminian practices of high-pressure child evangelism. The tone of the opening gives the impression this problem is something of an epidemic in the United States among “our churches.” It may be a big problem, but I am unaware of it. Most of the churches I am aware of here are hardly baptizing anybody, much less young children.

The opening paragraph ends with a request for a “fair hearing.” I infer from your request for a fair hearing that you are also inclined to give a fair hearing, which would be a discussion and the reason I am interacting with your article in this open way.

Toward a Cautious Reading of History

[2] I have done my best to research the matter and to understand why Baptists would adopt such a practice. I learned that baptizing preteen children is of recent origin. It started in the 20th century (there may be exceptions, but I haven’t come across any yet) and is mostly practiced in America and in places where American Baptists have a strong influence. In other parts of the world Baptists usually delay baptism until a person reaches at least teenage years or even adulthood. This has been generally true throughout our long Baptist history. Back in Reformation times we find that even some early Reformers (Zwingli is one such example) recommended at first that parents would wait in bringing their children to be baptized until they were 12 years old. What would our forefathers, the Anabaptists, say if they saw us baptizing children that are younger than those initially baptized by the Reformers? Looking at history I learned that baptizing preteen children is something new among our Baptist churches and, as with any novelty, it should be put to the test to see whether it is something harmless or not.

You seem well-read in Baptist history. Would you provide some references that speak specifically to this subject, either the baptizing of young children or the deliberate delaying of baptism? I would be interested to read those. I am aware of a couple of statements in the mid-19th century.

1. Of the many boys and girls whom we have received into Church-fellowship, I can say of them all, they have all gladdened my heart, and I have never received any with greater confidence than I have these: this I have noticed about them, they have greater joy and rejoicing than any others; and I take it, it is because they do not ask so many questions as others do, but take Jesus Christ’s word as they find it, and believe in it.
   (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon No. 581)
2. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church-membership.
   (J. L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order, p. 145)

I am not asserting agreement with Spurgeon or Dagg in everything, but merely pointing out a couple of examples. Spurgeon speaks in that sermon of the salvation of the very young, such that they are lisping their profession of faith in Christ. He is directly refuting infant baptism/sprinkling in the sermon but does refer to children making conscious professions of faith and being received into church fellowship. Yes, I am assuming he means by baptism because I don’t know any other way of being received into church fellowship. If he means something else, that is not clear in the sermon.

You concluded your historical research deciding this is “something new.” Did you not find it in history because it didn’t happen, or could there be other reasons? If you found specific references to delaying baptisms, were they delayed by scriptural precept, or were they delayed in reaction, or overreaction, to Rome and the reformers? There could be many possible explanations why one might not find the practice in the annals of church history and it would take extensive research to draw reasonable conclusions. I agree with your following paragraph that history is not the rule of faith and practice, but the Bible is.

Part of the problem with researching this subject in history is demonstrated in your article. You have tried to address something specifically but have done so in general terms so that I’m still not clear on exactly what you mean. You have written of “young children,” “preteen children,” “teenage years,” “adulthood,” “children,” “little children,” and the Swiss Reformer not baptizing until “12 years old.” In one place you stated, “the conversion of little children (their repentance and faith) is something that cannot be verified until years later when they grow into adulthood,” and then later wrote, “Teenage years are the earliest usual age when the first fruits of true conversion can be seen, therefore, we believe it is wise that baptism is not considered before anyone reaches this age.” You also wrote, “Delaying baptism until definite signs of conversion are obvious (in later teenage years at least) will confirm to children the seriousness of the subject and will lead them to continually evaluate themselves until they are assured by the Lord regarding their salvation.” So is it adulthood when conversion can be verified satisfactorily enough for baptism, or is it the teenage years, which start at thirteen? Or, is it the later teenage years? What is the exact minimum age for baptism according to Scripture? At what year of age can we declare someone a valid candidate where one year less of age would make them invalid candidates according to the Bible?

Another problem is the way we think about childhood and maturity is not the same at all times in all cultures. Our modern conception of childhood and mature adulthood is a product of the development of child psychology of the 20th century. In the 21st century we now have a further designation of kidult that refers to delayed adulthood where independence is not established until ages in the 20’s and 30’s for some. Periods of schooling are extended and marriage is delayed later than in previous generations.

Ideas about maturity, responsibility, and capacity change. Compulsory school attendance in the 19th century ended at 14. Most of us don’t have to go too far back in our family histories to find brides who were 14 or 15 years old, maybe younger. At 17, George Washington was named the Official Surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia. David Farragut was born in 1801 and was a commissioned midshipman aboard the warship Essex at age 9. He served in the navy during the war of 1812. He was given command of a ship and a specific mission to accomplish when he was 12. At age 10 or 11, Clara Barton began nursing her brother back to health with a competence that surprised the medical staff and saw it through for two years until he was recovered.

My point is that we need to be careful when reading history that we are not projecting our modern concepts and notions onto the historians of that day. I suppose we also need to be careful when we talk about what “children” are capable of and not capable of.

The Interpretation of Scripture

[3] But what does the Bible say? With us it is the Bible not history or any tradition that should have the final say in the matter. When we look in the Scriptures we do not find a minimum age of the candidate stated. But does this silence grant us the liberty to baptize children at any age? No, it does not. Even though we do not have a minimum age of the candidate stated, when we look at the baptisms in the book of Acts we first find that personal faith in Christ is a prerequisite for baptism. One that does not or cannot believe in Christ is not a proper candidate for baptism. In the book of Acts those that believed the Gospel are repeatedly described as “men and women,” (Acts 5:14; 17:12). All the baptisms in the New Testament were performed on “men and women,” (Acts, 8:12) and church members are described as “men and women,” (Acts, 8:3, etc.). In the book of Acts we do not find little children believing, being baptized and becoming church members. We have enough evidence to see a pattern even though a minimum age is not given: the person baptized must be old enough to understand the great truths of the Gospel and independent enough to declare personal faith and loyalty to Christ.

You wrote, “When we look in the Scriptures we do not find a minimum age of the candidate stated.” I agree the Bible never gives a minimum age for baptism and I agree we do not prove Bible doctrine from silence. The argument from silence is a double-edged sword because it leads to the regulative regress—The Bible doesn’t say to do it, but neither does it say not to do it. The argument from silence is viewed as either restrictive or permissive. I have seen the argument from silence used to prove the sprinkling of babies, that instrumental accompaniment should not be used for congregational singing, exclusive psalmody, praying to saints, and more. We complain about it because it’s used arbitrarily and without contextual warrant. Silence can be meaningful, but it needs to be shown how it is meaningful and why from the context. Even when silence is meaningful, it is never conclusive alone. It might add something and it might not. At best, silence can only be supportive and not definitive.

The crux of your biblical argument is in this third paragraph. Everything else you say is based on a presuppositional conclusion you have drawn from a few examples and a form of the argument from silence. The structure of argument generically stated is: the Bible gives a few examples of A, B, and C; therefore, only A, B, and C are valid and D through Z are invalid. To put it another way, the statement of anything is the statement of everything. You have taken the restrictive view of the argument from silence—everything not stated is excluded. The argument runs like this: The Bible says A happened, therefore only A ever happened and X did not happen.

Interpretations have to be validated by the Scripture. With a valid interpretative principle, we draw valid conclusions and they are consistent. So let’s test this principle and see if the conclusion is valid. Acts chapter 1 tells of the church tarrying together in Jerusalem as Jesus commanded. Verses 13-14 specifically name the eleven disciples, women, Mary, and Jesus’s brothers. Verse 15 gives the membership of the church as “about an hundred and twenty.” There were 15 men (eleven disciples and Jesus’s four brothers), Mary, and unnumbered women. According to the principle, there must have been about 104 women and no other men. Of course, we encounter a problem when we get to verse 23 and find two men were among their number “from the baptism of John,” named Joseph and Matthias who were not brothers of Jesus. When Peter addressed the church, he addressed the “Men and brethren” (Acts 1:16); that is andres adelphoi, or brother men, though we know women were present.

Acts 2 gives the first record of baptisms in the book. Verse 5 specifically states men were in Jerusalem. When Peter addressed the multitude, he addressed men (vv. 14, 22, 29). Verse 41 states that 3,000 were baptized after receiving the word gladly. According to the principle, we must conclude that the 3,000 were only men. The account only specifies men being in the multitude. Does this seem reasonable? Peter stated what was happening on the day of Pentecost was a partial fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel that signaled they were in the last days. He spoke of the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh, including sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, and handmaidens. He commanded everyone to be baptized upon the repentance of sins and said, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:41).

Acts 4:4 reports that through the preaching of Jesus, the number of men in the Jerusalem church increased to about 5,000. Apparently, they had not added any women to this point?

Chapter 5 speaks of “young men” in verse 6 and 10. The word in verse 6 is neoteroi and means a youth down to one recent born. The word in verse 10 is neaniskoi and means a youth under 40 years, which was considered full age. Verse 14 does say “men and women” were added, as does 8:12 and 17:12. Those passages could mean that in those instances men and women 40 and over were baptized or believed. The phrase could also be less specific in order to emphasize the diversity of the many people who were being baptized. Unless a specific age is given, the words used are not specific and can cover a range of ages. We could quibble over the ages. Some scholars say full age was reached at 20 and others say 40. Regardless of that, we cannot establish a precise age from the Bible.

