Salvation and Godly Rule

Repentence

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Works

Lesson: Repentence

Genre: Speech

Track: 42

Dictation Name: RR136W42

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our scripture lesson is from the Gospel According to St. Luke 16:19-31, and our subject: Repentence. “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

The doctrine of repentance is a tremendously important one, and a very much misunderstood one. Early in this century, one of the great biblical scholars of the time, Dr. John A. Brodus{?}, a very prominent Baptist scholar, said that the word repentance is the worst translation made in the New Testament, and more than a few scholars have agreed with him. Repentance, as the word appears, in both the Old Testament Hebrew and in the New Testament Greek, is not a cataloging of past sins nor weeping over them. In the Bible, the word repentance fixes our attention on the future and calls for action. It is associated with the kingdom of God very commonly. Thus, in Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore, and turn again that your sins may be blotted out, that there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.”

William D. Chamberlin, some years back, in writing on repentance declared, “The reason which John and Jesus both give for repentance is not that the kingdom of Heaven may come near, but that it has drawn near. Repentance does not bring the kingdom. It prepares men to participate in it. Repentance is not a device for escaping Hell. It is a preparation for cooperating with God’s will on earth.”

There are two words in the New Testament for repentance. The one word is metamelomai, and it is never used for anything that is godly. It can best be translated as remorse. It is the kind of thing that is ascribed, for example, to Judas. There is nothing godly about this word. Its essential meaning is remorse. It is feeling that you have done wrong, regretting the consequences of your action, rather than the action itself, being very miserable and unhappy, and brooding about something back there that you did. The other word, metanoia, which is translated also as repentance, means the change of mind wrought by God’s regenerating power. The word that is used for godly repentance literally means a shift of direction in the mind, a change of the mind that results in changed actions. Ungodly repentance looks backward. It means a sorry for a sin because of the consequences. Ungodly repentance is marked by self-torture, by misery, and by a preoccupation with the past. All too often, when we talk about somebody needing to repent, we are talking as pagans. What we want them to do is to be miserable over what they have done. We want to say, in effect, “See what you’ve done.” We want to rub their nose in it. We tell them, in effect, repent. Suffer a little.

Now, there is such a thing as godly sorrow for sin, but it’s totally separate from the meaning of the word repent. We are told, for example, in 2 Corinthians 7:10, “For the sorry that relates a sorrower to God, works out a repentance that leads to salvation such as is never regretted, while the world’s sorrow issues into death.” But this godly sorry is something distinct from repentance. Repentance means a complete change in mental outlook and of life’s design. That’s the definition: A complete change of outlook, of mental outlook and of life’s design. It is reformation. Now, the early church was very clearly aware of its meaning. Litencius{?}, one of the church fathers in his divine institutes called it a return to right understanding, and he said of the man who repents, he returns to a right understanding and recovers his mind as it were, from madness, and of a repentant man, he sees himself and God in a new light. A very good illustration of repentance is the prodigal son, and we are told, in the English, he came to himself. That’s repentance.

That’s what we usually ask of people if not biblical repentance, but remorse, which is not reformation. We want to change people to the past and say, “Look, you’ve done such things, now think about them. Look backwards.” Whereas, biblical repentance, godly repentance, is “Look forward in terms of the regenerating power of God. Look forward in terms of the kingdom of God,” and this is why, in the preaching of repentance in the Gospels, it is always associated with the kingdom of God.

Unhappily, very early Catholic translations rendered the word “due penance.” The protestant version did not improve matters by using the word “repent.” At least due penance meant some kind of action, although it was the wrong kind, as far as the word repentance was concerned. The word due penance had reference to restitution with regard to forgiveness. It had no reference to the biblical word, metanoia. Repentance was nothing. It simply meant being sorry, and so the meaning has been very seriously obscured. We can understanding something of the meaning of repent by the fact that we are told in scripture that God repents of certain things.

For example, in Genesis 6:6 and Exodus 32:14, we are told that God repents. That does not mean that God is sorry for what he has done. It means that God had a change of attitude towards the people now, from judgment to grace. Metanoia, the Greek word repentance, has nothing to do with sorrow. Where a sinner is concerned, godly sorrow precedes repentance, but the word repentance itself strictly means the change of attitude resulting in changed actions. This is why some people have gone all around the barn trying to explain what it means when the Bible says God repented him of what he had done towards such and such a person. It simply means God changed his attitude from judgment to grace.

Now, in men, repentance is a preparation for the future rather than a mourning over the past. It is closely linked, as I have indicated, to the kingdom of God. Repentence prepares men to participate in it. Thus, we have a very, very telling illustration of what repentance means in the ministry of John the Baptist. We are told in Luke 3, “Then said he (John the Baptist) to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”

In other words, repentance, a change of mind means changed actions, good fruit.

“And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?”

Now, Matthew tells us it was the Pharisees in particular, the priests and the Levites who asked this question.

“He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.”

So, his word to the religious leaders was, “Be merciful. Be generous. Share what you have.”

“Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.”

“No more extortion, you tax collectors.”

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

Now these were all very blunt, direct statements calling for action. Do you repent? Do you claim you have a change of mind, a change of heart? Then prove it. Bring forth good fruits. Now, that’s repentance. It means a change of lifestyle, a change of mind that results in action.

John the Baptist did not ask them to make a public confession of sins. He simply said, “You say you’ll repent? Let’s see it. That’s all. Demonstrate it.” Romans 6:18 is talking about repentance when it says, “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.”

Thus, we have John the Baptist demonstrating in his ministry what repentance means; it’s a changed mind which produces changed actions.

Now, let us see from our scripture the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, what false repentance means. The rich man, merciless, thinking only of himself, godless, dies and goes to Hell. In Hell, and this is a parable so that we’re not to think literally of Heaven and Hell and conversation back and forth, in Hell, he frames a double indictment against God. His first plea: “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus (this beggar, a cripple and infirmed man who had been at his gate and had not been fed), that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” The self-pity here, in the rich man’s words is intense, and it is an indictment of God. He is saying, in effect, “Oh yes, Lazarus was at my gate and I did nothing. If Lazarus now does nothing for me and my need, then how is he better, any better than I was? Or more deserving of Heaven?” The rich man’s words are very preciously contrived to make his requests look excessively modest. Let him “dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue.” He doesn’t ask for a drink. Oh, he is so modest. I’m asking for so little, so that any refusal would look excessively wicked. This is a very vindictive attack. “Oh yes, I was bad, but are you any better when you allow me to suffer and are not mindful of me?”

And then God is indicted. “I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.”

“If one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.”

Now God is indicted. “Send someone. Lazarus, back from the dead to my family, to my five brothers.” Now, he’s not really concerned about his brothers. What he is, in effect, saying is “I was not properly warned and that’s why I’m here. Now give my brothers proper warning. Make it unnecessary to have faith. Give them sight. Scientific demonstration. Let someone come back from the dead and make a witness to them, and report what goes on over here. Give them a faith chance. I never had one.” This is what he is saying. They will repent, he says, and the answer of Abraham is, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Our Lord there had reference to his forthcoming, death, and resurrection. They would not believe, because there was no repentance, no change, and therefore, no fruits of change.

When we realize the significance of the word repent and repentance, we see why the church has gone so sadly astray in our day. If what they’re asking of people is what the Bible called ungodly repentance; remorse, which leads to death, then the church has certainly gone astray in asking repentance of people. What it should ask for is metanoia, a complete change in mental outlook and of life design, a conformity to the word of God and actions in terms of that. Repentance should be related to the kingdom. Have you repented indeed? Then what are you doing in terms of obeying God? Are you mindful of the claims of the kingdom of God? What are you doing? Repentance is not weeping over the past. It is reshaping the future with a power of God that has been manifested in us and through us in the world. What our generation needs is biblical repentance, godly repentance, but too often, what the church is asking for is not godly. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy grace and mercy has in Jesus Christ given us a new heart and a new mind, and actions in terms of that new life. We give thanks unto thee that thou hast changed us in Jesus Christ, and we pray, our Father, that in our generation, men and nations may be brought to godly repentance and may change their course of thought and actions, and all things be brought progressively into conformity to thy holy purpose. Bless us to this end in Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all, on our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Premillennialists have made a great to-do about the different usage. Kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. Now the whole point of that is a very simple and a very obvious one. The kingdom of God was a term the Jews avoided using, or Israelites but particularly the Jews, because they were afraid to take the name of God in vain. Now literally, it was the kingdom of Jehovah, but because they so feared to pronounce the name of the Lord since they felt that, “Well, perhaps I will use it idly and therefore, be guilty of blasphemy, of taking the name of the Lord in vain.“ We don’t even know how the name of the Lord is properly pronounced, because they never included the vowels in it. We just have the consonants. Almost certainly Jehovah is not correct. Some modern scholars say it was Yahweh, they put in different vowels, but there’s no reason to believe that’s correct. We don’t know. They would say kingdom of heaven, instead of kingdom of Jehovah. Now, for the Gentiles, the term that is commonly used in the scriptures is kingdom of God. They didn’t feel the need when they were writing the gospel for the Gentiles, rather than the Jews specifically, of using that circumprofusion. So, that’s the reason for the difference.

Matthew, because Matthew was very specifically writing for a Hebrew audience, and there are some who believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, a form of Hebrew, always says Heaven, because otherwise, he would have offended every Jewish reader, but those who are writing for a Gentile audience said God, using the Greek word, God, and that’s the only reason for the distinction there. There is not difference in meaning, so that in one gospel, you will find the same statement rendered heaven, and the other God. Any other questions? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Now first of all, with regard to stoning, there is no requirement that we follow that method of execution in our time. The method of stoning was very commonly used in Antiquity. The thing that characterized it that is really binding on us now is this: execution had to be public as a trial had to be public, and the witnesses had to participate in the execution of the person, and if they, for false witness, they suffered exactly what the person against whom they were perjuring themselves would have suffered, and in that respect, the law is {?}. A witness properly is a part of the prosecution or defense, if he’s telling the truth. He has a responsibility to carry through, you see, on what he does, a moral responsibility.

Now, with regard to the laws of diet, we are told by St. Paul that the observance of the dietary laws, as well as the Sabbaths, is no longer mandatory. It is no longer law for us. They were moving out into a pagan world where there was no observance of the Sabbath, where they were, for example, working for Romans and Greeks, and others, be fired if they didn’t work on the Sabbath, and where it would not be possible to observe the dietary rules and where, for example, St. Paul and Peter, going as a missionary to Gentiles, couldn’t associate with them and go into their homes, and work to convert them, if they kept the kosher law. So that it is no longer a law, although it is certainly godly counsel, it’s the godly course of life. Thus, when St. Paul was out on his missionary journeys when he was among Gentiles, he never raised the question with regard to avoiding non-kosher foods. However, when he left them, he promptly went back to what he considered to be a godly diet. Similarly, very obviously, in the early church, people worked on the Lord’s Day. It was Christian Sabbath. They held the services in the evening, and you recall in Acts, the young man falls asleep, he’s tired after a hard day’s work, and he falls out of the window. Now, only when they were able to create a Christian society did they say, “No work,” but it was not a law in the same sense it had been in Old Testament times, although as near to a law as they could make it. Now, similarly, for centuries, the dietary laws were kept. In some parts of Christendom, they were kept until fairly recently, not because it was mandatory but because it was godly counsel for our welfare.

So, this is the basis on which those Levitical laws stand today. They are the word of God for us, as far as our welfare is concerned. They are not on the same legal basis, and in a situation, a missionary situation in particular, it cannot be made, in any sense, binding on church members where it will endanger the essentials, which is that they make their witness to an unbelieving world around us, and be able to communicate with them. Now you recall St. Paul rebuked St. Peter when the {?} Jews came down from Jerusalem who were sticklers about the dietary rules, he immediately broke fellowship with some of the Gentiles whom he was working with and wouldn’t eat with them. Now, Paul immediately rebuked Peter to his face for that in the presence of the congregation, because this was altogether wrong. He didn’t say, “It’s wrong for you to do this in your own home and in your own surroundings, but this cannot be the point of division.” Does that help? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, not that all foods were good but all things are pure, yes. Everything, you see, that God made is good for its appointed purpose. Now, all foods, when Paul speaks of that, he means all normal foods are good. There is nothing impure in the thing in itself. We cannot speak of any animal that’s created as impure. Now, it doesn’t mean we are to eat them all. Now, the word that he uses there for food is the normal word, not for that you could eat anything under the sun, but all foods are of themselves good, and it has reference to the abstaining from meat, vegetarianism, in other words, is what is condemned.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, it doesn’t. The only stipulation is that animals must be bred.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, that’s just residual. It doesn’t refer to that. Any other? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is an Aramaic version by Lansa. It’s an interesting one, but the Aramaic it has is not any original Aramaic but from the Fashica{?}, which was a translation back into Aramaic for Assyrian converts. So, the claims made for that translation are not good. In other words, it’s a double translation, a translation from the Greek into Aramaic and from the Aramaic back into English, and so it’s not a trustworthy version, definitely. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] The parable of the unjust steward just prior to the one we dealt with in Luke 16. Yes, the unjust steward, of course, when he had been caught in his dishonesty and was required to give an accounting, and then to be fired, called in every one of the Lord’s debtors. He still had authority as a steward, and altered their bills. He said, “So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty,” and so on. So he discounted everybody their debts.

And then we are told, “And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness (or of the riches of unrighteousness); that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Now the whole point there is this: The man was crooked, but he was practical. He figured he was going to be out of a job soon, and he said, “I cannot dig to beg I am ashamed. I’ve got to make sure I have a good berth{?} with somebody so I’ll be good to them now and when I am fired any day now, these people will be ready to take care of me. After all, somebody who has a big bill which has been discounted 50% is certainly going to be favorably inclined to me.” He was thinking practically, and our Lord’s point there was, “Think practically.” In other words, what he was saying is that too many people who claim to be godly are stupid. They think godliness is somehow impracticality, and they’re {?}. So, our Lord is saying, “Look, here is a man who is practical. Now, use your money wisely, practically.” So, he’s not counseling us to be dishonest, but he’s saying, “This man, in terms of his convictions, is sensible. Now, in terms of your convictions, be sensible.”

We have just a few minutes left, and I’d like to pass on a couple of things to you. First of all, from Triumph magazine, which is a very well-written and able Catholic monthly put out by some friends of mine, they have an editorial article here on something that happened locally and you may have seen little bits of it in the paper and not realize what it was all about, and I think this will tell you, {?}. For Deborah Wiggins, the 21year old California feminist turned anti-abortion activist, the new phase of the life struggle has meant organizing and leading the student pro-life federal (SPLF) in intense demonstrations as a leading abortion mill in Los Angeles, Bellaire Hospital. Advised by Dr. Kenneth Mitzner, president of the California Mobilization for the Unnamed, the group chose Bellaire, a small hospital, 68 beds, to dramatize the financial link between the abortionist themselves and Planned Parenthood with its clergy counseling service. Dr. Mitzner’s investigations have shown that 95% or more of the women counseled by Planned Parenthood are ultimately referred for abortions, and that Bellaire, benefitting from the interstate abortion commerce is murdering 100 children a day. Since Planned Parenthood gets a kick-back of $20 per for referring and transporting 20,000 women a year from all over the country to Los Angeles, figures confirmed in the L.A. Times on July 23 by Planned parenthood official, that organization earned (Planned Parenthood) between $400,000 and $500,000 in California blood money last year alone, a nice byproduct for the group principally responsible for making life prevention and destruction respectable. So, the SPLF and allied groups, using every means allowed by America’s free speech society brought to public attention not only the profits being made by Planned Parenthood, but also the butcher shop assembly line conditions at Bellaire, and the hospital’s refusal to serve even minimal {?} as its surrounding community. The demonstrators picketed and chanted as a kind of counseling of last resort, giving women a chance to turn back before they entered the death factory. Dr. Morton Barke, Bellaire’s chief abortionist and a leading advocate of the 1967 law, testified to the effectiveness of the tactics, commenced commenting that after being called a bloody butcher and a murderer on his way to work, he was unable to perform surgery. Then, on September 7 (and you will recall this), Miss Wiggins released information to the press indicating that on September 3, a Texas woman in California, by courtesy of Planned Parenthood, died of internal complications after a saline abortion, an abortion for which Dr. Barke was responsible. (Of course there has been quite a whitewash of that.) That kind of publicity was too much for the doctor, so he and the Planned Parenthood clientele departed Bellaire for another small hospital, Inglewood. At the end of September, the pro-lifers showed up at Inglewood, using the same tactics and making use of the local press to expose the whole affair, but now the abortionist filed suit against the pro-lifers, asking $4 million damages and a temporary injunction against the group’s tactics.

On September 27, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner, Clinton Rhoda{?} granted the injunction and it is still in force, but without benefit of jury trial, the unborn were deprived of the freedom of their spokesman, thus of their free speech. Deborah Wiggins and her followers had known all along that the stakes are high in the battle, for they are hitting greedy men where it hurts, at the sources of their wealth. More conventional anti-abortionists should study the California case, for it signals that abortion practitioners and their cohorts are deadly serious businessmen who will not let even constitutional niceties, let alone moral or religious ones stand in the way of their deadly serious business.”

Then, on a milder note, because it is godly to laugh, this from a book by Art Linkletter about one of the more amusing things he had happen when he had children on the air. The all-time high for fun with Catholic sisters happened when two charming nuns brought some four-year-olds for a visit. We began the on the air conversation as one of the tiny girls pointed out in the audience and she liked school most when the sister told {?}. Now, the sister self-consciously lowered her head and becoming modesty, I complimented in her and said that I’d be interested in which Bible story was the little girl’s favorite. Then began a lively conversation which none of us who heard it will ever forget. “Tell me your favorite story that the sister tells you,” I encouraged.

“The story of Edam and Ave.”

It almost sounded right the way she pronounced their names so confidently. As the audience tittered in appreciation I went on as if nothing were wrong.

“And who were Edam and Ave?”

“They were two bare people who liked each other.” The audience’s laughter was beginning to build and the sweet child’s face began to look at me questioningly.

“So far, you are doing just fine,” I encouraged her. “What did these two bare people do?

“They lived in a public park.”

“Did they work for a living? I hastily went on to hold the mood.

“Oh yes, they swept the sidewalk and kept the swimming pool clean.”

“And then what happened?” I held her glance firmly on mine and kept a straight face throughout.

“The girl kept eating the cherries off the bush when she shouldn’t.” I stole a glance into the audience to check if the sister was still there, and mouth slightly open, was totally entranced by this version of what went on in the Garden of Eden.

“What happened next?”

“God was mad at them and was going to punish them, but they hidded under a bush, but they couldn’t fool God and he found them.” Her voice was rising as she was caught up in her story.

“Go on,” I urged.

“So God decided to punish them twice.”

“Twice?” I exclaimed.

“Yes, Mr. Winkletter. First, he sent them both straight down to Hell.” She paused at the enormity of the thought, and then delivered the coup de gra{?}, and then he changed them into Protestants.” The whoops could be heard from the audience rolled across the stage and waves that were almost physical. The sister was convulsed along with everyone else. The four year old darling sat up and looked around with the expression of one who had just passed a difficult test with a mark of 100.

I think that story is not only amusing, but also very, very revealing because I found all too many times that kids do get that kind of idea from Bible story telling, and you have to be very careful or they do get the most weird notions because they try to fit the stories into what they know. This is why I feel that a very, very good thing to do with children is to get a good Bible story book, and if you’re all thinking of that, Vos’s storybook that you can get at almost any evangelical book store. It’s an excellent one, because what Mrs. Vos did some years ago, and it is a classic, was to tell the stories as very close to scripture as possible. Her husband was one of the greatest biblical scholars of a generation ago, Dr. Gerhardis Vos, and also to tell them in a language highly understandable to children. It is really a superb guide for instruction of children. I know I used it with our children, and I have encouraged many others to use it, and the results are always excellent. In fact, a good many parents find that they themselves learn a great deal in using it with children.

Our time is up now. Let’s bow our heads for the benediction.

And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape