SIN ANALYZED

The subject of sin in the Scriptures which begins in Genesis 3 continues throughout.  In I John, it is simply stated as being a transgression of the law.

From the I John statement and Paul in Romans 3, the “glory of God” must be in this instance the law of God.  This both defines sin and expands the reach of the law.  As the Psalmist writes, “The law of God is exceedingly broad.”

The qualities of sin are what escapes believers most often.  Sin is bad.  We all know that.  Everyone has sinned we all agree.  But what is it about sin that gives it such a universal effect.  “For all have sinned.”

Let me point you to three features of sin that makes it what it is.

A.      Sin gives pleasure.  Hebrews 11:24-25. ²⁴ By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, ²⁵ choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 

What Moses forsook, “the passing pleasures of sin”, are often mistaken as our rights as children of God.  The mistake is to think that if pleasure gained some other way or to some end then God’s glory is permissible.  We do not agree with the Roman Catholics that marriage is for reproduction alone.  We know the three principles of the intimacies of marriage.

1.       To prevent uncontrolled passion, I Cor. 7:1-9.

2.      For mutual comfort and intimacy, Gen. 2:18-25.

3.      And that the marriage bed is undefiled, Hebrews 13:4.

These are undeniable truths for Christians to freely enjoy the mutual benefits of marriage, but I doubt that many of the so-called Christian books detailing sexual intimacy in marriage are within the bounds of God-ordained pleasure.

B.      Sin is deceitful, Jeremiah 17:9.  “The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?

There is in sin the unfailing ability to show the bait and hide the hook.  Very seldom are we met with the bald sinfulness of sin.  As the writer of the Song of Songs, “it is the little foxes that spoil the vines.”, Song of Solomon 2:15.

The drunkard didn’t begin consuming a quart a day, but a little glass of wine or a small beer.  The thief didn’t begin robbing the mint, but with a candy bar at the local store.  Sin begins small and harmless appearing but ends in death.  Please read Jeremiah 17:10.

¹⁰ I, the Lord, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.

C.      Sin is enslaving. Romans 6:17-18. ¹⁷ But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. ¹⁸ And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

All the brave defenders of free will in lost men have either not read Paul here or they are willing to say that he does not know his subject.  But lest we make a mistake and think that Paul has spoken loosely listen to Christ in John 8:34-36.  ³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. ³⁵ And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. ³⁶ Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

These three:  sin gives pleasure, is deceitful, and is enslaving are a prelude to James clear determination of the origin and end of sin in James 1:15.  ¹⁵ Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

What is the inevitable conclusion?  The sinner authors his sin and as sure as he is its author, he will pay the wages sin has earned.  But the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 6:23.  For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

II PETER: AN OUTLINE

II Peter 1:3-4 ESV

Peter’s second letter is one of my favorite New Testament writings.  From the very beginning of Canon consideration this letter has been controversial.  There were three major arguments against it.  One was the difference in the Greek syntax.  It is far inferior to that of I Peter.  The second was that the theology between the two is so dissimilar.  And thirdly the whole of I Peter is so much more sophisticated in style and grammar.

Added to this was a problem some saw in II Peter chapter 2.  Is this a copy of the like material in Jude or is Jude a copy of II Peter?  Many if not most thought—for no good reason—that Jude was prior to Peter and therefore the author of II Peter was the copyist.

There is for me two simple answers.  The problem of the difference in syntax and style between I Peter and II is answered by I Peter 5:14.  Silas who was influenced by Paul was a co-author with Peter.  Secondly, the likeness between Peter and Jude is the result of similar background by which they both were influenced.

Having said this let me attempt an analysis of II Peter.  The subject of the letter is stated in vss 1:2-4.  Knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures is the single most important requirement for believers.  Having said this, now the writer must explain and defend his thesis.  This he does wonderfully well.  Note:

II Peter 1:2-21  The only certain knowledge of God is from the Scriptures

A.     This is the design of faith vs 5

B.     This is Peter’s demand  vs 15

C.     This is the determination of the Apostles vss 17-19

II Peter 2:1-21  A problem Scripture must face is false teachers

A.     False teachers are the norm and  not unexpected vs 1

B.     These false teachers are identifiable vs 12

C.     They will act according to their nature vss 21-22

II Peter 3:1-18  The prophetic word is certain and demands patience

A.     Unbelief and opposition is to be expected vs 3

B.     God’s time is not as our time vss 8-10

C.     The expectation and certainty of destruction demands holiness vs 14

THE KING OF AGES

I Timothy 1:17  (NKJV)

¹⁷ Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

When I publicly became a Christian in 1962, I immediately—that day—became a Bible student.  And along with that I became interested in Bible subjects, particularly at that time, prophecy.  This meant with the influence of my friends, I became a Dispensationalist.

I avidly studied this doctrine and became at least somewhat informed on the basics of what was believed.  I remember with clarity two of the most avidly held truths at that time.  The reason I qualify my statement with “at that time”, is because this was in the early 60’s and there have been as I understand, some major changes in Dispensationalism in these 50 years.

What I do remember as two very basic facts of Dispensationalism was:

 1) Israel had not yet received the promises of land made to Abraham and will not have these promises fulfilled until the Millennium. cf  Joshua 21:43-45, I Kings 8:56. 

2) Christ was not King.  The Kingship of Israel was offered and He refused.  He will not be king until the Millennium.  In the Millennium He will become King of Israel and reign over Israel 1000 years subduing all her enemies, and bringing Israel the land and the rule over the nations promised to Abraham.

I think this is still to some extent the doctrine of Dispensationalism, but I am not sure.  It seems so basic to that doctrine  that I do not see how it can be completely abandoned and a Millennial Kingdom remain.

In the face of this error that removes from Christ His kingly prerogative is the text in I Timothy 1:17.  It is clearly a doxology, but it is unique in the context and diction

The context of I Timothy 1:12-16 is the person of Christ first as Lord, vs 12-13, secondly as dispenser of grace, vs 14, thirdly as savior, vs 15, fourthly as the revealer of mercy, vs 16.  What then are we to expect in vs 17?  Does Paul depart from this context filled with his high praise of Christ to another object.  Not hardly.

¹² And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 

¹³ although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 

¹⁴ And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 

¹⁵ This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 

¹⁶ However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

¹⁷ Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The King he praises in vs 17 is time related.  He is “King of the ages, incorruptible.”  This simply does not refer to the eternal triune God.  If further proof is needed, He is invisible.

“This is the only passage in the entire New Testament in which God is described as invisible without the accompanying assertion that He has made Himself known in Christ or in the works of creation.”  The New Century Bible Commentary, The Pastoral Epistles, A.T.  Hamon, pg 62.

This is confirmed in John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15.

I can recommend to you I Timothy 1:17 as clear statements of Jesus’ present and enduring Kingship which is His of old and waits on nothing.  As He was born “king” so He lived and lives and will everlastingly be, Hebrews 13:8.

⁸ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Is that a key in His hand?

No one can turn Him away.

It is not with a key He waits in Kingly glory,

But with His sovereign scepter He stands.

waf

TRUE HUMILITY DEMONSTRATED

Proverbs 15:33  (NKJV)

³³ The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom,
And before honor is humility.

Philippians 2:5-8

⁵ Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, ⁷ but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Certain eternal verities are revealed in scripture and become a part of the history of culture.  The value of humility is not one of these verities.  Scripture recommends, applauds, and promotes humility.  Some philosophers recognize the value of humility but mainly in contrast to the vagaries of pride.  But in most ancient cultures humility was scorned.

Phil. 2:5-8 are the application of a context that begin with chapter 1:27 and extending to 2:4.  This context is primarily an admonition to unity.  Humility on the part of those addressed is a necessary means of accomplishing this unity.  With Phil. 2:5 Paul, in vivid terms, illustrates what true humility is; how it is demonstrated; the cost attached; and the rewards guaranteed.  For Paul, Jesus is the model of all the Christian is to do and be.  Therefore he is the perfect model of humility.  The perfection of His humility is displayed in the exchange: He that was in the “form of God,” gave that up to become a servant who humbled Himself to accept the most painful and demeaning death, “the death of the cross.”

It is only in our understanding of “the form of God,” that the true limits of the exchange are realized.  There are three explanations of these words remaining in the bounds of conservative theology.  They are:

1.      Robert Reymond links these words to Jesus relation to Adam in his original righteousness.  cf Ephesians 4:24.  This explanation is quite unique and is so complicated an ordinary student will struggle to understand it.  It does have this credit-it is also the explanation of Martin Luther.

2.      B.B. Warfield, in the volume The Person and Work of Christ, has an appendix: Sermon, Imitating The Incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8), in which he exegetes the passage.  Anything Warfield does is seriously well done and the serious student’s attention is not wasted giving attention to what he has written.

Warfield’s thesis is based on the etymology of the word “form” and Paul’s use of it in this passage.  He understands the word to have the meaning given to it by Plato.  This understanding is that this word means the reality of that to which it is attached.  Therefore his second point, “being in the form of God” means He is that to which the form is directed or He is God.  It is as if Paul had said, “being God,” this is not less absolute.

That to which “He did not cling” is explained by the exchange, “He truly became a servant.”  And as he was never less than God, He was no less a true servant.  The humility of this exchange is both a wonder and the consuming model.  But this fails to answer two questions.  The first is the usage of the word “form.”  It does appear that in the usage of the word “form” there is always an indication of something visual.  And secondly, what was given up is not answered in a satisfying way.  This then leads to the third explanation.

3.      John Eadie, in his Greek Text Commentaries on Philippians, has a clear and understandable explanation of this text.  Very simply stated, Eadie understands “form” to be first a visual rather than any part of God or man that is not visible.  Therefore, he says the Old Testament appearances of the Mediator in visible form always with some amount, either more or less  of glory, is that which was not grasped.  The most vivid example of this is the form Isaiah saw in the temple which is called “the Lord of Host,” and whose glory fills the whole earth.  We are not left to wonder who the glorious person was.  John tells us in John 12:41.  “He” being referenced clearly is Jesus in His mediatorial glory.

Eadie writes, “He laid aside the form of God, the splendor of divinity, and not the nature of it—the glory of the Godhead, and not an essence of it.” Pg. 101.

Please excuse the long quote.  I would be selfish to keep it to myself.

…to speak after the manner of men, two things were present to His mind—either continuance in the form of God, and always equal with God, but allowing humanity to perish in its guilt; or vailing this form and foregoing this equality for a season, and delivering, by His condescension and agony, the fallen progeny of Adam.  He chose the latter, or gave it the preference, and therefore “humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death.”  From His possession of this “mind,” and in indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, and descended with His splendor eclipsed—appeared not as a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger; not with the thunderbolt in his hand, but with the hatchet and hammer of a Galilean mechanic.  And in this way He gave the church an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is adduced to illustrate and confirm.

That he should leave his place on high and come for sinful man to die—

You count it strange, so once did I, before I knew my savior.

I Am Not Skilled To Understand, Dora Greenwall