Is Repent or Perish a Morally Acceptable Position. (Luke 13: 1-9)
Periodically we hear of something like a train crash or maybe some kind of natural disaster, and it seems to me that Christians have a kind of interesting reaction to some of these things.
When such things happen, I sometimes get asked by people, is that the judgement of God? Would you be interested to know what my answer is. Better still, do you want to know hat the Lord’s answer was?
Interestingly that is exactly what happened to the Lord when he was here on the earth. There was a catastrophe a disaster and they wanted to know what he thought about it. So, let's see how he handled that turn with me to Luke chapter 13 Luke and I'm going to begin reading with verse one.
Now, let's delve into the passage starting from verse 1. The initial part can be characterized as describing a "massacre" due to the catastrophic event described. In verse 1.
1: Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
(Luke 13: 1-5)
The focus here is about a report about Galileans who were killed while offering sacrifices in the temple.
Some suggestions include the idea that Jesus, in the previous chapter, emphasized discerning the signs of the times. Hence, the mention of these tragedies might have prompted the question of whether these were significant signs of the times.
There's a suggestion that the massacre and the tower collapse raise questions about divine justice and the varying degrees of consequences that might be experienced by different individuals or groups.
While the specific details of the massacre remain unclear, historical context provides examples of clashes between Jewish zealots and Roman authorities.
There is a historical account provided by Josephus, indicating clashes between Jewish zealots and Romans during a time of tension.
Pilate's involvement in a water system project that he funded with temple money sparked outrage among the Jews, leading to a violent confrontation.
Soldiers, disguised among the crowd, were instructed to disperse the mob, but the violence escalated beyond their orders, resulting in numerous casualties, among the Galileans.
This tragic event it seems prompts people to approach Jesus, seeking his spiritual insight and analysis of the situation, much like people today seeking guidance from spiritual leaders on current events of tragedies.
The narrative unfolds with this backdrop of a man-made tragedies, setting the stage for deeper discussions on judgment, accountability, and spiritual preparedness.
Let's proceed to explore how Jesus responds.
Well, it seems that Jesus responds to their inquiry in a manner that goes beyond the expected discussion on the events. Instead, Jesus will choose to draw a moral lesson from this tragic event.
Jesus will challenge their assumptions, delving into the underlying moral framework of their question.
Addressing them, Jesus asks, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered such things?" This is a pivotal moment as Jesus takes a step back from discussing just Pilate's actions and, rather, turns the spotlight on the people raising the questions.
It's a strategic move, an analysis not just of the situation but of their assumptions.
He probes into their thinking process, asking them to consider whether they believe the victims of the massacre were inherently more sinful than those who weren't affected.
Unpacking their mindset, Jesus reveals an undercurrent of self-righteousness in their question. It seems that, in their minds, those who suffered the tragedy must have been more morally compromised than themselves.
This shift in focus from external events to internal attitudes is profound. Jesus, being the Son of God, discerns their real thoughts, or the sub-text if you will of what prompts this sort of question and redirects the conversation, laying bare the moral framework behind their inquiry.
It sets the stage for a deeper exploration of spiritual principles and the way individuals perceive righteousness and the judgment of God.
He directly addresses the underlying belief that the victims were worse sinners. Jesus counters this by stating plainly that all are sinners equally; there's no hierarchy of sin based on external circumstances.
To emphasize this point, Jesus introduces another recent event, a natural disaster where a tower collapsed and killed eighteen people. In both cases Jesus draws the same moral lesson.
He challenges the notion that those who experienced these types of calamities are more sinful than others.
The key message is that everyone, regardless of external circumstances, must repent, or they will likewise perish.
This detour by the Lord is a diversion that aims to shed light on the whole biblical perspective of repentance and its significance in the broader context of scripture, and also addresses the justice of God.
Today when people hear the term "repent" is mentioned, people often associate it with the idea of turning away from one's sins. Some might express it as feeling sorry for their sins.
