John Owen on the Lord's Supper (Philippians 3:10)

For some brief tastes of John Owen (1616-1683), his discourses are great, short and also solid and thoughtful. I just read one of his discourses relating to the Lord's Supper, based on Philippians 3:10, particularly about us being conformed to Christ's death. Below are some excerpts...

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death."

The cause of the death of Christ was sin... He died for sin; he died for our sin; our iniquities were upon him, and were the cause of all the punishment that befell him...

Our hope and faith is, in and through him, that we shall never die for sin. No mortal man can be made like unto Christ in suffering for sin... our conformity unto the death of Christ with respect unto sin lies in this, — that as he died for sin, so we should die unto sin, — that that sin which he died for should die in us... Here is our conformity to Christ, as he suffered in the flesh, — that we should no longer live to our lusts, nor unto the will of man, but unto the will of God. And, brethren, let me tell you, he who approacheth unto this remembrance of the death of Christ, that hath not laboured, that doth not labour, for conformity to his death in the universal mortification of all sin, runs a hazard to his soul, and puts an affront upon Jesus Christ. O let none of us come in a way of thankfulness to remember the death of Jesus Christ, and bring along with us the murderer whereby he was slain! To harbour with us, and bring along with us to the death of Christ, unmortified lusts and corruptions, such as we do not continually and sincerely endeavour to kill and mortify, is to come and upbraid Christ with his murderer, instead of obtaining any spiritual advantage.

There is no such sermon to teach, mortification of sin, as the commemoration of the death of Christ. It is the greatest outward instruction unto this duty that God hath left unto his church; and, I am persuaded, which he doth most bless to them who are sincere. Do we see Christ evidently crucified before our eyes, his body broken, his blood shed for sin? and is it not of powerful instruction to us to go on to mortify sin? He that hath not learned this, never learned any thing aright from this ordinance, nor did he ever receive any benefit from it...

And I would beg of you all, brethren, that not one of us would pass through or go over this ordinance, this representation of the death of Christ, without a fresh obligation to God to abide more constant and vigorous in the mortification of sin: we all need it.

And lastly; a spiritually beholding of Christ by faith is the means to change us into the image and likeness of Christ. Beholding the death of Christ by faith, as represented to us in this ordinance, is the means to change us into his image and likeness, and make us conformable unto his death, in the death of sin in us.

[Source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/discourses.i.xvii.html]

The Key to Forgiving

(This article is based on the first sermon in a four-part series at WPC Belconnen, on “Forgiving Others”)

Forgiveness isn’t easy. Either we’ve wanted it from others, or needed to give it to others. Actually, probably both. And whether it is getting it or giving it, it can be really, really hard. As C. S. Lewis wrote, “Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive…” Maybe I gave so much to someone, trusted them with so much, and they just betrayed me and betrayed me again. How could I possibly forgive them? Or maybe they are strangers--well, worse actually—it seems they are more enemies. Because you don’t really know why, but they just decided to have a go at you, abuse you, take out a personal vendetta against you, and you have no idea why. Why should you owe them anything, the least of all forgiveness? I spoke to someone recently who used to work in the tourist industry. And because of what happened during World War II, the people of these particular two nations, they didn’t want to have anything to do with each other, the two groups couldn’t be in the same building at the same time. Whether it is at the personal level, or even at a community level, sometimes forgiving can be really, really hard.

Then we see examples in the Bible, things difficult to imagine if they weren’t actually true. Despite all the envy, hate and murderous intentions of his brothers, Joseph is forgiving toward them, showing kindness and love instead of paying back evil for evil (cf Genesis 50:15-21). Or we see Stephen, in the face of people enraged at him, hurling stones at him to kill him, and just before he dies he says, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60) How do they possibly do that kind of thing? How can we? What is the key to us being able to forgive others like that?

