Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on June 20, 2012 under Ask the Pastor | 
A visitor to our website writes:
“I’ve come to be quite confused about the ‘sins of the fathers’ being passed to generations to come. It confuses me as to why God would punish the children of someone who has sinned. I understand that the sin the ‘parent’ committed may come back to hurt the children (such as a usual “drunken father” beating their children and scarring them for life). But does God still punish the children if they are good-hearted, faithful people, just because their parents have sinned?”
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Thanks for visiting our website. And thanks for a really great question.
The idea that the ‘sins of the fathers’ could be passed on to their children is probably most often taken from Exodus 20:4-6. That’s the passage that gives us the second commandment. It says; “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (You’ll find the same sort of statement made concerning the second commandment in Deuteronomy 5:9). But it’s also found in Exodus 34:6-7; when God displayed His glory to Moses and said of Himself, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” Later on, when the children of Israel refused to enter the promised land, Moses pleaded to God for his people—reaffirming what God Himself said: “And now, I pray, let the power of my Lord be great, just as You have spoken, saying, ‘The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’ Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”
Even though someone might take these statements to mean that God would visit the punishment of guilty fathers even upon their innocent children, I think a few things need to be kept in mind that will help us interpret it correctly. First, it’s important to remember that God—in all His dealings with people—will prove in the end to be perfectly just. As Abraham once said to God in Genesis 18:25—at a time when he was concerned that the judgement of God was about to fall on innocent people—”Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And the implied answer is, yes—the Judge of all the earth will always do right. God will never prove to have been so unjust as to extend the punishment of guilty fathers on their innocent children.
Another thing to keep in mind is that God Himself is very explicit in Scripture in saying that He does not unjustly punish innocent children for the sins of their fathers. During the days of the prophets—just before the people were taken captive to Babylon—there was a popular ‘saying’ that was going around. God spoke about it through the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18:1-3; “The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, ‘What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”? As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.’” (It’s interesting that God says essentially the same thing through the prophet Jeremiah 31:29-30—”In those days they shall say no more: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.”)
I recommend that you go to Ezekiel 18; and read that whole chapter. God goes to great lengths in it to make very, very clear that He does not unjustly extract punishment from the sons for the sins of their fathers. In fact, in verse 20, He says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
And I think that one more thing to keep in mind is that, in the passages that seem to suggest that God punishes the sons for the guilt of the father, the greater point that is being made is not about God’s punishment but about His mercy. He says that He is a God who shows “mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments”; and calls Himself “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin . . .” He only speaks of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children when He asserts that—in showing mercy—He will be found to “by no means clearing the guilty”.
So then; given all that, how are we to take the passages that say that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children? For one thing, I think that—when you look at it from the other passages that speak of the guilt of fathers and its impact upon their children—it would obviously mean that He does indeed visit the same punishment of the fathers upon their children who walk in those same sinful footsteps. I note that God says that He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children “to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me”. If they too hate God, and follow in their father’s rebellious footsteps, they also will be visited upon by the punishment suffered by the father. No one should ever think that if they do the same sinful things as their father did—and see God punish their father for it—that being a few generations away will somehow let them off the hook! (People do that a lot today, I’m afraid. They think that things like “sin” and “judgment” and “repentance” are words from a by-gone era; and that we’re too enlightened today to fuss about such things. But God is the same today as He was in times past—and the consequences for sinful actions are the same too.)
Another things we should note is that, in the passages above, the word that is used is translated “visit”—that the iniquities of the fathers are “visited” upon their children. That can be interpreted to mean “punishment”—and that’s how the New International Version translates it. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that. It’s a rather vague word, which—it seems to me—is best understood as simply saying that God allows the consequence of the sins of the fathers to have an impact on their children. That impact may mean punishment; but it may mean simply the unwanted consequence of sin. (I often tell people that one of the great tragedies of our sins is that it affects innocent bystanders.)
In the light of that, we should notice that those passages above speak of children “to the third and fourth generations”. When you think of it, very few people get to live past the days of their great-grandchildren. The furthest that any one person can actually bring any direct, living influence upon their offspring would be to the third or fourth generations. It’s almost as if God was saying, “I’m going to hit you so hard, your great-grandchildren will say, ‘Ouch!’” And so; I have taken it that the punishment that God may bring on a hard-hearted, sinful, unrepentant person can result in the sorrow and anguish of any of their children—even their innocent children—only to the third or fourth generation. (And that, by the way, is a great mercy from God. He visits iniquity only to the third and fourth generation; but says that He shows “mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”)
Personally, all of this reminds me of how important it is that I live a godly life; and follow the Lord Jesus Christ diligently. I do not want to be a cause for my children, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, to suffer because of my sinfulness. Instead, I want to leave them a legacy that will bless them—and that will inspire them to follow after the Lord Jesus as well.
Thanks again for a great question.
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on April 7, 2012 under Ask the Pastor |
A writer to the church asks:
I was wondering what insight you could give me on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16—about head coverings
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Excellent question. I’ve, unfortunately, had the experience of being in a church once where this issue became very divisive. But I think I can suggest a few things that might help.
First, it’s important to remember that the specific problem that Paul was seeking to solve ought to determine how we interpret what this passage says. There was, at that time in the Corinthian culture, a growing and aggressively destructive ‘feminist’ movement. The Corinthian believers were becoming influenced by this cultural movement. Paul was not trying to suppress one gender under another, but rather to maintain the proper, God-honoring order that benefits both women and men (see vv. 11-12).
Second, there needs to be a distinction made between timeless theological principles and time-bound cultural practices. For example, the wearing of a head-covering meant something specific in that time that it does not mean today—just as short hair on a woman or long hair on a man meant something different at different times of history. We need to draw out the timeless principles that are being taught to us through the time-bound cultural instructions that Paul was giving the Corinthians.
The “timeless principle” that I would draw from this passage is that God has established a basic order of headship in the husband/wife role. I take this from verses 2-3. Paul wrote (in the New King James Version):
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (vv. 2-3).
Paul praised the Corinthians for their remembrance of him and of the “traditions” he taught them (v. 1). These “traditions” were not simply things that Paul came up with, but were the things that were the heritage of godly people throughout the ages. Among the “traditions” he wanted the Corinthians to know was that there is a God-established order of “headship”. Headship, in verse 3, may be best understood as “an order of established authority”. (See Ephesians 5:22-24). God the Father is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of man, and the husband is the head of his wife. Men are mentioned first, then the women; but then—as if to affirm His supremacy over both—Christ is mentioned last.
Paul was giving the Corinthians a time-bound or culturally-bound practice, based on that principle, with respect to how the basic order of headship is to be honored in the church. The church would not be behaving properly if it conducted itself in rebellion against this established order of headship—however it may be that this order is expressed in culture. If it does so, it steps out of from under the authority of Christ’s headship.
So; what does Paul tell them about this time-bound practice? First, notice that it is to be maintained in the practice of the church’s worship. In verses 4-7, Paul wrote;
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man (vv. 4-7).
This time-bound practice is to be maintained in the manner with which prayer and prophesying (speaking forth what God has said) was to be done. Note that women are NOT forbidden from praying or prophesying in the church. They apparently are very welcomed and encouraged to do so; but whenever a woman does so, the symbols of her submission to her God-appointed head must be maintained. In that culture, the symbol that was recognized was head-covering. In ours, a parallel idea might be the wearing of a wedding ring and the taking-on of the husband’s last name. (For a woman to shave her head in that culture was an expression of open immorality and rebellion; and Paul is arguing that if she will not submit to that God-appointed order of headship, she is expressing rebellion just as much as if were to bear the outward cultural symbol of rebellion. )
The expression of the timeless principle of the headship order in this way is in keeping with the story of Creation. In verses 8-9, Paul went on to write;
For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man (vv. 8-9).
This was taken right out of the creation story in Genesis 2; and shows that God had a specific purpose in the order of creation. To refuse to respect the creation order in the manner in which worship was done in the church was the same as to rebel against God’s authority.
It was also proper with respect to the presence of angels. In verse 10, Paul wrote;
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (v. 10).
This may be a reference to the fact that the angels are vitally involved in the life of the church (see Hebrews 1:14). They are certainly mightier than human beings; but they themselves nevertheless submit to their God-appointed role of serving the saints. What’s more, they too bear a “covering” in their worship of God (see Isaiah 6:2).
All of this was to be seen in the context of God’s design of interdependency. As Paul wrote in verses 11-12;
Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God (vv. 11-12).
In no way do Paul’s instructions destroy the equal value of both men and women. Paul maintains that, just as the woman comes from man in creation, the man comes from woman in birth. They may possess different roles in the order of headship; but by God’s design, the expression of their differing roles is to be seen mutually compatible and equally edifying to one another.
And the expression of this design is self-evidently proper. Paul went on to say in verses 13-15;
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (vv. 13-15).
In the Corinthian culture (and in most), long, unkempt hair on a man was a symbol of shame (effeminate behavior); but long hair on a woman is a symbol of beauty (see 1 Peter 3:3). Here, the woman’s hair is said to be given as a natural “covering”. (The Bible gives us no specific “length” of hair that is proper and acceptable. This is culturally determined. )
Finally, Paul stressed that this was a practice that was in keeping with the custom of practice in the churches at large. In verse 16, he writes;
But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God (v. 16).
Even if someone were to be contentious about the matter, Paul maintained that there was no other pattern given except that which honors God-appointed headship—neither from the apostles, nor from the church as a whole.
Well; that’s quite a bit. But I hope some if it helps.
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on under Ask the Pastor |
A writer to the church has heard it taught that the Bible says women should keep silent in church, and they should rely on their husbands if they have anything to say. She writes:
“I have no problem with it, but I would like to know your opinion on it. What if a woman doesn’t have a husband, especially a Christian husband, dad, brother, son, or any male relative?”
* * * * * * * * * *
Thanks for writing.
This is, obviously, a very delicate matter. And I’m sorry to say that a lot of Bible teachers (some well-meaning, and others not-so-well-meaning) have failed to take the passages in question in their proper contexts; and have ended up making it seem as if women were ‘second-class citizens’ within the household of God. Nothing could be further from the apostle Paul’s intention in the things he wrote.
First, let’s make it clear that there are no “second-class-citizens” in God’s household. As Paul affirmed in Galatians 3:26-27, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. ”
The apostle Paul is sometimes accused (unfairly) of lowering the status of women. But this is not true at all. He depended upon the faithful services and co-labors of a woman named Phoebe. Thanks to her, we have Paul’s wonderful book of Romans in our Bibles today! She was a woman that Paul referred to as “a servant of the church” (literally, a deaconess); and considered her a woman to be received by others in the church “in a manner worthy of the saints” (Romans 16:1-2). In his missionary work in Philippi, he was grateful for the support of a remarkable woman named Lydia—a successful business-woman who appears to have had the sufficient means to even provide her home as the meeting place of the church that was formed there (Acts 16:11-15, 40). There are many other examples in the New Testament. So; the things that Paul said regarding women speaking in the church should not be interpreted in any respect as an effort to suppress them or disrespect them.
* * * * * * * * * *
One of the passages that is often brought up—the one you mentioned in fact—is the one that is found in 1 Timothy 2. This was a passage in which Paul was giving instructions to Pastor Timothy regarding the conduct within the church in its times of corporate worship. After giving instructions regarding the men in the church (vv. 1-7), he then goes on to say, “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works (vv. 8-10). Some churches argue that this passage teaches that women should not pray publicly in church. But after giving instructions regarding prayer, Paul then says “in like manner also”—suggesting that women are to pray too; but in a manner that is befitting of holiness just as is true of the men.
Paul then went on to say, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission” (v. 11). The actual Greek word that is used (hysuchazo) doesn’t speak so much of the absence of sound as it does the quietness of manner—and is associated with the phrase “in all submission”. It’s important to note that Paul doesn’t say “in all submission to all men”. Rather, I believe he’s speaking of a quality of humble, quiet submission to the teaching from God’s word. A parallel thought to this might be in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; where it says, “Let your women [some ancient manuscripts do not have the word 'your'] keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” We’ll come to that passage just a little later; but for now, just note that Paul is urging that a woman is to heed the teaching of the word; and that if she has a question—rather than be disruptive—she should wait until getting home and ask their husband about what she and he heard. That way, if there really was a problem with the teaching, both husband and wife could bring the concern to the leadership in a united and orderly way; with the head of the household in the lead.
Paul said further, in verse 13, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence [the same basic Greek word as in verse 11]. “This, I believe, is the only ministry-prohibition Paul makes on the basis of gender. A woman (who as we see from the story of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2) can be a deaconess in the church; but she is not to assume the role of a teaching elder. A woman may even teach in the church. Praise God that many do—and do so wonderfully well! But a woman is forbidden from being a teacher in such a way as to hold authority over the men in the church. This conforms with the passages in which Paul gives the qualifications for “elders” or “bishops” in the church (the same thing as a pastor)—that a bishop must, among other things be “the husband of one wife” (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The reason Paul gives is based on the story of the creation and the fall in Genesis 1-3. In verses 14-15, he says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (Those last words, about “being saved in childbearing” has, I believe, particular reference to Eve; and to the promise that God gave of a Redeemer of fallen humanity through her ‘seed’; see Genesis 3:15).
* * * * * * * * * *
So; the passage in 1 Timothy 2 is not, I would hold, teaching that women must keep silent. It has to do with the attitude of quiet submissiveness to the ministry of the appointed teaching leadership of the church. And because of the context, I believe this has to do primarily with conduct within the gathered church—not as a matter of standing in society at large. To take it any further than its immediate context is to take it seriously out of context!
But what about that passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34; where it says, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says”? Once again, I believe that it’s very important to keep this in context. What Paul was dealing with in that passage—beginning in 1 Corinthians 12 and all the way to the end of chapter 14—was the problem of the abuses of spiritual gifts. In particular, in chapter 14, he is dealing with the matter of speaking in tongues in the public gathering of the saints in the church. The practice was being taken to an out-of-control extreme. And in the context of reining-in the abuses of tongues-speaking, Paul commanded that the women keep silent. This is because a message in tongues was always to be interpreted; and if interpreted, it was to be evaluated by the rest as an authoritative message of instruction from God. Because a woman is not permitted to teach or hold authority over men, then—obviously—such a message in tongues as would involve teaching or authoritative instruction would not be appropriate for a woman to give to the public gathering of the church.
I say all that because I don’t believe Paul is saying, in 1 Corinthians 14, that a woman may not speak at all. I believe he is saying, in that specific context, that a woman may not speak in tongues in the public gathering. That’s what he meant by saying, “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” He specifically meant “speaking in tongues”. (Just as a matter of principle, we should never take such biblical prohibitions any further than the immediate context demands. )
Another passage that is similar to this is found in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It has to do with the practice of women praying or prophesying with their heads covered. In the ancient cultures in which Paul spoke these words of instruction, “hair” really meant something. The way a woman wore her hair was understood as a statement of her moral character (which is why Paul warned a woman not to overdress her hair in 1 Timothy 2:9). He wrote; ” Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. ”
Behind these words is, I believe, the recognition of a cultural symbol that was understood to represent a woman’s willing and loving submissiveness to her husband (not to all men; just to her husband). Today, in our culture, this is usually represented by such things as the wearing of a wedding ring, and by a woman taking the last name of her husband. In those days, it was represented by the covering of a woman’s head. Back then, as is sometimes true today, women rebelled against the concept of submission to marital headship; and “hair” was one way of doing so. And what’s important to note in this is that Paul was not saying that a woman cannot pray or “prophesy” (that is, speak forth a word from God) in the church. Obviously she can! But a wife must do so in a way that does not usurp the God-appointed headship authority of her husband.
* * * * * * * * * *
Now; you ask this very interesting question: “What if a woman doesn’t have a husband, especially a Christian husband, dad, brother, son, or any male relative?” Given all of the above, I believe that, if she is a woman who is truly without any provision of male leadership in her life, then the leadership of the church needs to lovingly step in and provide care and leadership to her. (This needs to be done carefully, though. I believe the Bible teaches a woman is to “submit” to her own husband as it says in Ephesians 5:22; but it doesn’t mean that she is to “submit” in the same way to all men. ) A woman may, in the case you describe, be “a widow indeed” as mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. She would have a marvelous opportunity to be involved in ministry to the church; and her work is very valuable. But I don’t believe this means that she should in any way assume a position of teaching leadership over men. If she has a husband who does not believe, she is still—I would say—under her husband’s headship; and she should honor his role (see 1 Corinthians 7:13-14; 1 Peter 3:1-6).
That’s a lot; but I hope some of it helps.
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on under Ask the Pastor |
A member of our church writes:
“We know that the Gospel is salvation through Jesus, since by the Law nobody is perfect. So, when we preach the Gospel, do we need to discuss the Law at the same time?”
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
It is my belief that we definitely must discuss the law at the same time as we present the gospel. And the reason is because it helps clarify what it is that has put us in a position of needing to be saved in the first place.
One of the clearest Old Testament expressions of this is found in the great “New Covenant” promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34. In that passage, God—speaking through the prophet Jeremiah—explains why a New Covenant was needed. He said; “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. ” The Old Covenant—established through the giving of the law—was broken by the people of Israel. They were guilty before God of having failed to keep it; and indeed, they were not able to keep it. In that sense, the bad news of the breaking of the Old Covenant—and the guilt before God that resulted—is the basis of the good news of the New Covenant in Christ.
An example of the necessity of presenting the law as a part of the gospel is found in the book of Romans. Romans gives us Paul’s authoritative presentation of the gospel that he preached. He introduces his treatise on the gospel with these words: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” (Romans 1:16-17). The gospel he was about to present is the revealing of “the righteousness of God”. But then, he began his formal presentation with these words; “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . . ” (v. 18). The word “for” points us backward to the previous verses, and presents us with the reason for the “righteousness of God” being revealed through the gospel. To put it another way, the wrath of God against unrighteousness in verse 18 gives us the beginning expression of the basis for the righteousness of God being revealed through the gospel in verses 16-17. Then, beginning with verse 18, and going all the way to 3:20, the case is made that all are guilty before a holy God as breakers of His law and in need of grace. In 3:20, Paul concludes his presentation of our need with these words: “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. ” But then, beginning with verses 21-23, he begins to present the gospel with these words: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . ”
Galatians is another book of the Bible in which Paul carefully defends the gospel In Galatians 2:16, he mentions how the law paves the way for the gospel; “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. ” In 3:10-11, he wrote, ” For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. ‘ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith. ‘” And in 3:19-25, he makes the matter very clear: “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. ”
Personally, I think this is a missing element in many of the presentations of the gospel that are made. The deep need that people have because of the righteous wrath of God that they are under because of sin isn’t presented to people. They’re just told to believe on Jesus without being helped to understand why they need to do so. And as a result, I think people sometimes come to Jesus more as a part of their own “self-improvement” program than as to a Savior from sin. As someone once said, in order for people to come to Jesus as they should, they first need to be introduced to Moses. What I believe this means in practice is that we need to be sensitive to where people are—and in some cases, walk people through the ten commandments and allow them to see and feel their guilt before a holy God for all the ways that they have broken God’s holy standards—as we are also, at the same time, presenting them with the good news. Praise God that we have the help of the Holy Spirit in this—and that it’s He who convicts people of sin, not us. As Jesus told His disciples; “And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (John 16:8-11).
I hope this helps.
Pastor Greg