However, my perspective strongly diverges from this commonly held belief. It does not align with the intended meaning of the original word, nor is it consistent with how the word is employed throughout the New Testament by Jesus.
So, what does "repent" truly mean?
In its essence, it signifies a change of mind. Let's delve for a moment into to illustrate this point turn to Revelation chapter 2. Look specifically at verse 3, where the Lord addresses the church at Ephesus. In Revelation 2: verse 5, He states.
"Remember therefore from whence you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come quickly and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent."
(Rev 2: 5)
Take note of this verse's structure. The term "repent" is strategically positioned between "remember" and "do." This arrangement suggests that repentance involves more than just turning away from something; it also entails acting thereafter.
So, in this context, the Lord is urging this church to recall their previous state, and change their current mindset, and then actively return to the practices they embraced when they first became believers.
This verse serves as a compelling demonstration that repentance is not merely an act of turning away but encompasses a change in thought and subsequent actions.
Acts 17 provides another insightful instance. In this passage, Paul is on Mars Hill in Athens, and he addresses the people standing in the shadow of the Parthenon, a Pagan temple with a goddess, Athena, on top.
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
(Act 17: 29-31) DR
Paul tells them that the times of ignorance have been overlooked, and now everyone is commanded to repent. He challenges their perception of the divine nature, pointing out that God cannot be compared to something made by human hands. Here, too, the call to repent is a call to change their minds about who God truly is.
Returning to Luke 13, when Jesus says "repent," the instruction is to change their minds.
So, what are they changing their minds about? In this context, it's about the assumption that the people who suffered were worse sinners than others.
The term "repent" is akin to change you mind about what you believe in relation to the circumstances and the context that you meet in the day-to-day.
Meaning what we repent of depends on the context, and its is grounded in the always specifics of the situation we are discussing.
Which mean to alter your perspective, and the exact meaning depends on the context. So, the term "repent" means to change your mind, and accept God perspective on such things rather than your own views or even an emotional response.
In Revelation, it's about changing your mind regarding your current state compared to where you were.
In Acts 8, it's changing your mind about the ability to purchase the power to dispense the Holy Spirit. (Look it up later)
Acts 17 calls for changing your mind about the nature of God.
Here in Luke 13, it's about changing your mind regarding the assumption that some are worse sinners than other, most usually manifest by people believing they are not as bad a sinner as the next guy, or when there is a tragedy God is behind it in judgement.
So, here's a question: Is repentance necessary for salvation? Yes, I believe it is. We read in the Bible, "God commands all people everywhere to repent."
Primarily you are called to change your mind about your identity, you're now recognise you a sinner, just like everyone else, but you have also changed you mind about how to deal with that issue.
So, the question is can you believe/trust in Christ without changing your mind? Well, I think not, Not in the biblical sense anyway when talking about forgiveness.
Now, let's explore how "believe" and "repent" are sometimes used interchangeably. Let's turn to the book of Jonah.
As you might recall, God instructed Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach against it. What did the people do?
The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.
(Jonah 3: 5)
What did the people of Nineveh do?
Remember a few days ago when we looked at Luke chapter 11 when we saw. Jesus mentions the people of Nineveh in connection with judgment and condemns the generation He's speaking to.
He says that the men of Nineveh will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah.
But wait, didn't Jonah say they believed God at his preaching? Yes, and yet Jesus here refers to that belief as repentance. Here you see the interchangeability of belief and repentance.
Now, go to Acts chapter 10, where Peter is preaching in Cornelius' house. In the middle of his sermon, people get saved.
“Peter declares that through Christ's name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins”. While Peter is still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit falls on those who heard the word.
So, this family got saved right in the middle of his sermon, a powerful moment.
Now, Peter faces a challenge. This is the first time Gentiles have ever been saved, and he has to explain this upon returning home.
In Acts chapter 11, verse 15, Peter recounts the event, saying that as he began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as it did on the apostles at the beginning.
Peter emphasizes that he had nothing to do with it; it was God's work.
He says, “when they heard these things, they became silent and glorified God, saying, "Then God also granted to the Gentiles what? Peter uses the word “Repentance."
So, we see that belief and repentance are intertwined, and sometimes they are used interchangeably for each other in the Bible. This underscores the inseparable connection between changing your mind and trusting in Christ for salvation. In other words you can only believe in Jesus as saviour if you acknowledge that you have something you need saving from.
Now, let's return to chapter 13 of the Gospel of Luke. In the first part of this passage, they tell Jesus about a massacre. In the second part, He draws a moral from it. The moral is clear: if you don't change your mind about who you are, and your need of Gods salvation you're going to perish just like everyone else. Just like those in these events.
But it doesn't stop there. In Luke 13, it tells us he tells them a story to illustrate his point He spoke in a parable.
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
(Luke 13: 6-9)
Now, virtually all commentators agree that the fig tree in this parable is a reference to the nation of Israel. It's almost universally accepted across various theological perspectives.
So, we have a certain man who plants a fig tree in his vineyard. He came seeking fruit and found none.
By the way, most commentators see a connection here with the three years the man has been seeking fruit, which aligns with the three-year ministry of Christ.
Christ is essentially saying, "I've come, seeking fruit, seeking people who will change their minds about who I am." The fruit He's looking for is that change in mindset.
He then addresses the gardener, representing Israel, and asks why the tree is using up ground if it's not bearing fruit. The suggestion is clear: cut it down.
Now let's see how the parable unfolds. The gardener responds to the owner, asking for one more year to work with the fig tree. During this time, he promises to dig around it and fertilize it, hoping that it will bear fruit in the future. The emphasis here is on giving it another chance and providing the necessary care to facilitate growth.
In the context of the entire passage, this parable illustrates God's patience with Israel. Despite their lack of response during the ministry of Jesus, God is willing to give them more time, offering additional opportunities for repentance and change of heart.
The imagery of digging around and fertilizing the tree suggests a nurturing and cultivating process, symbolizing God's continued efforts to bring about spiritual transformation.
So, tying it all together, the parable reinforces the theme of repentance and change of heart. The owner's willingness to give the fig tree more time reflects God's patience and desire for genuine transformation, urging individuals to reconsider their stance and turn towards Him.
This all aligns with the broader message of the passage – the call to repentance and the consequences of failing to heed that call.
So, the vine dresser, or gardener, requests one more year to tend to the fig tree. He proposes to dig around it, fertilize it, and give it the care it needs. The emphasis is on providing an additional opportunity for the tree to bear fruit. If it bears fruit within that time, great; if not, then it can be cut down.
The message is clear – God is patient, providing extra time for repentance, but there's also a limit.
The parable conveys the urgency of repentance, stating that unless you change your mind, you will perish. This underscores the repeated call to repentance throughout the passage.
So, let me try and sum up the spiritual truths presented in this passage:
The passage emphasizes that everyone is a sinner. Exceptional events or tragedies do not indicate exceptional guilt. The idea that some are worse sinners than others is challenged. The truth is that all inhabitants of any city are all sinners in the sight of God.
Implication: Recognizing that we also are sinners implies that there's no room for self-righteousness. The other side of that coin means that suffering of individuals in tragic events is not necessarily connected to their personal guilt.
It also will lead to some who view Gods judgment this way to naturally believe that by recognising Jesus you will experience only blessings in this life.
Please hear me friends, suffering or calamity is not an indication of individual guilt. The focus is on acknowledging the universal state of sinfulness.
This lays the groundwork for the second spiritual truths we can draw upon- today.
1. God call upon us to change our outlook, about who we are and who he is – repent.
2. God is Patient:
2 Peter 3:9, echoes the theme of God's patience.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
(Peter 3:9)
This whole passage in Luke the idea presented by Jesus that God provides time for repentance, as seen in the extension granted to the fig tree.
But thirdly.
3. Those Who Do Not Repent Perish:
The essential truth conveyed in this passage is that sinners who do not change their minds about how they see Jesus will ultimately perish. This is the bottom line, the crux of the matter.
When considering the passage, it's crucial to internalize the direct connection between failing to repent and facing the consequence of that decision.
This, I believe, forms a comprehensive understanding of the passage's overarching themes.
Coda – Universalism.
This week a attending a training day, for those who are called to what is called “pioneer ministry.
At that those present where encouraged to consider the concept of Universalism and the idea of what was referred to as post-mortem evangelism.
The concept of universality in salvation, also known as universal salvation or universalism, posits that all human beings will ultimately be saved or reconciled with God.
This view is often based on the belief in a loving and merciful God who in the end will extends salvation to all, regardless of their actions or beliefs in this by revealing his irresistible grace to all.
While this idea holds appeal for those seeking an inclusive and benevolent vision of spirituality, it also provokes debate about whether this is a reasonable view of God as revealed in the bible.
Here are some points to consider when contemplating the concept of universality in salvation:
1. Do we have Moral and Ethical Responsibility:
One of the primary objections to universal salvation, as I see it, is that it appears to diminish the importance of moral and ethical responsibility.
If everyone is ultimately saved, regardless of their actions or character, it could be argued that there is no meaningful accountability for one's choices and behaviour in this life
This, for me raises questions about God love being grounded in justice, personal responsibility, and the consequences of one's actions.
2. The Role of Free Will:
Central to what has been considered orthodox Christianity is the concept of free will—the idea that individuals have the autonomy to make choices that shape their spiritual destiny, for good and for bad.
Universal salvation, in my interpretation, seems to negate the significance of free will by guaranteeing salvation irrespective of individual choices.
This for me raises concerns about the nature of human agency and the value of moral decision-making, and even our identity as having free-will and thereby “personhood”.
Universal salvation suggests that every individual will ultimately be saved, but for me this even raises questions about the value and meaning of the choices people make in their lives. Even the notions of personal growth, ethical development, and spiritual evolution are all I believe undermined in the light of a belief in universal salvation.
While universal salvation may offer a vision of divine grace and inclusive love, it calls into question the very about the nature of salvation, the human condition, and the mysteries of Gods sovereign grace.
The assertion that Origen was an early universalist, was cited as a response to my query that this perspective has never been consider orthodox for the 1st 1950 years of the church. Advocating for his belief in universal salvation.
I accept that over the years this has been a topic of considerable scholarly debate within the fields of theology, religious studies, and historical analysis.
Origen, was indeed an influential Christian theologian and scholar of the early Church, (Podcast) And he is recognised for his extensive contributions to Christian doctrine, biblical exegesis, as well as philosophical inquiry.
However, the characterization of Origen as a proponent of universal salvation is by the majority of Christian theologians is considered wrong for the following factors.
While Origen explored these questions related to redemption and the destiny of the soul, his writings reveal a discernible emphasis on the role of free will and moral choice, and the transformative journey of the individual, which I think flies in the face of a universalist perspective.
Rather than promoting a simplistic doctrine of universal salvation, Origen's teachings reflect a multifaceted exploration of the human condition and the dynamics of spiritual growth.
Secondly, the historical and cultural context in which Origen lived and wrote must be carefully considered.
Origen's theological contributions emerged within the whirlpool of early Christian thought, which encompassed diverse perspectives on salvation, eschatology, and the nature of divine grace.
Scholarly analysis of Origen's surviving texts reveals little material which could be strongly ascribing definitive positions to Origen regarding universal salvation.
Ultimately Origen took the bible text and the apostolic texts as the ultimate position on all matters of what was considered orthodox and on that basis I cannot accept the position that he can be used to justify and universalist doctrine of salvation.
My position remains that the perspective we today call universal has always been seen as not orthodox within the mainstream Christian church for over 2000 years now.