Hard To Repent

It is hard to repent. I remember the comment made by a well-known preacher of the nineteenth century that the hardest thing to do as a preacher was to get men to repent. By contrast, it was easy to get men to believe. He considered his greatest failure was in failing to convince men to repent.

He was not the first preacher to have that problem. The Bible calls Noah “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV). Most Bible students believe Noah preached 120 years (based on Gen. 6:3), and yet the only ones converted by his preaching were members of his own family. Only eight people were saved from the flood—Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives.

The Bible says of those who died in the flood that they were “disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared.” (1 Peter 3:20 NKJV) It was the “world of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV) that perished in the flood.

I take from the passages quoted above that Noah preached repentance. Why? Because Peter said of those people that they were “disobedient.” They therefore had law from God, whether written or unwritten. They were “ungodly,” and Noah preached “righteousness.” By definition, repentance is a turning from ungodliness to righteousness.

However, one greater than Noah had trouble getting people to repent, and this one worked miracles in the presence of men in confirmation of his preaching. Hear Jesus:

“Then he began to rebuke the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. … And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.’” (Matt. 11:20-23 NKJV)

How hard is it to repent? We learn from this passage that even the preaching of the Lord himself, accompanied by miracles, would not get some to repent. Remember also Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. It was another city that did not repent at his preaching.

Remember the account of the rich man and Lazarus as told by Jesus? Both had died, but the rich man now found himself in torment due to his ungodly life. He makes the plea to Father Abraham to send someone to his living brothers that they might repent. “And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:30-31 NKJV) In recounting this, Jesus gave his endorsement to the conclusion given by Abraham. Not even a preacher risen from the dead could convince a certain number of people to repent.

The question then naturally arises as to why men will not repent. I might suggest a few things, although my list is far from exhaustive.

Repentance and belief are two separate things. Some who believe will not repent. “Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42-43 NKJV) Here we have men who believe but are unwilling to repent, unwilling to give up their lifestyle.

I want to deal with that in just a moment, but first I want to suggest this. While belief and repentance are two separate factors, they are closely tied together. If a person truly had the depth of conviction (call it faith or belief) that hell was real, and as bad as the Bible teaches it is, and believed they were going there, I think most men would repent. Who volunteers to be tortured? None, not if they believe that will happen.

Jesus said in his day, via the teaching in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, there is no use to send someone back from the dead, for they will not repent. Why not? He does not say, but we can figure it out. They would see no need to repent. You will never convince them of their need. Indeed, that has been proven true with mankind, for one did rise from the dead and come back (Jesus), and yet the multitudes have not repented.

It seems to me nearly everyone is of the opinion that, one way or another, they are going to get by when the Day of Judgment comes. Whatever their degree of faith and obedience is, or should I say disobedience, they are of the belief that they will scrape by. Most simply do not believe they need to repent. They are good enough just as they are. Thus, belief, or the lack thereof, is tied closely to repentance.

People argue today over how the American Constitution should be interpreted, and there are two points of view (bear with me—I am not getting off the subject). One is that of the strict constructionist who says the Constitution tightly binds us as to laws and powers. The other view is that of the liberal constructionist. The liberal constructionist does not feel bound by the strict wording of the Constitution but feels at liberty to update it, for want of a better way of phrasing it, to the changing times and society’s values. It is like a rubber band that you can stretch, allowing more things inside.

The Bible is the same way as regards how men view it. I would suggest that a rubber band can be stretched to the breaking point. We can get so liberal with our interpretations of the Bible that there is indeed no need to repent.

Whatever the merits of this type of interpretation might be with regard to our Constitution, it will not work with the Bible without destroying the commands of God. When they are destroyed, ceasing to be viewed as commands for our time, then who needs to repent? My point is that what you believe has a great deal to do with whether or not you will repent. What do you believe about yourself? What do you believe about the Bible?

If you believe the Bible no longer condemns living together outside of marriage (fornication), how are you going to repent? I use that as an example, but you could ask the same question of many other things men used to call sin but have seemingly changed their minds on in our day. Adultery would have to be one such thing placed in the forefront of what people used to believe the Bible condemned but either no longer believe it, don’t care, or have convinced themselves that God is going to understand their situation is unlike other adulterers and grant them an exception. Yes, people refuse to repent, for they have changed their minds, their belief, about what constitutes sin. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression most people living in adultery today think all is well with their souls. Yes, belief and repentance are tied closely together.