In Matthew 18:15-20 there is the well-known instruction of what to when your brother sins against you. In 18:21, Peter understands the implication, that he may need to forgive that brother (even though Jesus didn’t mention the word “forgive”). And Peter’s imagination takes him to the place where that brother keeps sinning against him. Surely there must be a limit to forgiveness then. Surely seven times is plenty enough, maybe even highly virtuous to be so forgiving. I expect to Peter’s great surprise, Jesus tells him, “No, Peter, you have it all wrong. You seem to be thinking of forgiveness just as a procedure, some boxes to tick, maybe a legal process, perhaps some kind of being fair, and showing your righteousness. Actually it is about mercy and kindness, Peter, it is about a perspective, a way of life, that you can’t put a number on.” Well, ok, he doesn’t literally say that. But I think that is the conclusion we can draw from the story Jesus tells in response, which we find in Matthew 18:23-35. (Quick, go read the passage now J) It shows us why it is hard to forgive others, and in so doing, also gives us the key to actually being able to forgive others, even when it feels too hard.

Jesus’ story tells us about a servant who owed the king ten thousand talents. Jesus seems to just pick the biggest number (ten thousand) with the biggest unit (a talent), to make a point. But maybe some other numbers more familiar to us will be helpful. The footnote in my ESV says that one talent was worth about twenty years of wages for a laborer. If we use the Australian minimum wage as a basis ($17.70/hour), and a 38-hour week for 52 weeks, then one year’s wage would be about $35,000. Twenty years would be about $700,000. Multiply that by ten thousand, and you get about $7,000,000,000. How would you like that debt? Or what would you do if someone else, somehow, owed you that much money? We might wonder how someone could rack up such a debt, but that’s not really the point. The amazing thing in the story is that the king actually forgives that $7 billion debt! But then another stunning thing happens, something rudely shocking. That servant who owed $7 billion was owed some money himself, by another fellow servant. But only “a hundred denarii”. Again, the ESV footnote tells us that a denarius was a day’s wage for a laborer. So the same kind of calculation this time gives us, say for an eight-hour day, about $14,000 equivalent. This is a substantial amount to be owed, but hardly significant compared to $7 billion. And yet astoundingly, the servant who had been forgiven $7 billion was unwilling to forgive $14,000. Rightly the king called him a “wicked servant” and delivered him for punishment.

So what does Jesus’ story about financial debts have to do with forgiving others when they offend us or sin against us? As with Jesus’ other parables, the real application is not in the precise circumstances of the situation, but in what the story parallels. In 18:35 it is clear that the king is paralleled to God, and the forgiveness of one servant by another is paralleling forgiveness between people. The key principle in forgiving others is that being forgiven by God should empower us to forgive others. And Jesus’ story presses the point by highlighting the shocking wickedness of one who is unwilling to forgive, despite being forgiven so much by God. And some of the small details really brings this home.

In the story our attention is drawn to both the similarities as well as the vast differences between the accounts of the two servants’ debts. When both servants are confronted concerning what they owe, they respond with the same words, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you”. Well, almost the same words. The first servant says one more thing, “… I will pay you everything” I think this little extra word, combined with the vast difference in the debts owed, highlight something else about the differences between the two servants in the story. The $14,000 debt was significant, but possibly payable. Eventually that second servant could have paid back his fellow servant. It was doable. It was possible. But there was no way the first servant could have paid back $7 billion. And yet he had the audacity to offer to pay back everything. He was deluded. He didn’t really understand the overwhelming situation he was in. And therefore he also didn’t understand the debt he had been forgiven. And he had no comprehension of the mercy he had been shown. And this is our problem, when we have difficulty forgiving others. We have no understanding of the vast debt our sin has created before God, and little comprehension of the mercy we have been shown in God forgiving our sins. Somehow we think it is not really so bad after all, that really it is something we can fix by ourselves. But we can’t. The sin debt is one that only God can fix. We can’t actually avoid the consequences of our sin, but in our pride we can try to avoid believing that we really deserve it, that our debt is really that bad.

