06. 6. Partial Bondage
6. Partial Bondage Query 4: Can Christ’s freemen sin themselves into bondage again?
We are to consider whether the freemen in Christ, or those made free by Christ, may or may not sin themselves into bondage again. Some affirm the one, and some the other. I shall answer briefly.
Two Kinds of Bondage
There is a twofold bondage; universal bondage, and partial or gradual bondage. We shall consider first the bondage which is universal, that is, the state of bondage, which is bondage properly so called. It is threefold:
1. Universal bondage
It is a bondage to sin, as is expressed in Titus 3:3 : ’We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts and pleasures’. So also in Romans 6:20 : ‘For when ye were the servants of sin ye were free from righteousness’. And again in John 8:34 : ‘He that committeth sin is the servant of sin’. And again in 2 Peter 2:19 : ‘While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption’.
It is a bondage to Satan, who is God’s jailer, and holds down poor souls under brazen bars and iron gates, not to be broken. He is the ‘spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience’ (Ephesians 2:2).
3· It is a bondage to the law, both to the rigour and the curse of the law. The law requires hard and impossible things, yea, and that in such severity that it will not accept of the most eminent endeavours without perfect performance. Nor will it accept obedience in much, if a man fails in a little. Neither will it admit of repentance after failure; one breach of the law cannot be made up again, either by a double diligence or by repentance. Such is the rigour of the law.
Souls under the law are in bondage to the curse of the law. It is an extensive and universal curse, extending to soul, body, estate, silver, gold, and relations, as can be seen in Deuteronomy 29:1-29. It is an unavoidable curse. A man is unable to obey in all things and therefore is unavoidably shut up under the malediction and curse; as the apostle reasons in Galatians 3:9-11 : ‘As many as are of the works of the law (that is, under the law) are under the curse’. And how does he prove it?, For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ Here we see the impartiality of the curse - to, every one’ - and the severity of it. It comes upon all under the law who obey not the law, that is, who obey not in every thing. If a man should obey in all things, but have one omission and failing in his life, it would conclude him under the curse. And a man under the law who continues not to obey in all things is cursed. This, then, is the state of bondage, or bondage properly so called.
2. Partial bondage
There is also a partial or gradual bondage, a bondage in part or in degrees, which is a bondage improperly so called. This is a bondage in respect of comfort, and also in respect of the manner of obedience. And so I shall answer this query in two conclusions.
The first conclusion is that the freeman of Christ, or those that are made free by Christ, shall never again sin themselves into the first kind of bondage, that is, into universal bondage or the state of bondage. Christ’s freeman can never again become Satan’s bond-slave. He shall never more be a servant to sin, for the promise runs: ‘Sin shall not have dominion over y o u: for ye are not under the law but under grace’ (Romans 6:14). Sin may exercise a tyranny, but never a sovereignty. A believer may be carried captive, as the apostle says in Romans 7:23 - ‘bringing me into captivity’ - but he is never a willing captive. He may fall into sin, but he will never more be a servant to sin. His ears will never be bored in token of a willing and voluntary subjection to sin.
Nor can a believer ever again be a slave to Satan. Satan may get the advantage of him, but he can never more become Satan’s willing servant.
Neither can he ever again come under the law, its rigour and its curse. The law can take no hold of him to condemnation. And why? Because he is not under law but under grace. If he can sin himself from under grace, then indeed he is brought once more under the rigour of the law, and its curse. But this is an impossibility. The believer is free. So much for the first conclusion.
The second conclusion is that, though the freemen of Christ cannot sin themselves into a state of bondage again, that is, into a state of universal bondage, yet they may sin themselves into a gradual or partial bondage. This will appear in two particular cases.
(i) A bondage in respect of comfort The freemen of Christ may sin themselves into a bondage in respect of comfort. This appears in the case of David as seen in Psalms 51:1-19 : ‘Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation’. Men that will not follow the direction of the Spirit of God shall lack the consolations of the Spirit. If they do works of darkness, they must expect to walk in darkness. Though promises of grace are absolute, yet promises of peace and comfort seem to be conditional. Not that our walking has any meriting or deserving power for the procuring of our peace. But this is the way in which God bestows it and continues peace and comfort to us. In the ways of duty we maintain our communion with God, our approaches to Him, our actings of faith and grace; and in these ways, as comfort and peace are procured, so are they continued. Grace is as the fire, comfort as the flame that comes from it. But as it is with green wood so it is with us. As green wood needs a continual blast to keep it aflame, else it quickly gathers ash and becomes dead, so We must have the continual exercise of our graces. There will be no flame, no comfort, without the exercise of faith, and of grace, and without an obedient walk before God. Promises of grace, as I have already said, are absolute, but promises of comfort are conditional: To him that ordereth his conversation aright, will I show the salvation of God’ (Psalms 50:23). The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness shall be quietness and assurance for ever’ (Isaiah 32:17).
‘Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways’ (Isaiah 64:5). ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever’ (John 14:15-16). ‘He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him’ (John 14:21). Here, it is seen, all seems to he upon condition. So it is in Galatians 6:16 : ‘As many as walk according to this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.’ So that if men walk not in the ways of obedience, they may lack comfort, they may lack peace. The freemen of Christ may sin themselves into a bondage by sin, though not into the bondage of sin. They may sin themselves into a bondage of fear, yea, and a bondage of trouble. Their sin may cost them brokenness of bones, though they shall not sin themselves into a state of bondage again. Though a believer cannot sin away grace, yet he may sin away the evidence, the sense, the comfort of it. Though he cannot sin away his pardon, yet he may sin away the sense of it and the comfort of it. Though he has it, he has no comfort from it. It is as though there was no pardon as far as he is concerned; otherwise we are bound to say a man may have fulness of peace, of assurance, and of comfort, even when he is involved in the highest acts of sin. And some have even said this. A Christian man may not only sin away the sense and comfort of pardon, but the evidence and knowledge of it, as that place in 2 Peter seems to imply: ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins’ (2 Peter 1:9). New sins bring new fears, new guilts and troubles. All the former foundations and resting places of the soul seem to be shaken; new doubts arise within the man as to whether or not he is justified and pardoned; and these new doubts bring new troubles and fears on the soul. But some raise objection to this doctrine. They say that this is the Christian man’s weakness, for the freemen of Christ are let loose (from the law) to enjoy the free Spirit of Christ. Dr. Crisp speaks thus in his Christ Alone Exalted. He says that Christians have free discourse and free society with the Spirit of God, and may hear all the gracious language of God’s thoughts, yea, and with application and comfort, and that (as some even say) as they come hot out of sin.
I answer: This is our weakness indeed, but a penal weakness, a weakness which is a chastisement of former wickedness. There are three kinds of desertions which may come to a godly man: conditional, for the prevention of sin, as Paul’s seems to be; probational, for trial, and for the exercise of grace, as Job’s; penal, for chastisement following the giving way to wickedness, as in the case of David. In the first two of these cases, it is our weakness indeed, but in the third case the weakness is very different. It is brought upon ourselves by indulged sin, a weakness inflicted upon us as chastisement for wickedness committed, as it was in David. His great sin had brought this trouble and weakness upon him. The Spirit of God is a tender and delicate Spirit. If we grieve Him, He will grieve us. If we will not follow His counsel and commands, we shall lose the comforts and joys that He brings us. ‘Your iniquities have separated between you and your God’ (Isaiah 59:2). Sin does not lead to a total or final separation between God and ourselves; yet it may cause a withdrawment, and breed a distance between God and us. It may cast up such a cloud, that all the faith we have will not be able to see through it, as was the case with David. A passage in Isaiah proves this: ‘For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him. I hid me and was wroth’ (Isaiah 57:17). Here we see what troubles the soul draws to itself from the admittance of sin, even ordinary sin. All the former resting places of the soul are no rest to a man. All his former evidences are beclouded and hid so that he cannot discern them. But it may be said that this is merely his weakness too, as David says in Psalms 77:10 : This is my infirmity’. I grant that it is our weakness to question former blessings, as for example, if God has given us a well-founded evidence of pardon and of our interest in Christ, we are prone to call everything in question again. But we must remember that there is a weakness that comes to a man on account of his turning aside from God, a weakness that accompanies wickedness. God suffers it to be so, so that His fatherly ends may be accomplished in him. Such a man must be humbled for his sin, and therefore four things come upon him: God does not now look upon him as formerly; conscience does not now speak peaceably to him as formerly; it may be that Satan is let loose upon him to tempt him; it may be that the Spirit of God withdraws because He has been grieved. Then no marvel if the man is in trouble and if his soul lacks comfort. But some may object and say: It is the man’s work, after he has committed sin, to believe; and if to believe, to be comforted. I answer: Comfort is the fruit of faith, and in this respect it is our work to believe. But a man may be able to believe, and yet may not be able to take comfort. A man may rest upon Christ for pardon, and yet upon reflection he may not be able to give evidence that he is thus resting on Him. Also, a man may be able to discern his own acts, and yet his comfort may for a time be suspended. Though it is our work to believe, it is not so properly our work to take comfort. God would have us take comfort in an orderly way, proceeding from believing and mourning, to joy and comfort. God’s workings are orderly workings. It is now a man’s work, therefore, if he has sinned afresh, to believe afresh, and mourn afresh, and then to receive comfort.
Again, a Christian may be comforted, first of all, in respect of his former justification. His new sin does not cancel his former pardon, though it will interrupt and disturb his present peace and comfort from it. And secondly, he may be comforted in this, that there is mercy enough in God to coverall his sins, grace enough in Christ to cure this fresh sin. And further, in this he is to find comfort, that God does not suffer him to live in sin, but that He has revealed his sin to him, humbled him for it, and brought him back to Christ in whom he may renew his peace and regain his sense of comfort. But some will object that, if our peace may be interrupted by our ill walk, then peace and comfort do not depend upon Christ, but upon ourselves; that it is not Christ’s work but our walk that brings peace to us. I answer: Some distinguish between a peace with God and a peace with ourselves. The peace with God cannot be lost, but peace with ourselves may be forfeited. Others distinguish between a peace of conscience, and peace with conscience. Just as wicked men may have peace with conscience but no peace of conscience, so the godly may have peace of conscience, but not peace with conscience.
Conscience may object and quarrel and dispute, when actually the soul is truly at peace.
Still others distinguish between a real peace and an enjoyed peace. The godly may have a real peace in respect of their state and condition, and yet may not have a sense of peace that they can lay hold of and enjoy. Again, others distinguish between the peace of justification, and peace from justification. The former, they say, remains inviolate and uninterrupted, even when the soul neither sees nor feels its usual consolations (see 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Psalms 49:5), but the latter may be interrupted and disturbed by our manner of walk. And yet others distinguish between a peace of justification and a peace from sanctification. The former, they say, depends no more upon our walk than our justification itself does; but the other depends upon the exactness of our walking. God, they say, does not maintain our peace while we neglect to walk in the ways of peace: ‘As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them’ (Galatians 6:16). God always carries on His work of peace and holiness in proportion the one to the other, and the one nourishes and helps the other. In a word, I conceive that we may distinguish between the foundation and being of a Christian’s peace, and the flourishing and well-being of it. The foundation of our Christian peace is not in us but in Christ, not in our holiness but in His righteousness, not in our walking but in His blood and suffering. He is the spring of our peace, and in Him we have peace (John 16:33). He is said to be our peace (Ephesians 2:14). But the flourishing and well-being of this peace much depends upon the exercise of our graces and our exact walking with God. It is a peace purchased for us by the obedience of another, but it must be cherished by our own obedience. And indeed, it so far depends upon us, that if we do not walk exactly, even though we cannot sin away our former pardon, yet we may sin away our present peace. The five-fold peace of a Christian man There is a five-fold peace that a man may sin away, the least of which is worth a world:
There is a peace which flows from the witness - bearing of our conscience to our integrity and exact walking. Hezekiah enjoyed such a peace when he said: ‘Lord, remember now, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight’ (Isaiah 38:3). Paul had the same (Romans 1:9 and 1 Thessalonians 2:4-6). This peace we may sin away. If we fall into fresh sin, the comforts of our former walking will not bear us up.
There is a peace which flows from the soul’s communion and converse with God in duty. There is peace as well as sweetness in every part of holiness, and this peace a man may sin away. All the sweetness and oneness of spirit with the Lord in duty departs from him if he turns afresh to sin, with the result that the soul, formerly comforted, is now interrupted and disturbed in all its approaches to God and its converse with Him.
There is a peace which comes to the believer from the exercise of the grace implanted in him. He cannot give exercise to any grace but some peace and comfort comes of it. When he exercises faith in believing on and closing with Christ, when he repents and mourns for sin, some peace, some comfort, results from these exercises. But a man may sin away this comfort. Fresh sin wounds and disturbs him in the exercise of his graces, and the comforts which flow from such exercises are necessarily interrupted. Nay, if a man can sin away to some degree that measure of grace which he has obtained through his own improvement of grace, much more may he sin away the peace which should flow from this.
There is a peace which flows from the sense and knowledge of God’s grace implanted in the soul. When a man is able to trace out the work of grace in his soul, there must needs be peace and comfort in it. Now this also a man may sin away. He may sin away the sense and knowledge of a work of grace within him. He may so darken and obscure his own evidences of grace by his sin that he is no longer able to read them, nor to discern that there is a work of grace within him. He may now find enough of grace to afflict him, but not so much as to comfort him. His light did not direct him to exact duty before, and now it afflicts him.
There is a peace which flows from the assurance that God is at peace with the soul, a peace which flows from the sense of Divine favour. This peace we may forfeit and lose. Though we cannot sin away our former pardon, yet we may sin away our present peace. Nay, we may sin away the sense and comfort, and even the knowledge, of our former pardon. This may be implied in the words of the apostle: ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins’ (2 Peter 1:9).
Thus have we proved that a Christian man, a freeman of Christ, may sin himself into bondage in respect of comfort.
(ii) A bondage in respect of the manner of obedience But once more, a Christian may sin himself into bondage in respect of the manner of his obedience. His present state may differ much from his former state. Though he still serves God, yet it is not with that measure of willingness, not with that measure of freedom, cheerfulness, and delight, not with that enlargedness of heart which marked his former service. David, after his sin, desired that he might have the free Spirit of God restored to him. He had not lost the Spirit; the free Spirit was in him; but he lacked that former freedom of spirit. He lacked the operations and workings of God’s Spirit. He lacked that comfort in service and that freedom for service which he had enjoyed before. The wheels were now taken off, and he went heavily and sadly in the ways of life. It is natural for the eye to see and for the ear to hear. Acts of nature such as these are actions of delight. But if the eye is sore and the ear at fault, it may breed a weariness and burdensomeness in the doing of the actions of nature. So it is here. If the principle of action within us is wounded, it may produce an irksomeness in the doing of the things in which we formerly delighted. Though sin cannot bring a godly man into the state of a slave, yet it may disable him from serving fully as a son.
Servileness of spirit may be caused by fear, by doubts and unbelief, by grace weakened in its operation by the prevailings of sin, or by the soul’s lack of its former gracious convictions and its discouragement in all its approaches to God. Indeed, the man still serves God, but it is more out of obedience than out of delight. He dares not but pray, and yet he finds little heart in prayer. He is now wounded in all his approaches to God. The sweet agreement and co-naturalness which formerly existed between his heart and duty is now gone. The complacency and delight which he previously enjoyed in all his approaches to God and in walking with Him are gone, too. His soul drives heavily in the ways of obedience. He now goes to duty as a sick man to his food. He performs duty rather from the compulsions of his mind than from any natural delight he has in it. Thus it befalls many of the saints in their relapses into sin. They sin themselves into bondage in respect of the manner of their obedience. This must serve as the answer to the fourth query, whether the freemen of Christ may not sin themselves into bondage. We shall now turn to our fifth query.