So far in our studies we have considered:

1. Provision for the child in Grace (Romans 5)

2. Place of the child in Grace (Matthew 18)

3. Pictures of the child in Grace (Roms 5:12; 2 Sam 12:20-25; 1Kings 17:18ff; 2Kings 4; Mk5)

Pictures of Resurrection

Perhaps today in our own land one of the most prominent and certainly one of the most promoted anti-Christian philosophies would be that of evolution

The athiest / agnostic and evolutionist would generally cite that their strongest evidence lies in the fact the events of the past have left their echo in the rocks of the present – they look for fossils: 'the present is the key to the past.'

We as Christians know a God who knows not only the past but also the future and we as Christians would often cite as our strongest evidence the very converse of the evolutionist, that lieing within the past are echoes of the future: in other words the past contained and continues to contain within it the key to the future!

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” (Isa 46:8-10)

“I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” (Isa 46:11)

The Christian therefore looks not for fossils of the past in the present but the believer, fully appreciating the greatness and sovereignty of his God seeks for shadows of the future in the past! Only God can do that!

I want to do something that may seem strange therefore to the mind of the unbeliever, the educated but unenlightened mind, the philosopher of the world I want to look for hope in Christ in the future by looking at Gods hand working in the past!

I am seeking Gods promises for the future by looking for Gods patterns in the past.

The believer understands why I am doing this!

As I look back for hope of a future resurrection for the child, I find that out of 8 specific individuals raised again from the dead in scripture other than Christ there are 3 children who are specified as having being raised again from the dead in the past. These 3 are very interesting:

1. Elijah and the widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17)

2. Elisha and the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4)

3. Jarius Daughter (Mark chp 5)

In these 3 resurrections of children in the scriptures we have:

1. The resurrection of the son of the gentile woman (1 Kings 17) – in case we missed this the Lord emphasised this very point on the occasion of the commencement of His public ministry in the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:26.

2. The resurrection of the daughter of a Jewish man – again hard to miss this; Jarius the scriptures highlight for us was the “ruler of the synagogue” - of what relevance did that have to the resurrection of his daughter or to the greatness of the need of the family?

3. The resurrection of a son “according to promise” (2 Kings 4:16) a condition identical to that of Isaac and the New Testament believer: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (Ga 4:28)

We have therefore pictures of the resurrection of:

1. Children of the gentile nations

2. Children of the Jewish nation

3. Children of believers

In all 3 pictures, for some reason, the state of the dead child is linked with that of sleep:

1. Elijah before he will raise the dead boy of 1 Kings 17: “And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.” (1Ki 17:19)

2. Elisha before he will raise the dead son of the Shunammite in 2 Kings 4 will raise the child under similar circumstances: “And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.” (2Ki 4:32)

3. Most explicitly of all we have the startling and perhaps slightly puzzling statement of the Lord Jesus concerning Jarius daughter: “And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.” (Lu 8:52 AV)

Perhaps you say what could be more natural than for the Lord to raise up a dead person from their bed? Is that after all not where dead people are often to be found lieing on a bed?

Well interestingly if you you look at the other 5 specified resurrections of the Bible you find:

4. The man of 2 Kings 13:21 was raised from a sepulchre

5. The widow of Nain's son, a “young man” was raised from his coffin

6. Lazarus of John 11 was raised from the tomb

7. Dorcas, a believer in Acts 9:39, raised from her place in the “upper chamber” - often used as a guest room

8. Eutychus of Acts 20:9 the young man who fell asleep whilst Paul was preaching, mind you I have to reluctantly confess that the scriptures do seem to blame the preacher for the audience falling asleep: “as Paul was long preaching” - if the audience fall asleep the preacher needs to waken up. Eutychus may well have been in need of his bed but he wasn't raised up from his bed either but from the ground where he landed having fallen from his seat in the open window!

Add to this those who are raised en mass when the Saviour died, unspecified individuals (Matt 27:52) who were raised from the graves!

So as it turns out the children are the only ones to be raised from their beds in a state of sleep!

Although as we are aware, interestingly this picture of sleep becomes a consistent picture of the condition of the dead in Christ (John 11; 1 Thess 4), but ever before the believer in Christ died to sleep with the promise of a future awakening, the child had been for many generations entered already into the enjoyment of that very experience!

Elijah and the Widow of Zarephath: A Picture of Rapture:

A child dies, but more than this, a child is committed into the care of Elijah (17:19)

Carried by Elijah out of the bosom of his mother to abide where he abides, to rest where he rests (cf. Luke 16:22)

1. “he took him” (v19)

“give me thy son” (v19)

Many times the Lord asks us to give to Him that which we least desire to part with, that we might trust Him for that which means most to us.

This is the essence of faith.

This was the essence of Abraham's faith in Genesis 22: “take thy son thine only Isaac.”

The God who requires from me that which I least desire to part with is the God who “spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.”

For the purposes of the narrative it would have been enough to record “he took him” but the Spirit adds “out of her bosom.” From a mothers heart.

For some time, up until the resurrection of her son that was all the mother knew – the pain and sorrow of an empty heart.

Here is our problem – our sorrow lies in time and our hope lies in eternity.

As Elijah departed with the child and the door closed behind them, this widow woman was unable to see what was transpiring above, in the upper room, she only knew of the sorrow which was her portion below, the sorrow of an empty heart.

Here is our great disability, our eyes can only see to the horizon of time.

That is where we are too, trapped in time but with our hope in eternity.

2. “carried him” (v19)

Notice the direction “up” and the location “loft”

“into a loft”: 5944: stair way, upper room, the sky

The deaths of at least 7 individuals in scripture are linked with the loft or upper room:

1. Eglon the king of Moab (Judges 3)

2. David mourns for his dead Absalom in a loft or upper room (2Sam 18)

3. Ahaziah falls through a lattice in the loft (2Kings 1)

4. Son of the widow of Zarephath

5. Shunammites son layed in the loft (2Kings 4)

6. Dorcas lay in the upper chamber (Acts 9)

7. Eutychus (Acts 20) falls from the upper chamber.

Out of these 7 deaths linked with the loft or upper room, 4 know the power of Gods resurrection – the 2 believers and the 2 children!

The widows son is taken not just to a place but to His presence: “where he abode”

Gods place for us is of course consistently defined by His presence there:

“today shalt thou be with me in paradise”

“Abraham's bosom”

“in my Father's house...”

3. “laid him upon his own bed” (v19)

Not only a place and a presence but perhaps also the thought of peace

The place where Elijah slept is now the place where the child sleeps!

There are those who do not simply die and perish but who “sleep in Jesus” (1 Thess 4) perhaps like Lazarus of John 11 “our friend Lazarus sleepeth”

This is where the child is left at the end of verse 19

Is the child left or is the child lost?

Out of the sight of the empty heart of the mother, is there the fear preying upon the mind that the child has not simply left but is actually lost?

Perhaps unappreciated by the mother, the one into whose hands she has committed her son is one who has a powerful intercessory ministry with God (v20) cf. James 5:17.

Will she see her son again? What is the setting of this reunion?

1. A cry / shout (17:20,21)

2. The “voice” of Elijah (17:22)

3. The resurrection of the child (17:22)

4. The child descends (17:22)

5. The child, the mother and Elijah united once again (17:23)

Oh yes, and who is Elijah?

1. 'El' – God

2. 'Jah' – Jehovah – the Lord

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1. For the Lord himself shall

2. descend from heaven

3. with a shout,

4. with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and

5. the dead in Christ shall rise first:

6. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord...” (1Th 4:15-18)

In 2 Sam 12 David has a hope of being reunited with his dead child

In 1 Kings 17 the hope linked with Elijah is not that of being reunited in death but rather reunited in rapture together.

This is fitting of course for Elijah, since he is the prophet who himself never saw death but was raptured to heaven alive in the chariot of fire.

When we come to the hope of the Shunammite woman of 2 Kings 4 her hope is linked more resurrection, to be reunited in resurrection:

1. setting is “carmel” or fruitfulness

2. she is greated with a 3 fold “shalom” (2 Kings 4) as did the Lord His disciples after the resurrection in John 20.

Looking in particular at the NT miracle of the resurrection of Jarius daughter we find that in the pattern of Marks gospel this event is part of a triplet of events in Marks account of the ministry of the Lord Jesus.

There are 3 events in that gospel which are marked out as distinct as the only occasions when Christ is present together with the inner corm of the 3 disciples: Peter, James and John:

1. The raising of Jarius daughter – the resurrection of a dead child by Christ.

2. The Mount of transfiguration – the revelation of the future resurrection glory of Christ, along with the NT believers – Peter, James and John and Old Testament Saints – Elijah and Moses

3. The Garden of Gethsemane – the Lord returns from His sufferings to find His saints whom He has left in His absence, during the night to be active and in prayer, He finds them asleep and raises them up (Mark 14:37). This word “sleep” is the same word as that used of the sleeping saints whom the Lord finds at His return for the saints in 1 Thess 5:10.

Are these 3 groups in Marks gospel pointing forward to 3 groups who have part in His resurrection?

1. The child – covered by His blood

2. Expectant OT and NT saints who await and anticipate His coming

3. Sleeping NT saints – saved but not living on the tip toe of expectancy

The resurrection of Jarius daughter raises a number of problems:

1. Inability

2. Innocence

3. Inaccuracy

4. Inactivity

1. The Problem of Inability:

Can someone who is unable to believe be saved? The question of faith.

Can't believe is different from won't believe

Inability to accept Christ is distinct from active rejection of Christ

Gods eternal condemnation and personal, individual judgement of humanity is always based on the active rejection in part or in whole of the person and work of Christ.

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (Joh 3:19)

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18)

“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;” (2Pe 2:6)

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” (Re 20:12-13)

The condemnation of the whole of humanity, in the opening 3 chapters of Romans and the conclusion of Romans 3:23 is on the basis not of our association with Adam – a reality that brings the condemnation of death in Roms 5:12 but it is on the basis of personal guilt, by virtue of the fact that I have transgressed the revelation of the true God in:

1. Creation (Roms 1)

2. Conscience (Roms 1+2)

3. Covenant (Roms 2+3)

4. Christ (Roms 3+4)

Condemnation to Divine Judgement in the first 3 chapters of Romans is as a consequence of personal corruption.

The condemnation of God in scripture rests upon those who are able but not willing to respond to God.

ii The Problem of Innocence:

What was her status before God?

Born in Adams sin, guilt imputed because Adam had sinned but without any personally committed sins – 'faultless failure'.

Was she condemned to judgement or covered by the blood?

The question of fairness.

Does God regard such as innocent?

Consider the following scriptures:

“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”(Isa 7:16)

“Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”(Deu 1:39)

“Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.”(Jer 2:34)

“Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;”(Jer 19:4)

“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.”(Psa 106:37-38)

iii The Problem of Inaccuracy:

Why did Christ say “she is not dead” ?

There are perhaps echoes here of John 11: “These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.” (Joh 11:11), but the Lord goes a stage further than that here with Jarius daughter: “she is not dead but sleepeth” (Luke 8:52).

In John 11 Christ did not deny the reality of death but here in Luke chp 8 Christ denies the reality of death.

Why is this? Why does Christ not impute death to Jarius' daughter?

Was it simply because in this special case that Jarius' daughter was going to be raised from the dead or was there something different in essence about the death of Jarius' daughter compared to that of an adult?

The Lord did not say: 'she will not remain dead' or 'her death is not permanent' or as He did with Lazarus; 'your daughter will rise again' cf. John 11:23 but here with Jarius' daughter He denies the reality of death!!

The simple reading of the words of Christ here are not consistent with them being a reference to her impending resurrection at all!

Resurrection is life raised up from the dead.

The Lord denies that she is dead in the first place!

This is not the way the Lord approaches the issue of resurrection with Lazarus:

“Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.” (Joh 11:14). The Lord does not deny here the reality of Lazarus death!

How can the Lord say here “she is not dead but sleepeth” (Luke 8:52)?

Is it because He speaks not only as a man amongst men but as God?

Consider a very similar statement in this connection concerning the patriachs of old: “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” (Lu 20:37-38)

4. The Problem of Inactivity:

Why the wait?

Why the delay?

The Lord could have gone to Jarius house at the stage of Luke 8:4, but He took time to deal with the women with the issue of blood.

Why was this?

1. Jarius daughter had enjoyed 12 years of life.

2. The woman had endured 12 years of death!

But if Jarius daughter died and went to hell how could that delay have been justified?

Taken from a message preached at New Cumnock Gospel Hall on 1st September 2009

by Dr J Stewart Gillespie

Click the link below to listen the MP3 recording of this message:

When a Child Dies: Finding God's Grace in our Greatest Grief: Pictures of Grace to a Child

Other messages on Pauls Epistle to the Romans are downloadable in MP3 format from:

http://www.newcumnock.org/romans.html

The position of children in Grace: Far greater and completely different from their position before:

1. The law
2. Roman and Greek society
3. The disciples

When we come to consider the position of children before Christ and in Gods purposes we are going to have to take to heart the words of Isaiah:

“ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9)

There is perhaps no section that deals with children which turns our thinking on its head so much as Matthew chp 18! So much so as you read through some of the commentators on this chapter you will find an almost utterly astounding phenomenon that emerges: many if not most will spend much of their time trying to explain why Matthew chapter 18 doesn't apply to children!

Why? Because if it does say what it plainly says then we would have to radically change our thinking about the child, a thinking which peripheralises and minimises the child and elevates us!

1. The Place of the Child (18:1-2)
2. The Pattern of the Child (18:3-4)
3. The Possession of the Child (18:5) – Possessed by God not by Man
4. The Protection of the Child (18:6-9)
5. The Privilege of the Child (18:10)
6. The Pursuit of the Child (18:11-14)
7. The Promise to the Child (18:14)

If our attitude to the child is better seen and not heard! If our response to the child is one of impatience and intolerance and irritation! If we view humanity as developing in importance as we move from childhood to adulthood, then in Matthew 18 we will find that our perspective on childhood is completely out of step with God! There is perhaps no day, no hour, no place and no land when this teaching of the Word of God is more needed and more timely than in our own land and in our own day; a day wherein since 1967, society, government, hospitals, doctors, nurses, mothers and fathers, politicians and voters have regarded the life of the child as so utterly expendable and disposable that should the developing life of the unborn interfere with the priorities, desires, financial prosperity of the parents to be, then that developing life can be extinguished with impunity. Since 1967: 7,000,000 such lives have been dealt with in that way in the UK. To such the Saviour speaks these solemn words, which will not go away: “ But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” One of the questions which ultimately our studies on this subject will ultimately address is this: 'where are the souls of those 7 million tonight?' The answer I do believe is this: they stand as witnesses in the presence of God against a wicked and perverse generation! We cannot cut off the souls of those who have mediated access into the presence of God and expect to live thereafter with impunity (Matt 18:10)

The Place of the Child (18:1-2)

“at the same time” (v1) – at what “same time”? When the resurrection Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ has been seen on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:1ff) When the Lord has spoken of the fact that:

1. Devils / Demons (17:14-21)
2. Death (17:23)
3. Demands of men (17:24-27) – unpaid tax bills

Cannot hinder the progress of His Kingdom!

“at the same time” (v1): He was faced with a Demon who could not be cast out – so the Lord casts the demon out (17:14-21) Death (17:23) He was faced with the demands of men (17:24-27), and a tax bill that could not be paid, they had no money!

“at the same time” (v1): as so many of the preconceptions that men had about the kingdom were being swept away in the mighty torrent and flood of Christ's Glory!

“at the same time” (v1): as Christ was introducing the impossible to the eyes of the incredulous!

“at the same time” (v1): as the disciples had missed the point and failed to appreciate that the true essence of greatness in His Kingdom was humility!

As soon as they had been given a vision of the Glory of the Kingdom in Matthew 17 they are reminded that the Kingdom was introduced by the ministry of a child (17:10-12) – John the Baptist, a child filled by the Spirit of God from his mother's womb! 1 of 3 remarkable children in scripture involved with revival:

1. Samuel – a child priest
2. Josiah – a child King
3. John the Baptist – a child prophet

This glorious Kingdom was introduced by the ministry of a child (Isa40) As the disciples as the question: “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” the Lord will take them back to the principle established at the beginning of the preaching of His Kingdom; introduced by a child. Filled by the Spirit of God, with a ministry: “to turn the heart of the fathers tot he children” (Lk1:17) Here is something utterly amazing – down through the years as commentators and preachers have come to Matthew 18, as they have watched the Saviour place the child in their midst, listened to the mistake of the disciples and heard the teaching of the Saviour, one of the first things which these commentators and preachers have done is to immediately miss the point and make the same mistake as the disciples by attempting to exclude the child from the promises of this chapter. These promises only become the possession of adult 'child like' believers because they were first the possession of the child whom they have become like.

In society, in the world and even before the disciples the child had little if any place:

Before the world: Luke 9:54 : “maid”: 3816: “pais” possibly from 3817: “paio” : to hit or to strike; a child or servant could be hot or struck with impunity.

Before the disciples: the disciples seemed to have little regard for the child: Matt 19:13-15; Mk 10:13ff; Luke 18:15ff. Perhaps more than a hint of this too in the way the gospel writers record numbers; the feeding of the 5000 – was the feeding of 5000 men plus women and children, the feeding of the 4000 wasn't the feeding of the 4000 at all but the feeding of 4000 men plus women and children!

The teachings of Christ are no reflection of the social and religious ideas of His day! In His teachings and in His person He is once again set apart as a man amongst men.

What place does Christ give to the child?

“...and set him in the midst of them” (18:2) “in the midst” is a place of privilege and of prominence:

1. Christ in the midst of the church (Matt 18:20)
2. The High Priest in the midst (Mk 14:60) of the courtroom
3. Christ in the midst of the doctors (Luke 2:46) of the council
4. Christ in the midst (Luke 5:19)
5. Christ in the midst of the disciples (Luke 24:36; John 20:19; 20:26)
6. Christ in the midst at Calvary (John 19:18)

But here the child is not placed in the midst of the: council, the courtroom nor of Calvary but the child is in the midst of the disciples (18:1). Not only is this a place of privilege and of prominence but it is also a place , which in the gospels is uniquely reserved for Christ! In the gospels it is only ever Christ who is to be found “in the midst” of His disciples: Matt 18:20; Luke 24:36; John 20:19; 20:26 except here.... Where it is a child in the midst of the disciples! Elsewhere in the NT Christ is still found pre-eminently in the midst of His disciples (Heb 2:12; Rev 1:13; 5:6) except in Acts 1:15 when Peter is in the midst of the disciples! What a place of privilege the Lord places this child into!

The Pattern of the Child (18:3)

If there is one reason above all others that the mind of man struggles and wrestles with the salvation of a child it is surely this: 'how can a child in the absence of learning and understanding come to exercise faith in Christ and so come to be saved?' In other words man's greatest problem with the salvation of the child is this: 'how can a child become like an adult to be saved as an adult is saved?' This appears on the surface to be perfectly reasonable but it does of course contain a very serious error: namely that salvation can be hindered by personal inability. If this were true then salvation would be in part dependant on the possession of personal abilities and if that were true salvation would not be entirely of Gods Grace at all. Justification would be by faith and a certain quantity of intellectual, mental, and spiritual ability! We cannot supplement Christ without supplanting Christ – Jack Hunter Romans 5 was very clear on this that personal inability and weakness does not disqualify us from the Grace of God in salvation but rather it is a prerequisite: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Ro 5:6) Salvation was:

1. By His strength
2. In His season
3. By His Son

It is in fact a direct consequence of justification by faith that if Gods way of salvation is all of Grace and not of works then He must be the God who can save those who are unable to do anything whatsoever about the matter of salvation. Their inability does not impact at all on Gods saving ability, it only serves to make His saving work all the more glorious! As a result of this those who have had most doubts over the centuries concerning infant salvation are those who have compromised on justification by faith and added in works or merit of some sort – Roman Catholicism, which has had to come up with doctrines of limbo and baptismal regeneration to compensate for the infants inability to undertake any good works. We might then from our studies in Romans anticipate that the answer of the Lord Jesus to this age old question of 'how can a child be saved?' would prove very interesting indeed, but I wonder if we would have anticipated just how interesting His answer would be! The answer from the lips of the Saviour is little short of startling: not how can a child become like an adult to receive salvation on the same footing as an adult does but rather how can an adult become like a child to receive salvation on the same footing as a child? “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 18:3) We ask how can a child become like an adult to be saved? Christ asks how can an adult become like a child to be saved?

The Possession of the Child (18:5) – Possessed by God not by Man

A remarkable statement, for:

1. To 'receive' the disciple was to 'receive' Christ (Matt 10:40; John 13:30)
2. To reject the disciple with Christ's gospel was to reject Christ
3. To receive the Son is to receive the Father who sent Him (John 5:43; Matt 10:40; John 13:20)
4. To receive Christ is to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

“And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.” Lets not miss the import of this statement – to receive this child in His name, is to receive Christ! In the same way that receiving a believer in Christ's name is to receive the Lord Jesus Himself! Such a statement is only possible “because ye belong to Christ” (Mk9:41) To be received in Christ's name is to belong to Christ! Some have so stumbled at this statement of the Lord Jesus that they have resorted to Biblical gymnastics to contort these verses into something other than they plainly mean. Some have correctly pointed out that in verses 3 & 4 the Lord Jesus has drawn a pattern from the dependant faith of the child, as a pattern for all who would come in faith to Christ, they then claim that from verse 5 onwards the Lord is not speaking about little children at all but rather of believers who have become as little children to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Let's just spend a moment to reclaim these verses about the little child for the little child. I think that it would be safe to say that if it were not for verses 3 & 4 of Matthew 18 that no one would ever have reached that conclusion. So if it were the case that verses 3 + 4 were not there we could conclude with confidence that the little child who is received in verse 5 is a literal and physical little child? Consider Marks summary of this event: Mark 9:33 -37; consider Lukes summary of this event : Luke 9:46-48 – there is no reference in either of these sections to an adult becoming as a little child but the reception of that little child is still linked with the same dignity and blessing.

Who is it that is receiving the “little child” in verse 5? The audience is that of believers: “disciples” (v1). If these “little ones” are believers then why does the Lord have to exhort the disciples to be prepared to receive disciples?? I think if we understand the setting given to us by Mark in his account we will see that no confusion could possibly have arisen in the minds of the disciples, for as the Lord utters Matthew 18:5 He has just a few seconds before picked up the little child of whom He is speaking and held him in His arms (Mark 9:36-37) What is the Lord saying then in Matt18:5? If I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection I receive Him! I am not saying and Christ is not saying that every child is indwelt by Christ, for one thing there is a condition attached to the reception of the child, they are not received simply because of what they are but they are received “in my name” To receive Christ is by definition to receive the Father (John 13:20) – no qualification is required but to receive Christ in receiving the child a condition is attached : I must receive the child in His name! How can I receive a child in His name? Consider those who: Gather “together in my name” (Matt18:20; 1Co5:4) Belong to Christ and receive gifts in His name (Mk9:41) Pray “in my name” (John 14:13; 14:14; 15:16; 16:23,24,26) “in my name” implies at the very least the idea of belonging and perhaps even more the idea of fellowship. We can only receive a child in “His name” if it is true that such a child belongs to Him! If I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection I receive Him! As I read the scriptures to my children, grand children, nieces and nephews, teach the Sunday School class, I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection, I thus receive Him!

The Protection of the Child (18:6-9)

Because that child belongs to Christ Created for a Divine Purpose, enjoying Divine privilege and afforded Divine protection From the moment of birth I am His by right

His by Creatorial Right: Psalm 139:13-16, consider particularly: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.” (Psa 139:13) – God has creatorial rights over the individual. Isa 43:1,7; 44:2;21 – God has creatorial rights over the redeemed of the nation of Israel Isa 46:3-4; 44:19-21 – God has creatorial rights over the whole nation of Israel Psalm 100:1-3 - “all ye lands” - God has creatorial rights over all peoples.

His by Creatorial Purpose: Created for His glory (Isa 43:7) Is it just some who have been created for His glory? Consider Rom 3:23; Rev 4:11 – Gods expectation and design for all of His creatures! If we do not want to be for His Glory He has no part for us in His Universe! If He has power to form the vessel and create the vessel He has power to make the vessel again (Jer 18:4)! The fact that that vessel was damaged did not mean that it was dammed! The difference between the damaged vessels and the dammed vessels of Jeremiah 18 lay in their attitude to the Potter.

His by Creatorial Relationship Psalm 100:1-3 Luke 15 – the prodigal son – was he a backslider? Was he an unbeliever? Quite clearly a lost sinner! Context: Luke 15:1-3 – this is a parable to lost sinners Character of the son (15:13) - “if we say that we love Him and keep not His commandments...” We could only regard him as a backslider if we develop a creedal view of Christianity. This would be completely unbiblical. Consider the Biblical view of Christian character in Luke 6! Condition of the Son (Lk 15:24,32) – he was “dead” But this boy starts off with a relationship with the Father! He belonged by right at the beginning of the parable and by grace at the end! No one ever suggests that the sheep or the coin was a backslider but they belonged to the fold! God retains His creatorial rights over His creature in spite of the fall! He is able to claim those rights and redeem His creature! Eternal ruin and loss come when we reject His claims and His rights on our life and we render ourselves unprofitable. From the moment of conversion I am His by redemption

The Privilege of the Child (18:10)

A privilege which parallels that of the believer and yet it is distinct from it The believers access to the Father is not by angels! Angels were linked with the old covenant (Acts 7:53; Gal3:19) This was a temporary and transient arrangement for access to God. Our access to the Father is not by angels but rather by the Son (Heb 4:14)! This access by angels indicates a temporary or transient arrangement, which is either lost when a soul rejects Christ or is superseded by direct access through Christ at conversion.

The Pursuit of the Child (18:11-14)

Compare Matthew 18:11 “for the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost” - as spoken of the child to to that spoken of Zaccheus: “the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) Note the absence of seeking with the child! No voluntary departure or rejection??

The Promise to the Child (18:14) https://graceinchrist.org/romans

In the old grave yard in New Cumnock, there lies amongst the many headstones the remains of one, incomplete, on which reads the following:

their 3 children who were born on the 13th March 1870 and died a son at birth a son aged 29 hours Mary Craig aged 20 days James Craig their son born 27th October 1878 died 28th October 1883 Mary Craig their daughter born 13th March 1877 died 1st October 1888 Bessie their daughter born 7th May 1889 died 19th April 1890 Robert Craig their son born the 8th January 1885 died 28th June 1900 The above Richard Gilbertson Herbertson Physician and surgeon who died Bradford aged 72 years

One family, not by any ways unique but the echo of whose grief can still be heard amongst the decaying memorials of a now almost forgotten generation. Triplets, a naturally rare event, born on the 13th March 1870 all died – not perhaps surprisingly, they would have been born early and would have been below average weight, 2 boys died so soon after birth they weren't even named and only the daughter received a name – Mary, surviving for only 3 weeks. Why did they die? Their only fault was to have shared a womb with too many others! The story continues from tears to tragedy, for 7 years to the day, on the same date - 13th of March another child is born and named after the Mary who died 7 years previously, but this Mary too will die, still in childhood, almost an echo of Jarius daughter, at 11 years of age. Bessie will die at 1 year old Robert will die at 5 years of age A tragic story indeed, but tragedy turns into irony for this is the family of one Richard Gilbertson Herbertson, physician and surgeon, the man who 140 years ago was doing my job here in New Cumnock! As Dr. Herbertson was busy about his duties delivering children, dealing with measles, whooping cough, diptheria, meningitis, small pox and flu his own family were dieing around him! Was there an even more bitter pill to swallow than this for Dr Herbertson, why were his children all dieing so young?

Was it due to one or some of the many childhood killer diseases of the Victorian period?

The same ones he was seeing in the village week by week? Was he doing his best, committed to his duty and calling of tending to the sick and dieing in the village of New Cumnock whilst all of the time he was bringing back those very same infections to his own family? Why the story?

1 - Well it touched me, for obvious reasons.

2 - It challenged me, for this record presents the Christian message of the gospel and our studies in Romans in 2009 in New Cumnock, with a very real problem. We need a faith that can come up some kind of answers to that kind of suffering and problem – real answers – robust answers

3 - It encouraged me! Encouraged you? Yes I did say that, for not only does that story present me with a big problem it presents me with an almost greater paradox. Why? This story, better recorded than most, was not unique in those days and in this village, this was part and parcel of lifes common experience for our forefathers, and yet just a few feet away from that broken grave stone lies another 2 pieces of broken grave stone, wether it belonged to this head stone or not I do not know, but lieing by itself amongst the death, disease, sorrow and suffering of a by gone day are 2 small fragments of stone, on the one is engraved these words: “thy will be done” and on the other: “until He come.” Here is the paradox; at a time when our sorrow and suffering was at its greatest, nationally Christianity, at least professing Christianity, church attendances and the promotion of Christ in our land was at its most vigorous! That kind of suffering may have killed off many of our children but for many it did not kill off their faith, in fact if the remnants of those stories are left to tell their own tale in the midst of their greatest grief, many found an even greater grace!

Just in case you make the mistake of regarding that hope as simply the product of sentimentality and superstition, I will make it clear that I make one assumption about the grief of a bygone day, the sorrow of the parents of a previous generation, namely that their tears were every bit as wet as ours, their sorrow was felt every bit as deeply as ours, their cots were every bit as empty as ours would bem and that their need for answers was every bit as real as ours! Do not be tempted to assume that sentimentality was the pattern of a previous generation whereas intelligence and sensibility is the preserve of our generation! Many of those who lie their in those graves were men and women brought up and taught in the Scottish Presbyterian tradition, in a day, unlike today, when many of their ministers were God fearing men who knew Christ and who taught and preached the word of God. That generation was a generation which had imbibed the reformation teachings of Calvin and Luther and which mark you had a carefully thought out Theology, not all of which I would personally agree with but which none the less correctly identified within the work of Christ and within the pages of the Word of God, a provision for their children, in Grace, which was greater than their grief. I want tonight to lay bear the foundations of that hope, that Divine provision in Grace for those who died because Adam sinned but who I trust we will see over coming nights must live again, because Christ has died. That provision in Grace is perhaps seen nowhere more clearly in the Word of God than it is here in Romans chapter 5. Not only do I intend to look at Gods provision in grace over coming nights but I would also like to consider:

Provision for the child (Romans 5) Place of the child (Matthew 18) Pictures of the child in resurrection – as seen in 3 prominent examples Prophecies of the child in resurrection Proof of grace to the child as seen in 3 prominent examples

The Provision for the Child (Romans 5)

Romans 5 does not specifically address the matter of the death of a child, but the chapter is of fundamental and critical importance in addressing this problem because:

1 - Romans 5 does give the reason for the presence of death even in the presence of personal innocence (Rom 5:12-15), it explains the reason behind 'faultless failure' 2 - Romans 5 makes Gods provision in grace for a child a moral and spiritual necessity, by the time we have finished Romans chapter 5 it is completely clear that their must be a provision in Gods Grace in Christ for the 'innocent dead.' 3 - Romans chps 3,4 and explicitly chp 5 explain why it is possible for a person to be saved who is unable to contribute anything to their salvation expect for their helpless need of it and thus it is Romans chp 5 which explicitly removes the most stubborn objection to the salvation of the innocent – how can they be saved they cannot understand and they cannot respond to Gods plan of salvation.

A provision for the child in Gods Grace in Christ is a spiritual absolute necessity because:

Rejoicin: Gods Grace allows the believer to Rejoice: The believer MUST rejoice (5:3). The believer must be able to “rejoice in tribulations also” (5:3) – not only in the smooth seas but in the stormy seas also, in the furnace (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo), in the flood (the children of Israel), and even in the vomit (Jonah). If there were no provision in grace for this frequent and tragic encounter in life, Roms 5:3-5 would simply not be true!

Reigning: Grace must reign (5:21) – a grace that is sovereign must be a grace that is sufficient and if His grace does not reach down certain cul de sacs of human experience – Gods grace is not sufficient and it is therefore not sovereign – it does not reign.

Reaching: Every soul MUST be reached by the grace of God in Christ (5:18) – the scope of the work of Christ is at least as extensive as the wickedness of Adam.

Removing: Any impediment due solely to personal inability, for being unable to enjoy Gods salvation MUST be and has been removed (Rom5:6) – salvation is by His Strength, in His Season, and by His Son! We can never use the reason for a soul being lost as having been due to their inability to comprehend or inability to apprehend the gospel. If personal inability were a real reason for missing out on the blessings of Gods grace, this would mean that personal ability was required to apprehend Gods Grace, in which case Gods grace is not sufficient for the needs of a lost humanity and thus salvation would be partly grace and partly works! Furthermore if my inability is actually what prevents me from enjoying the gospel then what I am really saying is that personal inability is ultimately far greater, more powerful and of greater importance than Divine ability. Human inability becomes the defining matter and deciding issue rather than Divine ability. I ascribe to my weakness the place of omnipotence and relegate Gods all sufficiency to some place of lower importance! The problem of infant salvation cannot therefore terminate in a conclusion that they are not able therefore they cannot be saved! If that is where my thinking concludes there can be only one logical conclusion drawn from that conclusion – that God is not sufficient for the problem.

Reasoning: Every problem that sin throws up MUST have a reason. We have seen in Romans chp 5 one over arching pattern: “that where sin abounded Grace did much more abound” - that Gods Purposes preceed mans Problems! God is Sovereign over Life's Problems (5:1-5); God is Sovereign over Salvations Plan (5:6-11) and God is Sovereign over Man's Plight (5:12-21). Because the solution precedes the problem I can never ask is their a provision from God in Grace for this problem which sin and self and Satan has thrown up? If there was no purpose, if there was no Divine response the problem would not exist! That is not to say that every sin and every problem and rebellion of sinful man must ultimately conclude with their salvation but that even in the depths of human sin and rebellion God has His purpose and ultimately all will be headed up in Christ. We therefore can search with expectancy to find Gods purposes in all problems of life.

Responding: Gods response to our need is not condemnation, that is Gods response to our sin (Rom chps 1 to 3) but Gods response to our need is His Glorious Provision of Grace (Rom 5:6,8,10), just as in the same way God does not condemn men and women who have not heard the gospel because they have not heard the gospel but God does condemn men and women who have not heard the gospel because they are sinners. It is not our need that condemns us it is our sin! If we conclude that all infants dieing in childhood come under the condemnation of God because of their need please realise that this must be the only time ever in Gods dealings with men when He breaks with the principles of His eternal justice and righteousness to respond to man's need with wrath rather than with Grace! God delights to respond to man's need with grace: “And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” (Ps 50:15 AV) “In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me.” (Ps 86:7) “He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.” (Ps 91:15) “Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble; incline thine ear unto me: in the day when I call answer me speedily.” (Ps 102:2) “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” (Isa 55:1) “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,” (Tit 2:11) But grace rejected: “But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.” (Ps 50:16-17) “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” (Joh 1:11-12) The final judgement on man in Rev 20 is not as a needy sinner but man as a : Christ rejecting God hating Conscience defiling Gospel despising Heaven mocking Grace disbelieving Sinner “This is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.” He rejects us because we reject Him: Gods Word rejected (2 Sam 15:23,36) God rejected Personally (1 Sam 8:7) Gods commandment and law rejected (2Kings 17:20) Gods law rejected (Jer 6:19) Knowledge Rejected (Hos 4:6) Gods Son rejected (Matt 21:42) This pattern is most clearly seen in the 2 Advents of Christ: The 1st Advent of Christ – Man rejects Christ The 2nd Advent of Christ – Christ rejects God

Listen to the MP3 recording of:

When a Child Dies - Finding Gods Grace in our Greatest Grief - Gods Provision in Grace (18/08/2009) JS Gillespie

https://graceinchrist.org/romans

The Problem of Suffering:

1.If God is good He would wish His creatures to be happy
2.If God is all powerful He would be able to make His creatures happy
3.His creatures are not happy
4.Therefore God is either not good or not all powerful or both

We have already argued that we need to face this problem not from the position of ignorance or unbelief but realistically in the full knowledge that God has revealed Himself clearly in :

1.Creation (Roms Chp 1)
2.Conscience (Roms Chp 2)
3.Covenant (Roms Chp 2+3)
4.Christ (Roms Chp 3+4)

When we do this we see that the very seed plot of Adams rebellion is germinating with the joy of Christ's salvation!

For the principle of:

1.Relationship has results
2.Connection brings consequences

Why should it be that our connection with Adam brings our death and condemnation
Why should it be that we all sinned in Adam
What difference do the actions of one man all of those years ago make to me?

"for that all have sinned"

Adam is our federal head - that needs an explanation in itself!
Adam is the representative man - but why? MPs are our representatives in parliament but the fact that they fiddle their taxes doesn't mean that we do!
All humanity was potential in Adam: "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen2:7) - therefore corruption at the stage of Adam affects us all!


Our connection with Adam is not simply because he is like us - a representative man, or he is the chief or head man - federal head but our connection with Adam is very very real!
He is the representative man and the federal head because this connection is real!
There are 4 ways people have come into the world:

1.Adam by creation
2.Eve by formation
3.Christ by incarnation
4.All others by generation

God did not create you and I directly but indirectly
Our connection with Adam is real
"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lifes; and man became a living soul" (Gen2:7)
Therefore corruption at the stage of Adam affects us all!
That which condemns the innocent to suffer because of his relationship to Adam also guarantees the:

1.justification of the unjust
2.life to the dead
3.salvation to the sinner

by virtue of his connection in faith to Christ:

1.Relationship with Christ's righteousness brings justification
2.Relationship with a Saviour brings Salvation
3.Relationship with the life of Christ brings life

Before we leave Adam and his suffering and move onto our relationship with Christ and His salvation perhaps there is one matter we should finish dealing with first
One barrier to be bridged
Bridging the barrier of brokenness
What about this problem of suffering
We have seen that within the seed plot of Adams sin there is germinating the joy of Christ's salvation but what about that argument that threatened to derail faith in Christ why did it point to such a wrong conclusion?


1.If God is good He would wish His creatures to be happy
2.If God is all powerful He would be able to make His creatures happy
3.His creatures are not happy
4.Therefore God is either not good or not all powerful or both

All of the most powerful lies are half truths
Even rat poison isn't 100 % poison, even rats aren't stupid enough to dine on poison
The best poisons are mixed with wholesome food - so we swallow it whole and the poison along with it!

There are at least 4 errors:

1.The Reason for unhappiness

2.The Responsibility for happiness

3.The Reality of Happiness

4.Our Receptiveness for Happiness

These issues are not entirely irrelevant to this section of Romans 5

The Reason for unhappiness:

The argument is superficial - doesn't go deep enough - it begins by asking: 'why isn't God doing something about the problem' instead of looking deeper and going further back and asking -
'why do we have the problem'
'where did the problem stem from?'
'why am I unhappy n the first place for God to make me happy.'
Mans Disaster - Sin
God did not make man unhappy - man made man unhappy
This is the subject of Rom 5:12-14
Our Relationship with Adam
We may feel that God has not cured our problem (although that is inaccurate)
But by the same token He has not caused the problem



The Responsibility for happiness:

The argument is based on unfounded and unsafe assumptions - the issue of responsibility - the question assumes that it is Gods responsibility to 'make His creatures happy' - in other words like some spoiled child we turn towards God and cry - well you made me, now you make me happy!
It assumes that happiness is what God does to me!
It is an argument founded on the autonomy of man - that is man is mature and grown up and we are going to make pronouncements on wither or not God exists but at the same time blames God for not treating us as robots!!!
Man's happiness becomes Gods responsibility if man has no personal responsibility for his own happiness
Man is not a robot!
Man's happiness becomes Gods responsibility if man has no personal responsibility for his own happiness
There may be some creatures for whom it is the case that their happiness is the sole responsibility of others

The earth worm is a simple creature - one long nerve running the length of its body, its happiness is really out with its own control - too much water in its environment it drowns, the wrong creatures spot it, it gets eaten by the bird or the mole, it doesn't even have much of a memory - just a few seconds and keeps running into trouble!
The happiness of the earth worm is not his responsibility but he is the victim and at the mercy of his environment and of powerful others
But is man the same as the earth worm?
This argument discerns no difference between the earth worm and man!!
We need to a get a right view of man before we tackle this problem of unhappiness!
The bible will give us the most realistic view of the greatness of man's problem as a sinner: Man's Disaster
The bible will also give us the most glorious view of the worth and potential of man:
Consider Man's Diginity:
Made in the image of God after His likeness (Gen1:27; 2:7; 3:8; 3:22)
Gods view of man (Psalm 8)
The sacrifice of Gods Son was to redeem man (John 3:16; Heb 2:9-18)

The picture the Bible paints of the relationship between God and man is not the same as the relationship between that of God and the earth worm!
God does treat man as the grown up he is!
I am not saying that man of himself can make himself happy but he can make himself very unhappy!

Our Receptiveness for Happiness:

The problem is unrealistic and assumes that man is looking for that happiness and is waiting expectantly to receive Gods happiness
Are we really sitting waiting to receive Gods happiness?
Surely everyone wants to be happy? Don't they?
Surely everyone wants to be free from:

i.Death
ii.Disease
iii.Disaster
iv.Damnation
v.Despair
vi.Discouragement

Don't they??
We do want to be happy don't we??
Are we not all just sitting waiting to be made happy??
Lets look at times when God has offered man freedom from the things that bring unhappiness:

• Death: John 11:41-54

Here was one performing a miracle of resurrection by the power of God (Jo11:42)
The potential therefore lay in Christ to be the liberator for all men from the power of death and the grave!
Man's response: "Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death" (John 11:53)
They wanted to kill the life giver!

• Disease: John 5:2-5; 15-16; Luke 6:10-11

Think of the potential here in Christ to cure all of our diseases
The potential for the ned of suffering and disease
"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" (Jo5:16)
Despair: Isa 53:4; Mk 5:3-5; 16-17

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted"
Did we want one to take away our despair?
The one who was able to deal with all of our hopeless situations: the man of the Gaderenes, the woman with the issue of blood, Jarius daughter
"And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts." (Mk5:17)

• Disaster: Luke 6:46-49

God has prepared in Christ the perfect disaster contingency plan
But we still build on the sand!

• Damnation: John 3:19; Luke 23

The greatest tragedy is surely this that each of us can see how realistic this all is
If God were to move again in our day as He did in grace in the days of the Lord Jesus Christ man's response would be the same.
It would not matter what great and mighty works He would do and how much potential there was in Him to cure man of His unhappiness, should He refuse to go along with man and declare:

i.Homosexuality as a sin
ii.Gay marriage as an abomination and contrary to Gods created order
iii.Abortion as murder
iv.All religions do not lead to God

They would not have Him they would crucify Him again!
They would not receive His happiness!
The simple view that:
I want to be happy
God ought to make me happy
Is founded on a false premise:
That I am ready to receive Gods happiness!
Which leads me on to ask: what actually is happiness?
What am I actually looking for?
Is it happiness or is it something else?

The Reality of Happiness:

The argument fails to explain what it means by happiness - it fails to ask the question - 'what is happiness?' and assumes that perfect happiness is either the same as a problem free and hassle free existence or is gained by that means - ie. that happiness is in essence the same as prosperity!
It doesn't ask 'what is happiness?'
For when man was offered freedom from the things that make him miserable he didn't take them!
What is man looking for?
I would suggest that man is not primarily on search of real happiness but for something that he confuses with happiness.
Man was made in the image of God, after His likeness and animated by the breath of God
Man made like God and by God lacks only one thing - He is not God!
Herein lay Adams failure: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen3:5)
Adam had everything he needed and nothing he did not want
Adam was perfectly happy but created in the uimage of God and for God and desired to be God!
This spirit still works today in man:
"For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1John 2:16)
Pride that pushes me above what I am
I desire happiness but a happiness of my own construction and my own imagination and in my own control
I want to be Lord over my own happiness
Man's happiness ultimately must come from something completely different
Not from happiness in being God but in a happiness in being with God!
The message of this book is that man failed by trying to exalt himself to be God
Grace triumphed when God humbled Himself to become man and subjected Himself to the taunts and the torture of the creature that I as mortal man might have the basis and the courage and the reason to subject myself, voluntarily to His will for my good and His Glory and my eternal joy and His eternal Glory
This is where we begun our studies in Romans all those weeks ago.




To summarise then what should this argument actually say:

1.Since God is good He desires His creatures to be happy
2.Since God is all powerful He is able to make His creatures happy
3.God does not impose happiness by power but rather offers it in grace
4.If man were good he would desire Gods happiness
5.If man were willing God would make him eternally happy

In Grace and in in Christ God Bridges the Barrier of Brokenness

4 Relationships:

1Relationship between man and sin
2Relationship between sin and death
3Relationship between me and Adam
4Relationship between Christ and myself

1Relationship between man and sin (5:12)

Connection has consequences
One man and one sin – sin enters
Sin is not simply a practice but sin is:

iSin as a motive (5:2)
iiSin as a man (5:6)
iiiSin as a monarch (5:12)
ivSin as a master (5:14)
vSin as a monster (5:23)

2Relationship between sin and death

Sin produces death
Sin is not a private matter of personal practices
Sin is viewed in scripture relative to God
“sin is lawlessness” and the law in view is Gods law
Sin is falling short of the Glory of God (Rom3:23)
Sin thus separates between me and God (Isa59:2)
Sin is not a private matter – it impacts on my relationship with God
Sin is not simply a practice
3Relationship between me and Adam

“for that all have sinned...”
Does this mean:

iThat all die because we have all committed sins? i.e. because we all repeat Adams disaster we all repeat Adams death?
iiBecause of Adams sin we all die and are affected by that one sin of Adam?

Notice:

iThe past tense of “all have sinned” - this is a sin in the past
iiNotice the parallelism and symmetry in v12:

A - “sin entered” - Adams Sin
B - “death by sin” - Adams Death
B - “death passed upon all” - My Death
A - “all have sinned” - My Sin

Is there not a missing step between B and B? What about the sin of all as the cause of the death of all?
The point is that it is not the sin of all that causes the death of all but the sin of Adam that guarantees the death of all.
Personal sin certainly confirms the diagnosis and at times accelerates the outcome:

i“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Gal 6:7-8)

Adam's sin brings Adams death but Adams sin also brings my death.


iiiDeath is present even where sin is not imputed (Rom 5:13-14) for death is the result of the presence of the principle of sin rather than the result of the practice of sin. So even in the absence of personally committed sin death still reigns – because death comes not from my sin but from Adams!

ivThese verses are the foundation stones which are being laid by the apostle to allow us an understanding of how it is we can receive the “reconciliation” that Christ has achieved for us at Calvary, as we will see the repetition of Adams sin in my life is no more required to bring about my death than is the repetition of Christ's atoning work in my life is required to bring about my salvation and eternal life. The reception of salvation and eternal life is based upon precisely the same principle as the reception of death and condemnation from Adam (Rom 5:18-19). We die first and foremost because we belong to Adam. We live because of our relationship to Christ (Rom 5:18-19).

Why is it that Adams sin should pass to me with its consequences?

iHe is the federal head of the human race – the representative man
iiAll human life was potential in Adam (Gen 2:7)
iiiCorruption of humanity spiritually is actually passed down to me today

So with this comes:

iDeath of the innocent
iiDeath of the unborn
iiiThe suffering of the child


Notice that in this section the apostle is not trying to explain away these problems he is taking them as accepted facts of life.
How often have we heard: 'well if there is a God why... do infants die...do the innocent suffer....did my...'
He is not trying to apologise for them on Gods behalf
He acknowledges the facts and features of this world and then asks the question: 'well what does this tell me about the way that the moral and spiritual laws of the universe operate?' Do they tell me anything?
Does this not tell me that: connection has consequences and that relationship brings results?
This spiritual law, fundamental to the way the universe operates is responsible for so much suffering and death but it is also the route by which my salvation comes!
For if guilt can be transferred by relationship so can Glory!
If sin can be transferred by relationship so too can salvation!
If condemnation can be transferred by relationship so too can justification!
If relationship with Adam brings death then relationship with Christ brings life!

Listen online to : Romans Chp 5 Vs 12 to 21 : 'Making Happiness Happen'

www.newcumnock.org