By Tom Wacaster
When John came baptizing in the wilderness, there were Pharisees and Sadducees who came desiring to be baptized. John called them an “offspring of vipers” (Matt. 3:7), due no doubt to their reputation of hypocrisy and wickedness. It makes no difference how John could so discern their spiritual state; he just did. I want to focus on John’s instructions to these hypocritical religious leaders of the day: “Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:9). It was not enough for these leaders to simply “respond to the invitation,” and then go on living in the same manner as before. In fact, it would appear that John refused to baptize them until they produced such fruits of repentance. There is much to be learned from this incident.
Some years ago I had preached a sermon on repentance, and made the point that repentance involves restitution as far as is humanly possible. Specifically I pointed out that if a man stole a horse from his neighbor, he was required to return that horse. After the sermon one of the members approached me and said that restitution is not essential. He was arguing that if a man repents and prays for forgiveness, then all is forgiven. He used a typical (but flimsy) argument that goes something like this: “Well, if you kill a man, you can’t restore him to life? Or what if you stole the horse and the horse dies? Or what if the owner dies? You can’t restore it to the original owner.” Surprisingly there are a growing number of brethren who have bought into Satan’s lies and are making the same arguments on various issues facing the brotherhood in the last twenty years or so. One area is which this unsound reasoning is being used is in dealing with the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The argument, in my estimation, is weak at best, and strained in its application. The Biblical teaching seems clear to me: if a man has stolen a horse he must return it; if he has been living in adultery in an unscriptural marriage, he must quit it! Why is that so difficult to understand? Proponents of divorce and remarriage for any cause often advocate that when a person, or persons that have previously been married and divorced come to learn and obey the gospel, that they can, with God’s blessings, remain in the marriage relationship in which they now find themselves. They base their misguided conclusion on a failure to understand the nature of repentance and all that is involved in bringing forth “fruits of repentance.” The Greek word for repentance is not just a call for sorrow. In fact it is “godly sorrow” that produces repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). One of the best definitions of repentance that I have come across was that of Johannes Behm in Kittle Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. I share a portion of what he wrote on the subject. He wrote that repentance is “final and unconditional decision…radical conversion, a transformation of nature...a turning to God in total obedience...It embraces the whole walk of man.” In view of the very meaning of repentance, how can anyone believe that they can simply express sorrow without making a radical change in their life?
What, then, did John mean when he demanded of the Pharisees and Sadducees that they bring forth “fruit worthy of repentance”? Once a person grasps the meaning of repentance, it becomes much easier to identify the “fruit” of the sorrow and change of action associated with repentance. If a person is a thief, “let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need” (Eph. 4:28). Here is a clear example of what it means to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance. Obviously, there is sorrow. This is implied in Paul’s instructions to the Ephesians and inherent in the process of repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). Second, there is cessation of sin: “steal no more.” Third, there is the replacement of evil with that which is good: “but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good.” Right here is one aspect of bringing forth fruit that is worthy of repentance that so many miss. If we genuinely repent we will do all within our power to replace the evil action with something that is good. Is this not the point the Lord makes in the parable of the “unclean spirit” that returns to the house that he had vacated? (Matt. 12:43-45). Failure to replace our sinful past with the new godly man will produce a void that will seek to be filled in some other way. Jesus told His audience that the “evil spirit” would return and the later state would be worse than the first. Fourth, the fruit will be worthy of repentance. The fruit that follows will bear testimony to a man’s changed heart and changed life.
One more note before I close this week’s article. Changing attitudes regarding divorce and remarriage are only one area in which the problem regarding repentance manifests itself. While I would not dare attempt to read a person’s heart, it seems to me that the fruit of repentance is lacking on so many occasions when a person responds to the invitation but manifests no change in life after the ink has dried on the response form and the prayers have been offered. The scenario is common: someone comes forward asking for forgiveness for neglect in attendance, and then they don’t even return on Sunday evening or Wednesday. If they happen to attend the following Sunday morning, and perhaps two or three Sunday mornings that might follow, their gathering with the saints slowly tapers off, until they no longer are found among the assembly of God’s children. After several months they might attend once again, respond to the invitation, and repeat the same scenario. Where are the fruits worthy of repentance?
~~~~~
Why can we not just be saved like the thief on the cross? The command of God which men seek to circumvent when appealing to the salvation of the thief is that of baptism. The theory goes something like this: “The thief was saved without baptism, therefore I can be saved without baptism.” Other examples are used, such as that of the man with the palsy where Jesus said, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” without any reference to baptism. There is a universal truth that must not be forgotten when considering the thief on the cross. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:16-17). I have never received an inheritance from some rich uncle. But I have received a number of gifts from some of my uncles who are still alive. But after an uncle, aunt, grandparent, or friend dies, the ONLY THING that I will receive from them is that which is written in the last will and testament, and that based upon any conditions that are set forth in that will. So long as Jesus was alive He could grant forgiveness to anyone He wanted, and upon whatever conditions He desired. But once our Lord died, the inheritance that is ours to enjoy will be bestowed only upon those stipulated in His last will and testament. And who are they? Those who have entered Christ by obedience to His will in the watery grave of baptism. I find it disturbing that some of our brethren are now advocating that God has it within His power to save anyone He wants to save and who are we to suggest that He cannot, on the judgment day, allow whomsoever He desires, to enter into heaven; even those who have never been baptized for remission of sins. Such is a failure to recognize that God has already told us who will be saved, and no man has the right to change that last will and testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a matter of what God can do, but what He has promised He will do.