The Book of Luke

2012-02-04T07:29:00.001-08:00

Luke #99a-11.37-54-20001119

We have here in Luke 11 what we have also in Matthew 23, a series of woes pronounced upon these men called the Pharisees and others whom he called lawyers which were the scribes, and you are all well aware that the scribes and the Pharisees are found numerous times in the New Testament. What I want to do this evening is not to give an excoriation of the Pharisaical religion of the day so much as to, in terms of expounding the text of this passage or of the additions that we have to it in Matthew 23, but rather, to give you an overview of the mentality of the Pharisees and the scribes, and since we're talking about the Pharisees it would only be right for us to consider that other major party within Judaism, the Sadduccees.

There is a reason why I think it's worthwhile for us to take the time to do this, and that is that on the one hand it would be impossible to be biblically literate and to understand the gospels if you did not have some notion of who these Pharisees were. They occur so often, so prominently and are such a central feature of the account of the life and ministry of our Lord that to be ignorant of who they were, what they stood for, and what they believed would be an ignorance of the gospel record which would hardly be able to be mended. So I think it's worth our while, since they are mentioned so prominently in the gospels and certainly they are the theme of the passage that is before us in the gospel according to Luke as they have been described by this text and others, that I have attempted to put together something of a cameo, a description of the Pharisees and the scribes and later on just for a few moments about the Sadduccees, and then to make a few of what I hope may be profitable comments upon this information, and so I intend this to be something of a lecture. I am resting upon the fact that you will be interested to know anything that might make you better students of the Word of God and of our Lord's life, and certainly a knowledge of who the Pharisees were will be helpful. I'm not supposing this evening that you are unfamiliar with these men, that there are numerous things that you're already aware about them and perhaps have heard of them most of your life, but once and for all perhaps let's put it down in our minds as to what they were really like and what they believed, where they stood within the politics and religion of Judaism so that when we do hear of them mentioned in the gospel we will have that background.

Let's begin by saying that there were in fact 2 major sects within Judaism, the Pharisees on the one hand, and the Sadduccees on the other. The Pharisees were the larger party. The Sadduccees were an elite aristocratic group found mostly in Jerusalem, and yet we notice that our Lord runs into these Pharisees almost everywhere, and there's a reason for that. The Pharisees, if you are interested, are in fact found in the gospel record, that is, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, 88 times and they are mentioned another 9 times in the book of Acts, bringing the total reference of this group in the New Testament to only 3 short of 100 references. Clearly, they're mentioned even more often than this because many times they are referred to as just “the Jews,” but very often when “the Jews” are spoken of as having been in attendance or as having spoken the Pharisees were in fact the spokesmen of them at that point. The Pharisees most probably acquired their name from the Hebrew wordפרש, which means “to separate.” What were they separated from? What was the intention of that name? Well, I suppose that we have heard that their name meant that they were separate from defilement. They were the descendants of the holy ones. They were the saints in Israel, separated from defilement of any kind and any sort of breach of the law of God. However it's more probable that they received their name not from their separation from defilement, but from their separation from the Sadducceean court party during the century previous to the life and times of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Pharisees were a religious fraternity which Edersheim compares with the Jesuits in the Roman Catholic Church. They esteemed themselves as the true Israel, the saints, and they had reached the climax of their power and popularity in the time of Jesus, and half feared and half hated. After this point they declined in significance. However, we find them then in the gospel record at the height of their power and their influence particularly outside of Jerusalem, and that's why our Lord's ministry in Galilee came across these Pharisees in such abundance.

Let's just do this in a rather organized way, but without a great deal of outline, just #1, let's say a number of things about these Pharisees and thereby describe them. The first thing we ought to note is that they were always found partnered with the scribes. Now, in our text they're called “the lawyers,” but that's who the scribes were. They were lawyers in the sense that they spent all of their lives dealing with the Law, that is the Old Testament Word of God. The scribes and the Pharisees are like ham and eggs. You always find them together. As a matter of fact, 18 times in the gospels you've read this phrase “the scribes and the Pharisees.” When one was in attendance, the other was usually not far away, and even when we don't read about the scribes being in attendance it is their influence that stands behind the Pharisees. The scribes were mentioned 63 times in the gospels. The Pharisees had partners almost all the time. You find them occasionally with the Sadduccees, 5 times. You also find them combined with the chief priests, who were probably Sadduccees also, 7 times in the gospel records, but more often than not you find the Pharisees partnered with the scribes. Who were the scribes? The scribes were the ecclesiastical clerks and librarians of Israel. They were the compilers and archivists of rabbinic antiquity and tradition. They busied themselves in preserving and cataloging the text of the Old Testament, but alas, what they cataloged they never digested. They were clerks and librarians. They were addicted to a paralyzing and fossilized study of precedent. They echoed antiquity. They trafficed in multiple layers of tradition, so that our Lord said of them “Well indeed I say of you that you have voided the Word of God with your tradition.” They were endlessly citing authorities for the things that they believed, and they passed all this material then on to the Pharisees. What the scribes archived the Pharisees attempted to embody and to put into practice. The scribes and the Pharisees were always what we would call concatenating authorities, that is, they were connected together both with one another and with a whole lineage of precedents that they had cataloged down through the ages of comment and tradition overlaying the Word of God. The scribes were guilty of what we need to call textual idolatry. They worshipped the Old Testament text, not so much the God of Israel and the God of the text, but the text itself. They were guilty, many of them, of what is called gematria, that is the assigning of values or numbers to certain Hebrew letters. For them even the vowel points in the Hebrew language were of sacred origin and had certain cryptic significance. They drove the principle of ad fontes, that is, “back to the text” to absurdity to where they worshipped the text rather than the God that it revealed. Lenski says about the scribes that “to this day it is hard to conceive the arid dreariness of the scribes.” Canon Farrar said “Without fear of refutation that apart from a few moral applications and ritual inferences in matters absolutely unimportant for every one text on which it throws the smallest glimmer of light there are hundreds which it inexcusibly perverts and misapplies. They (that is the scribes) have furnished volumes of baseless application without shedding upon the scripture one ray of genuine light. Their exegesis became a mere art of leading men astray.” Another has said that “Ever since that category of teaching called the scribes sprang up in the first century we have been gnawing away at texts, chewing the gristle, sucking the marrow out of the bones of words.” So it was with the scribes. These partnered with the Pharisees then became the dominant religious party in Israel at the time of our Lord.

The second thing we want to say about them is that they enjoyed religious incumbency in the synagogues. The Sadduccees tended to have their authority centralized in the temple, whereas the Pharisees, although not without influence in the temple, had their general power in the synagogues, that is, the local meeting places on the Sabbath of Jews at that time. The synagogue system started in the captivity of Israel in Babylon and it was carried on and continued at least on a weekly basis in the outlying areas, in Galilee, et cetera, and so our Lord runs into them, of course, quite often because they enjoyed the countryside as their basic domain.

The third thing we mark about the Pharisees is that they were aggressive proselytizers. Remember that Jesus says

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. (Mat 23:15 ASV)

The Sadduccees being an aristocratic party were a closed society and weren't interested to have you join, but the Pharisees were actively proselytizing for new members. One author has said that “When Phariseeism met with missions of Christians later on in the history of the church they ceased making converts. They condemned the translation of the Septuagint and they buried themselves in the Talmud.” And so there tended to be a kind of retrenchment among the Pharisees when they came into contact with Christianity and the preaching of the Apostles, but other than that and particularly when our Lord speaks of them they were actively engaged in evangelism for their cause, and even though their party probably never grew to more than 4 or 5 thousand members in Israel.

The fourth thing we can say about the Pharisees is that if the scribes were textual idolators, the Pharisees were textual adulterers. They were guilty of hyper-literalism or what some have called letterism and allegorical hermeneutics, which is just the opposite apparently. They were guilty of verbal parallelomania, that is, always connecting a phrase or a word or even a letter on occasion with something somewhere else and thinking that there was some in-built significance and connection between them. What we think of them mostly in terms of their hermeneutics is their hyper-literal interpretation of anything that they heard. Here are some examples from the gospel according to John. When our Lord says to the Jews “Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will build it again,” they said to him “What are you talking about? Forty and six years was this temple in building and you'll raise it up in 3 days?” They missed the point because of their hyper-literal hermeneutic. When Jesus said to Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee, “Except a man be born from above he cannot see the kingdom of heaven,” Nicodemus' reply in verse 4 was “How can a man being old enter again into his mother's womb and be born again?” a literal hermeneutic which entirely misses the point. In John 6 when our Lord says that he was the bread of life and that his flesh was given for the life of men the Pharisees response was “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Again, hyper-literal hermeneutic entirely missing the point. When our Lord said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad,” the Pharisees replied “Thou art not yet 50 years old and yet you profess to have seen Abraham.” In all of these places and a dozen more we see the hyper-literal hermeneutic of the Pharisees, and this rubbed off on any Israelite who was familiar with the Pharisaical system of interpretation. I remember one time when Jesus said to his disciples “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” and the disciples replied by saying “We don't have any bread.” That's clear, typical Jewish hermeneutics sponsored by the Pharisees and we see where it got them.

The fifth thing we mark about the Pharisees is that they had a regimented focus on peripherals. They gave tedious attention to trivia and minutiae, to undisciplined reference and extenuations. They were guilty of what we must call “Facts imprisoned but never improved.” Farrar again says of the Pharisees that “On the turn of a sentence they suspended many decisions so much so that it is said of them later that they suspended mountains from hairs, the isolation of phrases, the misapplication of parallel passages, the false emphasizing of accidental words, the total neglect of context, the everwidening spiral of ergo (that is, therefore) from the narrow aperture of single texts.” For example, in Matthew 22:36, we remember one of the scribes came up and asked our Lord “What is the greatest commandment?” That which lay behind his question was not a real interest in what was the first commandment, aside from the fact that there was a debate going on and had been for some years by the Pharisees and the scribes about what was the greatest commandment because they had listed 613 commandments that they had culled out of the Pentateuch, and they loved to debate about which was the 612th and which was the 613th, and any answer that our Lord would give would probably fly in the face of some party of the Pharisees as to which “Well, what was #1?” So they ask of Jesus “What is that #1 question?” You need to understand that text by recognizing that they had been fussing about 613 in the relative order of one to the other. Their focus on peripherals, tedious attention to trivia and to minutiae, giving mountains of time to information that was literally worthless.

The sixth thing that we mark about them is that they were arid and dreary nitpicking legalists and they were arrogant about it. They were arrogant. Remember what they said in John 7:49 when the Pharisees had come back, the Jews had come back from supposedly to arrest Christ. They came back without him and they said remember “Has any man spake like this man?” And they said “Well, the people believed him and they listened to him,” and the Pharisees said “These people that know not the law are accursed.” There was an arrogance about the Pharisaical party that looked down upon everyone else. Their nitpicking legalism led them to evolve patterns of impossible sabbatarianism to where the Sabbath was impossible to be kept, of tithing, as we read in the text this evening, of the mint and the anise and the cummin, even their spices were tithed, eating regulations which were impossible to answer. In our passage, remember it was an eating violation that surprised them when our Lord did not bathe himself ceremonially before the partaking of the meal. The Pharisees however had invented along with their legalism 1000 different ways to excuse themselves from the very laws that they were imposing upon the people. We read about this in Matthew 23 where our Lord says “You Pharisees say that if you swear by the temple it doesn't mean anything. It's not binding, but if you swear by the gold of the temple, then all of a sudden it's binding.” In all kinds of ways they had legislated for themselves self-serving circumlocutions and artificial exemptions from the very laws that they had enacted.

In the seventh place the Pharisees were ostentatious externalists which our Lord accuses of unbridled hypocrisy. 17 times in the NewTestament Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, playactors, externalists, addicted to ostentation, doing their righteousness before men so as to be seen by them. 3 times our Lord calls them the offspring of vipers and serpents as did also John the Baptist.

The eighth thing that we mark about the Pharisees is that they were guilty of jaundiced parochialism and caustic sectarian infighting. They were addicted to casuistry intermixed with expletives and oathtaking pettifoggery. I had fun writing all this, so I hope you appreciated it. Pettifoggery. That's a good word. It means “legal wrangling to no real use.” They were pettifoggs. They were a parochial sectarian group that was always loving a good fight, and they always intermixed their arguments with all sorts of oathtaking. It must have been rather interesting to have been able to listen to them as they fussed at one another. The Talmud preserved the record of 316 controversies that were ongoing betwixt the schools of Hillel and Shamai. Now those 2 schools were the moderate and the militant camps within Phariseeism. They had ongoing 316 separate controversies. That's within the Pharisees. They loved a fight and they were addicted to casuistry.

So then, having said those things generally, we may borrow the words of Farrar again who says that “The Pharisees were at once erudite and foolish, at once contemptuous and mean, never passing a hair's breadth beyond the carefully walked boundary line of commentary and precedent, full of balance, inference, and orthodox hesitancy, and impossible literalisms, intricate with legal pettiness and labyrinthine system, elevating mere memory above genius and repetitions above originality. It was not indeed wholly devoid of moral significance, nor is it impossible to find here and there among the debris of it a noble thought, but it was occupied 1000 fold more with Levitical minutiae.” Another author has said “The great bulk of them were pedantic in things that were obvious enough and frivolous and jejune in things that lay beyond. They would be admirable guessers and mighty in platitudes. They would be ingenious in raising microscopic doubts, and perfect adepts in conjuring up conceit to do battle with conceit. They would be skillful in splitting hairs to infinity, and they would be proud of their ability to lead their hearers through the endless mazes of the imaginations of preceeding rabbis, imaginations that ended in nothing or in something that is actually worse than nothing.” Spurgeon said “The Pharisees were at home upon such rubbish which would neither save a soul, nor slay a sin, nor suggest a virtue.” These were the Pharisees, and I give you then that brief description of them.

Now the Sadduccees were the other party. We need not say as much about them as we did the Pharisees. They don't come up as often in the gospel record, 14 times as a matter of fact in the Word of God, 9 times in the gospels, 5 times in the book of Acts we hear about the Sadduccees. These 5 things let's say about them.

#1: They were the religious aristocracy in Israel. They dominated both the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling council of the Jews, and the succession of high priests. In fact, the high priests are mentioned 122 times in the New Testament, and 83 times in the gospels. Most of the high priests were of the Pharisaical party, and the Pharisees put them into power because of a fusion of politics and religion which, if you read the history of Israel at this time, was fueled by intrigue and even murder in order to keep the proper man in the office of high priest, which was indeed a high political office at the time. C E B Cranfield calls the Sadduccees “wealthy and worldly.” Lenski calls them “free thinkers and loose livers.” “The Pharisees were, so to speak, the Jewish Stoics of the day. The less numerous Sadduccees, however, held about the same position in Judaism as did the Epicureans, “Eat, drink, and be merry.”” So says Philip Schaff. First of all then they were the religious aristocracy dominating the priesthood.

Secondly, they enjoyed religious incumbency in the temple. Remember the Pharisees had their basic area of influence in the synagogues and in the countryside. When you came to Jerusalem, however, the Pharisees did not disappear, but the Sadduccees, largely, were in control of the temple and its precincts.

Thirdly, the Sadduccees were politically moderate. They were solicitous to occupy the middle ground, and they were concerned with the maintenance of the status quo. If you think about it for a moment, the aristocratic party liked things the way they were. They didn't mind Rome being in charge because in spite of that they enjoyed incumbency both religious and political in and around the temple, and so they wanted the status quo to continue. Because of this, #1, they were disinterested in any messianic prospectus. They weren't interested in a Messiah coming and becoming the king of Israel because they were satisfied with politics the way they were. A Messiah on the horizon would destroy the status quo, and so, unlike the Pharisees, the Sadduccees had no messianic hope. The Pharisees on the other hand maintained a strong theocratic nationalism which ultimately spun off a group called the Zealots, and the Zealots, it appears, were responsible for the foment against Rome which precipitated the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A D. These, of course, were not Sadducees who were more interested in the status quo.

Secondly, they were bedfellows with another group called the Herodians, who are mentioned 3 times in the New Testament. They're called the Herodians because they were perpetuators of the Herodian dynasty, that is, the succession of Herods. In fact Herod himself may well have been a Sadduccee.

And thirdly, the Sadduccees were the authors of the first persecution of the church. Why? Because the Sadduccees loved the status quo. They didn't want anything upsetting their political apple cart. They were the aristocracy and they liked things the way they were with their control of the temple and the priesthood. With all of the hubbub that it caused, the preaching of the gospel and the early church in and around Jerusalem, the Sadduccees were the ones who originally in Acts 4:1 and 5:17 led the persecution of the church in those early days. So you can see why they were the upset party and why they were the ones who led the way in the early persecution.

The fourth thing about the Sadduccees is that they were anti-traditionalists, whereas the Pharisees were addicted to tradition, the statements of the rabbis and the fathers and all their fathers. They were interested in that as much and no doubt more than they were the text of the Word of God. But the Sadduccees were anti-traditionalists. As a matter of fact, they were more conservative with regard to the Old Testament than were even the Pharisees, because not allowing any of the traditions to have any weight in their thinking they had a canon which was no wider than the Torah, that is, the first 5 books of Moses. They were very peculiar about what they accepted as being Old Testament text and scripture. Now that's the good news. The bad news is they hardly ever paid any attention to it at all, but at least on paper they were not traditionalists like the Pharisees were. They were strict Pentateucharians I guess we could call them. Too bad they didn't pay attention to it.

The fifth and last thing we want to say about the Sadduccees is that they were anti-supernaturalists. They did not believe in life after death. They did not believe of course in a resurrection. They did not believe in angels. They were anti-predestinarian. They were complacent, this-worldly men called the Sadduccees.

Now you see how different they were in many respects, and yet on several occasions we find the Sadduccees and the Pharisees together. All of these things are somewhat interesting and one of those occasions is found in Acts 23:6-9, and I'd like to just read that. This may seem a little late in New Testament history, and indeed it is, and yet we still see the scribes and the Pharisees and the Sadduccees. I want to begin reading at Acts 23:6. Paul is here on trial before Ananias the high priest.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
9 And there arose a great clamor: and some of the scribes of the Pharisees party stood up, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel? (Act 23:6-9 ASV)

You get some appreciation for the scribes and the Pharisees and for the Sadduccees and for what Paul did on this occasion in playing them against one another and the argumentative mentality of the Pharisees that I have already referred to. They love the good fight and Paul got them right in the middle of it. He knew exactly how to manipulate the situation. They forgot all about him. They were more interested in winning the argument between themselves. So they were anti-supernaturalists, the Sadduccees, and Paul indeed cleverly uses it at this point.

Now of course neither the Pharisees nor the Sadduccees had any more than a passing and initial interest in what Christ was and what he was doing. This very quickly turned to antagonism and then even violent intentions against him. Why? Their reasons were different. The Pharisees had animosity toward our Lord because of his disregard for their traditions. The Sadduccees however were upset because of Christ's disruption of their temple. Now when Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple I suppose the Pharisees were indeed not happy, but it was the Sadduccees that would have been enraged. Theirs was the province of the temple. They hated Christ for his disruption of their temple. The Pharisees hated Christ for his disregard for their traditions. The Pharisees, on the one hand, sought their power from popular applause. The Sadduccees sought their power from political leverage. Now it may be said of these 2 groups that with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A D, the Sadduccees came to an end. The temple came to an end. The aristocracy, the whole environment, the whole context of the Sadduccees ceased to exist, and modern Judaism, at least orthodox Judaism, seeks to trace its roots to the party of the Pharisees.

Now then having said all of that and not wanting to be guilty of being a Pharisee in droning on in a casuistical survey of people who no longer exist, I want to offer in conclusion 6 observations.

#1: We may observe from our understanding of the Pharisees and the Sadduccees that truth cannot avoid conflict with the religious status quo. John the Baptist comes. Our Lord comes to Israel. They cannot be winsome enough. They cannot have enough emphasis upon the truth to not run into difficulty with standing religion. Whenever the truth is preached it will run headlong into opposition and the most inveterate enemy of the truth is always standing religion. The most violent and vehement opposers of Christ in Israel were the Pharisees and the Sadduccees. It was true then. It remains true today. Truth cannot avoid conflict with the religious status quo and by far the most inveterate enemy of truth is standing religion. Truth never encounters a vacuum of neutrality. There is always to be opposition, and this accounts for the negatives that are found in apostolic preaching and in the ministry of our Lord. It accounts for the negatives. When John the Baptist, for example, sees the Sadduccees and the Pharisees together coming out to his baptism he immediately confronts them with these cheering words:

Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Mat 3:7 ASV)

Or when our Lord tells his disciples:

Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mat 16:6 ASV)

The catalog of woes that our Lord pronounces against them, for instance in Matthew 23, and although we read the parallel passage this evening in Luke 11, just the last verse that Jesus pronounces against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is this. He concludes his statement by saying:

Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? (Mat 23:33 ASV)

These were strong words, words that come from the Prince of Peace directed against nominal religion in Israel of that day. This accounts for the negative, the catalog of woes that are pronounced against them, and the several parables that our Lord told that are aimed directly at the Pharisees. 2 men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a publican. Do you remember that?

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.
(Luk 18:10-12 ASV)

His whole catalog of virtues according to his tradition, and Jesus says that this man did not go down to his house justified, but rather did the publican. So, there are several parables that are aimed directly at the Pharisees, which merely goes to show again that truth cannot avoid conflict, and if you think it can you've never experienced what it is to bring the truth to men and to standing religion.

Observe in the second place: Ancient errors may die, but they never fail of reincarnation. The words of J C Ryle he has said: “The Great Physician knew well that Pharisee doctrines and Sadduccee doctrines would prove the 2 great diseases of his church until the end of the world. He would have us know that there will always be Pharisees and Sadduccees in the ranks of Christians. Their succession will never fail. Their generation shall never become extinct. Their name may change, but their spirit will always remain.” Ancient errors never die. They are just reincarnated.

The third thing that we observe is that there is an inevitable tendency of parochial separation (that's what the Pharisees were) to degenerate towards sectarian elitism. We need to beware of the attitude, the mentality, of many Christians that their whole personality is built around being separate from something. “We need to be separate from liberalism.” True enough. “We need to be separate from apostasy.” True enough. “We need to separate ourselves from this and that and the other thing,” but remember there is an inevitable tendency of that to degenerate to a kind of self-serving and self-satisfied elitism, which was what the Pharisees and the Sadduccees, particularly the Pharisees, were.

We also note from the Sadducceean side of things that a politicized agenda will always negotiate truth for power.

The fourth thing that we observe is that ecumenicism crosses lines most readily when it finds common cause in anti-Christ, ecumenicism then and in our day, the idea of bringing all people together, Roman Catholics and Protestants. We hear a lot about it in these days. When did you find the scribes and the Pharisees and the Sadduccees all together? The Pharisees and the Sadduccees were very distinct from one another. Very seldom did they have common cause unless it was in terms of anti-Christ. There is nothing that gets people together more readily than anti-Christ agenda. Against the gospel, we find them all there against Paul. We find them there in the persecution against our Lord in the early church. Ecumenicism crosses lines that they would not cross otherwise, most readily when it finds common cause in anti-Christ.

The fifth thing that we observe is that even corrupt systems are not wholly without useful features. It's easy. I was able to do it without much difficulty this evening, to be quite critical. Our Lord was extremely critical of the Pharisees, but let us not think that even the most corrupt of systems does not have some useful feature. The Pharisees at least kept alive the knowledge of the law of God in Israel. Yes, it was covered up by mountains of tradition, but they still kept the law of God before the minds of the people. Yes, they were legalists, but at least we could say that. Otherwise, it might have disappeared altogether. Moreover, we can say that the scribes were largely responsible for the accuracy and preservation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Again, as Farrar has said “The age of the Rabbis lost itself in worthless triviality and suffocating the warmth and light of scripture under the white ashes of ceremonial discussion. Yet, in preserving the text of the Old Testament it rendered service of inestimable value.” The value remains with us even to this very day. The observation is that even corrupt systems are not wholly without usefulness, at least in the providence of God.

And sixthly and lastly we may observe from this study that within corrupt systems there may yet be found honorable men. I think I am correct in this, I may have missed something, but there are only 3 men in the New Testament who are named as Pharisees. We hear about the Pharisees all the time, don't we? But we know 3 of them by name. One of them was Nicodemus, not a man entirely without value, especially as we see his history unfold in the gospel record in John 3:1, 7:50-51, 19:39, Nicodemus a very interesting man, the teacher of Israel, in a system and yet, no doubt, an honorable man.

The second that I think of is Paul himself, originally called Saul, who says that he was a strict Pharisee in their traditions, and as a Pharisee was blameless in the traditions of the fathers, and so we have the very background and upbringing of the apostle Paul himself being that of the Pharisaical tradition.

And another was a man named Gamaliel, who showed himself to be very wise and helpful because of his wisdom, whether it was converted wisdom or not, in Acts 5:34 and 39 preserving in the providence of God the apostles from perhaps even an early death.

There's one other person that we're not sure of. Remember the man named Joseph of Arimathaea, the one who came to Pilate after Christ had died and asked for his body. It says that Joseph of Arimathaea was a member of the βουλευτης, which is the ruling council of the Jews, probably a reference to the Sanhedrin, and therefore Joseph of Arimathaea may have been a Pharisee or even a Sadduccee, depending on what that means, if he was a member of the council, but notice that these men are honorable men, men which we esteem somewhat highly for one reason or another to some degree. The only named Pharisee that we run across in the New Testament are men like Nicodemus, Saul, Gamaliel, and perhaps Joseph of Arimathaea, and so it justifies I think at least the observation that within corrupt systems there may yet be found honorable men.

And so I trust that a study and survey such as this is not entirely without use. Perhaps if you can store up some of this information it will do you well as you run across these Pharisees, these Sadduccees, in the life of our Lord and as we continue our study in the gospel according to Luke. Let us bow together in prayer.

Father, once again we would thank you for the multiplicity of things that there are to study and that are worth studying in the Word of God. Bless we pray this congregation as it has disciplined itself, that we have all disciplined ourselves to learn what we can and to worship God on the Lord's day. As we have attempted this we pray that you would sanctify and seal to us this the business of the Lord's day and dismiss us with your blessing. We ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

2012-01-25T20:35:00.001-08:00

Romans #199-15.4-20081005

Take your Bibles, if you would please, and turn to Romans 15, which may bring to you as you do it, as it has to me, something of a pause, because, if you have, like many of you do, the ASV, when you turn the page to Romans 15:4, at long last, you realize that the end of Romans is in sight, and one wonders, perhaps, if there is life after Romans. Well, we’ll delay the inevitable as long as possible. The argument that Paul began in Romans 14:1, and we have been dealing with for a number of weeks, pausing then finally to deal with verse 9 last Lord’s Day by itself, we come to what seems to me to be the end of Paul’s argument that began back in Romans 14:1. It concludes, basically, at Romans 15:3, where Paul quotes from Psalm 69. He says,

3 For Christ also pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me.

It is the popular view to say that Paul’s argument, the line of reasoning that began back in Romans 14:1, continues through 15:13, but I’m not certain that I find that to be necessary, although you can see it as you wish, but we have here another text, the kind that stands alone, that has to be treated, and it doesn’t necessarily make itself an integral part of some expanded argument. It’s just an erratic that sits there as a statement, a declaration, that cannot be ignored:

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

How many times can you remember over the years that we have alluded to, one way or another, to this text? It’s one of the prominent small group of texts where the Scriptures speak of themselves, and:

ASV 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable.

Not very often does Scripture speak of itself, but here is one of those places, and a prominent one at that. I want to deal with that as our text this morning, making a number of observations, I suppose. Not exactly the right word, but taking the words of the text, and, as it were, deconstructing it, and looking at each part in turn.

This, however, before we begin, by way of introduction: It is easy to see why Paul said this here. He has just quoted the Old Testament. He quoted Psalm 69:9, and having done so, it would seem a natural segue for him to say,

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

And he’s just quoted the Old Testament. However, Paul has already, up to this point, quoted the Old Testament in the book of Romans 54 times. Why did he wait until the 54th time to make this statement? He could have gone way back to the beginning, and made it up front. Why does he wait? And it’s not the last time he quotes the Old Testament. So, all that being true, why is the question here? We can see why he would do it, having just quoted the Old Testament, but it’s not so easy to see why he expands that thought here, rather than somewhere else. Perhaps you’re figuring, “He’s going to tell us why here.” I don’t know, but here is where Paul chose to put it in. One author on Romans says that this is “a brief, crisply enunciated detour.” It’s there. It’s like he wanted to say it somewhere, and he just put it here, although it could have been in a number of other places. We’re glad we have it, and it’s not the only place, as I mentioned before, where Scripture speaks of itself, but there’s one other in Romans, for example, back in chapter 4, where the entire chapter dwells upon the Old Testament in terms of Abraham’s experience, and what he found to be true, and Paul says this:

ASV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him;

It was not written for his sake alone, but for us. And one other place, just a few pages to the right,

ASV 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.

“They were written” is the emphasis in both places. They were written for us, even though these things happened many, many years ago in the Old Testament. So then, those 2 places, combined with Romans 15:4, give us a very interesting and emphatic declaration of this fact: that the Old Testament was written for our learning.

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

And so, the reference, of course, is to the Old Testament Scriptures. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has said, “The moment you begin to question the authority of the Old Testament, you will find yourself in trouble and difficulty. The New Testament makes no sense without the Old Testament, and if you were to deny the Old Testament, the New Testament would become deniable also. The 2 stand or fall together. So, it’s no trouble for Paul to make this remarkable, nearly universal, statement about the profitability of the Old Testament Scriptures. Ignorance of the Old Testament inevitably leads to the impoverishment of the people of God.

What I want to do is to take this text, as I said earlier, deconstruct it, as it were, and look at every part. As I see it, there are 9 parts.

So, the first thing I want you to note is the scope of Paul’s assertion, and the scope is found in the word: “Whatsoever.” “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.” The word “whatsoever,” of course, as we’re all aware, means not some things, but all things, anything you wish to mention. Whatsoever was written there, whatsoever you find there, was written for our learning.

Now, Martin Luther had a particular hermeneutical axiom, which he ground quite a bit. The idea was that if you can’t find Christ in it, then it’s not worth much, and so, he would only value those parts of the Old Testament where he could find some reference to Christ prophetically, and even the New Testament. Luther did not like James, and he didn’t like the book of Revelation, because he said, inexplicably, “I cannot find anything of Christ in it.” But Luther had this axiom, “Find Christ everywhere, and if you don’t find him, then it’s not of value. It’s not for our learning.”

That’s not what Paul says, is it? He says, “Whatsoever things were written,” not so much just things that were written about Christ, but whatsoever things were written, carte blanche, universal statement. The scope of the assertion does not allow us to delete any parts of the Old Testament from it being valuable for our learning. It’s true, not all the parts of Scripture have equal value, but as Calvin says, “The oracles of God contain nothing vain or unprofitable.” Donald Macleod once said, “It is true. There are parts of the Old Testament from which the only conclusion can be drawn must be this: thank God things are different now.” But it’s still a conclusion, and it’s still, therefore, for our learning, that through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Now, there are those, and there have always been those, who have disparaged the Old Testament. This morning, I mentioned to you quite prominently, that many of us grew up under a certain scheme, a school of thought, which basically did just that. It disparaged the Old Testament, and the Old Testament was an archaic, defunct time of history where God dealt with people, but the people failed, and so God had to find another solution, went through several different schemes until finally he found one that, well, it didn’t work that well, so he made a parenthesis, and put things off for several thousand years until perhaps he thought of one that would work. I don’t know. It was ridiculous, wasn’t it? But Dispensationalism, basically, is a disparagement of the Old Testament. Today we have others called the Redemptive Historical School, and they, like Luther, pretty much say that if you can’t find Christ, or make some segue to Christ, then it’s not of any value.

Now, there’s a mistake indeed at the heart of that, first of all, because Paul says, “Whatsoever things were written were written for our learning.” Calvin says, “This passage provides an excellent refutation of the fanatics, who maintain that the Old Testament is abolished, and has no reference to the people of God.”

There was a fellow named Marcion. He flourished around 160 AD, middle of the second century, and he took this basic Dispensational point of view way before the fact of Dispensationalism arriving on the scene, and he believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was always judging people, and giving them harsh laws, and was a God of wrath and indignation, but the God of the New Testament is kind and gentle. He’s a warm and fuzzy God who just loves us and has mercy upon us, and so, Marcion said the God of the New Testament is different than the God of the New Testament, and Marcion even took his New Testament and cut out everything he thought reflected Old Testament thinking. So, he edited the New Testament. And guess what? He ended Romans at 14:23. Do you know why? Because he didn’t want 15:4. This would be a kick in the pants for Marcion.

In fact, there’s a man named Carl Truman, who is a professor of theology at Westminster East in Philadelphia. He wrote a book called The Wages of Spin, a series of lectures, and in that book he has an article entitled, “The Marcions Have Landed,” in the which he says, “Neglect of the Old Testament leaves the New more or less meaningless, and will push God back into the realm of the unknowable, a mere projection of our own psychology and our worship simply into group therapy sessions where we all come together and pretend we’re feeling great.”

The scope of the assertion, very simply, is this: whatsoever things were written are profitable, 2 Timothy 3:16. They are for our learning, Romans 15:4. #1 is the scope of this. Since we have 9 of these, I’m going to have to go rather quickly.

#2: The second thing we note from the text is the medium of the assertion. These things that are profitable, how have they come to us? Well, one thing is clear: they have come “being written.”

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

The word “the scriptures” in the original language is “the things written, the writings.” So, notice how emphatic it then becomes.

ASV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him;

ASV 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.

Do you see it there, emphatically, all the way through? “These things were written.” That’s the medium of Paul’s assertion.

Now, they were not just “writings.” It’s not just a return to ancient texts, ad fontes, as they say, but it’s a return to inspired writings, the Scriptures, the Writings. As Donald Macleod has said, “The usefulness of the Old Testament is coextensive with its inspiration.” He does not say Old Testament tradition. He says the Old Testament text. Do you ever read the liberals, which I have to do on your behalf? Sometimes I read them, and they won’t talk about the Old Testament text, but they’re very happy to talk about Old Testament tradition. You know what that means? It means they’re not paying attention to the text. It’s the things written that are for our learning, and notice that it comes to us through this medium of having been written so that we can have it and read it. John Murray has said, “The Scripture is designed to furnish us with instruction, and it is as written that it promotes that purpose.”

We live in an age where there is a shift away from paying attention to things written. We are told that people no longer can be called upon to read. We have exited an age of verbal, and have entered an age of things visible, or visual. So, we no longer read books, or listen to texts. Now we have to be shown by some sort of entertaining medium in order for us to learn. We’re told that in school with children from the very beginning that we need to get away from the textual and move toward the visual. We’ve become a nation that has lost its literacy, and you notice that if that happens, what an attack it is upon the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are written. They are a text to be read, and from which we are to learn. They’re not visual. They are textual, and we live in a culture that has exited the verbal and the textual, and has gone entirely to visual.

Notice how many churches have done exactly that. You go, and sit, and watch the show, all right? Ask somebody who goes to church when they come home. I don’t care where they go. You’re probably going to be right. When they come back, ask them how it was. “O, it was great. I felt great. It was good to be in church.” Second question: what did you learn? “I didn’t learn anything. That’s not the point.” But notice that if we do that, we go and just watch the show, we’ve lost Paul’s emphasis. He says, “Whatsoever things were written,” the medium of God’s communication to us is by writing, the things written. “This transition, this impatient shift from verbal to visual in our day,” Carl Truman (who I mentioned before) said, “is not simply rebellion against the words themselves. It’s a rebellion against the God who speaks them.” And who has given them to us, and in what form? They are in written form.

We also have all around us the Charismatics, don’t we? I mention them because they’re all around us, and what do they say? They say, “We don’t like your inken divinity.” What’s inken divinity? Theology made out of ink, written down. “You’re always studying these books, and that book, where we prefer a living word.” Isn’t that what they’re saying? Yes, it is. What’s the problem? “Whatsoever things were written;” it is an inken theology. It’s for our learning. What is the medium then of the assertion? Writing. What is the scope of the assertion? Whatsoever. So, you see what we are doing? We’re just looking at the parts of the text as they go by.

Thirdly and quickly, we can dispose of this: what is the extent of the assertion? Well, he says, “Whatsoever things were written,” and do you see the word there, “aforetime”? Literally, “written aforetime” is one word in the original language, προεγραφη, written before. Notice that, whereas by extension, this would apply to the entire Bible, but when Paul writes this, what does it apply to specifically? It applies just to the Old Testament. Do you realize that “whatsoever things are inspired,” 2 Timothy 3:16, “are profitable”? To what would be the reference? It could only be to the Old Testament. It wouldn’t apply to the New. When Paul wrote this, Romans 15:4, the majority of the New Testament had not been written. So, clearly, he’s talking about the Old Testament. That would apply to the New, now that the New is complete, but the extent of the assertion at this point would be to the Old Testament. That’s #3.

#4. Consider this: we have the authority of the assertion. The reason why Paul says this here is that he’s just quoted the Old Testament. “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me,” which he applies as referring to Christ, quoting Psalm 69. He then says, “For whatsoever things were written,” and gives us verse 4, because he is asserting the authority, the present authority, of this ancient text upon the people of God at this point.

