Principles of living a set apart, godly life [15] – Knowledge of error

 What I have been saying in the previous posts leads us to another basic question – ‘How do we know that we have displeased God or fallen into error?’ Initially the heralding or announcing of the word of the cross – the gospel – presents people with the concept that they are out of favour with God and are in need of a Saviour in the light of coming judgement. As the gospel is presented, people are urged to hear, perceive and think afterwards about what has been said, to reason it through to its conclusion. If they are persuaded, they are urged to turn back to God and show evidence of their change of mind by carrying it across into their speech and behaviour. Their change of speech and behaviour is the fruit of their perceiving, thinking and changing their mind afterwards. 

Having been persuaded with regard to the Messiah to the point of entrusting obedience, professing their faith and being baptised, Christians are urged to live a godly life that is set apart from the values, principles and behaviours within the worldly order, to live a clean, pure life that honours God and His anointed Messiah. So the question, in part, is this – ‘How do Christians know what God prefers and approves of?’ 

In answering this question, many Christian leaders point to divine Law – Sinai Covenant Law - in the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. For example, if a Christian is stealing in one way or another, such leaders or fellow Christians immediately point to the Ten Commandments in order to persuade such a Christian of their wrongdoing and guilt, using the Law as a ‘prod’ to stop their fellow Christian from stealing again. Thus we have this scenario: Is a Christian stealing? Then quote Deuteronomy 5 v 19 as God’s authoritative word and command – ‘You will not steal’ – so as to convict them of their error and guilt and spur them on to change their behaviour and live a godly, clean life. That’s what the Apostles did, right? Er, no, the Apostles did not do that actually. The Apostles did not constantly quote divine Law when faced with Christians falling into error. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in which he addresses their many failures and errors, not once did Paul point them to the Ten Commandments or to Levitical Law. 

So what do we see? Continuing the example of stealing, in Ephesians we read, ‘The one stealing and thieving, let him steal no more, but rather let him work hard virtuously and beneficially with his own hands, in order that he hold to share with those having need’, (Ephesians 4 v 28).  In Titus we read, ‘Slaves to be subordinate to their masters, being pleasing and acceptable within everything, not contradicting, not misappropriating, pilfering or stealing, but indicating all good fidelity in order that they put into order the teaching of God our Deliverer within everything. Because the free gift of God bringing salvation is manifest to all men, to train us, in order that, contradicting ungodliness and worldly desires, we live within the present age devoutly, moderately and judicially approved, awaiting the enviable confident expectation, namely the manifestation of God’s honour and praiseworthiness and our Saviour, Jesus the Messiah’, (Titus 2 v 9 - 13). If the process or method of Christians living a godly life meant exposing wayward Christian behaviour by quoting divine Law, then such a procedure would certainly have been evident in these verses. 

Yet many Christians insist on using divine Law to goad their fellow Christians into living a godly, clean life. This is a major theme within the theme of living the Christian life and I am now going to spend a series of posts exploring this important subject.   

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [14] – Repentance [12 of 12]

 Last of all there is the Greek word ‘metamelomai’, which is related to ‘metanoeó’ and ‘metánoia’. It is a verb meaning ‘to change one’s care or concern afterwards’ and it usually implies an element of regret or remorse. It occurs six times in the New Testament. Despite this subtle change of meaning we are still looking at the ‘inner realm’ of an individual, at the energy and impetus within their ‘psyche’, their speech or behaviour being the ‘fruit’ of this energy of care and concern within. 

This word is first found in Matthew’s gospel, in one of the parables. ‘There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first one and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 Answering, he said, ‘I will not’. But later, changing his concern afterwards, he went.  30 Then to the second he said the same thing. Answering, he said, ‘I sir?’ and he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” “The first,” they said. Jesus said to them, “Honestly, I tell you that the tax collectors and harlots are preceding you into the kingdom of God. 32 Because John came towards you within a judicially approved way and you did not entrust him, but the tax collectors and harlots entrusted him. But you, seeing this clearly, did not change your concern afterwards and entrust him’, (Matthew 21 v 28 – 32). Jesus presented his teaching in parables to those Jews who were not particularly ‘religious’ and who as such did not attend synagogues. The theme is their wayward behaviour and lack of entrustment in their promised Messiah. 

There is a self-explanatory use of the word ‘metamelomai’ with regard to Judas Iscariot. ‘Then Judas, seeing his [Jesus] handing over alongside because he was judged worthy of punishment and changing his concern afterwards, turned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders’, (Matthew 27 v 3). 

Paul uses the word in relation to his concern over the Corinthian Christians grieving over his admonishments in his earlier letter. ‘Because even if I have grieved you within the letter I do not change my concern afterwards, even if I did change my concern afterwards because I indeed saw, because that letter yonder, if even towards a time, grieved you’, (II Corinthians 7 v 8). In effect Paul is saying that he was concerned that he was causing them grief, but this did not mean that he changed his initial concern over their wayward behaviour.

 

Finally we see an example with regard to the faithfulness of God and the Messiah. ‘But together with an oath through it being said to him, [Jesus], ‘The Lord swears a promise with an oath and absolutely will not change His concern afterwards. You [are] a priest penetrating towards the age’, (Hebrews 7 v 21). Jesus is God’s anointed Messiah, His chosen Deliverer made head of a royal priesthood like the order of Melchizedek, and this is based on God’s promise, sworn on an oath, and as such, God is absolutely not going to change His concern or care.

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [13] – Repentance [11 of 12]

 Inevitably there are some who seem to embrace the Christian faith but then, for one reason or another, they fall away and perhaps if they are disillusioned enough, they even begin and continue to ridicule and scorn the Messiah that they once seemed to embrace. Whilst they persist in this wayward scornful attitude, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews has this to say. ‘Therefore, sending away the beginning teaching on the basis of maturity…. we will do this if God permits, because the once-enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, becoming sharers of the set-apart Breath 5 and tasting the virtue of God’s utterance and also intended age power, 6 falling alongside, are unable to restore themselves again penetrating into a change of mind and perception afterwards, crucifying again the Son of God and putting him to open shame’, (Hebrews 6 v 1, 3 – 6). Verses 4 - 6 are difficult verses to translate precisely and I have presented them as best as I can. The reference seems to be to those who have made a profession of faith in the past, but who have then turned away and are now treating the gospel with scorn, openly and actively ridiculing the Messiah. Whilst they remain in such an attitude of mind they are crucifying the Son of God all over again. Such an obstinate and active opposition of mind renders them unable to change their minds after further thought or after a re-presentation of the gospel. They are simply too opposed to the Messiah and the gospel to be persuaded. 

Esau is presented as another example of someone who was unable to show evidence of thinking again. He had sold his birthright – his right to an inheritance – and when he realised what he had missed out on, he tried to show that he had changed his mind. The author of the letter to the Hebrews says this about him. ‘Because you know that even afterwards, wishing to inherit the honour and praise, his change of mind and perception afterwards was rejected after examination, because he found no place even though he sought after it with tears’, (Hebrews 12 v 17). Esau pleaded with tears in his eyes that he had changed his mind about selling his birthright and that he wanted to turn back and reverse his decision. But on closer examination his plea was rejected because it was determined that he simply wanted the honour and praise that he had forfeited by his actions.

Finally we have this statement with regard to the unexpectedly long period of time that seemed to be occurring without the Lord returning. Many Christians, including the Apostle Paul, considered that the return of the Lord was imminent. Yet as time went on it appeared to be delayed. But Peter declared, ‘The Lord is absolutely not delaying the promise in the way that some think of delay, but is patient toward you, not intending any to perish but on the contrary, all to enter and hold penetration into a change of mind and perception afterwards’, (II Peter 3 v 9). Despite Paul’s belief that Jesus was returning very soon, he qualifies this by saying elsewhere that the Lord will not return until the full number of Gentiles are brought in, (Romans 11 v 25). And John says that he will not return until the full number of martyrs have come in, (Revelation 6 v 11).

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [12] – Repentance [10 of 12]

 Christian leaders did not merely keep repeating the basic message of the gospel. Like the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, they urged Christians toward growth and maturity, and to more advanced teaching. ‘Therefore, letting go from the beginning word of the Messiah on the basis of maturity, not carrying once more the laying of a foundation of a change of mind and perception afterwards away from dead actions and entrustment on the basis of God to the point of obedience….’, (Hebrews 6 v 1). Once an individual changed their mind and moved towards persuasion within the Messiah, the foundations about baptism and obedient godly behaviour were taught such that teaching and instruction could then build on these foundations to enable the Christian to move towards further establishment. The focus moved towards more advanced teaching and towards Christians living a godly life day-by-day. 

Needless to say, some Christians fell into error, exercising speech and behaviour that God disapproves of. If such errors were serious enough, such as bringing the gospel into disrepute, such Christians incurred admonishment from the Apostles and overseers.  

When Christians were admonished and corrected by the Apostle Paul because of their wayward behaviour, some of them experienced grief and sadness. Paul responded by saying, ‘I am not joyful that you were grieved and pained, but that you grieved penetrating into a change of mind and perception afterwards; because you were grieved down from God in order that you suffer loss within nothing from out of us. 10 Because down from God, grief works down to penetrate into a change of mind and perception afterwards without regret, but grief of the orderly arrangement works down death’, (II Corinthians 7 v 9, 10). For various reasons, despite embracing the good news of the Messiah, the Christian life is not all smiles and glib happiness. For example, a Christian’s wayward speech and behaviour can lead them to grief and sadness. In these verses Paul explains the difference between grief down from God that leads to a change of mind; and the grief within the world that leads to insensitivity and unresponsiveness to God. 

 

And of course, Christians encounter enticements and opposition of one kind or another when they declare their faith in the Messiah. When attempts are made by Christians to restore their brothers and sisters who are in error, such wayward Christians may react with opposition and they may resent such interventions. How are concerned Christians instructed to respond to such resentment and opposition? ‘But, bond-servant of the Lord, it is not necessary to quarrel but to be gentle toward all, able to teach, patiently forbearing, correcting those setting themselves in opposition within gentleness in case at some time God offers a change of mind and perception afterwards penetrating into knowledge of truth’, (II Timothy 2 v 24, 25). Paul says that such opposition or resentment does not present well-meaning Christians with a justification to engage in quarrels and arguments. The Greek philosophers on Mars Hill had invited Paul to speak about the gospel, but when they heard about the resurrection some of them reacted with scornful ridicule. Paul did not then engage in passionate arguments and disputes with them, he did not engage in ‘apologetics’ in order to try and justify the gospel to them. Instead he exercised spiritual discernment and walked away, not willing to throw pearls in front of swine. 

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [11] – Repentance [9 of 12]

 With regard to the ill-treatment that Jesus received we read this. ‘It has been written in this manner: The Messiah experiences ill treatment and rouses from out of lifelessness the third day to herald a change of thinking and perception afterwards and the sending away of no share and self-forfeiture on the basis of his name towards all ethnic groups, beginning away from Jerusalem’, (Luke 24 v 46, 47). In previous posts we have seen that although this good news concerning Jesus and the sending away of no share is presented to all ethnic groups, the initial focus of the New Testament in the gospels and the early chapters of Acts is on God’s chosen ethnic group, the Jews. This good news was initially presented to Jews, because as God’s chosen ethnic group they had many advantages that prepared them for the Messiah, such as the Law and the Prophets. But because of their persistent disobedience, since the Babylonian Captivity Jews have been left to their own empty thinking as God had withdrawn Himself from them. As a result, the Jews rejected Jesus, seeing him as a false Messiah. Thus the message to Jews was that ‘The God of our fathers rouses Jesus, whom you lay violent hands upon to hang upon a tree. The right hand of God lifts him up and exalts him as chief leader and deliverer, to give Israel a change of thinking and perception afterwards and a sending away of no share and self-forfeiture’, (Acts 5 v 30, 31). Again we read, ‘Of this, away from the seed [of David], God, down from a promise, brings Israel Jesus the Deliverer, John heralding beforehand, in front of his coming, an immersion of a change of thinking and perception afterwards to all the people of Israel’, (Acts 13 v 23, 24). But many Jews rejected Jesus and presumed that they were within God’s favour simply because they were descended from Abraham. They refused to acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah, leading Paul to ask, ‘do you despise and scorn the wealth of His useful kindness, patience and tolerance, unaware that God’s useful kindness leads you towards a change of mind and perception afterwards?’, (Romans 2 v 4). 

In due course, other ethnic groups, referred to in Scripture as ‘Greeks’ or ‘Gentiles’, were seen to respond to the gospel and this was reported to the council of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. ‘Hearing these things they were tranquil and honoured God saying, ‘Therefore God gives a change of thinking and perception afterwards towards life even to other ethnic groups’, (Acts 11 v 18). Paul testified to the Ephesians saying among other things that he 'shrunk back under nothing that they carried together, except declaring to you and publicly teaching you also from house to house, giving solemn evidence, God penetrating a change of thinking and perception afterwards towards both Jewish and Greeks, and entrustment within our Lord Jesus’, (Acts 20 v 20, 21). And again, ‘…but first to those within Damascus and then all Jerusalem and the region of Judea, and to the Gentiles, I announced to think and perceive afterwards and return on the basis of God, accomplishing actions worthy of a change of mind and perception afterwards’, (Acts 26 v 20)