In the case of the household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16), we are only told that all of the house were baptized. The baby sprinklers use this as their strong argument. We must agree that because the Bible doesn’t give an example of an eight day old baby being baptized, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The answer is not to artificially constrain the text. Regardless of the silence, we know baby sprinklers are wrong because of the true nature of salvation and baptism. The Bible teaches salvation includes conscious faith and that baptism does not regenerate. If the Spirit had wanted to teach an age restriction, he could have done so in any of the didactic teachings or commands about salvation or baptism, but he did not do so.

The problem is you are arguing the same way the baby sprinklers are, only in the reverse. They assume baby sprinkling and assume the households mentioned must have included babies. You are assuming adult baptisms and assume the households were only adults, though you cannot specify an age. We don’t have to do this to prove a point. This is a narrative account of an event. Regardless of who was in the household, we don’t find anything inconsistent with the Bible doctrine of the nature of salvation or baptism. Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to them, commanded them to believe, and then they were baptized (Acts 16:30-33).

Furthermore, if we take this method of interpretation and go to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, we read that the twelve were in the room with Jesus (Matthew 26:20) and that only men were at the table (John 13:28). By this method, we have no example of women partaking of the Lord’s Supper and must conclude it is for adult men only.

This interpretive method does not work for at least two reasons. 1) Acts is narrative history. You are not applying this method to specific commands but rather to statements of what happened. 2) There is no scriptural reason to interpret this way. This principle of interpretation must be demonstrated from Scripture that we should take the statement of anything to be the statement of everything.

The Fruits of Repentance

[4] But what about little children that profess faith in Christ? Do we not see in the Book of Acts that all those that profess faith are baptized? Why not baptize them? I believe this is often the reasoning behind this practice in our churches. There are several things to consider. First, all those mentioned in the book of Acts that professed faith are men and women not children. Second, since God-given repentance and faith produce visible changes in one’s life, we should demand signs of true conversion before baptizing anyone at any age. This is what John the Baptist did; he refused to baptize those who did not show “fruits meet for repentance.” Is this also true for the baptisms in the book of Acts? Yes, even though it is not specifically mentioned. Let us remember that all those that professed faith in Jesus as Christ came from a non-Christian background. For the Jewish leaders our Lord Jesus was a deceiver: an impostor. His followers were hated, mocked and persecuted. There was an immediate price to pay for anyone that publicly professed faith in Him. So if a person professed such faith it meant that they were ready to pay the price for following Him. This is still true in non-Christian societies in our day and time. (Think of a man or woman in a Muslim country professing Jesus as Lord and Savior. Such a profession is proof in itself of conversion because there is a high price attached to it). But in societies that have a Christian tradition there is no such price tag implied in our profession of faith and this is why we should wait until we see fruits of conversion in any candidate. So who was baptized in the book of Acts? Men and women that professed faith in Christ: their profession involving the readiness to pay a high price for discipleship.

The example of John the Baptist is pertinent to this discussion. We do find John calling for fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8), but the text says more than that. There were those that came to him and many were Pharisees and Sadducees, and some were publicans and soldiers. John rebuked them for trusting in Abraham rather than Jesus (Matthew 3:8-9; Luke 3:8), lack of love for their neighbor (Luke 3:11), extortion (Luke 3:13), abusiveness, false witness, and covetousness (Luke 3:14). They also doubted his message and questioned if John was the Messiah (Luke 3:15). John rebuked their sin and pointed them to Christ, the coming One (Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16-17). So John did not baptize those who did not believe in Christ and repent of their sin.

That’s not all of the story though. John came preaching a message of repentance and the coming of the kingdom by the coming of the Messiah (Matthew 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). There were other people that came to John besides those we looked at in the previous paragraph. These others came receiving the word John preached, confessing their sins, and John baptized them (Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:5). There were those John baptized and those he didn’t, but what we don’t find with John or the churches in Acts is any lengthy probation period between conversion and baptism. Those John didn’t baptize were obviously not scriptural candidates because they were not believing and repenting.

At the root of this issue is the question of who is a scriptural candidate for baptism? This question is answered by studying the didactic teaching and explicit commands concerning salvation, i.e. repentance and faith, and baptism. The Scripture does not set an age for either, so why should we set an age? Any age we set is going to be arbitrary. A person is either a scriptural candidate for baptism or not, regardless of age. Trying to talk about this in terms of age cannot be done from the biblical text.

Improper Candidates

[5] The Lord can save someone at an early age. But the conversion of little children (their repentance and faith) is something that cannot be verified until years later when they grow into adulthood and become independent enough to make their own choices and experience life on their own. This is one reason why we should delay baptism of children that come to profess Christ. When children profess Christ without being manipulated they are no doubt sincere. They are sincere even when they are manipulated: this is one of the great qualities of a child that all of us adults should desire to imitate. We should be aware that children are naive, easily influenced and changeable. These are actually good qualities because they make a child trainable. But they also make it difficult to recognize the permanent changes that conversion brings in someone’s life. Despite of all our precautions and good intentions, it is so very likely that a child will make a profession in all sincerity without being really saved. If a child was really saved in his preteen years, then the cementing of his individuality in teenage years will confirm the genuineness of his conversion. Such teenagers will be able now to understand better the great truths of the Gospel and the greatness of salvation in Christ. Teenage years are the earliest usual age when the first fruits of true conversion can be seen, therefore, we believe it is wise that baptism is not considered before anyone reaches this age.

You wrote: “The Lord can save someone at an early age. But the conversion of little children (their repentance and faith) is something that cannot be verified until years later when they grow into adulthood and become independent enough to make their own choices and experience life on their own.” This conclusion is based on what Scripture? As far as I can tell, this is based on the presupposition you’ve drawn from a couple of examples of supposed adults being baptized using an unproven method of interpreting silence. Your two statements are inconsistent. Here is the shape of your argument:

1. A person can be saved at an early age
2. Salvation cannot be verified by us until adulthood
3. Therefore, baptism must be delayed for many years

Churches are commanded to baptize those who come to believe (Matthew 28:19). All who come to believe are commanded to be baptized (Acts 2:38). The great commission is: go, make disciples, baptize, and teach. The idea of making a disciple, then teaching and observing them for years, and then baptizing them is not consistent with the command nor the practice of the churches in the New Testament. Are we to take one who has been saved and instruct them to be disobedient to God (1 Peter 3:21), to not publicly profess Jesus Christ and their faith in him (Romans 6:3-4), and to deny their new identity in Christ (Colossians 2:6-13).

My point again is that we are to examine candidates for baptism. John refused to baptize Pharisees because they did not come in repentance and faith. It wasn’t that they were professing Christ and repenting of sin and John told them they would have to wait a few years to make sure. Again, he did baptize those who came repenting and believing. It is simply not about age. In 1 John we have many criteria for judging the claims of salvation, but not one of those is based on age.

It is apparent at this point you have added three extrabiblical requirements.

1. Minimum age
2. Lengthy probation/waiting period for baptism
3. Personal independence

No Scripture proves any of those. Presuppositions based on silence in a few narrative passages does not prove any of those. If you’re going to write to churches to correct them for the error of baptizing too young and not following these requirements, then you are going to have to actually demonstrate them from Scripture, including a clear minimum age that is too young. Churches have a responsibility in judgment concerning baptism, mission work, church discipline, finances, and more. Churches have to continually seek wisdom, search the Scriptures, pray, exercise prudence in all matters. A young child may well be an improper candidate, but for that matter, a forty-year-old can be an improper candidate as well. John discerned the Pharisees were improper candidates and did not baptize them and neither should we baptize improper candidates.

You have argued that a child is an improper candidate, though you haven’t exactly given an age. For sake of the argument, let’s say a preteen makes a profession and is baptized. They grow into adulthood, which also hasn’t been established by age. They have consistently shown the fruits you’ve talked about in their life and have been faithful to the local body. At 40 years old they move to Bocsa and wish to unite with the church there. What would you do? According to what you’ve expressed in this article, you would have to explain to them that their baptism was invalid based on their age making them an improper candidate when they were baptized. You would then have to baptize them in order to receive them into membership. Are you willing to own that consequence of what you are teaching? Even if you do practice this in consistency with what you wrote, that doesn’t prove it from Scripture but only demonstrates consistency on your part.

False Professions

[6] As children grow they begin to explore and discover their own individuality and the surrounding world. In teenage years children have the natural tendency to disobey their parents and question the established facts that they were taught. This rebellion against authority is part of the process of becoming independent from their parents and building their own individuality. They want to put everything to the test and see for themselves if what they were taught is true or not. These are also the years in which we discover our sexual desires. It is a time of being self-centered mostly because it is the time when we discover our own selves: who we really are. The matters of faith are not excepted from questioning and many teenagers and young adults discover that what they thought to have been a conversion was not something real.

[7] There are two reactions to this sad discovery: some in an attempt to be honest with themselves will deny their former profession of faith to the disappointment of their parents while others, even though doubting the reality of their conversion, will not deny it. Some will not have the courage to re-evaluate themselves from fear of finding a lack of true conversion and will continue to trust themselves in that profession even if real fruit is lacking. Outwardly they will keep a form of obedience and service to Christ without being changed inwardly. In the cases above the early profession of faith caused more harm than good to everyone involved.

[8] But there is something else to consider regarding conversion. Let us remember what conversion really is. It consists of repentance toward God and faith in Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is more than being sorry for sin. A lost person can “repent” in that sense too and at any age. But this is not God-given repentance. Even if the person is sincere such a repentance does not last long because the nature has not been changed. The apostle Paul talked about a godly sorrow that works repentance so being sorry for sin and true repentance should not be confused. God-given repentance is a total change of heart: it is an attitude that involves our intellect, emotions and will. Our intellect is involved because we must understand the message of the Gospel. The Gospel starts with the bad news for the sinner and talks about our rebellion against God and the just condemnation for our sin. The sinner hearing the Gospel needs to thoroughly evaluate himself (his past experiences, his character, his world view) through the lens of the Gospel message. The Spirit will convict him and assure him that the message is true. His conscience will bear witness to his failures to live by God’s standard. The outcome is that his self sufficiency and confidence in his own merits will crash. He learns that he stands before God already condemned and awaiting the execution of that condemnation.

[9] When he reaches the sense of total helplessness and realizes that there is no way he can escape the just condemnation of God the Spirit will point him toward the Person and work of Lord Jesus Christ who bore our sins and paid in full our debt. The helpless sinner will then cast himself at the feet of Jesus, cling to Him as his only help and understanding the magnitude of His love and grace will pledge his unconditional allegiance to His Lord and trust Him with his life. Faith in Christ is more than agreement with some statements or facts. It implies faithfulness or loyalty to Him. But that doesn’t come without an ability to comprehend the cost of service to Him. And this means that we understand what we’re giving up and what we are taking upon ourselves when we declare our faith in and allegiance to Him.

Some of what I would say would start to get repetitive, so I want to make only one observation from this section. The concern in this section, and also in some other places in the article, is false professions. False professions are real and are concerning. False professions, though, come in all ages, shapes, and sizes. Just to clarify again, I am considering churches where the Gospel is preached and not places where people, especially young children, are pressured and manipulated into decisions and repeating prayers.

The answer to false professions is to consistently preach the true Gospel, not to add extrabiblical protections against false professions. If Jesus (John 6:60, 70-71), Philip (Acts 8:9-13, 18-23), and Paul (2 Timothy 4:10) had false professions, we will also. In fact, the Bible assures us we will have false professions by the parables of the sower, the wheat and tares, the net, the wise and foolish virgins; the visions of future judgments (Matthew 7:21-23; 25:31-46); the reality of false teachers in our midst (Acts 20:29-30); and further warnings. If we are to guard against false professions by extra-strenuous practices, why were we not told so in Scripture? Why are we not given special procedures for dealing with special groups of people, e.g., preteens, teens, young adults, adults, etc.?

The Bible also tells us how false professors are dealt with. Some will be weeded out by persecutions (Matthew 13:21). Some will fall away into temptations (Matthew 13:22; 2 Timothy 4:10). Some will be removed by church discipline (Matthew 18:17-18; 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). Some will depart of their own (1 John 2:18-19). Some will go through their whole life never being exposed as a hypocrite and even self-deceived until judgment (Matthew 7:21-23). Ultimately, God is the judge and he is the one who knows men’s hearts.

Our responsibility in light of this is not to add extra requirements but to do what Jesus commanded us to do and teach the baptized believers all things Christ commanded (Matthew 28:20). Consider Paul’s example. He wrote letters to those he called brethren and he was deliberate and explicitly clear in preaching the Gospel to them. We must be consistently clear about sin, depravity, unrighteousness, and self-righteousness. We must be consistently clear about saving faith and God’s grace in salvation apart from works. We must be consistently clear about repentance and calling men to repentance. We must be consistently clear about our standing and new identity in Jesus Christ and not in gifts, goodness, intelligence, maturity, baptism, etc. We must be consistently clear that saving faith brings forth fruit of good works and perseveres unto the end.

Regeneration

[10] God-given repentance and faith involve the deepest of our emotions and the strongest determination of our will. But they also involve our intellect. They involve the ability to understand concepts like life, death, good, evil, justice, forgiveness, service, love, sacrifice, etc. They also involve the ability to know ourselves and evaluate our past actions, character and world view in light of the statements of the Gospel. It should be obvious that preteen children are not able to comprehend the Gospel as described above except in a limited and superficial way. God can save them even with limited understanding, but there is no guarantee of true conversion until they will be independent enough to make their own choices: to know themselves and discover their own identity. No one can be given assurance of salvation until they come to understand the magnitude of things involved in their conversion. Therefore, when young children are baptized there is no definite proof that their conversion is real. But their baptism is actually a confirmation to them that they are truly saved in the estimation of the adults around them (parents, church leaders and members) who understand conversion much better than they. If they are not truly saved as often is the case then they are led to trust in a false profession: they are given a false hope. If the Lord does not show them their condition later in life they will be lost religious people. Baptizing young children puts them into a worse position than the infants baptized by the Protestants who encourage such to make a profession later in life. When Baptists baptize young children they do so upon what they consider genuine profession of faith and children will naturally trust in that profession (genuine or not) since the adults around them confirmed it by accepting them for baptism. Delaying baptism until definite signs of conversion are obvious (in later teenage years at least) will confirm to children the seriousness of the subject and will lead them to continually evaluate themselves until they are assured by the Lord regarding their salvation. This is far better for the children because if they were not truly saved in early years they avoid the discouragement of finding that they weren’t saved even though the adults around them assured them that they were by approving their baptism.

You wrote: “They involve the ability to understand concepts like life, death, good, evil, justice, forgiveness, service, love, sacrifice, etc. They also involve the ability to know ourselves and evaluate our past actions, character and world view in light of the statements of the Gospel. It should be obvious that preteen children are not able to comprehend the Gospel as described above except in a limited and superficial way. God can save them even with limited understanding, but there is no guarantee of true conversion until they will be independent enough to make their own choices: to know themselves and discover their own identity.”

I am very confused by these statements. Earlier you wrote, “The Lord can save someone at an early age.” Then here you wrote, “preteen children are not able to comprehend the Gospel … except in a limited and superficial way.” Then you wrote, “God can save them even with a limited understanding, but there is no guarantee of true conversion until they will be independent enough to make their own choices…”

Is regeneration conditioned on maturity, ability to comprehend, and fully understand “life, death, good, evil, justice, forgiveness, service, love, sacrifice, etc.”? Or, is regeneration a supernatural, sovereign, monergistic work of the Spirit where he gives life, faith, and repentance to those chosen by God unto salvation? Is regeneration with the effectual drawing of God unto Christ for salvation not based on anything we are, have done, or can do? Does regeneration happen at the time sovereignly appointed by God before we were ever born (Galatians 1:15-16) according to his will and not our’s?

Also, regardless of age, our confidence is never to be in our baptism but in Christ alone. Why would we assume anyone of any age to have assurance of salvation based on their baptism? That’s actually covenant theology and not the biblical Gospel.

Church Membership

[11] There is something else to consider: what are the effects of this practice upon church membership. When we are baptized we are immediately incorporated into the church body. In this body all members are equal even though each one is different in strength and function. Church membership is a great blessing, but it involves great responsibilities. The church is the administrator of the “keys of the kingdom” and one use of them is the power to discipline unrepentant members as the Lord teaches us in Matthew chapter eighteen. In order to do that the members of the church must be able to understand and judge the cases brought before the church. Members must have a degree of maturity and independence of thought to form their own opinions and vote according to the dictates of their own conscience in order for their vote to amount to anything. If that is not the case then the church has a congregational form of government in name only. It should be obvious to all those that have participated in business meetings that young children do not have the maturity of comprehension and the independence of thought to form their own judgment and exercise a vote accordingly. Therefore, they are not fit to be church members until they reach an age when they are independent and capable enough to make their own judgments.

[12] Baptizing young children affects negatively the testimony of a church: it weakens it. How can we defend believer’s baptism against the Pedobaptists when our candidates are just a few years older than theirs? How strong can be our case for congregational form of government when our deliberative body is composed of members that cannot even comprehend the matters under discussion?

[13] Even though we readily admit that God sometimes saves young children we wonder why is it that in the last decades we see a steady increase of such professions and baptisms? Let us look around at those who practice them on a large scale. What kind of Gospel do they preach? In most cases it is a diluted Gospel message or an altogether false one. Many respond to such a call, but they are still dead in trespasses and sins no matter the age. Baptizing young children and baptizing anyone without looking for signs of conversion endangers the church. The Lord built His church to be composed of regenerated members. If we keep adding members that are lost our church will fall into apostasy like countless other churches before us. Apostasy is real: is irrevocable. No church is spared. The soundest church is only one generation away from apostasy. Brethren, let us realize that if we do not guard the faith our church will become apostate. We are not immune to it. If we let the guard down we will be overtaken.

This section deals with church membership and the assertions made about independence and individuality are not in the Bible. A church member in the Bible is one who has made a profession of faith in Christ, including the repentance of sin, and has been baptized by the church into the membership. Where is the requirement for omni-competence in every member? Paul taught that the body has many different members though they are equally part of the body they are not equal to one another. Churches face many tough things and have to judge, discern, and decide. That doesn’t mean that each individual has equal ability or competence to do so. Churches are given pastors, teachers, shepherds, elders, deacons, i.e., spiritual leadership and oversight. There are special requirements for such men that they be able to teach, lead, and rule well. A novice is not suitable to be a pastor, but he is to be a church member if he has professed Christ and obeyed him in baptism. The whole body is to work together to edify itself in love that every member grows up to maturity (Ephesians 4:11-16).

I have known saints in the later years of life who had a good testimony of many years of faithfulness and fruit of the Spirit who had limited understanding in complex matters. Does this mean they couldn’t be church members? This makes no sense to me at all. What of weaker brothers in the church and the commands to receive them, help them, and support them (Romans 14:1; 15:1; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 12:22-24; 1 Thessalonians 5:14)? Did not Paul address the church in Corinth as “babes in Christ” because they lacked maturity (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)?

The individualism you have asserted is strange to me. It seems to suggest that church membership nullifies or supersedes any authority and relationship structures in a person’s life. The way we relate to one another in the church is always going to be with respect to the relationships and authorities we are under. If you have a husband and a wife who are members of a church and one of them is in sin, the church needs to deal with that one, but on some levels that dealing is going to be with both of them. One example would be the way Paul dealt with Onesimus. Onesimus was the slave of Philemon and Paul recognized and respected that relationship and authority structure. He instructed Onesimus to return to Philemon and appealed to Philemon to receive him as a brother in forgiveness. In the Roman world, slaves were not free and independent. Paul recognized that Onesimus could not act completely independent and individually and he dealt with him through Philemon.

By your principles, slaves could not be members of a church. However, Paul specifically addressed slaves in his letter to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 7:20-24). He instructed them to be faithful and obedient to their masters, as they were also instructed in other epistles (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1-3; 1 Peter 2:18-24). You will note he also instructed the masters in their responsibility to their slaves.

The church epistles do the same thing with husbands, wives, parents, and children (Ephesians 5:22-33; 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Peter 3:1-7). In fact, one of the evidences of salvation and faith is how a person submits to the authorities they are under in life (Romans 13:1-5; 1 Corinthians 16:15-16; Ephesians 5:21; 1 Timothy 2:11; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13; 5:5). The church has the responsibility of teaching godly, humble submission to proper authorities, not individualism.

Conclusion

[14] A word to believing parents: every parent desires that their children will be saved and spared from the defilement of the world. But baptism and church membership will not spare them from the temptations and rebellion of teenage years and young adulthood. If they weren’t truly saved it will make it worse for the children, for the parents and for the church. If the Lord saved a child at an early age that child will be a good member of the church some years later. Teach children the great truths and virtues of the Scriptures, set yourselves as examples and pray for them constantly! Explain the Gospel to them. Exemplify with your life what it means to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Make sure you make time for family prayer and devotion. But do not push for a profession of faith and for baptism. You sow the seed and let the Lord work in His due time. The salvation of every person rests ultimately with God.

[15] A word to people that made early professions: if the Lord saved you in your childhood years and you came to this assurance, be thankful, praise Him and love Him with all your being for He chose to spare you from many pains! It is a great grace that not many have received! Live a clean life that honors Him!

[16] If you find yourself among those that made a profession of faith in your early life, but you are not sure if you are really saved then I urge you to come to the Lord! If you do not hunger and thirst after Him and His Word: if you are not different than lost people around you: if you do not see the fruit of the Spirit in your life then do not try to trust in something that you did: come to the Lord now! Baptism will not save: your years of coming to church will not save you! Only He can save you and give you true assurance!

[17] If you made a profession of faith and realized that your life is not changed – if you question the reality of salvation and believe everything is counterfeit – let me tell you that counterfeits exist because the real thing exists! Regeneration is a life changing experience and it is real! Do not be discouraged: seek the Lord! Come to the Lord now and ask Him to grant you true repentance and faith! He will not cast away any one that comes to Him!

[18] A word to preachers: let us carefully examine ourselves before the Lord! We are His messengers! We proclaim His message not ours. Let us make sure that we do not remove anything from it! The true Gospel is foolishness to the flesh! Only those that are regenerated by the Spirit of God can answer the call of the gospel of grace! If unregenerate and unconverted people (no matter the age) can habitually answer to the call of the Gospel that we preach then there is something wrong with our preaching! It means that we have taken out the element that is offensive to the flesh. But that very element is what distinguishes the true Gospel from its counterfeits and what makes it the power of God unto salvation of anyone who believes. Many have changed the Gospel and adapted its message to the liking of their hearers no matter their ages. The direct result of it is that their churches are large, but largely lost. Let us make sure that we learn from them and steer clear from that danger! Let us emphasize what true repentance and faith are! This is our duty to the Lord that sent us and to the people that we serve!

[19] A word to churches: brethren, we have a holy task: to protect, to preserve and to proclaim the truth at any cost. We are members of the Lord’s churches not men made organizations. A true church is not a trivial thing. If the Lord tarries we must make sure that we entrust the sound faith and practice to the next generation for them to carry on the Great Commission when we are called home. It is probable that our times are the greatest times of apostasy in all our history. What is our attitude about it? Should we be pleased with being just a little better than apostate churches? They should serve us as a warning, not as a standard! Some baptize children of age five or younger and call it believer’s baptism. And most of their membership is most likely lost. Should we be satisfied to being just a little better than them?

[20] A church will stand or fall depending on how she guards her ordinances. Baptism is the means to enter into church membership. Why is it so important? Because the church is designed by the Lord to be composed of regenerated persons. It is the only way it can function properly and fulfill its purpose. The need for regenerated membership is the very reason why we advocate believer’s baptism. Only those who can make a valid profession of faith are scriptural candidates for baptism. Since we do not believe that baptism is necessary to salvation we should demand from all candidates “fruits meet for repentance,” that is, clear visible proof of a changed life and delay the act until such fruit is made visible.

[21] I do not doubt the good intentions of the parents whose greatest desire is to see their children saved and baptized. Neither do I doubt the good intentions of the churches that baptize young children because it is a great joy when a person raised among us comes to faith and asks for baptism. But we need to see what a practice does on a long term basis before generally approving it. And it does much more harm than good, it weakens our churches and has the potential of even leading toward apostasy. Let us learn from the mistakes of others and return to the practice of our predecessors for the benefit of our children, our churches and for the testimony of Christ!

This is the rest of the article. It is mostly practical words and there is a lot of good in it. Where I don’t understand or disagree should be obvious. I don’t want to repeat myself, so I will only make a few comments. You are obviously concerned about a problem in American churches. I do repeat here that maybe it is a big problem, but I don’t know where this is happening. I admit that the churches here have problems. There are problems of pride, traditionalism, lack of humility, lack of grace, lack of consistent go-therefore evangelism, neglect of the whole counsel of God in favor of hobby-horses, ax grinding, preachers who see themselves as pastors-at-large, busybodies, laziness, neglect of discipline, phariseeism, worldliness, and we could go on. One of the greatest needs of the hour is for churches to get back to the actual text of Scripture, the “Thus saith the Lord,” and not the thus saith John Gill, A. W. Pink, or anyone else.

Concerning this issue, the Bible does not set a minimum age and I don’t see the point in discussing this in terms of age. If we are clear about salvation and baptism, then we should be clear on who is a proper candidate without adding extrabiblical requirements. I agree with you that we should take salvation, baptism, church membership, and discipleship very seriously.

If you’re reading this then you must have read the whole article. I appreciate that. To you and the church there in Romania I extend nothing but brotherly love, appreciation, and thankfulness for your witness in that part of the world. May all of the Lord’s churches everywhere be first-love faithful to Christ and be as the Bereans ever searching the Scriptures daily to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
– Hebrews 1:1-2

So the Old Testament scriptures are about Christ. That doesn’t mean they aren’t literally true or historically accurate. To say Christ is better doesn’t mean the Old Testament is bad or worthless. As we will see in studying this letter, the Old Testament is incomplete. It is a shadow of something greater to come. That greater substance is Jesus Christ.

Think of it this way. Imagine a husband is separated from his wife for a long time due to military service. While they are apart, the only means of communication they have is by mailed letters. During that time, the wife cherishes those letters and reads them many times. The letters increase her anticipation for her husband’s return home. When her husband finally returns, does she run out to meet him or does she stay in her room reading the letters? The letters were good in their time and place but once the husband returns, she would rather have him than the letters.

Likewise, the Old Testament is pointing to the coming of Christ and building anticipation. Once He is revealed, the substance supersedes the shadow. This doesn’t render the Old Testament untrue or useless, but it can never be looked at the same way again. Everything is now viewed through the lens of Jesus Christ, His life, death, resurrection, and return.

The opening verses of this first chapter immediately establish the foundation and trajectory of this letter. The author divides time into two great epochs in which God has spoken, or revealed Himself. The second epoch being through His Son is greater than the first. This sets up the continual comparison and contrast we have throughout this book.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
– Hebrews 1:1

God … spake—The author establishes the right view of scripture immediately. Scripture is God speaking. He doesn’t write of the scriptures in terms of the human penmen. He refers to God speaking, Jesus speaking, or the Spirit speaking. There is a scarce reference to David as a penman (Hebrews 4:7), but even there the author writes of God speaking also. David’s account is a rehearsing of an historical account and he refers to God speaking. This is the biblical view of scripture (1 Peter 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16).

Sundry times—The word means in many portions or piecemeal. So the revelation he is considering was not given all at once, but rather it was given in portions over time. In fact, it was given in thirty-nine different books with many different authors in something under 2,000 years.

Consider the diversity of the books of the Old Testament.

     • 5 books giving the origin of the universe and the law in Genesis through Deuteronomy
     • 12 books giving the history of God’s covenant people in Joshua through Esther
     • 5 books of wisdom and poetry that apply God’s law to the individual in Job through the Song of Solomon
     • 17 books of prophecy that apply God’s law to the nation
          o 5 major prophets in Isaiah through Daniel
          o 12 minor prophets in Hosea through Malachi

Revelation in many portions has a couple of important implications for how we understand the Old Testament. First, it means the different books work together and don’t stand alone. They are many parts of the same whole. That doesn’t mean the books are untrue or unimportant individually but they are incomplete. If the whole of the Old Testament is incomplete in terms of revelation, then the parts of the whole are also incomplete.

The second implication is that the revelation was progressive. Each portion was added to the other portions. One doesn’t take away from nor replace another. It is something like a puzzle where each book is adding another piece.

Consider a sample of the progress in revelation in filling out the picture of the Messiah.

     • Through Noah was revealed the world into which the Messiah would come
     • Through Abraham was revealed the nation or people into which the Messiah would come
     • Through Jacob was revealed the tribe into which the Messiah would come
     • Through David was revealed the family into which the Messiah would come
     • Through Micah was revealed the birthplace of the Messiah
     • Through Daniel was revealed the time of the Messiah’s coming
     • Through Malachi was revealed the forerunner of the Messiah
     • Through Isaiah was revealed the death of the Messiah for the sins of His people
     • Through Jonah was revealed the burial and resurrection of the Messiah

Divers manners—The word means many ways and it refers to the various methods of revelation and delivery. God gave revelation in the Old Testament through dreams, visions, audible voice, internal leading, Urim and Thummim, angels, and so on. His revelation was given in types, symbols, images, historical accounts, parables, proverbs, poetry, predictions, and more. The how and what of revelation was diverse but they all work together in one overarching story.

Times past unto the fathers by the prophets—The author divides time into two great epochs or divisions. “Times past” refers to the first of these epochs and it pairs with “these last days” in the second verse, which is the second great epoch. He effectively cuts time into two parts where the first part is the time before the coming of the Messiah and the second part is the time after the Messiah has come.

God spoke in the first epoch through human mouthpieces, the prophets. The prophets spoke forth the revelation of God to the people. No one prophet received or gave a full revelation. They knew in part and prophesied in part. Each piece added to the others.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
– Hebrews 1:2

In these last days—The phrase refers to the second great epoch of time. This is the time after the Messiah has come. It was the time anticipated in the Old Testament (Numbers 24:14-19; Jeremiah 33:14-16; Zechariah 9:9, 16) and realized in the New Testament (1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 2:18).

Hath … spoken … by his Son—The words point to the completion, or finality, of the revelation. God spoke in different ways at different times in time past, but has spoken finally by His Son in these last days. What was pointed to and anticipated in the Old Testament has now been revealed in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament revelation built anticipation for the coming of the Messiah, but also for the completion of the revelation in Him. The Samaritan woman alluded to this when she talked with Jesus by the well. “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things” (John 4:25). This expectation of the Messiah was also at the center of Nathanael’s confession (John 1:47-51).

Jesus is the full and final revelation of God. To add anything to this revelation is to belittle and even despise Christ. To seek some further revelation is equivalent to saying, “Jesus is not enough. I need something more.” Further, to deny the finality of the Scripture is to deny that Jesus is the Christ. This is exactly what happened in John 6 when they had the Messiah standing in front of them and rejected Christ because they wanted a sign.

All the different portions, ways, and speakers have given way to the One—the Son. Identifying the Son reveals his divinity and eternality (John 5:17-18; Psalm 2:6-12). The author here also introduces the once-for-all nature of Christ’s work, which features prominently in this letter.

Whom he hath appointed heir of all things—The author begins here to enumerate several excellencies of the Son. These are superiorities. Jesus, the Son, is identified as the appointed heir (Psalm 89:27). The law foreshadowed the Son’s heirship through the laws of inheritance and redemption. These laws gave two primary requirements. First, only a kinsman could redeem a possession (Numbers 27:8-11). The kinsman redeemer had to be of the tribe. The law prohibited land passing between tribes. Second, a redemption price had to be paid (Leviticus 25:23-34). Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law as a kinsman redeemer (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:15-18) and in paying the redemption price (Revelation 5:9; 1 Peter 1:18-21). The prophets foresaw this redemption (Daniel 7:13-14).

By whom also he made the worlds—The Son is also revealed as the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17). He made all things and upholds all things. He is also the heir of all things. He is the superior revelation. Obviously, no better revelation could be given.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
– Hebrews 1:1-2

This letter has several unique features among the New Testament epistles. There is no introductory greeting in the text. We don’t know exactly when it is written or from where it was written. We don’t know who wrote it. I know this is a contentious issue, but we will get to the authorship question in a few moments. We don’t know exactly whom it was written to and where they were located. There are some clues to those questions in the text but they only provide general answers or hints.

Further, this letter is more like a series of sermons than a letter until you get to the very end. The author does call it a “word of exhortation” (Hebrews 13:22). This book also contains the only reference to Timothy’s imprisonment we have in the New Testament (Hebrews 13:23). This letter has the only reference to Melchisedec in the New Testament. In fact, it is one of only three references in the entire Bible. The other two references are in Genesis and the Psalms.

This book also has some notable features. It is not about preaching in the sense that it is a homiletic textbook, but it is a great example of biblical preaching. The author quotes and refers to Old Testament passages and expounds them throughout the letter. It is noteworthy that the author quotes from the Old Testament and gives the quotes as God, Jesus, or the Spirit speaking. There is a scarce reference to David in reference to a Psalm but mostly the book quotes the Old Testament as God speaking.

Authorship

A person could write an entire book on the authorship of Hebrews, especially if they sought to include all the different theories on the subject, and many have been written. Resort to commentaries only multiplies the suggestions of authors and does little to resolve the issue. The Apostle Paul is probably the most nominated candidate for the office, but his incumbency is by no means certain. The author mentions coming to see the Hebrews with Timothy at the end of the letter (Hebrews 13:23). That sounds like it could be Paul. However, the author of this letter self-identifies with the second generation believers who believed in Christ through the witness of the first generation believers (Hebrews 2:3). We know for certain that Paul did not identify with the second generation but rather the first generation unto whom the Lord appeared (Galatians 1:12). Considering this, the author was definitely not Paul.

The back-and-forth on Paul can go on and on in this letter. But the back-and-forth is not reserved for Paul. We can go back-and-forth with different possible authors. It’s more profitable to pay attention to what we know rather than what we don’t know. We don’t know who wrote the letter but we do know it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. We do know the author was strong in the Old Testament scriptures. This could point to Apollos as the author (Acts 18:24-25, 28). We also know that all the Old Testament quotes come from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. That could also point to Apollos who was from Alexandria. We also know that Hebrews in written in the highest register of Koine of all the New Testament books, which could also point to the educated and eloquent Apollos. What we do know from this is that the author was very likely a Hellenist. Ultimately, we don’t know who wrote the book and we ought not to get distracted by endless debates about it and miss the message of this important book.

Date

The time of the letter is uncertain but there are a few pointers. It was after Timothy’s imprisonment, meaning it was at least the early sixties of the first century. It was written during a time of persecution for Christians according to chapter ten, pointing to the latter half of the sixties. There are present tense references to the priests and sacrifices, meaning that it was before 70 AD. All that together tells us it was most likely written in the middle to the latter half of the sixties of the first century.

Audience

The exact recipients are not known. We clearly infer from the letter that it was written to a Jewish audience because their temptation was to return to the old covenant. Some suggest it was a general letter to Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire. It seems more likely it was written to a church that was predominantly Jewish outside of Israel. There are references to the assembly and elders in chapters ten and thirteen. The members of the church would have been in a community of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews, which accounts for parts of the letter that seem directed to unbelieving Jews.

Structure

The book is structured as a series of sermons or a series of studies from the Old Testament on Christ. Have you ever wished you could listen to the message Jesus preached to the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:27)? Or, would you like to hear Philip’s sermon in the desert south of Jerusalem (Acts 8:35)? Would you like to hear Paul’s preaching in the synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3)? Or would you like to hear Apollos preaching in Achaia (Acts 18:27-28)? When I read those passages I think of how much I would love to hear those messages.

The letter to the Hebrews gives us that type of preaching—the preaching of Christ from the Old Testament.
• Hebrews 2:5-9 expounds Psalm 8:4-6.
• Hebrews 3:7-4:13 expounds Psalm 95:7-11.
• Hebrews 4:14-7:28 expounds Psalm 110:4.
• Hebrews 8:1-10:18 expounds Jeremiah 31:31-34.
• Hebrews 10:1-10 expounds Psalm 40:6-8.
• Hebrews 10:32-12:3 expounds Habakkuk 2:3-4.
• Hebrews 12:4-13 expounds Proverbs 3:11-12.
• Hebrews 12:18-29 expounds Exodus 19:10-23.

There are also many other Old Testament passages referred to in this letter.

In expounding the Old Testament, the author interprets these texts Christologically, or, theologically in light of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That doesn’t mean the literal, historical, objective facts concerning people, places, and events are negated. Rather the author is moving from those to show the passages’ Christological significance. Perhaps an example would illustrate his method.

In Hebrews 7:3, the author refers to the Genesis 14 account where Melchisedec is mentioned. He highlights the fact that no genealogy was given for him, nor any record of his birth or death. He applies this to the priesthood order of Jesus Christ as being everlasting, because it was without human descent, beginning, or end. It is a very different order from the Aaronic. This doesn’t mean the author is interpreting Genesis 14 to mean that Melchisedec was never born, never died, and had no biological parents. The author is picking up on the way Genesis treats him and recognizing the typology. So he is giving a Christological interpretation of this passage.

Theme

The superiority of Christ is the main theme of this letter. The author systematically proves Christ better than the angels, Moses, Joshua, Aaron, the old covenant, the tabernacle, the sacrifices, etc. Jesus Christ is shown better than all the equipage of the old covenant.

In showing Him better than the old priesthood, the author highlights the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ and the once-for-all nature of His sacrifice. He keys on the fact that the temple priests offered over and over in an endless cycle of ineffectual sacrifices and offerings. However, Jesus Christ offered one perfect offering and sat down in completion.

The author brings out several explicit truths about Jesus. The fact that He is the Son of God is stated unequivocally (Hebrews 1:1-5). The truth of His eternality is directly stated (Hebrews 7:3, 17, 23-25). The author emphasizes that Jesus is perfect and sinless (Hebrews 4:15). He highlights that Jesus offered only one offering (Hebrews 7:26-28) and that His work is forever effectual (Hebrews 10:12-14).

Keywords

There are several key terms to trace through the letter. There are numerous mentions of “eternal.” Consider the use of “perfect” and “once.” There are many references to “blood.” “Without” is another term to consider. The obvious keyword is “better.” It is also good to pay attention to the appearances of “we have” and “therefore let us.”

The Word of Exhortation

The author calls this letter, “the word of exhortation” (Hebrews 13:22). Indeed it is a word of exhortation. It is the best kind of exhortation because it is based on sound, strong doctrine. There are five primary exhortation passages where the author draws from the truth that has been taught to admonish the readers. The first is found in Hebrews 2:1-4 where the author exhorts the readers not to ignore God’s better revelation in Christ. Second, he exhorts them not to miss His rest as those of Moses’ generation did (Hebrews 3:7-4:11). Third, he exhorts them to go on unto maturity (Hebrews 5:11-6:3). Fourth, he exhorts them not to fall away (Hebrews 6:9-20). Fifth, he exhorts them not to turn aside where there is no salvation (Hebrews 10:19-39).

All of the exhortations share the theme of perseverance. These are serious and sobering warnings of what it means to reject Christ. Turning to the old covenant is to reject Christ.

Relevance

The Letter to the Hebrews is a part of “all scripture” and, therefore, “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). It is also a very theologically dense book with a number of difficulties to solve. The author writes with the assumption that his readers have a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures. That would seem to limit its relevance to modern-day Christians who have a threadbare acquaintance with the Old Testament and particularly the law books. However, if the author exhorted those who had a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament that they should go on to progress in their knowledge, how much more should modern-day Christians be exhorted to study who don’t even have that foundational understanding.

This is a book all about Jesus Christ and growing in our knowledge of Christ is always relevant for His disciples (2 Pe 3:18). We also have other places in the New Testament that exhort believers to faithfulness, patience, and perseverance. Believers are believers whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Hebrews has such strong, plain warnings here that it is certainly relevant for modern-day believers to heed.

If we pay careful attention to Hebrews, we learn what it really means to follow Christ and please God and that that is not to be found in the works of the law (Hebrews 9:14). That is relevant for believers and religious unbelievers. This is another unique aspect to this book because the letter was written with unbelieving Jews in mind though it is primarily to believers. Unbelieving Jews were very religious, yet they did not believe savingly in Jesus Christ. They needed to stop clinging to the works of the law and to cling to Christ.

This is a relevant message today for children growing up in homes and churches with believing parents. Like it or not, believing parents raise religious children. That’s not necessarily bad but we have to recognize the difficulty that brings with it. A child is easily confused about what it means to believe on Jesus Christ and to be a Christian. Because of the weakness of the flesh, they naturally tend toward defining it in things that are done, e.g. going to church services, dressing a certain way, talking a certain way, behaving a certain way, reading the Bible, etc. The book of Hebrews sorts out those dead works and continually points to Christ alone and that He has done it all. It can be a helpful book for the religious to show the vanity of religion and the superior reality of Christ.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. ~ 1 Corinthians 10:12

We know Solomon was a master architect and builder, but did the wisest man figure out how to build a standing structure on no support whatsoever?

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 states the problem he experiments to overcome. He names the problem vanity and vanity of vanities (Ecclesiastes 1:2), and spends the following nine verses defining his terms. Vanity can be quickly defined as empty or meaningless. Some are quite satisfied with that and immediately assume Ecclesiastes teaches us that everything on earth is empty and meaningless, so we are best to avoid as much as possible. Of course, if that is the case, we really need nothing beyond the second verse of the book, we Christians are the most pitiable and miserable of men (1 Corinthians 15:16-19), and “let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32). This is a tricky business, but how can we hope to make proper sense of his experiment, initial findings, musings, and final conclusion, if we do not pay attention to his definitions?

Vanity of vanities

When an author clearly defines his terms, it is best to believe him and read what he has written with that definition in mind. In verses 3-11, Solomon defines what he means by vanity of vanities. He begins in verse 3 by defining the world conditions where vanity is operative. He is working under the sun. This immediately refers to life on earth, life as it really is. He is not dealing with ideal life or life at its best. He means life as it is with all its good and bad together. His interest in this life under the sun is to find out what profit a man may make. Profit is a gain, advantage, or bettering. How can a man come out ahead of the vanity?

With his parameters set, Solomon warms to his subject beginning with verse 4. One generation comes and goes and another comes and goes, and so on. Yet they are all working with the same dirt. One generation piles the dirt in a certain way and in a certain place. Another generation piles it and arranges it somewhere else (Ecclesiastes 1:4). The sun rises and goes down and rises and goes down, and on and on as if it were on a string (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The wind blows south and north and south and north, and on and on until we suspect a giant oscillating fan (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Rivers run some direction, usually downhill, and the sea is never full and the rivers are not empty (Ecclesiastes 1:7). Man’s eyes and ears can never be filled, there’s always more (Ecclesiastes 1:8). All the new stuff is just the old stuff (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Nothing is really new (Ecclesiastes 1:10). It only seems that way because it has been forgotten about (Ecclesiastes 1:11).

Some see nihilistic statements here, or at least pessimistic ones, as though Solomon were throwing his hands up in the air, asking, “What’s the point?” Cue depressing music and mournful groan. Others may see here some needlessly poetic statements about things everybody already knows. Duh, Solomon! Well there’s at least one thing we know about credit: it’s due. Solomon is not as thick as all that. He’s defining what the vanity of vanities is. If there’s one thing that is common in everything he mentioned, it’s that all those things are cyclical. He means a cycle stuck in an infinite loop. It’s like running on a treadmill. You elevate your heart rate and perspiration. You’re certainly tired after a while, but when you stop, you’re still in the same place. You can’t run on a treadmill down to the store, or to the bathroom across the hall for that matter which has a Shower head. Once you mount the treadmill, you’re captive to the treadmill’s cycle that has you running but not relocating. While you can turn off the treadmill and dismount, you cannot escape the vanity of the creation.

Vanity of vanities refers to the repetitive cycles and limitations of the creation. We are in it and cannot escape it. Being in it means we can’t find something new or anything lasting. We can’t find satisfaction in anything else in the vanity. We can’t beat the system. The earth was not created this way but was subjected to it with the curse, which came about because of sin (Romans 8:18-25). Paul wrote of the very same vanity Solomon wrote about. Paul’s solution to it is the same as Solomon’s as well, but that’s getting a bit ahead of ourselves at this point.

The experiment

Solomon begins by pressing into wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18). He wanted to investigate the vanity thoroughly and was in a singular position to do so (Ecclesiastes 1:16). Given his inordinate amount of wisdom, he could conduct his experiment without getting lost in it (Ecclesiastes 2:9). He decides to use his wisdom, position, power, and resources to conduct a thorough investigation and see it through to a conclusion.

With all the preliminaries in place, he conducts his experiment, which took many years (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11). We can arrange his trials in three main categories: consumption, construction, and comfort. In the consumption phase, he focused on pleasure (Ecclesiastes 2:1-3). He sought entertainment, enjoyment, and everything that pleased the senses. He found nothing lasting. The excitement wore off and it became the same old. He moved to the construction phase, where rather than consuming he wanted to construct, to build something that would be more lasting (Ecclesiastes 2:4-6). He built the temple, houses, gardens, waterways, and planted forests. Again, he found no lasting satisfaction, just more of the same. Lastly, he sought comfort (Ecclesiastes 2:7-9). He sought a life free from worry and thus provided for his every need with servants and money. He wanted for nothing. He also found the life of ease to be empty and subject to vanity. Just in case he be accused of not making a thorough job of it, he assures that he was extensive in his pursuits (Ecclesiastes 2:10).

Initial findings

His initial findings gives a summary of the results (Ecclesiastes 2:11). Vexation of spirit is a phrase that means grasping after the wind. It is impossible to grab a hold of the wind in your hand. All his endeavors resulted in no profit. All was subject to the same vanity and he could not escape it no matter where he turned.

A critical thinker at this point will upbraid Solomon that there is more to life than the things he has mentioned. He has far too few variables in his equations and, therefore, his experiment is a sham. Solomon will have none of that. He addresses those other aspects of life as he goes on, but that is past my purpose in this article. Just read the whole book and be assured he does deal with all aspects of life.

All to this point is the set up, experiment, and results. The real meat of the book is in what follows as he reflects, muses, dissects, applies wisdom, and teaches the appropriate lessons (Ecclesiastes 12:11). He has gathered up the data and the data needs interpretation if it is to mean anything.

First hypothesis

Solomon asks a pertinent question in light of his initial findings. What more could be done (Ecclesiastes 2:12)? Is there more relevant data? Has he conducted his experiment thoroughly and within all necessary controls? I don’t believe he is asking himself that question as much as he is making a point that he has. You might say all the tests and results have been verified. Every instrument was calibrated correctly. The environment was in suitable range. In other words, the results are good, so now he needs to make something of them.

Solomon advances his hypothesis from his initial findings, which is that given the vanity of the creation wisdom is better than folly (Ecclesiastes 2:13-14). He states that even with the vanity of life under the sun, it is better to live that life in wisdom than in folly. So here’s Solomon floating front porch. He rests his hypothesis on no foundational support. He is suspended in mid-air while we listen to the rhythmic creaks of his wooden rocking chair.

I’m not suggesting that Solomon doesn’t have support for his statement, but only that at first glance it doesn’t seem to follow from what’s gone before. Sure, the entire book of Proverbs continually demonstrates that wisdom is better than folly, but how does he get that from Ecclesiastes 1 & 2? He also seems to immediately disprove his own hypothesis (Ecclesiastes 2:15-17), so why should we believe him? If the wise and the fool both end up in a hole in the ground no matter what path they walk in life, why is it better to be wise? Let me answer those two concerns in reverse order and we will dismiss and perhaps reconvene at another time.

Does Solomon immediately disprove his hypothesis? To borrow phrase of Paul, “No, in no wise.” What Solomon is actually doing is subjecting his hypothesis to rigorous testing. He’s not going to test it in a comfortable, cool, and clean laboratory but rather in the field in real-time and live-fire. He will do that to the end of this book and prove out his hypothesis. He doesn’t move from the conclusion that wisdom is good and better (Ecclesiastes 7:11-12; 9:16).

Let me put the next question this way: Is Ecclesiastes 2:13-14 inconsistent with Ecclesiastes 1:1-2:12? This is the question that prompted this article. It is a supremely important question to the study of Ecclesiastes if we are going to get off on the right foot. If you make a left turn at Albuquerque, you don’t arrive at the right place no matter how hard and fast you drive.

A proper understanding of Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 is crucial to understanding this book. First, let’s grant that Ecclesiastes is not a beginner’s level book. The teacher expects you to have certain prerequisite knowledge and skills in order to handle what’s thrown at you in it. He’s expecting a reasonable intelligence and thinking ability to understand dark sayings (Proverbs 1:5-6). It’s going to require the fear of God (Proverbs 1:7), diligent seeking (Proverbs 2:1-5), and the prayer of faith (James 1:5-6).

The key is to understand what vanity of vanities is? If you think it means that everything under the sun is empty and meaningless, you have accepted floating porches and hanging hats on sky-hooks. In other words, you are accepting a materialistic, evolutionary, and atheistic worldview. If you proceed in Ecclesiastes that way, you will have no basis whatever to assert that wisdom is better or even that anything is better than anything else. You will have no basis for condemning a fool or saying that anything ought to be one way or another. Accepting that is to accept that God does not exist and that this material life is all that there is.

Solomon stated that all is vanity under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3). Just because everything is vanity under the sun, that doesn’t mean that under the sun is all there is, nor that everything is subjected to vanity above and beyond the sun. Solomon asked for and received wisdom, so he knew where it came from (1 Kings 3:5-14). Just because mortal life is subjected to vanity under the sun, that doesn’t mean that a higher life, which is not subjected to vanity, does not exist.

If you were locked inside a giant hamster wheel with only pinholes for air, you would not be able to get yourself out of it. But that doesn’t mean that someone outside the wheel couldn’t walk over to you, unlock the door, and get you out. If you were locked in a prison cell where you could see and smell a table filled with delightful food, you would have no way to reach it yourself. But that doesn’t mean that someone outside the cell couldn’t take food from the table and hand it to you through the bars. So Solomon proves the utter futility of a man to try to escape the vanity he’s subjected to. He has no way in himself to get out of it. He stresses that the only good, profit, satisfaction, and enjoyment that can be had under the sun comes through wisdom and is a gift from outside the vanity (Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:13; 5:18-20; 6:2).

So Solomon is consistent throughout this book. His porch has an unshakeable foundation. He has written this book to teach us how to see it.

But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. ~ Galatians 5:15

Jesus answered, “I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, until seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22). He then proceeded to illustrate forgiveness with a parable that serves a few purposes. It provides a narrative illustration, which makes an impression. It highlights the basis for forgiveness and concludes with a sober warning to the unforgiving.

Before we look into the parable, let’s have a few words about parables in general. We have to be careful with them that we let them make their point and not try to press them too far. Sometimes people want to pick up every detail in the parable, no matter how minor, and try to tie it to some significant teaching. This can do more harm than good and possibly lead into serious error.

In the parable before us, Jesus is not laying out a whole theology of forgiveness, nor seeking to explain fully how God forgives sinners and reconciles them to Himself. This is an important point to understand, as we will see later on. The context clearly indicates this parable is about forgiveness between men and particularly brothers in Christ. The conclusion in verse 35 confirms this.

At the very least, this parable speaks to the child of God about how we are to handle forgiveness toward others. The parable does not try to get into every possible scenario of offense. We can all appreciate how tangled and thorny situations between people can be. But the point of this parable is clear: We are to forgive one another.

The Structure of the Parable

The parable divides into three parts and adds a moral, or conclusion, at the end. Sometimes it is called, “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant,” because he is the main character in the story. It has a story arc the Greeks would call a tragedy. You know the story you are reading or watching is a tragedy when it ends badly for the main character. The servant in the parable starts in a bad place, improves his situation, and then ends worse than he began—a typical tragedy.

The first part, verses 23-27, introduces us to a servant who owed a great debt to the king. When the king takes account, he finds this servant into him for ten thousand talents. Many commentators try to calculate what this amount would be in value at the time they were writing. The exact dollar value is not what is important. Reading the account, we recognize it is a great amount without any adjustments for inflation. That is the point. It is an astronomical amount that the servant could not even begin to pay.

The king recognized his inability and commanded the man to be sold along with his entire family and everything he had in order for payment to be made toward the debt. He was being consigned to a life sentence and the servant did the only thing he could do. He pled for mercy and begged for more time to pay.

The king was moved with compassion toward his servant. He showed him uncommon mercy by forgiving him the debt. He did not give him more time, nor did he bargain down the amount. The king completely cancelled the debt, just as if it had been paid in full.

It would be easy to stop here and think the point is made. “Oh, I see. We are supposed to have mercy and compassion on others and forgive them.” To stop here would be a real tragedy. It would be to misread the parable to make yourself the king and your offenders as beholden to you. That would be a big mistake, so let’s read on.

The second part, verses 28-30, is the heart of the story, recounting how the forgiven servant deals with a fellow servant who owes him. Comparison is the point here. The forgiven servant is now in the exact opposite position from what he was just previously. He is now the creditor and his fellow is now the debtor.
Given his experience, we would expect him to be happy and his heart softened. Given the fact his debtor is a servant like him, we would expect him to empathize. Given the fact that the amount owed is miniscule compared to what he had been forgiven, we would expect him to be generous. Given the fact that his debtor also cannot pay, we would expect him to be forgiving. He was not.

The fellow servant owed him a hundred pence. This amount is extremely low compared to the ten thousand talents. He was immediately harsh and demanding when he found this servant. He grabbed him by the throat and no doubt raised his voice demanding to be paid.

The debtor did not have the money to cover it no matter how small the amount was. He did the exact same thing the other had done with the king. He falls before him, pleading for more time to pay. This request is much more reasonable given the amount we are considering.

If his heart had not previously been softened, you would think this scene would humble him as he called to mind his own pleas to the king. But the human heart is proud and stubborn and can often be cruel. He was not moved to mercy but rather threw the man in prison until he paid the debt.

Certain judicially-minded people would like to point out here that he was within the rights of justice to have his debtor put into prison until the debt was paid. He certainly was and that point is not lost in this parable though it is not explicit. I point this out now because it will be important to us a little later on.

The third part, verses 31-34, details how the unmerciful servant was punished. Other servants of the king saw this exchange and were grieved. They related to the king how his forgiven servant behaved himself toward his fellow. The king was angered and called for the first servant.

The king delivered him to the tormentors until he should pay the colossal debt. The king was clear that he did this because the servant did not have compassion on the other servant. The king showed him mercy and the servant showed no mercy to his fellow.

Verse 35 gives the moral or conclusion of the parable, which is a sober warning. Jesus explains that if we do not forgive others like we ourselves have been forgiven by our Father, we will likewise suffer punishment.

A Few Thoughts on the Structure and the Meaning of the Parable

The three parts of the parable are framed between a leading question (Matthew 18:21) and a conclusion (Matthew 18:35). Considering the beginning and end points us to the vital heart of this parable in the middle section, verses 28-30.

The middle section recounts the interaction between the servants. What the first servant should do to the second servant is based on what happened to the first servant in the first part. The servant’s actions are much more heinous because of that first scene. This moves us to the third scene, which is where we see the tragic consequences for this failure.

It is plain this parable is about forgiveness between people and that forgiveness is a heart issue. This is the main point of the parable and it shapes the way we should interpret and apply it. Now we want to draw from this and look at horizontal (person to person) forgiveness in the Scripture.

The Importance of Forgiveness

Be aware that the Bible does not treat personal forgiveness as a small thing. Even a quick perusal of some of the commands and warnings about forgiveness reveals its importance (Matthew 6:12-15; 18:21-35; Mark 11:25-26; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:14-15; 4:20-21). We might summarize these passages this way: To stubbornly walk in unforgiveness toward others is very risky, very dangerous to your soul. At the very least you’re opening yourself up to bitterness.

To proceed we must know what it means to forgive or be forgiving. People have different ideas about forgiveness and usually their own definition of forgiveness differs depending on whether they are forgiving or being forgiven. We have noted how seriously the Bible takes this forgiveness so we must know what the Bible means by forgiveness. I have drawn out five principles of biblical forgiveness from Thomas Watson’s, A Body of Divinity.

1. To forgive is to relinquish all thoughts of revenge or getting even (Proverbs 24:29; Romans 12:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:15). It means you’re not biding your time for either the opportunity to get something back on them or for some other retribution to fall on them. You’re not savoring the thought of something befalling your offender. You’ve left all vengeance and meting of justice in the hands of the just judge of all the earth.
2. To forgive is to pray for your offender (Matthew 5:44). Praying for them doesn’t mean praying for judgment to fall on them. It means praying for their good. This does not preclude praying for their repentance if that is what is needed, though it would be to pray for that repentance for the good of their soul and the glory of Christ and not your own vindication.
3. To forgive is to seek reconciliation as much as is possible on your part (Romans 12:18). If we’re honest, we often don’t want reconciliation but rather to punish the other person. Jesus gave instructions for reconciling personal offenses (Matthew 18:15-17; 5:23-26), which means we are expected to reconcile them. I readily grant that sometimes reconciliation is not possible, but we should do all we can on our part. Unreconciled offenses are the fertilizer of bitterness, destroyer of relationships, and divider of families and churches.
4. To forgive is to genuinely wish good things for that person (Luke 6:28). This goes along with praying for them but goes beyond that as well. We should not begrudge them happiness in life or measures of success in their endeavors. We certainly should not pout or moan when God blesses them. If we are to feed our hungry enemy, then we should also be ready to do them good if we are in a position to do so.
5. To forgive is to take no pleasure in their sufferings (Proverbs 24:17). We should not rejoice in the suffering of others and not even in the sufferings of those who have offended us. If their suffering leads to their repentance, we should rejoice in their repentance but still we should not rejoice in their suffering.

This is a high standard and may even seem unattainable. We do have an example of this type of forgiveness in the life of David. Consider Psalm 35:11-16. David spoke of those who falsely accused him and repaid him evil for the good he had done them. At this point, many would “wash their hands of them” and be glad for whatever ill came their way because they deserved it. But David responded differently. He prayed for them when they were sick as if he were praying for his own sick brother or mother (Psalm 35:13-14). Of course, he was only rewarded by them with more evil when adversity came to him (Psalm 35:15-16). David here displays the forgiving spirit we are to have.

How do we forgive like this?

Acknowledging what should be done is one thing but the doing of it is another. How can this be done? This question may seem difficult to answer but we can make it harder still. Peter’s question had to do with forgiving one who had wronged you and then repented. In different circumstances it can be difficult to forgive even when the offender repents of their actions. However, it’s even more difficult to be forgiving when that person does not repent or refuses to acknowledge they’ve done anything wrong.

I know some objectors are beside themselves at this point. They want to scream and shout that we cannot forgive someone unless they have repented. Are we to be forgiving to those who haven’t repented, haven’t acknowledged wrong doing, or sought reconciliation? I believe we are for a few different reasons.

1. In the text parable where Jesus taught that we ought to forgive “every one his brother their trespasses,” repentance is not an issue. We see both servants pleading for mercy but not really repenting. I suppose you could stretch a long way and try to get some sort of allegorized repentance out of the parable, but you would be left with a long, long walk back to the main point.
2. If we look at some of the plainest commands we have to forgive, we notice that the repentance of the offender is not mentioned (Mark 11:25-26; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13). This doesn’t mean that a person isn’t supposed to repent when they have wronged another, but forgiveness is a heart issue within us (Matthew 18:35) that is not conditioned on the actions of others.
3. The basis, or grounds, of our forgiving others is the same in all cases. The ground or condition of our forgiving another is not their repentance but the forgiveness we have received in Christ. “Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?” (Matthew 18:33). “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye” (Colossians 3:13).

That last point is vital. The forgiveness we are to give to others is not conditioned on anything in them or in us, but it is conditioned on the forgiveness we have received from God. In the parable, we are the unmerciful servant who has been forgiven a debt we could never repay. Because of that, we are to have mercy and be forgiving toward others whose debt to us is infinitesimally small by comparison.

Humanly speaking, it is hard to envision forgiveness when a wrong has not been resolved. If we consider the kind of forgiveness we have received, we must acknowledge we have been forgiven for our own unresolved sins. Surely in our lives there have been offenses not reconciled, restitutions not made, or justice not met. Some of these are because of ignorance. We are not aware of every single instance of offense we have committed. Some wrongs may be unresolved because the person we wronged is no longer alive. There could be many different possibilities but the point is that we have received the kind of forgiveness that includes unresolved sin.

We ought not despair here there though, because if we have been forgiven that means all our sins resolved or otherwise have been resolved in Christ in His death (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10-11). So, on the one hand we have unresolved sin in our lives, but on the other hand all our sins have been resolved in Christ. That’s the sort of forgiveness we have received that forms the basis for us to forgive others.

I conclude that if our forgiving of others is based on us being forgiven by God, then we should be forgiving even to the unrepentant. Admittedly, forgiveness is not full or complete when there is no resolution or reconciliation between men. The fullness of forgiveness is experienced when there is a restoration of right relationship (Matthew 18:15). That is not possible when an offender is unrepentant. However, we can still be forgiving inasmuch as we relinquish all thoughts of revenge, pray for them, seek reconciliation as much as is possible, wish them good, and do not rejoice in their sufferings.

As we live life we will have unresolved offenses that will never be satisfied to us. As we look to Christ, we can be forgiving and take our resolutions at the cross. If my sin has been forgiven and my brother’s sin has been forgiven, should I refuse to forgive his sin that God has forgiven? Situations can be complicated when it comes to personal offenses, but if we are dealing with a brother we can rest in the death of Christ for our brother’s sins as well as our own.

If the unresolved offense has come from an unbeliever, resolution will come in their condemnation. Contemplating that fact should soften our hearts toward them. Their wrong against us is only adding to the many sins that come down upon their head in the end. I don’t mean here we should have a vengeful spirit or take delight in thoughts of their punishment. I mean rather that we commit our cause to the righteous judge of all the earth, knowing He will do right. It’s acknowledging we are not in the place of God to determine and deal out judgment on sinners. Joseph acknowledged this in forgiving his brothers (Genesis 50:19).

Conclusion

In discussing forgiveness and being forgiving, I don’t mean we shouldn’t take biblically appropriate steps to deal with sin. One example would be in the case of church discipline that is needed. I don’t mean we just give sin a pass and never deal with it. The parable of Matthew 18 was occasioned by Jesus teaching how personal offenses should be reconciled in the church. I’m also not suggesting that we shouldn’t repent, reconcile, and make restitution where we have wronged others. We most certainly should.

I am mainly considering our own heart attitude of forgiveness and particularly the hard cases where a wrong is not acknowledged or reconciliation is not made. In those situations, we often feel justified in retaining our anger or maintaining a grudge against someone. Those things only lead to bitterness and damage to your own soul. Let us be forgiving even in these difficult cases where we, like Christ, leave it in the hands of the righteous judge to sort out (1 Peter 2:18-23). Let us be forgiving as we have been forgiven knowing that our Father stands “ready to forgive” (Psalm 86:5).