But I want to get back to the rulers who would not repent, being unwilling to confess Jesus, as found in John 12:42-43. Belief was not the problem but the joy of the things of this world was, in their case the joy of the praise of men in the synagogues.

The simple fact of the matter is we enjoy sin. I do not say all sin is enjoyable, but much of it is. The writer of the book of Hebrews, in speaking about Moses, says he chose rather to “suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” and spoke of the “treasures in Egypt.” (Heb. 11:25-26 NKJV)

As the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, Moses could have readily enjoyed all that money, fame, and position or power could offer. The Hebrew writer called these things “the passing pleasures of sin.” What we have (position, power, fame, money, luxury, prestige) has, for the average man or woman, a great deal to do with what we believe and what we think about repentance. We do not think these things color our perspective, but they do.

Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians about these things when he said, “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” (1 Cor. 1:26 NKJV) What did he mean by that, given the fact the gospel call is for all men (2 Thess. 2:14)? We are all called by the gospel. It is obvious he was saying that not many of such a class of people would respond to the call.

Jesus said of a rich man that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (be saved). (Luke 18:25) Why? Again, the answer is obvious—the pleasures of the world. See also 1 Tim. 6:9.

In 2 Cor. 4:3-4 the Bible talks about people being blinded. Paul says, “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” (NKJV) What is it these people do not believe?

We would say the gospel, the message about Jesus being the Christ, the Savior of the world, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15:3-4 NKJV) Part of what was veiled to these people who did not believe was their need for repentance. Who was hiding it from them? The god of this world.

Finally, in closing, I add this. Human pride plays a big role in making repentance hard to do. It takes a big man or woman to confess they are a sinner. Humility is a hard thing to come by, but it is the very thing required of any person who would be saved.

“And Jesus called a little child to him, set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matt. 18:2-4 NKJV)

It is hard for a successful person, by this world’s standards, to humble himself to the degree necessary to repent. However, pride is a killer, and we must be humble not just by outward appearance but in our heart—truly be humble. The Bible says God not only hates “a proud look” (Prov. 6:16-17 NKJV) but it is an abomination to him.

It is not hard for the man who has been a failure to repent in comparison to the successful man; nevertheless, even the lowly must fight the battle against pride. None are exempt from pride. It is tough to say, “I have sinned.”

Yes, it is hard to repent, but it is necessary. For the man or woman who succeeds in doing it, there is a peace, joy, and rejoicing within one’s heart unknown to those who have not repented and thus not experienced it.

 [To download this article or print it out click here.]

Honestly Deceived: Does It Matter

1 Tim. 2:12-14 has always troubled me a little. It reads, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (NKJV)

Paul says elsewhere, “the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Cor. 11:3 NKJV), which Eve herself admitted in Gen. 3:13 when she said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” (NKJV)

I would have thought that sinning with one’s eyes wide open (Adam) would be worse than sinning because one was deceived (Eve). Of course, I understand both suffered the same penalty for sin, so in that sense it mattered not, but it does seem that Eve was blamed in a way Adam was not, and for the worse, not for the better.

Eve’s sin was that she was willing to believe one who contradicted what the word of God said and acted on that belief. That ought to be a lesson for us all, man or woman, for that was the road that led to her ruin. You can read in 1 Kings 13:1-33 about another person who did the same thing, allowed himself to be deceived, a man described as a man of God, and who likewise suffered for it. God does not give mankind a pass for being honestly deceived. He does not look with favor on those who will take someone else’s word over His own.

This being the case, it would behoove the Protestant world to take another look at baptism. Will the Protestant believe God’s word that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 NKJV), the washing away of one’s sins (Acts 22:16), the “antitype which now saves us, namely baptism” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV), or will he or she continue to believe a deception of man that it is merely a sign? The word sign is not once used in the New Testament in association with the word baptism, not once. It is an invention of man.

But if the reply is, “We are saved by faith, not by baptism,” a false dichotomy is set up, for who says it must be one or the other exclusively? If these are the only two requirements for salvation, then repentance from sin is not required. We know that is not true. The truth is, everything related to salvation begins with faith. Faith is the motivating factor, but it is not the end-all of salvation but merely the starting point from which everything else flows.

As surely as the Bible teaches that faith is a requirement for salvation, it just as surely teaches that repentance is (Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3-5, Acts 17:30) and that baptism is. Who wants to try to explain to God on the Day of Judgment why he believed man rather than God’s own word? Eve chose to believe another over God. It did not work out well for her. Likely, it will not work out any better for anyone who tries it today.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Resurrection: The Crux Of The Matter

The apostle Paul teaches us that faith is but folly if Christ did not rise from the dead. “For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:16-17 NKJV)

The atheist, the evolutionist, and all non-believers have staked their eternal well-being on their thesis that Christ did not rise from the dead. Thus the faith of the non-believers and the faith of those who do believe both revolve around the matter of the resurrection (did it or did it not occur). If it occurred there is a God in heaven and Jesus is his Son, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world.

The Bible teaches this very thing. Speaking of Jesus, the Bible says that he was “declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:4 NKJV) By what means was he declared the Son of God? By the resurrection from the dead. That sealed the deal.

One does not need scientific proof to resolve the question of the resurrection of Jesus. And, besides, how did we ever come to delude ourselves that science can answer every question? Can science tell you how many grains of sand there are on all the beaches of the world or where the universe ends or how human language developed and became so diverse?

If a person is a rational being, the question of the resurrection of Jesus is one of the easier questions he or she will ever have to answer. That there was a man named Jesus who lived on the earth in ancient Israel approximately 2,000 years ago is no longer a debated question among scholars. None to my knowledge deny he was crucified. All we have to resolve is the question of the resurrection. How do we do that?

The first issue to look at is whether or not the body of Jesus was stolen, for that was the claim made by the chief priests and Pharisees. Fearing that might happen, they went to Pilate and requested a Roman guard be placed at the tomb.

Speaking to Pilate, they said, “‘Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, “After three days I will rise.” Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, “He has risen from the dead.” So the last deception will be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.’ So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.” (Matt. 27:63-66 NKJV)

I am sure you remember the story of the cover-up after the resurrection, how some of the guard went into the city and reported to the chief priests those things that had happened and then were given a sum of money to tell the lie that the body of Jesus was stolen while they slept. A promise was made to them that the chief priests would appease the governor if worst came to worst and it came to his ears that they had been negligent in their duty while on guard. (Matt. 28:11-14)

What is wrong with that story? You name it, you got it. First, it was not only a violation of duty to fall asleep on guard duty, as it also is today, but the punishment in the Roman army was death if the matter was pursued. You do not fall asleep on guard duty.

Secondly, it was not a matter of one man alone on the job, for then we could imagine one man might fall asleep. We cannot know how many men had guard duty that night, although there has been speculation, we know there were at least a few, for only “some of the guard” (Matt. 28:11) go to report the happenings to the priests. Some means some went and some didn’t. Did they all sleep at the same time that night without fear of death if caught? Is there no discipline in the Roman army?

In the third place, the stone by which the tomb entrance was closed was very large (Mark 16:4), and the women who went to the tomb that morning of the resurrection were very concerned about how they were going to move it before arriving on the scene. This meant it would not be moved easily and would likely take the efforts of more than one man to move. The same can be said of the body of Jesus unless the perpetrator was going to sling the body across his shoulder and walk off, and if so, how far was he going to go doing that? Were the guards not only asleep but in a drunken sleep so deep that all the noise would not awaken them, not even one of them?

In the fourth place, if the body was stolen, about everyone knew who would have been in on it. Why not track down the apostles and beat the truth out of them? Why was it not done? Were the Romans, the chief priests, the Pharisees above doing that sort of thing? What did they do to Christ? If they themselves believed the story they told publicly, that the body was stolen, why not go after the culprits most likely guilty of the theft?

In the fifth place, why did the soldiers lie about it? Was it just the money? It could have been, but it’s very doubtful. They are in a bind, in a tight spot. Without help from the chief priests, their lives are in danger, for they have done the unthinkable and allowed the body to be stolen on their watch. Without someone in their corner helping them out, they are in danger of losing their own lives, so they desperately need the support of the chief priests.

If they tell the truth about what happened, where is their proof? Who will believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If they are not believed what will become of them? Will they lose their lives? From their vantage point, things look pretty bleak no matter what they do. Taking the money and lying seems the better way out, for who will believe them if they tell the truth, and if the governor does not believe them, what will become of them? Will the governor have them put to death? By taking the money and lying, they have the promise from the chief priests that “we will appease him and make you secure.” (Matt. 28:14 NKJV)

So was the body stolen? You do not believe that if you are a rational person. The next argument is, in my opinion, so strong as to completely close the case on the side of the resurrection without another word being spoken about the matter.

After Jesus was resurrected, even his closest disciples did not believe it when it was reported to them. “Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.” (Mark 16:14 NKJV) You remember Thomas would not believe unless he could thrust his hand into Jesus’ side. (John 20:25 NKJV)

And yet, shortly thereafter, they are ready and willing to die for him. How does one explain that? Do you sacrifice all for one you know to be dead? What was there to be gained by such a thing? Why do you give up everything for a lie unless you know for a fact that what men are calling a lie (Jesus’ resurrection) is instead the truth?

Stephen was martyred, then James. We know Peter later was also, for Jesus said to him, “‘Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.’ This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’” (John 21:18-19 NKJV) No one doubts that Paul also lost his life because he was a Christian, and died for Christ.

How does one explain this? What gets men to go to the extremes they were willing to go to? There was no money in it (in being a Christian), there was no power to be had in it, there was only hardship and sacrifice, danger and death.

Paul said, “Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” (2 Cor. 11:23-27 NKJV)

Why would a man like Paul was before his conversion with all the advantages he had in the religious system he was in (Judaism) become a Christian and endure all the things he endured if he had no certain proof that Jesus had risen from the dead? What was his advantage in doing so?

All reason, all common sense, tell us that Christ arose from the grave, was resurrected, and that the only reason men do not believe it today is they are willingly blind and desire to remain so for personal reasons that most are not willing to admit. They prefer to live their lives the way they choose rather than the way Christ would have them live.

Are men not afraid of God? Paul quotes the Psalmist and says, “‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’” (Rom. 3:18 NKJV) But the Bible also says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:10 NKJV) All men and women will fear God in due time, but it will be too late to make a difference with most. If you are reading this, it is not too late to turn to God today, but the time will come when it will be, for, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6:2 NKJV)

To deny the resurrection is to deny Christ. “Whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:33 NKJV, Jesus speaking) “If we deny Him, He also will deny us.” (2 Tim. 2:12 NKJV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Receiving The Gospel

"So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41 NAS)

In my younger days, before computers, I used to hear about preachers on TV or radio who would tell their listening audience that if they wanted to receive Jesus and salvation, just lay their hands on top of the device, say certain words in the form of a prayer, and as a result they would be saved, provided, of course, they were sincere. It sounded good, but was there any truth to it?

In Acts chapter two, just about everyone admits that Peter preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached. The text then says, "those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41 NAS) What was his word they received? Was it the gospel? If it was not the gospel, there was no power in it to save, for Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes." (Rom. 1:16 NKJV)

Most denominational bodies run into serious trouble with this verse (Acts 2:41), for if Peter did indeed preach the gospel, then to receive it means one is baptized. It was only those who did not receive his words that were not baptized. They have a hard time with that.

The New Living Translation, a dynamic equivalence translation, now more generally known as functional equivalence, puts it this way, "Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day …". The International Standard Version translates it this way, "So those who welcomed his message were baptized …". The New King James Version says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized …".

I guess one who does not believe that baptism is essential for remission of sins can choose his poison here. What had Peter preached? "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins …". (Acts 2:38 NAS)

Will one believe what Peter said as per the New Living Translation, or will he welcome Peter's message as per the International Standard Version, or will he gladly receive his message as per the New King James Version? Most denominationalists will do none of the three. Not only will they not receive Peter's words, words spoken by the Holy Spirit, but they reject them. You could not pay them to preach the sermon Peter did with its closing of "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 KJV) They do not believe what Peter spoke, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be true. They are not willing to receive his words. They are determined to have remission of sins without baptism.

Be that as it may, do not be misled. God is able to say what he means to say. He is able to communicate clearly. If you gladly receive the word Peter preached (I ask again, did he preach the gospel?), you will do what he, by the Holy Spirit, told you to do.

Please note that those who did not receive his word, the gospel, were those who did not repent and were not baptized and were not added to them (to the disciples) that day.

I know religion is full of emotion, and emotion often overpowers the ability to think and reason correctly. We have so much invested in a false proposition that we will not allow our minds to even think it could be otherwise or even consider such a thing. However, the Christian religion is based on truth (not error), and the overcoming of self, and acceptance of God, which means accepting what he says. You can obey Jesus by obeying the words of Peter if you will. Emotions can change over time. Truth cannot and will not.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]