Christ crucified for sinners is the aid of God to man! There is life in no one else and in no other way than through the blood of Christ. On the cross Christ’s blood was shed to make an atonement, a propitiation, a satisfaction of the wrath of God for sinners. His blood was shed to reconcile God and man so that those in the empire of sin and darkness might have their chains broken, their yokes loosened, their souls freed, and be welcomed into the Kingdom of Light.

For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham
Hebrews 2:16 NKJV
The Need for Aid
What do you think about as the calendar moves closer to December 25th? Do you think of the lights, the manger, the angels, the birth of Christ? Do you think of gifts, wise men, shepherds, and barbaric kings? Do you think of your need for aid and that God gives aid? How often this month does the year 33 A.D. come to mind? Around that year two thieves and a King were nailed to crosses as they were crucified outside of Jerusalem. Why were they there?
2000 years ago the Roman Empire was in the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). There was economic prosperity as far as Roman legions could reach. There was expansion of roads, transportation, and communication. These things came at a high cost.
Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the world should be taxed (Luke 2:1). If the taxes weren’t bad enough, corrupt tax collectors exacted more from the people (Luke 19:1-10). It was a time when Roman rulers could kill all the children within cities and kingdoms with impunity (Matthew 2:16-18). Violent uprisings took place (Matthew 27:16). Demon possession was rampant (Mark 9:17-29). Leprosy was common (Luke 17:11-19). The visible church was filled with unconverted leaders (John 3:1-21). The world in which those three men were dying on a hill was a world filled with sin, sorrow, sickness, and suffering. It was a world in need of aid.
God Gives Aid
Judea in the time of Christ was not the first time the world was covered in darkness. Since the earliest days of creation when the serpent beguiled Eve and she gave the fruit to Adam, darkness descended on earth. Adam lived for nearly a millennium but he died and his sons died. Beginning with Cain, people regularly shed innocent blood.
God saw the wickedness of man and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5). The Lord set himself to destroy man from off the face of the earth. But God spared Noah and his immediate family members from the destruction. He commanded Noah to make an ark and preach the Word. Noah did as the Lord commanded. While all the world perished including, in all likelihood, Noah’s own father (Genesis 5:31) and certainly his extended family, God spared eight souls alive in the ark. God gives aid.
Many years after Noah, in the capital of Assyria, every intention of the heart was once again only evil continually. 120,000 souls would be destroyed. God sent a reluctant prophet with a simple message – “yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). The people of Nineveh repented and God forgave them. He spared them from the destruction that was coming. God gives aid.
On that afternoon dark as night, Jerusalem was part of a vast empire greater than any Caesar could imagine. In the global empire of sin and darkness citizens lay chained to the pit of hell, hope is lost, and destruction awaits. All are guilty, none are righteous. Two thieves from the kingdom of darkness were crucified for the crimes they committed. However, few focused on those thieves as they walked by mocking, laughing, and scorning. They were mocking the man in the middle who had this inscription over His head, “The King of the Jews.”
He was hanging there bleeding from wounds in His head, hands, and feet. He did not receive those wounds for anything He had done. The Roman governor, not known for mercy, could not find fault with Him. No two witnesses could corroborate each other’s story. He hung there innocent of any crime or any sin. Passersby failed to grasp what most fail to grasp today – Jesus Christ hung on the cursed tree because God gives aid.
To Whom Does God Give Aid?
The thieves on either side of the King were not quiet in their dying hours. One of the thieves joined with the mob and soldiers, “If you are the Christ, save yourself and us.” The other rebuked him telling him that he was on the cross for his crime while the sinless King was on the cross without any crime. Turning to Jesus the thief said, “Lord remember me when You come into Your Kingdom.”
One thief recognized the justice of his terrible plight. He was a guilty sinner receiving his just reward. His only hope was mercy from another – namely the King of the Jews. The other thief was in the same position but couldn’t care less about mercy. To his dying breath he breathed out curses and mockery and died in his sin. To the one who looked to Jesus for help, he was not ashamed. Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).
God gave aid to one thief. He did not give aid to both. His aid does not go to the seed of Adam generally but to the seed of Abraham specifically.
Read More
Related Posts:

Comparison can only become an ally when we use it to compare ourselves to the right standard and if we do so for the right reason. It can only become an ally when we compare ourselves to Jesus out of a longing to be more like him. The way to grow in holiness is not to compare ourselves to other people, but to compare ourselves to the Savior.

Comparison comes as naturally to us as eating, breathing, laughing, weeping. From our youngest days we begin to compare ourselves to others and quickly find the old adage to be true: Comparison is the enemy of joy. Though we so readily compare ourselves with others, we discover that this fosters a deep unhappiness. What promises joy actually delivers misery.
The reason is that comparison is intrinsically competitive, so that we don’t really want to be merely pretty, but prettier than the other person; we don’t really want to be merely wealthy, but wealthier than he is; we don’t really want to be merely successful, but more successful than the other person. No follower count is high enough until it is higher than hers, no church big enough until it is bigger than his. If we fail to get the things our hearts desire we grow in envy, but if we do get them we grow in pride. Our comparison is never rewarded with contentment.
Even in our Christian lives we can be prone to comparison. We can judge ourselves righteous by comparing ourselves to others’ depravity, we can judge ourselves faithful by comparing ourselves to others’ sinfulness, we can judge ourselves committed by comparing ourselves to others’ apathy. We can become like the Pharisee Jesus introduced in a parable—the one who went to the temple to pray and said, “I thank you, God, that I am not like other men”—especially like that traitorous tax collector who stood nearby.
Read More

The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.

The Book of Church Order (BCO) 32-20, as it presently stands, binds the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of public scandal where the reputation of Christ is at stake. The question is: do we really want to remove this requirement for the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of scandal? The proposed amendment does so. For the honor of Christ, we should preserve this requirement, vote down the proposed amendment, and seek an amendment that better addresses the valid concerns raised in the original overture.
BCO 32-20
The present version of BCO 32-20 reads, “Process, in case of scandal, shall commence within the space of one year after the offense was committed, unless it has recently become flagrant” (emphasis added). Timely action is not optional: in cases scandal the Church shall act within the space of one year.
Ramsay and Smith’s Comment on BCO 32-20
In commenting on this paragraph in the PCA’s BCO, both F. P. Ramsay and Morton Smith say the purpose is to incite the church to the prompt prosecution of scandal (a flagrant public offense of practice which is bringing open disgrace on Christ). Ramsay explains:
The principle is that, if the Church neglects to commence process against scandal (which is any flagrant public offence of practice bringing disgrace on the Church) within a year, she is debarred from thereafter doing it. This is not to shield the offender, but to incite to the prompt prosecution of such offences. Offences not so serious or scandalous the Church may bear with the longer while seeking to prevent scandal; but for no consideration is the Church to tolerate such offences as are scandalous.
Do we really want to remove this incitement, this incentive?
Context
Overture 22 was brought before the PCA General Assembly past midnight on Thursday night. We were informed by the stated clerk that the venue was requiring us to leave by 12:45AM. Consequently, the Assembly didn’t have much time or energy to give this overture due consideration. A substitute motion was made to refer Overture 22 to the following year’s Overtures Committee, but (predictably, given the time), there was no discussion. The substitute motion was defeated and the proposed amendment passed.
A revision to BCO 32-20 deserves better consideration.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.
The proposed amendment reads: “There is no statute of limitations, per se, for prosecuting offenses. However, the accused or member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable. The court should consider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period.”
Why One Year?
Overture 22 treated BCO 32-20, in effect, as a statute of limitations. It recognized that BCO 32-20 does not establish a statute of limitations for all offenses. Then it went on to argue that a statute of limitations of one-year makes little sense for cases of scandal. “Expeditious process is certainly important in such a case, but if the cause of Christ is jeopardized by the Church’s neglect of timely discipline, how would disallowing prosecution on day 366 repair the matter? The scandal would continue, unabated.”
Ramsay does say that the effect of BCO 32-20 is that, if the Church fails to act within a year in a case of scandal, she is debarred thereafter from doing it. But then he points out that the intent is not to shield the offender (the main purpose is not to establish a statute of limitations): the purpose is to incite the Church to act to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of public scandal.
Still, the question stands: what is the point of debarring the Church from acting after one year? The point of acting within a year is to ensure that fair adjudication takes place while it is still achievable—before degradations of evidence and memory make it impossible. In less serious matters, as Ramsay points out, the Church may risk the passage of time while it labors to avoid scandal. But in cases where Christ’s name is already being drug through the mud, the Church must take prompt action. It cannot risk degradations of evidence and memory making adjudication impossible: then the scandal really would continue, unabated!
What about Cases of Abuse?
Overture 22 did point out a valid concern: cases of alleged abuse. It is difficult to commence process within the space of one year after the offense was committed, since allegations of abuse often surface and become scandalous well after the alleged abuse took place. The present version of BCO 32-20 does seem to make adjudication impossible in such cases, and this weakness in the PCA’s BCO should be addressed.
But a better revision should continue to bind the Church to address allegations of abuse promptly. It could, for instance, be revised to say the church shall act within the space of one year after the offense has become scandalous. In the case of scandal, the “start time” is typically definite: there was a time the scandal broke and become public. In the case of abuse, there is a definite time when the allegation was made. We should bind ourselves to take those allegations seriously and commence process in a timely manner while fair adjudication is still possible—both for the honor of Christ and the good of alleged victim.
Precedent Cases
There is no need to amend BCO 32-20 in such a drastic way. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) found the present wording in BCO 32-20 useful in deciding a number of recent cases.[1] If the proposed amendment were in force these cases might have been judged with different outcomes. This provision has been tested and found useful, not wanting as is alleged in the reasoning for changing it.
Conclusion
For the honor of Christ, we need to amend the present wording of BCO 32-20, let us offer wording that does not remove the principles that have guided the PCA since its beginning. We can seek to address those valid concerns raised by Overture 22 without eviscerating the entirety of the present wording, and at the same time will continue to bind the Church to act promptly in cases of scandal, including abuse. Overture 22 recognizes that expeditious process is important in such cases, but the proposed amendment may actually be fighting against itself by effectively removing this requirement. In reality, the proposed amendment lets church courts off the hook by allowing them to delay acting when justice demands speedier judicial process.
Since we as can do better than what the BCO 32-20 amendment proposes, presbyteries should vote not to approve the amendment, and then let us work on drafting a more effective one.
Anton Heuss is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Bethel PCA in Dallas, Texas.
[1] Here are two cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission using the present wording of BCO 32-20. These precedents have already proved useful in guiding lower church courts in their conduct of cases. See SJC 2016-05, Troxell v Southwest Presbytery (https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/45th_pcaga_2017.pdf, pp. 514-520), and SJC 2019-08, Ganzel v Central Florida Presbytery (to be published in the Minutes of the 48th General Assembly).