One way to realize the enormity of a problem, is by comprehending the cost involved in solving it. When we have difficulty realizing the enormity of our sin debt, we should meditate on what it cost God to solve our problem, and forgive our sin debt. Years after Jesus spoke this story to Peter, Peter wrote these words, “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-20) You will probably never owe someone $7 billon. But our greatest debt isn’t a monetary one. And no amount of money is enough to release us from the greatest debt we have. Only Jesus’ precious blood is enough. When Peter asked Jesus about forgiving others, I don’t think he really knew what Jesus knew, that Jesus was going to have to die to free Peter from his sin debt. But all those years later, and Peter understood that, and wrote it down for everyone to understand. The enormity of our sin problem was such was that the only solution was for the Father to give the life of his own Son, and for Jesus to suffer the full wrath of God, in the place of his own people, so that we could be released from our sin debt.

This is where we need to go when we find it hard to forgive our brother from our heart. This is the key to forgiving others. Just like the $14,000, there may indeed be a significant debt of offence against us, but it is still so little compared to what God has already forgiven us in Christ. Out of the humility in understanding we have been forgiven a vast sin debt to God, which we could never have repaid, comes the freedom and joy of being able to love others, to give to others, to forgive others. As with so many things, our pattern and our power, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is what God has done for us in Christ. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 4:32-5:2)

How to respond to sin in the church?

If we check in with reality, we know that sin is always going to occur in the church, until Jesus returns, the resurrection comes, and we sin no more. The New Testament is clear about this, and so is personal experience. This will especially be true if evangelism is going well, and people are being converted out of all sorts of backgrounds. Then you can be sure that the church is going to be confronted with all sorts of uncomfortable situations!

So how do we respond to sin in the church? Especially, what do we do when there is something that cannot - and perhaps should not - be hidden? Perhaps a church member will be convicted of a crime. Perhaps an ugly fight breaks out in a church meeting. Perhaps some gossip is spreading around Facebook for too many to see. The scenarios can be multiplied.

As I was grappling with this, I came up with the following list of "in principle" considerations and questions to ask...

1. All sin is not the same. It is a common mistake that we think all sin is the same. All sin is sin, but not all sin is the same. In the OT, some sins (eg sexual ones, rebellion against parents, idolatry) required the death penalty, others did not. Jesus spoke about how some would receive more severe judgement than others (eg Mark 12:40, Matthew 11:20-24; cf  Hebrews 10:29). Also, in the NT not all sins are given the same “coverage” (I haven’t checked the stats, but I suspect sexual sin gets comparatively a lot of “air time”).
2. Helping the individual. Is the sinning individual being helped as best as possible? The first step of course is admission of sin. Is there already personal repentance and forgiveness, or not? Are we satisfied there is appropriate understanding of sin and repenting of sin? Are they assured of forgiveness? 1 John 1:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 etc. Are there consequences of sin that we need to help work through (eg pregnancy, civil law issues)? Is there unrepentance that needs discipline? We also need to be careful so as not to cause unnecessary suffering to the repentant and forgiven individual.
3. Helping the community. Biblical Christianity is not only individualistic, but it is community-oriented, as a family. Are there community needs that have to be addressed? What about gossip (about the sinning individual, or against the leadership, etc)? Will there be significant temptation of others to sin in the same way or to see sin as condoned (cf 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:27)? How will the community view the sinning individual, and how will that one feel in their presence (cf 2 Corinthians 2:6-11)? How does it affect the other congregations in the same church or denomination?
4. Leadership. How does the eldership take the lead in such situations? Do we need to make use of the “keys of the kingdom”, whether to forgive or exclude (cf Matthew 16:19, 18:18)? What are responsibilities and privileges as Christ’s under-shepherds?
5. Blamelessness/Fear of the LORD. Not about being sinless or perfectionism. Another important Scriptural principle is that Christians need to not only do what is right, but they have to be seen to be doing what is right, so as to be without blame (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:20-21; Philippians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:7). A key witness of the church is not just in doing what is right, but in how we handle it when we fail. This is not so much about our personal shame and honour, as how it reflects upon the name of the LORD, and the fear of him (cf 2 Samuel 12:14). Also, in all this, in our motives etc we need to maintain a fear of the LORD and not a fear of men.
6. Culture. How does our culture view the issue? Are there cultural expectations that need to be addressed, or cultural norms that need to be countered?
7. Pastoral Opportunity. Most (all?) of the NT epistles are occasioned by some problem in the church. Those problems were a pastoral opportunity that became a public teaching legacy to benefit the whole church for every generation to come. Is there a pastoral teaching opportunity that we need to take hold of?
8. Who needs to know? There are complexities relating to members and non-members (we may even have many non-members who are active and even leaders). And even with regard to new people, there are two perspectives. On the one hand, it may not be their business, or they may be put off by hearing. On the other hand, perhaps they need to know what Christianity is really like, and how the church works. Also, is it a private sin, that everyone doesn't need to know about, or something everyone knows about already?

If the leadership comes to a point where something needs to be said, what sort of things should be said? Here are some general suggestions:

• Clear acknowledgement of the reality of ongoing sin in the lives of Christians. (Let's not pretend it doesn't happen.)
• Clear position against sin, including the need for discipline if required. (Let's also not pretend it never needs to happen either. And let us never take delight in it when it does.)
• Clear position of free and full forgiveness and reconciliation and acceptance of the repentant sinner.
• A call to support a repentant sinner however we can as they work through the consequences of their sin.
• A call to support each other in the face of temptation (especially remembering others who might be tempted to fall into similar sin).
• Warnings against gossip etc.
• An offer from the leadership to help where possible with the general ongoing problem of sin (including admission of our own weaknesses and failings).

John Owen on the Deadly Deceptiveness of Sin

Sin is always deceptive and deadly. It may start looking harmless enough, but it will stealthily lead towards utter destruction. We need to kill sin or be killed by it! Here is a quote from the English Puritan, John Owen:

Sin will not only be striving, acting, rebelling, troubling, disquieting, but if let alone, if not continually mortified, it will bring forth great, cursed, scandalous, soul-destroying sins. The apostle tells us what the works and fruits of it are, Gal. v. 19–21, “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.” You know what it did in David and sundry others. Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts, — that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. iii. 13, — it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin, — that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth, — so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

[src: Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers, Chapter 2, heading 3]

Psalm 130:4 and John Murray on the Fear of God

In Psalm 130:4 we have a curious and intriguing sentence: "But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared." If it had just said that the LORD may be loved, or thanked, or praised, or worshipped, that may have been more expected. But why "feared"? Often we have a conception of fear which pushes away from rather than drawing us near to God. How does an apprehension of forgiveness lead us to fear the LORD?

I think John Murray's little treatment on "the Fear of God", the last chapter within his book, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, is helpful here. Murray first distinguishes between two Scriptural senses in which we are to fear God, which he describes in a footnote as: "the fear of being afraid of God and his punitive judgments" and "the fear of reverential awe and adoration". And then he makes this important point which helps us to understand Psalm 130:4...

The fear of God which is the soul of godliness does not consist, however, in the dread which is produced by the apprehension of God’s wrath. When the reason for such dread exists, then to be destitute of it is the sign of hardened ungodliness. But the fear of God which is the basis of godliness, and in which godliness may be said to consist, is much more inclusive and determinative than the fear of God’s judgement. And we must remember that the dread of judgement will never of itself generate within us the love of God or hatred of the sin that makes us liable to his wrath. Even the infliction of wrath will not create the hatred of sin; it will incite to greater love of sin and enmity against God. Punishment has of itself no regenerating or converting power. The fear of God in which godliness consists is the fear which constrains adoration and love. It is the fear which consists in awe, reverence, honour, and worship, and all of these on the highest level of exercise. It is the reflex in our consciousness of the transcendent majesty and holiness of God. It belongs to all created rational beings and does not take its origin from sin. The essence of sin may be said to be negation of God’s fear.

It is only through an apprehension of God's mercy and forgiveness, and the restored relationship that results from that, that we will really be able fear God in the second sense. Without it, we will only turn away from God, and even the first sense of fear will only further push us away from God instead of drawing us closer to him in reverential fear.

I am further reminded of how the Westminster Confession of Faith describes true repentance in turning to God, which must also include a proper apprehension of God's mercy in Christ...

Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.

[WCF 15:1-2]

J I Packer on the Need to Know about Sin

Striking quote by J I Packer on the importance of understanding sin...

The subject of sin is vital knowledge. To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God's answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says. Apart from the first two chapters of Genesis, which set the stage, the real subject of every chapter of the Bible is what God does about our sins. Lose sight of this theme, and you lose your way in the Bible at once. With that, the love of God, the meaning of salvation, and the message of the gospel, will all become closed books to you; you may still talk of these things, but you will no longer know what you are talking about.
[from God's Words (1981; also 18 Words)]

J I Packer on the Bible as God's Torah or Law

Another quote from J I Packer's book Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (1996)...

It needs to be said, before we move on, that living by biblical torah can be costly. Society will press Christians to do things that God's law forbids and to omit things that God's law requires. Christian nonconformity to others' ways will be felt as an insult and a threat. In the early centuries Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire because they would not join in emperor worship. Persecution is rife today in Muslim and Marxist countries where toleration is not part of the culture and Christians are seen as subversive of national goals. In the West, Christian physicians who will not do abortions are marginalized in their own profession, and in many circles Christians who still see homosexual practice as sin are, to say the least, disliked. Christians, however, must obey God rather then humans when there is a clash (see Acts 4:19; 5:29), and if that means trouble, so be it: we have to learn to commit our cause to God and stand steady, seeing the situation as a testing of our faith. But living by Scripture as one's law in this way can cost a great deal, and we must face that fact realistically.

Further, it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be disturbing. It has been said that either the Bible will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from the Bible. What is meant is that the Bible will jolt us to the roots of our being by zeroing in on our weaknesses, shortcomings, vices, disobediences and neglects and will sensitize our consciences to the displeasure of God and the imperative need to make changes. At such times we will find that the temptation to stop taking the Bible seriously will be very strong indeed.

... Also it needs to be said that living by biblical torah can be very humbling. Pride is the sinful infection of all our hearts, and to a degree we are all proud of our opinions. But if, as we let Scripture instruct us, we find it teaching something different from what we have hitherto assumed and contradicting what, as we say, we "like to think" (ominous phrase!), then it is so much the worse for our former thoughts, and we have to change our minds. To admit that you were wrong can be painful, but those who take Scripture as law for their lives must be prepared for this.

(Packer in this book offers seven ways to think of the Bible as we approach it: A Library, A Landscape, A Letter, A Listening Post, A Law, A Light, A Lifeline. Packer describes torah as "affectionate instruction on behaviour as from a father to his family, given in the expectation that the children will take it to heart and faithfully obey their father's directives".)

Calvin on God's Will and Permitting Adam's Sin

Sometimes we are a bit too soft when we speak of God "permitting" sin and evil to enter the world through Adam (as well as ongoing suffering etc). Yes we are right to so distance sin and evil from God, as to never attribute evil and sin to God. He is perfect in purity, holiness, goodness and love. In him is light and there is no darkness at all. But at the same time, we do not have to sacrifice his perfect sovereignty and control, just because we can't make it all fit in our heads, in our philosophising or thinking. As if in some way we think we have a better idea of what constitutes what would be right and fair and good, more than God does. And the Bible is not backward in many places asserting God's absolute authority and right to do whatever he pleases, and leave us in our part to trust him fully in his perfect fairness, righteousness and goodness.

Below is a quote from Calvin, from his commentary on Genesis chapter 3, where he touches on this issue, as he considers the fact that God allowed Satan to tempt man...

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning.