Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The doctrine of election as taught by Calvinists is a pernicious doctrine. To them, it is a doctrine which gives them comfort. The idea that God has predetermined that they would be saved, sent them the Holy Spirit to illumine their hearts in order that they might believe and repent, and made it impossible for them to fall from grace is a doctrine of comfort. It would be more comforting to them, however, if they had some genuine evidence that they were among the elect rather than the reprobate. Not ever knowing for sure whether they are among the elect or the reprobate, Calvinists have as much uncertainty about their salvation as any proponent of free-will ever felt. The difference is that the proponent of free-will knows what he must do to be saved whereas the Calvinist does not believe that he can do anything to effect his salvation or cause his damnation.

Let us notice what must happen according to Calvinism in order for a man to be saved. First of all, God must predestinate that certain person to salvation.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, No. 3).

To those whom God has predestined to save, He grants salvation without any consideration as to what that man might do.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace (Ibid., no. 5).

Inasmuch as these persons, like all of the rest of humanity, are born totally depraved, God grants to these people the Holy Spirit to illumine them in order that they might repent and believe the gospel.

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it (Ibid., Chapter X, No. 1-2).

Hence, according to the Calvinist, man’s salvation stems wholly from God’s free grace. Man does nothing toward saving himself; God does it all. He chooses the man without regard to what his reaction to God’s offer of salvation might be; He sends him the Holy Spirit to create the faith. Man cannot resist God’s offer of salvation; God’s grace is irresistible. This, my brethren, is what is meant by “election” when used by a Calvinist.

The passages which are used to teach this doctrine are misapplied. One such passage is Romans 9-11. Here is the passage which is frequently referred to:

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I love, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Rom. 9:10-16).

This passage does not teach Calvinist election. What it does teach is that God of His own will predestined to call His Son through Jacob rather than through Esau. The passage which is quoted by Paul, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (v. 13), is a quotation of Mal. 1:2-3. The passage was written centuries after the death of both Esau and Jacob. It had nothing to do with the salvation or damnation of either one. What it referred to was God’s decision to call Israel through Jacob rather than through Esau. The passage has nothing to do with God arbitrarily electing to save one man and damn another. Rather, it refers to God’s choice which was made without regard to the personal righteousness of either Jacob or Esau to bring His chosen nation into existence.

Let us continue to examine this passage so frequently perverted by the Calvinists.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (9:17-18).

Calvinists teach that God predestinated that Pharaoh would be born into the world, rebel against God’s will, and be damned in Hell. Notice that the Calvinists teach that it was God’s will that Pharaoh rebel against God’s will. Pharaoh simply did what God predestinated that he would do and then God turned and damned him in hell for doing what God predestined that he would do. Who can believe it?

What this passage teaches is not a thirty-second cousin to such a Calvinist doctrine. What God did was raise up Pharaoh to be king. Pharaoh was the kind of man he was because he chose to be that kind of man. What God did was to allow such a man as Pharaoh to be exalted as king over Egypt. Someone might ask, “How, then, did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?” I reply, “The same way that he hardens men’s hearts today.” How is it that man’s heart is hardened today? We seem to be able to understand how a man’s heart is hardened today. The man hears the word of God, refuses to obey it a . sufficient number of times that he becomes insensitive to God’s will, and then becomes rather obstinate. This is exactly what happened with Pharaoh. Pharaoh heard the word of God through Moses numerous times. Moses related God’s will for Pharaoh, “Let my people go.” Pharaoh refused to obey so God sent the plagues to change his mind. When the plague was hard against Egypt, Pharaoh would decide to allow the people to go but when respite would come, he would change his mind. Through this method God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This passage does’,not teach that Pharaoh did not have free will. Even as the scriptures teach that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, they also teach that Pharaoh hardened his heart in refusing to hearken to the will of God (Ex. 8:15). Hence, what we have occurring with reference to Pharaoh is not that God predestined to bring a man into this world who He would damn without regard to his personal character. Rather, what God did was to raise up to be a king such a wicked man as Pharaoh whom He used to manifest His glory. There is no difference in God’s use of Pharaoh in the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage than God’s use of the Jews, Herod, and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Christ to deliver us from our sins.

The passage continues as follows:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory (9:19-23).

This passage must be understood in the context of Romans 9. This passage is discussing God’s purpose to call His people Israel. We are not discussing the personal salvation of a given person. Hence, to make this passage refer to God personally selecting one man to salvation and another for damnation is contrary to the context. Rather, what is being discussed is God’s purpose to choose Israel for God’s chosen people (not all of which Israelites were saved forever in heaven) -and to not so choose Egypt (this does not imply that none of the Egyptians were saved in heaven). Rather, this passage is simply showing God’s determination to choose Israel and to reject Egypt and all other nations.

A few months ago, I was discussing “once saved, always saved” with a Baptist preacher. During that discussion, I used Rom. 11:20-23 to show that a person could fall from grace. In that discussion, the Baptist related that Romans 9-11 was not discussing personal salvation but God’s treatment of Israel. A few weeks ago, I met this same man in a discussion of the Calvinist doctrine of election. Somehow, he had forgotten that this passage was discussing Israel in this discussion for he applied it to personal salvation.

While we are considering Romans 9-11, let us notice some non-Calvinist doctrines taught in this passage. Here are some non-Calvinist doctrines taught in these chapters:

1. A desire for all men to be saved. Paul wrote, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3). Again, he wrote, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (10:1). Here, we find Paul praying that God’s will might not be accomplished if Calvinism is true. This passage contradicts the Calvinist doctrine that some are predestined to damnation and some to salvation to praise of God’s glory. Paul should not have been praying that those whom God had predestinated to damnation might be saved. He should have been teaching how God would be praised through their damnation.

2. Conditional salvation. Calvinists teach that salvation is not conditional. Yet, Paul wrote as follows:

“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 9:33).

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 10:11).

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13).

“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).

Since Calvinists teach that salvation is unconditional, this section of Scripture certainly offers them no comfort inasmuch as it offers salvation to every man conditionally.

3. Belief through the preaching of the word-According to Calvinists, a man cannot believe the gospel until the Holy Spirit illumines his mind that he might believe. Rom. 10:17 teaches otherwise; it says, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This is cofitrary to Calvinist beliefs.

4. Falling from grace. Calvinists teach that a child of God can never fall from grace so as to be eternally lost. Rom. 11:20-23 reads as follows:

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Notice that some of those who had formerly been part of God’s olive tree were broken off. Some who had not been part of the olive tree had been grafted in. We see men traversing from the state of being saved, to lost, to saved. We read nothing of a group of elect and another group of reprobates which can neither be added to nor diminished.

5. Elect people who were lost. Rom. 11:28 states, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Hence, here were some who were elect who were enemies of Christ and the gospel and, consequently, lost. This cannot be fitted into Calvinist thought.

Conclusion

Romans 9-11 offers no hope for the Calvinist as proof of his peculiar doctrines of election and reprobation. The doctrine remains unproved. It is contrary to what is revealed about God, man, and the gospel. Calvinism must be rejected in all of its parts.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, pp. 515-517
August 17, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake, Christians rejoice in blessed assurance. This confidence cannot exist on a true foundation while we live in sin. Before forgiveness of his sin, David said, “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring (groaning) all the day long.” After forgiveness he exclaimed, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” (Ps. 32). While living as “children of disobedience,” we are “by nature” of such living, “the children of wrath . . . having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:1-13). Only fear and trembling can abide in a soul where there is “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God . . . For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 11:27, 31; 12:29).

No wonder Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). The first gospel sermon was preached on Pentecost after Jesus ascended to heaven. When people heard that He is “both Lord and Christ” and saw their weight of sin, “they were pricked in their heart” and cried out to be forgiven. The call of Jesus was given for them to come and receive rest to their souls: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:26-38). Through the gospel, Christ calls sinners to come by “the faith of the operation of God,” being “buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:12). When risen from the waters of baptism, they may go on their way “rejoicing” (Acts 8:35-39). When Christians stumble into sin again, they may confess their wrongs and pray God’s forgiveness: “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:6-10).

Assurance in Christ is based upon the certainty of God’s Word — “the Word of the truth of the gospel” (Col. 1:5). God who “cannot lie” has spoken through His Son in His Word; with God there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (Tit. 1:2; Jas. 1:17). Assurance is well founded when we “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11) — speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is — call Bible things by Bible names — give Book, Chapter, and Verse for all we do in serving God.

False assurance is often given. Men claim that after they become Christians they can never fall from God’s grace. Paul said of certain ones who were altering the gospel, “Ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Christians who claim “fellowship” with God, claim, “I know Him,” and claim to abide “in Him,” but who continue to walk in their sins are really “of the devil” (1 Jn. 1:6; 2:3-6; 3:8). “He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (3 Jn. 11). Jesus came to destroy sin; we must put it away if we are to have assurance in Him.

Assurance based on any foundation other than God’s Word is not true assurance in Christ. Men often express confidence upon false foundations: “How could so many be wrong?. . . I think, suppose, guess . . . It’s what you feel in your heart . . . Our sacred tradition says . . .Our preacher is such a nice man and he says . . . The scholars who wrote our creed believed . . . Our latest convention voted . . .Whatever was good enough for grandma is good enough for me . . . Etc. . . .”

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 509
August 10, 1978

By Mike Willis

As we examine the Calvinist doctrines of salvation, we need to also examine what Calvinists teach about reprobation. The strict Calvinists have no hesitancy in stating emphatically that God has decreed the damnation of certain men. They state,

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, No. 3).

After having stated their belief about God electing some to salvation, the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith stated their belief about God’s treatment of the reprobate.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extended or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to passby, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice (Chapter III, No. 7).

Even the early Baptists wrote openly of their conviction that God has predestinated some unto life and others unto eternal damnation. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith states this doctrine as follows:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; other being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice (Section III, No. 4).

Their creed goes on to discuss how the reprobate are damned because God withholds from them a sufficient amount of grace to cause them to be saved. Hence, strict Calvinists had no trouble stating their belief in both election and reprobation.

But, my brethren, Calvinists have long ago perceived that the doctrine that God damned some people to hell was not all that popular. Who wants to believe that this reprobate baby who died in infancy long before it was old enough to commit a single sin will burn forever in hell because God predetermined that this should occur to the praise of His glory?

Yet, this is what strict Calvinism teaches. Most rational men want nothing to do with such a damnable, pernicious doctrine. Hence, in recent years, Calvinists have begun to back off of the doctrine of reprobation. They want to continue to

believe in election but deny that they believe in reprobation.

In Present Truth magazine, Klaas Runia wrote as follows about this problem:

When L. Berkhof gives his proof for the doctrine of reprobation, he begins with the following statement. “The doctrine of reprobation follows from the logic of the situation. The decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation. If the all-wise God, possessed of infinite knowledge, has eternally purposed to save some, then He ipso facto also purposed not to save others. If He has chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others.” And L. Boettner opens his discussion of “Reprobation” with these words: “The doctrine of Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms `elect’ and ‘election’ imply the terms `non-elect’ and `reprobation.’ When some are chosen out others are left not chosen.”

It is of course true that `logic’ does play an important part in theology. Reformed theology has always freely acknowledge its good right. The Westminster Confession states that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture” (Ch. 1, vii. By this very means the church has developed its doctrine of the Trinity also its Christology, yet the question must always arise; is a particular consequence `good and necessary’? In general we must say that especially at the point of an eternal decree of reprobation we have to be most careful. And one should ask oneself: why does Scripture itself not draw this conclusion, if it is so natural and so logical! (Vol. V, No. 6, p. 28).

The author in Present Truth chose to call this a “paradox” and left it unresolved. The truth of the matter is that some Calvinists want to believe in election without accepting the logical conclusion of the doctrine, reprobation. That doctrine is just a little too sour for their taste. Hence, they choose to abide in inconsistency rather than accepting the logical consequences of their damnable heresy.

My brethren, please keep in mind the logical conclusions to which Calvinism leads. It states that God has predetermined every event in history. Hence, God has predetermined, not foreknew, that the greater majority of men would die in sin, whether inherited or committed, and be eternally punished in hell. He predetermined that this would happen for the praise of His glory. We must not allow the Calvinists the luxury of not accepting the logical consequence of the doctrine of election.

Does God Want Men To Perish?

It seems ridiculous to pose such a question, yet this is exactly the question we must pose to deal with reprobation. This doctrine teaches that God has decreed, predetermined, and foreordained that the great number of men in this world would end up in hell for the praise of His glory. Inasmuch as God wants to be praised by men, He certainly wants these men to end up as He has willed that they be. Hence, this is by all means a legitimate question for Calvinists to answer. Does God want the greater portion of mankind to burn eternally in Hell. Calvinists say yes; the Bible says no. Read the following passages:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16).

Contrary to what Calvinists teach, God gets no pleasure out of watching the wicked perish and burn forever in Hell. The prophet Ezekiel stated this plainly as he wrote:

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 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? (Ezek. 18:21-23).

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, 1 have no pleasure in death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek. 33:11).

The God which the Calvinists worship is a horrible God indeed. He obtains some kind of sadistic pleasure in watching people burn forever in hell. He creates a large number of men for the express purpose of watching them die in sin and burn forever in hell! Who can worship such a God?

The Calvinist doctrine destroys the plain statement of Scripture that God is love. Rather, Calvinism demands that God be a god of hatred. He hates more people than anybody else; He hates them longer than anyone else can hate them inasmuch as He hates them prior to their coming into this world and forever after they come into this world. Having hated more people than anyone and harboring this hatred forever, God would become a God of hatred! As a matter of fact, God would have this hatred toward every man except that select little group of “teacher pets” whom He arbitrarily chose to elect to salvation.

Conclusion

This doctrine of Calvinism is by all means the most repugnant of the doctrine presented in that system. Men tend to turn their eyes away from it and look at the positive points of Calvinism. Indeed, some among us are even intrigued at the idea of “once in grace, always in grace.” Others like the idea that God personally called me to give me faith and repentance so that I could be saved. These doctrines which attract men cannot be logically maintained without accepting the conclusion that God damns the non-elect of His own will. They doctrine of reprobation is one of the main reasons for rejecting Calvinism in all of its parts.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 499-500
August 10, 1978

By Keith Sharp

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matt. 5:27-30).

American society is sex-saturated. With the constant emphasis on lasciviousness-dancing, mixed swimming, immodest dress, lurid magazines, movies and television shows, sex-oriented advertisements, accepted premarital sex and widespread marital infidelity, lust has become so commonplace it is accepted as normal by people in general and is no longer repulsive to many children of God. Yet, the Master warns that lust is so spiritually deadly one should prefer to lose a hand or an eye rather than to fall prey to its allure. This is an important difference between the law of Moses and that of Christ. What was the Old Testament law concerning adultery? How did the Lord change this law? What is the meaning of his teaching concerning the offensive eye and the offensive hand? It is the purpose of this article to answer these questions.

To answer these inquiries, we must first define “adultery.” Two words are commonly used in the New Testament to denote unlawful sexual acts: “fornication” and “adultery.” Both terms have a primary, restricted meaning and a secondary, more general use. When employed in contrast with “adultery,” “fornication” entails unlawful sexual intercourse between unmarried people (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9). But sometimes the word is used in a more general, secondary sense to describe all unlawful sexual relationships ,of any king, whether the parties are married or unmarried. On the other hand, “adultery” has a primary, restricted meaning of “unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” (J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 417), i.e., illegitimate sexual relationships involving at least one married person. But, in our text, “adultery” must be used in a secondary, more general sense of all unlawful sexual intercourse, whether the parties are married or not. This is true because the Master applies the lesson to “whosoever,” not just to married men, and warns against lusting after any “woman,” not just married women. If this is not the usage of the word in this passage, the law of the Lord concerning lust applies only to cases involving at least one married person, meaning unmarried men could lust all they desired after single women and not violate the Master’s stern prohibition.

What did the Old Testament expound as touching adultery? Moses forbade the act of adultery itself (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The law fixed death to both parties as the penalty for adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-27 this law pertained to married people), unless the woman was a slave (Lev. 19:20-22). Moses demanded a trial by ordeal for a wife suspected of adultery (Num. 5:11-31). If a man “humbled” a virgin, he was to take her to be his wife, with no possibility of ever putting her away (Deut. 22:28-29; Exod. 22:16-17). The Mosaic Covenant did command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” (Exod. 20:17), but being “the law of a carnal commandment” (Heb. 7:16), the first covenant primarily dealt with the outward act itself.

What is the Master’s doctrine concerning adultery? Christ certainly condemns the outward act, but he goes behind the deed and censures the attitude which leads to the action (cf. Matt. 15:18-20; James 1:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:14). Thus, in contrast with “the law of a carnal commandment,” the law of Christ is “in newness of spirit” (Rom. 7:6).

What is this lust which the Lord so sternly prohibits? The term “lust”

. . . denotes strong desire of any kind …. Such lusts are not necessarily base and immoral, they may be refined in character, but are evil if inconsistent with the will of God (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, III, 25).

Obviously, in this context, “lust” denotes “evil desires.” Does this mean it is sinful for a man to possess base desires? Is the temptation a sin also? Dr. Alfred Marshall, in his Literal English Translation contained in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament renders the Master’s warning thus:

But I tell you that everyone seeing a woman with a view to desire her already committed adultery with her in the heart of him.

This brings out the Lord’s idea of deliberately leering in order to purposely arouse carnal desire. Thus, Dr. Alexander B. Bruce comments:

The look is supposed to be not casual but persistent, the desire not involuntary or momentary, but cherished with longing (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, I, 108).

As the old saying advises:

One cannot keep the birds from flying over his head, but he can keep them from building a nest in his hair.

Involuntary, momentary temptation, over which a man possesses no control, is not sinful, although we should, as much as possible, avoid placing ourselves in tempting situations. Deliberately aroused, persistent desire of unlawful fleshly gratification is condemned.

Many commentators limit the “lust” of Matthew 5:28 to the intention to commit adultery prevented only by the lack of opportunity (cf. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, p. 37). Although I see no reason to so limit the Master’s prohibition, I recognize this “criminal intent” is one attitude condemned.

Some inquire, “Does this mean, since lust is as adultery, that lust is grounds for divorce?” The Lord alone is capable of judging the human heart (John 2:24-25; 1 Cor. 2:11; 4:3-5). In his sight, the man who persistently and deliberately employs his eyes to arouse carnal desire or who intends to commit the act, lacking only the opportunity, is as guilty as the one who actually commits adultery. But man lacks the ability to read another’s heart and has not the power to judge in that realm. Putting away one’s mate involves human judgment of guilt (Matt. 19:9). Such judgment must be limited to knowledge of the outward act, not assertions concerning attitudes, whether real or imagined.

What is the meaning of Jesus’ teaching about the offensive eye and the offensive hand? In these verses (Matt. 5:29-30; cf. 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-48) the Master presents two great lessons: the means of averting lust and adultery and the importance of so doing. How can one avoid adultery and lust? Jesus advises the very removal of that which offends. To what does the term “offend” refer? Barclay explains that the noun form of this word

means the bait-stick in a trap. It was the stick or arm on which the bait was fixed and which operated the trap to catch the animal lured to its own destruction. So the word came to mean anything which causes a man’s destruction. Behind it are two pictures. First, there is the picture of a hidden stone in a path against which a man may stumble, or of a cord stretched across a path, deliberately put there to make a man trip. Second, there is the picture of a pit dug in the ground and deceptively covered over with a thin layer of branches or of turf, and so arranged that, when the unwary traveler set his foot on it, he was immediately thrown into the pit. The skandalon, the stumbling-block is something which trips a man up, something which sends him crashing to destruction, something which lures him to his own ruin (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, I, 145).

Does Christ actually, literally demand the removal of the right eye or right hand to prevent sin? What good would it do to remove the right eye, if the left eye were still free to lead to lust? Why remove the right hand, if the left hand can yet perform evil? The Master here employs a figure of speech known as “hypocatastasis.” Dr. E. W. Bullinger, in his classic study, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, explains:

As a figure, it differs from Metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while in Hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence Hypocatastasis is implied resemblance or representation: i.e., an implied Simile or Metaphor. If Metaphor is more forcible than Simile, then Hypocatastasis is more forcible than Metaphor, and expresses as it were the superlative degree of resemblance.

For example, one may say to another, ‘You are like a beast.’ This would be Simile, tamely stating a fact. If, however, he said, ‘You are a beast’ that would be Metaphor. But, if he said simply, ‘Beast!’ that would be Hypocatastasis, for the other part of the Simile or Metaphor (‘you’), would be implied and not stated.

This figure, therefore, is calculated to arouse the mind and attract and excite the attention to the greatest extent. This beautiful and far-reaching figure frequently occurs in Scripture. The Lord Himself often used it, and that with wonderful effect.

Matt. v.29, 30. . . . The right eye, etc., is compared by implication to the most highly prized possession (pp. 744, 747).

What, then, is the point? Anything, even “the most highly prized possession,” which causes us to lust or leads to adultery is to be immediately cast out of our lives.

How important is it that we take these preventive measures? By mentioning the right eye and the right hand, Jesus makes the demand even more radical, for these were generally considered to be more valuable and of more use than those on the left. Any earthly sacrifice is to be preferred to the loss of one’s soul in hell!

Dear friend, adultery is a terrible sin, but so is the lust that leads to adultery. Are there things in your life that cause you to lust? Do you like to dance, go mixed swimming, read lurid magazines, listen to filthy music, watch obscene movies and television programs? Is there a social contact that causes temptation? Cast it from your life immediately! No earthly thing is as valuable as your soul. No sacrifice is too great to save your soul. It is better to sacrifice the dearest thing in life than to lose your soul in hell through lust.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 501-502
August 10, 1978