Author Archives: Mark Herzer

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiving Others, pt. 2

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 194 (pt. 2)

194.     Q. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?

…

As we forgive

This phrase (as we forgive our debtors) can raise some interesting questions. The way the Larger Catechism interprets it is the following: “which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.” I believe the way our divines interpreted that clause will help us immensely. We need to do several things to rightly understand the last clause of this petition. We need to, 1) exegete and understand the phrase, 2) clear up a few misunderstandings, 3) draw out its implications, and 4) address a few difficult cases.

 

1. Interpreting the phrase

The phrase “as we forgive our debtors” uses a very important word “as”. The subordinate conjunction “as” (ὡς) tells us that our forgiveness of others go hand in hand with our petition for forgiveness.[1] As Robert Guelich says, the clause expresses an action “concomitant with the petition.”[2] It is something we ourselves are doing. The request does not envision a scenario where the petitioner is unwilling to forgive.

Leon Morris makes a very helpful observation: “We should notice that it is debtors that are forgiven, not “debts.” Both, of course, are involved, but it is the person on whom the emphasis falls.”[3] Forgiveness is not abstract; we are forgiving persons, persons in debt to us, “our debtors.” That is, a real offense of some sort has occurred (not merely personal but sinful, see below).

The aorist tense “we forgive” (ἀφήκαμεν) should be taken to mean what many call the Aramaic “present perfect” (perfectum praesens) or a “Semitic perfect” indicating an action that is taking place here and now.[4] That is why our English translations utilize the present tense.

So, what we are asking from heaven (from God) is being liberally dispensed on earth (by us). “We cannot honorably try to be on speaking terms with God the Father where we have not sincerely sought to be on speaking terms with some problematic other.”[5] That would be ludicrous. In fact, verses 14 & 15 develop this more fully. “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The two go together (see especially Mt. 18:15-20; 21-35).

What is meant is, that we ourselves must cultivate a spirit of forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us, before we venture to claim forgiveness for ourselves. God has more to forgive to each individual than any human being can have; and He is more ready to forgive: it is impossible for me to equal Him in this.[6]

This “spirit of forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us” serve as a testimony to us that something has changed in us.

Our divines described it this way, we can ask for forgiveness from our heavenly Father — “which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.” If we are reluctant and hard hearted towards someone else, how can we approach God and ask for forgiveness? Regarding the person who says, “I’ll never forgive you!”, one commentator says, “is not penitently aware of his sins, but only vengefully aware of another man’s sins.”[7]

To not forgive reveals two things. One, it reveals our wicked blindness to our own offenses against God. Two, the person has no living reality in his heart to indicate that God had forgiven him in the first place; there is no corresponding testimony. D. A. Carson well summarized the teaching of the New Testament on forgiveness (Mt. 6:12, 14, 15; Lk. 11:4; 6:37; Mt. 18:21-35):

These passages must neither be explained away nor misinterpreted. On the one hand, they must stand in all their stark demand: there is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive. One the other hand, in the light of all that the New Testament writers say about grace and change of heart, it would be obtuse to understand these passages as if they were suggesting that a person could earn forgiveness by forgiving others. The point is more subtle. It is that people disqualify themselves from being forgiven if they are so hardened in their own bitterness that they cannot or will not forgive others. In such cases, they display no brokenness, no contrition, no recognition of the great value of forgiveness, no understanding of their own complicity in sin, no repentance.[8]

 

2. Misunderstandings

The phrase “as we forgive…” can easily be misunderstood. We must rightly understand what our Lord is teaching lest we suffer under some gross misunderstanding. We recognize that in the light of the rest of the NT teaching, we cannot draw certain conclusions from this text. These are some of the common mistakes that do not take into account the rest of the Bible’s teaching.

 

a. It is not a meritorious condition.

Vos mentioned that the Dispensationalists believe that this “condition” represents the Old Testament (cf. Vos, 572). The NT, they say, is free from all such conditions. It would be entirely wrong to make this petition a meritorious condition — that is, because of my forgiveness, I’ve placed God in debt to me. I’ve earned it.  Calvin says,

This condition is added, that no one may presume to approach God and ask forgiveness, who is not pure and free from all resentment. And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others: but the design of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to forgive the offenses which have been committed against us, and at the same time, to give, as it were, the impression of his seal, to ratify the confidence in our own forgiveness. (Calvin on Mt. 6:12)

It all depends on how we define “condition.” Calvin’s explanation differs from this Roman Catholic commentator who said, “This is the condition which God requires of us, and if it be fulfilled, He readily forgives, and if it be not fulfilled, He will not forgive…”[9] This quid pro quo interpretation cannot be correct. This petition assumes the petitioner’s right standing before God since he addresses him as “Our Father.”[10] God is already his heavenly Father and in that vital covenant relationship, the believer petitions his Father for forgiveness. He never possessed the relationship with God through his merit and he has never received forgiveness on account of his own behavior. Why would he do so now on something so serious as his own sins?

 

b. It is not a perfect forgiveness that Jesus has in mind.

Another Roman Catholic commentator interpreted the phrase in this way, “We will receive God’s mercy only to the extent [emphasis added] that we show mercy to those who have trespassed against us…”[11] Let us hope not. We are laced with sin through and through. We have never perfectly forgiven other people’s sins.

This also helps us to refute the first misunderstanding as well. If in fact our forgiveness serves as the meritorious condition for God to forgive us, then have we ever truly forgiven in a meritorious manner? How do we know when we did? Is our own forgiveness therefore always up in the air, uncertain, etc.?

 

c. It is not in reaction to or in view of our forgiveness.

This relates to the first one. Does God forgive us as He sees us going through with our obedience of forgiveness? To state it more clearly, does our God forgive us after we have forgiven others? Let this example clarify the issue.

The same Catholic scholar cited above said, “The word as does not denote the measure, or the rule which God follows in the forgiveness of sins: for we ought to pray that more may be forgiven us by God than others owe us—but the inductive cause which may move God to forgive…”[12] Everything he said is spot on except the last statement. The author argues that the “inductive cause” is our forgiveness. That is, what induces, moves, compels, God to forgive is our own forgiveness. God is, therefore, forgiving us on the basis of our own forgiveness and not on the basis of Christ. This is patently wrong.

Though he did not use “merit” language, he did resort to a medieval subtlety. God is acting on what we do. Since man cannot merit anything from God, God will honor what we do. This minimal act you perform will get God to be gracious to you.[13] What induces God to forgive you is your willingness to forgive. This is semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers revolted.

Our Lord has taught us to say, “We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty…” (Lk. 17:10). God doesn’t lower his standard to forgive us. He also does not forgive us because we first forgave because God is a debtor to no man. Our ability to forgive is a living testimony of God having already forgiven us. We can only forgive because he enables us to. Our forgiveness earns nothing, especially God’s forgiveness: “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1Cor. 4:7)

 

3. Implications and Applications

a. It is about a real sin and not merely having your “feelings” hurt.

We can sinfully feel offended quite easily. We can feel sinned against. Was it a sin or simply our pride? “He didn’t look at me right.” “He didn’t recognize me.” “She didn’t appreciate what I did for her.” “She should have picked me, called me, chose me, etc.” Notice, a real debt has incurred, the kind of “debt” analogous to the ones we have incurred against God.

I believe some of our unforgiving spirit has more to do with our own foolish pride than anything else. Love bears all things except wounded pride. Love is not irritable or resentful. “How sad is it, that, for every slight wrong, or disgraceful word, men should let malice boil in their hearts!”[14] How sad indeed!

 

b. It is not about you!

Forgiveness is not about the psychological benefits one receives from forgiving the offender. It is not about “mental health.” Though there is some truth to that, it simply is not given any prominence in the New Testament. The stress falls on the “eternal benefits of being right with God.”[15] We must forgive because this is what God has called us to do and our fellowship with Him is paramount. This supposed psychological benefit, however true it might be, masks the deeper issue if we focus on it. It hides a deep theological truth. We are so self-centered, that even in this arena, we virtually reduce forgiveness to personal benefit.  What if “mental health” was not in any way diminished if we did not forgive? What if the opposite was true? What if my resentment actually energized me? What if it liberated me to do things that I thought I couldn’t do?

Forgiving others reveals the heart of our relationship with our Savior: “forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:32) Ultimately, all sins are against God (Ps. 51:4): “what gives sin its deepest odium, its most heinous hue, is that it offends the God who made us and who stands as our Judge.”[16] Forgiveness is about God and His holiness; it is not about our “mental health.”

 

c. It hurts

Forgiving someone else hurts. No matter what we do, however we argue our case, present our position, etc. the other person will not feel the pain we might feel. Forgiving the one who offended us often hurts us; we must absorb the pain of their sins against us (verbal to physical abuse, continued misunderstanding, etc.). “They clearly don’t understand what they did and seem to make light of what has happened!” Forgiving them does not mean they have to “experience” what we did.

The offender’s crime against us is nothing compared to our weighty offenses against God. I do not discount the scar, the enormous pain and suffering, the great injustice, the deep emotional impact, etc. of the person’s offense or debt. We are to forgive as God in Christ forgave us. It is through the power and healing grace of His forgiveness that we can forgive others. We don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of their repentance or lack thereof. To expect a certain depth and degree of contrition from them, to have them grovel before us, etc. is to demand from them some sort of atonement. We must not act as popes or priests demanding some works of penance from them. John Stott says,

Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offense against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offenses of others, it proves that we have minimized our own. It is the disparity between the size of debts which is the main point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. Its conclusion is: ‘I forgave you all that debt (which was huge) …; should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ (33).[17]

 Talk is cheap, one might say, because he didn’t go through what I did! But is the grace of God in Christ foiled because of your experience? Can his forgiveness of your great sins not liberate you to forgive others? Does his command somehow lose its force because your pain is so deep? Is it not theologically proper to say that when you see your sins properly before an august holy God, then your “exaggerated view of the offenses of others” will all of sudden change? Did not your Lord forgive all your debts? Or are you saying what He forgave was nothing compared to what you are called to forgive?

 

d. Forgive myself?

Some may say, “I can forgive others but I just can’t forgive myself.”[18] Without getting into all that might be involved in this, a few things should be noted. First of all, YOU ARE NOT so special. If God forgave you, then you can surely forgive yourself. God is holier than you and if He is able, then you must. Also, if Christ’s blood washed away your sins and His atonement purchased your pardon, then you are forgiven in Him. To say you can’t forgive yourself is to say that His shed blood is ineffective or inconsequential to you.

If truth be told, the person simply is not coming to terms with the fact that he or she failed and sinned grievously. Your sins are worse than you think. What you can’t forgive in yourself is not nearly half as wicked as you really are.  You have an inflated view of yourself. Faith, if you believe, requires that you accept the forgiveness He offers. If He forgave, then it is forgiven. PERIOD!

 

4. Difficult Cases

The ideal scenario we would love to face is to have our dear brother in Christ know he really sinned (“big time”) against us. He comes with great humility and grief in his heart begging our forgiveness. In our humble super spiritual demeanor, we grant the pardon and we all live happily ever after and skip merrily to the celestial city!

But sin has not only caused offenses in our relationships, it has also sinfully complicated all the variables in these relationships. That is, it is never a simple matter. The offenders never seem to understand how badly they hurt us. Their apologies seem so mechanical. Most of all, it appears to have cost them nothing. To make matters worse, many of them remain oblivious to their incredible offenses or they maintain their absolute innocence in the matter (when you feel that nothing could be farther from the truth) — in fact, they even have the gall to look at you with astonishment as if to suggest that you are the one with “issues.” That is, to them, this “problem” says something more about about you than their supposed offense.

We have all felt keenly such things. Unfortunately, we cannot deal with all the facets of this problem. We will attempt to make general applications from various Bible passages. Good men have differed in this area. It seems to me that their differences are at times semantic and at other times a matter of emphasis.

 

Conditional and Unconditional Forgiveness

Before answering some of the more difficult cases, let us first map out the Bible’s teaching. Jay Adams and Christ Brauns both argue for what we may call “conditional forgiveness.”[19] That is, there is forgiveness only if the other person asks for forgiveness. D. A. Carson and John MacArthur, on the other hand, teach that “conditional forgiveness” does not represent the Bible’s complete teaching on forgiveness.[20] They argue that the Bible in fact call for unconditional forgiveness.

Brauns, interestingly, takes some of the passages used by men like Carson and MacArthur (though he is not arguing specifically against them) to make them fit his position. He says those passages imply the condition of repentance.[21] MacArthur argues that Jay Adams is doing the same. Once Adams defined forgiveness as conditional, no other definition is permitted.[22]

The conditional passages are evident.[23] “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Lk. 17:3; cf. Mt. 18:15-17) This passage presupposes repentance. “This is not an invitation to be naïve about your brother’s inconsistency; it does not mean that he should be trust as if he had no track record of untrustworthiness. What is at issue is a person’s sheer willingness to forgive.”[24] We are called to forgive if they repent (perhaps because we confronted him).

But does that mean every offense demands confrontation?  Is there no room for overlooking, suffering the wrong, etc.? But the Bible also exhorts us to unilaterally overlook, at least, petty offenses. MacArthur says, “Forgive unilaterally, unconditionally. Grant pardon freely and unceremoniously. Love demands this.”[25] Where do we find this? In 1 Peter 4:8, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” Grudem says of this verse in his commentary, “Where love abounds in a fellowship of Christians, many small offences, and even some large ones, are readily overlooked and forgotten. But where love is lacking, every word is viewed with suspicion, every action is liable to misunderstanding, and conflicts abound – to Satan’s perverse delight…”[26] Other passages substantiate the same point. Prov. 10:12 says, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” In another Proverb, it says that “Whoever covers an offense seeks love…” (17:9). Love does not “take into account a wrong suffered” (1Cor. 13:5, NASB). Watson notes, “It is more honor to bury an injury than to revenge it. Wrath denotes weakness; a noble heroic spirit overlooks a petty offence.”[27]Is not covering someone’s offense the very heart of forgiveness? That is the way Ps. 32:1 defines it, “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!” (cf. Ps. 85:2) James 5:20 says that “whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” Covering sin is therefore another way of forgiving sin.[28]

So we have passages that teach that a believer can and must unilaterally (at times) forgive or cover sins. In Mark 11:25, Jesus teaches us to immediately forgive when we are praying. “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” MacArthur says, “That describes an immediate forgiveness granted to the offender with no formal meeting or transaction required. It necessarily refers to a pardon that is wholly unilateral, because this forgiveness takes place while the forgiver stands praying.”[29] This is no easy matter but something of this must be found in our understanding and practice of forgiving.

Paul tells us that we are to forgive “just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” (Eph. 4:32) Adams argues that since we had to repent before we were forgiven, the same condition applies in our relationships. Of course there are times where repentance is necessary (some heinous sins, etc.). Again, MacArthur is helpful here: “When Scripture instructs us to forgive in the manner we have been forgiven, what is in view is not the idea of withholding forgiveness until the offender expresses repentance.”[30] That is, the point was not to teach us, “Don’t dare forgive until they repent!” MacArthur further argues, “The emphasis is on forgiving freely, generously, willingly, eagerly, speedily — and from the heart [cf. Mt. 18:35]. The attitude of the forgiver is where the focus of Scripture lies, not the terms of forgiveness.”[31] (emphasis added)

We obviously ought to confront at times and of course the Mt. 18 process must be followed. The only thing we need to remember is that there are times for unilateral acts of forgiveness. Wisdom, good judgment, etc. must guide us here. Some of these following points are drawn from Brauns but they are reiterated by all the writers in one form or another.

a. Reconciliation has not necessarily occurred

If the person has not asked for forgiveness, in your heart you have already forgiven or are ready to forgive but you have not achieved reconciliation. But just because we have not been fully reconciled to our brother does not mean we can remain angry and bitter. “Transparently, reconciliation is a good thing if it can be achieved, but the goal of reconciliation should not become a cloak for nursing bitterness because it cannot be achieved.”[32]

Adams says no transaction has taken place, hence no forgiveness. Driscoll says you have forgiven them in your heart but no reconciliation has been achieved (as does Carson). None of these men argue (whichever side we might hold) that we are therefore free to be bitter.

A helpful observation I once heard may help us here. If in fact we have not fully dealt with the matter in our hearts, then interactions with the other person will bring those unresolved heart issues to the forefront (anger, discomfort, suspicion, and even a sinful cruel [unstated] desire to see them hurt, etc.).

 

b. You must not attempt to avenge yourself.

In Romans 12:17-21 we are told to repay no one evil for evil (v. 17). Verse 21 says, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” In the middle of this passage, we are instructed to never avenge ourselves (v. 19). Because of the offense, our hearts react and attempt to retaliate. Some have argued that revenge is “healthy.”[33]

We must be clear and honest about this. Revenge comes in many forms — it is often not acted out in the most noticeable manner. We can inflict revenge with our silent treatment, by withholding affections or greetings, giving an icy reception, backbiting, wishing them harm (or just some pain), slighting all good reports of the offender, etc. We can commit all these sins with a sanctimonious smile! We must not return evil for evil, even if our evil is lesser than their offense — our retaliation tends to be very subtle. It also means that the past offense (and our present suffering) does not justify our present sinful behavior!

Ezekiel Hopkins taught that forgiveness consisted in these two things. 1) “In abstaining from the outward acts of revenge upon them.” This corresponds to our “b”. 2) “In the inward frame and temper of our hearts towards them; bearing them no grudge nor ill-will; but being as much in charity with tem, as though they had never offended us.”[34] This is similar to our “c” below to which we must now turn.

 

c. Positively show love.

In Rom. 12:20, Paul instructs us to feed our enemy and give him a drink if he is thirsty. Verse 9 says that love must be genuine. In so doing, we heap coals on his head. What this means is summarized quite well by Douglas Moo, “Acting kindly toward our enemies is a means of leading them to be ashamed of their conduct toward us and, perhaps, to repent and turn to the Lord whose love we embody.”[35] It will not infallibly shame them but that is in the Lord’s hands. To argue that our acts of kindness is a means of heaping judgment on them (and in turn, we are to be motivated by this) seems to run contrary to the tenor of the whole passage.

We must do good to and for them. What they need, what is best for them, etc. must determine our actions. Indifference is not an option. Again, let us be careful here. We can too easily say something like, “Well, it does them no good if we help them out. They’ll never learn their lesson.” Of course in some situations those words may apply but too often we use those words to withhold doing them good in order to subtly display our displeasure. Were we honest with our hearts, we would confess that our words came not from charity but from resentment, bitterness, etc.

 

5. What if?

a. Must I always forgive if they repent?

Our Lord tells us that we must always forgive (“I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” Mt. 18:22). Surely, if they repent, we must forgive. Even in this area, we must give the benefit of doubt to the offender. In our sinful wounded state, all their petitions for pardon will always appear half-hearted and not genuine.

We must also remember if we do not forgive or we are unforgiving as a person, then the Mt. 18 parable has much to say to us: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (v. 35)

 

b. What if the other person does not repent and ask for forgiveness? Must I forgive him?

The debate centers on this issue. Adams and Brauns says that no forgiveness can be granted if they do not repent and ask for it. Carson and MacArthur teach that we must forgive unilaterally though no reconciliation has occurred.

Couple things should guide us, irrespective of our position. One, we should not be bitter against them — such heart sins can lead to other sins. Two, we should not always seek to “confront” incessantly. This will often produce more problems and will not work towards reconciliation. Three, we should foster reconciliation by the way we treat them.

There are times when we must not forgive unilaterally. Personal sins can be forgiven, covered, etc. and the offense absorbed, as it were. But other sins will require confrontation.[36] Some soul-threatening sins cannot be overlooked. 1) “If you observe a serious offense that is a sin against someone other than you, confront the offender.” Those sins are not yours to forgive. Justice demands that it be dealt with. For example, “You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute.” (Ex. 23:6) 2) “When ignoring an offense might hurt the offender, confrontation is required.” (cf. Gal. 6:1-2) Secret sins discovered, heinous sins committed, etc. Theses include “serious doctrinal error, moral failure, repeated instance of the same offense [note, real offense], sinful habits or destructive tendencies, …” 3) “When a sin is scandalous or otherwise potentially damaging to the body of Christ, confrontation is essential.” 4) “Any time an offense results in a broken relationship, formal forgiveness is an essential step toward reconciliation.” Again, it is assumed that the offense is real and sinful. “Whether harsh words have been exchanged or an icy silence prevails, if both sides know that a breach exists, the only way to resolve matters is by the formal granting of forgiveness.” (131)

 

c. What if the person is dead?

Jay Adams says, “Since such people cannot repent and seek forgiveness from you, you cannot grant forgiveness to them. In prayer you may simply tell God of your desire to forgive and your determination to rid your heart of all bitterness and resentment toward them. That is all you can do and all you need to do. Those Christians who died before reconciliation have now been glorified and made perfect. They don’t need your forgiveness.”[37]

 

d. What if I forgave but I still struggle with bitterness?

Forgiveness, once offered, does not mean we forget or that the consequences still do not continue on. Samuel Storm makes five helpful observations in this matter. He calls them “Five Myths about Forgiveness.”[38]

1. Contrary to what many have been led to believe, forgiveness is not forgetting. 2. Forgiving someone does not mean you no longer feel the pain of their offense. 3. Forgiving someone who has sinned against you doesn’t mean you cease longing for justice. Forgiveness does not mean that you close your eyes to moral atrocity and pretend that it didn’t hurt or that it really doesn’t matter whether or not the offending person is called to account for his/her offense. 4.  Forgiveness does not mean you are to make it easy for the offender to hurt you again. 5. Forgiveness is rarely a one-time, climatic event. It is most often a life-long process. However, forgiveness has to begin somewhere at some point in time.

 

e. Don’t be stupid!

See #4 of Samuel Storm’s Five Myths. He says, “They may hurt you again. That is their decision. But you must set boundaries on your relationship with them. The fact that you establish rules to govern how and to what extent you interact with this person in the future does not mean you have failed to sincerely and truly forgive them. True love never aids and abets the sin of another. … Forgiveness does not mean you become a helpless and passive doormat for their continual sin.”

 

f. Can we ever apply the imprecatory Psalms on them?

We cannot deal with this fully here except to say that the imprecatory Psalms can be used ecclesiastically and theologically (with God’s glory in mind) — but with care. It is not to be used for personal revenge and personal hurts you have experienced from someone. David’s role as a mediator king in the redemptive historical situation in which existed looked forward to final judgment of the wicked. It is not personal hatred but righteous anger against God’s enemies. “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you?” (Ps. 139:21, 22)

 

PASSAGES TO PONDER

Mt. 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Mk. 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Col. 3:12    Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Eph. 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

[1] Luke 11:4 uses “for” (γὰρ) — “for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.”

[2] Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 294.

[3] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 147.

[4] David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 138; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 108; Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, vol. 1 (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1987), 252. But taking it in the traditional aorist tense also works.

[5] Bruner, Matthew, 253.

[6] Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917), 102.

[7] Leon Morris, Matthew, 147.

[8] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 79.

[9] Cornelius à Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide, Volume 1: S. Matthew’s Gospel—Chaps. 1 to 9, trans. Thomas W. Mossman, Third Edition (London: John Hodges, 1887), 273.

[10] Cf. Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, 253.

[11] Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 107. The clause may not be as restrictive if I interpret it to mean, “We will receive God’s mercy only if we show mercy to those who have trespassed against us…” That may be the authors’ intention.

[12] a Lapide, 273.

[13] See our notes on Calvin’s Institutes (3.4.2). Facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam (“To those who do what is in them, God will not deny grace”)!

[14] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 253.

[15] D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), 79-80.

[16] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 77.

[17] John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 149-150.

[18] Admittedly, this language is not used in Scripture. Our self-centered culture has twisted the biblical truth of God’s forgiveness into more self-preoccupation. Jay Adams addresses this issue and makes some helpful observations, see From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way (USA: Calvary Press, 1994), 61-64.

[19] Jay E. Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way (USA: Calvary Press, 1994); Chris Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008).

[20] D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002); John MacArthur, The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness, Reprint ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009).

[21] Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness, 145-146.

[22] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 120.

[23] In these two paragraphs, I am carefully following MacArthur.

[24] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 81.

[25] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 121.

[26] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 181. MacArthur also says something similar: “Real love should cover the vast majority of transgressions, not constantly haul them out in the open for dissection (1 Pet. 4:8)” (MacArthur, Forgiveness, 123).

[27] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 252.

[28] See comments to this effect in Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 250.

[29] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 121.

[30] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 118.

[31] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 118-119.

[32] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 82.

[33] Brauns cites a website excerpt without listing the site, see Unpacking Forgiveness, 131.

[34] Ezekiel Hopkins, The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 1:220.

[35] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 789.

[36] Here, I will follow John MacArthur’s examples, pp. 128-134.

[37] Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving, 35.

[38] I downloaded a pdf of “Forgiveness: What it is, What it is Not.”

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiveness, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 194

194.     Q. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?

A. In the fifth petition, (which is, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,[1265]) acknowledging, that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt:[1266] we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin,[1267] accept us in his Beloved;[1268] continue his favour and grace to us,[1269] pardon our daily failings,[1270] and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness;[1271] which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.[1272]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[1265] Matthew 6:12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [1266] Romans 3:9-22. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one…. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, etc. Matthew 18:24-25. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. Psalm 130:3-4. If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. [1267] Romans 3:24-26. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. [1268] Ephesians 1:6-7. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. [1269] 2 Peter 1:2. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord. [1270] Hosea 14:2. Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. Jeremiah 14:7. O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. [1271] Romans 15:13. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Psalm 51:7-10, 12. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me…. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. [1272] Luke 11:4. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Matthew 6:14-15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 18:35. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Introduction

Many years ago, someone asked me if I ever run out things to pray for. The person seemed pretty convinced that more often than not, we will face periods of sheer dumbness. It seems reasonable – all the bases are covered, there is nothing else to pray for. We are done for the day; the list has been prayed through, the matter is concluded, we go on to the next thing scheduled for the day. Will believers run out of things to pray for? Our inability to pray, this “dumbness,” may in fact come from several factors.

It can come from our carnality. We are so caught up with the ways of the world or simply living in disobedience that we remain speechless before God. The soul is not interested in addressing God because it refuses to forsake its love affair with sin. Another reason may be insensibility. The “sense” of want or the awareness of one’s deep spiritual need does not press in on the mind and heart. There is no feeling, no sense of urgency, no sense of dread, etc. This spiritual numbness creates dumbness.

Still there is the conviction of sin that might prevent a person from praying. He is so overwhelmed and feels so guilty, he cannot even groan. Though this is a better situation (since he is sensible of something important), it can easily lead to despair and will issue in full unbelief if left in this condition.

Perhaps a far too common condition among the saints of God is that we tend to be too busy, preoccupied, and distracted. Running too fast and furious with many interests and concerns have crowed out our need for prayer. Some of these concerns may be legitimate, some perhaps neutral, etc. but in the end, our hearts have plunged themselves into those diversions so thoroughly that when it comes to praying, we can say little to nothing because the “other” concerns have grabbed our attention and affections.

These are all spiritual problems and most likely, the same person could (after giving up on prayer) speak energetically about anything else. That reveals much and speaks volumes regarding the spiritual decay.

Now coming back to the question. Theologically speaking, we should never be speechless because the fifth petition assumes something about our real problem. “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (Mt. 6:12) We have enough sins to compel us to pray and enough to preoccupy our prayers. If nothing else comes to mind, surely there is something to confess! If we are not unacquainted with ourselves and not strangers to God’s holy standards, then we can (and should) confess our sins.

Thomas Ridgley beautifully connects this petition with the fourth. This flow in the Lord’s Prayer ought to be remembered:

Having been directed, in the former petition, to pray for outward blessings, we are now led to ask for forgiveness of sin. It is with very good reason that these two petitions are joined together; inasmuch as we cannot expect that God should give us the good things of this life, which are all forfeited by us, much less that we should have them bestowed on us in mercy and for our good, unless he is pleased to forgive those sins whereby we provoke him to withhold them from us. Nor can we take comfort in any outward blessings, while our consciences are burdened with a sense of the guilt of sin, and we have nothing to expect, as the consequence of it, but to be separated from his presence.[1]

 

Debts or Trespasses?[2]

Matthew 6:12 uses the word that must be translated as “debts” — “and forgive us our debts (ὀφειλήματα), as we also have forgiven our debtors (ὀφειλέταις).”[3] Almost every translation uses “debts” but the Catholics in the English speaking world continue to use “trespasses” (even though the Vulgate has “debita nostra” as well as their Douay translation). The Book of Common Prayer (1559) used “trespasses” while John Wycliffe early on used “debts” (dettis) in 1382. William Tyndale’s New Testament translation (1526) however ended up with “trespasses” and he maintained the same translation of v. 12 in 1533 in his exposition upon Matthew chs. 5-7.[4] Perhaps his influence through Coverdale came into The Book of Common Prayer?

Modern Catholics recognize that the word ought to be translated as “debts” but ever since they began to pray the Lord’s Prayer in English (as opposed to Latin), it was “trespasses.” Even the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church uses “trespasses.”[5] Nevertheless, it is more accurate to translate it as “debts.”

Apparently the Greek word for debt was equivalent to the Aramaic word for sin as a debt.[6] The Targums used the Aramaic word to mean sin or transgression.[7] Clearly our sins place us in an indebted situation, as something owed to God. Something has to be done to clear our debt created by our sins (“debtors to the justice of God”).

 

Acknowledging our Guilt, Debt, and Incapacity

In this petition, we are in fact “acknowledging, that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt…” Three things are mentioned in this clause. One, we are acknowledging our guilt. An “uneasiness” should pervade our hearts as we come to Him (as we ponder ourselves). We know we are guilty for our “original and actual sin.” That is, we recognize we are tainted by a sinful nature and that we are also guilty on account of our actual sins against God. Rom. 3:9-22 clearly and emphatically teaches that we are “all under sin.” Though we may not “feel” it, we acknowledge it since it is a fact. Our inability to sense and feel this sin and its corresponding guilt indicates how deeply sin has infected our judgment and sense.  Vos makes this helpful observation:

The guilt of sin is an unpopular idea today; the man-centered religion of recent decades has tried to avoid this idea or explain it away. Sin is regarded as a misfortune or calamity, rather than as something deserving blame and punishment. Consequently, many modern people regard themselves as quite righteous; or if they think of themselves as sinners, they feel that they are to be pitied and consoled rather than judged and condemned. (Vos, 566)

Two, we are also admitting that we are in debt to God — “debtors to the justice of God.” Acknowledging our guilt means that we have become debtors to God. God requires holiness and we have fallen short of His glory (Rom. 3:23). Jesus tells a most searching parable of the unmerciful or unforgiving servant in Mt. 18:21-35. In it, Jesus equates the debt with sin. He concludes, “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (v. 35) Jesus is teaching us that our debts have been forgiven and we should in turn forgive others. The debt in v. 24 is likened to something over a billion dollars in our currency; selling the family into slavery to pay of the debt would have perhaps cover one talent (nothing in comparison to the ten thousand talents he owed [ὀφειλέτης]).  Similarly, our guilt and sin has placed us in debt to the justice of God. We must see our offense and debt to be as they really are. Is it not true that we minimize our sins against God and maximize people’s offense against us?[8]

Three, we are acknowledging that we are incapable of paying for that debt. Our incapacity does not minimize our obligation — and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt. The Psalmist said, “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps. 130:3) If God holds us accountable (and He does), we cannot stand before Him. His holy righteousness opposes us and we cannot satisfy Him of this debt. Always remember this! We are infinitely indebted to Him on account of our sins; we are incapable of satisfying that debt. We cannot repay what we owe!

Why is this necessary? Are we once again pressing for a “worm theology” that is neither healthy nor helpful? Not at all! Rather, this posture must always regulate and drive our prayers because it truly reflects our condition. The fifth petition helps us to come to terms with our need for pardon and that we (in ourselves) cannot take care of (or atone for) the sins we have committed! We must remember we cannot satisfy divine justice so we must flee to Him who alone can pardon and justify us. We must rid ourselves of that “legal” spirit that always rears its ugly head in our prayers: “I’m so sorry; I’ll never do it again. I will from now on do this and that and promise to always [insert your promised works of righteousness]!” No, we acknowledge that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt. We cannot make the least satisfaction much less a full satisfaction — that is what we must always remember in our prayers. We possess infinite demerit and come to God incapable of satisfying divine justice — in knowing and believing this, we possess the right posture to seek pardon from our gracious heavenly Father. It is most safe to be most honest before our heavenly Father.  (Though we must not think that even this “posture” merits his approval and thus earn our forgiveness and satisfy divine justice. Remember John Newton’s words, “My best is defective and defiled, and needs pardon before it can hope for acceptance; but through mercy my hope is built, not upon frames and feelings, but upon the atonement and mediation of Jesus.”)

 

We and All Others…Ourselves and Others

Confessing our own sins is a very personal and private matter. Yet the prayer requests pardon for “our debts.” None of us stand above another before God. We are all guilty and we all need pardon. Witsius says that “all are oppressed by the load [of sin], no one is able to discharge his own debt, much less that of others.”[9] So “we pray for ourselves and others…” Prayer must include the infirmities of others.

Before expounding the petition, we must remember that we are seeking the same for others. We cannot wish pardon for ourselves while secretly wishing the one we dislike or the one who hurt us be condemned and judged strictly for his debts. Our sins ought to grieve us and we should feel the same grief for the sins of others while seeking the Lord’s pardon for them. How our God answers those requests, we cannot be certain but surely we are encouraged to pray for mercy on behalf of others.

None of us can read the hearts of the other person but our heavenly Father can. To secretly yearn for judgment or calamity for someone else while beseeching only pardon for ourselves reveals something narrow and cruel in our hearts. We are to forgive our brother from our hearts (Mt. 18:35, ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν — “from your hearts”). How can we beg for mercy, pardon, and patience from God while looking with indifference on a brother’s plight (a brother or sister with whom we might have differed)?

 

To be Free from Guilt and Punishment

We must assume and acknowledge the previous clause. The heart of the petition lies in in what follows. In begging our heavenly Father to forgive us our debts — “we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin…” Forgiveness is “of his free grace” and is not something we are naturally “due.” However, His grace does not run rough shod against His justice. It is granted to us “though the obedience and satisfaction of Christ…” This theological verity has fallen on hard times. The New Perspective and Federal Vision have vigorously rejected the notion that God would grant us forgiveness “through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ.”[10] They call this “merit theology” and eschew any suggestion that Christ’s obedience merited anything.[11] Clearly Christ’s obedience merited our salvation (see our study on the Larger Catechism question #38).[12]

The petition, in keeping with what is taught elsewhere in the Bible, teaches that God forgives us on the basis of Christ’s atonement. Christ perfectly obeyed the law (“obedience”) and fully paid for the infractions against the law (“satisfaction of Christ”). So Paul says that “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).[13] Christ’s obedience and satisfaction are the righteous means of relieving us entirely from the guilt and punishment of our sins.

Rom. 3:24-26 makes clear that Christ’s redemptive death procures our justification — “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦv)” (3:24).[14] Though v. 25 may be difficult to interpret, we can still recognize that what God did through Jesus’ sacrificial death (“God put forward as a propitiation by his blood”) we are to receive by faith (“to be received by faith”). The fifth petition has in mind what Christ did (“through the…satisfaction of Christ”) and in our prayers we are to receive what He did by faith — “apprehended and applied by faith.”  The end result of looking in faith is that we would acquitted from our guilt and punishment. To put this simply, we are asking God to declare us right and innocent and forgo punishing us for our sins — why? We are asking that He would do so through Christ’s finished work (“through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ”). Ridgley makes this helpful observation: “As in this method of praying for forgiveness, we take occasion to adore the wisdom of God, which has found out this expedient to hallow or sanctify his own name, as well as to secure to us an interest in his love; and, at the same time, we express the high esteem we have for the person of Christ, who has procured it for us, and also our sense of the infinite value of the price he paid in order to procure it.”[15]

This is no idle theology. We are not defending something because it is “old” or because it is “traditional.” Not only is it biblical (on that basis, the matter should be concluded), it is eminently practical and serves as a great means of comforting our souls. When the believer sins, when he feels its weight and guilt, what does he do? He wishes he could pull it from his breast; rip it from his heart; cleanse it with his efforts. He knows his sins deserve judgment and he knows not what to do and is ashamed with guilt. When he prays, “Lord, forgive me, pardon me of my debts, my wicked trespasses, my rebellious sins.” he wishes he could do more than simply cry out. This is when the simple truth of Christ’s obedience and satisfaction assuages his conscience. He himself can do nothing but he can apprehend and apply by faith that Jesus has obeyed even unto death and has satisfied divine justice. There, he sees what his own sins justly deserve and recognize that God has acted with righteousness to condemn sin in Christ. With that, he simultaneously recognizes that he is acquitted on account of Christ. I can only believe and receive; I cannot pay for my own sins!

Acceptance and Favor

In our petition for acquittal, we are also asking for the other gospel benefits: “accept us in his Beloved; continue his favour and grace to us, pardon our daily failings, and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness…” These requests work together — they represent the full desire of what should be asking. It is not merely, “Get rid of this sin; please cover it by forgiving me.” Rather, “we pray… that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith…” would confer the following.

Accept us in his Beloved — Ephesians 1:6, 7 teaches that we are indeed blessed in Christ (“blessed us in the Beloved”). The KJV translated it as “he hath made us accepted in the beloved”. The word ἐχαρίτωσεν (from χαριτόω) simply means to be gracious, be favored, bestow on freely.[16] Some of the older commentators translated this broadly as “graciously accepted” or “made us subjects of His grace” (as in JFB).[17]  In the context, Paul praises God’s glorious grace with which he graced or blessed us in the beloved Lord Jesus Christ (literally, “his grace with which he has graced us” since the verbal cognate of the noun “grace” is used). We are praising the grace with which He graced us in Christ — as John Eadie says, “So it is not grace as a latent attribute, but grace in profuse donation…”

We are asking God to acquit us and to continue to graciously deal with us in Christ — to continue to bless us in Him (which would include continued acceptance in the Beloved).  If God does not forgive us, we will be bankrupt. Our petition for pardon also is a petition for God to continually bless us in Christ. Remember, we deserve nothing and our sinful ways only reinforces that point so any and all gracious dealings with God abundantly come to us on account of Christ or “in the beloved” (ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳˆ).

A similar idea is found in the next clause — continue in his favour and grace to us. As Peter prays, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” (2 Peter 1:2) We are daily dependent upon God’s continue favor and grace. The idea of grace or favor in 2 Peter suggests a “ruler’s favor” one writer says. “These readers have already received favor from God in that they have received a faith equal to that of the apostles. Now they are wished further favor from their divine patron, indeed multiplied favor.”[18] This comes to us through God’s grace.

We must ponder a most simple but practical point. When we come with that humble attitude before God and are ever aware of our guilt and offense, we cannot presume that any good should or would come to us. We are debtors to Him. But we come in faith, convinced of what God has done for us in Christ and how He has acquitted us in Him and therefore we can humbly ask that He would continue his favor and his grace to us for the sake of Christ. This is not a petition for material blessings but a petition for all the riches that flow to us in the beloved.

This part of the petition is something we all readily see, pardon our daily failings. The verses used to support this are helpful. Hosea 14:2 says, “Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, ‘Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.’” We are called to return to the Lord with words of confession asking him to “take away all iniquity.” Surely God requires this of us on a daily basis. Jeremiah 24:7 gives these words, ““Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O LORD, for your name’s sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you.” Daily pardon is required because daily sins are committed; they “testify against us” (at least they should) and our “backslidings are many.”

We might miss this simple point but the Lord’s Prayer assumes we sin on a daily basis and therefore need daily forgiveness. As we pray for daily bread, we also pray for daily pardon for our daily failings.  Why is that important? We are too often foolishly surprised by our own sins and failures. We are a wonder to ourselves — how could we sin so easily and so frequently? God has provided for us by giving His Son. Through his merits and sacrificial death, our miserable failures and high-handed sins are pardoned!

In the fifth petition, as we acknowledge our sinfulness and ask God for pardon, we can easily feel ashamed and disheartened. Did our Lord teach us this prayer so that we would grovel in guilt and shame? Is the purpose only to force us to come to terms with our wicked selves? It cannot be. Our divines recognized that this petition required and exercise of faith (“apprehended and applied by faith”). We must believe as we pray. In Ps. 51, the confession of sin rings clear and an unmistakable brokenness and humility permeate the Psalm. It includes petitions like, “Restore to me the joy of your salvation” (v. 12) and “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.” (v. 15)[19] With contrition comes the petition for joy in the Lord. So the Larger Catechism interprets the petition to include: “and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness…” Asking for forgiveness did not mean that we would be placed in a substandard position. We deserve nothing and we will not be blessed because we deserve it. We were not adopted because we were righteous and we will not be blessed because we have been good. Christ’s death has purchased and secured our redemption, past and present pardon, and all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. This petition is a request for pardon and restoration.

Rom. 15:13 is Paul’s prayer-wish for the Roman church. He asks, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” That is, his prayer is that the believers would be filled with “all joy and peace in believing” — the end product (εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς) is so that they would abound in hope through the power of the Spirit. He fills us with joy and peace as we believe (ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν). Mounce says, “While it is God who provides the joy and peace, it is our continuing confidence and trust in God that enables him to bless us as he does. The joy and peace given by God results in an overflow of hope in the life of the believer. Our role is to maintain a relationship of continuing trust in God.” Or as Calvin would say, “for in order that our peace may be approved by God, we must be bound together by real and genuine faith.” That is, we must look to God, believe He will fill us with joy and peace. We are asking God to fill us with these things because we have lost the joy of our salvation. The Psalmist wishes to “hear joy and gladness” and experience “the joy of your [God’s] salvation.”

Furthermore, we are asking to be more assured of our forgiveness. This is not a call for easy believism or a formulaic plea. Rather, being convinced that God alone can pardon and that He alone can grant the assurance of our pardon, we look to him for both. Remember, the end of our confession is not defeat or some morbid depression — the end of this petition is apprehending by faith our pardon and peace, our acquittal and assurance, our justification and joy — those are what we must pray for.

In conclusion, we must remember that our time of confession of our sins to God should in relief, joy, and peace. This will not always happen with the same intensity but we must apprehend by faith all that has been promised to us in Christ. If we leave dejected and unbelieving, if we rise from our being on our knees unconvinced and unconsoled, then we have not prayed in faith.

[1] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 633.

[2] I had originally stated that the KJV used “trespasses” in v. 12. One of our members pointed out that I was mistaken and it appears I had looked at v. 14 in the KJV and drew an incorrect conclusion. I have since then corrected this section.

[3] Luke 11:4 has “sins” (τὰς ἁμαρτίας).

[4]  G. E. Duffield, ed., The Work of William Tyndale, The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), 261.

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1994), 682.

[6] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 150: “The concept of sin as a “debt” owed to God has an Aramaic background (in the rabbinic literature, aDbOwj, ho®baœ}, is sin construed as a debt).”

[7] D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), n.p

[8] N. T. Wright gives an interesting interpretation to the word “debt” here. He argues that this alludes to the Jubilee command. It is more than individual guilt but a yearning for something more cosmic. He says, “The Lord’s Prayer makes sense, not just in terms of individual human beings quieting their own troubled consciences, vital though that is, but also in terms of the new day when justice and peace will embrace, economically and socially as well as personally and existentially” (N. T. Wright, The Lord and His Prayer [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996], 55). There may be something to that but Wright tends to minimize the salient aspect of this petition, viz., our own troubled consciences!

[9] Herman Witsius and William Pringle, Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer (Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1839), 316.

[10] See the following refutations of these novel views: Cornelis P. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspective on Paul (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2006); Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2006).

[11] Cf. James B. Jordan, “Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004), 151-195. It is my desire to refute this sometime in the future.

[12] Vos gives a good and hearty defense of the active obedience of Christ in his exposition of the LC, see The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 569.

[13] Rom. 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Herman Witsius speaks of “on account of the satisfaction and merits of his Son” (Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer, 317). For the historical arguments for the active obedience of Christ, see Jeffrey Jue, “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, ed. Scott K. Oliphint (Great Britain: Mentor, 2007), 99-130; Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A G Haykin and Mark Jones, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 31-51.

[14] Again, I refer the reader to LC #38 where we interact with this text.

[15] Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, 2:637-38.

[16] Verse 6 reads in the original, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ.

[17] Eadie noted that many (including Calvin) took the meaning to be like the KJV translation, “The verb is supposed by them to refer to the personal or subjective result of grace, which is to give men acceptance with God—gratos et acceptos reddidit [rendered or caused to be gracious and acceptable]” — John Eadie, Eadie Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), n.p. Even the Latin translation got it right, in qua gratificavit nos.

[18] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 164.

[19] In all honesty, as I worked on this phrase and pondered its meaning, Ps. 51 came immediately to mind. After looking up the proof text, I was pleased to find that our divines had developed this point in part from Ps. 51.

John 1:43-51

Leave a reply

John 1:43-51

We have three disciples so far. One is unnamed and the other two are Andrew (v. 40) and Peter (vv. 41-42). The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. Presumably, it is the day after John’s disciples followed Jesus. ESV supplies the subject Jesus to this but the text does not indicate who the subject of “decided” is (ἠθέλησεν). It could be Andrew who brought Peter to Jesus (v. 42) and “everyone else who comes to Jesus in this chapter does so because of someone else’s witness” (Carson). He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” The text says, Jesus found Philip. Jesus issues a call, Follow me. “The verb “Follow” will be used here in its full sense of “follow as a disciple.” The present tense has continuous force, “keep on following.””[1] Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Mark 1:21, 29 indicate that Peter’s house was in Capernaum but it appears from this text that Peter and Andrew were reared in Bethsaida (remember, Jesus was from Nazareth but early on, his ministry was in Capernaum, Mt. 4:13).

From Philip, we turn to Nathanael. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” A new disciple zealously finds another soul and bears witness about Christ. This is the natural rhythm of the church and it usually only happens with true disciples of Christ. Philip now finds someone else who is called Nathaniel which means “God gives.”

In v. 41, Jesus was called the Messiah (says Andrew) and now Philip says, We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. The first part speaks of the prophetic words and the latter about the historical fulfillment. “That is the stance of this entire Gospel: Jesus fulfils the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. 5:39).”[2] This was the common expectation of the Jewish people. The “Law…the prophets” is perhaps another way of referring to the entire OT. Philip probably had Deut. 18:15-19 in mind and there would have been numerous other references from the rest of the OT regarding the Messiah. Edersheim noted that the Rabbis believed over 450 verses referred to the Messiah. Furthermore, “When Philip speaks of Jesus as “the son of Joseph” we should not take the words as a denial of the Virgin Birth. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, and the Lord would accordingly be known as Joseph’s son.” (Morris)

Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”  Nazareth was an insignificant place and no prophecies foretold that the Messiah would come from taht city. Here, Nathanael was not willing to accept Philip’s word so Philip says, Come and see. J. C. Ryle draws some edifying conclusions from Philip’s response

Wiser counsel than this it would be impossible to conceive! If Philip had reproved Nathanael’s unbelief, he might have driven him back for many a day, and given offence. If he had reasoned with him, he might have failed to convince him, or might have confirmed him in his doubts. But by inviting him to prove the matter for himself, he showed his entire confidence in the truth of his own assertion, and his willingness to have it tested and proved. And the result shows the wisdom of Philip’s words. Nathanael owed his early acquaintance with Christ to that frank invitation, “Come and see.”

If we call ourselves true Christians, let us never be afraid to deal with people about their souls as Philip dealt with Nathanael. Let us invite them boldly to make proof of our religion. Let us tell them confidently that they cannot know its real value until they have tried it. Let us assure them that vital Christianity courts every possible inquiry. It has no secrets. It has nothing to conceal. Its faith and practice are spoken against, just because they are not known. Its enemies speak evil of things with which they are not acquainted. They understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. Philip’s mode of dealing, we may be sure, is one principal way to do good. Few are ever moved by reasoning and argument. Still fewer are frightened into repentance. The man who does most good to souls, is often the simple believer who says to his friends, “I have found a Savior; come and see Him.” (Ryle)

This is one of those remarkable verses. Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!”  Palestinian Jews referred to one another as an “Israelite” and Jesus says he is a true (ἀληθῶς) Israelite (ESV has “Israelite indeed”). Why? We learn the reason for this declaration: in whom there is no deceit. Jacob means deceit; Nathanael is not like that. “Jesus’ knowledge of the true nature of Nathanael was supernatural. In 2:25 the evangelist says of Jesus, ‘He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.’”[3]

Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” We might have expected some self-deprecation but notice Nathanael’s words: How do you know me? “A more guileful man would have “modestly” asserted his unworthiness.” (Morris) Jesus’ answer seems to suggest that he knows more about Nathanael than merely his character; Jesus knew what Nathanael was doing before Philip called him.

Christ’s knowledge of Nathanael affects him deeply. Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”  He sees immediately that this person is a teacher (Rabbi), God’s Son (Son of God), a King (King of Israel). He was already referred to as Rabbi in v. 28 and as the Son of God in v. 34. A revelation of Jesus unfolds from this title; he is the King of Israel. This title is used in Jn. 12:13 and in Mt. 27:42 & Mk. 15:32. What are the implications? “In the Old Testament God is the King of his people, and it is clear that in the intervening period the Messiah came to be thought of as exercising the divine prerogative of rule. Nathanael is speaking in the highest terms available to him.” (Morris) Carson’s observation is just as important.

The title King of Israel was used by Palestinian Jews for the Messiah; it is again applied to Jesus in 12:13. In John 18-19 the similar ‘King of the Jews’ occurs several times. Jesus did not quickly adopt either title for himself, as both expressions were in the popular mind largely tied to expectations of a political liberator. Yet Jesus was the promised King, even if he would have to explain that his kingdom was not of this world (18:36).[4]

So often modern believers accept Jesus as Savior. A true knowledge of Him entails the firm recognition and confession of Jesus as King. One who follows Jesus must also recognize that he follows the King of Kings (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” Nathanael’s faith is based upon Christ’s miraculous supernatural knowledge and “such a foundation can be insecure (4:48; 14:11; cf. Mt. 7:21-23), though certainly better than nothing (10:25, 38).” (Carson). Jesus promises him that he will see greater things than these. He will see many miracles (presumably all the signs). Future disciples would witness far more than what he saw that day. He will in fact see a vision far surpassing the patriarch Israel: And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

The phrase “Truly, truly…” is first used here in John. Though addressing Nathanael, he is promising all disciples who were to follow him in his ministry (2nd person plural, “you all will see”). The imagery goes back to Gen. 28:12. “What the disciples are promised, then, is heaven-sent confirmation that the one they have acknowledged as the Messiah has been appointed by God. Every Jew honoured Jacob/Israel, the father of the twelve tribes; now everyone must recognize that this same God has appointed Jesus as his Messiah.”[5]

What this means is that Jesus is the New Israel; God reveals Himself through Jesus. “Jesus himself is the link between heaven and earth (3:13). He is the means by which the realities of heaven are brought down to earth, and Nathanael will see this for himself. The expression then is a figurative way of saying that Jesus will reveal heavenly things, a thought that is developed throughout this Gospel.”[6] The point is that Jesus is focusing on himself as the final and full revelation of God. It is on the Son of Man heaven opens. Knowledge of and relationship with God are now permanently connected with and riveted on Jesus the Son of Man, the Son of God, the King of Israel.

When Jesus, alluding to this incident, said to his disciples, ‘you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man’, he was implying that the place where people encounter God was now in the person of his Son, Jesus, and that it was through him that God was now revealing his truth. The greater things people were to see, then, would be the revelation of God in the life, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus.[7]

[1] Morris, The Gospel of John, 142.

[2] Carson, John, 159.

[3] Kruse, John, 89.

[4] Carson, John, 162.

[5] Carson, John, 163-4.

[6] Morris, John, 149-150.

[7] Kruse, John, 90.

John 1:35-42

Leave a reply

John 1:35-42

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”  Once again, John confesses who Christ is. He identified Jesus as the Lamb of God the day before and now declares the same here. In the previous confession, we are not told who the audience was but in v. 35, we learn that the second confession was before two of his disciples. In turn, we learn that the two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. One commentator put it like this:

Not all of John’s disciples followed Jesus (3:25–27; Acts 19:1–7), but these two did. Many people in John’s situation would have been disappointed to see their followers going after someone else, but not John. When asked about it later, he said that a person can only receive what is given from heaven, and reminded his hearers that he had already testified that ‘I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him,’ and explained that seeing people follow Jesus actually completed his own joy (3:28–30).[1]

Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” These are the first two words of Jesus in the Gospel of John: “the Logos-Messiah confronts those who make any show of beginning to follow him and demands that they articulate what they really want in life.”[2] He will have his disciples identify themselves and their purpose. Is this not a question we must ask of church members? Why do they come? What are they seeking? Are they seeking the Lord to be His disciple or are they here for entertainment or for other carnal purposes? (He asks it again in 18:4, 7; 20:15.)

And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. This is probably their way of becoming his disciple; they were not merely asking about his residence. Because they were calling him “Teacher” and knew Jesus was the Lamb of God, this pursuit is more than a passing interest. The tenth hour is around 4PM. They probably remained with him late into the night. Jesus did say, Come and you will see.  Our Lord will accept all who would come to him in sincerity and in truth. It is not that He is unwilling for us to follow Him but rather, do we really want to follow Him?

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. One of the disciples appears to be Andrew and is zealous to evangelize his own brother Peter. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). “He thus became the first in a long line of successors who have discovered that the most common and effective Christian testimony is the private witness of friend to friend, brother to brother.”[3] This is a typical experience of all those who have become Christ’s followers. It is both the natural effects of new life and the necessary response of the disciple. Should we not be zealous to make our Lord known? He did not go through evangelism training and yet we witness his evangelistic zeal!

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). Jesus’ response is swift and powerful. Jesus renames Peter. “When Peter is brought to him, Jesus assigns a new name as a declaration of what Peter will become. This is not so much a merely predictive utterance as a declaration of what Jesus will make of him.”[4] Everyone is changed when they meet Christ. Even if our names do not change, our nature does and consequently our lives!

[1] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 4; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 85.

[2] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 155.

[3]  Carson, The Gospel According to John, 155.

[4] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 156.

John 1:29-34

Leave a reply

John 1:29-34

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him tells us that our Lord came to him after his confession and protestations. His humility toward the coming Messiah now is coupled with further spiritual illumination. These verses suggest that Jesus had already been baptized and John sees Him coming again. He says, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! The phrase Lamb of God is used twice (vv. 29, 36) but the idea of the “lamb” and Christ can be found in Rev. 7:17; 17:14, etc. Of course this goes back to the OT idea of sacrifice (Lev. 14:25; 16:15-22). He is the Lamb whom God (τοῦ θεοῦ) provides (cf. Gen. 22:8) and his death (the shedding of His blood) will take away the sins of the world. The death would be sacrificial, substitutionary, and on account of its nature, propitiatory.

Let us remember this is Christ’s mission; this is why He came. Yes, he gives us light, He instructs, etc. but all those things are useless if He did not die for our sins. Through this atonement, all the other blessings of Christ can become ours.

He adds, This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me. John did not and cannot take away the sins of anyone. We see now why Jesus is greater. This is already quoted in v. 15.

Verse 31 indicates that John’s calling to baptize also served as a means of identifying the Lamb of God: I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.  John was to reveal the Messiah and yet, up to this moment, he did not know the identity of the Messiah. Jesus’ coming was to be a blessing to Israel; Jesus’ identity as the Messiah was to be revealed to Israel first. But as we know, his own people did not receive him (v. 11).

Verses 32-34 explain how John came to recognize Jesus. I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. The Spirit’s descent and dwelling fulfill Is. 11:1ff. which says, “the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him…” (cf. Is. 42:1; 61:1; cf. Acts 10:38). As John baptized (drawn from the Synoptics), he saw this fulfilled and this was revealed to him: He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. John saw this and bears witness that this is the Son of God.

The identity of who Jesus is did not even come to John by flesh and blood; it was divinely revealed to him. If the forerunner of the Messiah had to be told and instructed regarding his own Lord, then how much more for all who are lost? John confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Remember what our Lord said to Peter who said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah! For flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα) has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’” (Mt. 16:16, 17)

The Spirit comes from Jesus Christ as a gift to His church. The Spirit is never severed from Him (Acts 2:33). It is Jesus who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and that baptism is what you and I need. The water baptism means nothing if we do not the baptism of the Spirit. Two important points need to be remembered. One, a person cannot have the Spirit without Christ. If we do not have Christ, we do not have the Holy Spirit. No saving experience of the Spirit is possible without Christ. Two, one should never seek to “experience” the Spirit as if it is a mystical, indefinable, and mysterious encounter. Though we cannot understand everything about the Spirit’s work yet one thing is clear, a genuine “experience” of the Spirit is always consciously Christocentric and Christological (Christ centered and about Christ).

Leave All My Abominations Behind Me

Leave a reply

“My best is defective and defiled, and needs pardon before it can hope for acceptance; but through mercy my hope is built, not upon frames and feelings, but upon the atonement and mediation of Jesus. When I am called home, I trust I shall leave all my abominations behind me, as my dear friend Cowper says in his hymn, — One view of Jesus as He is/Will strike all sin for ever dead.” [1]

John Newton’s great desire was to sin no more. What an astonishing thought, that one day, when we die… we leave all our filthy abominations behind us!! What vision, what hope, what glory — I can scarcely believe it though I yearn for it with all my heart! ‘Tis true,

One view of Jesus as He is

Will strike all sin for ever dead.

Come Lord Jesus!

[1] Josiah Bull, ed., Letters by the Rev. John Newton (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1869), 376.

John 1:19-28

Leave a reply

John 1:19-28

Verses 19-28 explain who John is. In fact, verse 19 says, And this is the testimony of John. The Jews (an expression used 68 times in John and often referred to those opposed to Christ) asked “Who are you?” and John emphatically stated that he is not the Christ (“I am not the Christ.”). John will not make any messianic claim for himself.  But John’s denial is considered a confession as v. 20 states, He confessed [ὡμολόγησεν], and did not deny, but confessed [ὡμολόγησεν].

When asked, “Are you Elijah?” John says “I am not.” [Οὐκ εἰμί] Elijah was expected as Mal. 4:5 indicated; remember, he never died (1K. 2:11). John’s clothing (Mk. 1:6) strongly suggested a link to Elijah (1K. 1:8) but he denies that he is.  Though Jesus claimed that John in fact came as Elijah (Mk. 9:13), John was not willing to claim that for himself.[1] The question, “Are you the prophet?” suggests they were asking John if he was THE prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:15, 18 (cf. Jn. 6:14; 7:37). To this question, John says No. Jesus is that prophet (cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37) but John is merely a prophet (Mt. 11:11-14; Jn. 10:40-41).

The frustrated “members of the deputation” need to know who John was. We need to give an answer to those who sent us indicates John was someone significant. So John quotes Isaiah 40:3,  “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” The Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem were to spiritually change in their return. John on the other hand is calling the Jews to prepare for the coming Messiah.

“Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? That is, John had to have a theological reason for why he was baptizing?

Baptism was not unknown among the Jews. It was self-administered by Gentiles who became Jewish proselytes (and by members of the Qumran sect for ritual cleansing). But John himself was administering the baptism and those he baptized were already Jews.[2]

The Pharisees could see why the Gentiles need baptism and why someone like the Messiah might baptize but John is neither the Christ nor baptizing Gentiles. This did not make sense. But John’s answer is important. His baptism is only with water, I baptize with water. Why this point? “This should not be taken as indicating that he does not regard his baptism as important. He does. He does not depreciate it. But his baptism is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to point people to Christ (v. 31).”[3] This is a point we must never forget about baptism. John’s baptism as well as anyone’s baptism after are never an end in themselves — they must point to Christ!

John says, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie. This means that his baptism compared to what is coming after is really nothing — a far more significant “baptism” will come (“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Mt. 3:11). Let us also observe John’s humility before the Lord. He has not even met him yet and we see his understanding and humility before the coming Messiah. Ryle’s comments are instructive and necessary:

Yet here in this passage we see this eminent saint lowly, self-abased, and full of humility. He puts away from himself the honor which the Jews from Jerusalem were ready to pay him. He declines all flattering titles. He speaks of himself as nothing more than the “voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and as one who “baptized with water.” He proclaims loudly that there is One standing among the Jews far greater than himself, One whose shoe-latchet he is not worthy to unloose. He claims honor not for himself but for Christ. To exalt Christ was his mission, and to that mission he steadfastly adheres.

The greatest saints of God in every age of the Church have always been men of John the Baptist’s spirit. In gifts, and knowledge, and general character they have often differed widely. But in one respect they have always been alike–they have been “clothed with humility.” (1 Pet. 5:5.) They have not sought their own honor. They have thought little of themselves. They have been ever willing to decrease if Christ might only increase, to be nothing if Christ might be all. And here has been the secret of the honor God has put upon them. “He that humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 14:11.)

If we profess to have any real Christianity, let us strive to be of John the Baptist’s spirit. Let us study HUMILITY. This is the grace with which all must begin, who would be saved. We have no true religion about us, until we cast away our high thoughts, and feel ourselves sinners. This is the grace which all saints may follow after, and which none have any excuse for neglecting. All God’s children have not gifts, or money, or time to work, or a wide sphere of usefulness; but all may be humble. This is the grace, above all, which will appear most beautiful in our latter end. Never shall we feel the need of humility so deeply, as when we lie on our deathbeds, and stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Our whole lives will then appear a long catalogue of imperfections, ourselves nothing, and Christ all.

[1] One writer put it this way, “John the Baptist himself still saw Elijah as a messianic figure and so shrank from identification with him. Implicit in his denial is the assumption that the One coming after him is Elijah, as well as the Prophet and the Messiah. “  J. Ramsey Michaels, John (NIBC 4; Accordance electronic ed. 18 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 31.

[2] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 4; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 79.

[3] Leon Morris, The Gospel of John (NICNT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 123-124.

 

Christians and Political Fanaticism

Leave a reply

Christians and Political Fanaticism[1]

This study will not address everything about politics. My main purpose in this study is to challenge us to consider our hearts over these matters. How do we look at politics in terms of the Bible and in terms of our hope? Are we too easily caught up in politics? William G. T. Shedd (19th century) and John Newton (18th century) both spoke on these matters.

Shedd on Political Fanaticism[2]

Shedd argued that Patriotism is an instinctive feeling and is not to be rejected but cultivated. “But one chief mode of cultivating and sanctifying the sentiment is to moderate it.” It can degenerate to fanaticism. “The claims of a man’s country are inferior to the claims of God upon him.” It cannot have first place in our lives. “Hence if a man devote his time, his strength, and his thoughts so excessively to the political party to which he belongs as to neglect the concerns of his own soul and the religious welfare of his family and society, then his so-called patriotism is a sin.” (260)

Shedd argued that political fanaticism was rampant in America. Each election year excited the people “unduly and extravagantly.” We tend to think one certain policy over another is often the decisive factor in our nation’s destiny. We place unnecessary weight and importance on to political issues. “Government is an uncertain and experimental science. It is often difficult to say which is the better of two propositions, or two measures. Nothing but the trial will decide.” Our Christian faith, on the other hand, is not subject to these things; it is not “an uncertain and experimental science. It is drawn out in black and white in a written volume.” We must therefore recognize that in politics, men may properly differ. Then he concludes with this short paragraph:

The great defect in American politics is fanaticism. Let your moderation in politics be known to all men, is the true maxim for the people. It will be a happy day when the masses of our citizens shall be as greatly excited upon the subject of morals and religion as they now are upon politics, and as moderate in their political excitements as they now are in their religious. (262)

Shedd’s words should challenge us. Are we more zealous about politics as we are about our own relationship with Christ? Do we know the details of our political party more than we do of our own Christian doctrine? Shedd saw this fanaticism in the nineteenth century. Do we not see more in our generation?

 

Newton’s Thoughts on Politics

John Newton’s moderate views help us in our day of heavy interest in politics. In 1775, when the Americans were reacting against England’s control, Newton called for a prayer meeting (5AM on Tuesdays). It was well attended and he added the following statement:

We do not pray that either army may knock the other on the head, but that the Lord in his wisdom (for I believe it is beyond the wisdom of the wisest men) would point out expedients for peace, and that the sword may be put quietly into its scabbard. It seems to me one of the darkest signs of the times, that so many of the Lord’s professing people act as if they thought he was withdrawn from the earth, and amuse themselves and each other, with declamations against instruments and second causes and indulge unsanctified passions instead of taking that part which is assigned them Ezek. 9:4. [“And the LORD said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.”]

He further added that he believed the Lord still reigns and He alone was our sure sanctuary. “Thus you have the substance of my political creed.”[3]

When England was involved in some sort of war in 1794, he was grieved and believed that the nation’s “sins plunged us into it.” He was convinced that the best he could do for his country was to pray for her. Then he tells John Ryland, “Sin, my friend, is the great evil. Let us preach against sin, let us cry to the Lord for mercy, let us point to Jesus as the only refuge from the storm, and let us leave the rest to them who know better.” (Wise Counsel, 305) Rather than getting all excited about this and that political issue, he looked at the matter theologically.

He recognized these national events were from the Lord (309) and that God was still accomplishing His purpose. He believed meddling in politics (as ministers) was wrong (331).

I believe as you say that intermingling of politics with religion has done much harm. But I thank God this is not my easy besetting sin. My whole concern with politics is to tell the people that the Lord reigns, that all hearts are in his hands, that creatures are all instruments of his will, and can do neither more nor less than he, for wise reasons, appoints or permits; that sin is the procuring cause of all misery; that they who sigh and mourn for our abominations and stand in the breach pleading for mercy, are better patriots than they who talk loudly about men and measures, of either side.[4]

This is spiritual wisdom. We can so easily get exercised over political events and speeches. Our affections are too dependent on the fortunes of political events. What matters most is the nation’s spiritual and moral condition. Think about it, none of the political parties in our nation encourages true righteousness. Newton refused to “meddle” in these things. When the subject of “national debt” came up, Newton focused on a different national debt.

I meddle not with disputes of party, nor concern myself with any political maxims, but such as are laid down in Scripture. There I read, that righteousness exalteth a nation, and that sin is the reproach, and if persisted in, the ruin of any people. Some people are startled at the enormous sum of our national debt: they who understand spiritual arithmetic, may be well startled if they sit down and compute the debt of national sin.[5]

We may have thoughts about our own national debt and national problems. But we should be more concerned about the spiritual issues of our nation. I fear more energy, time, and passions are expended on political matters than spiritual issues.

 

Some Biblical Thoughts

We are taught from Hebrews that in this earth (and nation) we do not have a lasting city — “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” (Heb. 13:14). Paul says that our “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20) and that “from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” In both passages, we are reminded of a coming city and a coming Lord.

Remember the words of our Lord in Mt. 22:21, ““Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” But we are also to set our minds and affections on the things above where Christ is (Col. 3:1ff.). Obedience to our civil authorities must be followed (Rom. 13:1ff.; 1Peter 2:13-17) but we do all this “for the Lord’s sake” (1Pet. 2:13).

 

Some General Conclusions

1. Political zeal must not cloud our judgments.

2. Political issues must not preoccupy our time.

3. Political matters do not change hearts, lives, and especially eternal matters.

4. Our hopes, countenance, and expectations must be on the Lord and His Word and not on the fortunes of our political parties.

5. Remember, God possesses the true seat of power — it does not exist in our political parties, the White House, the Congress, etc.

[1] The audio recording of this lesson can be found on sermonaudio.com.

[2] W. G. T. Shedd, “Political Fanaticism,” in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 259-262. You can download this short essay: Shedd, Political Fanaticism

[3] John Newton, Wise Counsel – John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland Jr., ed. Grant Gordon (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009), 84.

[4] Wise Counsel, 324.

[5] Josiah Bull, ed., Letters by the Rev. John Newton (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1869), 235.

Proverbs 10:1-7

Leave a reply

Proverbs 10:1-7

Now begins the proverbs of Solomon in the second major section of the book. Various proverbs are strewn throughout these chapters. They are to be read with discernment where one does not cancel out the other. A tension between various proverbs must be kept. Life’s contexts will reveal the truth of each proverb!

 

10:1 — A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.

Already the tension we mentioned becomes evident. In 9:12, we are told that we alone will bear our folly. In this proverb, we are reminded about another aspect. We are related to other people (cf. 11:10); children are connected to their parents — the ties that bind us can have wholesome and worrisome effects. They will be gladdened by the wisdom of their sons and daughters. Parents will also be greatly pained by the folly of their children. Remember, one of the main actors in Prov. 1-9 was the father. He was very desirous of seeing his son choose and walk in wisdom.

Longman says that this should help the children to consider their ways. Are their ways bringing sorrow or gladness to their parents? Wise parents rejoice in the wise course of life in their children. If our actions bring them sorrow, could it be that we are acting in foolishness?

Bridges also points out the challenge this presents. If parents want to avoid sorrow in the future with their children, then they should be diligent in disciplining and instructing their children in the present. Overindulgence may grant temporary relief and pleasure but it may yield a lifetime of sorrows. “Want of early discipline; passing over trifles; yielding when we ought to command — how little do we think to what they may grow!” (Bridges)

 

10:2-3 — Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, but righteousness delivers from death. 3 The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.

Longman notes that the two statements in this proverb seem incongruous or unrelated. In Proverbs, the wicked usually do not have wealth.[1] That basic principle is still established here because such treasures are fleeting and do not profit because of the way they were gained. Furthermore, the divine principle is also in play. God will thwart their cravings. In the end, all their desires and dreams will come to nothing.

The righteous, on the one hand will be delivered from death and will not go hungry. That is, he will not fall to premature death on account of folly (though the folly of others may converge on the wise). Furthermore, YHWH will not let his own go hungry, that is, they will have their needs met (as vv. 4-5 concretely illustrate). Remember the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread.” Even in our material circumstances, God is the One watching and providentially ordering all these affairs. This does not mean that if you are prosperous, you are righteous. “Proverbs are not promises; they are generally true principles, all other things being equal.” (Longman) Remember the books of Job and Ecclesiastes.

Yet, we should consider Bridges’s statement: “To spiritualize the temporal promises would be to lose great enlargements of faith. They are not restricted to the Old Dispensation. If David was preserved from famishing…” how much more the sons of God? If God cares for the fowls, “Are not ye much better than they?” (Mt. 6:25, 26)?

All this is true in a general way materially but it is absolutely true in the spiritual realm. God will ultimately deliver His own from death and that deliverance  was accomplished through the death of His Son, “Where, O death, is your sting?” (1Cor. 15:5) “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.” (Lk. 6:21)

 

10:4-5 — A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. 5 He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.

Verse 4 is the first of many proverbs describing the contrast between laziness and hard work. (See our study notes in 6:9-11.) Verse 4 is universally believed. The rich are rarely lazy (unless of course they inherited all that they possess). All who are lazy are rarely rich. This is consistent throughout proverbs (cf. 6:6-11; 10:26; 12:11, 24; 24:30-34).

Wisdom enables us to evaluate our lives concretely. The slacker and diligent demonstrate their tendencies by how they work on their farms. The righteous are supposed to be diligent and hard workers because they labor for the Lord and not for themselves. God gives wisdom that in turn enables them to be diligent — this enables them to prosper and avoid harm. All this is from God so that we do not rejoice in our diligence but in God’s mercy.

 

10:6 — Blessings are on the head of the righteous, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

As always, goodness belongs to the righteous (cf. Deut. 28:2). The righteous know their God and are in covenant relationship with Him through Christ Jesus. He is their God and that can only bode well for them.

The wicked on the other hand have a mouth full of violence. That is, “the speech of the wicked produces harmful effects.” (Longman) “The injurious curses that went forth from their mouths boomerang against them and silence them (cf. Hab. 2:17).” (Waltke) That is, “Deceitfulness is the mark of the wicked, but the godly are known by the evidence of God’s favor upon them and the salutary effects of their words (vv. 6, 11).” (Garrett)

 

10:7 — The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.

One can notice the similarity between this verse and the previous one. In fact, several commentators have commented on both verses as a single thought. The antithesis between the righteous and the wicked is once again maintained. Memory is pitted against name; the word ‘blessing’ against ‘rot.’ The word “name” is quite loaded and could just as well be translated as “reputation.”

Verse 6 indicates that the righteous are blessed and this verse shows one of those blessings. Both the righteous and wicked will be remembered but only the memory of the righteous will be pleasant. Blessing and shame, as it were, live on! But in another sense, the name of the wicked will perish (Ps. 9:6, “…the very memory of them has perished”; cf. 34:16; 109:15).

What does this mean? The social impact on how we will be viewed is considered here. That is not to be the motivation but there is always that dimension to one’s character in the Lord. Later on, we learn that not only that we will live forever but also that we will be given a new name (Rev. 2:17).

[1] Later on, we intend to develop what Proverbs teaches about the “lot” of the wicked and the “benefits” of the righteous.

Larger Catechism 193, Daily Bread

Leave a reply

Larger Catechism 193ab

Use the above link to download the pdf version of the Larger Catechism lesson.

The Larger Catechism

Question 193

 

193.     Q. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?

A. In the fourth petition, (which is, Give us this day our daily bread,[1253]) acknowledging, that in Adam, and by our own sin, we have forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them cursed to us in the use of them;[1254] and that neither they of themselves are able to sustain us,[1255] nor we to merit,[1256] or by our own industry to procure them;[1257] but prone to desire,[1258] get,[1259] and use them unlawfully:[1260] we pray for ourselves and others, that both they and we, waiting upon the providence of God from day to day in the use of lawful means, may, of his free gift, and as to his fatherly wisdom shall seem best, enjoy a competent portion of them;[1261] and have the same continued and blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use of them,[1262] and contentment in them;[1263] and be kept from all things that are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.[1264]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[1253] Matthew 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread. [1254] Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 3:17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Romans 8:20-22. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Jeremiah 5:25. Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. Deuteronomy 28:15-17. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store, etc. [1255] Deuteronomy 8:3. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. [1256] Genesis 32:10. I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast showed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands. [1257] Deuteronomy 8:17-18. And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. [1258] Jeremiah 6:13. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. Mark 7:21-22. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. [1259] Hosea 12:7. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress. [1260] James 4:3. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. [1261] Genesis 43:12-14. And take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight: Take also your brother, and arise, go again unto the man: And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved. Genesis 28:20. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on. Ephesians 4:28. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. Philippians 4:6. Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [1262] 1 Timothy 4:3-5. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. [1263] 1 Timothy 6:6-8. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. [1264] Proverbs 30:8-9. Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

Introduction

In our western world, it may seem difficult to pray for the fourth item in the Lord’s Prayer. How can we pray the fourth petition which is Give us this day our daily bread…)? We have food in the pantry, money in the bank, stores galore, and a “safety-net” of a sort to take care of us. Is this merely a pious petition having little to do with our lives?

Our inability to feel the true need exhibited in this petition betrays what is so wrong with us. In our hubris, we assume that what is is the same as what it ought to be and what it will be. That is, we presume that our good estate is what is owed.

In this petition, we come to terms with our finitude and dependence upon God. No matter what our political persuasion, we tend to think we have certain rights, certain inalienable rights. Though our Declaration of Independence makes this point clear, we must not confuse it with what the Bible teaches.

Vos clears up this confusion and we would do well to listen to him on this point. He asks, “Is it true that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Then he offers this answer:

This is only true within the limited sphere of civil society. Human beings have a civil right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without unjust interference on the part of their fellow men. Even within the sphere of human society the right of life or liberty may be taken away as a judicial penalty for the commission of crime. A man who has committed murder no longer has a right to life and liberty.

When we speak of man’s relation to God, it is definitely not true that all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever rights human beings might have had, have been forfeited by sin; first by Adam’s sin, which is imputed to all mankind; and then by each person’s own sin, so that no human being has any rights which he can claim over against God. Man has no rights which God is bound to respect. (Vos, 562)

Vos is correct. Once we understand this, we look at life differently and the fourth petition will have more force and urgency in our prayers. If we do not see this correctly, we will be bitter, despondent, and defiant against God. He will be viewed as our enemy and the omnipotent foe who wields His power malevolently against us. We will feel trapped, powerless, and an unspeakable sense of despair will grip our hearts. We will never rightly pray Give us this day our daily bread.

 

We Have Forfeited

In asking for daily bread, we are admitting that we have forfeited everything. That is, we have to ask for daily bread because we cannot assume that we are entitled to it. As the LC states, we are “acknowledging, that in Adam, and by our own sin, we have forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them cursed to us in the use of them…”

Many elements of this point have been developed in our study of the LC #28 (“What are the punishments of sin in this world?”). We come into the world with sin (Adam’s and our own); therefore, God owes us nothing. Justice demands punishment; the blessings in this life are always free displays of God’s patience, benevolence, longsuffering, love, etc. We “deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God” — that is what we deserve (see LC #28). Our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments can all be cursed, deservedly! Ridgley says, “If he should deprive us of all the conveniencies of life, and so embitter it to us that we should be almost inclined to make the unhappy choice which Job did of ‘strangling and death, rather than life;’ there would be no reason to say that there is unrighteousness with God.”[1]

When we pray Give us this day our daily bread, we are acknowledging we don’t deserve it because we have forfeited every right to all the blessings in this life. Not only do we deserve to be deprived of them but we also deserve to have them become a curse to us: “to have them [i.e. “the outward blessings in this life”] cursed to us in the use of them.” Meaning, every good thing we enjoy and use can rightly be employed to curse us. Israel sinned so God kept the blessings from them (it did not rain): “Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you.” (Jer. 5:25)[2] God can withhold what is commonly good to us (in this case “rain”); He can also use them to our hurt (cf. the covenant curses in Deut. 28:15-17). God said that “all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you” (Deut. 28:15). These curses parallel the blessings enumerated in vv. 3-6; they are the counterparts. “The reason for this direct contrast is clear: obedience and disobedience to the covenant have exactly the opposite consequences.”[3]

If the Old Covenant was so strict, how much more for humanity who are outside of the covenant of grace? It is reasonable to conclude that disobedience negates all blessings. Therefore, God can curse any thing we use because we all are in the state of sin (apart from Christ). When we pray for our daily bread, we remember we have forfeited it and God can curse it to our harm. Should we not ponder the significance of this? That means every good thing can turn on us. Our cars, relationships, medicine, money, skills, circumstances, etc. may all seem promising but if the Lord does not bless them, they may in fact be used as curses against us. Israel was cursed with the meat in their mouth — they wanted those good things so God gave it to them (Num. 11:19-20, “You shall not eat just one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the LORD who is among you and have wept before him, saying, “Why did we come out of Egypt?”’”). Those good things were not given to them for their benefit. They were used against His people. We must not assume and presume that all the blessings we have will work for our good; if the Lord blesses them to our benefit, then we rejoice. We cannot assume because of our monetary wealth, perfect bill of health, untiring industry, etc. that all will be well. We deserve to have all of them turn against us!

 

They Cannot Sustain Us

Though this could easily fit into the previous section, it is worth pondering on its own. The LC states that the outward blessings of life cannot sustain us: “and that neither they of themselves are able to sustain us…” In our health conscious age, we tend to think that medicine, right diet, regular exercise, healthy habits, etc. will all work for our good and will sustain and maintain our health. We assume that these outward blessings of life are calculated and created to sustain us in and of themselves. Good stewardship requires that we make good use of all the good things of life for our benefit — God may very well bless those efforts (and He often does). Yet, there is no inherent energy or efficacy in them to work in us for our good. This is a stupendous theological truth!

The divines used an interesting verse to support this most important point: “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” (Deut. 8:3) Forty years in the wilderness compelled them to trust in the Lord. “In the desert, he [God] was the only source of life, and the most important factor in Israel’s existence. The entire episode is an indictment against self-sufficiency: without Yahweh the Hebrews would not have survived the wilderness.”[4] Currid is correct. But more can be said about this verse.

When the people were hungry, God fed them manna; the provision of manna was not simply a miracle, but it was designed to teach the Israelites a fundamental principle of their existence as the covenant people of God. The basic source of life was God and the words of God to his people; every utterance of the mouth of the Lord (v. 3) was more basic to Israelite existence than was food. This principle did not mean that the Israelites were to expect at all times the miraculous provision of food, as in the instance when God provided manna. Normal circumstances would involve the normal acquisition of food supplies. But if the command of God directed the people to do something or go somewhere, the command should be obeyed; shortage of food or water, lack of strength, or any other excuse would be insufficient, for the command of God contained within it the provision of God.[5]

Still, there is more to this than what the commentator just stated. The older commentators understood the point better: “Possessing no nutritious properties inherent in it, this contributed to their sustenance, as indeed all food does (Matthew 4:4) solely through the ordinance and blessing of God. This remark is applicable to the means of spiritual as well as natural life.”[6] Think about it, the nation was sustained by manna for forty years. What nutritional value was there in manna? We do not know but it was blessed by God for the nourishment of the entire nation. They had to trust God to meet their needs — not in what they assumed they needed. “The general import is, of course, that the Lord wanted to teach Israel to trust, not in anything created, but only in the Creator.”[7] We too often trust in the blessings of life to sustain us as if they possessed inherent effectual power. Without God’s blessings, they will not benefit us. Therefore in this petition, we recognize that without God’s blessing, food, clothing, relationships, finances, work, etc. will do us no good if He does not effectually use them for our benefit! “He must add his blessing to all the mercies he bestows, else they will not conduce to our happiness, or answer the general end designed by them. Without the divine blessing, the bread we eat would no more nourish us than husks or chaff; our garments could no more contribute to our being warm, than if they were put upon a statue; and the air we breathe would rather stifle than refresh us.”[8]

 

Cannot Merit or Work Hard for Them

Our “can do” American society teaches us that if we simply give ourselves to hard work, we will prosper. This, after all, is the great land of opportunity. In fact, the book of Proverbs teaches a similar point. The difference, however, between the “American dream” and Proverbs is God. In Proverbs, God is the moral governor sustaining and blessing and those in covenant fellowship with Him believe His teaching and promises. We are taught, “Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense.” (Prov. 12:11) As we have seen before (in the section above), this is true because God sustains, maintains, and blesses the means. In this case, he blesses those who work hard (numerous Proverbs could be cited to support the same teaching). The “can-do” philosophy tends to equate industry with the blessings of life. To put it bluntly, we procured the blessings of life through the merit of human industry. That is, we earned the blessings because we worked hard for them!

In asking God for our daily bread, we are in fact arguing just the opposite. The LC teaches: “nor we to merit, or by our own industry to procure them [all the outward blessings of this life]…” We come to this world with a deficit (our sins) and to a world that is cursed (Gen. 3:17-19). In this situation, we cannot merit the blessings of this life. All the blessings that happen to come to us are bestowed either by divine benevolence (on the just and unjust) or in terms of the covenant (relationship) for the sake of Christ.

Jacob said to his brother (against whom he sinned): “I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps.” (Gen. 32:10) If Jacob’s sin against a mere man makes him unworthy, how much more for sinners before a Holy God?

We also do not procure the blessings of this life by our industry (“or by our own industry to procure them”). A person may quickly agree that he cannot merit these blessings. Yet the same person instinctively believes that his hard work, diligence, and industrious efforts will procure those blessings. They will get what they want; they will not rest until those blessings are secured. Has he forgotten what Ps. 127 teaches? “Unless the Lord builds the house those who build it labor in vain.…It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil…” Deut. 8:17, 18 teach us one of the most important lessons regarding our “industry.” “Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.” God gives you power to get wealth! Though spoken in terms of the Old Covenant, the theological truth still pertains to us because it teaches us something about God. We tend to think raw hard work will earn all things. Without the Lord’s blessing, it will not produce what we want and whatever we do end up acquiring, it is because the Lord has given us the power to acquire it.

Let me now flip this around. Do we not assume that if we live godly lives, if we are honest and full of integrity, if we live in the fear of the Lord, no harm would befall us? We would never positively argue that we can actually merit God’s external blessings but we tend to believe that by doing good we will in turn receive good things. In general, this principle is true and God indeed blesses obedience. Yet we must not sneak in the opposite: Bad things cannot come into my house because I am doing good. After all, I am going to church, I am reading the Bible, I am trying to live with integrity, etc. Surely this means that all will go well. Job’s story teaches us that is not the case.

We are called to obey and be industrious. “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” (2Thess. 3:10) This is a New Testament truth. Diligence is required. God often blesses diligence and promises to meet all our needs. We make mistakes in our assumptions and our understanding of cause and effect. Our assumption is that obedience itself will produce earthly blessings (when in fact it is God who blesses). We think our industry and diligence actually procured the outward blessings of this life but we know unless the Lord blessed the means, our efforts would be fruitless. Let this be our plea, “O Lord… give success to your servant today” (Neh. 1:11).

 

Unlawful Use

This clause “but prone to desire, get, and use them unlawfully…” reminds us of another problem. Not only do we not merit any of these earthly blessings, but when God does bless us (though we are unworthy of them), we often use them unlawfully. The three verbs (desire, get, and use) are modified by the adverb “unlawfully” — we tend to desire, get, and use “all the outward blessings of this life” unlawfully. We want them for the wrong reason; we can at times acquire them unlawfully; and we utilize them to pander to our flesh. James 4:2-3 says, “You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.”[9] However we might punctuate these verses, one thing is clear. Desiring and asking are with wrong motives. We want certain things so that we can use them unlawfully (“to spend it on your passions”). “In such prayers God is regarded as a mere dispensary of instruments of vice. The language of monetary exchange is brought in by James. God does not answer their prayers not only because they are evil but also because they would just spend his generosity on themselves. They would, as it were, simply “cash in” whatever they could exchange his gifts with for their idea of “gain.””[10]

Before moving on to the positive aspect of this petition, let us simply remember that we often pray selfishly. Why should God bless us? What have we done with all his blessings before? What are we intending to do with them now? We are indeed prone to desire them unlawfully.

 

Waiting on God’s Providence

 Recognizing all that we have said above, the divines teach us what we are actually praying for: “we pray for ourselves and others, that both they and we, waiting upon the providence of God from day to day in the use of lawful means, may, of his free gift, and as to his fatherly wisdom shall seem best, enjoy a competent portion of them…” Vos calls this portion of the LC answer “a beautiful gem of scriptural teaching.” It certainly is. The Shorter Catechism gives a very brief answer and does not include this gem. As we pray, we wait upon God to provide for us. We wait “day to day” — that is, it is our daily portion we are asking and must not assume today’s portion entitles us to tomorrow’s without “waiting upon the providence of God.” We wait “… realizing that God will give us blessings according to his holy will in his own appointed time; therefore we are to avoid both unbelief and impatience. We will not demand blessings immediately when God in his wisdom sees fit to postpose them.” (Vos, 563)

As we wait upon our God, we utilize the “lawful means. ” That is, we are to be active in using the means God has provided. It is waiting and working. “If we are sick, we will trust in God to make us well if it is his will to do so, but we will also avail ourselves of the best possible medical treatment. If we are waiting on God for a harvest, we will also take pains to cultivate the soil and plant the seed. We will not expect God’s providence to eliminate our own toil and efforts.” (Vos, 564) Trusting God for our daily needs does not we do nothing. The “lawful means” include everything God calls us to do, work, save, pray, deny ourselves, plan, regulate our use of time, etc. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians the following corrective: “For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” (2Thess. 3:11, 12) That is always the rule — “work quietly and to earn their own living”; idleness is forbidden.  Furthermore, Ridgley adds that the fourth petition does not mean we don’t make provisions for the future.

But not to make provision for the future is contrary to what we are exhorted to do, when we are called to consider the provision which the smallest insects make for their subsistence: ‘The ant provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.’ [Prov. 6:8] And the apostle says, ‘If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’ [1Tim. 5:8] We hence ought to make provision for our future wants. Accordingly, we are to pray that God would give success to our lawful endeavours, in order to the attainment of this end.[11]

The lawful means we are to use, of course, forbids the use of unlawful means. Just because we believe we have not been treated justly by our boss does not mean we can steal from him to make ends meet. We cannot lie and cheat others to get what we need just because our clients may not have paid us for our services. “We will try to promote our business interests by intelligence and honest work, but not by use of dishonesty, untruth, or theft, or by injustice to anyone.” (Vos, 564) Paul says, “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” (Eph. 4:28)

As we wait while busying ourselves in the use of lawful means, we must firmly believe and be convinced that God’s fatherly wisdom will dispense what He deems best. Asking and trusting go together; trusting means we leave the matter to our heavenly Father and not dictate how He must provide. Vos answers this question, “Is it right to pray for earthly blessings such as financial prosperity for ourselves and others?” He says, “Certainly this is right, and we ought to do it, but always in subordination to the will of God ‘as to his fatherly wisdom shall seem best.’ We may pray for financial prosperity and similar earthly blessings, provided we pray that if it is God’s will he will give them to us. We have no way of knowing in advance whether or not such will be his will.” (Vos, 564)

 

Competent Portion

Lastly, in this petition we are asking for a “a competent portion.” The LC says, “enjoy a competent portion of them; and have the same continued and blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use of them, and contentment in them; and be kept from all things that are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.” “Daily bread” does not mean a billionaire’s portion. A “competent portion” means a moderate portion of what we need. God determines what that is. An immoderate and inordinate yearning for a large portion of the world’s goods is greed. Again, the apostle Paul wrote to young Timothy the following exhortations: “But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” (1Tim. 6:8-10) We’re to be content with what we receive. We must pray also that these things would be “blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use of them.” We do not want the good things of God to be a snare. One commentator summarized Paul’s point in 1Tim. 6 in this way: “The point is clear enough. Godliness is not something to make material gain in or from (v. 5); rather, it is itself the greatest gain (v. 6). True godliness, however, is accompanied by contentment (v. 6). Since we can take nothing with us at death (v. 7), if we have life’s essentials, we can be content with these (v. 8); and such an attitude obviously excludes greed.”[12] Contentment is a rare jewel and may the Lord preserve us from an inordinate lust for wealth. Once again, the same commentator says the following:

Paul’s point is that the very desire for wealth has inherent spiritual dangers, partly because (vv. 6–8) wealth itself is unrelated to godliness in any way and partly because (v. 9) the desire is like a trap set by Satan himself to plunge one into spiritual ruin. To put that in a different way: Why would anyone want to get rich? Wealth has nothing to do with one’s eschatological existence in Christ; on the contrary, the desire leads to other desires that end up in ruin, of which truth the false teachers themselves are Exhibit A (v. 10).[13]

The last element of the petition is also necessary. We don’t want to be ensnared by riches or by poverty: “and be kept from all things that are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.” This truth comes from Proverbs 30:8-9 — “Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.” In our weakness, deprivations can often expose us to temptations. It is true, God often allows those deprivations to test us but it is not inappropriate to ask to have enough to sustain us for His glory. The point of this is not so that we can be carnally comfortable but rather the temporal support would be enough to keep us going so that we can do all things for His glory (unless God would have us glorify Him in that moment of deprivation — all according to His fatherly wisdom).

[1] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 629.

[2] Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah (EBC 6; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), n.p.: “As Creator, God has control over the rain as he does over the sea (cf. Deut 11:10-17). The withholding of seasonal rains was attributable to their sinfulness (v.25).”

[3] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy, EP Study Commentary (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press USA, 2006), 437-8.

[4] Currid, Deuteronomy, 198.

[5] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 185.

[6] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871, Accordance electronic ed. Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 1996), n.p.

[7] J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, trans. Ed M. van der Maas, Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 127.

[8] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 631.

[9] How we punctuate this verse is a subject of much debate. ESV translates it as murdering because we do not have. The NIV has “You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want.” Murdering and coveting as not specifically related to the not the result of not getting.

[10] Kurt A. Richardson, James (NAC 36; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 177.

[11] T. Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, 2:631-2.

[12] Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC 13; Accordance electronic ed. 18 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 144.

[13] Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 145.