n this verse the human race is described as a sick man, whose disease is so far advanced that he is altogether without strength: no power remains in his system to throw off his mortal malady, nor does he desire to do so; he could not save himself from his disease if he would, and would not if he could. I have no doubt that the apostle had in his eye the description of the helpless infant given by the prophet Ezekiel; it was an infant—an infant newly born—an infant deserted by its mother before the necessary offices of tenderness had been performed; left unwashed, unclothed, unfed, a prey to certain death under the most painful circumstances, forlorn, abandoned, hopeless. Our race is like the nation of Israel, its whole head is sick, and its whole heart faint. Such, unconverted men, are you! Only there is this darker shade in your picture, that your condition is not only your calamity, but your fault. In other diseases men are grieved at their sickness, but this is the worst feature in your case, that you love the evil which is destroying you. In addition to the pity which your case demands, no little blame must be measured out to you: you are without will for that which is good, your "cannot" means "will not," your inability is not physical but moral, not that of the blind who cannot see for want of eyes, but of the willingly ignorant who refuse to look.

While man is in this condition Jesus interposes for his salvation. "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly"; "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," according to "his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins." The pith of my sermon will be an endeavour to declare that the reason of Christ's dying for us did not lie in our excellence; but where sin abounded grace did much more abound, for the persons for whom Jesus died were viewed by him as the reverse of good, and he came into the world to save those who are guilty before God, or, in the words of our text, "Christ died for the ungodly."

Now to our business. We shall dwell first upon the fact—"Christ died for the ungodly"; then we shall consider the fair inferences therefrom; and, thirdly, proceed to think and speak of the proclamation of this simple but wondrous truth.

First, here is THE FACT—"Christ died for the ungodly." Never did the human ear listen to a more astounding and yet cheering truth. Angels desire to look into it, and if men were wise they would ponder it night and day. Jesus, the Son of God, himself God over all, the infinitely glorious One, Creator of heaven and earth, out of love to me stooped to become a man and die. Christ, the thrice holy God, the pure-hearted man, in whom there was no sin and could be none, espoused the cause of the wicked. Jesus, whose doctrine makes deadly war on sin, whose Spirit is the destroyer of evil, whose whole self abhors iniquity, whose second advent will prove his indignation against transgression, yet undertook the cause of the impious, and even unto death pursued their salvation. The Christ of God, though he had no part or lot in the fall and the sin which has arisen out of it, has died to redeem us from its penalty, and, like the psalmist, he can cry, "Then I restored that which I took not away." Let all holy beings judge whether this is not the miracle of miracles!

Christ, the name given to our Lord, is an expressive word; it means "Anointed One," and indicates that he was sent upon a divine errand, commissioned by supreme authority. The Lord Jehovah said of old, "I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people"; and again, "I have given him as a covenant to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Jesus was both set apart to this work, and qualified for it by the anointing of the Holy Ghost. He is no unauthorised saviour, no amateur deliverer, but an ambassador clothed with unbounded power from the great King, a Redeemer with full credentials from the Father. It is this ordained and appointed Saviour who has "died for the ungodly." Remember this, ye ungodly! Consider well who it was that came to lay down his life for such as you are.

The text says Christ died. He did a great deal besides dying, but the crowning act of his career of love for the ungodly, and that which rendered all the rest available to them, was his death for them. He actually gave up the ghost, not in fiction, but in fact. He laid down his life for us, breathing out his soul, even as other men do when they expire. That it might be indisputably clear that he was really dead, his heart was pierced with the soldier's spear, and forthwith came there out blood and water. The Roman governor would not have allowed the body to be removed from the cross had he not been duly certified that Jesus was indeed dead. His relatives and friends who wrapped him in linen and laid him in Joseph's tomb, were sorrowfully sure that all that lay before them was a corpse. The Christ really died, and in saying that, we mean that he suffered all the pangs incident to death; only he endured much more and worse, for his was a death of peculiar pain and shame, and was not only attended by the forsaking of man, but by the departure of his God. That cry, "My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" was the innermost blackness of the thick darkness of death.

Our Lord's death was penal, inflicted upon him by divine justice; and rightly so, for on him lay our iniquities, and therefore on him must lay the suffering. "It pleased the Father to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." He died under circumstances which made his death most terrible. Condemned to a felon's gibbet, he was crucified amid a mob of jesters, with few sympathising eyes to gaze upon him; he bore the gaze of malice and the glance of scorn; he was hooted and jeered by a ribald throng, who were cruelly inventive in their taunts and blasphemies. There he hung, bleeding from many wounds, exposed to the sun, burning with fever, and devoured with thirst, under every circumstance of contumely, pain, and utter wretchedness; his death was of all deaths the most deadly death, and emphatically "Christ died."

But the pith of the text comes here, that "Christ died for the ungodly"; not for the righteous, not for the reverent and devout, but for the ungodly. Look at the original word, and you will find that it has the meaning of "impious, irreligious, and wicked." Our translation is by no means too strong, but scarcely expressive enough. To be ungodly, or godless, is to be in a dreadful state, but as use has softened the expression, perhaps you will see the sense more clearly if I read it, "Christ died for the impious," for those who have no reverence for God. Christ died for the godless, who, having cast off God, cast off with him all love for that which is right. I do not know a word that could more fitly describe the most irreligious of mankind than the original word in this place, and I believe it is used on purpose by the Spirit of God to convey to us the truth, which we are always slow to receive, that Christ did not die because men were good, or would be good, but died for them as ungodly—or, in other words, "he came to seek and to save that which was lost."

Observe, then, that when the Son of God determined to die for men, he viewed them as ungodly, and far from God by wicked works. In casting his eye over our race he did not say, "Here and there I see spirits of nobler mould, pure, truthful, truth-seeking, brave, disinterested, and just; and therefore, because of these choice ones, I will die for this fallen race." No; but looking on them all, he whose judgment is infallible returned this verdict, "They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Putting them down at that estimate, and nothing better, Christ died for them. He did not please himself with some rosy dream of a superior race yet to come, when the age of iron should give place to the age of gold,—some halcyon period of human development, in which civilisation would banish crime, and wisdom would conduct man back to God. Full well he knew that, left to itself, the world would grow worse and worse, and that by its very wisdom it would darken its own eyes. It was not because a golden age would come by natural progress, but just because such a thing was impossible, unless he died to procure it, that Jesus died for a race which, apart from him, could only develop into deeper damnation. Jesus viewed us as we really were, not as our pride fancies us to be; he saw us to be without God, enemies of our own Creator, dead in trespasses and sins, corrupt, and set on mischief, and even in our occasional cry for good, searching for it with blinded judgment and prejudiced heart, so that we put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. He saw that in us was no good thing, but every possible evil, so that we were lost,—utterly, helplessly, hopelessly lost apart from him: yet viewing us as in that graceless and Godless plight and condition, he died for us.

I would have you remember that the view under which Jesus beheld us was not only the true one, but, for us, the kindly one; because had it been written that Christ died for the better sort, then each troubled spirit would have inferred "he died not for me." Had the merit of his death been the perquisite of honesty, where would have been the dying thief? If of chastity, where the woman that loved much? If of courageous fidelity, how would it have fared with the apostles, for they all forsook him and fled? There are times when the bravest man trembles lest he should be found a coward, the most disinterested frets about the selfishness of his heart, and the most pure is staggered by his own impurity; where, then, would have been hope for one of us, if the gospel had been only another form of law, and the benefits of the cross had been reserved as the rewards of virtue? The gospel does not come to us as a premium for virtue, but it presents us with forgiveness for sin. It is not a reward for health, but a medicine for sickness. Therefore, to meet all cases, it puts us down at our worst, and, like the good Samaritan with the wounded traveller, it comes to us where we are. "Christ died for the impious" is a great net which takes in even the leviathan sinner; and of all the creeping sinners innumerable which swarm the sea of sin, there is not one kind which this great net does not encompass.

Let us note well that in this condition lay the need of our race that Christ should die. I do not see how it could have been written "Christ died for the good." To what end for the good? Why need they his death? If men are perfect, does God need to be reconciled to them? Was he ever opposed to holy beings? Impossible! On the other hand, were the good ever the enemies of God? If such there be are they not of necessity his friends? If man be by nature just with God, to what end should the Saviour die? "The just for the unjust" I can understand; but the "just dying for the just" were a double injustice—an injustice that the just should be punished at all, and another injustice that the just should be punished for them. Oh no! If Christ died, it must be because there was a penalty to be paid for sin committed, hence he must have died for those who had committed the sin. If Christ died, it must have been because "a fountain filled with blood" was necessary for the cleansing away of heinous stains; hence, it must have been for those who are defiled. Suppose there should be found anywhere in this world an unfallen man—perfectly innocent of all actual sin, and free from any tendency to it, there would be a superfluity of cruelty in the crucifixion of the innocent Christ for such an individual. What need has he that Christ should die for him, when he has in his own innocence the right to live? If there be found beneath the copes of heaven an individual who, notwithstanding some former slips and flaws, can yet, by future diligence, completely justify himself before God, then it is clear that there is no need for Christ to die for him. I would not insult him by telling him that Christ died for him, for he would reply to me, "Why should he? Cannot I make myself just without him?" In the very nature of things it must be so, that if Christ Jesus dies he must die for the ungodly. Such agonies as his would not have been endured had there not been a cause, and what cause could there have been but sin?

Some have said that Jesus died as our example; but that is not altogether true. Christ's death is not absolutely an example for men, it was a march into a region of which he said, "Ye cannot follow me now." His life was our example, but not his death in all respects, for we are by no means bound to surrender ourselves voluntarily to our enemies as he did, but when persecuted in one city we are bidden to flee to another. To be willing to die for the truth is a most Christly thing, and in that Jesus is our example; but into the winepress which he trod it is not ours to enter, the voluntary element which was peculiar to his death renders it inimitable. He said, "I lay down my life of myself; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." One word of his would have delivered him from his foes; he had but to say "Begone!" and the Roman guards must have fled like chaff before the wind. He died because he willed to do so; of his own accord he yielded up his spirit to the Father. It must have been as an atonement for the guilty; it could not have been as an example, for no man is bound voluntarily to die. Both the dictates of nature, and the command of the law, require us to preserve our lives. "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not voluntarily give up thine own life any more than take the life of another." Jesus stood in a special position, and therefore he died; but his example would have been complete enough without his death, had it not been for the peculiar office which he had undertaken. We may fairly conclude that Christ died for men who needed such a death; and, as the good did not need it for an example—and in fact it is not an example to them—he must have died for the ungodly.

The sum of our text is this—all the benefits resulting from the Redeemer's passion, and from all the works that followed upon it, are for those who by nature are ungodly. His gospel is that sinners believing in him are saved. His sacrifice has put away sin from all who trust him, and, therefore, it was offered for those who had sin upon them before. "He rose again for our justification," but certainly not for the justification of those who can be justified by their own works. He ascended on high, and we are told that he "received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also." He lives to intercede, and Isaiah tells us that "He made intercession for the transgressors." The aim of his death, resurrection, ascension, and eternal life, is towards the sinful sons of men. His death has brought pardon, but it cannot be pardon for those who have no sin—pardon is only for the guilty. He is exalted on high "to give repentance," but surely not to give repentance to those who have never sinned, and have nothing to repent of. Repentance and remission both imply previous guilt in those who receive them: unless, then, these gifts of the exalted Saviour are mere shams and superfluities, they must be meant for the really guilty. From his side there flowed out water as well as blood—the water is intended to cleanse polluted nature, then certainly not the nature of the sinless, but the nature of the impure; and so both blood and water flowed for sinners who need the double purification. To-day the Holy Spirit regenerates men as the result of the Redeemer's death; and who can be regenerated but those who need a new heart and a right spirit? To regenerate the already pure and innocent were ridiculous; regeneration is a work which creates life where there was formerly death, gives a heart of flesh to those whose hearts were originally stone, and implants the love of holiness where sin once had sole dominion. Conversion is also another gift, which comes through his death, but does he turn those whose faces are already in the right direction? It cannot be. He converts the sinner from the error of his ways, he turns the disobedient into the right way, he leads back the stray sheep to the fold. Adoption is another gift which comes to us by the cross. Does the Lord adopt those who are already his sons by nature? If children already, what room is there for adoption? No; but the grand act of divine love is that which takes those who are "children of wrath even as others," and by sovereign grace puts them among the children, and makes them "heirs of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ."

To-day I see the Good Shepherd in all the energy of his mighty love, going forth into the dreadful wilderness. For whom is he gone forth? For the ninety and nine who feed at home? No, but into the desert his love sends him, over hill and dale, to seek the one lost sheep which has gone astray. Behold, I see him arousing his church, like a good housewife, to cleanse her house. With the besom of the law she sweeps, and with the candle of the word she searches, and what for? For those bright new coined pieces fresh from the mint, which glitter safely in her purse? Assuredly not, but for that lost piece which has rolled away into the dust, and lies hidden in the dark corner. And lo! grandest of all visions! I see the Eternal Father, himself, in the infinity of his love, going forth in haste to meet a returning child. And whom does he go to meet? The elder brother returning from the field, bringing his sheaves with him? An Esau, who has brought him savoury meat such as his soul loveth? A Joseph whose godly life has made him lord over all Egypt? Nay, the Father leaves his home to meet a returning prodigal, who has companied with harlots, and grovelled among swine, who comes back to him in disgraceful rags, and disgusting filthiness! It is on a sinner's neck that the Father weeps; it is on a guilty cheek that he sets his kisses; it is for an unworthy one that the fatted calf is killed, and the best robe is worn, and the house is made merry with music and with dancing. Yes, tell it, and let it ring round earth and heaven, Christ died for the ungodly. Mercy seeks the guilty, grace has to do with the impious, the irreligious and the wicked. The physician has not come to heal the healthy, but to heal the sick. The great philanthropist has not come to bless the rich and the great, but the captive and the prisoner. He puts down the mighty from their seats, for he is a stern leveller, but he has come to lift the beggar from the dunghill, and to set him among princes, even the princes of his people. Sing ye, then, with the holy Virgin, and let your song be loud and sweet,—"He hath filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he hath sent empty away." "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." "He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." O ye guilty ones, believe in him and live.

II. Let us now consider THE PLAIN INFERENCES FROM THIS FACT. Let me have your hearts as well as your ears, especially those of you who are not yet saved, for I desire you to be blessed by the truths uttered; and oh, may the Spirit of God cause it to be so. It is clear that those of you who are ungodly—and if you are unconverted you are that—are in great danger. Jesus would not interpose his life and bear the bloody sweat and crown of thorns, and nails, and spear, and scorn unmitigated, and death itself, if there were not solemn need and imminent peril. There is danger, solemn danger, for you. You are under the wrath of God already, and you will soon die, and then, as surely as you live, you will be lost, and lost forever; as certain as the righteous will enter into everlasting life, you will be driven into everlasting punishment. The cross is the danger signal to you, it warns you that if God spared not his only Son, he will not spare you. It is the lighthouse set on the rocks of sin to warn you that swift and sure destruction awaits you if you continue to rebel against the Lord. Hell is an awful place, or Jesus had not needed to suffer such infinite agonies to save us from it.

It is also fairly to be inferred that out of this danger only Christ can deliver the ungodly, and he only through his death. If a less price than that of the life of the Son of God could have redeemed men, he would have been spared. When a country is at war, and you see a mother give up her only boy to fight her country's battles—her only well-beloved, blameless son—you know that the battle must be raging very fiercely, and that the country is in stern danger: for, if she could find a substitute for him, though she gave all her wealth, she would lavish it freely to spare her darling. If she were certain that in his heart a bullet would find its target, she must have strong love for her country, and her country must be in dire necessity ere she would bid him go. If, then, "God spared not his Son, but freely delivered him up for us all," there must have been a dread necessity for it. It must have stood thus: die he, or the sinner must, or justice must; and since justice could not, and the Father desired that the sinner should not, then Christ must; and so he did. Oh, miracle of love! I tell you, sinners, you cannot help yourselves, nor can all the priests of Rome or Oxford help you, let them perform their antics as they may; Jesus alone can save, and that only by his death. There on the bloody tree hangs all man's hope; if you enter heaven it must be by force of the incarnate God's bleeding out his life for you. You are in such peril that only the pierced hand can lift you out of it. Look to him, at once, I pray you, ere the proud waters go over your soul.

Then let it be noticed—and this is the point I want constantly to keep before your view—that Jesus died out of pure pity. He must have died out of the most gratuitous benevolence to the undeserving, because the character of those for whom he died could not have attracted him, but must have been repulsive to his holy soul. The impious, the godless—can Christ love these for their character? No, he loved them notwithstanding their offences, loved them as creatures fallen and miserable, loved them according to the multitude of his loving-kindnesses and tender mercies, from pity, and not from admiration. Viewing them as ungodly, yet he loved them. This is extraordinary love! I do not wonder that some persons are loved by others, for they wear a potent charm in their countenances, their ways are winsome, and their characters charm you into affection; "but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." He looked at us, and there was not a solitary beauty spot upon us: we were covered with "wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores," distortions, defilements, and pollutions; and yet, for all that, Jesus loved us. He loved us because he would love us; because his heart was full of pity, and he could not let us perish. Pity moved him to seek the most needy objects that his love might display its utmost ability in lifting men from the lowest degradation, and putting them in the highest position of holiness and honour.

Observe another inference. If Christ died for the ungodly, this fact leaves the ungodly no excuse if they do not come to him, and believe in him unto salvation. Had it been otherwise they might have pleaded, "We are not fit to come." But you are ungodly, and Christ died for the ungodly, why not for you? I hear the reply, "But I have been so very vile." Yes, you have been impious, but your sin is not worse than this word ungodly will compass. Christ died for those who were wicked, thoroughly wicked. The Greek word is so expressive that it must take in your case, however wrongly you have acted. "But I cannot believe that Christ died for such as I am," says one. Then, sir, mark! I hold you to your words, and charge you with contradicting the Eternal God to his teeth, and making him a liar. Your statement gives God the lie. The Lord declares that "Christ died for the ungodly," and you say he did not, what is that but to make God a liar? How can you expect mercy if you persist in such proud unbelief? Believe the divine revelation. Close in at once with the gospel. Forsake your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall surely live. The fact that Christ died for the ungodly renders self-righteousness a folly. Why need a man pretend that he is good if "Christ died for the ungodly?" We have an orphanage, and the qualification for our orphanage is that the child for whom admission is sought shall be utterly destitute. I will suppose a widow trying to show to me and my fellow trustees that her boy is a fitting object for the charity; will she tell us that her child has a rich uncle? Will she enlarge upon her own capacities for earning a living? Why, this would be to argue against herself, and she is much too wise for that, I warrant you, for she knows that any such statements would damage rather than serve her cause. So, sinner, do not pretend to be righteous, do not dream that you are better than others, for that is to argue against yourself. Prove that you are not by nature ungodly, and you prove yourself to be one for whom Jesus did not die. Jesus comes to make the ungodly godly, and the sinful holy, but the raw material upon which he works is described in the text not by its goodness but by its badness; it is for the ungodly that Jesus died. "Oh, but if I felt!" Felt what? Felt something which would make you better? Then you would not so clearly come under the description here given. If you are destitute of good feelings, and thoughts, and hopes, and emotions, you are ungodly, and "Christ died for the ungodly." Believe in him and you shall be saved from that ungodliness.

"Well," cries out some Pharisaic moralist, "this is dangerous doctrine." How so? Would it be dangerous doctrine to say that physicians exercise their skill to cure sick people and not healthy ones? Would that encourage sickness? Would that discourage health? You know better; you know that to inform the sick of a physician who can heal them is one of the best means for promoting their cure. If ungodly and impious men would take heart and run to the Saviour, and by him become cured of impiety and ungodliness, would not that be a good thing? Jesus has come to make the ungodly godly, the impious pious, the wicked obedient, and the dishonest upright. He has not come to save them in their sins, but from their sins; and this is the best of news for those who are diseased with sin. Self-righteousness is a folly, and despair is a crime, since Christ died for the ungodly. None are excluded hence but those who do themselves exclude; this great gate is set so wide open that the very worst of men may enter, and you, dear hearer, may enter now.

I think it is also very evident from our text that when they are saved, the converted find no ground of boasting; for when their hearts are renewed and made to love God they cannot say, "See how good I am," because they were not so by nature; they were ungodly, and, as such, Christ died for them. Whatever goodness there may be in them after conversion they ascribe it to the grace of God, since by nature they were alienated from God, and far removed from righteousness. If the truth of natural depravity be but known and felt, free grace must be believed in, and then all glorying is at an end.

This will also keep the saved ones from thinking lightly of sin. If God had forgiven sinners without an atonement they might have thought little of transgression, but now that pardon comes to them through the bitter griefs of their Redeemer they cannot but see it to be an exceeding great evil. When we look to Jesus dying on the cross we end our dalliance with sin, and utterly abhor the cause of so great suffering to so dear a Saviour. Every wound of Jesus is an argument against sin. We never know the full evil of our iniquities till we see what it cost the Redeemer to put them away.

Salvation by the death of Christ is the strongest conceivable promoter of all the things which are pure, honest, lovely, and of good report. It makes sin so loathsome that the saved one cannot take up even its name without dread. "I will take away the name of Baalim out of thy mouth." He looks upon it as we should regard a knife rusted with gore, wherewith some villain had killed our mother, our wife, or child. Could we play with it? Could we bear it about our persons or endure it in our sight? No, accursed thing! stained with the heart's blood of my beloved, I would fain fling thee into the bottomless abyss! Sin is that dagger which stabbed the Saviour's heart, and henceforth it must be the abomination of every man who has been redeemed by the atoning sacrifice.

To close this point. Christ's death for the ungodly is the grandest argument to make the ungodly love him when they are saved. To love Christ is the mainspring of obedience in men—how shall men be led to love him? If you would grow love, you must sow love. Go, then; and let men know the love of Christ to sinners, and they will, by grace, be moved to love him in return. No doubt all of us require to know the threatenings of the wrath of God; but that which soonest touches my heart is Christ's free love to an unworthy one like myself. When my sins seem blackest to me, and yet I know that through Christ's death I am forgiven, this blest assurance melts me down.

I can tell you hundreds and thousands of cases in which this infinite love has done all the good that morality itself could ask to have done; it has changed the heart and turned the entire current of the man's nature from sin to righteousness. The sinner has believed, repented, turned from his evil ways, and become zealous for holiness. Looking to Jesus he has felt his sin forgiven, and he has started up a new man, to lead a new life. God grant it may be so this morning, and he shall have all the glory of it.

III. So now we must close—and this is the last point—THE PROCLAMATION OF THIS FACT, that "Christ died for the ungodly." I would not mind if I were condemned to live fifty years more, and never to be allowed to speak but these five words, if I might be allowed to utter them in the ear of every man, and woman, and child who lives. "CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY" is the best message that even angels could bring to men. In the proclamation of this the whole church ought to take its share. Those of us who can address thousands should be diligent to cry aloud—"Christ died for the ungodly"; but those of you who can speak to one, or write a letter to one, must keep on at this—"Christ died for the ungodly." Shout it out, or whisper it out; print it in capitals, or write it in a lady's hand—"Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it solemnly, it is not a thing for jest. Speak it joyfully; it is not a theme for sorrow, but for joy. Speak it firmly; it is indisputable fact. Facts of science, as they call them, are always questioned: this is unquestionable. Speak it earnestly; for if there be any truth which ought to arouse all a man's soul it is this: "Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it where the ungodly live, and that is at your own house. Speak it also down in the dark corners of the city, in the haunts of debauchery, in the home of the thief, in the den to the depraved. Tell it in the gaol; and sit down at the dying bed and read in a tender whisper—"Christ died for the ungodly." When you pass the harlot in the street, do not give a toss with that proud head of yours, but remember that "Christ died for the ungodly"; and when you recollect those that injured you, say no bitter word, but hold your tongue, and remember "Christ died for the ungodly." Make this henceforth the message of your life—"Christ died for the ungodly."

And, oh, dear friends, you that are not saved, take care that you receive this message. Believe it. Go to God with this on your tongue—"Lord save me, for Christ died for the ungodly, and I am of them." Fling yourself right on to this as a man commits himself to his lifebelt amid the surging billows. "But I do not feel," says one. Trust not your feelings if you do; but with no feelings and no hopes of your own, cling desperately to this, "Christ died for the ungodly." The transforming, elevating, spiritualising, moralising, sanctifying power of this great fact you shall soon know and be no more ungodly; but first, as ungodly, rest you on this, "Christ died for the ungodly." Accept this truth, my dear hearer, and you are saved. I do not mean merely that you will be pardoned, I do not mean that you will enter heaven, I mean much more; I mean that you will have a new heart; you will be saved from the love of sin, saved from drunkenness, saved from uncleanness, saved from blasphemy, saved from dishonesty. "Christ died for the ungodly"—if that be really known and trusted in, it will open in your soul new springs of living water which will cleanse the Augean stable of your nature, and make a temple of God of that which was before a den of thieves. Trust in the mercy of God through the death of Jesus Christ, and a new era in your life's history will at once commence.

Having put this as plainly as I know how, and having guarded my speech to prevent there being anything like a flowery sentence in it, having tried to put this as clearly as daylight itself,—that "Christ died for the ungodly," if your ears refuse the precious boons that come through the dying Christ, your blood be on your own heads, for there is no other way of salvation for any one among you. Whether you reject or accept this, I am clear. But oh! do not reject it, for it is your life. If the Son of God dies for sinners, and sinners reject his blood, they have committed the most heinous offence possible. I will not venture to affirm, but I do suggest that the devils in hell are not capable of so great a stretch of criminality as is involved in the rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Here lies the highest love. The incarnate God bleeds to death to save men, and men hate God so much that they will not even have him as he dies to save them. They will not be reconciled to their Creator, though he stoops from his loftiness to the depths of woe in the person of his Son on their behalf. This is depravity indeed, and desperateness of rebellion. God grant you may not be guilty of it. There can be no fiercer flame of wrath than that which will break forth from love that has been trampled upon, when men have put from them eternal life, and done despite to the Lamb of God. "Oh," says one, "would God I could believe!" "Sir, what difficulty is there in it? Is it hard to believe the truth? Darest thou belie thy God? Art thou steeling thy heart to such desperateness that thou wilt call thy God a liar?" "No; I believe Christ died for the ungodly," says one, "but I want to know how to get the merit of that death applied to my own soul." Thou mayest, then, for here it is—"He that believeth in him," that is, he that trusts in him, "is not condemned." Here is the gospel and the whole of it—"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be damned."

I am a poor weak man like yourselves, but my gospel is not weak; and it would be no stronger if one of "the mailed cherubim, or sworded seraphim" could take the platform and stand here instead of me. He could tell to you no better news. God, in condescension to your weakness, has chosen one of your fellow mortals to bear to you this message of infinite affection. Do not reject it! By your souls' value, by their immortality, by the hope of heaven and by the dread of hell, lay hold upon eternal life; and by the fear that this may be your last day on earth, yea, and this evening your last hour, I do beseech you now, "steal away to Jesus." There is life in a look at the crucified one; there is life at this moment for you. Look to him now and live. Amen.

THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN

THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN (1 Timothy 4:10)

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10).

There are those who teach that God has provided salvation only for those who are His elect. They would also teach a limited atonement, that Christ died on the cross only for the sins of God's elect [those who will believe on Christ and be saved]. Such false teaching is answered by the verse cited above. The verse teaches that there is a sense in which God is the Saviour of all men and there is a special sense ("especially") in which God is the Saviour of those who believe. Timothy should have had no problem understanding this because Paul had already written in this same epistle that there is a sense in which God is the Saviour of all. He is the Saviour of all men because He desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4) and because Christ died for all men (1 Tim. 2:6). Paul also made it clear that there is a special sense in which He is the Saviour of those who come to God through Christ and who believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:3).

Extreme Calvinists have a problem with this verse because the expression "all men" must here be understood as referring to all humanity without exception. The verse teaches that out of that large class of people referred to as "all men" there is a smaller class of people referred to as "those who believe." It is therefore obvious that the "all men" describes a group of people that includes more than just those who believe (more than "the elect"). He is the Saviour of all men. He is "especially" the Saviour of believers (in a special sense that is not true those who are not believers).

The expression "all men" is also found in 1 Timothy 2:4. Extreme Calvinists tells us that in this verse the "all men" means "all sorts of persons" (see Jay Adams' translation). They say that it refers to all men without distinction but not all men without exception. Thus in 1 Timothy 2:4 they understand the "all men" to refer, not to all humanity, but to "the elect" which would include elect Jews and Gentiles, elect men and women, elect slaves and freemen, etc. In other words, according to their theology, God does not desire to save all men without exception, but God desires to save only His elect who belong to all kinds of classes of people (God's elect are among the rich, the poor, the Jews, the Gentiles, etc.). This is forcing the text to fit one's theology. We simply must let the verse say what it says: "God will have (desires) all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Indeed, God proved His desire for their salvation by sending Christ to die for them (1 Tim. 2:6)!

The extreme Calvinist must find a way to get around the clear statement of 1 Timothy 4:10. Jay Adams has tried to do this in a unique way in his translation: "who is the Saviour of all sorts of men, that is, of those who believe." The problem with this is that the word "especially" cannot be translated "that is." Adams is desperately trying to force the verse to fit his theology, even at the cost of abandoning sound principles of translation and ignoring the obvious meaning of words.

How then do extreme calvinists explain this verse? They usually argue that the term "Saviour" is used in a temporal and not an eternal sense, meaning that God is the Preserver of all men or the Deliverer of all men, especially of those who believe. This runs contrary to all the standard translations (NASB,NIV,RSV,ASV,NEB, etc.) which render the word "Saviour" and not "Preserver." Also their view raises this problem: Does God really preserve believers in a temporal, physical way more than He does unbelievers? Often God lets the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer in this life. Christ promised His followers persecution, tribulation and even death at the hands of unbelievers. The truth is that they who believe are likely to undergo great difficulty in this world. Believers must suffer through natural disasters (floods, tornados, fire, etc.) just as unbelievers. It is true that there is spiritual help and deliverance for believers from the God of all comfort, but in what sense are believers preserved physically and temporally more than unbelievers?

It is true that sometimes the verb "save" is used in different ways, and it does not always mean salvation from sin. 1 Timothy 2:15 speaks of the Christian woman being saved from satanic deception (compare 1 Tim. 5:14-15). Also 1 Timothy 4:16 is likewise speaking of being saved from Satanic deception (compare 4:1), but this is not a good parallel to the verse under discussion because obviously Satanic deception is not the issue in 1 Timothy 4:10.

It is helpful to ask this: How does Paul use the expression "God our Saviour"? The term "Saviour" is applied to God in several other places beside 1 Timothy 4:10. See Luke 1:47; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; and Jude 25. Will anyone venture to say that in these seven texts the meaning is "God the Preserver," referring to temporal and not to eternal benefits?

The last place Paul used this term is very significant. It is found in 1 Timothy 2:3 (and see 2:4 where "all men" is used). God is the Saviour of all men in the sense that He desires all men to be saved and Christ died for all (1 Tim. 2:4,6). The verse clearly refers to eternal salvation. The ASV understands 1 Timothy 4:10 in this way because in the marginal reference it gives these two verses: 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 4:42.

Is it a problem to say that God is the Saviour of all men? Only to the extreme Calvinists who say that the Saviour's work on the cross had nothing to do with those who are not elect. The Bible speaks of God being "the Saviour of the world" (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14) and yet it is obvious that the world will not all be saved. The vast majority of those who make up the "world" will perish because of their unbelief and rejection of God's Saviour (John 3:16-18). And yet we must ask, how can the world reject Him as Saviour if He is not in some sense the world's Saviour? How can a person reject the gospel if Christ did not die for him (compare 1 Cor. 15:1-4)? What is the good news that he is rejecting? The extreme Calvinist has no good news for anyone but the elect.

Why did Paul strive so diligently and why was he willing to suffer reproach as he labored in the gospel? Paul knew that he had a message for all men—a message of hope, a message of good news, a message of reconciliation. He also knew that as this message went forth it would be gladly received by some. There would be those who would believe and be actually saved. Note the similar motivation expressed by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:10. Paul was willing to endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they might obtain the salvation that is found in Christ (not just so that they might have temporal and physical deliverance). Paul knew that God was using his gospel preaching (as he proclaimed the good news of Christ and His death on the cross to all men) as a means by which God would bring the elect to faith in Christ. Without preaching there can be no faith (Rom. 10:14-17). Paul was willing to suffer and labour and pray toward this end.

"His will is that all men should be saved, and He has made full and sufficient provision for the salvation of all, so that, as far as salvation stands in Him, He is the Saviour of all men...if God be thus willing for all to be saved, how much more shall He save them that put their trust in Him" (Alford). "While God is potentially Saviour of all, He is actually Saviour of the believers. So Jesus is termed `Saviour of the World' (John 4:42)" (A.T.Robertson). "He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far that He is not willing that any should perish...He desires not the death of sinners; He is thus the Saviour of all men" (Matthew Henry).

Those who take this verse at face value cannot be in danger of teaching universalism. If God were to actually save all men, then how would believers be saved in a special sense? The very fact that the verse says that there is a special sense in which believers are saved implies that there is a sense in which unbelievers are not saved. Unbelievers are not actually saved, even though God the Saviour has desired their salvation and provided for it in the death of His Son. May we joyfully carry the gospel to all men, telling them that there is a Saviour for them who has died for them! May we urge them to receive this One who came to be their Saviour. "I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:10-12).

(George Zeller, March 2000)

The Middletown Bible Church
349 East Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 346-0907
A Complete Literature List is Available Upon Request

WHAT IS THE "GIFT OF GOD"?

A Study of Ephesians 2:8-9

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselve: it is THE GIFT OF GOD: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

What is "THE GIFT OF GOD" which is referred to in these verses? This is a key question which must be carefully answered. There are many who teach that Paul was referring to FAITH as the GIFT OF GOD in this passage. They would say that a person cannot be saved unless God gives the sinner the gift of saving faith. Many of these same teachers [usually those trained in Reformed theology or Covenant theology] insist that regeneration precedes faith (that is, a person must be born again before he can believe!). This view is inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Bible. For example, John 1:12 does not say: "As many as have been regenerated, to them gave He the power to believe on His Name, even to those who have become the children of God." Also John 20:31 says, "believing ye might have life." It does not say, "having life ye might believe" (which is what one would expect it to say if regeneration precedes faith).

What is "the gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8-9? Is it "faith" or is it something else?

The key to understanding Ephesians 2:8-9 is to correctly identify the antecedent of the pronoun "that" [to_to]. Does the pronoun "that" (v.8) refer to faith or does it refer to salvation? There are those who say that "faith" is the gift of God and there are others who say that "salvation" is the gift of God. We will now consider these two ways of interpreting this passage as well as two other views which are variations of these two basic views:

#1-Faith is the Gift of God

"For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and THIS FAITH is not of yourselves, this faith is the gift of God, this faith is not of works, lest any man should boast" (in this case the antecedent of the pronoun is identified as "faith").

#2-Salvation is the Gift of God

"For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; and THIS SALVATION is not of yourselves, this salvation is the gift of God, this salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast" (in this case the antecedent of the pronoun is identified as "salvation" which is the idea of the main verb "are ye saved").

This view is clearly reflected in the IFCA doctrinal statement [Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph 6] which says, "We believe that SALVATION is the GIFT OF GOD brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." This well-worded statement makes it clear that salvation is the gift of God and this gift is received by personal faith. The gift is salvation; the receiving of that gift is by faith.

Variation of View #1

There is a third proposed solution which like View #1 says that the gift of God is faith, but unlike View #1 it says that salvation, not faith, is "not of works." This is the view of Charles Hodge and others. These men realize that Paul would never have said that "faith is not of works" (for reasons which will be discussed later in this paper) and therefore they are forced to place an awkward and unnatural parenthesis in the middle of these verses. This view could be stated as follows:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith (and this faith is not of yourselves, this faith is the gift of God), not of works [that is, this salvation is not of works] lest any man should boast."

If the pronoun really refers to "faith," then it seems better to be consistent with "faith" all the way through. The reason for the parenthesis is that men like Hodges are aware of the difficulty of saying that "faith is not of works" and this difficulty will be discussed later in this paper. This view of Charles Hodge and others is actually a variation of the first view mentioned which says that "faith" is the antecedent of the pronoun ("that"). They teach that "faith" is the gift of God. They are correct in saying that salvation is not of works; they are wrong in saying that this passage teaches that faith is the gift of God.

Variation of View #2

There is a fourth proposed solution which says that the entire salvation process (including faith) is the gift of God: "he [the sinner coming to Christ] realizes that the totality of the salvation process is a gift of God, including the grace of God and his own choice to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9)." John Calvin also held this view. Calvin did not believe that the pronoun referred to "faith." He believed it referred to "salvation by grace through faith" (to the entire salvation process, including faith). Is salvation the gift of God? This view would answer "yes." Is faith the gift of God? This view would again answer "yes" because faith would be considered part of the totality of the salvation process. Thus, according to this view, not only salvation, but the reception of salvation ("faith") would be the gift of God.

This view confuses the gift with the reception of the gift. It is interesting that the IFCA doctrinal statement makes a clear distinction between the gift and the reception of the gift: "We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." But in the IFCA position paper which was written in order to clarify "saving faith" (in light of the Lordship salvation controversy) this distinction is lost. In the IFCA position paper faith is included as part of the gift (part of the total salvation process). This leads to an obvious problem. Let me put myself in the place of the sinner. If faith in Christ is itself God's gift, then how do I receive this faith? Instead of asking, "What must I do to be saved?", I must now focus on the question "What must I do to believe?" If faith is God's gift, then how do I get this gift? Do I pray to God and ask for the gift of faith? Do I sit back and do nothing and hope that I am one of the chosen ones who will be given this gift? How do I get the gift of saving faith? It is all very confusing and it takes away from where the focus of the sinner ought to be, which is upon Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Identifying the Antecedent

Some might argue that "faith" is the nearest antecedent: "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves" (Eph. 2:8). It is certainly true that "faith" is the nearest antecedent, but since there are a great number of cases in the New Testament where the nearest antecedent is not the correct one, we should be very careful before applying this "rule." There are other far more important considerations.

Here is the correct rule that Greek grammar demands be followed: Pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Their case is determined by their use in their own clause.

This rule argues forcefully against the identification of "faith" as the antecedent because "faith" does not agree with the pronoun in gender. The pronoun "that" (verse 8) is NEUTER, and the word "faith" (verse 8) is FEMININE. If Paul wanted his readers to understand the pronoun as referring to "faith," then there is no reason why he could not have used the feminine form of the pronoun [which would be the Greek word auth]. This would have settled it. If Paul had used the feminine pronoun then it would be very clear and obvious that FAITH is the gift of God. Paul did not use the feminine pronoun.

Why then did Paul use the neuter pronoun? What is the antecedent? If Paul had wanted to refer to the idea contained in the main verb (the idea of being SAVED), then it would have been perfectly normal and appropriate for him to use the neuter gender. It would have been very natural for Paul to say, "For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith and this thing that I'm talking about, namely salvation, is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." If Paul had wanted the pronoun to refer to the idea contained in the verb, the neuter form would be the one to use.

[Note: The following paragraph is of a technical nature. If the reader is not well versed in Greek grammar he may wish to skip over this paragraph.]

There are some who give another explanation for the neuter gender being used. Mr. Stephen Parker, for example, argues that the pronoun is attracted to the neuter gender of the word "gift," and he cites Mark 15:16 as an analogy. It is true that attraction does take place in Mark 15:16 as Mr. Parker correctly points out. This is one of those rare cases where the pronoun agrees with the PREDICATE when the relative clause is an explanation. Another example would be in Ephesians 6:17: "the sword (feminine) of the Spirit, which (neuter) is the Word (neuter) of God" (the antecedent is "sword" but the pronoun is attracted to the neuter gender). However, we do not really have the same thing in Ephesians 2:8. First of all, in Mark 15:16 we have a relative pronoun, but in Ephesians 2:8 we have a demonstrative pronoun [to_to]. In Mark 15:16 the verb is explicitly stated, but in Ephesians 2:8 the verb is understood (the words "it is" are in italics). The greatest problem, however, is that in Mark 15:16 the word "praetorium" comes right after the word "hall" but in Ephesians 2:8 there is a whole additional phrase which comes between "that" and "gift," and this would make attraction much less likely: "...through faith and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift..." In other words, in Mark 15:16 there is only one word (the verb estin) which comes between the pronoun and the word to which it is attracted. In Ephesians 2:8 there are five Greek words which come between the pronoun and the word which Mr. Parker claims it is attracted to. This explanation seems highly unlikely, and I did not find this argument in the respectable commentaries that I consulted, even among those men who believe that the antecedent is "faith." It could also be noted that Mr. Parker is wrong when he says that the words "hall" and "which" in Mark 15:16 do not agree in number. They do agree. They are both singular in number. [This ends this technical discussion.]

We need to carefully think through Ephesians 2:8-9 in order to correctly identify the antecedent. We must ask, "What is Paul talking about in Ephesians 2:8-9? What is his main point?" It is obvious that Paul is talking about HOW A PERSON IS SAVED. The main idea of the sentence is found in the verb "ARE YE SAVED" [or "YE ARE SAVED"]. How is a person saved? Ephesians 2:8-9 answers this key question. Salvation is by grace. Salvation is through faith. Salvation is not of yourselves. Salvation is the GIFT OF GOD. Salvation is not of works. Paul is not giving a dissertation on faith, but he is giving a brief dissertation on salvation. SALVATION is his main subject. Faith is mentioned because you cannot answer the question "HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?" without mentioning faith. A person is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). God's gracious gift of salvation must be personally received, and it is received by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE GIFT OF GOD--New Testament Usage

The Bible explains itself. We do not need to depend only on Ephesians 2:8 in order to find out what the gift of God is. There are many other New Testament passages which clearly tell us what the gift of God is. How is the expression "gift of God" used elsewhere in the New Testament by Paul and the other writers?

A study of the places where the word "gift" is used in the New Testament reveals the following:

d¢ron (gift, present) neuter noun

This word is used to refer to the "gift of God" only once, and that is in the passage under consideration (Ephesians 2:8). However there are other related Greek words that are translated "gift" and these are as follows:

dwre_ (gift) feminine noun

John 4:10--the gift of God is everlasting life (compare verse 14).

Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17--the gift of God is the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:15,17--these verses speak of the gift of justification (righteousness) and life (compare verses 18,21).

2 Corinthians 9:15--this verse speaks of God's unspeakable gift which is Jesus Christ.

We should note that this word is never used of FAITH.

d;rhma (gift, present) neuter noun

This word is never used of FAITH but it is used of God's gift of salvation or justification (see Romans 5:16).

c_risma (a gift freely and graciously given) neuter noun

Romans 6:23--the gift of God is eternal life (compare Romans 5:15-16).

This word is never used of FAITH (except in 1 Corinthians 12:9 which is speaking of the temporary gift of miracle working faith and not saving faith).

* * * * * * *

Thus, in no other place in the New Testament does the word "GIFT" ever refer to saving faith, though we recognize that apart from God's mercy and gracious enabling and enlightenment, saving faith could not be exercised (John 6:44,65; Romans 9:16; Matthew 11:27; 16:16-17; Acts 16:14; etc.).

We have seen therefore that there are many passages in the New Testament which speak of SALVATION (or justification or eternal life) as being the gift of God, especially in Paul's writings. In light of this, it would be much safer to identify "the gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8 with SALVATION unless there were some very obvious reasons for doing otherwise. If Ephesians 2:8 speaks of faith as being the gift of God, then this is the only place in the New Testament where Paul makes such an identification.

Since the pronoun is in the neuter gender (not agreeing with the feminine gender of the word "faith") and since the New Testament elsewhere refers to salvation as the gift of God, we have good reason for concluding that salvation is the gift of God in Ephesians 2:8.

"Not of works"--New Testament Usage

"Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:9). What is not of works? Is Paul saying that faith is not of works or is he saying that salvation is not of works? Here again it is helpful to do a study of New Testament (Pauline) usage:

In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works.

In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works.

In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works.

In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works.

In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works.

In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works.

In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works.

In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works.

In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that Gods's salvation and calling are not according to works.

In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works.

If Ephesians 2:9 means that SALVATION IS NOT OF WORKS, this would be in harmony with all of these above passages. That salvation is not of works is repeatedly taught by Paul, but in no other place in the new testament does Paul ever say that "faith is not of works." Again and again Paul says that salvation (justification) is not of works, but he never says that faith is not of works. It would be foolish to say such a thing. That faith is not of works is so obvious (or as Alford says "irrelevant") that it does not need to be said. As John Eadie has said, "you may declare that salvation is not of works, but cannot with propriety say that faith is not of works." This is why men like Hodge are forced to put a parenthesis in this passage: "Ye are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works." Hodge wants to make the verse say that faith is the gift of God (because this fits in well with his Reformed theology). However, Hodge knows that Paul would never say that "faith is not of works."

The Bible repeatedly says that we are not saved by works (see the verses cited earlier). Also the Bible repeatedly says that we are saved or justified by faith (Romans 5:1; etc.). If a man is not saved by works but by faith, then faith is obviously not a work: "but to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Romans 4:5). Faith and works do not go together. Faith is not a work. Work is something that we take credit for. Work is something that we can be rewarded for. Work is something that we can boast about. Work is meritorious. Faith is non-meritorious. A person cannot "take credit" or "praise himself" for his faith, because faith is not meritorious (deserving of reward or honor). Faith is not something that a person can boast about. Faith does not take credit for itself. Faith gives all the credit to Christ. Faith acknowledges that Christ gets all the credit and praise and honor, for He did it all! Faith is not something "good" that a man does, it is simply a recognition on the part of man that "I cannot do any good thing, and therefore I need a Saviour." Only someone totally ignorant of the gospel and of the meaning of "faith" would ever try to take credit for faith. There is no merit in the act of believing.

To say that faith is a work is totally contrary to what the New Testament teaches on salvation. Salvation is "not of works" and entirely "apart from works" (Rom. 3:28; 4:6). Those who believe are those who "DO NOT WORK" (Romans 4:5). What then do they do? They merely REST upon the finished work of Christ who did it all and paid it all!

If Ephesians 2:9 speaks of faith as being "not of works," then this is the only place in the New Testament where Paul makes such a statement. If on the other hand the verse is saying that salvation is not of works, then this would harmonize with Paul's frequent teaching elsewhere and this would be one of many verses in the New Testament which teaches this truth.

As a practical example, think of how we share the message of salvation with those who are lost. Often we tell them that salvation is not of works. All false religions teach some form of salvation by a system of works. In our sharing of the gospel we make it clear to people that salvation is not of works and there is nothing that they can do to work for their salvation or to earn favor with God. On the other hand, we do not tell the sinner: "My friend, faith is not of works. There is nothing that you can do to believe." No, faith is something that the sinner is responsible to do. The sinner is responsible to take God at His Word and to rest his all upon the WORTH (who He is), the WORK (what He has done) and the WORD (what He has said) of the Saviour. Even though faith is not a meritorious work, it is a work that man must do: "Then said they unto Him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye BELIEVE on Him whom He hath sent" (John 6:28-29). It is something that man is responsible to do and condemned for not doing (John 8:24; 3:18).

Saving Faith

In Ephesians 2:8, faith is not the gift. Faith is how we receive the gift. Faith is the HAND OF THE HEART that reaches out and receives that which God so graciously gives. Faith is man's response to God's gracious provision and promise. Faith is taking God at His Word and resting fully on Jesus Christ, WHO HE IS, WHAT HE HAS DONE and WHAT HE HAS SAID. What is saving faith? The hymn writer has expressed it well: "Tis so sweet to TRUST IN JESUS, [what does it mean to trust in Jesus?] èjust to take Him at His Word, èjust to rest upon His promise, èjust to know THUS SAITH THE LORD."

Some extreme Calvinists tend to speak of faith as if it is something that man cannot do. This results in a wrong understanding of man's inability. The question the Philippian jailer asked was this: "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Some would answer in this way: "Nothing! You can't do anything! You are dead and totally unable to respond to God until you are regenerated. You have no part in salvation. God must do it all. You cannot exercise saving faith." This answer might harmonize with one's theological system, but there is only one problem. This is not how Paul and Silas answered the question! Paul and Silas told the jailer that there was something that he could do and was responsible to do: "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ!" (Acts 16:31 and compare how Peter answered a similar question in Acts 2:37-38).

Regardless of one's theological system, Acts 16:31 is very clear. God must do the saving; man must do the believing. The saving is something that God alone must do. The believing is something that the sinner must do. God does not do the believing for man. Even William Hendriksen (who is Reformed in his theology and who believes that faith is the gift of God in Ephesians 2:8) says, "both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us." Another illustration would be the account of the deadly serpents in the wilderness in Numbers 21. Should we say that the Israelites had no part in their deliverance from the deadly snakes? Of course not! Their part was to LOOK; God's part was to HEAL. They did the looking and God did the healing.

Faith is when the sinner humbly recognizes his desperate need and acknowledges that God must do all the saving. Salvation is wholly the work of god; faith is wholly the responsibility of man. Man does not contribute to his own salvation. It is the work of God. God does not contribute to man’s unbelief. That is man’s work. God alone must do the saving; man must do the believing. Those who are saved have only God to thank; those who are lost have only themselves to blame. God gets all the credit for man’s salvation; the unsaved man must take full blame and responsibility for his eternal damnation. The saved person thankfully says, "I’m in heaven because of God!" The lost person must truthfully say, "I’m in hell because of me." His damnation is based not on God’s rejection of him but upon his rejection of God (Mark 16:16; 2 Thess. 2:10,12; John 5:40).

No one will ever stand before God and say, "I am condemned because God never gave me the gift of faith." No such excuse will ever be uttered. All men are responsible to believe. All men are commanded to believe and to repent (1 John 3:23 and Acts 17:30). God says, "Look unto Me [that's faith!] and be ye saved all the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 45:22). According to 1 Timothy 2:4, God desires ALL MEN to COME unto Himself (and coming to Christ is equated with believing on Him--John 6:35). Men are responsible to believe and to come and to repent. Men are condemned eternally for their failure to do this (John 8:24; 3:18; etc.).

D.L. Moody once said, "Some say that faith is the gift of God. So is the air, but you have to breathe it; so is bread, but you have to eat it; so is water, but you have to drink it. Some are wanting some miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. ‘Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ It is not for me to sit down and wait for faith to come stealing over me...it is for me to take God at His Word."

According to the Apostle Paul, faith is "being fully persuaded [convinced] that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:20-21). God has promised to save all those who come unto Him through Christ (Heb. 7:25), and the man of faith is fully persuaded and convinced that God will do this. Notice also that Romans 4:3 and Romans 4:5 speak of "his faith" (Abraham's faith) not God's faith. A study of the verb "believe" in the New Testament reveals that the subject of the verb is man (it is always men or persons that do the believing) and the verb is most often used in the active voice, which means that it is men and women, boys and girls who must perform the action of the verb. Such persons must do the believing. God holds them responsible for whether or not they do this.

The IFCA doctrinal statement sums it up well: "We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." According to this statement, it is SALVATION not FAITH which is the gift of God. This gift of God (this gracious salvation) is received in only one way: by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What Difference Does It Make?

What is wrong with saying that FAITH is the gift of God? Does it make any real difference? What are the practical implications of saying such a thing?

I would recommend an article by Roy L. Aldrich entitled "The Gift of God." The author convincingly shows that the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 which says that FAITH is the GIFT OF GOD leads to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation. For example, Shedd says: "The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472). This results in a strange plan of salvation. According to Shedd, because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1) Read and hear the divine Word; 2) Give serious application of the mind to the truth; 3) Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 512-513). Arthur Pink agrees with Shedd saying that the sinner is to "ask God...to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith" (The Sovereignty of God, pp. 198-199). Here is Roy Aldrich's excellent comment: "The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith" (p. 249).

Another illustration of this is from the pulpit of Dr. John MacArthur, a very popular Bible teacher in America. Dr. MacArthur believes and teaches that faith is a gift of God. Such teaching has some very practical implications and it will affect the way a person presents the gospel.

If faith is a gift of God, THEN HOW DO I GET IT? Do I do nothing and hope that God will sovereignly bestow it upon me? Or, do I cry out to God and pray that He will give me the gift of saving faith? Dr. MacArthur apparently holds to this second option. At the end of one of his messages he gave a salvation appeal and said the following: "Faith is a gift from God...it is permanent...the faith that God gives begets obedience...God gave it to you and He sustains it...May God grant you a true saving faith, a permanent gift that begins in humility and brokenness over sin and ends up in obedience unto righteousness. That's true faith and it's a gift that only God can give, and if you desire it pray and ask that He would grant it to you."

Notice carefully what MacArthur is doing. He is not telling the sinner to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but to PRAY and ASK GOD to grant the GIFT OF FAITH! This perverts the gospel of Christ by making the condition of salvation prayer instead of faith! Sinners are commanded to believe on Christ. They are not commanded to pray for the gift of faith.

* * * * * *

Ephesians 2:8-9 is not complicated. It was one of the first passages that I memorized as a new believer. I always understood it to mean that salvation was God’s gracious and free gift, and that faith was how we received this gift. It was not until I began reading certain theologians that I became aware of the other interpretation. May God help us not to complicate and corrupt the simplicity of the gospel message, a message so straightforward and simple that even a child can understand it.

(George Zeller, March 2000)

The Middletown Bible Church
349 East Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 346-0907
A Complete Literature List is Available Upon Request

More articles under Reformed Theology

p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }

GOD’S WILLINGNESS

and

MAN’S UNWILLINGNESS

A Problem For Extreme Calvinists

Introduction

In no uncertain terms the Bible declares that God is a sovereign God who “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” and who has “done whatsoever He hath pleased” (Eph. 1:11; Psalm 115:3). We must, however, be careful to distinguish between two kinds of decrees, both of which have to do with the sovereign outworking of God’s eternal plan. There are efficacious decrees whereby God purposes to accomplish something directly by Himself (examples of this would be the creation of the world, the sending of the Genesis Flood, judgment upon Babel, the virgin birth, etc.). Man has nothing to do with these things. God’s direct will and activity brings them about. There are also permissive decrees whereby God decides to accomplish His overall purpose of bringing glory to Himself by allowing His creatures to perform in certain ways, even ways that are contrary to His will. He allows His creatures to act in a way that is contrary to the desire and wish of the Creator. This we call sin. God, for example, did not want or wish Adam to sin as indicated in His command to the contrary (Gen. 2:16-17), but God allowed Adam to sin and this terrible sin and momentous fall was part of God’s overall plan whereby He would ultimately bring glory to Himself.

Extreme Calvinists seem to have difficulty in understanding how a sovereign God can “desire” something that will never come to pass. They believe that whatever God wills and desires must come to pass. If God desires to save certain men then these men must be saved. If God so loved the world, then the world must be saved. If Christ died for all men, then all men must be saved. This is how they would reason. Of course, they believe that Christ did not die for all men but that He died only for the elect. They believe that all who Christ died for will be saved (but they say He only died for some and not for all). As one writer has said in light of 1 Timothy 2:4—“What God desires that He will do” (thus he believes that the phrase “all men” in this verse refers only to the elect). They feel that if God wants men to repent, then they will repent (God will work in their hearts and bring about repentance). They reason that if God wants men to believe, then they will believe.

They can’t seem to understand how God could love someone and not save that person. For example, the Scripture says that Christ loved the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21), a man who “went away” and as far as we can tell never followed Christ. A.W. Pink cannot believe that Christ would love a man who would never be saved. He said, “We fully believe that he (the rich young ruler) was one of God’s elect, and was saved sometime after his interview with the Lord.” This is Pink’s theory, but the Scripture provides no support for this view. It is a view based on Pink’s theology, not based on Pink’s Bible.

If God is willing, then the extreme Calvinist believes that man must be willing also, because God will make him so. If man is unwilling, then it must be because God was unwilling to make the person willing. The Scripture, however, teaches that even though God is willing and desirous that men should turn from sin and go in His direction, He often allows men to have their own way and go their own way according to the stubbornness of their own sin-hardened hearts. God was willing, but they were not. God would, but they would not.

Thus our purpose in this study is to examine certain key words (especially in the Old Testament) which demonstrate that God’s compassion and desire and invitation does indeed reach out to all men, even to those who refuse to repent and believe and come to Him. We shall see the wonderful willingness of God in sharp contrast to the stubborn unwillingness of man. We will gain a better appreciation for our Lord’s words in Matthew 23:37 which cannot be fully understood apart from certain Old Testament passages which we shall study. May the Lord open our eyes to these truths.

The Hebrew Verb ‛abah [Strong’s #14]

This verb means “to be willing, to consent, to desire, to wish.” It is an interesting verb because it is always used with a negative particle except for two places (Isa. 1:19 and Job 39:9). With the negative it means “to be unwilling, to refuse.” For example, in Exodus 10:27 it is used of Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to let the children of Israel go (“he would not,” he refused!). This word is also illustrated in 2 Samuel 23:16 where David refused to drink the water (“he would not”) even though he was terribly thirsty. This word is also used in Isaiah 42:24 (Israel’s refusal to walk in God’s ways) and in Ezekiel 3:7 (used twice) and 20:8 (Israel’s refusal to listen to God). The following passages which contain this verb especially relate to our study:

1) Psalm 81:11—“But my people would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would have none of me.” God wanted them to open their mouth wide (v.10). God wanted to bless them and fill them (v.10). God earnestly desired that they should hearken unto Him and walk in His ways. How could God’s willingness and desire be stated any clearer than in verse 13? “Oh, that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” (Psalm 81:13). God was willing! God would have done so much for them (verses 14-16), but they would not. They refused! God had a heart for them; they had no heart for God.

2) Proverbs 1:25,30—“But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof . . . They would have none of my counsel; they despised all my reproof.” Is God willing that men should love simplicity and hate knowledge (v.22)? Wisdom cries out (v.20) and invites men (v.23) and promises great things to those who come to her (v.23). God was willing; man was unwilling (v.25,30).

3) Isaiah 28:12—“This is the rest by which ye may cause the weary to rest, and this is the refreshing; yet they would not hear.” God graciously offered rest (compare Matthew 11:28) and refreshment, but they refused (compare Jer. 6:16). God was willing to give them rest but they were unwilling to receive it.

4) Isaiah 30:15—“For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel: In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.” God graciously offered rest and deliverance, but the rebellious ones (v.1,9) refused. They said NO (v.16) to God’s kind offer.

5) Isaiah 1:19—“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. This is one of those rare places where the verb is used without the negative. God’s desire was that they would be clean (v.16). God wanted them to learn to do well (v.17). God was willing to reason with them and to offer them the forgiveness of sins (v.18). God was willing. Would they be willing (v.19) or would they refuse (v.20)?

The Hebrew Verb ma’en [Strong’s #3985]

This verb means the opposite of the last verb. It means “to refuse, to be unwilling, to refuse with a resolved mind.” Thus it means the very same thing as ‛abah [Strong’s #14] with the negative. Pharaoh is a good illustration of this verb also. In Exodus 7:14 he refused to let the people go. Let us now examine some of the passages where this verb is used:

1) Jeremiah 5:3—“O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? Thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction. They have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.” God wanted Israel to return to Himself (Jer. 4:1) but they refused! God was willing, they were not.

2) Jeremiah 11:10—“They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words.” God earnestly protested to their fathers (v.7) because He wanted them to obey His voice (v.7), but they refused (v.8). God wanted them to obey, but He allowed them to walk in the imagination of their evil heart (v.8).

3) 1 Samuel 8:19—“Nevertheless, the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us.” God was willing to be their King and the Lord was grieved that they had rejected Him (v.7).

4) Nehemiah 9:16-17—“But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments, and refused to obey.” God was ready, willing and eager to pardon and to be merciful and to hold back His anger (verse 17), but the people who lived in the days of Moses refused to obey.

5) Proverbs 1:24—“Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded.” God (personified by wisdom-v.20) called but man refused! God was willing to pour out His spirit unto them and make known His words to them, but they were unwilling (verses 23-24). God stretched out His hand (v.24) but they could care less.

6) Isaiah 1:20—“But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.” God was willing and able to PARDON and WASH His people from their sins (verses 16,18). He was willing to pour out His blessing and give them the good of the land (v.19). God was willing, but were they?

7) Zechariah 7:11—“But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.” God’s will and desire was clearly revealed in His commands. He wanted them to turn from their evil ways (verses 9-10), but they refused to hearken. Their hearts were as hard as stone (v.12).

8) Jeremiah 13:10—“This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be like this belt, which is good for nothing.” God wanted the whole house of Israel and Judah to be unto Him for a people and.for a name and for a praise and for a glory (v.11). This was His desire, but THEY WOULD NOT HEAR (v.11). THEY REFUSED TO HEAR (v.10).

The Hebrew Verb bachar [Strong’s #977]

This is the common Hebrew verb which means “to choose, to select, to elect.” This word has been made famous by Joshua in Joshua 24:15—“Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” Let us now consider some of the other passages that use this word:

1) Deuteronomy 30:19—“I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” A choice must be made between life and death, good and evil (v.15). God wanted them to live and be blessed by loving Him and keeping His commandments (v.16). God, through Moses, warns them about making the wrong choice (verses 17-18). Finally Moses said, CHOOSE LIFE (v.19). Doubtless Moses was reflecting the desire of the living God that He might be their choice. God was willing for them to have life, but they must choose (compare John 5:40—God was willing for them to have life, but they must come).

2) Proverbs 1:29—“Because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord.” God was willing (verses 20-23) but man was not (verses 24-25; 29-30).

3) Isaiah 65:12—“When I called, ye did not answer; when I spoke, ye did not hear, but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that in which I delighted not.” God was not delighted by their choice. It’s obvious that their choice did not please the Lord. It was not God’s wish or desire that they should choose in such a way. Notice God’s gracious appeal to these people. He “called” (v.12). He spread out His hands (v.2). He was willing, but they were not.

4) Isaiah 66:3-4—“Yea, they have chosen their own ways and their soul delighteth in their abominations . . . when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.” God allowed these people to go their own sinful ways. The people made a choice and the people were delighted in the choice that they made! God, however, was not delighted in their choice. He was grieved. God wanted the people to choose His ways not their own ways. Their choice was contrary to God’s desire.

Hebrew Verbs Meaning “To Stretch Out the Hands”

God’s willingness is seen by the way He earnestly and urgently calls to His people and pleads with them and entreats them. How can the Bible writers describe this divine entreaty in terms that we can understand? One of the ways is by picturing God as stretching forth His hands as He invites and urges His people to come unto Himself. In Proverbs 1:24 the verb natah [Strong’s #5186] means “to stretch or extend the hand.” In Isaiah 65:2 the verb paras [Strong’s #6566] is used with a similar meaning (“to spread out or extend the hands”). Consider the following passages:

1) Proverbs 1:24—“’Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded.” Here we have wisdom making her wonderful appeal and invitation which man foolishly rejects.

2) Isaiah 65:2—“I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, that walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts.” Notice that God was not pleased in the way that they were walking. God stretched out His hands and wanted to draw them unto Himself, but they wanted to go their own way. And God allowed it to be so! God let them have what they wanted even though it was not what He wanted. This verse is quoted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:21 (see below).

3) Romans 10:21—“But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” The word “gainsaying” means “rebellious, contrary, refusing to have anything to do with God.” What words could better express God’s tender invitation to sinful men as He extends wide His arms. As Hodge remarks, “God has extended wide His arms, and urged men frequently and long to return to His love.” What yearning, what love, what pleading, what patience! As Barnes has said, “This denotes an attitude of entreaty; a willingness and earnest desire to receive them to favour, to invite and entreat.” “The arms outstretched all the day long are the symbol of that incessant pleading love which Israel through all its history has consistently despised” (Expositor’s Greek New Testament). God was so willing; man was so rebellious!

The New Testament Verb thelo [Strong’s #2309]

This common verb means “to wish, desire, be willing, take delight, have pleasure.” In the Septuagint it is used frequently and often it corresponds to some of the Hebrew verbs we have already studied. For example, it occurs in Isaiah 1:19-20; Isaiah 28:12; Jeremiah 5:3; 8:5; Ezekiel 3:7; 18:23,32. Let us now consider a few New Testament examples of the usage of this word:

1) Matthew 23:37—“Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them who are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicken under her wings, and ye would not.” The verb is used twice in this verse. Jesus was saying: “I would . . . ye would not.” “I was willing . . . you were not willing!” God was willing to gather these murderers unto Himself but they were not willing! God wanted to gather them, but they did not want to be gathered! God’s willingness and man’s stubborn refusal are so clearly expressed in this passage! We will say more about this verse later.

2) Luke 13:34—parallel to Matthew 23:37.

3) John 5:40—“And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.” A literal translation: “And ye do not desire to come to Me, that ye might have life.” Again we see man’s wicked refusal to come to the living God. Why do people not have eternal life? They refuse to come to the One who is LIFE and who desires to give LIFE (John 10:27-28). Is God willing that men should come to Him and have life? Consider the next verse:

4) 1 Timothy 2:4—“Who will have (desires) all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” This is God’s desire for all men. God is willing (1 Tim. 2:4) but man is unwilling (John 5:40). God does not desire that any should perish.

Note: This verb, thelo [Strong’s #2309], in its noun form, is often used in relationship to God’s will for the believer (1 Thess. 4:3; 5:18; Eph. 5:17-18; etc.). God’s will and desire for every believer is that we should be holy, constantly filled with the Spirit and constantly filled with thanksgiving, etc. Yet often we fall short of these things and our God is grieved. God is willing to fill us with Himself, but often we hinder and quench His working in our lives even though He is willing to do so much in and through us (compare Psalm 81:10). So even when it comes to practical sanctification, God is willing but His believers are unwilling at times.

The Hebrew Verb chaphets [Strong’s #2654]

This verb means “to delight in, take pleasure in.” Here are some of the places it is used:

1) Isaiah 65:12—“When I called, ye did not answer, when I spoke, ye did not hear, but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that in which I delighted not.” God was not pleased by their choice. He wanted them to choose differently.

2) Isaiah 66:4—“When I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.” God is not delighted when men choose their own ways (v.3), but He allows them to make such a tragic choice. God desires something else, but often He gives men up to their own desires.

3) Ezekiel 18:23—“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD, and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” God is not delighted when the wicked continue in their wicked ways. God is delighted and pleased when the wicked turn from their wicked ways. God’s will and wish for every wicked person is this: Turn from your evil ways and live!

4) Ezekiel 18:32—“For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD; wherefore, turn yourselves, and live.” In this verse God answers the question raised in verse 23. God is not willing that sinners should continue in their sin. God is willing that they should turn in the direction of the living God. Question for the extreme Calvinists: If God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why do the wicked die?

5) Ezekiel 33:11—“Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Nothing could be more clear. God desires that the wicked should turn from their evil ways. God pleads with these sinners and urges them to repent and be converted. “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Certainly not because God wanted you to die!

The Hebrew Verb shakam [Strong’s #7925]

This interesting verb means “to rise up early in the morning.” Figuratively it came to mean “speaking early and often, to speak earnestly, eagerly and urgently, to urge earnestly.” Let the following verses speak for themselves:

1) 2 Chronicles 36:15-16—“And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up early and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words.”

2) Jeremiah 7:13—“I spoke unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not.”

3) Jeremiah 7:25-26—Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants, the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them; yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck.”

4) Jeremiah 11:7-8—“For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice. Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart.”

5) Jeremiah 25:3-4—“I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking, but ye have not hearkened. And the LORD hath sent unto you all his servants, the prophets, rising early and sending them, but ye have not hearkened, nor inclined your ear to hear” (see also verse 5).

6) Jeremiah 26:4-5—“If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants, the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened.”

7) Jeremiah 29:19—“Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants, the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.”

8) Jeremiah 32:33—“And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face; though I have taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.”

9) Jeremiah 35:14-15—“I have spoken to you, rising early and speaking, but ye harkened not unto me. I have sent also unto you all my servants, the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings . . . but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me.”

10) Jeremiah 44:4-5—“I sent unto you all my servants, the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear to turn from their wickedness.”

[See also Neh. 9:29-30 and Zech. 1:4 where this word is not used but the same idea is there.]

Conclusion

Jeremiah is known as the weeping prophet, but his tears were but a mere reflection of a grieved and weeping God. When this God became a man these tears could again be seen as He wept over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37; compare Luke 19:41) and said, “HOW OFTEN would I have gathered you.” These words can only be understood in light of the verses cited above: “How often have I sent my prophets unto you, rising up early! How often have I stretched forth my hands unto you! How often have I pleaded and entreated and invited! How often have I called unto you and spoken unto you! How often have I offered you REST and REFRESHMENT! How often would I have filled your mouth if you had but opened it! How often would I have reasoned together with you about your sins! Oh Israel, WHY WILL YOU DIE? Why do you choose the way that I do not delight in? Why do you go your own way? HOW OFTEN WAS I WILLING TO GATHER YOU UNTO MYSELF BUT YE WERE NOT WILLING!!!

I trust that this study has taught you something about the terrible depravity of man and the compassionate and tender heart of the Saviour who desires all men to be saved and who has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is willing, but tragically man is often unwilling.

George Zeller

The Middletown Bible Church
349 East Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 346-0907
A Complete Literature List is Available Upon Request