The Death of Osama bin Laden

‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’
Ezekiel 33:11, NIV

I've been meaning to write this post ever since I heard about bin Laden's death, but it's been a very busy couple of weeks. It raises all kind of questions, but I'm going to think about three of them. Was what happened just? Was it right? And should Americans have rejoiced the way they did?

First, was it just?

Osama bin Laden had personally declared war on the US. He claimed responsibility for and delighted in the events of 9/11, and clearly intended to continue to do such acts whenever he was able to do so. Had the USA captured him and put him on trial in any court in the world (except possibly those operating under Sharia Law), he would have been found guilty, and in any court that allowed the death penalty, he would have been sentenced to death. There was no possibility of reasonable doubt about his guilt, or about the seriousness of his actions. The killing of Osama bin Laden was, without a doubt, just.

But was it right?

That is a harder question. Was it right for the US to send a team of heavily armed Navy Seals into Pakistan without permission and to assassinate an unarmed man? Again, perspective helps here. The US is at war in Afghanistan, a war which had as one of its major aims to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The war spills over the border into Pakistan, and Pakistan is officially on America's side in that war.

For the US, acting without Pakistan's permission was a necessary part of the operation. If they had asked for permission, they would have put the Pakistani government in a difficult position. Either they grant permission, in which case they get even more protests from their own population, or they refuse it and lose all US support. Far better for the Pakistani government not to have to make the choice at all. Furthermore, had the US told Pakistan of its intentions, the Pakistani authorities are sufficiently compromised by links to Al Qua'eda that it is highly likely that bin Laden would have been notified and enabled to escape. In addition, if any country (except Russia or China) had been knowingly harbouring bin Laden, it is likely that the US would have if necessary declared war on them to get at him. Much better for them, and much better for the host country, not to have to bother.

Was it right to kill bin Laden given that he was unarmed? I have already pointed out that he would have been sentenced to death anyway, so the only issue is the manner of his death. If one is in battle, and a sniper has the opportunity to shoot the enemy commander, they do not worry too much whether or not he is armed at the time. Even if it was not in battle, if in WW2 a German tank column was moving through Europe, and a British sniper caught sight of the German General Rommel and shot him, even if he was not even carriyng a gun at the time, that would be regarded as perfectly legitimate. And bin Laden clearly thought he was at war with the US. I don't see what the moral difference is.

In addition, there are problems associated with keeping bin Laden in prison. It would provide an incredibly high-profile target for protests and suicide bombings, and it could be argued it was far better tactically to kill him and bury him at sea. Having said all that, I think if it would have been possible to capture and put bin Laden on trial, that may have been even better.

I don't mean better from the point of view of justice at all - I mean from the point of view of what bin Laden seemed to understand so little about - mercy. Of course he didn't deserve it - if he had deserved it, it wouldn't have been mercy. To allow him the possibility of repentance would have been a very merciful thing. Of course, to allow him the possibility to give a memorable speech inciting the Muslim world to unity and hatred of the West would have been a very dangerous thing, so it would have had to be handled carefully.

And so we come onto the question about whether it was right to rejoice. I think relatives of those killed in 9/11 could have rejoiced. But ultimately God does not rejoice in the death of sinners, but rather that they turn from their wickedness and live. If bin Laden had turned around and become a force for peace in the world, even a living demonstration of the power of God to change sinners, that would have been cause for rejoicing. As it is, it seems that he is just one more unrepentant sinner going to Hell. That isn't something to rejoice in, especially when we recognise that it is what we deserve too - it is where we would be but for the grace and mercy that God has shown us.

Royal Wedding

What a day! What a celebration! It's great to know that we can still all get behind celebrating something as wonderful as a Royal Wedding!

Of course, it also reminds us of the glorious reality behind marriage. My wife predicted a whole spate of Christian posts on it, but I've not seen that many. The best however, has to be this one from Barry Cooper (who is famous for not being Rico Tice). Quotes below.

But we can focus too much on sin. Today is a day where a Royal Prince, who will (God-willing) one day be King, marries a commoner, and she therefore becomes Royal. What a great picture in itself of what God has done for us!

In a shocking revelation, the palace has confirmed that the Prince has married a prostitute.

The woman has not yet been publicly named. But sources close to the palace have revealed that as well as being a serial adulterer, she is also known to be a notorious drunk, an inveterate liar, and a grievous hypocrite.

When asked why he would set his love on such an undeserving bride, the future King replied, “I have always loved her. I loved her from the very beginning, before she even knew me. And I will continue to love her, regardless of who she is. Nothing can separate us, not even death.”

Some have complained that, given her profession, such a woman could never become Queen. But the Prince was unrepentant: “If I am King, and I choose to marry her, then she becomes Queen. Whatever she may be, her status changed forever when I joined myself to her. Whatever she may do, she has been irrevocably welcomed into my family. Everything I have is now hers. And everything she has, I have taken upon myself.”

Tamar and Judah - Genesis 38

It tends to be omitted from people's pattern of the regular reading of Scripture - for example, it doesn't feature at all in the RCL. It is entirely surrounded by the Joseph story, yet it's almost always omitted from that too. But it isn't just a random bit of story from somewhere else that got caught here.

A few quick thoughts about Genesis 38...

See, the Joseph story ends in Genesis 50 with two sons being blessed - Joseph and Judah. It's actually the story of both of them - Joseph goes on to be the father of the largest number of Israel, and Judah becomes the ancestor of its kings. Judah's last action before Gen 38 was in chapter 37, where he suggests selling Joseph into slavery rather than killing him. That wasn't motivated by compassion for Joseph at all - it was rather because you can make more money by selling your own half-brother into slavery than you can by murdering him. He next features in chapter 44, where he offers his life in place of his half-brother Benjamin, who he thinks is guilty, and in doing so becomes a type of Christ.

In Genesis 38, Judah has three sons. The first one, Er, marries a girl called Tamar, but he dies. The second one, Onan, marries her in accordance with ancient custom, but he dies too because he is wicked. Judah won't let her marry the third son, and instead sends her back to her father. She recognises this as an abandonment, pretends to be a prostitute, and seduces Judah, taking his seal, staff and cord. It's also just the sort of story that would get decent viewing figures on daytime TV and sell quite a few books if it was turned into a novel well. Are we missing out by the way we try to sanitise the Bible and just present the "nice" stories. (Hint: the answer is yes).

In chapter 38, Judah is good at calling others to fulfil their responsibilities, even his own son Onan (v8-9), who fails because he doesn't want to endanger his own inheritance. But Judah himself fails to fulfil those same responsibilities because he doesn't want to endanger his own inheritance (v11, 14).

Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her. This leads to Judah pronouncing the death sentence on her, and then we get the stunning denoument.

About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"

As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. "I am pregnant by the man who owns these," she said. And she added, "See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are."

Judah recognized them and said, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn't give her to my son Shelah."

In the space of just two verses, Judah goes from saying "put her to death" to saying "she is more righteous than I". He understands for the first time just how much of a sinner he is, and that realisation transforms him.

It frees him to forgive Tamar. It frees him to offer his life for Benjamin. Little though he knows it, it enables him to become the ancestor of both David and Jesus, because they were descended from the twins that Tamar was carrying!

God reaches into the messy, mucky situation of this world, and uses it to transform Judah, to bring status to Tamar, and ultimately to redeem the world. That's the sort of God we serve and worship!/p>

Luther - Waiting for Grace

I have often been resolved to live uprightly, and to lead a true godly life, and to set everything aside that would hinder this, but it was far from being put into execution; even as it was with Peter, when he swore he would lay down his life for Christ.

I will not lie or dissemble before my God, but will freely confess, I am not able to effect that good which I intend, but await the happy hour when God shall be pleased to meet me with His grace.

Martin Luther, Table Talk

Luther on Apologetics and God's Love

Rather than ask why God permits men to be hardened and fall into everlasting perdition, ask why God did not spare his only Son, but gave him for us all, to die the ignominious death of the cross, a more certain sign of His love towards us poor people than of his wrath against us. Such questions cannot be better solved and answered than by converse questions...

It seems best not to inquire why God sometimes, our of his divine counsels, wonderfully wise and unsearchable to human reason and understanding, has mercy on this man. We should know without doubt that he does nothing without certain cause and counsel. Truly, if God were to give an account to every one of his works and actions, he would be but a poor, simple God.

Martin Luther, Table Talk

Roy Clements - When God's Patience Runs Out

This is a book of sermons preached on Amos in 1984. Some of the application now therefore seems very dated, and there's one or two technical details about his handling of Amos I disagree with, but it's certainly well worth a read and good for getting across some of the force of what Amos was saying and for thinking about how to apply it to today.

Why are there so few of this type of book around. Why, for example, can't I find one on Hosea, or Joel, or Obadiah, or Micah?

Anyway, here's a thought-provoking quote:

For if God cannot in any sense be angry with people, what do we mean when we say he is being patient with them? If God is not subject to real and intense provocation by human sin, then all those Bible words such as long-suffering and mercy, even grace, become emptied of all meaning.

(Here's my link to commentaries I recommend. Any listed before the / are ones I find helpful to use devotionally, like this one...)

Either Valjean or Javert!

As people who know me well know, one of my all-time favourite stories is Les Miserables.

One of the many great elements about it is the relationship between Jean Valjean and Javert, which explores the tension between law and grace.

Javert is an implacable policeman, who knows Valjean from prison before the story starts. Valjean is a paroled hardened convict, who is transformed by an encounter with grace in probably the most famous scene in the book, which I might discuss some other time. Javert finds out that Valjean has broken his parole, and vows to hunt him down.

A large part of the book is Valjean hiding from Javert, escaping from Javert, handing himself in to Javert, and so on. Eventually, they find themselves on the same side of a barricade in the Revolution of 1830. Javert is an undercover agent working against the rebels; Valjean is trying to save the life of one of them.

Javert's identity is discovered, and Valjean volunteers for the job of executing him, but then lets him escape. Javert goes away, his whole system of values destroyed by the fact he owes his life to a convicted criminal. There is no place in his mind for grace or change. So when he again captures Valjean, he does not know what to do. Either he frees the man to whom he owes his life, making himself into a criminal, or he hands him over to the galleys, which makes him incredibly ungrateful.

Javert sees no option for himself but suicide - grace not just triumphing over law, but destroying it utterly.

Luther - the Way of Salvation

The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.

The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.

...

We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.

Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

Calvin - Freedom in Our Souls

As long as we remain unsure of whether God loves us or hates us, we will always experience mental anguish and a worried conscience, and we will remain imprisoned by these thoughts. There will be no freedom in our souls until we are persuaded of God's mercy, that, despite our unworthiness, he will receive us lovingly and graciously. Yet, it is impossible to have such assurance unless we have before our eyes the pardon that was bought for us by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
John Calvin, Sermon on Galatians 5:1-3

Covenantal Nomism, or Are We Really Christians?

This is partly trying to get things clear in my own mind. I think an awful lot of people I respect greatly and often trust to get things right are very wrong on this, so I need to treat very carefully...

Here's the theory of covenantal nomism, as taught by theologian Gabriel Biel:

• God made a covenant - a deal - with his people in Jesus
• The deal was that he would save them, and that they had to obey him as well as they could.
• God then graciously agrees to count people who have done as well as they could, even though they aren't perfect, as if they had done enough.

It's worth adding that Gabriel Biel was a German theologian who died in 1495, and his view of covenantal nomism would probably have been one of the main bits of theology taught to a young Martin Luther, which Luther then rejected.

It's also been argued that covenantal nomism (apart from the covenant being made through Jesus bit) was the belief of many Jews at the time of Jesus, which Jesus and Paul rejected. Actually, that's what the phrase usually means - I've just nicked it for Biel because it fits his views so well.

So far, so good, I guess. But the point is that I can't tell the difference between covenantal nomism and this:

• God has made a covenant with his people in Jesus
• The deal was that if people will obey Jesus and submit to him as their Saviour and Lord, he will forgive them.

Or even this...

• We have made a covenant with God, where he saves us, and we agree to follow him.
• Sometimes we break that covenant, and we then need to renew it. Confession and covenant renewal services are a good way of doing this.

That last one in particular sounds like a lot of things I've heard and come across as a Christian. My view, which I think Luther shared, and I'm fairly sure is what Galatians (for example) teaches is this:

• God chooses to reveal himself to some people and to save them.
• God gives them his Holy Spirit, which leads them increasingly to obey him
• We cannot keep our side of whatever bargain, deal, or covenant there is, so it's just as well there is no side we have to keep. God's new covenant in Jesus' blood is completely one-sided.
• Having been completely set free from any requirement to do anything, we should use our freedom to live in the way of God's Spirit.

Now, to my mind, that looks completely different to all the covenant renewal stuff and conditional covenants and requirements for church membership other than faith in Jesus stuff.

One thing that really worries me about this, is that if I'm right, the "fault line" goes right down the middle of evangelicalism, and most people seem completely unaware of it. I've been to covenant renewal services at both my sending church and my theological college where what was being said and taught was effectively covenantal nomism rather than free grace.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1, NIV

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
Galatians 5:13, NIV

Psalm 92 and Rejoicing in the Death of Sinners

I was at a church last night, which I'm not going to name. Unusually, they had an ordinand (like me) preaching, but not from my college. He was speaking from Psalm 92 and some of what he said was good and helpful, but other bits weren't.

His main points were:

• we should be glad because of God's works (v1-5)
• we should be glad because of God's victory (v6-11)
• we should be glad because of God's blessing (v12-15)

Nothing wrong with that. Being glad because of God's works was especially well handled. Yes, chunks of it were lifted from Piper's discussion of CS Lewis, but there's nothing wrong with that once in a while.

What annoyed (and surprised) me was one of his applications of the second point. The Psalm is rejoicing in the future destruction of the wicked who oppose both God and the royal/priestly Psalmist. One of the ways the preacher applied that was to our response to people who sleep around - essentially implying that we should respond by rejoicing in their future destruction!

Now to my mind, that isn't even Christian. Yes, the guy is probably a Christian and didn't mean to say that or got mixed up or something, but it's an outrageous thing to say. Much much much better to see ourselves as naturally God's enemies (which he didn't mention) and recipients of God's blessing only by grace. Thankfully, the service leader drew it back that way afterwards.

If we're going to apply passages like that to "enemies" today, it should be enemies who oppose God's people and God. But I don't think applying it even to Richard Dawkins works. We shouldn't rejoice in his future destruction.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should turn from their wickedness and live.
Book of Common Prayer

So how should we apply it? The obvious answer is to our spiritual enemies. After all, our struggle is not against flesh and blood...

And then I got thinking. There are quite a few examples in the Old Testament of rejoicing in God's judgement on the wicked, but it's not something I feel inclined to - I would much rather that they repent, and considering the fate of those who don't know Jesus moves me towards tears rather than anywhere else. I wish I could say it moved me to tears more often - it certainly moved Jesus there.

I can't think of a single example of rejoicing in the death of the unrepentant wicked in the New Testament. There are examples of rejoicing in the defeat of the devil, even in the downfall of institutions and authorities that set themselves up against God, but not in individual sinners.

But I can't see why that should change between the Old and New Testaments. In both, our salvation is by grace and our response to wickedness should be "there but for the grace of God go I". Is it an effect of the way that the covenant becomes internal rather than external? Is it because the priestly and kingly roles are subsumed in Christ, so that in a sense he is the only Annointed One? Is it because it is even clearer that salvation (past, present and future) is by grace? Any bright ideas?

Grace and Holiness

There is nothing amazing about grace as long as there is nothing fearful about holiness.
Dale Ralph Davis, Judges

Hymn - Alas, and did my Saviour Bleed?

Alas, and did my Savior bleed,
And did my Sov'reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity, grace unknown,
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And shut his glories in,
When Christ the mighty Maker died
For man, the creature's sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While Calvary's cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt mine eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can ne'er repay
The debt of love I owe;
Here, Lord, I give myself away,
'Tis all that I can do.

Isaac Watts

Galatians 2:17, Sinfulness and the TNIV

Last week, we had a Covenant Renewal service at college. In principal, I don't think I have any objection to them, but I've never been to one I found helpful.

My main problem with those things is that they often expect people to promise what they know they can't fulfil. In this case, I think we were expected to promise never intentionally to sin again. Now, I know I can want to do that, but I know equally well that I am not perfect and that I do all kinds of stupid stuff. I know that I am a sinner in continual need of God's grace. And I have no intention of promising anything I can't fulfil.

So I am quite happy to promise that I "intend to lead a new life" or to say that I surrender to Christ. I'm happy to offer my soul and body as a living sacrifice, but I know that I'm a sacrifice that just keeps trying to crawl off the altar.

So this led me back to wondering how on Earth I could be a Christian. How can I seek to follow Jesus, when I know that I'll fail? That's a painful path, but it's one I've trodden before and I know the way now.

So I turned to Galatians 2:17, which in the NIV reads

"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Galatians 2:17-19, NIV

In other words, the fact that I go on sinning even after putting my trust in God only goes to show that I am a sinner and that I keep on needing God's grace. And that's the normal Christian experience. It reminds me not to be complacent, but that I need to keep coming back to Jesus to seek forgiveness and to recognise that I need him.

Except that the Bibles we have in chapel are TNIVs. I'm usually fine with the TNIV, but this verse really annoyed me.

But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Galatians 2:17-19, TNIV

The addition of the word "Jews" totally changes the meaning away from the meaning that I found so helpful when studying this as an undergraduate. So I looked it up in the Greek, and "Jews" isn't there. It seems to have been added in as a totally unhelpful and incorrect addition for no good reason whatsoever.

So God is good, but the TNIV translators are dumb and just as much in need of God's continued grace as I am.

Grace

Last night, some friends from college and I watched some films which took the mick out of Christians - Saved! and The Church. They were pretty funny actually. Saved! is made by non-Christians and set in a "Christian" high school in the USA, and The Church is a spoof done by a church in London in the style of The Office. To be honest, I thought both were quite funny.

What was striking though was that in both situations, the Christians were almost entirely graceless. The characters in them seemed not to understand that Christians are not better than other people - that we're all bad, we're all deserving of hell, but that Christians have been forgiven, and therefore have no right to claim any moral high ground. Given the number of times that judgementalism is condemned in the Bible, and the amount of emphasis on the total undeservedness of God's love for us, I think that's significant.

Interestingly, it's also the major thing missing from the (very twisted) church in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

So, is the church not communicating grace? Are we denying it by the way we act towards others? (I think we are sometimes - my attitude towards smokers, for example, or the way the church has been seen to respond to homosexuality)

Rock of Ages

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
When mine eyes shall close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.

Augustus M Toplady

Brokenness

There is no true Christianity without brokenness.

If we are not broken, then we have not met God and we do not know ourselves.

Isaiah's response to the vision of God's glory was “Woe to me, I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips and my eyes have seen the king – the LORD Almighty.”
Isaiah 6:5, NIV

Why should we be broken? Because God is not like us.

When we start to see what he is like, we realise that we are nothing.

If we understand something of God's power – that power that spoke and the heavens and earth were formed – the power that sustains everything, upholds everything and can accomplish whatever he wants – we cannot fail to see that we are totally impotent and pitiful.

If we begin to fathom the extent of his wisdom – that he sovereignly planned all things, from the intricate functioning of atomic nuclei to the most distant galaxies, and who uses even outright rebellion against him for his glory – we must then realise we are totally ignorant and foolish.

If we glimpse something of his love – the love that would seek out his enemies and die so that they might be reconciled to himself, then we see that we are condemned by our selfish uncaring attitude even towards our friends.

The more we see that contrast between ourselves and God, the more we are reduced to a state of shocked silence as we see that we are totally unworthy of even existing in his universe, the more we see that we are incapable of understanding him and the more we must throw ourselves onto him.

That is not a bad thing – it is the right state for us to be in and the state in which we are most useful for God. As Paul wrote:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
2 Corinthians 4:6-10, ESV

It is when we are at our most broken, our most clearly foolish and powerless, our most dead that the power and wisdom that is working in us and the life that is displayed in us is most clearly not our own.

And yet, so often, we see and hear even church leaders approaching God in prayer and in praise without this sense of reverent silence, of brokenness. So often we hear people pray without recognising the One to whom they are praying. I know for my part that I find that increasingly difficult to do – I find it really offputting when others do it, but ultimately I suppose I feel sorry for them. If they have not been struck with awe at what God has done – if their god is so small, so weak, so foolish that they can approach him like that, then I cannot see how they can be satisfied in him or rejoice in him either.

I have been very much struck recently by Mark 1:39-3:6. There are six episodes there – the first three with outcasts, the unclean and sinners coming to Jesus for physical and spiritual healing. The second three have confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees who thought they were righteous, cumulating in them plotting to kill him. And in the middle, we have Mark 2:17.

Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 2:17

I act as if I am righteous every time I condemn someone or think myself better than them. I act as if I am righteous every time I pretend that I am ok and that I am capable of holding myself together. I act as if I am righteous every time I try to come before Jesus other than broken and crying out for mercy and grace. If we think ourselves righteous, Jesus does not call us, a path which leads ultimately to us killing Jesus because of his claims (as in 3:6). Wholeness leads to condemnation.

If we recognise that we are sinners, and come to Jesus humble and broken, as the leper did in 1:40 who came begging on his knees, then Jesus will heal us and forgive us, then he has come to call us and save us.

If we do not, then he will not.