|
INDEX
The Duty
of Sex in Marriage (1)
Does
Matthew 18:23-35
Teach a Falling Away of Saints?
The Lord’s Day and the Day
of the Lord (1)
The Duty of Sex in Marriage (1)
Sex
outside marriage is sin; all Christians know this, and so do unbelievers. Not
having sex in marriage (under ordinary circumstances) is also sin; maybe not all are aware of this. According to
I Corinthians 7:3-5,
sex in marriage is a
debt owed. Neglect or refusal to have sex with your spouse is theft, a breaking
of the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not
steal."
The
Bible has important things to say about singleness, marriage and sex. Thus the
church must teach these subjects, as well as the truths of the Holy Trinity,
the end times and irresistible grace. The church teaches these subjects in
sermons, in catechism classes, in premarital classes and (as now) in writing.
Wise parents will also speak to their children on these issues as did Solomon
to his son in Proverbs (e.g., Prov. 2:16-19; 5:3-23;
6:24-35; 7:6-27; 9:13-18).
Of
course, the manner, as well as the matter, of Christian teaching on marriage
and sex is very different from that of the world. We do not aim to arouse or
titillate the saints, nor yet are we prudish, simply ignoring the subject.
Instead, we proclaim the biblical teaching on sexuality chastely and authoritatively.
Jesus Christ
is Lord, and this means that He is Lord of marriage and the marriage bed too.
He has things to say here. Thus our goal is the glory of God in Jesus Christ
and the edification of the saints. Within this framework and with this spirit,
let us consider the duty of sex in marriage.
I Corinthians 7:3
speaks of husband and wife rendering "due
benevolence" to each other: "Let the husband render unto the wife due
benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband." "Due
benevolence" here does not mean that husband and wife must merely show
each other kindness in general. Consider the context. A purpose of marriage is
to "avoid fornication" (2). In marriage, your spouse has authority
over your body, especially in the marriage bed (4). The
"incontinency" in verse 5 refers to lack of sexual self-control. Thus "due benevolence" in
I Corinthians 7:3
refers
specifically to the kindness due to one’s spouse in sexual intercourse.
This
sexual "benevolence" is "due" to your spouse. It is
a debt, something you owe your husband or wife. It is not merely a favor that
you dispense if your spouse has been good. Obviously some, through old age or
disability, etc., are unable to fulfill this debt, but ordinarily Christian spouses
must pay this debt. Are you paying this debt to your husband or wife? Rev.
Angus Stewart
Does
Matthew 18:23-35
Teach a Falling Away of
Saints?
The questioner writes, "Does
Matthew 18:23-35
teach that a person can be saved
(have his debt paid) and then lose the salvation (be thrown into prison again)?
How would you answer the Arminian on this
passage?" I will not quote the entire passage as I usually do; it is too
long. Let me encourage you to read it before studying this article. The passage
records the parable of the wicked servant who was forgiven a large sum which he
owed to his king. Rather than being thankful for the kindness of the king, he
went to one of his fellow servants and compelled this man to pay him back a
very small sum which his fellow servant owed. The basic meaning and point of
the parable is stated by the Lord Himself: "So likewise shall my heavenly
Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his
brother their trespasses" (35).
The
servant owed his king an immense debt, which he could never pay back. Here the
Lord gives a vivid picture of the enormous debt which we owe God because of our
sin. We can never pay Him back.
The servant
earnestly pleaded with the king to give him time to pay the debt, something the
servant could never have done. The king’s great mercy in forgiving his servant
depicts the infinite mercy of God towards undeserving sinners.
Yet
the servant showed no mercy at all to a fellow servant who owed him only a few
pennies. When his fellow servant asked for time, the forgiven servant refused
to grant it. In this way Jesus teaches that, though we all sin against each
other, in comparison with what we owe God, the debt we have towards our fellow
saints is almost nothing. Yet when our fellow saints sin against us, we refuse
to forgive them and harbor grudges and hard feelings towards them!
The
Scriptures are very pointed and emphatic about the truth taught in this
parable. Not only is the point Jesus is making spoken of time and again in
sacred Writ, but Jesus underscores the point in His instruction concerning our
prayers, when He gave us what has become known as the Lord’s Prayer
(Matt. 6:9-13).
This prayer includes a petition for the forgiveness of sins, a most
important petition that we must make. But even in the prayer, those who ask for
forgiveness confess that they seek forgiveness from God "as we forgive our
debtors."
In
addition, this fifth petition is the only petition to which the Lord
immediately calls specific attention afterwards: "For if ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive
not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses"
(Matt. 6:14-15).
The question
has to do with the Arminian interpretation of the
parable. The Arminian argues that the servant was
forgiven, but that forgiveness was revoked when he failed to forgive his fellow
servant. Hence, a person may be forgiven by God, but lose that forgiveness if
he fails to forgive his brother. This would imply the possibility of losing
one’s salvation. Such is not, however, the case. This Arminian
interpretation is superficial and erroneous.
We should note that
Matthew 18:23-35
is a parable. In a parable not every point may be made to
designate some heavenly or spiritual truth. In the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, Jesus speaks of a conversation between the rich man in hell and
Abraham in whose bosom Lazarus has found rest. We may not deduce from this
parable that the wicked in hell are able to converse with the saints in heaven.
No more here may we press the point that the servant who was forgiven his huge
debt was truly forgiven by God.
Nevertheless,
an important point is made here, if only we remember that the Lord is speaking
of our conscious experience of forgiveness. The fact is that the work of
Christ’s atoning sacrifice was so perfect and complete that at the moment He
died on the cross, all the sins of all the elect for whom He died were forgiven
by God. A child of God who appropriates the great blessedness of forgiveness
can confidently say, "2000 years ago, when my Savior said, ‘It is
finished,’ my sins were forgiven by God." Our sins were objectively
blotted out.
One
of the blessings of salvation is the conscious assurance of forgiveness which is given us by the Spirit of Christ. The believer sings
Psalm 32:1:
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered." In the parable, the Lord is saying several things about that
conscious assurance of forgiveness. First, He is saying that there are people
who claim to be forgiven, but who, in fact, are not. They can be recognized by
the fact that they will not forgive their brother. By their failure to forgive
their brother, they show they are not really forgiven. Second, if they really
knew the wonder of God’s forgiveness and the immensity of their own sin, they
would easily forgive the minor and relatively insignificant sins their brother
has committed against them. Third, we come to the assurance of forgiveness only
in the way of forgiving our brother. If he sins against us, and we continue to
hold our grudge—if we say, "I will forgive, but never forget"—we will
never know forgiveness ourselves. We ask, according to the Lord’s Prayer,
forgiveness for ourselves, as those conscious of having forgiven our brother.
The
teaching of the parable is true in the absolute sense of hypocrites in the
church who claim to be forgiven, but are not. In a relative sense, we must
apply this parable to ourselves. How difficult it is for us to forgive our
brother when we are the one sinned against! But God will have none of this! Prof.
Hanko
(For a
detailed discussion of the parable, see my Mysteries of the Kingdom,
available from the Reformed Free Publishing Association (www.RFPA.org).
The
Lord’s Day and the Day of the Lord (1)
A reader asks, "Why do you use ‘Lord’s day’
for Sunday? It seems to me that the day of the Lord (or Lord’s day) is a dreadful day of judgment
(Joel 2:31;
Zeph. 1:14;
II Peter 3:10),
the day Jesus said is the worst there ever has been or shall be
(Matt. 24:21).
" The answer to this question lies in
distinguishing between the Lord’s day and the day of
the Lord, which differ both in the original and in English. First, we shall
study the Lord’s day (and its observance), before
considering the day of the Lord. Then we shall show how the two differ.
This will take more than one issue of the News.
The phrase "Lord’s day" is only found once in Scripture. In
Revelation 1:10,
John writes, "I was in the Spirit
on the Lord’s day." Just about everybody agrees that the Lord referred to
here is the Lord Jesus Christ and not the Triune God. Moreover, I will prove
that the Lord’s day in our text refers to the first
day of the week, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, the day we call
Sunday.
Obviously, the "Lord’s day"
(Rev. 1:10)
is so named because it (above all other days) peculiarly pertains to the Lord
in some special sense for certain reasons. It (presumably) is a day which
commemorates some special event pertaining to Him, a day which He claimed as
peculiarly His own, a day He set apart for His service, a day observed in honor
of Him. Otherwise, why call it His (the Lord’s) day?
What do we find in Scripture? First, Christ rose
from the dead on the first day of the week, our Sunday. Is this not a wonderful
day worthy of being called the Lord’s day? Second, Christ met with His
disciples on the first Sunday after His resurrection and on the following Sunday too
(John 20:19, 26).
As one of the disciples who fellowshipped with
Christ on those two Sundays, is it surprising that the apostle John should
refer to the first day of the week as the Lord’s day?
Third, the Lord poured out His Holy Spirit upon His church on the first day of
the week, for Pentecost, coming 50 days after a Saturday, was on a Sunday (
Acts 2).
What is more natural than to name that day of the week the "Lord’s
day" on which Christ manifested Himself as Lord
of His one, universal church? Fourth, the church met for public worship on the first day of the week
(Acts 20:7).
The saints assembled to hear a sermon
delivered by a preacher (Paul) and to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Similarly,
we read of collections for the poor made on the first day of the week (I Cor. 16:1-2). This is the day the apostolic church observed
in honor of the Lord and set apart for serving Him.
From the evidence of Scripture, the Lord’s day
is—and can only be—the first day of the week, the day on which the Lord arose,
the day on which He poured out His Spirit upon His church, the day on which He met with His disciples
(John 20:19, 26)
and the day on which He meets His saints in their public worship
(Acts 20:7;
I Cor.
16:1-2). Rev. Stewart