Or think of it this way: he brings forward an ancient text, Psalm 69, to support a recent fact. When was it that the reproaches of them that reproach thee fell upon me? When was it in history that was actually fulfilled? “Paul, it was within your lifetime.” It’s very possible that Christ and Paul were born in the same year, and in Paul’s own lifetime this was, in fact, happening, and yet, instead of referring to the historical occasion of it happening, he refers to an ancient text in the Old Testament. Why? I’m going to say something a little startling. The text, for Paul, is considered more vivid than history. Otherwise, he would have referred to the historical fact. Look at what happened to Christ. He could have said, “I saw it. I know it. It’s happened in our lifetime.” But he doesn’t. He goes clear back to the Old Testament. Why? Because the Old Testament text is more vivid than even eyewitness history. “He might have referred immediately to the history of the life of Christ,” Robert Haldane says, “but instead of this, he quotes from the Psalms.” Why would you do that? Because the Psalms are more vivid than history. This is not to discount history. No, no, no, no. This is not discounting history, but remember this: history does not have the authority. It does not have the sufficiency, and it does not have the perspicuity of the Word of God. The Scriptures are of more value than even history itself. The final appeal then is not to history. The final appeal then is not to tradition. The final appeal is always and only finally to, what? The text, the things that are written.

So, the authority of the assertion is found in the fact that the assertion is made, because Paul has just quoted the Old Testament.

#5. We have in our text the purpose of the assertion. He says:

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for

And we’re expecting now to find the purpose of all of this. Why was all this trouble gone to, that these things should be written down and preserved? What is it? “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for” some reason, and we think we might find it. It says that they were

written for our learning.

In other words, when you come to the Scriptures, the Scriptures expect, Paul expects, you to learn something.

Remember the aforementioned person that you asked, “How was church?” “It was good. I felt good, warm and fuzzy all over.” And you come home and say, “What did you learn?” If they can’t tell you, you have every right to tell them “You went to the wrong place.”

Do you remember when I told you the story about the man who used to walk through the neighborhood, the retired judge? He died, but he used to walk every day. He came by one day and said, “Do you go to that little white building up there on 40th Street?” He goes to a great big church down the hill from here, and I gave him some books to read on the doctrines of grace. He takes them, and he comes back about a week later, and he hands them back to me. I didn’t mean for him to give them back. He hands them back, as if, “I need to return these to you.” He said, “I’ve never read or heard anything like that before. I’ve been going to church for 30 years, and I’ve never heard any of this stuff.” It was as if to say: “I’m a church going person, and this stuff has never been in my curriculum.” In other words, “You’ve missed it somewhere, because I’ve never heard this before.” He said, “What do you think of that?” And I said, “I think you’re going to the wrong church.” Whatsoever things were written were written for us to learn something, and if you can go to church year after year and not learn anything, go somewhere else. God went to all the trouble to have these things written that we would learn something.

Now, the word “that we might learn” is the Greek word διδασκαλιαν. We have the word “didactic.” Do you know what that means? Something that is didactic is for teaching purposes, and so, we need to be careful when we use the Scriptures wrongly, and we sometimes do. The primary intent of Scripture is not devotional. Did you ever have somebody tell you, “Every morning when I get up, I have my devotions”? I’m not really ever sure exactly what that word means, but they’ve used it. You’ve heard that, haven’t you? “And I read the Scriptures every morning, and have my devotions.” Do you know something? The Bible is not given to you for your devotions. It was given to you, not for devotional purposes. It was given to you for didactic purposes. If you read the Scriptures, and have a brownie button, because you always do, and if you read through the Scriptures once a year, or something else, and you plow through and read a chapter a day, if you don’t learn anything, it’s just devotions, then stop it. The Scriptures were given for one thing, not for devotions. They were given for learning. The call nowadays is for the Scriptures to be adapted to modern man. Paul says, “No. Man needs to adapt himself to the Scriptures.”

Back in the late 60s, there was a new translation of the Bible that came out. It was supposed to be real simple and readable, and it was called Good News for Modern Man. The thing is: the good news for modern man is the old news, the text, unadulterated, not adapted to anyone, and it’s given not so that we can instruct it, but so that it can instruct us. “God had an immediate design in the Scriptures,” Charles Hodge says, “being just what they are, and they are not to be changed.” And the purpose for which we have been given them is not devotional. It’s didactic. It is that we should learn something.

So, we’ve seen the extent of the assertion, #3, the authority of the assertion, #4, the purpose of the assertion, #5, and sixthly then, the address of the assertion. This is something that you might miss, if you were not looking very carefully in trying to see all the parts. “Whatsoever things that were written aforetime were written for our learning.” Do you see it there? Little words get shuffled away, don’t they? We sometimes lose track of them. We like the big words, and here’s a little word, 3 letters, “our learning.” Who’s addressed in the Bible? Who’s the Bible speaking to? Who is it upon whom the end of the ages has come? “These things were written not for his sake only, but for our sakes.” Who’s the “our”? “Whatsoever things were written were written aforetime for our learning.” First of all, consider this: notice that the Bible has an existential relevance. These old things, old musty things that happened thousands of years ago, Paul says, they were written for us, today, and in any day, they are profitable. There’s a certain relevance that’s asserted here. There’s an existential value to the Word of God. These old things were written for us. That is, we are not to approach the Scriptures merely as something archival, or antiquarian, or anecdotal. No. They’re written for our learning.

And the main point I want to make by this word “our” is that the Scriptures are not a gospel tract. The Bible is not written to the world. When Paul said “our,” to whom could he have been referring? “Our,” first person plural, that is, me the writer, and you my readers, and who is he writing to? The church at Rome. The Bible is not written to the world. It’s not an evangelistic tract. If you hand out Bibles, that’s not evangelism. People pick up the Bible and say, “I can’t make heads or tails out of it.” Do you know why? It wasn’t written to you. It was written to the people of God, that “we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.”
The address of the assertion is the people of God. It was given for “our” learning. That was #6.

Now, #7: The means of the assertion. You might say, “Wait, this ought to have been the results of the assertion.”

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

And the idea accepted by most is this: through the Scriptures we gather patience and comfort, the patience and comfort supplied to us by the Scriptures. That’s the way it’s ordinarily looked at, and I’m certain that’s true. When we look at the Scriptures, we are moved to patience, and to comfort. That’s perhaps been your experience. We have found it to be so.

But I want to turn that around. I think not only the possibility of reading it this way is so grammatically, but also I think we ought probably, for our best profit, to consider it this way: these are not things taken from the Scriptures, patience and hope. They are that which cause us to bring to the Scriptures in order to learn anything from them. They’re not things taken from the Scriptures, patience and hope, but that which we must bring to the Scriptures, in order to learn anything from them. That is, we need to take the Scriptures, and by patience, through patience, and through comfort, derive hope from them. As a matter of fact, these 2 words, which are translated here “patience and comfort,” I would translate “through resignation and application we might have hope.” “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning so that through our resignation to God’s truth, and application of it, we might have hope.” You see the sense in which I’m taking it? Nobody else takes it that way, but that’s okay. I take it that way. At least, the idea is, it’s not merely what we take from the Scriptures. It’s what we must bring to it, the means of the assertion. “These,” John Murray says, “are generated by Scripture. Their quality is determined by Scripture.”

But I think we need to bring these things to Scripture, in order that we might learn from them and have hope, the point being mainly this: the Scriptures are not magic. It’s not a magic charm. It’s not something that will fix you up merely because you read a big pile of it, and the more you take, the better you feel. The Scriptures are not magic. They do not operate ex opera operata, that is, merely by the reading of them do they do a good thing for us, because they don’t. Unless you use them didactically, and unless you bring to them resignation and application, you will not have any hope. The Scriptures are not magic. You must bring to them these things. That is merely to say this: if you are going to profit from the Scriptures, patience will be required.

One author has said this: “All Scripture has its relevance and appropriateness to us, though, of course, it must be handled intelligently.” And we’ve found that, haven’t we? I counted it out the other day, just for fun, and all the “Lessons from the Life of,” and all the observations we’ve made in the last 25 or 30 years are coming up on 3,000. Now, that’s patience being required, but it’s that kind of thing that brings us to maturity and to hope. It must be used intelligently, and, of course, we could go off on that. We must distinguish prescriptive from descriptive material. We must distinguish commandment from advice. We must distinguish that which is permanent from that which is temporary. You need to bring an appropriate hermeneutic to the Old Testament, or you won’t learn anything correctly. All that is true. The means of the assertion: we must bring all this patience and comfort, i.e., this resignation and application, in order to receive anything from the Scriptures.

The eighth thing I will have you to notice from our text is, finally, the end of the assertion. What is the ultimate purpose for which we come to the Scriptures, whatsoever things were written? We bring to them this patience and comfort in them. The end is that we all might have hope. As Matthew Henry once said, “Scripture is a special friend to Christian hope. This hope is not the hope of curiosity. It is the hope of certainty.” It’s not hope so. It’s not something less than know so. It is something which I want to speak about later, as we come back to this theme in verse 13, but for now we notice that hope is that characteristic which has at all periods most strikingly distinguished the authentic Christian from his pagan neighbor. What’s the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian? The Christian has hope, well founded hope. Where does it come from? “From whatsoever things have been written we might have hope.”

Remember that hope is one of those words which by itself means nothing. It’s like faith. What is faith? I don’t know. What is hope? I don’t know. The only way you can identify faith or hope is by its object. Faith is not saving faith unless it has a saving object. Hope is not solid hope unless the object of that hope is a solid object. So, neither of these words means something in itself. They’re dependent on their object for their meaning. As John Murray has said, “There cannot be the experience of hope except it is directed to an object, that which is hoped for, and it’s only as good as the object that it has.” The end of the assertion then is hope. I’m not going to say more on that now, because I wish to say more on it later.

The ninth and last thing that I want to take from our text (You say, “What’s left? We just came to the last word.”): is that we might have hope. Well, I’m going to cheat just a little and ask you to note verses 5 and 6. He says:

5 Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus:
6 that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you notice the repetition he gives here of a certain theme? “The same mind,” or we might say “Of one mind, one accord, and one mouth,” is the benefit beyond merely hope, which is not a mere thing. What is also one of the practical benefits of “whatsoever things were written for our learning”? That is, as we all learn together, we all patiently comfort, look at the same Scriptures week after week and year after year and grow together, what is the result? We will, with the same mind, with one accord, and with one mouth, glorify and confess the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s a valuable thing. As Lenski once said, “Here we have an answer to the idea that each man may have his own views, to the idea that we may agree to disagree, that creeds and confessions are hindrances, that creedless is the ideal, where wondrousness of mind and mouth is lost. Somebody is wrong. Somebody is darkening the glory of God. Somebody is forsaking the Word, and somebody is injuring the church.” So, the purpose of the Scriptures, the things written, is that all of you will, no pun intended, be on the same page. So, with one mind, with one accord, with one mouth, we say the same thing.

Now, let me close with just this thought. After all the things that we’ve said about the Scriptures, if we agree with Paul, we think quite highly of them, don’t we?

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

All these are good things, but we do not worship the Scriptures. We are not bibliolaters, as some people have accused us of being. We do not worship the Scriptures, but we do regulate our worship by the Scriptures, don’t we? Where does the regulative principle of worship come from? Well, it comes from the Scriptures, of course.

This brings up an interesting point. We do not worship the Scriptures, but we do regulate our worship by the Scriptures. Back at the time of the Reformation, your early fifteen hundreds, Luther appears on the scene, and Calvin not much later, and the Roman Catholic Church, of course, recognized that this was a huge problem, and they had accusations to make. They had their own apologetic against these reformers, and one of the things they accused the reformers of was their doctrine of sola Scriptura, the Scriptures alone are our authority for faith and practice. They accused the reformers of replacing the church with a book. You can see the Pope saying to Calvin (they never had a conversation, but if they had): “Do you know what’s wrong with you, John? You’ve replaced the church with a book.” And I want to say this about that: on one level, that was true, and we haven’t thrown the church out the window. No, no. We’ve thrown the Catholic church out the window. That’s true. We haven’t thrown the church out, but we have replaced the church with a book. We highly esteem the Word of God. It’s the only way we learn anything. When you come together in fellowship, you don’t learn anything, not unless you speak about the things written. It’s the only place that your learning is going to come from. So, we ought to pay all the more attention. This is a great statement:

ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

Well, thank you Paul for giving us that great statement. He waited a long time, quoted the Old Testament 54 times before he finally gave us this grand statement. We’re happy to have it and to be able to have looked at it this morning.

All right, where do we go from here? It’s like coming to the edge and looking over to see if there’s anything left, and you look at your Bibles and say, “Hey, the end of Romans, I can see it. It’s right there.” And read the end of Romans, and you’re going to find that “He’s going to have a hard time spending a lot of time before we get to the end,” because this is different kind of material, isn’t it? It’s not like Romans 3, or 1, or 6, or 5, or 8, or 7, or 9. It’s just not like those chapters. It’s pretty common fair. Now, I could deconstruct it and say, “I’ll take the theme that’s in that verse and expand all over the place.” You know I don’t do that very much. What are we going to do? Well, come and see. We’ll do the best we can, trying to deal faithfully with Romans right on through the end, but you know where we’ve stopped, and where we’re likely then to pick up and deal with these last thoughts from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Let’s bow together in prayer.

Our Father, again we come to you and thank you for the Word of God, and we renew our resolve that the only thing that’s going to do us any good in this world, and give us any hope in this world, is the grace of God given to us by means of our study of the Scriptures. Bless us we pray to never lose track of the sight of that. Bring us to a full and sounded hope, we pray, by the study of the Word of God. We thank you for it in Christ’s name. Amen.

2012-01-25T20:34:00.001-08:00

Romans #197-14-20080914

If you would please, for one last time, turn to Romans 14. I say last time. That is, the last time we will deal with it as a major section in the book of Romans. It may seem to you as longer than normal that we’ve been dealing with this chapter. One of the reasons would be because we have been interrupted a couple of times, and so, it’s been spread out over more Lord’s Days than we might have otherwise wished, but the section beginning in Romans 14:1 and going to Romans 15:3, at least, we have Paul dealing with one matter, which we have dealt with pretty much as a subject, rather than as a textual exposition, although I trust you will feel we have touched upon all the material that Paul has for us.

He begins by saying, “But him that is weak in faith receive ye.” It’s better to read it, “weak in the faith, and yet not for decision (or dispute) regarding scruples.” Romans 15:1, “Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” Obviously, between those 2 statements we have the body of Paul’s instruction at this point.

Now, I can trust your memory, I think, most of you, to realize that we began by something of an introduction to the chapter and the whole issue before us. We dealt with the general principles upon which Paul bases his thinking. We dealt with the whole matter of adiaphora, or those things which are indifferent. The last Lord’s Day we finally dealt with some marks of the concerns of weak brethren, and this Lord’s Day, in summing it all up, I’d like to make just a series of observations, which in a general way will remind us of where we’ve been, and where we are, so that when we leave Romans 14 we will be able to say we are doing so with this material well in hand.

The first observation is one that I concluded with last Lord’s Day. I ask you to note that the church is only ideal on paper. It’s something of a comfort to be able to say that, because we need to be dissuaded, disabused of the idea, that somehow we’re going to find the perfect church on earth. The church is only ideal on paper. It may be ideal in heaven, but it’s never ideal upon earth. One of the proofs of this, as if we needed any proof, is that Romans 14, of course, tells us that, doesn’t it? Within the church, there are going to be those who are weak, and those who are strong. There is the very real potential of there being discussion and perhaps even dispute over controverted matters. There needs to be instruction as to how weak brethren are to be treated and not trampled upon, how the strong are to behave themselves in the presence and context of weaker brethren who will always be in the church of Jesus Christ. The church is not ideal. That’s why Romans 14 is here. If the church were ideal, there would be no weak, but there are, and so, we may dissuade ourselves from that rumor. There is no ideal church, and so there are responsibilities which come upon us as the people of God that these things not be out of hand. Christian liberty is a perilous thing. “It is perilous to trivialize Christian liberty,” Donald Macleod says. “It is a great burden to be free.” So, this freedom that we have must be used in a way that does not cause disharmony among the people of God, and that’s why Romans 14 is here. If we’ve not seen that, and if we’ve not learned something about that, then we have certainly failed in our efforts.

The second thing I would have you to note by way of review in summary of all of this is that no one but God can bind the conscience. Again, I’m happy to know that this is true. This is the foundation of all Christian liberty. Our liberty resides in the fact that only God can bind our conscience. The whole idea of Christian liberty begins with the absence of liberty. I have no liberty to contravene God’s commands, but because God has commanded me no one else can, and therein lies my freedom. Nobody but God can bind my conscience. This is the essence of Christian liberty. Where there is no excess, God does not care what you eat or drink. Does that sound like an extreme statement? I think that’s what Romans 14 tells us. If there’s no excess involved, if you’re not trampling upon anybody’s conscience, if you’re not overdoing even your liberty in a thing which may be indifferent, if you’re not doing anything to excess, God does not care what you eat, or what you drink. If God has bound our conscience with regard to certain behavior, then we have no liberty. But no one else can come in and tell us what we must or must not do. Coercion in nonessentials is a form of abuse. There are some things which are just no one else’s business. Only God can deal with us with regard to the binding of our conscience.

Now, I want to read you a quote, and this is a rather long one, but it’s so worth reading that I ask you to follow along carefully as I read it to you. It’s a quote from John Murray, and it’s taken from a book that he wrote entitled Principles of Conduct. This is just brilliant, and I need for you to hear it. He says this:

“Many evangelical Christians today seek to impose standards of conduct and criteria of holiness that have no warrant from Scripture, and that even in some cases cut athwart Scripture principles, precepts, and examples. The adoption of extra-Scriptural rules and regulations has sometimes been made to appear very necessary, and even commendable. Such impositions are an attack, however, upon the sufficiency of Scripture, and the holiness of God, for they subtly imply that the standard of holiness God has given us in his Word is not adequate, and needs to be supplemented by our own additions and importations. When properly analyzed, this attitude of mind is gravely wicked. It is an invasion upon the sufficiency of the law of God, the perfect law of liberty. It is therefore, appearances to the contrary, a thoroughly antinomian frame of mind. It evinces a lamentable lack of jealousy for the perfection of Scripture, and invariably, if not corrected and renounced, leads to an ethical looseness in the matters of expressed divine commands.”

In the words of professor R B Kuiper, “The man who forbids today what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids.” No one but God can bind the conscience, and if men, churches, or anyone else tries to bind your conscience, you may say to them, “I have liberty not to listen to you. Only God can bind my conscience.” I am not at absolute liberty to do anything I wish. God binds my conscience, but no one else can, and the adoption of any standards other than those found in the Word of God, by way of precept or principle, is indeed a wicked addition to the sufficiency of Scripture, which, of course, we would not allow were we to believe there were other standards of conduct which could bind our conscience. “The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids.” No one but God can bind the conscience, Romans 14.

The third thing that I would have you to note is that even marginal and trivial scruples become fatal when made central. Remember that one of the marks of concerns of weaker brethren was to take that which is peripheral and bring it to the center. They take that which is not important, and make it important, or take that which is important, and make it all-important. Whenever marginal things, or trivial things, adiaphora, indifferent things, become central in our thinking, it can become fatal to us. “If any outward thing becomes part of a system, and is put forward, insisted upon, defended, and advocated as such, we must not take part in it,” says Alfred Edersheim. It is no longer harmless. Anything, however indifferent, ceases to be indifferent if it becomes of absolute value. So, we need to be careful that marginal things, trivial things, do not be allowed to become central things. Paul says you’re to receive those who are weak, but not to take them in just so you can be in arguments with them. They may tend to be argumentative about their qualms and scruples. Do not do so. Do not allow that which is trivial and that which is marginal to be made central.

Now, the fourth thing that we have learned, and I would have you to remember, is that no man has a right to be weak. Weakness is not a virtue. Strength is. Now, there’s a tendency, and perhaps a propensity, in reading Romans 14, to think that everything seems to be on the side of the weak. Don’t trample upon them. Don’t treat them, or abuse them, as those who have no interest in Christ. Don’t fail to receive them. The church cannot excuse itself from dealing faithfully with these brethren who are weak, but just because they get a lot of attention in Romans 14 does not mean that somehow you have a right to be weak. Weakness is not a virtue. Strength is. So, we have misread Romans 14 if we suppose that somehow there is in it an excuse for being weak. If you are weak, if you are strong enough to see that at least at some points you are weak, that’s not a pat on the back. Weakness is not a virtue. Strength is.

The fifth thing we would note, generally, is that some things are not sinful. All this time we’ve spent dealing with the idea of adiaphora. There are some things which are, in fact, indifferent. They reside not in the realm of evil or good things. They’re just indifferent. They’re not sinful. However, there are some things which are not sinful. They’re just stupid. I’ve had occasion to tell people that over the years. They say, “I don’t know if I’ve made a mistake, if I’ve done the wrong thing.” And the answer to the question was that it was not sinful what you did. It was just stupid, and you need to have that category. If you don’t have the category of stupid, then everything is either good or bad. “I didn’t do good, and I didn’t do bad. I was just foolish.” All right? If you don’t have that category, it’s difficult to live. Some things are not damning. They’re just dumb. Do you ever notice how the New Testament has far less legislation than the Old? We haven’t tossed aside the Ten Commandments, nor does the New Testament do so, but you know that all those little applications of the commandments in the Old Testament which were drawn out and written out, and Israel was to hear them continually in their ears, in the New Testament, all of that seems to be missing. Why? Because there is a certain maturity expected of the New Testament believer, and we need to be mature enough to realize that not everything is black and white, sinful. It may just be dumb, and we need to avoid those things.

The sixth thing, and I’m going rapidly here, of course, that we need to note, is that the church is not a democracy. The agenda of the weak must never be allowed to become a party. When you think of parties within the church, you think of Corinth, of course, don’t you? They had all kinds of factions within the church, and all kinds of difficulties. What if you had a church where there were a significant number of weak brethren? That might be the case, but weak brethren must never be allowed to become a party. The church is not a democracy. If the weak people become a majority, that doesn’t mean that they then rule. It is the weak brother who is to be received, Romans 14:1, not his agenda, “He that is weak in the faith, receive,” not his weakness, but his person. “This does not mean,” as Lenski says, “that one should be assured that he is right, and the other is wrong, and that each should then honor the conviction of the other.” That would be indifferent tolerance, as it is practiced by the world. No apostle ever placed right and wrong side by side and preached tolerance, but where it is merely a matter of weakness or of strength, of scruples about things indifferent, we must not allow those who are weak to begin to rule in the church. The church cannot afford to be guarded by offended brethren any more than by an offended world. What would happen if weak brethren ruled the church? Then the church would be ruled by the weak. That’s why the church is not a democracy.

Here again is what John Murray has to say: “The weak must be urged to refrain from the attempt to bring down the strong to the level of the uninformed and confused state of the mind in which the weak themselves are. Those who through lack of knowledge and weakness of faith have not attained to mature understanding must not be allowed to erect their own ignorance and weakness as the standard of morality and piety. The strong must never allow the weak to drag them down to the lower level on which the faith and understanding of the weak operate.”

Otherwise, you see, the weak would drag the entire church down to that level. We may receive the weak, but not their agenda, nor should they be allowed to become a party.

Herman Hoeksema said, “Does this mean that the weaker brother is now the man who imposes his conscience upon the entire church? God forbid. Then life in the church would become such that presently we would not know how to move. The man who takes the yardstick of his own conscience and imposes it upon us is not a weak brother. He’s a nuisance, and we must not listen to him.”

Or as Calvin said, “Thus we shall temper the use of our freedom as to allow for the ignorance of our weak brothers, but for the rigor of the Pharisees, not at all.” We must not allow the agenda of the weak to become a party in the church.

Now, the seventh thing I would have you to note is that the church’s identity must never be forged by things indifferent. There are some churches that have had that happen to them. Weaker brethren have scruples about certain matters, and they impose that scruple upon the entire church, and the whole church begins to look like the weaker brother. I told you last week about certain churches that I have been to where you can tell by the way the women dress. They look like they’ve all been popped right out of the Revolutionary War, and obviously, weaker brethren have had an agenda, and it’s become the dominant characteristic of the entire church.

I think I told you about this before, but one time many years ago a fellow came to the door, and I answered the door, and he announced himself as being a Christian man, and that they were attempting to start a new Baptist church in the vicinity. Of course, I was interested to know that, and so I was talking to him, and he informed me that they were going to be a church which held to the fundamentals of the faith. They were going to be a church which was a Bible-believing church. They were going to eschew all modernism. Everything he said sounded very good. It was going to be a strong, Bible-believing church started in the area. So, I asked him then this question: “What is then going to be the name of your church?” And he said, “Our church is going to be the King James Only Baptist Church.” Do you see what had happened? The church’s personality was being forged on a thing indifferent, the use of the King James Version of the Bible. I’ve had people call me on the phone. “We’re looking for a church. We’re new in town. Can I ask you what translation you use?” “Well, I use the old American Standard Version. Some people use the King James Version in our church, one or 2, maybe others, but basically, we hold to ones along the line of the American Standard.” “Well,” they say, “we can’t come there because we can only go where they use the King James Bible only.” They’ve made that to be a shibboleth, you see, and the church that they want has forged its personality upon a thing indifferent. Paul says that the church that is defined by its dietary law has lost its way. “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.”

Or as John Murray says, “When questions of food and drink become our chief concern, then it is apparent how far removed from the interests of God’s kingdom our thinking and conduct have strayed.” Do not let us ever allow the church’s identity to be forged by a thing indifferent, Romans 14.

The eighth thing that I would have you to note is that differences in the church, if handled rightly, add spice to its personality. Leon Morris, in his commentary on Romans, says, “The church was never meant to be a cozy club of like minded people. Christians are not clones.” Now, you know that. Just look around. We all know each other pretty well. No 2 of us are alike. We have different talents, different interests, different things that occupy us in terms of our jobs throughout the week, different areas of expertise, different levels of interest in a hundred different areas, and we may, in fact, differ in all those ways legitimately. What binds us together is not those things. What binds us together is something more profound than all of that, and in fact, there are differences in the church, even differences between weakness and strength, which in fact add a certain spice. It would not be of interest at all if we were all just cookie cut Christians. I happen to think it’s a good idea to have a few well mannered post-millennialists in every congregation. I haven’t been able to find a couple for our church, but if we had some, I’d be happy to have them. I like post-millennial optimism. They believe there will come a day, through the preaching of the gospel, that “righteousness will cover the earth, even as the waters cover the sea.” It would be good to have a couple people like that around. It’s not my eschatological position, but it would be fun to have a few, kind of as pets, you know? It adds a little spice to the church. We don’t want to all be the same. There is room for differences. It may be a weakness. It may be a strength. It’s just, maybe, a difference, and we ought to celebrate that, I think, in some measure, rather than criticizing it, and I think that’s what Romans 14 is partly about.

The ninth thing I would have you to note is that where no moral law obtains, there is a matter of indifference, there still remains a law of discipline which applies, and failure to discipline even a right action is lawlessness. So, if there are matters of indifference, even in them there is a law of discipline which still pertains to our behavior. Listen to this and see if you can make sense of the statement: “Sometimes it may be good not to do the good thing I may do.” Does that make sense? There is a time when it may be better for me not to do a good thing, even though I may do it. Here’s how Charles Hodge put it: “It is wrong to do anything which we think to be wrong. The converse of this proposition, however, is not true. It is not always right to do what we think to be right.” Paul says, “I can do a lot of things, but there are sometimes I won’t do it, because if I did I would unnecessarily trample upon the conscience of a weaker brother.” It’s not always true that it’s right to do what we know to be right. Matters of indifference are not always matters of innocence. While freedom is a right, it’s not a safe guide for our conduct.

Here’s an illustration of the fact: “It’s been said that the most dangerous drivers are the ones who just got their license. You may think they are dangerous because they are yet inexperienced in handling a vehicle. They are just starting to drive, and we would think that they are dangerous because of their being novices on the road. That’s not why they’re dangerous. The reason new drives are dangerous is because they know who has the right of way. They’ve studied the laws. They come to an intersection. They know they have the right of way, so they go forward, and they have an accident. They were in the right of way, but what they should have done is let it go.

You’re dangerous if you know what you can do, and you do it without any other consideration. You may have the right and the freedom to do a thing, but it may not be wise to do it. Therefore, the statement begins to make sense. Sometimes it may be good to not do the thing I may do.

The tenth thing I would have you to note by way of general overview is something that I’ve said before, and that is: the Christian faces 2 problems. #1 is how to live in the world, and #2 is how to live in the church, and that’s what Romans 14 is about, how to live in the church. There are going to be weak brethren there. They are going to have scruples, which you, if you are strong, know better than let them impinge upon your freedom. How do you behave yourself? It is sometimes difficult to determine which is the more problematic, how to live in the church, or how to live in the world.

Now then, I’ve rushed through them, I know, and it may have seemed like I’ve gone through them too quickly, but there’s a reason why I’ve done that. Those were 10 rather general observations drawn out from our study in Romans 14. In my interest, of course, that we have this somewhat bundled up so that it would be of practical value to you, and I am certain that Paul would have wanted the same thing. Let me do this now in a different way, and that is, I want to give you a catechism. A catechism is merely a way of instruction by asking questions of ourselves and, hopefully, having the appropriate answer. Let me give you a catechism of 6 questions regarding things indifferent, these things that fall into the cracks. They’re not good if we do them. It’s not necessarily bad if we do not do them. There are such things, we believe, and Paul is dealing with such things in Romans 14, but there are 6 questions we ought to be able to use and apply to our behavior at any particular point, and if we answer these questions, we can pull ourselves out of the continual problem of “should I, or shouldn’t I?” What are the 6 questions? Whenever I feel that I have freedom to do something, that it is, in fact, a thing indifferent, the question comes to me: Should I, or should I not allow it at this point? Ask these 6 questions.

Question #1: Is it in fact indifferent? Am I really dealing with something here that falls into the category in between right and wrong things? If not, then it’s not indifferent. So, the first thing would be: is it, in fact, or is it not an indifferent matter? How important is this? The man who today forbids what God allows, will tomorrow allow what God forbids.

Question #2: Is it expedient? Must it be done, or can it await another time, or place? Is it necessary? Romans 14:21, a text that has been quoted quite often,

21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.

If we were to lift that out of Romans 14 all by itself, then the weaker brother would rule, because if I would offend him, Paul says, “I just won’t do it, for the fear of offending a weak brother.” Therefore, the weak would rule. Their conscience would become the law of the behavior of the church. There is reason to believe, because of the language that Paul uses, the aorist infinitive, if you will, on this occasion, that Paul did not become a vegetarian at this point, except in the presence of weak brethren. Of course, Paul says this in a context that would soften this a great deal. “If it would offend you for me to eat meat, it’s not necessary for me to have meat, at least not in front of you. Now, if you’re not around, I’m not any longer under that compulsion.” That is, it’s only in the presence of weak brethren that Paul became vegetarian. When he was not in the presence of vegetarian brethren, he would eat meat because he has freedom to do so. It was a thing indifferent, but he would ask himself a second question: Is it necessary? And he was able to answer: No, I can forgo that now, so that I don’t trample upon the conscience of this weak brother, but when he’s gone, so is the restriction. I can do the good that I know I may do.

#3: Ask the question: Can it be controlled? I may be free to do it, but can I control it? Can I lay it aside, or does it control me? As Samuel Bolton, the Puritan, once said, “We abuse our liberty when we give too much scope to ourselves in things that are lawful.” Can I control this? If not, I ought not. Is it, in fact, indifferent? Is it expedient? Can it be controlled?

#4: Does it offend the scruples of weaker brethren? This is what Romans 14 is about. How do I receive these and not enter into doubtful disputation? Does it offend those who are weak? So, because it is not necessary, I cannot do it in that context. Rabbi Duncan, I don’t know if you’re familiar with him, wasn’t a Rabbi. He was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland in the 19th Century, and they called him “Rabbi” because he was their Old Testament scholar, and he was so knowledgeable about the Hebrew language that they just called him “Rabbi,” but that really wasn’t his name. But he said this: “I have a long creed for myself, but I have a short creed for everyone else. For myself, I am as strict as I need to be.” If I were to offend them, and if it’s not a matter of conscience, I may lay it aside.

The fifth question to ask is this: Does it leave the conscience at peace? You might be able to allow yourself to do something, but can you do it, ultimately, with a good conscience? In verse 22, Paul says,

Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth.

He allows it, but judges himself for having done it. Can I do this, and will my conscience be at peace? The thing in itself, objectively, and the thing in my mind, subjectively, may not agree, but that man, right or wrong, who violates his conscience in that which he allows, Romans 14:22b, is in conflict with himself, doesn’t leave the conscience at peace. This has been called the dieter’s dilemma. You have the piece of cherry pie with ice cream on top, and you know that it is good, but your diet says that it is bad. You eat it, and you enjoy it, and you have freedom to enjoy it, but then afterwards you have pangs of conscience, because you’ve gone off your diet. Can I do this? Yes. Can I do it with a good conscience? No. Ask yourself the question: Does it leave the conscience at peace?

And question #6 in this catechism: Does it contribute to the glory of God? 1Cor 10:31:

31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Now, I submit to you in a very practical way, if you come upon a matter, and you think it is a thing indifferent, you may or may not do this thing. Still submit it to these 6 catechism questions. Is it, in fact, indifferent? Be sure of your ground at that point. Is it expedient? Can it be controlled? Does it offend the scruples of weak brethren? Does it leave the conscience at peace? And sixthly, does it contribute to the glory of God? That would be good if we did that, and I think we would be fulfilling what Paul wants us to do and see from Romans 14.

Let me turn this around in another way. Bear with me for just another few moments, and let me give you 6 cautions for strong brethren. Now, if I were to say, “How many of you are weak brethren?” No doubt, you’re not going to raise your hand. First of all, you would rather remain anonymous. Secondly, weak brethren don’t think they’re weak. We all tend to think we’re strong, don’t we? “Whoever these weak brethren are, I certainly am not one of them.” Let’s say you are all strong brethren. “They that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” You fall into the camp. Paul puts himself in that camp. Notice it there, Romans 15:1? “Now, we that are strong.” Do you see how he puts himself in it? I’m happy to put Paul in the strong camp, aren’t you? Are you willing to be there with him? “Yes, yes, Paul and I, we are the strong ones.” Let’s say we all think that, because we all probably do. Let me give 6 cautions for those who are strong. That is, the possibility is this: that we may indeed be right in principle, and yet be wrong in practice. We may be right in principle, and yet not right in the allowance of certain behavior. So, here are 6 cautions for the strong.

#1: We must caution ourselves by any action, if by doing so we eject the weak from fellowship. “Him that is weak in the faith,” what? “Receive.” If by doing this you eject from the people of God a weak brother, then you may be right in principle, but you are wrong in your practice.

#2: You are wrong, even though you are strong, if you engage the weak in quarrelsome debate. “But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for debate about scruples.”

#3: You may be right and yet wrong, if you adopt a posture of superiority over the weak. Again, that is found all through Romans 14.

#4: You may be right and yet wrong, even though you are strong, if you parade your freedom without regard for the weak brother’s conscience.

#5: You may be right, and yet not right, if you press a weak brother to act contrary to his conscience.

And #6, lastly: You may be right and yet not right, if you value your opinion above the work of God. The church is more important than your expression of freedom at any given point.

So, I may be right and yet not right, if any one of these 6 things appears in my allowance of this behavior.

I’ve tried, by way of making general observations. I gave you a catechism with 6 questions, 6 cautions for those of you who think you are, in fact, the strong with Paul. These are the kinds of things we can do for ourselves and answer those almost unanswerable questions at any given point. Can I do this? Is it, in fact, indifferent? Will I offend my brethren? Can it be controlled? Does it contribute to the glory of God? You see, these questions, ultimately, will tell me what to do, and so they are, in that sense, very practical.

Now, I am saying at this point, and perhaps many of you are saying, “I’m glad to hear you say that,” we’re done with this general theme found in Romans 14:1 through 15:3. However, I’m going to ask your indulgence one more time before we leave this. It won’t be next Lord’s Day, but the Lord’s Day following, but I’m going to come back to Romans 14. Paul says many things here, doesn’t he? And some of these are texts which just seem to stand up on their own, don’t they? Verse 17:

17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Could you preach a sermon on that? It sounds like one I could. If there’s a place where I could preach a sermon, I think I could get it out of that. That’s a real statement, isn’t it? That’s not it, but I’m going to return to one text, one statement in Romans 14. Again, we’re done dealing with Paul’s argument all the way through, but there is one, I think, outstanding statement that Paul makes in the midst of his argument in Romans 14, which I just cannot let slip by without going back and saying, “Let’s take this as a text.” I’m not going to tell you what it is. You read Romans 14 and ask, “What is the text that he just can’t let go?” What is the text in Romans 14, in the midst of Paul’s elongated argument, that statement which just stands up by itself and says, “Pay attention to me”? What do you think it might be? There are a number of them possible, but there’s only one that I’m going to deal with, and so, God willing, we’ll do that. So, there’s a sense in which we’re leaving Romans 14. There’s another sense in which not quite yet. One statement, I think, needs to be dealt with more fully, and then, God willing, we’ll move on, and you can realize that, in some short order, finish the book of Romans, which we began 8 years ago. Let’s bow together in prayer.

Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your patience with us as we try our best to deal faithfully with your Word. We thank you for your patience with us, knowing that these kinds of principles are not always easy in terms of their practical application. #1, we would be strong rather than weak. #2, we would at least wish to understand how to behave ourselves in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Weak or strong, we ask your blessing upon us, and that we may thrive together as a group of dissimilar and yet united people in the Lord Jesus Christ. For these things we ask, and thank you in Christ’s name. Amen.

2012-01-25T20:32:00.001-08:00

Romans #178-12.3-8-20080106

I don’t remember if I said it publicly, but I have thought it privately, that when we came to Romans 12, and particularly, as we move along in this last section of Romans, that we would move more quickly than we had in dealing with chapters 1 through 11. It appears to me that it doesn’t feel that way, and that we have been in Romans 12 some long time, and yet, here we are only at verse 3. Of course, verses 1 and 2 are packed with matter, and after some introductory thoughts, it took us some time to come to our place then, but having this introduction:

Romans 12:1-8 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your logical service. 2 And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

And now then, verse 3:

3 ¶ For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. 4 For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another. 6 And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; 7 or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; 8 or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

You can tell as we were reading through there, and if you have your ASV, that there are a lot of italicized words. As a matter of fact, there are some words that are not italicized that ought to be. For instance, in verse 6, “And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith,” do you see the word “our” there? It should be in italics. As a matter of fact, it shouldn’t be there at all. It should be “according to the proportion of faith.” It’s a something. Rather than something that you have, it’s a something that’s a principle, and that completely clouds, if not obscures, the meaning.

Well, Paul is writing to these Romans, and after verses 1 and 2, he is telling them then how this works itself out in a practical way. This “presenting your bodies a living sacrifice, not being conformed to this world, proving and approving the will of God,” what does all that mean? For one example, it says that “you ought not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think.” And then, from there he moves on, and we have all of these injunctions that follow.

Let me give you an outline, which I believe I have already given you before, but it tells us where we are. Romans 12, really beginning here, after these 2 introductory statements, is filled with what I am going to call: justified behavior, or the behavior of those who are justified, before the world. Romans 13 is easily enough recognized as justified behavior before the state. And thirdly, Romans 14, and going over halfway into Romans 15, Romans 15:13, that last section, is justified behavior before the church.

There is one part of that outline that may cause some objection, and it’s the first, the one we’re in now, because I’ve labeled all of chapter 12, “Justified Behavior Before the World,” and yet, ordinarily it is commonly divided with verses 3 through 13 being behavior in the church, and verses 14 through 21, the last half of the chapter, being behavior before the world. Now, that is true. I do not debate that, and I think you do see in verses 3 through 8, especially verses 3 through 13, we have behavior in the church. The context is very clearly the church, amongst the people of God, but I still call chapter 12, “Justified Behavior Before the World.”

There is a reason, and that is this: the ethical demands are not those that can be so neatly compartmentalized, but they overlap, and extend in principle to all men, and to our behavior wherever we are. It’s not only good for you in the church to not think more highly of yourself than you ought. It’s also good when you go to work, and everyday, and it applies equally well anyplace you might find yourself, and so, Justified Behavior Before the World, I think, is the best way to label it. Not only that, but the evils that we are to avoid, found in this chapter, i.e., high thinking, hypocrisy, sloth, conceit, and revenge, face the Christian equally in the church, or outside of it. So, that’s why I justify that statement in the outline that says this is behavior generally, whether you’re in church or not, before the world, before other men, Christian or otherwise. However, it is important to note that the very first place Paul sees the Christian is in the church. Did you notice that? “Present yourself a sacrifice. Do not be conformed to this world. Approve the will of God.” Where is that going to, first of all, be seen and done? And the answer is: in the context of the people of God. As Lloyd-Jones says, “The first place that you find the Christian, therefore, is in church.” Paul starts with the Christian living his life in the church. Now, keep that thought, because I want to come back to it at the last.

Very quickly and simply, there are 3 things then that are involved in verses 3 through 8. We’ve bitten this off as a chunk. The ASV indicates paragraph divisions there. I think it’s correct. Only the first portion, or actually two-thirds of our outline, we’ll deal with this morning, and leave it to be finished, especially verses 7 and 8, next Lord’s Day. This whole issue of spiritual gifts needs to be dealt with in its own right, but there are 3 questions we can ask of the text, and it will take us through verses 3 through 8.

#1. Where does this directive come from? Well, the answer is clear. Paul says, “For I say through the grace that is given to me.” It comes from Paul, and this little phrase, which you may have not even noticed, “I say,” Paul says, “that you ought not to think of yourself more highly than you ought.” What right does he have to tell us this? “I say so.” Why? “Because I say so.” Is it an ipsi dixit, “because I say so”? No, he says, “I say this to you, because of the grace of God that’s been given to me,” and this might refer to the fact that he’s been made an apostle. It certainly refers to the fact that it’s not merely because “I say so,” but because “I, who have been dealt graciously by God’s grace to be placed in this position to speak to you thus.” It has an imperative ring about it, doesn’t it? “I say unto you,” Paul says. Other times, he will say, “Please,” almost. “Please, do this.” “I beseech you therefore, brethren.” “I entreat you.” But here, he doesn’t do that. He says, “I say, therefore.” So, the directive comes from authority. He speaks to them with authority.

But what’s interesting is, before I come to what’s interesting, notice that this “I say” is something you’ve run across before. Who else do you see in the New Testament coming time and time and time again saying, “I say unto you”? Well, of course, it’s our Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, sometimes prefaced with the word, “Verily,” or, “Amen.” “I say unto you.” “You’ve heard it said of old times, but I say unto you.” In fact, how many times in the Gospels do you think you’d find that? The answer is: over 160 times. So, we’re used to having someone say something to us, and expecting it to be done. Paul comes with authority given to him by the grace of God.

As I’ve mentioned, there’s an interesting point, and the point is this, and I hope you’ll see that it is interesting, and that is: this call to humility, that no man should think more highly of himself than he ought, is grounded in authority. Sometimes, we have this idea of humility that means that everybody is so humble that there’s no authority left. Everybody just bows down. Nobody’s in charge, because we’re all so humble, but notice that this call for humility is grounded in authority. “I say unto you.” There must be authority, and it’s not contrary, or contradictory to, authority.

Secondly, to who does this directive apply? Equally important, he says, “I say unto you, by the grace that was given to me, to every man,” and here he’s not referring just to men, excluding women, but to all, everyone, “that is among you.” Now, I find that to be important, too. This directive applies not to some in the church, but to everyone who’s there. That is, this, and, I believe, all the exhortations that follow, are to be equally distributed to all the people of God. They’re not sequestered to one particular group, kind of person, sitzim leben. Whatever their situation in life, it doesn’t make any difference, man or woman, bond or free, old or young.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.

Now, it is true, is it not? You know your New Testament. There are some times when husbands are addressed, wives are addressed, children are addressed, masters are addressed, servants are addressed, and our particular situation in life, and that’s all fair enough, but by and large, there is no segregation of the people of God into specific groups in the New Testament. That is a modern invention. That in order to effectively deal with people, we’ve been taught, you need to divide them up into their demographic profiles, and have you ever noticed churches where you go to the church, and the men go here, and the women go there, and old people go here, and young people go there? There’s a church in our area that advertised that they had classes for singles, classes for unwed mothers, and a class for divorced people. In other words, “No matter who you are, we have a place for you,” but you notice that Paul never writes any letters to specific groups of people. Rather, ordinarily, what we have is, “I say this to everyone that’s there that all of this applies.” So, if you’re here today, and you say, “I’m not certain that applied to me,” you’re wrong. He says it to everyone that’s there. Where does this directive come from? To whom does this directive apply? The segregation of the church nowadays into special interests is a modern innovation aimed to promote self-importance by attention. “You’re important. You’re special. You’re someone. There’s no one quite like you.” Paul says, “No, I lump you all together. I don’t want anyone thinking more highly of themselves than they ought.”

Now, thirdly, what does this directive require? You say, “There’s 3 points to his outline. He’s always on his third point. He’s already there. So, perhaps this is the longest one.” And, in fact, it is. What does this directive, then, verses 3 through 8, require? Well, it requires 3 things. Again, let me give you the outline, so you can think your way through.

It requires, #1, an enlightened sense of self. This is where he begins.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but so to think as to think soberly.

It requires an enlightened sense of self.

#2. It requires an enlightened sense of society. All right? You’re members of a body, and severally members thereof, the one and the many, and we’ll come to that.

And thirdly, there is an enlightened sense of service, which we will not get to this morning. That’s found in verses 6, 7, and 8. By the way, when we come to this issue of having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, this whole idea of spiritual gifts, I want to deal with them next Lord’s Day. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, if you know anything about him, and some of his emphases, especially towards the end of his life (I spent a lot of time here), on verses 6 through 8, spends 100 pages dealing with that passage, and I submit to you that this is too much attention for such a slender amount of information, and we will try to exhaust it all in just a very few pages, rather than as he did.

So, there are 3 things that this directive requires of us, as we come to verses 3 through 8. The first is an enlightened sense of self. It’s quite instructive where Paul begins. If you’re going to regulate your life in a Christian way, if you’re going to behave yourself as a justified sinner, justified by faith alone, the very first thing, where he begins to itemize what that behavior will look like, after the general introduction in verses 1 and 2, is that you not think more highly of yourself than is reasonable, an enlightened sense of self. This is where you must begin. This is the first on the list, and unless this is done, nothing else will follow rightly. So, this is important.

Notice that, first of all, one thing becomes very clear, and that is, thinking will be required. We’ve already emphasized this, and we can’t lose this thought, and this emphasis, if we’re at all acquainted with Paul. Thinking is going to be required. I know that it’s very popular today for religious people to go to church these days and actually be offended if they are called upon to think. They want to come and be entertained. They want to have warm and fuzzy feelings, and go away saying, “Ah. It was good today to be in the house of the Lord.” But they’ve never been called upon to think, and if they were called upon to think, they would complain. “I didn’t come here to go to school,” say they. “We came here to come to church, and to worship.” And for them, worship has nothing to do with thinking. It’s not cerebral activity at all, but notice what Paul has said. First of all, “You must present your bodies a living sacrifice, which is your,” and it ought to be translated, “logical service.” There’s something logical about all of this that he’s calling for, and logic is thinking, thinking correctly, and he says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed,” and how are you going to do that? “By the renewing of your mind.” And so, we’ve already been confronted with it, haven’t we?

But now, in verse 3, he says, “Now look. Here’s what this is going to be. Item #1: You are not to think of yourselves more highly than you ought to think, but to think as to think soberly.” Now, the ASV is good at this point. It has the word “think” 4 times, doesn’t it? “Think, think, think, think.” You’re going to have to think if you’re going to live as a Christian. You’ve met a lot of people who call themselves religious people, and you’ve engaged them in conversation, and one thing that is apparent is that they’re not thinking. Paul says, “You’ve got to think. Do not think more highly than you ought to think, but think sober thoughts.” The word “think,” the word φρονεω, is the Greek word, and is, in fact, found 4 times. It is compounded one time with “Do not overthink, but think so as to think soberly.” Twice it is used just in its primary infinitive form. Twice it is compounded with other words, but 4 times in a row it is found, and the ASV indicates very nicely that it is there. “Think, think, think, think.” This word, in the original language, connotes not so much the act of thinking itself, that is, the intellectual process of thinking, but the direction of one’s thinking, the way in which you view something.

And there is another, not correction, but, at least, explication that’s in order here. It says, “He ought not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.” You see it there? Literally, it says, “You ought not to think of yourself beyond that which is required, beyond that which is necessary, beyond that which you are, literally, bound to think.” Ought is too weak. Not just, “You ought not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think,” but, “You ought not to think of yourself more highly than it is reasonable for you to think.” In other words, Paul is not calling for a silly inferiority complex. “O me, o my. I’m the lowest of the low. My gifts are less than anyone else’s.” He’s not asking you to have a false humility, which is a disgusting thing, isn’t it? He’s saying, “No. Don’t think more highly than it’s necessary to think.” You may have to think of yourself somewhat highly in certain areas. Reason demands it. It’s part of your logical service. But don’t think more highly of yourself than is necessary. He’s not calling us to be foolish and unreasonable, or, as Lenski says, “to have a silly inferiority complex.” That’s not what Christianity is about.

Secondly, there needs to be an enlightened sense of society, that you are merely a member of a body, and he deals with this in verses 4 and 5. As we come to it, note something that’s very important. Note the order in which Paul proceeds. He tells us that right thinking regarding others first requires right thinking about ourself. In my Bible, verse 3 comes before verses 4 and 5. In verses 4 and 5, he says that you are members of a body. You’re in a society, which is called in the New Testament, “the church,” but you’ll never exist there properly, you’ll never do well with others, until you’ve first dealt correctly with yourself. How does he begin? “Don’t think more highly about yourself than is reasonable,” because then he can go on and say that you’re a member of a body. Unless you’ve got an enlightened sense of self, you’ll never have an enlightened sense of society, and so, we have this metaphor, which is common in the New Testament, particularly with Paul. The church being likened to a body with members, the different parts that go to make up the one organism. Church is like that. It is particularly laid out by him in 1 Corinthians 12.

Romans 12:4-5 For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.

“Members” has no meaning apart from the body. One cannot be a member of nothing. So, you can’t be a member unless there is a body. Or, as John Murray says, “We all together then, as members, have property with one another, because only as we come together as the various members is there, in fact, an organism that exists and functions.”

So, we have this age-old philosophical conundrum of how do you reconcile the many things that there are, and see them in some sort of unity? The church is a good answer to that question. There are many members, but one body. That is, the body of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is one. Not occasionally one, or accidentally one, but essentially one, integrally one. It’s not theoretically one, but vitally so.

Our own Confession bothers me somewhat at this point, when it speaks about the church, because it uses language in which it calls the church, at least one aspect of it, a universal, and even invisible, church, and what they’re doing with that language is referring to the fact that there are more Christians than are just in this room. That’s true, isn’t it? They’re all over the world in various places, and they have lived and died and gone before us, and there are others who will probably exist after us, and so, there is the idea that there is a church, a group of God’s people, that is larger than just those who assemble in any particular place, but the New Testament never uses the idea of the whole elect of God, and calls them a church. It doesn’t do that. The church is never a universal, invisible church. It’s always a local, visible, vital, functioning organism. This idea of the universal church, one that never meets, expects nothing of its members, imposes no discipline, and has no practical function in the world, is never envisioned in the New Testament. The church is always a visible, vital organism, which has members, and those members bring about unity, because it has one head, which Paul doesn’t mention here, but he does in other places.

Not only is the church one, but it also contains the many. That is, the church is not drab. As I look out, there’s no two of you that I would possibly mistake for the other. You’re all different, and the better I know you, and the better you know everyone else, you know how much different they are. Some people are more different than others, but here they all are, united about something, but they are not drab, a cloned kind of unity. Unity is not uniformity. The church is not a mob. Do you remember pictures in your mind from old movies about people moving through the streets, having torches, going up to assail their common enemy, whether it’s Dr Frankenstein in his castle, or whatever it is? They have common cause, but without any regulative principle. Have you noticed that? The church is not a mob with just a common cause. There’s more that unites it than merely that.

As one author has said, “The point is that the body is one. Not despite its diversity, but it’s one body only by virtue of its diversity. Without that diversity, the body would be a monstrosity. It must have all sorts of different parts so that it can function. This is Paul’s argument, and he does not enlarge upon it, so we will not do it here either.

The third point: Paul says you must have an enlightened sense of self, an enlightened sense of society, an enlightened sense of service, which we are going to reserve for next Lord’s Day, and before we leave this and come to some observations, there is one phrase here that needs to be noted carefully, because, probably, you’ve never understood it right.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith.

What do you make of that little phrase, “A measure of faith”? Ordinarily, I think that I can pretty well guess that if you’ve looked at it, you’ve looked at it this way: everyone has a differing amount of faith. God has given to each one of us a measure of faith. Some of you have a big measure. Some of you have a small measure. Some of you have a very small measure, but each one of us has at least some measure of faith. Isn’t that the way you’ve thought of it?

I want to suggest to you that probably is not right. This phrase, “a measure of faith,” depends upon our understanding of the word “measure,” our understanding of the use of the word “faith,” and also the genitival relationship between the two, which gives us the word “of,” which is very important, by the way. In fact, C B Cranfield, who has written a commentary on the book of Romans, has said that there are this many views of what “measure” can mean, this many of what “faith” can mean, and this many of what the genitival relationship between them can mean, and if you multiply those together, he gets 70 possible permutations of how this can be understood.

I hope that is not this complicated this morning. My point is this: faith cannot be measured. That is, as John Murray says, ““Measure” here is not to be understood as if faith were a quantity that could be divided into parts, and thus measured out in portions.”

So that, if we could see somehow into your heart, and, let’s say, you can have faith from 1 to 5, 5 is the most you can have, and 1 is the least, if I could see inside your heart, and there would be a little number there. And I look over here, and I see a man, and he’s got a little 3 inside of him that only I can see, his measure of faith. He has 3 measures of faith. I look at someone else, and they have 2, and someone else, and they have 4, and so on and so forth. Everyone has a certain degree, quantity of faith, and that’s thier measure of faith. That’s the way that this is normally taken, and it’s a natural way to take it.

But I submit to you: that’s not the right way, because faith can’t be divided up that way. Faith cannot be measured. It either is, or it isn’t. Faith is faith. It may be strong, or weak. That is, if I were to look inside of you, and see your measure of faith, it might be bright and shiny, or it might be dim and obscure, but it would still be the same number. Faith is faith. It may be strong or weak. It may be great or small, but no believer has more faith than another. If he’s a believer, he’s a believer, and he has the measure of faith, which is the measure of the man. He’s a man of faith. Each one, Paul says, has this full ration, or this full allotment, of faith, saving faith. It’s not faith in degree. It’s faith in common. We all have, each of us has, this measure of faith. Now, I’ll prove why I believe this is correct in just a moment. A true and objective estimate of ourselves requires an accurate and objective standard against which to measure, and that measure has to be the same thing all the time, or it’s not objective, and it’s not a standard, and what is the standard? It’s the measure of faith. Do you have it, or not? That’s the standard. As Leon Morris says, “God has given faith as the measure.” It’s the measure itself. Faith, in any event, is not measured by its size. Faith is always measured by its object. It’s not how much faith I have. It’s where my faith is. If the object is good, faith is good. It doesn’t matter how strong my faith is, if its object is not strong, it’s not faith. The controlling and determining object in faith is not the believing subject, but the believed in object.

Now, here is why I believe that this is correct, and why you’ve probably thought about this, and I did too, wrongly, for a long time. The measure of faith is not how much faith you have, relative to somebody else. The measure of faith is what all God’s people have, and it’s all the same, and I know that’s what Paul is arguing, because, why? Because he says, “My whole point here is that you not think about yourself more highly than you ought, because each of you has exactly the same thing to commend you.” And it’s, what? Faith is the measure. Do you see the point? If all of our faith differed, if you had one, and you had 3, and you had 5, then you could think more highly of yourself than another, but the argument is: you can’t, because we all have the same measure of faith. Each one of us has a full allotment. It’s a completely different way of thinking about it, isn’t it? But I submit it to you because there is no cause for elevation of one member above another among the people of God. Why? Because we all have, each one has, the measure of faith. That’s what makes us members. All right? That’s the argument. Otherwise, the point is lost, and we have no idea why Paul would bring this up. So then, there’s the clarification.

3 observations now, and then we’ll conclude.

#1. Low self-esteem is not man’s problem. We’ve been told that, haven’t we? It’s been drilled into your head. Politicians tell you this. Educators tell you this. Philosophers tell you this. Psychologists tell you this. “Your problem, the main problem that people suffer from, is low self-esteem. They don’t think as highly of themselves as they ought to think.” Have you been told that? What does Paul say? The problem is not that you’re thinking too lowly about yourself, that your esteem is too low. What does Paul say the problem is? That you think too highly of yourself. It is not biblical to suggest that man’s problem is low self-esteem. It is biblical to suggest, however, that man’s problem is high self-esteem.

Oh, oh. We’re absolutely contrary to the world’s thinking at this point. They’re saying it’s too low. Paul says it’s too high. Low self-esteem is not man’s problem. Notice that Paul does not deem it necessary, in writing Romans, to call upon these Romans, that they should guard against thinking too lowly about themselves. He doesn’t do that, does he? He says, “Guard yourself against thinking too highly about yourself. I know that’s the problem. I don’t even need to mention the problem of you thinking too lowly about yourself, because that’s not your problem.” Paul says that the problem is not salvaged by overthinking. He says, “Don’t do that.” The problem is solved by sober thinking. “I don’t want a high self-esteem. I want a reasonable self-esteem.” As one author has said, “A fanatical estimate of one’s own worth, powers, or importance, is one of the most radical, and certainly one of the common, causes of obliquity of moral vision,” thinking too highly of oneself.

Think for a moment about the way in which we’re being twisted around on this, nowadays. I’m going to mention 2 things: modern science, and modern religion.

Modern science promotes low self-esteem. There is all this talk about, “You need to think more highly of yourself, have a high self-esteem,” but modern science, which they’re just as enamored with, promotes low self-esteem. Why? Because modern science ignores the dignity of man as created. Man needs to have a reasonable self-esteem. We are created in the image of God, but what does modern science tell you? You were not created in the image of God. You’re merely the highest rung on the ladder of an evolutionary scale. Ultimately, you’re merely a refined animal, and you have all sorts of remnants of the brute in you. And so, modern science tells me I’m made out of star stuff, and I’m merely a product of brute evolution, just lately, in terms of their time scale, crawling out of the primordial ooze, and getting above the monkeys. What does that promote in terms of self-esteem? It ignores the dignity of man as created. Modern science promotes low self-esteem, doesn’t it?

Modern religion, if you’ve listened to it at all lately, promotes high self-esteem. Why? Because it ignores the depravity of man as fallen.

Do you see how we are being torn, and both are wrong, modern science, and modern religion? Is anybody telling us the truth? Modern science is saying one thing, and modern religion is saying another. We better listen to Paul. Modern science promotes low self-esteem, because it ignores the dignity of man as created. Modern religion promotes high self-esteem, ignoring the depravity of man as fallen. What a mess, but one thing we do know is that low self-esteem is not, and never has been, man’s problem. His problem is not thinking too lowly of himself. It’s thinking too highly of himself.

#2. Regarding humility, which is what Paul is calling for here, isn’t it? Humility. We’d say, “Here’s the word in the dictionary that describes what he is saying. “Don’t think more highly of yourself than you ought.”” 4 things about humility:

1. The failure of humility precipitated the fall, Genesis 3:5. What was the fall? It was the failure of man’s proper self-image. He allowed himself to think that he could be God. The fall was a failure of self-image. That was exactly where Satan knew he could get a foothold, and do you notice that it’s the same place today? The failure of humility is what precipitated the fall.

2. The scarcity of humility is the infection of history. What is the history of the world? It is the chronicle of inflationary egotism. Humility was regarded by the Greeks as a weakness of character. John Owen has said, “The general end of the men of the world is self. All is resolved into self. Whatever their pretense be, yet self is their end. All centers in self.”

3. The recovery of which identifies the new man and the new mind. What do Christians look like? If you’re looking for one, let me suggest this: don’t look that they have a Bible under their arm. Don’t look that they have a certain dress, or this, or that. Look for one thing. It’s a tell-tale sign. It’s the mark of the new man, and the new mind. Do you know what it is? It’s humility. Why do you think you became a Calvinist? It’s because the doctrines of grace put you in your place. It makes you humble. Humility, the recover of which, identifies the new man and the new mind. If you’re looking for a Christian, look for this.

#4. The exercise of humility makes the church habitable. It makes it a place where you can live. What is it that allows us to all come together? It’s this: we’re members of one body. Isn’t that where Paul goes? It’s the argument. Humility makes the church a habitable place.

All right. Those 4 things are about humility, the failure of which, the scarcity of which, the recovery of which, and the exercise of which.

Lastly, please observe that any depiction of the Christian’s life, which does not begin with the church, regardless of its ethic, is not New Testament Christianity. Do you remember what I said at the beginning? Although it’s the Christian’s justified behavior in the world, yet notice where he begins: in the church. Any depiction of the Christian’s life that does not begin with the church, regardless of how ethical it may be, is not New Testament Christianity. This is a rebuke for those who take a too individualistic a view of the Christian life, supposing that the summons of verses 1 and 2 can be answered in a vacuum, and they can’t. They can only be filled and answered in the context of the local, gathered assembly. As Stuart Olyott said in his little commentary on Romans, “People who appear to be keen Christians, but are not obeying the Lord in this area, are not keen Christians at all.” Or as Calvin said, and listen to this carefully, “God is our Father. The church is our mother.” Does that sound strange? Almost sounds Roman Catholic, doesn’t it? But it’s not. Any depiction of the Christian’s life, which does not begin with the church, regardless of its ethic, is not New Testament Christianity.

God willing, next Lord’s Day, we’ll come to verses 6, 7, and 8. We’ll deal with this knotty problem of spiritual gifts, hopefully clarify it, and put it behind us, and we’ll attempt to do that next Lord’s Day.

Please bow with me.

Our Father in heaven, again, we thank you for the meeting of your people, for the members of the body that come together. We’re not a mob, but we have property in one another. We thank you for one another, for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, visible, local, vital. We thank you for it, in that it is the context in which we may express ourselves, and it is our humility that makes this place habitable. We thank you for your Word. May this be instructive to us, for we ask it in Christ’s name. Amen.

2012-01-25T20:22:00.001-08:00

Luke #11-2.21-24-19980118

In our continuing study of the gospel of Luke, we find ourselves having come to Luke 2:21. Originally, I had been following, pretty much, the paragraph divisions as they are suggested by our American Standard Version, for example. I thought we might treat verses 21 through verse 40. Ultimately, it would appear that if we were ever going to finish the gospel according to Luke within our lifetimes, there needs to be a taking of some bites out of the material each time we come together. This morning, however, I would like to confine our thoughts and observations to a real division, although not one that’s indicated by the text in our Bibles, and that division would be considering only verses 21 through verse 24.

Once again, this is a passage which at first glance may not seem to contain a great deal of information, and could have been passed over with just a thought or 2. However, I would like to at least as much as we can this morning consider this, and read then verses 21 through 24. The title of this, as I would reckon our progress through the historical material, is again the Account of Jesus’ Birth. This is #3, and so, on 2 occasions, we’ve considered the circumstances surrounding the birth of our Lord. This then will be our third study, and in a fourth we will at least begin to consider the words of Simeon, which begin in verse 25.

Luke 2:21-24 And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called JESUS, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

And so then, we commence in verse 25 with those things which were said in the temple on the occasion of their having come there. There’s a sense in which all of this is bound together, but here are the introductory words, the reason that brings them to the temple, the occasion of his circumcision, that is, after 8 days, and then the days of their purification, which was a period of 40 days. So that after 40 days they were to come and to offer this offering according to the Old Testament law, and after 8 days (there are 32 days between the 2 events, that occurring in verse 21, the circumcision, and that occurring in verses 22 through 24). This is all recorded in the Old Testament. It’s the nuts and bolts of which Jews were supposed to do after the birth of a child, and it was no different in the occasion of the birth of our Lord.

So, we want to consider this passage again, a passage which could be referred merely to the Old Testament ritual of going through the motions that they were called upon to do, but I think there are several important matters, 5 at least, that we can consider this morning in our time together, and before we begin to look at these, once again, let us bow together in prayer.

Our Father in heaven, we do thank you this morning for having gathered together once again this body of your people. We thank you for the Lord’s Day, your wisdom in having commanded that we should meet and we should rest upon this day. Our Father, we do thank you for the gathering of your people, and the occasion being the opening up of your Word. We trust that we may have been able effectively to offer some praise unto you this day, and that your glory, that your goodness, would indeed be proclaimed in this place as well as others on this the Lord’s Day. We pray your blessing upon this little flock now as we would attempt once again to look into the Word of God. We pray that you would be pleased to open it up to our thinking, and that you would grant us unreservedness, not only of speech, but of attention, to grasp the truth as best we can. We pray that you would bless us for having attempted to do so, and for having met together. We pray that your presence would be felt in this place even as we consider these things. We ask in Christ’s name. Amen.

I found that with regard to the circumcising of Christ, again, this being an expected Jewish ritual applied to the physical seed of Abraham, and done as it was called to be done on the eighth day after the birth of the child, Jesus himself was also brought, and because of the significance of circumcision, which pointed to the depravity of the child, which pointed to the fact that his physical descendency from Abraham was not his hope, and that the faith of Abraham, ultimately, was his only possible hope, and he was continually reminded of this by his physical mark placed upon his body. You might wonder that if the idea that circumcision brought to mind continually was that of the child’s depravity, and that he had no hope in himself in merely generation, but rather, his hope was in regeneration, and the faith of Abraham, rather than mere physical descent from Abraham, why would our Lord have submitted himself to this ritual? He needed not to be reminded of depravity, for he had none. He needed not to be reminded of the principle, that is, the faith of Abraham, which makes the true seed of Abraham. In fact, he was himself the personification of that seed. That seed, being singular, Paul tells us in Galatians 3, was in fact Christ. He needed not to be reminded physically in his own body of these things. Some of that which circumcision continually declared to the child and the man as he grew, Jesus needed not, and it was not even appropriate for him as the son of God and the son of man. However, we find that providentially he was indeed submitted to the rite of circumcision.

If you read some of the commentators, you will find that they tend to grow almost Roman Catholic when they begin to talk about the circumcision of Christ. They begin to find this as some sort of expiatory work, a shedding of blood that somehow applies to the people of God along with the blood which was shed at the cross. Even Joseph Hall, who we have quoted so often in the course of our studies, is remarkably popish, it seems to me, in his statements as he comes to this place.

I believe we can step aside from all such thinking, and merely observe at this point that not all of Christ’s works were directly expiatory. By expiatory I mean the removing and paying for sin. Not all of Christ’s works were directly expiatory, but all were necessary to his expiation. There are those who find in every work of Christ some redemptive activity going on, that Christ saved his people by his circumcision. He saved his people by his baptism. He saved his people by every word he said, and every deed that he did.

Now, we are well aware, I believe, and we are well served by thinking of Christ’s work as being two fold. First of all, there is the active obedience of Christ, that is, where we might consider that everything that Jesus did ultimately fitted him to be the Savior of his people. He was made under the law, and fully submitted to the law at every point, and at every infinitesimal detail, without sin. And so, there’s a sense in which everything that Jesus did, even his circumcision, his baptism, every possible word and event in his life was part of his actively submitting to the will of God as expressed and enunciated in the law, and this he did on behalf of his people, so that, when he became our Savior and substitute, not only did he remove our sins by his passive obedience, enduring the penalty that was due unto us, but he also supplied us with a perfect righteousness wrought out by his own active obedience, which was, in fact, imputed to our account. Not only are we relieved of our demerit in his passive obedience, but we are supplied with a merit which is acceptable to God by his active obedience. In that sense, even Christ’s circumcision was a redeeming work, but it was not a work of expiation. It was not a removing of our sin. It was not a blood-letting in order that there should be remission of sins. Remember that Martin Luther said: “Jesus, when he was baptized, went down into the water, and by doing so, washed away the sin of the world.” I don’t believe his baptism had that significance at all. It was merely an act of active obedience in “fulfilling all righteousness,” as he said to John. “Allow it to be, for it behooves us to fulfill all righteousness.”

Consider at this point that Christ’s active obedience is best viewed as a whole rather than assigning significance to individual parts. Christ was actively obedient in his birth, in his life, in all that he did, but let’s not look at the insignificant or even significant details of that life and say, “Here is Christ’s active obedience, because it is at none of those places. It is the whole, which brings us to think of the obedience of Christ as being made under the law and fulfilling it on behalf of his people. So there is something we can use perhaps as a caution: that we not look at each of these infinitesimal events, even the circumcision of Christ that’s before us, and say: “Here is our salvation.” It’s not here. Ultimately, our redemption is found at the cross, but it’s Christ’s active and passive obedience which is imputed to us, and brings us our full and final salvation.

However, this was a part of the Old Testament law, ceremonial law, yes, a law which is no longer in force, yes, but it was a standing ordinance at the time. Every child born in Israel as the seed of Abraham, the physical descendants of Abraham, was to come on the eighth day and to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant. Christ came, and when the 8 days were fulfilled for circumcising him, and he was, and his name was called Jesus, and it was on that occasion that his name was given. Not all of Christ’s works were directly expiatory, but all were necessary, ultimately, to his expiation, his work of redemption. This was, in itself, not a work of redemption, but it was certainly part of his active obedience. As Joseph Hall said before he began to go by the wayside, I think, “He would fulfill one law to abrogate it, and another to satisfy it. He that was above the law would come under the law to free us from the law. He that made and gave the law will rather keep it with difficulty than transgress it with ease.” And that is well said. Jesus could have said, “This does not apply to me. This is something which signifies things of which I have no part in. On the other hand, they do in a sense. I could do away with it and call myself exempt from it and from the difficulty of undergoing it.” But he would rather keep it with difficulty than transgress it with ease that he might fulfill all things expected in the standing ordinance of God. This is not an expiatory act, but ultimately, in the broader sense, everything that he did was necessary for him to be the Savior of his people.

Now then, in moving on, it was the custom in Israel that a child was named at least formally on his circumcision, and on this occasion his name was given, and he was called Jesus. Why? We are told in the text: He was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb, and we are aware, back in chapter 1, of the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and saying that his name shall be called Jesus. We’re also aware that in Matthew 1:21 that the angel came to Joseph and said, “You will call his name Jesus, because it is he who shall save his people from their sins.” Let us learn in the second place this morning that here from the outset is reckoned our Lord’s principle work. We should never be in doubt why it was that Christ came, because, before he was even conceived his name was given, and as soon as we see him appear, he is given that name, and from that name, from the very outset of his work of his life, we may deduce his principle work, because his name was to be Jesus.

Now, the word “Jesus” is the word “Joshua,” the same exact name as Joshua in the Old Testament, and Joshua, when you come as close as you possibly can from the Hebrew language into the Greek language, you’ll find that the best you can come to is Jesus, and that was his name. Joshua, or Y’shua, comes from the Hebrew verb ישע, which means, literally, “to save.” The word Jesus and the word Joshua mean “savior,” or “one who saves, or delivers,” and so you can see that in Matthew 1:21 we have an angel which points out the etymology of the name. “You will call his name Jesus.” Why? “Because he is the one who will save his people from their sins.” This name will be found to be altogether appropriate for this child. The name Jesus was a common Jewish name up to the beginning of the second century. So, it’s not difficult to find in Jewish genealogical records dozens and hundreds of children who had the very common name of what they would have considered then to be Joshua, named after a very prominent and godly man in the Old Testament, the same way that men have been doing for years, to find names for their children in the Bible. So, there were dozens, there were hundreds, no doubt, of men and children in Israel at this time who had the name Joshua. Even as children today and men today have the name of Joshua. It’s as quite as common as it probably was then, but even now. So, Jesus was not the only person who ever had that name. We even find that, especially in Latin Roman Catholic countries today, men and women will name their children Jesus. You see that in the Latin baseball players who come to the country. However, the people of God, the Christian people, and even the Jews, as you could understand, after about the middle and toward the end of the first century, began to not choose to name their children Jesus. You can understand why Christian parents wouldn’t, because, after all, now it is a name that belongs to one man for all time, and really, what kind of audacity would it be for you to name your child Jesus now that our Lord’s name was Jesus? The Jews, of course, had their own reasons, didn’t they? “Why would I want to name my child Jesus, because we have rejected nationally that this man was anything but an impostor?” And so, it would be like naming your child Judas, because to them it had no significance, in fact, a negative significance altogether. It’s an interesting thought though to realize that Jesus was not the only person that had this name, but he was given this name because it had a particular sense which it never had to anyone else that ever lived, or would live thereafter. As J C Ryle said, “The son of God came down from heaven, not to be only the Savior, but the King, the Lawgiver, the Prophet, the Priest, the Judge of fallen men. Had he chosen any one of these titles, he would only have chosen that which was his own, but he passed by them all. Think how strange it would sound if Jesus had chosen to be called by another one of his official offices, the King. His name would have been Melech. If he had wanted to be called by the name Prophet, we would have called him Navi. If he had been wanted to be called by the name Priest, we would call him Cohen, and all of those names, as Ryle points out, were his, and his for the taking, but the name that he chose was the name Jesus, the one who saves. All the other names would have been appropriate. They already belonged to him, but this is the one that he chose, the name which means “to save, to deliver.”

I’ve often thought, and perhaps it’s entered your mind, that if you ever had the opportunity to perhaps have a whole stadium of people, or even a whole room full of people, who had gathered together and said like Cornelius said to Peter, “We are all gathered here to hear whatever the Lord would have you to say to us.” I guess maybe it’s a dream that preachers have, a whole large room full of unsaved people waiting to hear what God would say, and you think to yourself, perhaps daydreaming about the possibility of that ever happening, and then you have to think, “What would I say?” What would you say? And really, I personally can’t think of anything to say, unless I have a text. The question then becomes, “What text would you choose if, all of a sudden, this opportunity presented itself to you?” And I believe I know what that text would be, the easiest text I can think of to preach from, because, to my mind, it preaches itself, and it is, in a sense, the gospel simply stated, and it’s:

ASV Matthew 1:21 and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

If you ever have an opportunity like that, whatever it might be, think of that as a text. It preaches itself. As a matter of fact, you can divide it up any way you like. I think I could divide it up and preach entirely through the doctrines of grace, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. I can find each one of those doctrines in the words, “thou shalt call his name Jesus, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.” Do you see all 5 doctrines of grace in that simple statement?

However, if you had a group of unsaved people, perhaps awakened in some sense to their need, hanging on your every word, you might not want to say, “Now, here are all the doctrines of grace.” All you have to do is preach the doctrines of grace as what they are, that is, the gospel. It seems to me that there are 3 main thoughts in this, and I take them because we have in our text, “His name was called Jesus.” Why was it called Jesus? It’s more expansive in Matthew. “Because,” he says, knowing his etymology that the word means to save, “this is the one who will save his people from their sins.”

The first words that stand out in this text are the words, “He shall save.” I particularly like those words. There was a time in my experience, having grown up in a semi-Arminian environment, that all of a sudden I began to rejoice in statements like that. All the time it was in my mind that Jesus was attempting to save as many as he could, and all of a sudden a phrase like this had new significance. “You will call his name Jesus, because it is he who shall save,” not attempt to save, not try to save as many as possible, not make savable, so that they afterwards can make their own decision to save themselves if they wish, all things having been provided, but “He shall save his people from their sins.” Jesus did not come to set an example, called the “example theory of the atonement,” that he came to show us how to live by his life, and how to die by his death. That’s all he did. He merely came to show us. He did not come to set the record straight, which is the governmental theory of the atonement, that Christ came to show us what sin really deserves by his own suffering and death, and set the record straight. There is indeed a standard in the universe. Jesus did not come to set an example. He did that. That’s not why he came. That wasn’t his name. He didn’t come to set the record straight and to show that there was moral government in the universe. He did that, but that’s not why he came. He came to save, and “he shall save his people from their sins.” He did not come to attempt to save them, or to make them savable, but to save.

The second thing I note is the words “his people.” The question then is, “Well, who was it that he came to save?” Notice, it was not Adam’s people that he came to save. In a sense, it was not even Abraham’s people, in terms of the physical Jewish race, that he came to save. It wasn’t Adam’s people, and it wasn’t Abraham’s people. “He shall save his people.” There is a people that belongs to Christ, and they are not Adam’s people, and they are not Abraham’s people. They are his people. I see the doctrine of unconditional election.

And thirdly, he shall save his people from their sins. He will not come to save them from their oppression, or from their poverty, or from their sickness, but from their sins. As Spurgeon said, commenting on this text, “Notice the fact that our Lord’s connection with his people lies in the direction of their sins. The first link between my soul and Christ’s is not my goodness, but my badness, not my merit, but my misery, not my standing, but my falling, not my riches, but my need.” The first connection between Christ and his people is their sin. “You shall call his name Jesus, because it is he that shall save his people from their sins.”

Now, if you ever find yourself in that situation, consider this as your text. Here is the gospel simply stated. If you say, “I wonder if I’m one of his people,” then bring your sins, because there is the point of contact. “He will save his people from their sins.” So, here we find that from the very outset we have a record in our hands of our Lord’s principle work. If you ever attempted to think, “Well, his primary business in coming into the world was this or that modern theory,” think of this text. “He came into the world to save his people from their sins.”

The third thing that we mark this morning and may learn is that many have disproven their namesakes or etymologies, but here is a name the appropriateness of which is proven with time. Again, his name was called Jesus. We all have names. Sometimes we’re named after someone else, uncle somebody, or our father, so that we become somebody the second, or are named after some great personage in history, or even some biblical character that is greatly esteemed for their life and their work, and so they are called our namesakes, and we trust, if we name our child David, or Daniel, or our daughter Elizabeth, or Hannah, we say that there is a person that stands behind those names which we would enjoy seeing our son or our daughter growing up to be something like, and perhaps in the future we will remind them that they have a namesake, a David, or Daniel, or Abraham, who were great men.

On the other hand, sometimes we choose a name because of the name’s etymology, what it means. Nathaniel means “given of God.” So, you have this child in your hands, and you say, “This is a gift from God. I’ll name him Nathaniel,” and on and on. The names of men and women may have been chosen because of a meaning that is attached, the etymology of that name. We also noticed that many people disproved that they have any real relationship to their namesake, or to their etymology. Daniels don’t turn out to be like Daniel at all. Davids don’t turn out to be like David. Elizabeths don’t turn out to be like Elizabeth. Hannahs don’t become Hannah-like at all. We’re disappointed, so their name is just a name. It’s a tag. It’s a moniker by which we call them, but it has no real connection with reality behind the name.

But there is one name that does indeed live up to its meaning. Only one ultimately, and that is the name Jesus, because it is “he that will save his people from their sins.” Consider how much the appropriateness of this name was proven with time. The observation is: many have disproven their namesakes or etymologies, but here is a name, the appropriateness of which is proven with time.

First of all, it was Jesus’ name prophetically. Before he was even conceived in the womb, our text tells us, his name was called Jesus, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Now, we believe and see proleptically that it was indeed an appropriate name, because he was the one who came, and was the one to save his people from their sins. Prophetically, the name was appropriate.

Thereafter, we find that historically the name was appropriate, for Jesus did come, and by his active and passive obedience did in fact accomplish the salvation of his people, but then we can look at it even further, because the further we go along, the more appropriate the name becomes. There was a time for many of you when you had heard about this person named Jesus.

But there came a time in your experience when God was pleased by his grace to give you a real sense of the fact that not only was he called the savior, and he did become the Savior, but he became in fact a savior to you, and so, it was not just prophetically his name. It was not just historically his name, but it was existentially his name. You saw him to be in fact not the Savior, but your Savior. He has saved not only his people, but this person, from his sins. His name became even more appropriate at that point, didn’t it?

I submit to you that eschatologically, prophetically, historically, existentially, and then eschatalogically, it will never be more true than at the very last, when all the people of God are gathered together, and it will never be so appropriate as then, that they will cry out: “His name is in fact Jesus. He has saved his people from their sins.” Many have disproven their namesakes and etymologies, but here’s a name the appropriateness of which is proven with time, and the further we go, the more appropriate we see it to be. His name is Jesus.

Now then, 2 other observations that we can draw from this which might have seemed at first to be a rather small passage, but notice again in verses 22 through 24:

Luke 2:22-24 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

There are 2 things, I believe, we can learn from these verses which now remain. The first is from verses 23 and 24: that we ought to freely submit to the standing ordinances of God, seeing that our Lord did freely do the same. We tend to niggle: “Why do I have to do that?” And although New Covenant religion is remarkably simple, and must be maintained in its simplicity, we still complain. “Why do I have to do that? Why is this so important? Why do we have to be so fastidious in keeping the standing ordinances of God for the new covenant people of God?” And the answer is: We have every reason to do so, seeing that Christ did so himself. We ought to submit to the standing ordinances of God. He said it in that way for a reason. We no longer take our children to a Jewish temple to offer up a pair of pigeons to redeem the child after 40 days. We just don’t do that. Why not? Because it’s no longer a standing ordinance of God. Some of the ceremonial law was abrogated. Most of it was satisfied in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and is not continued in the new covenant, because it was finished, and found all of its reason for continuance in Christ, and when Christ came, we had Christ. We no longer need the type and the shadow which preceded. This coming for the redemption of the child, and for the cleansing ceremony for the woman who had given birth, all of this is no longer in vogue for the people of God, but it was at that time a standing ordinance in Israel, and our Lord submitted to it. Albeit as a babe, he was submitted providentially, and all of these things were fulfilled according to the standing ordinance of God. If Christ should do that, how much more are we to do it, especially when we find that there are so many fewer standing ordinances? The clutter of Old Testament religion no longer is around about us. There is a grand simplicity, and yet we still complain, but we shouldn’t complain. We should freely submit to the standing ordinances of God, seeing that our Lord did so freely. What is the standing ordinance here?

If we had the time, we could go back and read Numbers 3, and there you would find that it was laid out in that chapter, that which was first born in Israel, the first born of your flocks, always the first born, what you had first, the first and the best, the first fruits of your flock or your fields, was to be brought and offered to Jehovah. Well, the same thing was true of the first born child. But now, God did not need all the first born children in Israel to be those who worked in the temple and its precincts, but one tribe, the tribe of Levi, all of their sons were given over to the work of the temple, but still there was the law of the firstborn belonging to God, and so, when you did not belong to the tribe of Levi, and you belonged to the tribe of Judah, for example, as this was the case, you were still called upon to come 40 days after the birth, and because that child was exempted from service in the temple, you had to pay for that exemption, and it was called a redemption. You had to redeem the child, and it was an amount of money, not a significant amount, but there was an amount of money that was given, and in some countries you can do this. If there’s a draft, and your child doesn’t want to go, or you don’t want to send your child, you can pay money instead. Some people even attempted that in America. It didn’t work very successfully, but it did for some, but the idea is that “I’m not going to send my child, my first born, to the temple. I’m not of the tribe of Levi. I don’t have to, but I must, however, pay this price, this redemption money.” Now, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. He was not a Levite, one of the priestly clan, and yet Mary and Joseph had to come 40 days after the birth, and pay the price of redemption, because he was not one to serve in the temple, to pay for this exemption. It was a kind of bounty that would pay for all non-Levite’s first born children, and there’s a sense in which, as William Hendriksen says, it is true. He says: “On this day, the Redeemer himself was redeemed.”

Anyway, the point is: we ought not to complain, but rather to freely submit to the standing ordinances of God, seeing that our Lord submitted freely even to these standing ordinances at that time, and all things were done as they ought to have been done.

The fifth thing that we ought to note this morning as we come to a conclusion is that each item in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth finds him related to the common man. In verse 24 we read that Mary and Joseph came:

Luke 2:24 to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Now, if you go back to Leviticus 12:6 through 8, you can read what was supposed to be brought on this occasion for the price of redemption and for the ceremonial cleansing of the mother who had given birth of the child after 40 days. You were to bring a lamb, and also a dove, and one was a burnt offering, and the other was an offering which indicated something else, and so, you realize all the Old Testament ritual was involved there, but it was supposed to be a lamb and a bird, but it says there at the end of that passage, Leviticus 12:6 through 8, that if you did not have the means to bring a lamb, you could just bring 2 doves. So, for those who were not of sufficient means to easily procure a lamb, which would cost 10 or more times as much as a dove would, then that could be done. So, no one was left out of being able to offer the sacrifice that was required.

Now, if you read the commentators with regard to the circumstances of the birth of Christ, you’ll find that they make a big deal of the poverty of our Lord’s circumstances that he was poor, but I will submit to you that it was not the poverty of the circumstances of his birth that we are pointed at. What it is that we are pointed at is not the poverty of the circumstances of his birth, but the fact that they were common. Jesus was not in abject poverty. Mary and Joseph were not out on the streets, as we say today, but they also weren’t rich. They were just common people bringing the common 2 doves, which was allowed if you weren’t of sufficient means to bring the lamb. And so, if you were just a common man and a common woman in a common household today, I believe this is what Jesus is most related to. Now, if you want to say you’re a king, fine. He was of the house and lineage of David, but if you want to say you are poor, fine, but that’s not the issue here. It’s not poverty that Jesus wedded himself to. He wedded himself, ultimately, just to the common man. In fact, if we look back over the entire birth narrative, we find, first of all, that Jesus was related to Adam. So, in other words, you’re stuck. Jesus, in one sense, is related to you. You can’t say, “Well, he just doesn’t fit. He is too other than me.” No he’s not. He’s a child of Adam just like you are. It says in: Luke 2:7 “And she brought forth her firstborn son.” He was born just like you. He’s a child of Adam.

He’s a common man not only in that he’s related to Adam, but he’s a common man in that he’s related to Abraham. In verse 21 we read: “And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him” he came, and as a true physical descendant of Abraham, submitted to the covenant sign of being of Abraham’s seed.

He was related to Moses, for he comes: “Made of a woman. Made under the law,” and submits himself to the law of Moses. As it is said in that law, “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy unto the Lord.”

He’s related to Abraham. He’s related to Moses, and not only that, he’s related to David, where he came and was of the house and lineage of David.

In other words, the point that I want to make is that it’s not just Jesus’ poverty that we’re to look at, and esteem, as he’s related to the poor folk. No, he’s merely related to the common man. He’s related to Adam. If you’re a Jew, don’t worry. He’s related to Abraham. If you’re a king, don’t worry. He’s related to David. If you’re under the law, as we all are, don’t worry, he came under the law, in order that he might redeem those who were under the law. He is related to the common man. “In his incarnation,” says Richard Sibbes, “he was revealed to all sorts of men.” He was revealed to the old. Simeon was an old man. So, if you are old, Jesus was revealed to old men. You say: “I’m a woman.” Well, that’s alright. The next person he was revealed to was Anna, as we’ll find in the verses to come. You say, “Well, I’m a wise man.” That’s alright. He was revealed to wise men. You say, “Well, I’m just a working man.” That’s alright. He was revealed to shepherds. You see, there’s no way that you can say, “Well, I am related in a way that he just doesn’t cover.” No, he was related to the common man from the very beginning. Sibbes says, “His incarnation was revealed to all sorts,” to the old in Simeon, to women in Anna, to wise men, and to silly shepherds, to all ranks of men, for each item in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth finds him related to the common man, 2 pigeons, the common man’s sacrifice.

And so we see that in these verses, as transitional as they may appear to be, there are some things for our consideration. I trust that they are also for our profit. We’re able to come to verse 25 where we find the rather extended account of the life and times, the words and works, of this man Simeon, who indeed we need to treat the next time we make our study from the book of Luke. Let’s bow together in prayer.

Our Father, once again we thank you for the truth of the Word of God. We’re left to not merely share our feelings, or discuss our theories, but to study what the Scriptures have to say. We pray that you would bless us in our attempts to do so even this morning. We pray that every one in this place may one day be able to say that they know with certainty, and for themselves, that this man is Jesus, “who saves his people from their sins.” Bless us then, we ask, as we have met this morning, and again, as we carry about the business of this assembly as we meet this evening. May you look upon us, and be pleased with our behavior on this day, we ask in Christ’s name. Amen.

2012-01-17T20:48:00.001-08:00

Luke #98-11.33-36-20001119

We come this morning to Luke 11:33 through 36. Over the past few Lord's Days we have considered what was read for us this morning first of all in verses 27 and 28 then last Lord's day verses 29 through 32. This morning then verses 33 through 36. There are 3 things that I want to say by way of division for our text this morning as we would consider it. The first is the text surveyed. That is merely to make a survey of the text as it stands before us. Secondly the text unfolded which is merely an attempt to try to see exactly what are the particulars involved in the words of our Lord at this point. And then in, I trust, Puritan fashion we'll call it the text improved which is merely to look and see what exactly is being taught here and what may we therefore learn.

First of all a survey of this text: It is a text about which there has been much discussion. In fact it's a parable about light which we could say has for many shed very little. “The entire passage” Lenski says “non-plusses the commentators, and their efforts at interpretation are labored and unconvincing.” And I would agree perhaps with Spurgeon who said “This text has perplexed many a learned reader and therefore you will not wonder that I confess that it has puzzled me also at many times.”

Well, if this is the case I suppose I could give you one of those caveats that this is one of the most difficult passages in all of the Word of God. I can think back that I've said that very often and perhaps you might begin to think that this is just an excuse for a poor exposition on the basis that no one else has been able to do it either. I don't believe you probably would believe that, but it is a text which first of all we need to say has at least perplexed a wide majority of those who have read it and attempted to expound it. If it is difficult, wherein lies the difficulty? I suggest that there are at least four reasons why a text such as this has caused pause for many who have approached it.

First of all it is because it is not immediately apparent how it is related to the contextual flow of thought. We have in the preceding episodes in the life of our Lord or in the immediately preceding episode the passage of his regaling the generation of that day who asked for signs and he speaks of the queen of the south and of the men of Nineveh rising up to condemn the generation that was there around Christ and then it seems as if without any discernible transition whatsoever he begins to say: “No man when he hath lighted a lamp putteth it in a cellar.” It is true that the gospel according to Luke perhaps more than Matthew, Mark, or John, is given to dislocation, that is, putting things in where you may think they'd fit more topically than chronologically. Perhaps at this point we could merely say that Luke has dislocated this saying of Christ's and he has put it here when as a matter of fact it didn't necessarily belong in this context and that being the case we ought not necessarily to look for some flow of contextual thought. I do believe it is related to the context, but we can say in our defense at least that it's not immediately apparent how it is related to the contextual flow of thought.

The second difficulty that we approached is that it is repeated, this statement of our Lord, particularly verse 33 that “No man when he lights a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a bushel, but on a stand that they that enter in may see the light.” That metaphor, that picture that is drawn by our Lord, is repeated on 5 other occasions in the gospels. The problem is that ordinarily when we have a parable or a metaphor such as this we will find it repeated for instance in Matthew and Mark and we will find that the time in which our Lord said these words is repeated merely. It's a parallel passage in the gospel record in Matthew and Mark and we can find it also in Luke, but we find that it's merely the same thing said by our Lord on one occasion repeated 3 times in 3 accounts.

The problem is that the 5 times that our Lord said this not one of them parallels this account and as a matter of fact of the 5 times that our Lord used these words 4 of those times were entirely different in terms of their application and the time in which they were said by our Lord than what we have here. So, there's no parallel to this and 4 other times our Lord used this figure of speech, this extended metaphor, and he made a different application of it in each occurrence. He extends or applies the metaphor in an entirely different direction altogether. For example in Matthew 5 at the beginning of the sermon on the mount our Lord says:

Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house.
16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. (Mat 5:15-16 ASV)

But notice that there is no such conclusion as we have there here. “Let your light shine before men.” That's not the point that he is making. He uses the same illustration, but 4 out of the 5 times he makes an entirely different application.

So again we are perplexed as to exactly what may be the connection and the reason for what he is saying at this point. We can't be helped by any of the other places where our Lord used this word. It might be a hinderance because he uses it in so many different ways. So the statement we find in verse 33: Lenski says “This statement does not in itself indicate what Jesus intends to make of it.” We read it, we've read it before 5 times in the gospels, but just reading it we don't know exactly what the application is intended to be. J A Alexander has said “These sentences belong to those aphoristic formulas which Christ appears to have thrown out on various occasions and with some diversity of application. The charge of incoherence or irrelevance in this connection rests upon the false assumption that these brief proverbial maxims forming one of the most characteristic features of our Lord's method of instruction could be uttered only once or in a single application. Certainly this is proof that our Lord could take one metaphor and extend it in various different ways as the case may be.” The problem is: If he had at least made the same connection on each time he used it we might be helped by reading it in the other context, but that is not in our advantage at this point.

The third reason why this text probably produces a difficulty is that it's parabolic language and that is always difficult. Interpretation of metaphors and figures of speech very often cause us great distress and we realize we are on difficult ground as soon as we see ourselves in this sort of material.

And the fourth reason is that it is only vaguely explained. There are parables that have no explanation whatsoever, but ordinarily we have a good idea of the point of application that's intended to be made. We're afraid that in this one there is only a very vague notion supplied to us within the parable itself as to what it might be meaning and that's found in verse 34 in the first part where Jesus tells us “The lamp of the body is the eye.”

So we have these 4 things that lie in our way. It's not immediately apparent how it's related to the contextual flow of thought. It's repeated on 5 occasions and the other 4 are not like this. Even though he begins the same he does not end the same. It is parabolic language, which is always difficult, and we do not have any help within the text itself to point the direction. These difficulties have led to numerous unnatural interpretations of this passage. One for example has been led to christify the text and they say that the light is Christ, the cellar is the tomb, and then the lampstand is the resurrection, no doubt an unnatural employment of the text. Whether it's true enough it's certainly not taught here.

What then do we have? The second thing that we want to note this morning is: What do we have in the text? I want to read it again. There are 4 verses, 33, 34, 35, and 36. In the first verse, verse 33, we have a scene which is drawn in our minds. You can without even closing your eyes see that there is a picture being painted with words and it's a common one. It is not difficult to construct. “No man when he lights a lamp puts it in a cellar.” By the way, the word for “cellar” is the Greek word κρυπτη which we get our word “cryptic” from and probably the translation “cellar” is an attempt to indicate that what the word really means is a dark place and by dark place he does not intend a place that needs to be lighted, but a place that needs no light or where light would be wasted, to put light under a bushel, to put it in the cellar where no one is would not make any sense and our Lord paints the picture and also tells us “No man in his right mind would do that.” He would not have gone to the trouble of lighting the lamp were he to put it in a place where it would not shine out and do any good for any possible reason. So in the second place, in verse 33, we have a scene that is drawn, a picture that is painted for our mind's eye to look at.

And I want you to notice in verse 36 that you have another picture painted in words. He says “Therefore, if the whole body be full of light, having no dark part, it shall be wholly full of light as when the lamp with its bright shining doth give the light.” Again another picture is being drawn. You can see the room and the light is in the room and it shines out brightly and the whole room and everything in it is lighted so that everything can be seen and so there is another picture. And so at the beginning and at the end our Lord draws for us a picture in words and we see that.

However in between, verses 34 and 35, we have these 2 things. First of all, in verse 34 we have a direct application. This is the most direct information we have as to what our Lord was talking about. The lamp of the body, that which produces light and in a sense allows light in to the body, is the eye. “If thy eye is single, thy whole body is full of light, but when it is evil, thy whole body is full of darkness.” So we have a direct application of the picture that he drew in verse 33. Here is what he is saying “This is what I am talking about. I'm not merely telling you a story about a foolish man who would light a lamp and put it in a place which would not do any good.” He's talking about the lamp of the body which is the eye and if the eye is working properly light is brought in and the whole body is lit, but if the eye is evil then the whole body will also be full of darkness. So we have a direct application to the picture that he's drawn. In verse 35 we have an applied direction. The direction is this: “Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be not darkness.” So we have a direct application and then an applied direction, something that is to be done followed then by the second scene or word picture which is drawn.

Now what does this mean? Well, there's a sense in which on the very surface of the text it's pretty clear. The important issue is having an eye which is working correctly, to have an eye which is clear, to have an eye which does in fact allow the light to come in and to illuminate the entire body. The very real possibility exists that the eye may be evil, in which case the whole body then is full of darkness. In any event the key to it is the eye and then he draws indeed a concluding picture, but with this warning: “Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be not darkness.” If that is the case you are in an irremediable situation because the eye if it is evil results in the whole of the body being engulfed in darkness.

Now there are 5 things that I believe that we can see and learn. I think that our Lord probably intended men and women to sit down and to think about this text and perhaps to come up with several inferences that they may draw and I have 5 of them this morning. I trust that you will see that they are indeed drawn from the text.

The first thing I want you to notice is that man's problem is fundamental not incidental. It is very largely held in our day that the problem with mankind or the problem with any particular individual is usually something which is rather small which if we could correct, just tweak that part which is wrong, then everything would be alright, but I think our Lord is telling us at this point that the problem with men who are in their sins is not something that is incidental. It's not some trivial thing that needs to be fixed. It is something fundamental to man's whole personality. Our Lord in these verses is talking about darkness and light and if you're thinking along with his premise of allowing light into the body, if that is our subject then if the issue is light the eye is pivotal, isn't it? The pivotal thing: Light does not get into the body any other way but through the eye. If something is to be seen and appraised and understood to affect the mind and the heart and all the rest it must certainly enter in order for it to be approved. If the issue is light then the eye is the pivotal thing and it's the eye which can be either evil or single. What Jesus is here speaking of is the sine qua non of man's difficulty, not some peripheral thing, not some incidental thing, but something that is in fact the central, fundamental issue. Man's problem is not incidental. It is fundamental. It is basic. It is the eye when light is concerned. It is the mind where the truth is concerned.

Now we have found in the preceding context, and perhaps this is the way we ought to see it related, that there were some people who perhaps saw the light, but they were absolutely dazzled by it and did not comprehend it. Their eye was in some sense evil and I see that in what we began to read this morning in verse 27 and 28 where this certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice and said “Blessed is the womb that bare thee.” Do you remember that passage? Well, she'd seen something of the light, but she'd been completely blasted by it and did not understand anything correctly.

On the next paragraph we find that there are the Jews. Their complaint was not that the light was too much, but their complaint was that there was not enough of it. “We need a sign. We need a sign from heaven. Whatever light you've given us we're not convinced. We need more light. We ask for a sign.” Jesus is probably pointing out that in one case or the other the problem is not something incidental. You don't just need to take this woman and reinstruct her. You don't need to take these Jews and just add a little something to their thinking and all will be well. He says “The problem is with the fundamental organ of gathering light and that is the eye.” Man's problem is not incidental. The 2 possibilities, and there are only 2, is that the heart is evil. The eye is evil or it is single.

It's also interesting to see that the word “evil” is the same word for “evil” among several that you can choose in the Greek language, but it's the same word that is used in verse 29 “This generation is an evil generation” and then he said in the very next paragraph “If your eye is evil, then your whole body is filled with darkness.”

The other word is “single.” The other possibility is to have an eye that is single. The Greek word is απλους, an interesting word because literally it means “without a fold.” It is something which is unfolded. That is, it is something which is not hidden back in some fold. It's something which is open and apparent and working correctly and I believe that our Lord was pointing to these Jews to whom he has just spoken and he was telling them that the problem that they have is not just that they need a little more light. The problem is that the eye is evil. It's not that you need more light. The problem is fundamental. Your eye is wrong.

Now, as we think about that for a moment we learn also that incidental measures do not rectify fundamental problems. There are many people and religion in our day who have the idea that incidental measures can rectify fundamental problems. “You've got a problem. Well, here's what you need. Perhaps you ought to readjust your thinking in certain areas. Perhaps you ought to be baptized. That's a good idea. That no doubt would help you. Perhaps you ought to reform your behavior and abstain from certain things which may be causing you difficulty.” And they give all kinds of advice as to what you may or may not do in order to solve your difficulty. The problem is that incidental measures do not solve fundamental problems. “You Jews cannot just tweak something here or there. You cannot just adjust your thinking and even another sign or 2 won't help, because the problem is not some small thing, some incidental thing. It is something fundamentally wrong.” When the question is light the primary issue is the eye which gathers that light. As Calvin says “See that your mind which should shine as a lantern to guide your actions does not throw a shadow across your whole life.” The important point then to note here is that Jesus is pointing out the fact that the problem with men is a basic one. The issue is light and if the eye is evil the whole body will be wrong and will stumble.

Now, the second thing that we can learn from the passage is that the problem is not with the light. The problem is with the eye. We don't have any suggestion here that there's something wrong with the light. The whole issue turns upon the eye. Jesus says “The lamp of the body is the eye.” If the eye is single or if the eye is evil the result will be either the body filled with light or with darkness. The problem that Jesus suggests is not that there is some problem with the light. The problem is that there's something wrong with the eye.

There are 3 things that I think we can learn from this. #1: That the availability of light is not the problem. The Jews thought it was. “We need more light.” This generation seeks after a sign. The Jews were saying “We need more light,” but notice how Jesus begins. He says “No man in his right mind would light a lamp and put it where no one can see it” and he is telling them that he has not done, God has not done, what no sane man would allow which is to light a light and put it where no one could see it. As a matter of fact the light has been lit and it has been put on the lampstand where it gives light to all that are in the house. The availability of light is not the problem. The light is available. The light is shining. Christ has shown himself to Israel. They have had signs of his deity and of his power. The problem is not the availability of light. Jesus has come and has publicly revealed himself to the world. Spurgeon says at this point “If you do not see Jesus it is not because he has hidden himself in darkness. It's because your eyes are not working correctly.” If you see no glory in the Lord Jesus Christ this morning it's not because he's not glorious. If you see no glory in him it's not because he has not revealed his glory openly in the world. He has been placed upon a lampstand. God has not done what no sane man would allow. The availability of light is not the problem.

Secondly notice that more light is not the solution. You take a man who has an evil eye. His eye does not work. He is blind for all intents and purposes. It doesn't matter how much light you shine on him he still won't see it. There are many who tell us this kind of thing today though and that “What we need is more light. If this one who is outside of Christ just could have enough light shine upon him he would begin to see.” But you see, our Lord tells us that the problem is not incidental. The problem is fundamental. The problem is that the man has an evil eye and the body is full of darkness and it doesn't matter how much light you shine upon him he still won't see. For men without eyes additional light is wasted.

This has all kinds of potential application and the way we think perhaps can be adjusted by thinking on this for awhile. There are some who suppose that if men are outside of Christ, if we can just pile on them enough information about the gospel over and over, if we can repetitively see to it that there is all this light and they are bombarded with it daily, we think perhaps of our children in that way or wives with unsaved husbands. They think “If I can just bombard them with enough light they'll begin to see,” but the light by itself does not cause eyes to work correctly. The problem is not more light. It's not the solution and the availability of light is not the problem. The light is available and more is not needed.

The third thing that we ought to note is that adjusting the light is not the solution. Again there are many in our day that say “You know the light of the gospel indeed is shining, but it's 2000 years old light. What we need is a new kind of light. We need to adjust the color. We need to adjust and modulate the intensity. We need to do something so that men at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century will be attracted to the light because this light that you are preaching is now 2000 years old. We need a new and updated light.” But adjusting the light is not the solution either and couldn't we correct and save ourselves a lot of trouble in these days? A lot of churches are trying to do everything they can to make light so as to be seen by men who have evil eyes, when adjusting the light is not the problem. As a matter of fact we can go even farther and say if we adjust the light it ceases to be light at all. Remember all the time we spent last Lord's Day on showing the false epistemology of the Jews who said that seeing is believing. Perhaps today we could say “Well, it is true. Seeing may indeed be believing if indeed you can see.” The problem is that men cannot see. The problem is not incidental. It is fundamental.

2 things then we've noted. First of all a man's problem is fundamental not incidental. If the issue is light the eye is the issue. Secondly the problem is not with the light. There's no problem with the light. God would not do what no sane man would allow and that is lighting a lamp and then putting it where it cannot be seen. It can be seen and it is revealed to the world. The problem is not with the light. The problem is with men's eyes.

Now then the third thing that we want to mark this morning is that the natural man's light is in fact darkness. Again verse 35 Jesus says

Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be not darkness. (Luk 11:35 ASV)

I doubt that it may have occurred to you that there is a paradoxical statement in this verse. How can light be darkness? Darkness is the opposite of light. It never occurs in nature that darkness is light and yet he says to look to see if that is not the case. How can that ever be the case? Light is never darkness and yet he says to look to see if that is not the case. The point is this: The natural man has a certain amount of information. The natural man can know a lot of things. He can gather all kinds of data. He can be an expert in his field. He can be able to speak to us on matters of relative importance for literally months without understanding one sentence he's saying because he's talking so far above our heads. There are people like that, aren't there? They are intelligent, full of information, but information is not light. Take the man for example who is a cosmologist. Cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe and I've done a good deal of reading on what contemporary people are saying about this and there are some men who are very intelligent. These people are all PhDs. They have PhDs in sub-atomic physics and PhDs in optics, et cetera, et cetera, and they are intelligent men and they have gathered a great deal of information, more information than we will ever know or be able to have explained to us. They have all kinds of information. The problem is that in the midst of all this gathering of information they've come to certain conclusions and one is that there is no God and there is no Creator and that the universe is either a steady state or an expanding collection of junk that blew up at some point and that there is no personal involvement in it whatsoever and that we are made of “star stuff” and that one day we will erode back into the liquid syrup of the universe and it will be recycled into another star, et cetera, et cetera. These are intelligent men. They have all kinds of information. What do they lack? Light. They don't lack information. They lack light. The natural man's light, that is what he esteems to be his light. The information that he has gathered is in fact darkness and Jesus says “Be careful. Look to it that the light that you think is in you is not in fact darkness.” This is something that never happens in the natural world. Light is never darkness, but it does happen in the world of men's minds. The light that they have is in fact not light at all. It's darkness. Information is not light.

The fourth thing we want to note from our passage this morning is that here is an impossible thing that God wants from men. Do you remember that 2 weeks ago there was concluded here a conference of sorts? It spanned 2 Lord's days and Pastors Earl Blackburn and Bill Downing were here and the conference theme if you recall was “What men want from God.” I thought to myself that we ought to have another conference next year entitled “Impossible things God wants from men” and here's one of them. In verse 35, again a most interesting text, he says “Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be darkness.” I have a question: How are you going to see it if this is the case? If the light that is in you is darkness how are you going to see that is true because you're in the darkness to begin with? It is an impossible thing. God calls upon men to do that which cannot be done. In fact I think there's a play on words in this verse. The word which is here translated “look” is the Greek word σκοπει and the word for darkness is the word σκοτος and I think there's probably a play on the word “Look to see if the light that is in you is not in fact darkness.” How can I look if what I'm looking to find I'm in the darkness about to begin with, if that's the case? It is an impossible thing that God wants from men. If it's impossible and God demands it how are we ever to produce it? And the answer is: It's not the production of men. It's the production of God. The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that the light of the glorious gospel should not dawn upon them, but

Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Co 4:6 ASV)

How does it happen? It happens by a work of sovereign grace. It is an impossible thing that God wants from men and what he wants he grants by grace.

The fifth and last thing that we can learn from our text is this: That the light of the gospel is sufficient to fill the whole soul. Verse 36:

If therefore thy whole body be full of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light, as when the lamp with its bright shining doth give thee light. (Luk 11:36 ASV)

There are some who have accused the Holy Spirit of tautology in the reading of this verse, which would be merely saying the same thing twice, but grammatically it's really not so although it may seem to be in the English translation. Well, however true that is let us note from this in the last place: The light of the gospel is sufficient to fill the whole soul. If the room is lighted, if the light is on its lampstand, if we have eyes to see that light, it is sufficient to fill the whole room. It will be full of light, having no dark part. It shall be wholly full of light as when a lamp with its bright shining doth give thee light. The word translated “bright shining” is actually the word for star, αστηρ, and it is used in this form and other places where it is translated “lightning,” but here it's used with a durative tense for the verb so it's not lightning, but it means to shine exceedingly brightly. “The bright shining doth give thee light.”

And notice the emphasis on the word “whole” in this verse.

If therefore thy whole body be full of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light (Luk 11:36 ASV)

There is something about the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that is sufficient to fill the entire soul. If you understand savingly the gospel of Christ it is a sufficient theme to occupy your attention for the entirety of your existence. It is not something that is just one of the interesting things that you've discovered in life. It is the interesting thing. It is not merely something that you add to a whole curriculum of things that you know and applaud and enjoy. It is above and beyond everything else in life, that thing which enlightens and occupies the entire house. Whatever is in that house the gospel sheds light wholly upon it. There is nothing then that is hidden. The whole house is enlightened.

Now some of you may say “That is true with me. The gospel is enough and worthy of my attention every moment of my life. It fills up everything that I possibly need to have filled. The light lights the whole room.” Perhaps others say “That sounds a little strange to me.” Let me say 2 things in conclusion.

#1: They have not seen the light if they are now looking for something more. Aren't people doing that all the time? “You know, I really like to hear the Word of God expounded and I like to hear the gospel preached and I like to hear something about Christ, but you know, don't you think we could do something more? Don't you think we should add something to our worship service? You know, there are other churches that have all kinds of things going on. They're doing all sorts of things for young people and they are having miracles and they are speaking in tongues and doing all this kind of stuff. Don't you think we should have some of that?” Let me submit to you that if you are looking for something else you haven't seen the light. The light is sufficient by itself to light the whole room.

Let me also suggest this: They have not seen the light who have not been thoroughly changed because when the light comes into the house, the house has been dark. All of a sudden the light comes into it. It's been dark for a long time and all of a sudden when the light is turned on in the room and puts light into the whole house what happens? You immediately find out what you never realized before and that is how dirty it was and when the light is turned on and you see how dirty in fact it is, you're appalled, you're amazed, you never saw that it was there and what do you immediately begin to do? To clean it up. People who have not been changed have never seen the light because the light reveals what was not clear when the darkness was in the room. Spurgeon points this out. He says “If a room has been long shut up in darkness the light has a startling effect. That black festoon of spider webs, those insects which hurry out of sight, that all-encrusting dust, these had been overlooked. The change is demanded, all hands are summoned.” Why? Because light has entered the room. The light of the gospel is sufficient to light the whole house. If you're looking for something more than the gospel you've never seen the light. If you're not looking to change what you've found in that room now that the light has come on it's clear that you've never seen the light nor are you aware of the dirt and dust in the room. There is a real change that occurs. The gospel's light is sufficient to fill the whole soul.

Now then this enigmatic metaphor given to us by our Lord certainly points contextually to these Pharisees and this generation which is evil. The problem was a fundamental one, not an incidental one. The problem was not with the light that they received, but with the eye whereby they could not perceive it. The natural man's light is in fact darkness. Information is not light. Here is an impossible thing that God wants from men, but if God is pleased to grant it, the light of the gospel is sufficient to light the whole house.

I trust that you might think upon this as we consider these words of our Lord. God willing, this evening we will consider verses 37 through 54, where our Lord addresses these several woes to the Pharisees and the lawyers of his day. May God be pleased to bless us then as we continue in our study of the gospel according to Luke.

Our Father in heaven again we thank you for the Word of God. We thank you for the light of the gospel and that it has been revealed. We pray that you would be pleased to reveal it even in our midst. May there be many we pray that we will see according to the explanation that you have given us, that will find that the light they thought was in them is darkness and that you would be pleased to grant them real light and that it would fill the whole soul. We would depend upon your sovereign hand in effecting such a thing in this world. Bless we pray for us to see it then and dismiss us with your blessing. We ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

2012-01-13T15:59:00.000-08:00

Luke #97-11.29-32-20001112

Turn if you would please to Luke 11, the gospel according to Luke chapter 11, our regular study in the gospel of Luke. We've come this morning to Luke 11 beginning at verse 29, Luke 11:29-32.

And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah.
30 For even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
32 The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.
(Luk 11:29-32 ASV)

Thus far the reading of God's Word: We have come at this point to this paragraph in the gospel according to Luke, and we want to deal with it as best we can this morning, and I want to continue our study from this morning to this evening. Many times that's the best way for me to deal with this, especially when it does not fit well into one study, and from week to week it's difficult to recover our thinking well enough without a great deal of review. It's much easier dealt with by doing it morning and evening. I hope to do that this Sunday. We begin then with a consideration of these words by our Lord that he again begins more than before as we consult the gospel records of having very large and growingly paganistic crowds surrounding him. We have a word here at the beginning of verse 29 where it says “And the multitudes were gathering together unto him.” It's really a rather unfortunate translation. The word that represents our English “gathering together” is really much more strong than that. In fact, it's a word which is found only once in the New Testament, and it means that there was a large and pressing assembly which was on every side, probably standing, and with Jesus in the midst, and it is in this context of this large and pressing assembly that our Lord gives these words to them.

Now there are several things that I believe we can learn from this passage. I'm going to approach it by way of several observations. Most of you are well aware of that process. The first thing that I would have you to learn from this passage is that crowds assembling are no certain mark of revival. I believe that all of us have had the occasion to see that there are many churches and many religious gatherings, some of them which find their way onto the television and other places where we are absolutely aghast to see so many people, thousands a day, tens of thousands of people gathered for the purpose of some religious gathering, so that some religious huckster can display his wares in front of such a great assembly, and we think there must be some work of God that would bring this many people together in one place to see such a thing, and yet, we begin to listen, and what we hear being said and what is being done, and we recognize that there is nothing that at least we recognize of true biblical religion going on in that religious meeting. This is merely to show that in our day, as well as in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, and gathered around hucksters, on the one hand, or even the Son of God, on the other, men tend to assemble in crowds, and the assembling of a crowd is no certain work of a true revival of Christian religion. I believe we can learn that from the life of our Lord. We read that “when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to teach.” We also find that if we are aware of the Jewish mentality that these people who are here pressing around the Lord Jesus Christ are also men who are unconverted, who are offended by our Lord's teaching, and who, as far as we can deduce from the history of the Jews, never had any real saving interest in the gospel, and yet, we see them gathering together and pressing around the Lord Jesus Christ. All of these things together do not indicate a revival of true religion.

The second thing we may observe is this: That whole generations have elapsed with scarcely any at all rescued. Notice carefully, and put all due emphasis upon the words:

And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation (Luk 11:29 ASV)

Here is a whole generation that Jesus pronounces to be evil, a whole generation. This generation of whom he is speaking have arisen, they have grown, these men that are standing around him together with all of those that comprise that generation, if we were to take the word in its narrowest possible significance, this generation of men, it could be taken, and very often is taken, as the whole race that they represent, the whole race of Israel is an evil generation. Consider this then, that being the case, giving full weight and force to the words of our Lord at this point, it makes us to shudder at the thought that entire generations of men have elapsed, come and gone, were born and lived and died with scarcely any at all taken from them that could not be characterized as being evil from first to last. What a remarkable thing, if you were to think about it. It also makes our view of our own generation perhaps somewhat less exciting. We think this is an evil generation in which we live. Sometimes we begin to think that in the whole history of the world there's never been one worse. Here is a generation in which scarcely any seem to know anything about righteousness. Remember Luke 11:29: Our Lord looks at these religious Jews and says “This is an evil generation.” J C Ryle says at this point “Let it never surprise us to see unbelief abounding both in the church and in the world. The enormous amount of unbelief on every side may well grieve and pain us, but it ought not to cause surprise.”

Now, in the third, fourth, and fifth places I would ask you to observe that these third, fourth, and fifth observations stand together because I find in our text three facts regarding the gospel. We are all interested in the gospel. We're interested in it not only because of its content, and that we who are the people of God love it dearly, but we're interested in it from a methodological point of view. We want to be very clear as to exactly what it is, and we have a very great interest in that it is preached and preached correctly. If we are to do so, we must pay attention, of course, to the gospel, and to the words of our Lord, and particularly, I submit to you, to the words of the Lord at this point, because there are three items about the gospel which we must not miss in our text. Again, how does Jesus address this multitude? We might think “Here is a perfect opportunity for good. Here is a place, and a time, and an occasion, and a gathering of a great pressing multitude, and so, what is said on this occasion needs to be pertinent. It needs to be exactly what the people need to hear. It needs to be a message of gospel proportion. What would you say if the opportunity occurred to you to have a representative of a whole generation of Israel gathered around you and you may open your mouth and say something to them? What would you say? Well, what did Jesus say? “This,” he says, “is an evil generation.” That's rather striking, if you think about it. Especially if you think how the gospel nowadays has been reconstructed, and nobody in our day would ever think of taking this occasion and this opportunity and saying those words. This is no way to win friends and influence people. “There's something wrong with our Lord's people skills,” they might say in 90s parlance, “that he would commence with this remarkable opportunity and seemingly throw it away by initially telling them that they are evil and so is everyone in their generation.”

The first thing we observe then about the facts of the gospel is this: The gospel is a frontal assault against every generation. The gospel is offensive, and any attempt to reduce the offense of the gospel is to be unlike the Lord Jesus Christ. He does not sugarcoat anything. He does not come with some message which he trusts might not put them off quite as much as other things that he could say. He says this: “This is an evil generation.” The gospel is a frontal assault on every generation. The flaw, our Lord tells them, is not an intellectual one. It was intellectual, but it was not merely intellectual. He says “The fault and the problem with this generation is not that you don't understand what you ought to. The problem is that you are morally bankrupt. This is an evil generation.” It's not an ignorant generation. It's not 10 or 12 other things that could have been said about them, which would have been true enough, but he points at the root problem: It is morally an evil generation. In fact, the parallel, Matthew 12:39, adds that our Lord said on this occasion “This is an evil and an adulterous generation,” not pointing probably to the fact that they were all adulterers in a literal sense, but they were guilty of intellectual adultery, not the least of which was their continual calling out for signs. This has got to be striking, if you think of the opportunity that our Lord had at this point, and yet, he confronts them with the fact that they are an evil generation. He insults them as they gather around him and press upon him.

Not only does he insult them by telling them right at the beginning that they are an evil generation, but he does 2 other things which I think are calculated to infuriate them if possible. Again, the gospel is a frontal assault against every generation. He brings up 2 particulars to illustrate his point. Who are they? First of all, he brings up the fact of Jonah the prophet who went and preached to Nineveh, and the men of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, a greater than Jonah is here,” and although he puts in the midst of his speaking about Jonah this other illustration of the queen from the south who we know to be the Queen of Sheba from reading 1 Kings 10, but notice the point: These were Jews, Jews seeking signs. These were the scribes and the Pharisees of the day. These were Jewish religious men pressing around the Lord Jesus Christ. #1: He tells them they are an evil and wicked generation. #2: He gives them 2 illustrations of how other men have been wiser than they, and in both cases he uses an illustration which brings up a Gentile. Remember how the Jews hated the Gentiles, the dogs? The first one is the men of Nineveh. The Ninevites were Gentiles, and the other is a Queen from Sheba, probably in Arabia or northern Africa. Wherever she came from is debated, but she certainly was not a Jew. So, not only does he affront them at the very beginning with how evil they are, he brings up these 2 illustrations to prove their guiltiness, and both the illustrations point to Gentiles. Even more subtle, but no less infuriating to them, is the fact that one of them is a woman. Even this woman will stand up in the Judgment, “and will condemn you,” he says.

Notice also in verse 31 that you probably won't recognize this, you can't recognize it from the English text: The queen of the south. Now, the queen of the south was a woman. Clearly, she was a queen. She shall rise up in the Judgment with the men of this generation. The word “men” there is not ανθρωπος, the word that you would find numerous times in the New Testament for men. It's the word ανηρ, and what does that mean? Well, it's a word that points not to men as human beings, but men as men, as opposed to being women. Here is the queen of the south, and our Lord did not say this haphazardly. Here is the woman from the south coming, and will stand up in Judgment and say “You men of this generation.” Now, if you want to make somebody mad: “Not only are they Gentiles, but here is a woman telling us that we are wrong, and this man, this teacher, is telling us that we are a wicked generation.”

What do we learn from this? We learn that the gospel is a frontal assault on every generation, and we see the patent error in most approaches of the gospel today: The idea that we need to approach men in some way so as to make the gospel palatable to their taste. And we need not to unnecessarily offend them, which may be true, but you cannot preach the gospel without offending the natural man. Jesus comes on this remarkable occasion, what an opportunity, a great crowd, and he addresses them by telling them that they are an evil generation, making their most hated neighbors the object of their instruction, and one of them a woman.

Now, the second fact about the gospel that we learn from the passage is that the gospel is contrary to the prevailing epistemology of every generation. What is epistemology? Epistemology is merely the study of how we know what we do, and it's a very important area of philosophy. The subject of epistemology is, in fact, the first thing that we must settle. How do we know what we know? Now, notice that the Jews had an epistemological stance. They came to our Lord, and Jesus says to them “This generation is an evil generation.” Why? Because of its epistemology. It seeks after a sign. That was the Jewish epistemology. “How do we know anything? How can anything be proved or demonstrated to us? We must have some visible proof that these things are true.” And so, you can find that all through the gospel they are coming to the Lord Jesus Christ saying “What sign doest thou that we may see and believe?” And that's their epistemology. Their epistemology is that seeing is believing.

There are 2 problems with this Jewish epistemology, which, by the way, is not ancient Jewish epistemology. It is modern epistemology in America, the idea that seeing is believing. The first thing that is wrong with it is that it is futile, the futility of this epistemological stance, because it is insatiable. That is, it can never be satisfied. Whatever evidence you give it, it's never enough. In the context in which we find our text, we find that Jesus has just lately healed a man that was dumb, and yet, this did not persuade them. As I quoted already in John 6:30, which is merely the echo of many passages in the gospels, they said to Jesus “What sign doest thou that we may see and believe?” And then John 6, these are the same men, these are the same people, they were of the 5000 that had eaten of the small amount that had been multiplied. They had seen a great and remarkable sign, and yet they were insatiable. You can never give the evidentialist enough evidence. He will never be satisfied with that which he does not want to believe. Not only do we see the futility of it, we see the folly of it because men ultimately are insensible even to the signs that they might receive, and there are men who have received rather remarkable signs, the most remarkable of which, and we've mentioned so often, is John 6:36, where Jesus says:

But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not. (Joh 6:36 ASV)

I thought seeing was believing, and yet here were men who had seen Christ and had eaten with the 5000, the great miracle at the beginning of John 6, and heard our Lord's teaching. They had tasted, they had heard, and they were looking at that moment at none less than the Son of God himself, and yet, they did not believe. It is not only futile, but it is folly. As Voltaire, the atheistic philosopher said “Even if a miracle should be wrought in the open marketplace before a thousand sober witnesses I would rather mistrust my senses than admit a miracle.” So it was. No sign, no accumulation of signs, would ever be proof enough to the prejudiced mind. So, the gospel is contrary to the prevailing epistemology of every generation. What does our Lord say? They were seeking signs. He says “No sign will be given.”

What's wrong with this epistemology, that men must see something in order to believe? It is a policy which ultimately is disasterous from 5 points of view. #1: It is a policy which questions God's disposing. If you have been privileged to hear the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, but you, like many others then and now, want some sort of demonstrating proof in order to believe, you are questioning the disposing of God himself. He has given you the truth, and now you are demanding that he give you more evidence, eyewitness visible evidence. You are complaining about the dispensation of God.

Secondly, this policy and this epistemology borders on idolatry. What is the nature of idolatry? Basically, the second commandment is not that we should not worship false gods, but that we should not make visible representations of the true God, and worship him therefore in a false way, the idea of wanting to make everything visible and everything to consist of that which is material is that which borders on idolatry.

Thirdly, it perverts the true nature of faith. What is faith? The author of Hebrews tells us that “faith is a conviction of things not seen,” Hebrews 11:1. It's a conviction of things not seen, and yet, this epistemology says “Seeing is the only way to bring me to believe.” It perverts the nature of faith.

In the fourth place, it mistrusts the work of Christ, as if the work of Christ was not sufficient. “Yes, Christ has done all these things. Yes, it is freely offered in the gospel. Yes, it has been explained to me, and I have heard it, and yet, I want more.” There is in insisting in this whole philosophy a mistrust of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And fifthly and lastly, it insults preaching. It was at the preaching of Jonah that the Ninevites repented, but the Jews say “We want signs.” Jonah didn't do any “sign.” All he did was preach, and yet these men, of course, want signs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon said “Remember that grace has nothing to do with things to be seen, and to be felt in the flesh. The operations of grace are mental, spiritual work.” The gospel itself and by itself is the greatest sign and wonder in the world. The gospel is contrary to the prevailing epistemology of every generation. Now, I want to say more about this, and that is what I am going to reserve for this evening, but as William Lane has said “The demand for proof represents the attempt to understand the person of Jesus within categories which were wholly inadequate to contain his reality.”

The third gospel fact that we learn from this passage is that the gospel is not at all forthcoming to appease the popular climate of any generation. The popular climate was an evidentialist epistemology. “We want a sign,” they say, and what was the response of our Lord? He responds by saying “No sign shall be given.” They want a sign. Jesus says “No sign.” That is, especially in the language of the New Testament at this point, “No such sign as you require is going to be given you.”

Now, isn't that strange? Especially when today men are laboring to try to give people what they want. We want to change the form of our worship so as to make it more modern, more upbeat, more in tune with what people desire and demand nowadays. They would come to our Lord and say “This is what we want,” and he would say to them “This is not what you are going to get.” “We want signs,” and what does he say? “No signs.” He did not accede to the popular climate of the generation which was confronting him. The gospel is not at all forthcoming to appease the popular climate of any generation.

The sixth thing then that we want to mark, having noticed those 3 facts about the gospel, if you remember what they are: #1, the gospel is a frontal assault against every generation. #2, the gospel is contrary to the prevailing epistemology of every generation. And #3, the gospel is not at all forthcoming to appease the popular climate of any generation. The Jews desire a sign. The Greeks are desiring of wisdom, but “We preach Christ,” Paul says, “to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.” That's one of the most remarkable statements. “Here's what the Jews want, and here's what the Greeks want, but we preach Christ.” “Wait a minute, Paul. You missed the point. That's not what they said. They want signs, and the others want wisdom.” And Paul says “And we preach Christ.” He ignored it entirely. “I know exactly what they want, but they're not going to get it.” The Jews come to Jesus: “We want signs.” He says “No. No such signs as you would love to have.” The gospel is not at all forthcoming to appease the popular climate of any generation. Do you see the force of what our Lord has done here? The multitudes are pressing around saying “Show us a sign,” and he could have given them one, couldn't he? It would be no trouble, but what is true gospel preaching? What does it do? It says “No. No.”

However, let's move on, and the sixth thing that we can learn then. Remember, we had one and 2, and there was a 3 thing, the facts of the gospel, and now we come then to #6. We learn also from this passage that the Old Testament, according to our Lord, is both accurate and applicable. Jesus begins to speak to these Jews who are seeking after signs and he says “You'll have no signs except” 2 illustrations of signs from the past. One involved Jonah, and the other involved the queen from the south and Solomon, the men of Nineveh and Solomon. In the 2 illustrations he gives, the former is a controverted individual, Jonah. No one has been complained about more than Jonah. Who would ever believe that? Who would believe being swallowed by a large fish and be spit out 3 days later? Who would ever believe a prophet, a Jewish prophet, walking into Nineveh, a Gentile city, and saying it's going to be destroyed in 40 days, and they believe him? That's more remarkable than being swallowed by a fish. And of course, the liberal mind of our day says “It's all a fable. It never happened. Of course it didn't. No rational person would believe any part of the book of Jonah.” But Jesus says that Jonah was a real person. The Old Testament is accurate, and the Old Testament is applicable to the present day, and he applied it to the present day.

The former was a controverted individual, and the latter was an obscure incident. I warrant you that you probably haven't been musing upon the subject of the queen from the south this past week, have you? You probably haven't thought about her very much. You probably have not had her high on the list of things that interest you. She was an obscure person, and if this was an obscure incident tucked away back there in 1 Kings 10, and it's also found in 2 Chronicles 9, and if you were to read them both you would find the same account, but you would find that this is an obscure incident, and our Lord takes a controverted individual and an obscure incident from the Old Testament and says “This is not only accurate and historical, but it applies to you who are standing here today.” J C Ryle says “The modern theory which says that all the histories of the Old Testament are nothing better than amusing fables finds no countenance in the New Testament. Let us remember this: If we hear men professing to believe the writers of the New Testament, and yet sneering at the things recorded in the Old Testament as if they were fables, such men forget that in so doing they pour contempt on Christ himself, who says that even these obscure incidents and controverted figures in the Old Testament are historically accurate and experimentally applicable.” And he applies them to the Jews that were at hand.

The seventh thing that we can learn from our text is that our Lord Jesus Christ was self-conscious of his own identity. Geerhardus Vos has written a book called The Ubiquity of the Messianic Consciousness. I'm sure you have all read it. What was the book about? It's about the fact that the liberal mind has made the theory that Jesus only gradually came to understand who he was. It dawned upon him little by little as he was preaching and viewed the times and the Jews and learned more about himself and began to develop his own thinking, et cetera, et cetera. He gradually became conscious of his messianic person. Well, of course, it's liberal rubbish. Yes, Geerhardus Vos was kind enough to write a book called The Ubiquity of the Messianic Consciousness, and here is a text which, if he didn't use, though he certainly could have, but here the Lord Jesus Christ says that he and he as a sign to the Jews was one greater than Jonah and one greater than Solomon. Christ knew who he was. There was no doubt. There was no growth in terms of his coming to some sort of recognition of who he was. He knew that he was greater than Jonah, greater than Solomon. The logic is that which argues a minori ad majus, from the lesser to the greater, and the degree of the argument, and the difference between himself and Jonah and Solomon is infinite. Charles Haddon Spurgeon said “No mere man would have said this concerning himself unless he had been altogether eaten up with vanity.”

The Jews held Solomon in high esteem. He was there on the list of the highest echelon of Jews from the past, one of the kings of Israel, the son of David, et cetera, et cetera. He was quite revered, and Jesus comes and has the audacity to say “A greater than Solomon is here, a greater than the men of Nineveh, a greater than all of this which I have brought forward as an example, stands before you .” Jesus was indeed self-conscious of his own identity.

The eighth thing that we learn from the passage is that the universe is not amoral. We live in a day, especially in the past year or so, when we may have come to the conclusion that we live in an amoral, if not immoral, country. But the universe, regardless of what your feelings may be, is not amoral. It is not, and it cannot be, because it is created by God. It has morality built into it. The moral fiber of the universe is the law of God, and so, in all of your thinking and all of your complaints notwithstanding, the universe is not an amoral place. It is a moral universe, and because of that moral resolution of all things is a foregone conclusion. There will be a moral reckoning. There will be a resolution, a summing up of all things by God. We know it must happen because of the morality of God and of the universe that he has created. That is why he can say to these Jews in verses 31 and 32: “In the Judgment.” Do you see it there? “The queen of the south will rise up in the Judgment.” Verse 32: “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the Judgment.” Without arguing the fact, he assumes the fact of a final Judgment. How can he do that? Because he recognizes that the universe is not amoral, and there must be a moral resolution to all things. There must be a Judgment. It is built into the very fact of creation and God as the Creator. Not only does he assume that what he says about the queen of the south, and what he assumes about the men of Nineveh, he not only assumes the final Judgment, but he assumes therefore a resurrection. I wonder if you saw this as we were reading this? “The queen of the south shall rise up.” Now, the queen of the south has been dead for a thousand years, but Jesus says she's going to stand up again. He says the same thing about the men of Nineveh. “The men of Nineveh shall stand up.” He uses 2 different verbs, almost as if to say “If you were shocked at the first one, look at the second one. The queen of the south will rise up, and the men of Nineveh will stand up, in the final Judgment.” Notice that our Lord does not argue but assumes the facts of resurrection and Judgment, because moral resolution is a foregone conclusion. As my old theology professor used to say “Creation involves consummation.” There must be an end and a resolution of all things. There will in fact be a Judgment and men will stand up in order to attend that gathering.

Now, the ninth and last thing that I would have you to observe this morning from our text is this, and this is really the most striking thing in the passage, and that is: What does our Lord say? He says that in the Judgment every man will appear as a witness against unbelief, and they will condemn it. “The queen of the south is going to rise up and condemn this generation,” Jesus says. “The men of Nineveh are going to stand up,” even though they've been dead for hundreds of years. He says “They're going to stand up and they're going to witness against and condemn the unbelief of this generation.” What a remarkable thing. In the Judgment every man will appear as witness against unbelief, and condemn it.

Men have rather strange ideas about the final Judgment. Even if they're willing to admit “Well, maybe you're correct that there is a Judgment to come. I'm going to have a lot of friends there that are going to be on my side. I have a lot of arguments that I am going to be able to bring forward. I have a lot of things to say in my defense.” Consider how small that's going to seem when God will raise up thousands, yea, millions of witnesses, and they will all be witnessing one thing: the folly of unbelief. The queen of the south is going to stand up and condemn this generation. The men of Nineveh will stand up, and I don't know if the men of Nineveh were converted, or just repentant in some less assent. I do not, cannot solve that question. It doesn't really make any difference. I think every man is going to at least have this sense: They're going to stand up and say “You were a fool for not believing, and so was I.” The queen of the south and the men of Nineveh: Their cities are in ruins. Their bones are dust. Their memory has faded, but this business will move them to stand up and be heard. The queen of the south will stand up again. Why? To condemn unbelief. You may stand with all your arguments, but there are scores of others who will stand up and condemn you. The queen of the south: Whoever thinks about her? One day you will, because she will stand again and condemn unbelief. She will witness to this fact. Therefore, unbelief is a serious thing. J C Ryle says “Let us watch against unbelief. The root of it often lies within us even after the tree is cut down. Let us guard our faith with a godly jealousy. It is the shield of the soul.” And the queen of the south will rise up, and the men of Nineveh will stand again in order to do the business of condemning unbelief. In the Judgment every man will appear as witness against unbelief and will condemn it.

More and more, as I have read this and studied it, I have no real ability to impress upon you the remarkable thing that Jesus said at this point. From the beginning, when he has this remarkable opportunity and says “You're a wicked generation,” to the very end, where he says that these people will with united testimony stand against this generation for its unbelief and will condemn it. These are serious words from the Lord Jesus Christ himself. I want to take this evening if I may and expand upon something that we've touched on quite regularly because it comes up so often and I thought it would be good to review and take another look at the subject of epistemology in a biblical epistemology from the Word of God, and we will, God willing, do that this evening and make it to be then an excursis, or expansion, of our study this morning, but I conclude by offering then those 9 observations from Luke 11:29 through 32. Let's bow together in prayer.

Our Father, once again we ask your blessing upon our reading and hearing and studying of the Word of God. We would not ask for a sign. We would be more like Luther who would make a covenant with God saying that he would have nothing to do with that and would be satisfied with the Word of God alone. Bless us we pray to be such a people as that. We ask that you would show us from our thinking this morning the folly of unbelief and guard us against it at all costs. Work we pray your good pleasure in this congregation even this morning we ask in Christ's name. Amen.

2011-12-25T21:07:00.000-08:00

Luke #96-11.27-28-20001022

I don't think we need to trouble ourselves greatly about the attachment of this to that which precedes and what may follow. It does seem, contrary to what we noted this morning, something of an independent statement of our Lord's occurring in the midst of an independent and unique occurrence. We read in verse 27:

And it came to pass, as he said these things, a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luk 11:27-28 ASV)

Aside from the fact that this seems to have been blurted out while our Lord was yet saying what we studied this morning, the connection need not be stressed. What we find here is a rather extra-ordinary incident in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is such a one as we would not expect to be recorded actually, that something like this should happen would hardly gather the attention of those who have been writing such monumental things and happenings in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was not long before this that he cast out the demon that had caused the man to be dumb, and the great confrontation with the scribes and the Pharisees that concluded with the strong warning of the verses just preceding, and continues on with rather weighty material regarding the sign of Jonah that occurs in verses 29 and following.

Why would anyone, you might think, record such an event as this? A woman blurts out, interrupting Christ as he is speaking. It appears, supposedly to be something about his mother, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee,” and yet, it does give occasion for a very weighty statement. Our Lord responds to this, rather than ignoring it, by saying “Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it.” Well, what occurs on this occasion is rather straight forward. There is no information belonging to the text that needs particularly to be explained. It seems to impress us by the very reading of it that we have a mental picture of what happened on this occasion.

And so, let's descend immediately to particulars. What might we learn from this passage? And I submit to you that the first thing is that it is wise to always learn something from everything. Perhaps you might have expected our Lord to just pass by this without any reference whatsoever, perhaps to ignore it as merely words that come from the crowd. He could have ignored it and gone on without making any note of it whatsoever, but you notice that he didn't. He did, in fact, respond to it. There may have been many times that he did ignore the outcries of people from the multitude. You know how hard it is to keep a large throng of people quiet. Certainly there's always someone that wants to be heard by lifting up their voice above the multitude, but notice that this time and many other times, we might add, in the life of our Lord that he turns something which was practically nothing into something profitable. He desired and labored to improve everything that was improvable, to learn something from everything that taught something, and to indicate what might be learned to those round about him from even the very smallest incidents that occurred, and Luke gives us what probably is one of the smallest at this point. From this I believe that we can learn that it is wise, following the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, to always learn something from everything, that something can be found that is profitable from almost anything that occurs, even the slightest and seemingly least important things. So he draws out from this incident a piece of wisdom to which we all have to pay attention, and we will in just a few moments. But just the general application that we ought not to let anything go unimproved. That is, if there is anything that we can extract from anything that occurs that is of profit, we ought to find it and profit from it. Good days, bad days, things go well, things don't go well, yet we may profit and learn even in the midst of difficulties. We see that this was, at the very best construction, an interruption of our Lord in the best of his speaking. I would rather have heard what Jesus was going to say than hear this woman blurting out her encomium of the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, it is turned into something profitable. J C Ryle says about our Lord at this point “His perfect wisdom turned every incident within his reach into something profitable.” It would be good for us, would it not? to take a lesson from this and make the same attempt at whatever occurs. Rather than ignoring it, to improve upon it, and to see what might be learned from it.

Here is an anonymous party. We're told in verse 27, “a certain woman,” a woman which we do not know anything of. We have not her name. We have nothing of her history before or after this event. She is, for all intents and purposes, an anonymous party, one of many, but an anonymous party in the gospel record. We have only one sentence that she ever uttered, and yet, that one sentence is recorded, and it is recorded only by Luke. Matthew does not mention this, nor Mark, nor does John. So, her one opportunity to ever enter into the gospel record was here, and sure enough, here she appears, and we're still thinking about her and what she said 2000 years later. Let us then just generally and at the beginning learn one thing and that is that everything ought to be turned into profit. If we can learn something, if we can improve upon it, we ought to do so, and we have the example of our Lord himself to do that as we have it here in this passage before us.

Secondly, let us observe this evening that not everyone blessing Jesus is to be reckoned among his disciples. We have a lot of people in religious America today that are thanking Jesus, and blessing Jesus, and praising Jesus, to where the name almost becomes without meaning. You have all heard them in calling upon the name of Jesus, “In the name of Jesus, this and that,” until it becomes more of a talisman than a name, and we must recognize that 2000 years ago it was the same as today: Not everyone calling out Jesus' name, not everyone blessing the Lord Jesus Christ is necessarily among his disciples. There are indeed, were indeed, and shall continue to be indeed many who use his name that ultimately do not belong to those who are called the people of God. We must say that these words that we hear are sadly a commentary on the wide majority of contemporary religion, men and women blessing the name of Jesus with arms raised in the air, and yet, many of them not reckoned at all among those who truly know him, nor are they clearly those who hear and keep the Word of God. Again, we see in our text that the woman:

a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck. (Luk 11:27 ASV)

Now, we might think this is a rather strange thing for anyone to say. Perhaps it's not as strange in a Middle Eastern setting 2000 years ago as we seem to think it is today. So, let's notice 3 things about what this woman did on this occasion. #1: Let's consider who it was that said this. Let us note that it was a woman. “Behold, a certain woman lifted up her voice in the multitude.” Albrecht Bengel has said of this statement “She speaks well, but womanly.” You can't imagine a man saying this, could you? This is clearly the exclamation, it would appear, of someone who was a woman, but even 2000 years ago, as far removed as we are from the situation and the culture, it's still strange to hear a woman speaking out in a crowd this loudly. Now, I know we live in a day when that shouldn't seem so strange, feminist movement and all the rest, the infiltration of women in office in the church from almost every denominational background, and to have a woman lead in this exclamation probably in our day wouldn't seem as strange as it did then, but women just didn't do this regularly, not in Elizabethan England, and not even in the Middle Eastern culture 2000 years ago. So, the first thing we note is who said it. It was a woman. I've often noticed that the cry of feminism in the church today which the church seems to have completely surrendered itself to in the modern mentality, but I've found that the most godly women I've ever known would be absolutely aghast to say anything public in the worship of God, but here's a woman who stands up in the midst of a multitude of men, women, scribes, Pharisees, the Lord Jesus Christ, his disciples, all those people around, and dared to lift up her voice and be heard with these words that we have.

The second thing that we note from this text is where and when it was said. We notice that it was public. There was a multitude there, and it was vocal. It was, as it were, that she lifted up her voice above the multitude. Now, Jesus was speaking, but she lifted up her voice. We need to notice, and it's even clearer in the original language of the New Testament, that she did this “as he said these things.” Literally, I would have translated it “while he was speaking.” It wasn't that there was a pause or a lull so that there was an opportunity for her perhaps to have blurted this out. She did it while he was saying probably the things that were immediately recorded that we considered this morning. It was, in fact, an interruption. It was something where her voice was pressed above the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ. She was speaking at the same time that he was. It was an interjection into his conversation, and an interruption of it. Spurgeon commenting on this says “This was a Methodist vacant wonder of expression.” We're used to some of these kinds of things. I knew a man once who said: “I could tell when the Word of God was finally penetrating to the heart: It's when they stop saying “Amen.”” And so it was, this woman interrupted the teaching of Christ supposedly to praise him.

The third thing we notice is that not only is it a woman who said it, and where and when it was said, but the text is what was said. It was remarkably graphic. She talks of wombs and breasts, and blesses supposedly the mother of anyone who could possibly have brought forth such a great man who said such great words as this man. She was carried away with the things that she had heard. She was extremely graphic. Now this was in fact a reflection of the times in which such expressions were not guarded with the reserve of modern delicacy. We need to say that there are some things that men feel free to say in our day that would never have been heard 100 years ago.

On the other hand, there are some things that we've gotten quite delicate about in normal conversation, mixed assemblies, and you might think “This was a rather strange thing to say, and perhaps rather indelicate to speak of a womb and breasts and all the rest,” and there's a certain reserve perhaps inherited from Elizabethan England in America, even surviving through our rather rough and ready language of today that is somewhat against the modern delicacy of expression, but this was in fact a specimen of Palestinian emotionalism. This is the way those people tend to be. It's almost a cultural idiosyncrasy that they cry out. Have you ever seen pictures over there when something has gone wrong, or when something's gone right, how they're crying and lifting up their voices, and all kinds of commotion going on to where you can't see any order to it whatsoever? This is a kind of Palestinianism that existed both then and now. She was in an emotional state. She cried this out. It is an expostulation of praise to anyone's mother who would be so blessed as to produce a child who said things such as these.

Now, the King James Version, if you have it, has it even more perhaps boldly, or crassly, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee and the paps that thou hast sucked.” That's 300 and more years ago, 1611, when the King James Version was written. Ours follows it rather closely. Listen what the New International Version says:

"Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." (Luk 11:27 NIV)

So you might say basically the same thing, but certainly not a translation of what the woman actually said. Let us note at this point that we dare not ever be more refined than the Word of God. We are so refined to where even when the Word says something like this we blush to say it. We have no right ever to be more delicate, or more refined, or more reserved, than the Holy Spirit. The woman did in fact cry out, and these were her words “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck,” and we need not blush in the face of these things. This is what she said. We dare not be more refined than the Word of God. Moreover, when this woman said this, the words were most probably uttered without any acquaintance whatsoever with Mary. This is kind of something you'd say if someone was particularly wonderful and you wanted to praise someone, you would praise their mother. Middle Eastern style would do this. The same thing is true if they wanted to give you down the road, as it were. If they wanted to complain about you they might say something about your mother. If they wanted to praise you, they might say something about your mother, and so, that's exactly what she's doing at this point. This doesn't mean that she had even met Mary. It also doesn't mean that she has any reference in what she is saying to the actual facts of the remarkability of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. This woman no doubt had no knowledge whatsoever of the virgin birth. She had no knowledge of the angelic procession coming to announce that the Son of God was going to come to earth, Immanuel, God with us. She knew nothing about that. She probably had never met Mary, and so, it was a sort of generic, Middle Eastern saying. She made no reference to Mary whatsoever. She probably had never met her at all. So then, we observe in the second place that not every one blessing Jesus is necessarily to be reckoned among his disciples.

The third thing that we mark from this passage is that small truths often matriculate into large errors. Now what this woman says is not untrue. It was indeed a blessed thing no doubt to have been the mother of our Lord. It was a blessed privilege to have been in that capacity, a remarkably unique event in the history of the world. One of the most unique places one has ever been placed in the service of God was that which was given to Mary, and, no doubt, it was not only a great privilege, but it was a great responsibility. Beyond that it was a great temptation and difficulty when she saw all the things then that occurred in the life of our Lord, and ultimately, when she became witness to his death. And so, we're not going to say anything about how this was not true what she said. It was true. “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that thou did suck.” This was a small truth, however. It's a small thing, because you know what our Lord says, “Yea. Rather, there's a much greater blessing than that. There's only one person in all the earth that was my mother, but there are many people who have a greater blessing than even that, and that is the blessing that belongs to those who hear and keep the Word of God.” So, what she says was indeed true. It was a blessing to have been the mother of our Lord, but it was a small truth, not a large one, but it has been turned, has it not? into a very large error. The Roman Catholic church, of course, loves this woman's words, and they have used them for the last 2000 years to aggrandize the person of Mary, and they sing and they pray, using the words “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that did give thee suck,” and they're more interested in the womb and the breasts than they are in the offspring, and the Lord Jesus Christ. That's why there are 9 Hail Marys on the Rosary to every 1 Our Father. They're more delighted and more interested in Mary than they are in the Son of God himself, or in his Father. This is a small truth that this woman uttered, but it has matriculated into the largest of all errors and blasphemy, that is, the worship of the virgin Mary in Rome. J C Ryle comments on this by saying “We cannot doubt that the words of this verse were spoken with a prophetic foresight of that unscriptural worship of the virgin Mary which was one day to arrive and prevail so extensively. By no ingenuity or torturing process can these words be made to bear that meaning.” John Calvin, as you might expect, says “The stupidity of the Papacy is incredible when they sing in honor of Mary words which expressly refute their superstition. They single out the woman's saying and omit Christ's correction. Small truths then, we may learn from this passage, matriculate often into large errors. This is one of the largest ever perpetuated by people calling themselves the people of God, and that is the worship of Mary. They enjoy these words and they use them, but they ignore the correction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fourth thing that we learn from this passage is that attention to the Word of God transcends consanguinity. Now, there's a word for the day, consanguinity. The word “sanguine” has something to do in Latin with blood. Consanguinity is to be related by blood. And so, two people who are brothers or sisters have a consanguinity with one another, a mother and a son, a father and a son, or a daughter, et cetera. It is a consanguinist relationship. And so, here this woman says “What a blessed thing it must have been to have been consanguinous with this great man who speaks such great words.” Our Lord teaches us at this point that attention to the Word of God transcends that kind of relationship.There is a higher blessedness, a stronger relatedness, than even being the very mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it belongs to those who hear and keep the Word of God.

We have to turn back to chapter 8 and find a nearly duplicate, but certainly not duplicate, incident occurred, and we've already noted it in Luke 8:19-21.

And there came to him his mother and brethren, and they could not come at him for the crowd.
20 And it was told him, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 But he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these that hear the word of God, and do it. (Luk 8:19-21 ASV)

There is a closer relation, a more transcendent consanguinity, betwixt Christ and those who hear and keep the Word of God than between even he and that woman who served as his physical mother. It has been said in this way “Spiritual kinship surpasses the accidents of birth.”

Now, how do we take the words that begin verse 28 “But he said “Yea, rather”? There are 2 ways or shades of meaning that we can assign to these words, and I am afraid that the study of these words in the original language doesn't quite solve the problem. Is this a correction? Is he saying “No, you've missed the point, but rather this is the point that ought to be made,” or is he confirming that what she has said is in fact true, but there is a larger truth to be considered? I'm afraid that I cannot decide the point. Lenski says “This phrase is confirmatory and at the same time corrective, but it is misunderstood when it is found to be sharply adversative.” He's not saying “No, no, no, no, no. You've got it all wrong.” He's probably saying something more like “Yes. That may be the case, but here is something even more important: Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it.” Notice that he does not then necessarily reprove her for what she has said, but he takes the fact that she has something and seeks to improve it, or raise it to a higher level of instruction. We need to remember, as Spurgeon tells us, “It was a brave speech, for the Pharisees and scribes, those teachers of the period, those persons of authority, had spoken ill words of him just recently, hadn't they?” Remember, the scribes and the Pharisees, these were authorities in Israel. These were the most important people, religiously, in the entire land, and they are saying “He is by the power of Beelzebub casting out demons,” but this woman says “Blessed is the womb that bore thee.” She said it within earshot of the scribes and the Pharisees. It was, in effect, a brave speech, but it was a small truth and teaches us that there is something more near of a relation to the Lord Jesus Christ than even to have been his mother.

It's been mentioned to me before. In fact, I was reminded of it when Ralph Anderegg was here, you recall, from Sweethome, Oregon. He had just returned and he showed us a couple of slides, you remember, of his trip to the Holy Land. People have asked me, some of you have asked me, on occasion, “Wouldn't you like to go to the Holy Land? Maybe we would send you.” And my reply is always “Why? Why would I want to go?” “Wouldn't you want to walk where Jesus walked? Wouldn't you want to see the Sea of Galilee? Wouldn't you want to see Jericho and Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the River Jordan where John preached?” And you've got to admit that there might be some enjoyment in seeing some of those places, but the idea behind that is something I think might belong in the text that we have before us. It's almost like saying this: Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have been the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it have been remarkable to have had that relationship with him? Wouldn't it have been incredible to have been one of the disciples and to have been there on the Sea of Galilee when he walked on the water? Wouldn't it have been remarkable to be there and to have tasted of the feeding of the 5000, the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes? Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have been there and to have walked by his side through all those circumstances and to see him there on the cross, to even have seen him to have risen from the dead, to have actually been there? Wouldn't you have been the most blessed person on the face of the earth?” And what does Jesus say? “No. Even to have been my mother is not as blessed as those who hear the Word of God and keep it.”

J C Ryle says “We are naturally all inclined to attach great importance to a religion of sight and sense and touch. We love a sensuous, tangible, material Christianity. We need not idly wish that we lived near Capernaum, or hard by Joseph's house at Nazareth. We need not dream of a more thorough devotion if we had really pressed Christ's hand, or heard his voice, or been numbered among Christ's relatives. All this could have done nothing more for us than simple faith can do now. Would it have been blessed to have been the mother of Christ himself? And Jesus says “No, it is more blessed to be a hearer and a keeper of the Word of God.”

The fifth and last thing we can learn from this passage is this: Pure religion is not a choice between academics and activity. There are brands of Christianity, of course, all around us. Two of them, #1, are those who are primarily academic. They are interested in hearing the Word of God, and learning all that they can, in amassing as much information as possibly is available to them. Now, there aren't many people like that, but let's say that's one possible extreme. They are the hearing church.

There's another church, however, right down the road that we might call the Keeping or the Doing Church. They're all interested in activity. It doesn't matter how much you know so much as how much you accomplish, and how much you are able to do.

The Hearing Church and the Keeping Church: But notice that our Lord disallows that there's any choice between the two. He says “Blessed are they that hear and keep the Word of God.” Not only that, but both of these are present participles. “Blessed are they that (literally) are hearing and are keeping the Word of God.” I submit to you as a side point that here is an argument for confessionalism, because the word here “to keep” is not the word ordinarily used when we see the word “keep” in this sense in the New Testament. It's a word that literally means to set a watch around something. Blessed are they, not only those who hear the Word of God, but those who set a watch upon it that it not be allowed to erode from what they have heard. There is a keeping of it. I submit to you that one of the best ways to do that is to be confessional of the things that we have heard, and then that we can confess. Charles Haddon Spurgeon said “Happily this preference puts the highest blessedness within reach of us all. We are at this moment in a position to hear the Word of God and to keep it. We can never be the mother, in the flesh, of the Lord Jesus Christ. I submit to you we wouldn't even want to have been, because there is a greater blessing than that sort of relation to Christ, and if you have some sort of lust to get somehow physically closer to Christ, you're greatly mistaken. Our Lord himself says “The greatest blessing belongs to those who hear and keep the Word of God,” and it is just as possible, and in some sense it is more possible, to do that now than it was 2000 years ago.

Now I think that coming to this observation is providential indeed because we are in the next 2 Lord's days a people who have a privilege to hear the preaching of the Word of God, and true religion is not a choice between hearing and keeping, but it is a combination of the 2, and the greatest blessing that can befall the people of God is the privilege and the blessing flowing from hearing and keeping the Word of God, more blessed than even to physically have been related to Christ himself while he was on earth. An interesting passage, isn't it? and a remarkable promise, because that which is available to us here and now is of greater blessedness than even the unique privileges of some there and then. Let's bow together in prayer.

Our Father in heaven, once again we thank you for the instruction in the Word of God, and we thank you for this passage in particular. May we take note of it, hear it, and keep it, and may we recognize that the greatest blessing possible is available to us. Bless and sanctify, we pray, these men, these hours together, these upcoming weeks of conference. Bless them we pray to bind us together in this kind of blessedness. We ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

2011-12-12T06:34:00.000-08:00

Luke #95-11.24-26-20001022

Before we look again into our study of the gospel according to Luke, just a word about the next 2 Lord's days when these 3 men are going to be coming and preaching, Tom Chantry, Bill Downing, and Earl Blackburn. You may wonder that this probably is due to elk season, and you would not be incorrect. You might also think that they are coming because they are my personal friends, and I would not disagree with that being the case. The timing of this and the fact that they are my friends notwithstanding, the main reason why they are coming is because they are the best people that we could possibly have, and I would rather hear them than anyone else in the world. So, I look very much forward to their coming. I trust God's blessing upon us as we meet together in these coming Lord's days.

We turn our attention this morning for just a few moments to this passage that was just read in your hearing. There are 2 paragraphs that we want to deal with, the first one this morning, and then the second this evening. We've already dealt with verses 14 through 23. We have then this morning to deal with verses 24 through 26, and then I had David to read on through verse 28. We'll deal, God willing, with verses 27 and 28 this evening. These are 2 incidents, or the first being a conclusion, it would seem, of the previous paragraph, and then a separate occasion falling on the heels of it probably in verses 27 and 28. Both texts are provocative in one sense or another. First of all, what exactly do they mean, and where do they point us in terms of application? And we trust that we might see some of that as we consider them. Verses 24 through 26 then this morning: Jesus gives us these words: I'll read them again:

The unclean spirit when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and finding none, he saith, I will turn back unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil than himself; and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.
(Luk 11:24-26 ASV)

There are 3 things that we want to consider this morning with regard to this text. The first is the identity of the text. What exactly do we have here before us? Secondly, we want to deal with the information of the text, looking at what we have, and what are the ingredients, or the elements, of the picture that Jesus here is drawing. And then thirdly, the improvement of the text. Well, what exactly then is to be the upshot of this in terms of our application?

In the first place, consider the identity of the text. When we want to identify what we have before us, the first question perhaps would be: How does it fit in with the argument before and perhaps even following? You remember that last Lord's day morning and evening we considered the casting out of the demon from the man who was dumb, and then the accusation of the Jews that he had cast out this demon by exercising the authority and power of Satan, Beelzebub himself, in order to do so. Jesus responds to their thoughts, telling them the ridiculousness and absurdity of their reasoning that this would suggest a house divided against itself and therefore Satan was casting out satan, which again would be an impossibility, at least, an absurdity. He also told them that if he was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, he asks the question: “By whom do your sons cast them out?” which at least suggests to us that the Jews had some sort of exorcism which they practised, whether they really were able to do so, or not. Probably the latter is the case. Still, they made some sort of show, or display, of religiously dealing with Satanic powers. Jesus says to them “Since you can't differentiate what your own sons do with what I have just done, and you have called me having done this by the power of Satan, how then do you clear your own sons who handle devils?”

And so, he shows them by 2 arguments the absurdity of their position, concluding with this: “He that is not with me is against me.” We noted carefully the fact that there is no neutral position, no undecided position. Either we are with or we are against the Lord Jesus Christ, who in fact is “the stronger man,” and who has bound the strong man, and is now spoiling his goods, that the work of God's grace is finger work. “I by the finger of God cast out these demons.”

Then he moves rather seamlessly to what he says, concluding his words to these Jews: “The unclean spirit, when he has gone out..et cetera, et cetera.” The question is: Is this an erratic, as it were, something that is just here, or is it, in fact, part of the flow of thought, the context which precedes and follows? That's a good question, because many times, and perhaps especially Luke, tends to gather together less chronologically and more topically the material in that he was a rather historical collector of every piece of information that perhaps had been unnoticed by Mark and Matthew, which presumably he had in his possession. And so, taking all these materials, once and a while we find he just throws something in because it belongs there perhaps topically rather than chronologically. Well, is this one of those occasions? I don't think so. I believe it's possible without too much difficulty to see this passage as the next layer in the contextual strata of information, and probably occurred and was said exactly at this point. There are 3 reasons why we might think of this certainly happening in relationship to the text that surrounds it.

#1: There is the mention of Jewish exorcisms in verse 19. “Your sons cast out demons,” Jesus says. The mention of Jewish exorcisms perhaps then brings us to verse 24 in that he is emphasizing the folly of emptying only without any replacement. “If your sons, your Jewish sons, if they can.” Let's say for a moment that they are, just for the sake of the argument, casting out demons, then they can do nothing more than empty out people from that influence. They have nothing to replace it with. And then the illustration is: What happens to a man if the unclean spirit goes out and he remains in the condition of just being empty. He is ready to be reinhabited by 8 demons, 7 being worse than the one who originally indwelt him. So, that possibly is the connection. Even if your sons do cast out demons, just for the sake of argument, what do they have to replace the emptiness that then results?

Another possibility is that Jesus is referring to the immediate statement that precedes verse 24: “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth,” that is, the folly that any notion of neutrality is possible, that you are either for Christ, or you are against him. There is no neutral ground. There is no tertium quid, third option. There is no possibility of being bettered merely by being neutral. The point is: This man was indwelt by an unclean spirit. At the end of the story, we have him indwelt by 8 unclean spirits. In the middle of the story we have him empty, in a sense, neutral. Jesus says there is no safe neutrality with regard to the gospel. “You are either with me, or you are against me.” That could be the immediate context. Certainly it is.

The third possibility is the following incident. For that reason, we read that also this morning, although we'll not deal with it until this evening. This woman who cries out above the crowd while Jesus is talking and says “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that thou did suck, et cetera, et cetera,” and then Jesus responds to her.

Again, we'll deal with that this evening, but possibly the reference then moves on, not only from what precedes, but to what follows. Perhaps we're picking up the idea that the house was swept and garnished, and we are led into the following passage to note the folly of religious euphoria, or the folly of religious garnishing, the cleaning of things up, and the putting on of some show of religion, crying out the appropriate things at the appropriate time, and yet there is no real indwelling of Christ, and therefore the folly of religious euphoria and that which follows. Well, all of those combined, perhaps, are involved in why we find our Lord saying these words at this time.

Secondly, we might notice also that this is indeed a parable. It has all the marks of what we would call parabolic teaching. It is in fact an argument. It's a story which takes upon itself the form of an argument. Not only does it illustrate, but it argues something. As a matter of fact, Matthew is the only other gospel writer that records this statement of our Lord's, and as he does so, it's nearly identical, except that Matthew says that our Lord ended with these words: “Even so shall it be unto this evil generation.” So, the application is clearly made. “I'm not just telling you a story, or even a scary story about demons and repossession, et cetera, et cetera. I'm saying that this is what is going to happen to this evil generation.”

So, it is a behind the scene glimpse of reality. When you look around, and you see people, and they seem to be going about their business, living their lives and doing tolerably well, having their difficulties and their successes, Jesus says “Behind the scenes, here is what is really going on.” Here is reality from a behind the scenes perspective. So, the identity of the text, a parable that gives us this scene of reality of what is going on beyond merely that which is apparent and visible in men and women's lives.

The other thing we ought to say about this text before we look at it more closely is that it has been used over the years to concoct all sorts of information about demons. There are some who seem to be experts on the subject. Books have been written, and some men have given themselves practically over to the study of demonology, as it is called. It never interested me that much. Some people love to write on things, and are experts on everything, and they seem to find in this passage all sorts of information to fuel their area of interest. What does it mean if the demon leaves and goes into “the waterless places, seeking rest”? Perhaps you have heard all kinds of theories about what this means, demons and waterless places. What does that mean? Is there some significance to it being waterless, and not being able to find rest when he is not indwelling some sort of individual. I've heard all kinds of things, perhaps you have also, about what supposedly that means. Some say that a waterless place is merely the desert, and there was a kind of fear of the dark that men have always had. Children have it, and back 2000 years ago, there was even more of that, because you didn't really know what was out there, and you supposed that all sorts of evil things were lurking under the bed, as it were, in waterless places. So, there are all kinds of sifting of supposedly technical information found in this passage regarding demonology. I think all of that is probably a mistake. Lenski is correct when he says “Jesus knows the ways of demons. We do not. Like other facts for which we have no explanation, we accept also this one.” J C Ryle says “We must feel in reading these fearful words that Jesus is speaking of things which we faintly comprehend. He is lifting a corner of the vale which hangs over the unseen world, and for us to try to extract information about demons is probably not the point at all of this passage.”

Well, what is the point, and what are the ingredients of this brief parable that we have before us, the information of the text? That is our second division this morning. There are 5 things that the text tells us. #1: A man's heart, that is his mind, his body, is depicted as if it were a house. “The unclean spirit, when it has gone out of a man, passes through waterless places,” and then this man is spoken of as a dwelling place, from which the demon who once dwelled there leaves, and then comes back and becomes a resident once again. It is spoken of as a house in the sense that it can be cleaned or swept. Not only can it be cleaned or swept, it can be garnished, that is, furnished with whatever accoutrements a house, for example, might have, and so, it's not hard for us to see the picture. The man himself, his whole self, his mind, his body, his soul, his spirit, however you want to divide it, is all depicted as if it were a house indwelt, and then left, and then indwelt again by a demon. You're probably not unfamiliar with that kind of imagery. John Bunyan, who wrote Pilgrim's Progress, we're all familiar with Pilgrim's Progress, wrote another allegory that's very much worth reading. It's called Holy War. I wonder how many of you have read that. Now Holy War depicts an individual called Mansoul, but he's pictured as a town, and this town is besieged, and we read about the gates, and the walls, et cetera, et cetera, but the whole point about it is it's a man's soul. That's why the city is named Man's Soul. The man is depicted as if he were a house, and probably takes some of its lead from this parable of the Lord Jesus Christ's. So, it's not hard. I think even those who are children here understand. If you think about it for a moment, that's what we're seeing. We're seeing a man pictured as though he were a house.

The second thing we learn from the information of the text is that this house had come under the proprietorship of an unclean spirit. That's a sad and fearful picture indeed, that this man had become the dwelling place of a tenant, and this tenant was a demon, and it came and went as it wished, and we find that this spirit which indwelt this man was 2 things. #1, It was articulate and contemplative. Verse 24 in the last part he says “I will return back to the house whence I came out.” We have the demon talking to himself. He's considering what he ought to do. He has left and he thinks “I believe that I will return. I've not found any more suitable dwelling anyplace else, and so, I will return unto the house from whence I came.” He is articulate. He is able to speak. He is thinking as to what he ought to do. He is contemplative, making plans to return, which in fact he does. Not only is he articulate and contemplative, but we also notice that he's gregarious. When he comes back, he brings his fellow demons with him, and those who are worse than himself, as a matter of fact, and more than himself, so that at the end of this story there are 8 demons inhabiting this individual rather than only the one. He is articulate, he is contemplative, and he is gregarious. He is leaving, he is returning, he is bringing friends with him. Calvin says “He is incessantly busy, everlastingly on the move, leaving and returning, thinking, deciding, planning, bringing friends with him. This is the nature of evil. It is incessantly busy, everlastingly on the move.”

Now, the third thing we learn from the text: The information tells us that the cause of the unclean spirit's exit is unexplained. All we're told is that the unclean spirit went out of the man. We're not told that he was thrown out of the man. We're not told that he was evicted by the Spirit of God, or by the finger of God. We're not told that this man has any relationship whatsoever to the man who was dumb and was cleaned of the demon earlier on in this paragraph. We're merely told that he left. Why did he leave? He left under circumstances which are unknown to us, but we're not told that he was evicted. We know that this is the case, because when he returns in verse 24 he says “I will come back again to my house.” It was always his house. He had not been evicted from it. When he comes back it is still his own. He is still the proprietor. He returns with full rights and privileges. There is no reason why he should not. He was not evicted. He had not been expelled. He had simply left.

Alright, the fourth thing that we learn is that in his absence the house had been cleaned, swept, and garnished, as we read in verse 25, and Matthew, who again is the only other who records this parable, adds one other thing. Not only that it was swept and garnished, but Matthew says that he found it empty, empty, swept, and garnished. This had been done in his absence, and when he comes back he finds it so changed. Now, that it had been cleaned reflects on the personal habits of the spirit itself, because we're told from the very beginning that it was an unclean spirit. When it leaves, the place is cleaned up. It tells us something of the personal habits of the spirit. It was unclean.

The fifth and last thing that we learn from the text: The information is that upon this unclean spirit's return it finds the house unoccupied, and it, with 7 other devils worse than itself we are told. In fact, the word that is used here for “other” means “others of a different kind,” not others of the same kind. Greek has a word which would mean others of the same kind. This is not that word. It means others of a different kind. What was the difference? Well, at least this: They were worse than he was, and there were 7 of them. So, at the conclusion, the man is indwelt by 8 unclean spirits, rather than only one. There's the information of the text.

The third thing we want to do, and the last thing we want to do, is to see what this teaches, and what we might learn. Consider that there are 3 things, and 3 things only. #1: We learn that without Christ men exist in one of 3 states, all 3 of which are damned. Again, no neutrality. We are either with Christ, or we are against Christ. The parable tells us that this man existed in one of 3 conditions. What were they? Well, the first condition was: He was indwelt by an unclean spirit. Secondly, his condition was: He was indwelt by the spirit, and then he wasn't. That's the second. The third is that he is indwelt once again by 8 unclean spirits, 7 of them being worse even than the first. So, there are 3 conditions in which this man existed. He existed first with an unclean spirit, secondly without the tendency of an unclean spirit, and thirdly with 8 unclean tenants, but notice that all of them have one thing in common. Each of them is damnable and in great and fearful danger of eternal destruction. You see, the fact is that where Satan holds the deed, he need not be in residence, because when the unclean spirit left the man, he comes back to say “I will return to my house.” Satan does not need to indwell you. You do not need to worry about being demon possessed, because whether you are possessed or not with a demon is not the point. The point is that Satan, if he holds the deed, does not need to live there, because he already has proprietorship of that place of residence. As John Calvin says “Here lies the glory of Adam's offspring. The devil inhabits us body and soul. He rules in us as easy as a game. So, there are only 3 possibilities suggested by the text, and yet none of them are acceptable. All of them give us a person who is indeed lost and without hope of recovery unless there be an eviction of the devil's influence. And so, there is the first observation.

The second and probably main observation is this: That well ordered lives without grace are inviting residences for demon possession. We read in verse 25 that the house was swept and garnished. In fact, again in Matthew 12:44, Matthew adds for us the word “empty.” He finds it empty, swept, and garnished. Whenever we have a description like that it fairly begs for us to think about what each of those words might mean in terms of the reality of the situation. What does it mean when a man, being depicted as a house, is in the condition of being empty, swept, and garnished? Consider the 3 words that we have then, one supplied by Matthew, and 2 found in both accounts. First of all, we're told that it was empty. Now, this is implied in Luke, even though we don't have the word. The unclean spirit has left. When he comes back, he finds it ready for repossession, swept and garnished, but first of all, it is empty. The Greek word that is translated here “empty” in Matthew is the Greek word σχολαζω, which is the word we get “school” from. As a matter of fact, what does it mean then? Why is it translated “empty”? What it means literally is that it is unoccupied. Why do we get our word “school” from that? Because in the ancient world, those that could sit under a teacher were those who were unoccupied in doing daily labor, not being having to work in order to supposedly make their living. They were unoccupied so as to be able to sit at the feet of some philosopher or scholar, and so, they were in school in a sense, rather than being in a field, or laboring in one occupation or another. And so, he finds the house, as it were, at leisure, or unoccupied, or as it's translated in Matthew, he finds it “empty.” Spurgeon comments on this. He says “The devil comes back to his house, and he shouts “Hello!” and there is an echo through every room. “Is Jesus here?” No answer, and so he repossesses his house freely.” It is empty, and so it is a fit invitation there for demon possession.

It is a well ordered house, especially the next 2 words indicate this, when we're told it was swept and garnished. I think it probably is going a little too far to say that the word “swept” means clearly a superficial cleaning. After all, some have made the comment “It wasn't washed. It was only swept.” Do you think that's maybe digging a little too deeply? However, on the word “swept,” Spurgeon does say “Loose sins only are taken away. It had been at least cleansed from that which was laying about.” There was something of a reformation, but it was a reformation without regeneration. The house had not been reindwelt by anything that could stop the demon from coming back and repossessing that which was his house. We have here an example then of reformation without any regeneration. We have a revision of behavior without any conversion of the soul. Let us remember that the gospel is not a call for some kind of change. The gospel is a demand for a specific kind of change. Men have remarkable abilities, as well as do women, to make changes. They can sweep clean their house. They can remove the bad habits. They can reform their behavior. They can do all kinds of things that would make it appear that they were men and women who had well regulated and even religious lives, without being ever truly converted. They are empty. They may have swept clean their lives, but that is not what the gospel calls for. The gospel does not just call for change. The gospel calls for specific change, and the leading thought there is an indwelling of the Spirit of God. The problem here is that this house is empty and swept. Only the loose sins are gone. The root of the matter has not been taken care of.

Thirdly, we read that it's garnished. It's interesting that we should have this word. The unclean spirit was there. Therefore, the house needed to be cleaned. The immediate influence of the demon was gone, so the man began to straighten things up. He began to clean out the dirt and the corruption, the influence that was there from the demon's habitation. Not only did he sweep the house, we're told that he garnished it. The word “garnish” doesn't refer to furnishings. It refers to those other things that you ladies like to put around. They were things that were put there in order to make it look perhaps inhabited. Matthew Henry says “The house is garnished with common gifts and graces. It is not furnished with any true grace, but garnished with the pictures of all grace.” Spurgeon methinks read Matthew Henry and says this later on: “The man has bought some pictures. He does not have real faith, but he has a fine picture of it over the fireplace.” There's nothing real there. The house is still empty of any saving grace, but the pictures of those things, the sacraments of those things, the relics of those things, have been strewn around, but notice that all of that does not prevent the demon from reinhabiting the house which is still his. Token religion makes only a fit residence for Satan. So, you can see people's houses. No doubt you've been in them where these men or women make some show of religion with the pictures on the walls, the crucifixes, the crosses, all kinds of paraphernalia that seem to inhabit many people's homes. They make some sort of a garnishing of religion, but their house is still a fit residence for Satan himself. The house is empty, the house is swept, the house is garnished, but all of this is for naught, because the demon returns and has no difficulty whatsoever of re-inhabiting this man. Lenski says “It's exactly the kind of place demons delight in, where they can upset and turn everything upside down again.” He loves to come back and find it empty, swept, and garnished. It will not remain so very long. So, this is temporary. It is the danger of reformation without regeneration, of revising one's life, cleaning things up, and yet, never having any real saving interest in Christ. There is an emptiness, regardless of the sweeping and the garnishing. The house has not changed hands. It still is in the hands of evil. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones says “There is infinitely greater hope for that man who was groveling in the gutters of sin than for the man who believes himself to be alright, and yet remain outside of Jesus Christ. All that is needed by the former is to be picked up, but the latter has to be knocked down first, and then picked up.

And so, Jesus is drawing for us a very serious picture. The picture is that of a man who has taken upon himself perhaps some profession of religion, garnishing his house with religious paraphernalia. He is a man who has swept away the loose sins, the obvious sins, the nagging sins of his life, and has done a fairly thorough job of the whole thing. He's emptied himself out, or has providentially found himself emptied of that evil influence that once inhabited him. All these things seem to be in his favor, and he has worked, perhaps diligently, to improve the situation, but he is in a worse condition than he was even before, because he's empty. He ends up in a condition worse than his previous one.

The third thing and last thing that we learn from the text this morning is the imminent danger of unimproved seasons of relief and opportunity. Here was a man who had a season of relief, a season of quietness, a season of opportunity, to take care perhaps of what was wrong, and what he did was to sweep and garnish his house while it was empty, but he never replaced anything to dwell within it, so that the demon, if it were to return, could be repulsed. So, when it did return, it entered again with freedom. Consider then the imminent danger of unimproved seasons of relief and opportunity. Spurgeon said “It is really a shocking thing that if you want to find a thoroughbred out and out transgressor, you must find one who once made a profession of religion, because they, being reindwelt by Satan, are worse than ever, and perhaps unrecoverable. Notice what it says in the last verse here. It says:

Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil than himself; and they enter in and dwell there:

The word “dwell there,” the verb in the original language of the New Testament, is not merely the word which means “to dwell,” but it's a strengthened form of that verb, which probably has the emphasis of “to take up residence permanently.” It's not just that they're there just for a night, but he comes in to take up residence. It points to a settled condition, and points us perhaps to the nearby warning over there in Luke 12:10. We read:

And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven. (Luk 12:10 ASV)

There is a settled opposition to the gospel, because someone has come close, has garnished himself with the accoutrements of religion, but then ultimately fallen away. He is in a worse condition than he was before. He is a thoroughbred out and out transgressor because he has fallen away from a previous religious kind of reformation, and now he is in a mess much worse than before.

What does all this leave us? It leaves us with a warning, does it not? Perhaps you are in a season of relief and opportunity. Perhaps some of you are in that condition at this very moment. Satan is not immediately present. You have an opportunity and a season of relief from that difficulty. There is the opportunity to hear, to take heed to the gospel, and to seek to be indwelt by that party that is stronger than any other strong man, and were any demon, the Devil himself, to come and to try to inhabit you, he looks around, and calls out, and finds out the strong man is there, and finding so, he departs immediately. It's only finger work to keep this devil away.

But if, on the other hand, this season of relief and opportunity belongs to us, it's here, and to submit ourselves to the gospel, and to the Lord Jesus Christ, and we do nothing, it is very likely that after that period we will not just go on in some supposed state of neutrality, but our condition will become worse, irrecoverable, and unpardonable. There is an imminent danger that comes to us if we do not improve a season of relief and opportunity. Not only that, but it's very possible that there may be some here who have ordered their lives quite well. They are empty of any Satanic influence. They have removed all the loose sins. They have swept the house. They have even garnished it, all kinds of garnish. You look very religious. You may have fooled everyone around you. You may have submitted to baptism. You may have come into the membership of the church. You may take of the Lord's supper. You may do all kinds of things that are hung on the wall as if they are your certificates of Christianity, and yet, ultimately, you are empty. That is the most dangerous circumstance, our Lord would say, that men could possibly be in, because when the Devil comes back, “he enters in with 7 other devils worse than himself, and the last state of that man is worse than it was before.” Well ordered lives without grace are merely inviting residences for demon possession, and the imminent danger of those who have unimproved their seasons of relief and opportunity. A text which is fearful indeed, and we ought to weigh ourselves as to whether perhaps it is describing one very much like ourselves. The only alternative is to find one who dwells within this house who is stronger than any strong man seeking entrance. May God be pleased that we should see that that, in fact, is and only is the Lord Jesus Christ, the only remedy. There is no neutrality. God willing, we'll consider verses 27 and 28 this evening in our study of the gospel according to Luke. Let's bow together in prayer.

Our Father in heaven, once again we thank you for the Word of God. We are just as thankful for its warnings as we are for its blessings, for its Psalms as well as its parables. We pray that all of this may become imminently profitable to us. Warn us we ask with the warning of this text. May there not be a person here who would leave unimproved seasons of opportunity. May we not be satisfied with empty reformation without a real work of conversion. Bless us we pray then to take these things with most seriousness and dismiss us with your blessing. Bless this we pray on the Lord's day, for we ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

Luke #94-11.14-19

2011-12-08T05:51:00.001-08:00

Luke #94-11.14-19-20001015

Once more, if you would please, find Luke 11. We want to continue and finish our study this evening from Luke 11, beginning at verse 14, and hope to cover down through verse 26.

And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon was gone out, the dumb man spake; and the multitudes marvelled.
15 But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.
16 And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace:
22 but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luk 11:14-23 ASV)

Here we have then the portion that we have already introduced, beginning with these observations. 5 of them we were able to consider this morning. You remember the first: The propensity to attribute every evil to demonic intrigue has no warrant in the New Testament. We judge this from the fact that this, only in Luke 11, is the last reference in the entire gospel according to Luke, as well as its sequel, the book of Acts, to demonic activity, and that the book of Acts does not mention the word “Satan,” “devil,” or “demon,” and so, the attention that is given to demonic intrigue in our day by some groups fails to note the initial frenzy, then the immediately declining attention given to these subjects in the New Testament, in fact, that they become abruptly non-existent.

We also noted that there is a greater evil than being possessed by demons, and there is a greater exorcism that is to be done for the soul than merely this kind of act. “In every conversion,” Joseph Hall says, “there is a dispossession.” If we expect to be dispossessed by miracles, it would be a miracle if we were dispossessed,” and that is the only miracle that we would seek.

Then we noted 3 things about the response of these men that their response or lack of response proves. First of all, we noted that no amount of wonderment obtains for the natural mind. Even miracles, whether they are real or spurious, gather no lasting result. They are soon dissipated, and soon reversed, and this text is only one of many illustrations in the New Testament. Remember what Luther said: “I have made a covenant with God that he send me neither visions, dreams, or angels. I am well-satisfied with the gift of the Scriptures.”

We noted in the next place that no amount of information obtains for the natural mind. Again, the folly of evidentialism. Evidence is either not true, or not enough, for the natural man. In verse 15, they said it's not true. “You cast out demons by the power of Satan.” In verse 16, they note that it is not enough. It's always “Not enough” for the natural man. “There is a kind of unreasonableness and insatiableness about infidelity,” says Joseph Hall. “It never knows when it has had enough evidence.” And so, the truth of God in the evidence that is supplied to men is either slandered or slighted. It's either not true, or not enough. The natural man is never satisfied with the abundance of facts.

And we noted in the fourth place that no amount of supernaturalism will obtain for the natural mind. These men were supernaturalists. These men believed in the spirit world. These men had a theory that it was by Beelzebub the prince of the demons that Satan was casting out these evil spirits. They knew something of the Old Testament. Indeed they did, these scribes and Pharisees. They knew about Beelzebub, or Baal-zebul, which is the lord of dung, literally, and is that god of Baal which Ahaziah appeals to when he fell out of his window in 2Kings 1:2. These men were not antisupernaturalists. They accused Christ of employing the spirit world, which they accepted to be true. Notice that we do not need more supernaturalism in the world, or in America, or in the state of Washington. There's plenty of that. In fact, there's too much of that. What we need, as a matter of fact, is more truth. And so, to bring evidence, to bring miracles, to bring mere supernaturalism to the masses is not to bring revival, and this is well illustrated, we think, from this passage, because they had all of these things. These were supernaturalists. These had eye-witness evidence planted before them. They had the miracles, the miraculous, to impress them, to cause them to wonder, and yet all of this did not obtain to the natural mind.

We also note that one mark of antichrist is want of originality. His strategies are limited, predictable, and stereotypical. All over Judaea, as well as in Galilee, this was their complaint against Christ: that he is by the power of Satan casting out Satan, and it seems their scholarship had led them astray.

The fifth and last thing that we noted this morning was that well may we lament the popularity of the strategies of this world, but there is no strategy levelled against Christ which is unforeseen, and the very fact that he sees it is our confidence. When Jesus replied to these Jews, he knew more than just their thoughts. Literally, in the original language, it says “He saw (he was seeing) their thoughts.” He recognized the intention, the reasoning, the motives, and the irrationality, of what they were saying.

Now then, let's conclude the study of this passage. This is an important one in the New Testament because of the opposition and the answer that our Lord gives. Their position is made public and popularized that Jesus is by the power of Satan himself, the prince of demons, casting out the demons. They cannot deny that these things are being done. What they can do is slander the work in terms of the power that he is using in order to effect these things. Now our Lord begins to answer them and we have in verses 17 through 19 the beginning of the answer.

But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub. 19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
(Luk 11:17-19 ASV)

Have you ever wondered about these words? What exactly is it that Jesus does in speaking to them? He is well schooled in the art of Pharisaical casuistry, and how they loved to form their arguments, and they were quite exact about the way in which they thought an argument ought to be formed. And what we find in verses 17 through 19 is the collision of irrationality with reason. We find the reasoning of our Lord and the irrationality of these Jews. In the sixth place then here we have the collision of irreason, or irrationality, with the reason of the Son of God.

We note that in this passage 2 things are displayed. We find one man who had lost his speech. We find another group of men who had lost their sense. Lenski says “Opposition to Jesus regularly upsets men's logic.” And so it was when they declare that Jesus was casting out demons by the prince of demons. Jesus takes them at their statement and reduces in a very real sense their argument to a syllogism. A syllogism, you are aware, is just a way of argument or of reasoning which begins with a premise and another premise, called major and minor, and a conclusion. There are all kinds of rules that belong to logic and to the construction of syllogistic thinking.

However, I've tried to look at this material and see exactly what was the reasoning of our Lord as he deals with the accusation that the Pharisees and scribes had formed against him. I believe it goes like this: His major premise was this: All agree that a house divided falls. It's a matter of common sense. It's a premise which can be taken as an unchallenged fact, and the conclusion of every man's experience that a house divided against itself will indeed fall, or in Jesus' words, “will not stand.” All agree to this. The minor premise is this: “Your insinuation implies such a division. Your insinuation is that Satan is divided against Satan, for the prince of demons is being employed, or is employing me, to cast out his emissaries, or demons that are in men. All agree that a house divided against itself falls. Your insinuation implies that there is just such a division in Satan's camp. Conclusion: If just such an insinuation is granted to be true, you posit an absurdity, and that is Satan then has an end.” In fact, we read in one of the other accounts that is indeed the conclusion. If that is the case then Satan has an end. Satan is a house divided against himself. You have posited what is a logical absurdity to assert that Satan would cast out Satan. Jesus goes on, however, and he points the finger at them and he says:

And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Luk 11:19 ASV)

Now this raises a question: To what is he referring when he says “How then do your sons cast them out?” in verse 19? Evidently, although we do not have any independent information about this, from what Jesus said, the Jews had their own exorcists. Roman Catholicism has always been quite big in the business of supposed exorcisms. There is an example, isn't it? of Satan trying to cast out Satan, but we have in this passage the fact that the Jews did indeed have their own exorcists. Jesus calls them “Your sons.” By what means they attempted to do so we are not historically aware. Whether they were ever successful in doing so, or just a religious appearance and show of dealing with Satan by flowery language and carefully stated concatenations, et cetera, whatever it was, we do not know, but Jesus refers to the fact that the sons of the Jews also practiced some sort of dealing with the demons. Jesus says “Now, if it is true, as you say, that I cast out demons, how exactly do your sons deal with them?”

Another syllogism is presented in verse 19. The major premise is: “I cast out demons, which you cannot deny.” The minor premise is: “Your sons, you admit, cast them out also.” The conclusion is “Seeing you cannot differentiate between what I am doing and what your own sons do, and in light of your former insinuation that I by the power of Satan am casting out satans, you, in fact, in your condemnation of me, condemn your sons also, because if I cast them out by Beelzebub, then so do your sons, because you cannot differentiate the 2.”

Notice that the first syllogism that Jesus uses in verses 17 and 18 are what are called technically a reductio ad absurdum. That is, it is an argument which exposes the argument. “Your argument poses an absurdity, that is, that Satan is a house divided against himself.” The second argument, however, is what is called an argument ad hominem, which is an argument that exposes not the argument, but the arguer. “Not only is your argument an absurdity, but your own sons would be condemned by the argument that you make.” And so, here we have the collision of the reason of the Lord Jesus Christ with the irrationality of these religious Jews. He argues on their own level, and shows that they have arrived at an absurd conclusion in the argument which they have made.

Now the seventh thing that we want to note from our text is that they are unlike Christ who argue to explode the errors of unbelief without then affirming the corresponding truth. What do I mean by that? Essentially this: That many of us want people to know the truth. I know some of us do, and I know myself at one point many years ago, when I was first becoming aware of the doctrines of grace, it seemed that everyone was believing something else, and I was quite zealous that people should know the truth. However, I began to see that in my zeal to press the truth upon people that I began to be more interested in the arguments than I was with the truth that I was affirming, or that I was more interested in exploding the errors all around me than I was in affirming the truth that they ought to know, a very real temptation for all of us, the temptation to argue to explode the errors of unbelief, and yet, at the same time failing to do anything for the affirmation of the truth. Notice that the behavior of our Lord is not like this. He does not merely show the fallacies of the thinking of the Jews, but he goes on in verse 20 to expound the corresponding truth. Notice what he says:

But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. (Luk 11:20 ASV)

In other words, not satisfied with merely exploding their argument, he then affirms the corresponding truth which lies behind the error of the Jews. Again, it can be expressed in a syllogism. The major premise is: “I have cast out a demon.” The minor premise is: “I have done so, contrary to your objection, not by the power of Satan, but by the finger of God.” The conclusion then: There is no tertium quid, that is, third option, allowed, and therefore “the kingdom of God has in fact come.” Isn't that what he says? “I have cast out a demon. It has not been by the power of Satan. It's been by the finger of God. This being the case, the conclusion is: The kingdom of God has indeed arrived. It has come upon you, and that there is a strong man that has been bound and his goods are being spoiled. That is in fact the meaning of what you see in this dumb man having been healed.” And so then, we see that the habit of our Lord was never merely to win the argument. It was never merely to redress and undo the errors of the Jews. He always went on then to affirm the corresponding truth. We could say it this way: Our Lord was interested in what is called “elenctics.” Some of you may be familiar with Turretin's volumes on the affirmation of the confession of the reformed faith called Elenctics. That's a rather strange word, but it's something different than polemics. We ought not to be satisfied with merely winning the argument. “Polemics” means “fighting the fight,” to be so wrapped up in winning the debate that we forget what the truth is that we are affirming. “Elenctics” means to by a method of question and answer, that is, the Socratic method, and then making certain affirmations and denials with regard to that truth, to do more than to fight against it, but to make an affirmation beside it, and the affirmation is this:

But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. (Luk 11:20 ASV)

“Your position is absurd, but I'm not satisfied with merely embarrassing you with the absurdity of your position. I would assert the corresponding truth, and this is what it is.” Spurgeon put it very simply: “If you want to show a man how crooked his stick is, lay a straight one down beside it. It will accomplish 2 things at the same time. You will reveal the crookedness of the man's stick, and you will also give him something of an affirmation of truth, and the affirmation in this place is that “the kingdom of God is come,” that the power of God is indeed being expressed.

And in the eighth place then this evening let us observe that here we have some much-needed information regarding the kingdom of God. The subject of the kingdom of God is one which is rather poorly understood in our day. It's not unlike the study we are doing this morning in our adult class on the subject of the law of God, chapter 19 of the Confession. It really requires of us a broad understanding of the biblical material, and there is a great deal we need to know about the kingdom of God. Some overcomplicate it. Some oversimplify it. Some have addressed the subject in the midst of a grid of false hermeneutics so that the kingdom of God is entirely misunderstood.

We have in this text, verses 20 through 22, one of the formative passages in the New Testament on the subject of the identity of the kingdom of God. I'm not going to say as much about this as I might if we had not so recently dealt with the subject of the kingdom of God from the petition in the Lord's prayer that says “Thy kingdom come,” and I believe I can expect most of you to remember that study, but staying very close to our text, there are, I believe, 4 things that are told us and taught us about the kingdom of God in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ at this point. Again, verses 20 through 22:

But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace:
22 but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. (Luk 11:20-22 ASV)

And again, verse 23:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luk 11:23 ASV)

There are 4 marks, I would have you to see, about the kingdom of God found in these verses before us. The first thing is this: The kingdom is a present reality. It is not a prospectus sequestered to the future. You are well aware, and some of you have been in a system which taught you that the kingdom of God is not yet, that the kingdom of God is a Jewish thing, that the kingdom of God will be realized at some point in the yet distant future, lasts exactly 1000 years, and will have absolutely nothing of interest in it for you, because it belongs to the Jews wherein finally at long last those promises made to Abraham will be literally fulfilled upon the earth. I'm not going to go any further into that and all the other absurdities that are involved in their view of the subject of the kingdom of God. I merely will assert this and undo it all at a stroke: The kingdom of God is not a future prospectus of the Jewish people. The kingdom of God, according to our text, is a present reality. It was present 2000 years ago. Therefore, it is not future at all. In fact, it is historical and in existence. Jesus said “If I by the finger of God cast out demons,” and that was exactly the case, was it not? If this is the case, and it is, then “the kingdom of God is come upon you.” Εφθασεν is from the Greek word φθανω, which literally means “to overtake.” It ordinarily reduces to the translation “to arrive,” and here in the tense that we have it, the aorist tense, the kingdom of God indeed has come. It has arrived. It has overtaken you. It is now present. It is not a future entity. It is not something which we are awaiting. It is demonstrated by the fact that he was casting out demons by the finger of God, that these things were demonstrated to be present.

The kingdom has come coincident, we believe, with the coming of the stronger man. When the stronger man arrives on the scene and binds the strong man and spoils his goods, then you may be certain that the kingdom of God has come upon you. The kingdom of God is coincident with the coming of the stronger man, and the stronger man in this picture is the Lord Jesus Christ himself, he who binds and he who spoils, and I believe this is related to what we read in Revelation 20:2, where Satan is bound and cast into the pit for 1000 years. What is that binding that is referred to? It is referring to exactly what Jesus is speaking of here, and it is something that is not in the by and by. It is in the here and now. “If I by the power of God,” by the “Spirit of God” as we read in the parallel text, “by the finger of God,” as he says here, “then has the kingdom of God already arrived,” demonstrated and proved by, what? There is a binding, and there is a spoiling of Satan's house. C E B Cranfield has said this well: “The kingdom of God has come to men in the person of Jesus, and in his person it actually confronts them. In fact, the kingdom of God is Jesus, and he is the kingdom. The kingdom is both come and is still to come, because Jesus is come and will come again.” And so, the proximity of the kingdom is correlative to the presence of the king. The first thing that we learn about the kingdom is that it is a present reality, not something sequestered to the future belonging to the Jew alone.

The second thing we learn about the kingdom is that this kingdom is a Christological theme. It is a gospel theme. It is not a millennial prospectus. It is not a Jewish legacy. It is a Christological kingdom. Notice what we read in verse 20:

But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come (Luk 11:20 ASV)

The kingdom has come correlative with the fact of Christ coming. Coincident with the fact of Christ having arrived, the kingdom has come with him. The kingdom is where the king is, and is evidenced by the king doing his work, the stronger man binding the enemy of his people and spoiling his house. It is a gospel theme, and the stronger man in Christ's illustration here is himself. Who is the stronger man? Satan is the strong man. Satan has his house. He has his goods. He has his armor, but a stronger comes and spoils his house. First he binds the strong man, and then he spoils his house. This then is a gospel theme. Our Lord came into Galilee, we read, in Mark 1:15,

and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel. (Mar 1:15 ASV)

He came preaching the gospel. The preaching of the kingdom is the preaching of the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is the declaration that the stronger man is Christ.

The third thing that we learn about the kingdom is that the kingdom is violent and aggressive. The notion that the kingdom is some sort of insidious plot that works behind the scenes and accomplishes its purpose gradually and without any violence or aggression is not biblical. Jesus depicts the kingdom as coming by beginning and proceeding by a binding and a spoiling of a strong man's house. This is not what you call easy language. The kingdom's coming is depicted as a violent and aggressive act, binding and spoiling, and doing all of these things within the enemy's fortified precincts. He comes into the strong man's house, where his goods are kept in peace. The doors, no doubt, are locked, and the sentries are put out, and yet, the stronger man comes and binds him and takes what is his. That is the way the kingdom comes. It is violent and aggressive. Satan is described in our Lord's illustration as a strong man, fully armed, fully provisioned, standing sentry, with his goods secured, and yet the stronger man comes, binds the strong man, and spoils his house of his prized possessions. I submit to you that you do not have to think very hard to see that it is a gospel issue, gospel in the sense of good news. The strong man is bound, and the stronger man has plundered his possessions. You may ask the question: Well, how strong was the strong man? The answer is: very strong. He was stronger than the first Adam, but he was not stronger than the second. The stronger man is Christ, but the third thing we mark is that the kingdom is violent and aggressive.

And the fourth thing that we learn from our text is that this kingdom is exclusive and discriminatory. We don't like those words nowadays, do we? A kingdom that's exclusive and discriminatory, violent and aggressive, Christological and present, all of these things. What we don't like most of all is that the kingdom is exclusive and discriminatory. Verse 23, Jesus says:

He that is not with me is against me; (Luk 11:23 ASV)

Notice that regarding this kingdom there is no neutrality. We hear a lot nowadays about the polls, and there are those who are for this person, and those that are for that person, and then we have this margin of error, first of all, but secondly we have a third group called the “undecided.” That's the big deal nowadays, isn't it? Those who are committed on the one hand, and those who are committed on the other, and in the middle we have the undecided. There may be undecideds in the election, but there are no undecideds, our Lord says, with regards to the kingdom of God. With regard to this kingdom you are either with Christ, or you are against Christ. There is no neutrality with regard to this allowed. There is no such thing with regard to someone who is undecided about the kingdom of God. Jesus says “Either you are with me, or you are against me.” You cannot take the supposed shelter of a non-committal reserve, and I wonder if there is anyone here that would be described like that this evening. You say “Well, I'm not ready. I don't believe I have enough evidence yet to make any commitment to be with Christ, but I'm not against him. Don't get me wrong. I'm still surveying the information. I'm still exploring the evidence. I'm still thinking through all the material that's been placed before me. And so, I have a sort of non-chalant neutrality. I'm part of the undecided. I'm not against Christ. I'm just not as committed as some of you are.” What does our Lord say to that kind of attitude? “He that is not with me, not neutral, he is not undecided. He is against me.” In other words, agnosticism. The word “agnostic” means literally “not to know.” What it is: It's someone who says “Either we do not know, or we cannot know, the truth of these things.” Ultimately, agnosticism is atheism. Why? “He that is not with me (there is only one alternative) is to be against me.” “Not to be with me,” Jesus says, “is to be against me. My kingdom is exclusive and discriminatory. It draws hard and fast distinctions, and there are only 2 possibilities. You are either with me or against me.”

I'm not going to take the time to deal with the text that we've already dealt with because Jesus seems to apparently say just the opposite. Here he says “He that is not with me is against me.” In Luke 9:50 he says:

But Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you. (Luk 9:50 ASV)

I don't believe that I need to explain that at this point. The reason that they are apparently opposite is because they are applied to the exactly opposite contexts. Read it for yourself and you may remember what we said on that passage some months ago. There are four things then that we have as information about the kingdom of God from the words of our Lord in these verses. #1: The kingdom is a present reality. “If I by the power of God (by the Spirit of God), by the finger of God, if I am casting out demons by that, then has the kingdom of God overtaken you.” The kingdom of God is a christological thing, a gospel thing. Christ is the stronger man. The kingdom is a violent and aggressive kingdom, and the kingdom is exclusive and discriminatory. “He that is not with me is against me.”

The last thing, the ninth thing, that we want to consider from our text this evening is this: Notice again verse 20:

But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. (Luk 11:20 ASV)

I've already mentioned several times that in the parallel texts, which are parallel in the sense that they tell us something very much like this, whether they are in an identical situation is rather hard to tell, and because the Pharisee's complaints ran in this direction all through the gospel records, it is very probable that Jesus said this once in Galilee and once in Judaea to crowds when the information was needed. Whatever is the case in the other places, we read that Jesus said: “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons then has the kingdom of God come upon you,” but notice what he says here. This is unique. He says: “If I by the finger of God cast out demons.” I would observe one last thing in our study, and that is this: The deposing of Satan is but a small work for God. Notice he does not say in the Old Testament terminology “I made bare my right arm and sought to dispose of the strong man who has stood against me for these millennia of human history.” No. He says “If I by the finger of God.” It's a small work. It's not an arm work, but finger work. And the reason I think we ought to recognize this is that there is this dualism, is there not? in many men's thinking in our day, that Satan is the nearly equal and opposite force in the world to God. There are good and evil, and the 2 exponents of good and evil, Satan on the one hand, and God on the other, are equally matched, and they are vying with one another for the hearts of men, and their kingdoms are struggling with one another, and at the end of the world, and only then, will we make out the winner by a nose. Hopefully, we believe, it will be God over Satan.

That is rubbish. The disposing of Satan is finger work for God. “If I by the finger of God casts out Satan, then you have been overtaken by the kingdom of God.” It is finger work. Dualism is not a biblical philosophy. Satan and God are not equal and opposite forces with the outcome in doubt. No, no. The disposing of Satan is merely the work of God's finger. Satan is first bound, and ultimately will be destroyed, the Bible tells us, not by some remarkable conflagration at the end of the world. The Bible tells us, 2Thessalonians 2:8, that Satan will be destroyed by, what? The appearance of Christ. It says that Satan will be destroyed by the brightness of his appearance, that's all, destroyed when he appears on the scene. The disposing of Satan is merely the finger work of God, and by this we know the kingdom has come upon us.

And so then, note those things if you would, those nine things that we have considered this morning, and then again this evening, from this rather remarkable passage in the book of Luke. Notice before we conclude verse 24 and following. I want you to think about this until next Lord's day. We'll deal with this, God willing, next Lord's day morning. Have you ever read this passage before?

The unclean spirit when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and finding none, he saith, I will turn back unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil than himself; and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.
(Luk 11:24-26 ASV)

Have you ever wondered what that means? Well, I trust to have an answer for you next Lord's day morning. We'll deal with that and continue on in our study of Luke, and may God be pleased to bless us this week. We'll do that. Let's bow together in prayer.

Father in heaven, once again we do thank you for this text and our gathering together to consider it. We pray that what we have done, as meager a job as it no doubt has been, in both hearing and speaking, that you would bless your Word, to our profit. We thank you for the meeting of God's people on this the Lord's day, and recognize that we're not the only band of folks that meet in the name of Christ. We pray that wherever the truth is proclaimed your blessing would reside upon it, upon this Lord's day. We pray for our young people who are away at school. We ask that you'd be pleased to keep them from temptation and watch over them even at this moment. We ask that as we look forward to the coming of these men to preach for us the next couple of Lord's days to pray your blessing upon them, that you grant them safety. We ask, O Lord, that you would be pleased to meet with us and open up your Word in a fresh and lasting way, and that there may be good done for our souls by the hearing of the preaching of the Word. Bless our fellowship together in the gospel. Dismiss us with your blessing, for we ask it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Luke #93-11.14-17

2011-11-21T14:38:00.000-08:00

Luke #93-11.14-17-20001015

This morning we want to continue our study in the gospel according to Luke. We have for some Lord's days now been away from this study. I have not forgotten it. I want to return this morning where we left off, and begin, as Mark read for us, in verse 14 in order to immerse ourselves once again in our study of the gospel according to Luke, and recognizing that there are certain interruptions again to this study that are anticipated in the not too distant future. I thought it would be good this morning and then again this evening to deal with the material that we have before us. I also feel that it is a tendency on our part in becoming familiar with the Word of God to begin to be somewhat anesthetized by some of these occurrences. After all, we perhaps have read so often, and noted that there are so many incidents in the gospels of healing, and here we have another, that there is a demon being cast out of one who is dumb, that is, who cannot speak, and we pass over it without hardly a mention or a notice. What a remarkable thing. This is not one of the charlatans of nowadays and of yesteryear who proclaim to be able to work miracles and to heal the sick, et cetera. It's not that foolishness that we see round about us at all. It is the Lord Jesus Christ at this point without any fanfare whatsoever, and with but a word casting out a demon that was dumb.

And it came to pass, when the demon was gone out, the dumb man spake (Luk 11:14 ASV)

What a remarkable thing. If we have difficulty dragging our sensibilities into this incident and being duly impressed with it think of the man who had the demon cast out. He was certainly relieved and impressed in a sense which we would never recover from. We also ought not be anesthetized because perhaps we've read it so often about what the Jews at this point say to the Lord Jesus Christ, that “He was by the power of Beelzebub,” or to shorten it, that “He was by the power of Satan casting out these demons.” What a terrible thing to have said, not only because it was absolutely wrong, but because it was blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ. We ought to ask God to help us that we not read the Scriptures with some sort of somnolent attitude that says that these things are rather commonplace when, in fact, they're not. On the other hand, it's difficult for me to impress you with the remarkability of these things. We have merely the words before us, but we ought to pray that these things never become commonplace.

Now, what has happened here is rather straightforward. There aren't any peculiarities, particular difficulties that we need to open up before the passage makes sense. It makes very good sense. We can see what's going on. We want to explore the meaning and application of this then to ourselves, and so let me suggest several observations that we may make on the passage that was read in your hearing. We want to again begin it this morning, and conclude it, God willing, this evening.

The first thing that I believe we can learn from this is that the propensity to attribute every evil to demonic intrigue has no warrant in the New Testament. You might say this is a strange place perhaps to gather that observation. Why not have gathered this observation from a place where demonic activity is not being mentioned? And then perhaps you could make the point that demonic intrigue is not as commonplace as some nowadays would make it appear, but I am going to take this text. It says that “He had a demon that was dumb,” that is, a demon which caused this effect in the man who was possessed by the demon, that he was rendered unable to speak. And yet, the observation that I would suggest is that the propensity, and it is a common propensity in our day, and that is to attribute every evil that happens to demonic intrigue, and you're perhaps aware of the evangelical and charismatic approach to life nowadays, and that is that Satan, or his demonic emissaries, are lurking in every shadow. They're around every corner. They are under every bush. They are responsible for every sickness. They are ultimately in some sort of clandestine intrigue, involved in every evil that occurs in the world, and so, there's the demon of this, and the demon of that, and what we would call simply lawbreaking and disobedience to God they call “the demon of anger,” or “the demon of lust.” Everything is personified and attributed to Satan. Now I suppose that you're well aware of the fact that is commonplace in the religious world of our day. Now, my observation taken from this text is that the propensity to attribute every evil to demonic intrigue has no warrant in the New Testament.

How do we find that in verse 14? Well, we don't really find it in verse 14, but we find it from where we find verse 14. What I mean is this: This is the last reference to demonic activity in the gospel according to Luke. Now, I suppose you're aware that Luke is a rather long book, 28 chapters. No, Matthew is 28. Luke is 24 chapters. That's a long book, and here we are in chapter 11, and so, if my arithmetic has improved any in the last couple of moments, we're not even half way through the gospel according to Luke, and I readily admit that in our study thus far over the past several years in Luke we have found several references to demonic activity. We have seen Satan himself tempting the Lord Jesus Christ. We have seen numerous demons being dealt with by our Lord, but this, as we come to chapter 11 and verse 14, is the very last time any demonic activity is mentioned in the gospel according to Luke at all.

Now, we also note something else. This is not the only book that Luke wrote in the New Testament. Luke really wrote a 2 volume history of early Christianity. That is, he gave us the gospel according to Luke and probably for no other practical reason than he ran out of scroll, because the standard length of a scroll will just about, with normal handwriting, fit the gospel according to Luke. Then he wrote another book, almost identical in length, which started right as the first volume left off, and went through the time of Paul's incarceration in Rome, and so, we have this 2 volume history of Christ and the church written by this man named Luke. Now, this is the last reference to demonic activity in the gospel according to Luke, and he's not even half way through. We also might then look to the second volume of history that he wrote, and when we do so, we find an interesting thing, that the words “Satan,” “Devil,” and “demon,” never appear, not even once, in the second volume of Luke's writings, that is, the book of Acts.

So, if you're going to take the book of Luke and the book of Acts together, all of which were written by Luke, this is the last time in any of his writings he mentions the Devil, the the demons, or Satan, or demonic intrigue of any kind, at least by word. That would tell us something, that is, that whether demons continued to exist, and continued to publicise themselves in these outstanding ways, or not, is not the issue. The fact is this: that when Paul wrote his history, he would tell us that this kind of activity did not become and was not the focus of the church. The book of Acts, the history of the early church, does not mention one time... In fact, I am working on a lecture that I'd like to deliver, perhaps at a conference some day, entitled “A Statistical Analysis of the Book of Acts,” and to draw certain conclusions about what is emphasized nowadays, and yet what has no mention whatsoever, or a mention which is not equal to the amount of emphasis that things get today. I told you numerous times before that the word “love” is not found in the book of Acts, not once, and yet that's all you hear, isn't it? in the preaching of the church at the end of the second millennium of church history. Well, something must be amiss. Statistically it's not mentioned at all there, and there is the history of the preaching of the apostles, and yet, all we can do is mention the word. They never mentioned it at all.

Another thing, for instance, is the emphasis nowadays, and this might be amazing to you, on the denial of the lordship of Christ. He is our Savior, but he doesn't need to be our Lord. That's something optional that we might pass by, and lordship preachers are really heretics and legalists. As strange as that may sound to you, it's quite common in some areas and religious denominations. I looked it up in the book of Acts, and I'm not going to do that lecture now, the word “Lord,” and I'm not prepared to tell you the exact number, but I think it's found 92 times in the book of Acts, and the word “Savior” is only found twice. Wait a minute, the denial of the one to the raising up of the other doesn't fit statistically with the apostolic preaching.

Well, all of that is rather interesting, I think, and I'm going to do some more work on that, but here the application is that when you search all through the book of Acts you never find the words “Satan,” “Devil,” or “demon.” What happened through all of this initial focus upon demons, dumb demons, demons blamed for blindness, demons inhabiting people and causing them to do all sorts of strange things? Why all the attention to it in the early chapters of the gospels, and then it's not only Luke, it's also Matthew and Mark, when there comes a certain point, quite early on, and you don't hear about them any more? What happened? Did the Devil disappear? I don't think so. Did he cease to have any activity at all in the face of the earth? I don't think so. Did the demons all of a sudden scurry into a hole, not come out because they were being treated so rudely by the Son of man? I don't think so. Why did they disappear? Well, one answer could merely be this: It was not the focus of the church like it is nowadays. Something's wrong with our focus, and whether they existed or not, whether they continued to infect men with their evils is not the point. The point is that it was not the focus of the church from now on. There's a lesson to be learned from this, because we find that demonic activity in the gospels is not some homogenous theme that runs from chapter 1 to chapter 24. It doesn't. Initially, there's this frenzied opposition, it would appear, of Satan and his demonic troop against the Lord Jesus Christ. After this, we don't hear about them ever again. Something significant has changed. So, there is an initial frenzy, and then there is immediately a declining of reference. We haven't heard for several chapters about any demon activity, and all of a sudden.

And then thirdly, it's abruptly non-existent. We don't hear anything else at all. The same thing is true of tongues in the book of Acts. You hear about it initially. Then you hear about it sporadically, and then, all of a sudden, the entire second half of Luke, and in Acts it's not mentioned once. Doesn't that tell you something? Statistical analysis, sometimes, with caution, can tell us something. Now I think then that we can say that the observation does indeed now make sense. The propensity to attribute every evil to demonic intrigue has no warrant in the New Testament. This is it. So those who now pay so much attention to these things clearly have gone afield from the New Testament.

Now it's possible, and some have suggested it, and I don't think it's necessarily heretical to at least suggest it, that perhaps we have here an accommodation to a commonly held diagnosis. In the ancient world, the times being ill-equipped to separate natural and spiritual causes, even they tended to attribute dumbness, blindness, et cetera, to some sort of Satanic activity, and it may be that the Scripture is merely telling us here what was the generally received diagnosis of the problem. I don't think it's heretical to notice that. You don't need to become a liberal and try to explain away the miracles of the Bible. One thing I do see is that to find a devil making a man dumb is rather strange. First of all, from all we know about them, they were notoriously vocal. Do you remember the one “Jesus, thou Son of David,” crying out? They usually were speaking, not causing non-speech.

The other thing that's rather strange is the primary venue for sin in the world from the very beginning has been the tongue. Why would the Devil want to stop that from working? It doesn't seem to make any sense. It's counter-productive, it would seem, at the very best. It doesn't matter either way. The miracle is not denied. There was a man who could not speak, who now we find speaking clearly because of the agency of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, there are 2 things that I want to observe by way of corollary based upon verse 14 again. #1: Consider that there is a greater evil than this. O, isn't it misfortunate there was a man who was unable to speak? Yes. I'm certain that it was, but it's not the greatest evil in the world. The greatest evil in the world is people who can speak, and don't. J C Ryle says “What can we say of those who never speak to God, who never use their tongues in prayer or praise, who never employ that organ in the service of him who made it? They are dumb in a very real sense.” They can speak, but they don't speak. There is a greater evil than physical acts of the facility to speak.

The second thing by way of corollary is this: That although we have here what we would call an exorcism, that is, the expulsing of a demon from a man, and the cause and effect being relieved, that there is an exorcism greater than this. There is an evil greater than this, but there is also an exorcism greater than this. Joseph Hall, speaking on this passage, says “In every conversion there is a dispossession. If we expect to be dispossessed by miracle, it would be a miracle if ever we were dispossessed.” The work of God in conversion is a greater work, a more astounding and astonishing work than the casting out of demons, and if we had the ability to choose one or the other, you can either cast out demons all around, or you can see conversions all around, we would certainly wisely choose the latter. There is a greater evil than being dumb, and there is a greater dispossession than merely being removed of devils and demons and their effects. So, the basic observation is the propensity to attribute every evil to demonic intrigue has no warrant in the New Testament.

However, we have this before us, and there is a response to it on the part of the Jews. There are 2 other places in the New Testament, both in Mark and in Matthew, where it appears this incident occurs, and they may or may not be parallel, because there are some difficulties involved, and a very similar incident may have occurred on more than one occasion, but keeping ourselves to the account that we have before us, let us note in the second place, and by the way, the second, third, and fourth observations are going to sound a good deal alike, with only one thing being changed. The first thing, or really the second, the first of these 3, we want to observe that no amount of wonderment obtains for the natural man. By “obtains” I mean it does no good. Notice in the second part of verse 14 that it says,

and the multitudes marvelled. (Luk 11:14 ASV)

Literally, they thought they had seen a wonder. The Greek word indicates the idea they were in a wonderment. They were struck by the act and the fact that this man who they knew well probably, could not speak, and now begins to praise God. No amount of wonderment obtains for the natural mind. Notice that all this kind of startling excitement, which is produced by this miraculous, is soon dissipated, and soon reversed. There were no conversions. There was no revival at this point. There was no change of mind from opposition to acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ. They marvelled at what they had seen, but they remained unaffected in terms of their soul's welfare. Miracles, whether real or spurious, it doesn't matter whether they're real miracles, like this one, or whether they're spurious miracles by the charlatans of our day, they will never gather a lasting result. So then the question: Would you rather like to go to a church where miracles, let's say really are happening, or would you rather go where the truth is being preached? I submit to you that where the truth is being preached is more important, because miracles, whether real or not, let's say just for the sake of argument that they can be produced and they are real, we do know one thing. We learn one thing from the Word of God, and that is they produce no permanent result. The effect is always temporary. They wondered at what they had seen, but there was no conversion to Christ. No amount of miracles, no amount of wonderments, of marvelling at the things that are seen, really affects the soul's welfare. There's no doubt that these people saw what happened. There's no doubt the text tells us they were moved by what they had seen, but they did not gather any lasting result. Again, Joseph Hall said “Any miracle, no miracle, serves enough for those who have built their faith upon the gospel.” Martin Luther said this: “I have made a covenant with God that he send me neither visions, dreams, or angels. I am well satisfied with the gift of the Holy Scriptures, which give me abundant instruction and all that I need to know both for this life and that which is to come.” That is an interesting thing, Luther says. “I made a covenant with God. Even if he has angels to send, and dreams and visions to allow me to know things that no man has known, and see things that no man has seen, I have made an agreement with God. Don't give me any of those, because I am satisfied with the Holy Scriptures.” Hah. What an attitude, and how rarely seen in our day, but the point is: We don't have to produce miracles. Why would we? They never gather any lasting result. Proven time and time again, the classic example is John 6, 5000 fed, 5000 amazed, 5000 follow him around to the other side of the lake, and 5000 go away and walk no more with him. Why? Because miracles do not gather any lasting effect. Do you know why the charismatics and all the ones who are always producing supposedly the miracles are always coming up with something new? Because the old runs dry. Men are not really moved by the miraculous. It's like a drug, and you have to go on to the next substance in order to keep the effect going. Sooner or later it runs out or becomes so foolish that men turn back to the truth. Hopefully, that might be the case, but no amount of wonderment obtains for the natural mind.

Now the second thing that we want to note along this line is that no amount of eyewitness information obtains for the natural man. Again, as we've noted so often, the folly of evidentialism. “You have seen me, and yet you don't believe.” So it was. Here were these onlookers who saw Jesus casting out a demon that was dumb. They were impressed. They marvelled. They wondered at what they had seen, but notice that their wonderment immediately in verse 15 turned to them saying:

But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.
16 And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
(Luk 11:15-16 ASV)

No amount of eyewitness information is of use for the natural mind. Every evidence that is placed before the natural man is either not true, or not enough. You can give him all the evidence that you have, and more than you have, and it will never be enough, and it will never be accepted. Notice that there are 2 complaints about Christ flowing from what they had seen. The evidence being placed before them is, first of all, in verse 15, “The evidence,” they say, “is not true.” Jesus heals a man, and they say:

By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. (Luk 11:15 ASV)

In other words, “What we saw is not true.” In verse 16:

And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven. (Luk 11:16 ASV)

I want you to notice that the word “sought” there is not well translated. It ought to be “were seeking,” and the idea probably is that they were continually asking. They were always nagging. “Show us a sign. Show us a sign.” Remember what Jesus said:

Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (Mar 8:12 ASV)

They're always asking for a sign. “Show us a sign from heaven. All right, you're able to heal the man that was dumb, but do something from heaven like Elijah did. We want to even be more impressed.” This is the folly of evidentialism. If you give men this kind of evidence, they'll tell you either #1, verse 15, “It's not true,” or #2, verse 16, “It's not enough. We want a sign from heaven.” And so, the folly of evidentialism. Men will either slander the evidence that they have, or they will slight the evidence that they have. Either “The Devil has done this,” or “We need more. We want a sign from heaven.” J C Ryle has said “Let it be noted that one mark of a thoroughly unbelieving heart is always to pretend to want more evidence of the truth of religion.” And Joseph Hall, “There is a kind of unreasonableness and insatiableness about infidelity. It never knows when it has enough evidence.” “Show us more. How about a sign from heaven.” And so, we ought to abandon the idea that men can somehow be badgered into the kingdom of God by giving them enough information, or evidence, proofs of the truth of the gospel. No amount of eyewitness information obtains for the natural man. It won't work. You can't do it. There is no argument strong enough to bring to bear, no evidence that you can pile up, that will possibly result in men's conversion. It takes a work of sovereign grace. The evidence that you provide will either be slandered, or it will be slighted. And so, the folly of evidentialism.

Let us also note, however, because this is an imperfect verb, “They were always seeking from him a sign from heaven.” We ought to note something about Jesus' patience and his resolve not to descend to proofs. “Well, why don't you be an evidentialist? After all, Jesus, you could produce everything far above anything they could imagine and have ever seen before or thought of before. You could produce it with merely a word.” But he never did. They were continuously seeking for signs. He could continually produce those signs, and yet he didn't. Why not? Because I think he agrees with this observation that no amount of eyewitness information obtains for the natural mind.

But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not. (Joh 6:36 ASV)

Now the fourth thing, or the third in this list. The first was: No amount of wonderment, miracles do not obtain. Secondly, no amount of eyewitness information, the folly of evidentialism. The third thing that we can learn from this passage is this: No amount of spiritualism obtains for the natural mind. You say “Well, if men were just more spiritual, if men just believed in the unseen, if we could just get men to be a little more religious, if we could just somehow prevail upon them to begin to believe that there is indeed a world of spiritual things, wouldn't it be good if men were more spiritualistic?” The problem with this is they are already too spiritualistic. What did they say in verse 15? They say “Show us a sign from heaven.” People don't ask that unless they believe that there is a heaven, and perhaps some sign of it could be demonstrated for them. They seem to be rather religious and spiritual people, and we know it even more strongly when we come to verse 15.

But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. (Luk 11:15 ASV)

I submit to you that the persons who said this were spiritualistic people. They believed in Satan. Not only that, but they seemed to have know something from way back in 2Kings 1:2, where Ahaziah, you remember, fell out of his window, and was sick and not recovering, and he sent to Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if he was going to get better or not. Do you remember that? Elijah met his emissaries by the way. They were all burnt up. In fact, why do you think Jesus responded as he did, in the context of them calling for a sign from heaven, and the reference to Beelzebub? Do you remember what happened in 2Kings 1?

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. (2Ki 1:10 ASV)

And he sent 50 more, and the last fellow said “Look, don't do that again. We've had enough signs out of heaven.” All of that seems to harken back, this whole episode seems to be pointing us back to 2Kings 1:2, but notice that these people, these scribes we're told in other places, had come and they make the accusation that it was by Beelzebub the prince of demons that he cast out demons. These men were more fluent about Satan than they were about the Son of God. They were more fluent about the prince of demons than they were about the Prince of Peace. The problem was not that they were not spiritual people, believers in the unseen, believers in the spirits and the spirit world. The problem was not that they were too secular. They had plenty of spiritualizing tendencies about them, but it did not do anything for their natural mindset.

There's a corollary to this too as we noted this, and that is that one mark of antichrist is want of originality. I say that because, as we look at Mark 3:22, and its parallel, Matthew 12:24, which may not be the same incident that we have before us, we could also look at Matthew 9:34, and then again at Matthew 10:25, and lastly at John 7:20, and in every one of those passages that I just mentioned, there is an accusation against Christ that he is either indwelt by Satan, or doing what he does by the power of Satan. This is something that he heard all the time. This was a common complaint, probably a plot that was hatched in the Sanhedrin. They said “What are we going to do with this fellow? Let's make it our popular position that he is doing these things by Satanic influence.” And so, you find that if you were to read all those passages all the way through the gospels you'll find that they kept coming back at him, both in Judaea, as well as in Galilee, by saying “You have a demon, and what you are doing, you are doing by the power of Satan.” This is not the only place and time that this happened. One mark of antichrist is always his want of originality. He's not very original at all. His strategies are always limited, predictable, and stereotypical. These were the religious Illuminati in Judaea. They were the doctors of theology in the land. They were the greatest minds in Palestine at the time, we have no doubt, these scribes and these Pharisees, and yet notice their want of originality. All they can claim is this, and they do it over and over and over again. I was interested in the words of Joseph Hall. I've often thought this before. He says “Great wits oftentimes mislead both their owners and their followers. How many shall once wish that they had been born dullards and idiots when they shall find that their wit is that which barred them out of heaven?” The scribes and the Pharisees come to Jesus and say “You are by the power of Satan casting out Satan.”

We want to deal this evening with Jesus' response to these Jews on this occasion as they made this accusation that it is by Satanic power that he has done these things. There's one last observation that I want to make this morning. We'll conclude it this evening. In fact, in my mind some of the most interesting parts of this, of course, are in the second half, but there is a certain order to dealing with these things. There's one more observation that I want to make, and that is this: We may lament the popularity of the worldling's strategies, but no engine levelled against Christ is unforeseen, and that alone is the Christian's confidence. I'm referring to verse 17. It says:

But he, knowing their thoughts (Luk 11:17 ASV)

Now, we notice in verse 15 that when they have made this complaint against Christ, they said it. “Some of them said.” Now, it doesn't mean that they said it right to Jesus' face. In fact, some of the other parallels said that he knew of their saying these things, even though they hadn't said them, and he summons them, and then he responded as we have in the verses following. Whatever the circumstances were, the point is this: Jesus knew not only what they said, but he knew what they were thinking. Again, the observations: We may well lament the popularity of the strategies against Christ. We look around ourselves today, and we lament the state of things. We lament the things that are said and believed and taught, and we believe many of them indeed to be anti-Christ, and we lament how popular they are, but let us remember that no engine, that is, no weapon that is levelled against Christ, is ever unknown or unforseen by him, and that very fact is our confidence. The point we can make is this: All of the peoples are saying one thing, the accusations, the anti-Christian attitude all around us, and it's so popular, and we can say to ourselves “That's all right. Christ knows about it.” It's not as if he's being maligned and he doesn't know, and if he knows, we need not worry. As a matter of fact, the word that's here translated “Jesus knew their thoughts,” it really doesn't say that. It says in the original language of the New Testament that “Jesus saw their thoughts.” That's even more remarkable. To know somebody's thoughts is one thing. To see their thoughts is something else, and as a matter of fact, from Jesus' reply, which we'll study this evening, he did not just know their thinking. He recognized their intention, their reasoning, their motive, and he already knew the irrationality that was involved in their complaints and which lay behind their thoughts. We may, with confidence, look upon all worldling's strategies against Christ because we know simply this one thing: Christ sees their thoughts. It reminds us, does it not? of Psalm 2:4 where it says, do you remember in the first part of the Second Psalm? The nations are raging and imagining vain things. They have all of this concocted against the Lord and against his anointed, and then it says in verse 4:

He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh (Psa 2:4 ASV)

Well, if God can laugh at the strategies of evil men, we at least can have confidence in the fact that he knows, and that's exactly what the text tells us, that he knowing, literally seeing, their thoughts, replies to them. There are several more things we want to consider from the reply, but we need to leave that for our study this evening as we continue in the gospel according to Luke. Let's bow together in prayer.

Father in heaven, once again we thank you for the Word of God. We barely, we believe, have scratched the surface of that which can be learned from passages such as these. We thank you for the Word of God and the patience of God's people to sit and to hear it. They'd rather have that than miracles. They'd rather have that than evidences. They'd rather have that than anything. They have made a covenant with their God. Send them nothing but the Word of God. We would thank you that there would be such a people as that. Bless them, we ask, and all those in every place that want to hear the Word of Christ. Bless us also we pray as we would continue to study this passage this evening. Gather us back together, we pray, in Christ's name. Amen.

Luke #92b-11.9-10

2011-11-09T02:22:00.000-08:00

Luke #92b-11.9-10-20000813

We come this morning to Luke 11. We have for the past several months, with a number of interruptions, been studying the so called Lord's Prayer. We took our lead to do that from the fact that we came eventually in our study of Luke to Luke 11:1-4, basing our study mainly from the passage in Matthew, which is somewhat more full, and yet, coming then to Luke 11:5, we find these words which have as their text Luke 11:1-4. We have here what I would call a text which is encased within 2 illustrations. Let me suggest what I mean by that. There are 2 illustrations in the passage which was just read in your hearing. The first illustration is that found in verses 5 through 8, a man who has had visitors come to him in the late hours of the night. He goes to his friend and neighbor, and asks him, even though it is an inconvenient hour, for some bread to place before his guests, and the man does, in fact, even though his wife and children are with him in bed. He will get up because of the “shamelessness” of this man who would ask him at this hour of the day, and gives him the food that he requires. Now the text is found in verses 9 and 10. The text is:

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Luk 11:9-10 ASV)

Then there is a second illustration, which is found in verses 11, 12, and 13. This illustration has to do with a father giving gifts to his son:

And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion? (Luk 11:11-12 ASV)

We have then these illustrations, the first and the last, and they encase a text, the text being verses 9 and 10. It's illustrated with illustrations on both sides, one preceding, and then one following the text, which is this passage of the most remarkable words, some have thought, in the entire New Testament. “Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you,” and these words are preceded by “and I myself.” Emphatically in the original language Jesus says “I say this unto you.” And so we have then this text, which is encased within illustrations on either side.

There are 2 things then that we want to do this morning as we would look at this text. First of all, simply consider the illustrations, and secondly, consider the text, and then conclude with several observations upon the whole impact of this portion of the Word of God.

First of all, regarding the illustrations, the first one and the second: We need to be careful whenever dealing with parables or illustrations. No illustration will bear too much teasing apart. If you try to make too much of every possible detail, you will miss the point. Illustrations are made to clarify, not to confuse or to obscurate the truth, and if we use them wrongly, we will do just that. They are simple, one man coming for some bread from a friend, the other inviting us to picture in our minds a son asking something of his father. What will his father give him? So, regarding the illustrations, there are at least 4 things that we can say about them. Note first of all that the first illustration reasons from friend to friend.

And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves (Luk 11:5 ASV)

The issue here is on a rather horizontal plane. One man no doubt would want to use his neighbor and he goes seeking this bread in the middle of the night.

Now, a good deal of the comment on this passage has tried to, as I have said, tease something out of this, trying to bring us perhaps into the Palestinian context. I read one who said “In Palestine, especially during the hot season, men would in fact travel during the night because it was cooler.” That may or may not be the case. I have no way of proving or disproving that. I don't know if that's the point here. The issue is that the man who is addressed, the friend, says “I am already in bed, and the house is locked, and yet, you want me to get up from this and give you the bread that you require.” The first illustration, however, deals with one friend as he comes to another. Notice that the second illustration, however, deals not with a friend and a friend, but a father and a son.

And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? (Luk 11:11 ASV)

So they differ in that regard. Secondly, the illustrations may be compared in that the first is viewed from the chair of the plaintiff, where the second from that of the defendant. You have to look at the illustrations quite clearly and carefully in order to see this, but the key is the words “Which of you?” Notice this first of all in verse 5:

Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight (Luk 11:5 ASV)

Now look in verse 11:

And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? (Luk 11:11 ASV)

“Which of you?” In both cases, you have that phrase repeated. In other words, in each illustration you are being asked to put yourself in the place of one of the 2 parties involved. The “Which of you?” in the first one is the first friend who has the guests that come at night, and he goes to the second friend. You are asked to put yourself in the position of the first friend, the one who is asking for bread. However, in the second illustration, the “Which of you?” puts you in the position of the father, not petitioning, but being petitioned by the son. To put it in a legal parlance, I expect it's safe to say, in the first case you're put in the place of the plaintiff. You are the one pleading. You are the one asking, but in the second you're in a different situation altogether. You're the one being asked, and so you're asked to think of yourself, first of all, as being the petitioner, but in the second illustration as the one petitioned. From either point of view you are called upon to view the situation and to learn something about prayer. It invites us to consider prayer from both perspectives, from the perspective of the one who is asking, and also to think of it from the perspective of the one who is being asked. “Which of you would behave like this?”And so, there is something rather remarkable, let us say, about our Lord's turning of these illustrations so that if we were to indeed fit ourselves into the “Which of you?” into the place of either person in the 2 illustrations, we would understand well the argument.

The third thing that we can note from these 2 illustrations is that the first argues from the positive. Here is what you would do, the positive. If you had a friend, and you had guests come late at night, here is what you would do. You would go to your neighbor. Knock on his door. Raise him from his sleep, and get what you required.

However, the second illustration argues from the negative. Here is what you would never do. As a father, if your son asks you for bread, you would never give him a stone. If he asks for a fish, you would never give him a serpent. So you see the genius really in these 2 illustrations. In the one, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of the petitioner, but in the second the position of the petitioned. In the first, we are instructed by the illustration that here is what we would always do. We would go and ask, but in the second illustration, negatively we are told “Here is what, clearly you would have to agree, you would never do, give a stone to a son requiring bread.”

The fourth thing that we mark about these 2 illustrations is that both of them, the first and the second, argue in a certain way which is technically called a minori ad majus. That means they argue from the lesser to the greater, or perhaps from the worse to the better. They argue: If this is true, how much more must something else be true? Notice how clear it becomes in verse 13:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luk 11:13 ASV)

You see, it's an arguing in both cases from the small, from the insignificant, relatively, all the way to how God deals with those who petition him.

And so, the sum then of these 2 illustrations. Again, we don't want to tease out too many details. What is the sum? What is the essence of what our Lord is teaching in both of these illustrations? I think it's this: That prayer ought not to be discouraged by either temerity or timidity. Are you familiar with the word “temerity”? Some people confuse it with the word “timidity,” but they mean just the opposite from one another. Temerity means “arrogance, shamelessness, to have the gall to do something.” Timidity is just the opposite. It's to faint back and to not have what is necessary. The 2 illustrations seem to me to relate to these 2 words. Prayer should not be discouraged by thinking that if I were to do so there is too much arrogance involved in this. Which of you who had friends come late at night would not go to a neighbor, even though it's inconvenient, even though it takes a lot of gall to go and to expect a man to get up in the middle of the night and light the lamp and get the bread and unlock his house and deliver it and do all the rest? Who would do that? The illustration says: You would. And the relation of that is: Then why ought you not to pray? Can you for want of shamelessness cease to pray?

On the other hand, you should not be timid with regard to prayer, and many are like this. They say “Well, if I pray, what if I don't get what I want?” or “What if I get something which is entirely contrary to what I desire? What if I ask for bread and get a stone?” You need not be timid, the illustration is: What you ask, you will receive. And so, either with regard to temerity or timidity, first and second illustration, prayer should not be discouraged on any account. We ought to be bold, and we ought to appreciate the cordial that is extended to us in the text, the text being illustrated and encased within these 2 illustrations.

Just one or two things that might help. At first reading of these illustrations, expecially the first one, it's possible for you to become confused. The confusion, I think, is found in verse 8. Jesus here says:

I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will arise and give him as many as he needeth. (Luk 11:8 ASV)

What is “importunity”? Many times, if you are familiar at all with your Bible, you confuse this illustration with another that our Lord gave in the gospel according to Luke in chapter 18. Do you remember it there? It's a parable that he spoke to them about a woman who was aggrieved legally, and she went to the magistrate, and she kept coming, and kept coming, and kept coming, and finally, because of her importunity, he says “Lest she wear me down by her continual coming, I will redress her that which she requires.” That is not this parable. That is not this illustration, and the importunity that we will find when we come to that passage in chapter 18 is not the importunity here. The word is different. The point is different. And as a matter of fact, the other reason that people are confused about this is because when it says “Because of his importunity,” whose importunity are we talking about? Is it the importunity of the man being asked for bread, or is it the importunity of the one asking? Well, in fact, it's the importunity grammatically of the one who is asking, and the word should not have been translated “importunity,” because that probably is what leads to the confusion. The word that is used here in the original language is, as a matter of fact, not used anywhere else in the New Testament. It's what we call in technical grammatical language a hapaxlegomenon, which means “once written.” It's only found once in the New Testament, so we have nothing to compare it to. The word does not mean “importunity.” The word literally means “shamelessness, or a lack of modesty.” He does not go and get the man his bread because he is his friend. He does it because the man is so shameless as to come at the most inconvenient hour and ask for bread. He is almost nonplussed by the fact that the man would even dare to think of doing something like that, but because of his shamelessness he gets up and gives it to him anyway. That's really necessary for the understanding. As Lenski says “This man was stretching friendship too far, yet he succeeded because of his shamelessness.” Lenski goes on to say “With God there is no right, no inconvenient time, no intention to use anything as an excuse.” There is no middle of the night when it comes to God. You cannot come at a time which is inconvenient for God. You can with a friend, but notice that the encouragement here is to be shameless in prayer, to come anytime, arrogantly, in terms of cutting through all sorts of normal circumstance and convention, and being answered not because you are a friend, but because of your shamelessness. That is the point of the illustration.

The second one: A lot has been made of the father being inquired by his son, first for a loaf, secondly for a fish, and thirdly for an egg. Are these three-fold three steps, or three levels of approach? Is there something that we ought to be making of these things? Well, basically, I think not. However, there may be some progression in terms of the thought. Bread is, of course, the staff of life. It is the main commodity by which we are able to live. It's true that man shall not live by bread alone, but in terms of a physical level of things, bread is what keeps us alive. “Give us this day our daily bread.” Fish was a common addition to a meal, but it was just that. It was an addition. It was something extra. It was something above and beyond what necessarily was required.

When we read the third petition, “If he ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion?” we need to realize that it was very rare for eggs to be eaten by common folks in Palestine. An egg was a luxury. It was by most folks not even considered food, because you had to be a king or someone to get an egg. It was not common fare. You don't read anywhere in the Bible about the eating of eggs, do you? You read about fish, and the eating of meat of various kinds, and, of course, of bread, various vegetables, but you never hear of eating eggs, because it was a luxury. It was something that belonged to the king, but it didn't belong to the common people. And so, there is something of a progression. You come with food, just bread to begin with. You progress to fish, and then on to an egg, but do we want to make anything of that necessarily? The point is: Whatever is asked, it will not be given that which is inedible, or perhaps even dangerous to the child. So much for then the illustrations.

We have a text, verses 9 and 10, one really of the most remarkable statements in all of the Bible.

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Luk 11:9-10 ASV)

That is a remarkable promise, and there are no caveats. There is no limitation that appears on the surface of this promise. It seems to be impossible. It looks as though it's too good to be true, and yet we notice that our Lord not only says it with some emphasis, “I myself, your Lord, say this unto you,” but that he thought enough of the importance of it to encase this text with illustrations on either side. He illustrated it before he said it, and after he said it he illustrates it again. There's something very emphatic about the whole situation that we have before us. Let's look at the text then for a few moments, and ask, first of all, what emphasis attaches to this text? How emphatic is it?

Notice, first of all, that there are 3 present imperatives. They denote continuous, protracted obligation, “Ask, seek, and knock.” If we were to translate this to bring out something of the fact that these are present imperatives, “Be asking, be seeking, be knocking.” They denote that this is to be a continuous and a protracted obligation, that is, of prayer.

The second thing that we note is that there is a three-fold iteration, “Ask, seek, and knock.” Again, the commentators want to find a three-fold something or other. That there are three kinds of prayer, for example, some say. There is prayer that is asking prayer. There is prayer that is seeking prayer. And there is prayer that is knocking prayer. Even Spurgeon seemed to buy into that somewhat. I think that is a mistake probably. That there is the three-fold iteration is for emphasis. It shows that there ought to be stamina, and perhaps variation, in our prayer, asking, seeking, and knocking. R C H Lenski said “The 3 imperatives are synonymous, yet the second seems to be more intense than the first, the third more intense than the other 2, and the 3 together express the deepest and most earnest desire in prayer.” These are not 3 steps or levels of prayer, but the very nature of the act of praying itself. All prayer is an asking, a seeking, and a knocking. Lenski says “This is proven.” In fact, the idea that there are 3 steps or levels of prayer here is shut out by the idea that all 3 of the promises in verse 10 are categorical. There are no “ifs” or “buts.” The one that asks, receives. The one that seeks, finds. And the one that knocks shall have it opened unto him.

We also ought to note that the text in verse is in the plural. “Everyone that asks will find,” but in verse 10 we have the absolute singular, everyone, each one without an exception, who asks will indeed find. So there is emphasis all around, the repetition, the indication of this being present imperative. These are continuous actions, and that they denote some sort of stamina in prayer. Now, we've seen then in the first place what emphasis applies to the text.
Secondly, let us note what limitations apply to the text. Are there any limitations at all? Does it not seem to be an almost unbelievable promise of success in prayer? “Ask and you shall receive.” Are there any limitations that we can apply to this? Lloyd-Jones, dealing with this passage from the latter part of it, the promise of the text, verses 9 and 10, and the latter illustration found in Matthew 7, says “I thank God that this is not a universal promise, and that God is not going to grant me every desire and request.” How is he able to say that? It looks like a universal promise, and yet Lloyd-Jones thanks God that it's not a universal promise, and we might, if we thought about it, agree. Aren't you glad that you haven't received everything you've asked for? Aren't you glad that the father is wiser in giving to his son than the son is in asking from the father? And he gives what is appropriate regardless of what is asked, because many times our prayers are amiss, but if there are limitations that apply to this text, what are they? I suggest that there are 2.

The first limitation is the context. We dare not, we must not ever, allow our dealing with a text to ignore the context in which it is found. Now, I had Dave to read the Scriptures for us this morning. He did not begin with verse 5, but he began with verse 1, because in your Bible as well as mine I think you'll find that verses 1 through 4 immediately precede verses 5 through 13. There's a reason for that. It's called context. When our Lord illustrates with these 2 illustrations encasing this text, when he gives us all of this information, it falls immediately upon the heels of, what? His instruction to the disciples how they ought to pray. Not only does he give them then the instruction, or the text that would instruct them with regard to prayer, but then in verse 5 he begins to encourage them, in fact, to pray, and so that when he says “Ask and it shall be given you,” we ought to ask the question “Ask what?” The answer is found in verses 1 through 4. Here is how you ought to pray. Here is what you ought to ask for, and then he gives them the encouraging “When you are asking, you will receive.” You will receive what? You will receive what you've asked for. What should we be asking for? It's found there in the Lord's prayer.

So you see, it's not really a universal promise. You want a Mercedes? Somehow, I don't find that in one of the petitions of the Lord's prayer. You want a whole bankful of money? I don't seem to find that there. That's the way some people look at this text and go “Whoopie! Everything I want I can get!” No. There's a context. “Ask, and you will receive.” Ask what? Jesus has just been teaching what to ask, and if we ask those things we shall indeed receive them. It is not a universal promise. It is limited by the context.

Interestingly enough, I think it's even more limited than that. Jesus chooses one of the petitions in the Lord's prayer to base the illustration on, and which one is it? If you were going to say the fourth, you're right and wrong. It's the fourth in Matthew, but it's only the third in Luke, and it is “Give us this day our daily bread.” Think about the illustrations again. What was the first one about? A friend going to his friend and asking for, what? Bread. How do you like that? And then there's the latter one, where we find the father being petitioned by his son, for what? Bread, fish, and eggs. It all has to do with food. What petition then might be most immediately in mind? “Give us this day our daily bread.” “Ask and it shall be given you.”

The whole point of this passage is an encouragement to then pray. Not only is it limited by the context, however. It's also limited by the latter illustration, because the father always reserves the right, as heavenly Father, to never give that which is inedible or dangerous to a hungry child. You may ask that which may not be good for you at all. The Father reserves the right to say no. The Father reserves the right not to give that which is inedible, a stone, or potentially dangerous, a serpent or a scorpion, to a child. And so, we ought to thank God that this is not a universal promise. It's limited by the context, and it's limited by the latter illustration.

I want to conclude our study with one objection that has been raised to this, and then several observations. The objection perhaps is this: Does not predestination dull the edge of prayer? Does not the fact that God works all things according to the counsel of his own will, and that he knows what he has intended and decreed to do from before the foundation of the world? And if all these things are, in fact, set by the benevolent hand of an all sovereign God, then why pray? Because prayer doesn't change God. It doesn't even change things. Things are set in order by God. How can we believe in predestination and yet still believe the promise “Ask and it shall be given you”? I want to deal with this only very briefly, because we did deal with it, and have dealt with it in the past, and did deal with it when we gave some introductory sermons for the Lord's prayer. But I ran across this statement of Spurgeon, who said this, and I think it's helpful. He said: “Predestination embraces the great and the little, and reaches all things. The question is: Wherefore pray? Might it not as logically be asked: Wherefore breathe, or eat, or move, or do anything? We have an answer which satisfies us, namely, that our prayers are in the predestination, and that God has as much ordained his people's prayers as anything else, and when we pray we are but producing links in the chain of ordained facts. The God who has ordained all things which have come to pass has ordained prayer, and has promised that those who ask shall find, those who seek, those who knock. There is not a problem here with regards to prayer. It's edge is not dulled by God's predestination.”

Let me offer then these concluding observations from our text. What do we learn from this? What are the general observations? Consider, #1, that prayer sounds very simple when Jesus teaches about it. Have you ever noticed? In fact, those are the words of John Stott, who says “Prayer sounds very simple when Jesus teaches about it. “I say unto you, I, no less than I your Lord, say unto you, ask and you shall receive.”” Prayer is not as complicated as we want to make it. There are six petitions in the Lord's prayer, which we believe comprise everything that needs to be asked for, everything that God will give and that we can receive is included in it. Prayer sounds very simple when Jesus teaches about it. Therefore, we ought to notice that if we begin to complicate things with regard to prayer too much, we are outside of biblical teaching. Why does it sound so simple? Because it is that simple. “Ask, and you shall receive. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” J C Ryle has said “We have reason to thank God that upon no point has our Lord spoken so fully and plainly as upon prayer.” Spurgeon said “Though a doctrine, and prayer is one of those, should be surrounded with 10,000 difficulties, the ipsi dixit of our Lord sweeps all of them away.” What does the word “ipsi dixit” mean? It is merely Latin: “Because he said it.” “Verily, I say unto you: ask, and you shall receive.” Prayer sounds very simple when Jesus teaches about it. Spurgeon also went on to say “I would remind you that Jesus Christ, when he says “I say unto you,” gives us the authority, not only of his person, but of his experience.” And I was interested as I read Spurgeon's remarks, how he illustrates this, and it's something that I never thought of before. He says “He had cried,” that is, our Lord cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” What a difficult text, trying to understand, or even begin to scratch the surface of, what that possibly means. We have our ideas. We attempt the best we can to explain that passage, but what on earth can it possibly be that our Lord should say to his Father “Why have you forsaken me?” Did he ever get an answer to that? Is it true “Ask and you shall receive. Seek, and you shall find”? Is that really true? Jesus says that not only by his authority does he say this, but also his experience, for on the cross he said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And Spurgeon says, “And now, having received an answer, he cries in triumph “It is finished.” “Ask, and you shall receive.” “Why have you forsaken me?” The answer comes: “It is finished.” Our Lord, not only by his authority tells us it is true, “Ask, and you shall receive.” His experience was that it was true. That's why it's not too bold to say this, that prayer sounds very simple, especially when Jesus teaches about it, not only by his authority, but his experience, do we learn this fact.

The second observation this morning is this: Prayer is not psychological therapy. Why would I even say that? Who would consider that? You'd be surprised. Liberalism, for the past 100 years or more, has been telling us that is what prayer is. Prayer is not really speaking to God, and prayer is certainly not getting anything from God. The benefit of prayer is wholly our own, and it terminates with the act. When we pray, the good is that we did. It's psychological therapy. For us to unfold our thinking and our concerns and our desires and our requests is good for us. It's therapeutic and we are better off for having done it, but there's no transaction done between God and men. Of course, liberals don't believe that. It's just good for you to have done it. It's good for you to have said those words, expressed yourself, been honest and transparent in prayer.

Prayer is not psychological therapy. If it were, what about this passage? “Ask, and you shall receive. Seek, and you shall find.” Prayer is not psychological therapy, where the good terminates with the act itself, but prayer is an institution of God. God says “I say unto you: Ask, and you shall receive, and everyone that asks will receive. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” Notice verse 13 once again. There's something here that doesn't appear in our English translation.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luk 11:13 ASV)

Literally, in the Lord's prayer, especially in Matthew, not in Luke, it begins with this preamble, “Our Father, who art in heaven,” εν τοις ουρανοις. But what we have here is not apparent in the English language, in the English translation, but your Father, your heavenly Father. It's not your Father in heaven. It's your Father out of heaven. That's a good reason to study Greek. Some of you are contemplating doing that in a class that we're going to begin next month. You can't see that in the English text. It's just not there. It's not your Father in heaven who answers. It's your Father out of heaven who answers. Do you see some emphasis in that? Prayer is not psychological therapy. Prayer is God, out of heaven, answering his children. That's what prayer does. It's not just us having a good time in our own mind fantisizing about the things that we'd love to have, and having some sort of cordial effect within ourselves. No. It's God hearing and answering out of heaven. That it is affixed with vivid illustrations, open summons, and bold prospects, according to the text, ought to dissolve every impediment imposed against it. There's no more open and cordial invitation to prayer than this passage. “Ask and you shall receive.” God out of heaven will see to it. Prayer is indeed simple when our Lord speaks of it. Spurgeon says “The promise is above the gate in plain words. Read it.” What is the promise? “Ask, and you shall receive.” Calvin said, “Whenever we come to prayer, or whenever we feel there is not the live enthusiasm in our prayers that should be, we should bring this gentle invitation to our thoughts. “Ask and you shall receive.””

The third observation this morning is that compared to God all fathers are evil. Did you notice that? Jesus says it and we almost pass over it, don't we?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more your Father out of heaven? (Luk 11:13 ASV)

There is an inestimable difference between even the best earthly father, and a heavenly Father. If you know how to give good gifts, how much more your Father out of heaven. Compared to God, all fathers are evil. An interesting thought.

The fourth thing we observe is this: Prayer ultimately has but one application. Yes, there are 6 petitions in the Lord's prayer in Matthew. 5 of them are found in Luke. It's at least that discursive. However, we have a way of condensing that very nicely into just really 2 petitions, things which have respect to God, and things that have respect to ourselves, the first 3 and the latter 3. I can even reduce it further than that. Ultimately, prayer has only one thing that it needs, and only one thing that it requires. We can reduce the 6 petitions down to 2. We can reduce the 2 down to only 1, and what is it? Lord, give us, what?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luk 11:13 ASV)

Why is it the Holy Spirit? Why should the Holy Spirit be mentioned in this context? In Matthew 7:11, where we have a parallel to this, it doesn't say the Holy Spirit. It says “good things.” Why did our Lord say here “Holy Spirit”? The reason is what is called a synecdoche. Have you ever heard that word before? A synecdoche is a figure of speech where one thing is taken for everything. A part is taken for the whole. And so, when he uses the word “Holy Spirit” here, he is referring to the Holy Spirit as the author and arbiter of all good things, the sumum bonum of everything that we possibly could require or want. As Lenski says “the supreme and the extreme of anything that we could possibly ask,” and if we ask it, who will bring it? The Holy Spirit. And if we ask it, who will personify it as the one who brings it to us and applies it to us? The Holy Spirit. Let me warn you that you need not put some sort of charismatic spin on this. They love this verse as though there were some sort of request here for some second work of grace, some baptism of the Holy Spirit beyond our conversion. I do not believe that is warranted at all. This is not the point. He will give the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if you have the Holy Spirit, there is nothing you will require beyond that. He is the sumum bonum of the good things which might be delivered to us for which we might ask and what we might receive. Ultimately, prayer is just that simple. It asks for one thing: the Holy Spirit.

The fifth thing that we might observe from this is that it matters little how much we know about prayer if we do not pray. Why do we have verses 5 through 13? We've already had the so called Lord's Prayer in verses 1 through 4. We've got all the information of what we ought to pray for. Here is how we ought to pray:

Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. (Luk 11:1-2 ASV)

We have all the information there given to us in verses 1 through 4, but it doesn't matter how much we know about prayer if we don't pray. Isn't that why we have verses 5 through 13? “Well, I know all about prayer, but I don't go because it's just too arrogant to suppose that God would get up in the middle of the night and answer me.” “I just can't pray, because I might ask for the wrong thing, and I'll get a stone or a serpent or a scorpion.” And what does the text tell us? No. You need to ask. Knowing about prayer won't do you any good unless you pray, and you should not be put off from praying for any reason. That's what the 2 illustrations are. The encouragement is there in the midst of it. “Ask and you'll receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened unto you.” Busy ignorance and somnolent orthodoxy are alike unproductive. What does that mean? On the one hand, you've got all kinds of religion, do you not? going on in the world today which we can call, we can give the general label for it, busy ignorance. They are busy, they are perspiring, doing all kinds of things for God, but they do it in ignorance. They were not called upon to do it. They were not called to do it. And yet, they are busy in religion. They are religiously working as hard as they can in ignorance.

On the other hand, you have some other kinds of people, religious people, and we call that “somnolent orthodoxy.” The word “somnolent” means “sleepy,” Sominex, somnolent, sleepy. It's a Latin word which means “to sleep.” What is somnolent orthodoxy? These are not busy, ignorant people. They're orthodox people. They're not ignorant people. They know everything they need to know, but they're sleeping.

Consider that both of them are getting nothing done aright. Busy ignorance and somnolent orthodoxy are just as unproductive as the other. The point is: it matters not how much we know about prayer. We spent, what? 8 weeks studying the Lord's prayer, together with certain introductory messages. You know all about what it is to pray. You know as much as the disciples did. You know everything that our Lord said, and we've thought about it as best we can. You have an orthodoxy. It will do you no good, however, to know everything that you know about prayer if you don't pray. That's why we have verses 5 through 13. “Ask, then ask. Now you know, so do it.”

The sixth and last thing that we may observe is that the meaning of our lives, ultimately then, is disciplined by our prayers. What is our life? What is it that happens to us day by day? It's asking and then receiving what was asked for, and what a father knows we ought to have. Spurgeon said: “Do not look upon your present distress. You have trouble? You have concerns? You have difficulties? You have temptations? You're under trial? You're under stress? You have all kinds of things that you would like to see disappear? And so, you say “Do you know what these things are? They're stones, and serpents, and scorpions sent to me by God.” Do you ever think that? “That which I am experiencing is a scorpion sent to sting me by God.” What does the text say? “You being evil, your son comes to you and asks you for bread. Do you give him a stone? If he asks for a fish, do you give him a serpent? If he asks for an egg, do you give him a scorpion?” No. Do not look upon your present distress as a stone, a serpent, and a scorpion, because God doesn't give you those things. “If you do so, you will be afraid of your mercies, and tremble at your consolations.” So says Spurgeon. The meaning of our lives is determined and disciplined by our prayer. “Ask and receive.” And when we receive, whatever we receive, if we've asked, we know it's the bread, the fish, and the egg. It's good for us. Why? Because a Father, out of heaven, has given these things to us. They must then be good for us. If that is the case, then the meaning of my whole life is disciplined by asking and receiving.

So then, we have a rather marked division in the book of Luke. It begins with verse 14 of chapter 11. We've been studying about prayer. We have the text of it, and then we have the illustrations and encouragement for us in verses 5 through 13. You'll see as we continue to read, verses 14 and following bring us to a different chapter. In fact, the last chapter, even though we're only in chapter 11 of the life of our Lord, the beginning of opposition, the beginning of his parabolic teachings, will consume our interest in the remainder of our study of Luke, but then there are those observations and our dealing with the text and the matter of prayer. Let's bring this to a conclusion as we would bow together.

Our Father in heaven, once again we thank you for the Word of God. We thank you for the sometimes wearisome and yet necessary discipline of dealing with it part by part in its context. We pray that you would bless this congregation for its willingness to endure this kind of study, that we come with a hunger to hear what God has said, and how relieved we are to see what it says, that we may ask and be assured that we will receive. Bless us we pray as we look back upon these past several months of study, that we not only know about prayer, but that we recognize with full force the encouragement then to pray. Bless us we pray as we've considered these things in Christ's name. Amen.

Luke #92a-Matthew 6.13

2011-10-22T08:33:00.000-07:00

Luke #92a-Matthew 6.13-20000723

Some of you may be wondering why one of my best friends in all the world and his wife are here with us, and one of the very good friends of our church over the years is with us, and is not preaching, and that, of course, is Earl Blackburn. I am under strict orders from the icon of Reformed Baptists of Southern California, Mike Castle, not to allow him to do anything, but he is to rest, and hopefully to recover fully from whatever it was that he contracted in Southeast Asia, and we have prayed for Earl, and let's do pray for him again in these next weeks as he is allowed a time of rest and sabbatical to recoup himself for retaking up the work in days to come. I also want to remind you that Pastor Bill Downing will be here, God willing, next Lord's Day, and preaching for us on that occasion. And so, this has been quite a summer for us as a church, and we rejoice in these things.

The other thing I want to remind us of again is to continue to pray for Stephan, who continues to preach morning and evening either here or at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Kirkland all through the summer, 3 more weeks left of his labors among us. You know, people tend to rejoice when they hear of some event around the world where the gospel is furthered, men going out to the mission field, things such as that, and all of those ought to cause us rejoicing where the truth is truly involved, but there is really nothing more encouraging than to see a young man preparing for the ministry, and let's pray for Stephan. This is a wonderful thing. It's the future of what we love, and without men like Stephan.... That's the hope that we have, and God has been gracious to give us a hand in attempting to encourage him and to please remember to encourage him and to pray for him as he completes his work with us. He won't be here next Lord's day, but the following Lord's day he will be preaching both hours in the morning, and then we're invited the following Lord's day, which brings us clear up to the thirteenth of August to meet with Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in the evening, at which point he'll be able to conclude the study that he's begun on 1 Corinthians 15. So, we look forward to those events. Please remember these things in prayer.

Turn in your Bibles would you please once again for the last time at least in this present study to Matthew 6. We're reading once again those by now certainly most familiar words commonly called the Lord's Prayer, verse 9, Matthew chapter 6:

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil
(Mat 6:9-13 ASV)

Or, and we'll discuss this more this evening, as the ASV has supplied, “the evil one.” There are those then 6 petitions which are involved in the Lord's prayer. Before we look into that this evening let's bow once again.

Our Father in heaven, we do call upon you this evening to teach us to pray, and as we have considered over these past several Lord's days, the subject of prayer, and then each of these petitions one by one, that you would please bless us in enabling us to pray. We confess how difficult it is. We confess that private prayer is difficult. Public prayer is practically impossible, and yet we have before us that template for our praying. Enable us, we pray, to do judiciously, weigh our request against these, and then to correct ourselves by what we have seen and heard in this study. Bless us then as we come to the conclusion of it this evening. So we ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

Very quickly in 5 to 7 minutes let me review what we began this morning in the adult class. I realize that there's a defect in this course of study, the schedule that we have taken, because some of you were not here. You were teaching classes this morning, but what we began to do was to introduce the last, the sixth petition of the Lord's prayer. Very quickly, we began by, as we have throughout, noting how this petition is related to those which at this point precede. The last 3 petitions, of course, form that last half of the Lord's prayer, and those prayers or petitions which relate most particularly to our present need, our daily bread, our need for forgiveness, and for deliverance from temptation, but we noted, and I would repeat to you again, that there is a certain sanctified altruism in all prayer. We must never use prayer only as a means of obtaining the things that we want. It is legitimate to want our daily bread, our forgiveness of sins, our deliverance from temptation. These are truly legitimate petitions and requests, but if we ask them merely that we may consume them as James says “upon our lusts,” even those things can be asked amiss. We always ask them with the primary motive of giving glory to God's name, his kingdom, and his will.

The last 2 petitions are related to one another. One has to do with sin already committed, and so, it brings the past into the present. The last petition, the sixth, deals with sin that potentially lies in the future, and so we have sin already in the house. That's the fifth petition. Sin yet standing at the door is involved in the sixth. As Thomas Boston has well said “A pardoned sinner is not past danger. He is in a sickly country, and though he be recovered, he is yet in danger of a relapse. He is still in the battlefield, and though he is cured of one wound, he will be yet fair to get another if the Lord do not shield him.” And so we pray “Deliver us from temptation.”

We also noted that this last petition, some have suggested, is really two petitions, and so, the total would be 7 rather than 6. I would disagree with that in saying that the syntax of this petition does not allow it. The last 3 petitions are connected with και, the Greek word for “and,” and we call this peritaxis, that is, the binding together of a list of particulars with the word “and,” but notice that it's not the word “and” that puts together these last 2 clauses. It is rather “and bring us not unto temptation, but deliver us from evil.” And we believe that these are not two petitions, but one petition with these 2 parts enumerated.

And then we said that there were 6 things we wanted to note about this petition. The first was that temptation is a word of considerable breadth of signification. I think it became more clear as we continued our study why that is important to note at the outset. There are those who have tried casuistically to differentiate between what is a trial, what is a test, and what is a temptation. In so doing they have thought to relieve God of the potential onus of being the tempter. We believe that's not necessary, nor is it possible, because neither the Greek nor the Hebrew language allows us this kind of semantic overlap. The words are basically synonymous. The Greek language does not have separate words to delineate the one from the other. Every temptation is a trial. Every trial is a test. And every test is a temptation. “The word “temptation” here cannot mean,” J A Alexander tells us, “mere trials, but must include the opportunity of sinning and the peril of sinning.” Lenski says “This word is here used in the pregnant sense referring to any situation in which, because of our own wickedness and weakness, we should succumb to sin, the realm of attractive things where our lusts must carry us away, and the realm of direful things where fright and cowardice may bring us to a fall.” Ultimately everything in our life, call it a temptation, call it a test, call it a trial, is a test of our faith.

The second thing we marked was that temptation is normal for the Christian's experience. It is a lie that preachers tell that the Christian life, if certain secrets are learned and observed, or certain keys are adopted, can be free of all temptation. That is not the case. Peter tells us not to think that it's some sort of strange, exotic, or foreign occurrence that we should be brought into temptation. These things are common to men. They are such as men have historically endured. They are such as Christian's have historically endured. And they are such even as Christ himself has endured. We must not dream of exemption from temptation if Christ himself has been tempted. And so, the second and third parts of our study: Temptation is a normal Christian experience.

And the third: There is no sin in being tempted. It ought to be of some comfort to all of us. For if you are tempted, it is normal, even normal Christian experience. And if you are tempted, remember that there is no sin in being tempted. Being brought into temptation and entering into temptation are distinct things. We may be brought into temptation, but never enter into temptation.

Now this is clearly proven by the fact that our Lord was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Temptation to sin, and the evil in the temptation are not the same thing. Our text, I think, would tell us that. There is a material difference between being brought into temptation, on the one hand, and entering into temptation on the other. John Owen said “When we suffer a temptation to enter into us, then we enter into temptation.” It reminds us of our Lord's words in Matthew 26:41 to his disciples there in the garden:

Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation (Mat 26:41 ASV)

They had already been brought into temptation, but that's different than entering into it. Remember what Thomas Manton said “A man may throw weeds over the garden wall, but if we do not suffer them to root there, it is not our fault.” And so, we may be tempted, and yet without sin.

Now the fourth thing that we just began to consider, and we want to finish, is that God superintends all temptation. If we are tempted, God has brought us into temptation. The word that is used here in our text “Bring us not” literally means to bring in, or to be conducted, usually with a passive object, into something. It is God who does that, and that is why we plead to God not to do that. The petition is irrational unless God is the one to be addressed in this regard. The way that some religious people think in these days is that temptation is in the hand and under the superintendence of Satan. If that were the case, the petition ought to be addressed not to God but to Satan. But God is the one who superintends all temptation. As a matter of fact, if these things are not in the hand of God, then our lives have no meaning whatsoever. God is the author of meaning, and without God being in control of these things, all things cannot work together for good, and our lives are without meaning.

We noted some classic instances in the Word of God, Genesis 22:1, where God tempted Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, put him to the test. It was a trial. It was a temptation. We think of the classic example of Matthew 4:1, where it says:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Mat 4:1 ASV)

And we saw in Genesis 1, the very first temptation in all the Bible, that it can be found to be true that in every temptation God is its author in a very real sense. He orchestrates the occasion, introduces the principals, positions the instruments, and withholds any restraints, and thus allows the temptation to occur. The first temptation, God set the agenda. It was God who put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and commanded them not to eat of it. God superintended the agent, who was the serpent. God even supplied an ally of the temptation, who at this point was Eve. All of these things: orchestrating the occasion, introducing the principals, positioning the instruments, withholding any restraints so that it might occur, all of these things were in the hand of God. God sets the agenda, superintends the agent, and supplies the ally.

Now then, coming to the rest of our study this evening, the objection that probably would leap into most people's minds at this point are the words of James 1:13. I would have you to note those at this point. James says, and it seems quite clear, does it not?

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man (Jam 1:13 ASV)

Now our fourth observation is that God superintends all temptation. How can what we have said thus far be reconciled with the words of James that God does not tempt, and cannot be tempted, and he himself tempts no man? The answer to this is probably to be seen in the word “with evil,” “nor does he himself tempt any man with evil.” What is then the meaning of that if it does not dismantle our observation that God superintends all temptation? What does it mean “God cannot be tempted, nor does he tempt with evil”? There are a couple of problems with this.

First of all, it's a genitive plural. I wonder why it's plural, and I wonder why it's in the genitive case, for those of you who are Greek students. Probably most would say it's a genitive of reference. That is, God does not tempt anyone with reference to evil, or to paraphrase it: “God does not tempt anyone with malevolent intent.” He does not tempt with evil, with a malevolent intent. “Let no man say being tempted: this is a recommendation from God to sin,” because God does not at any time employ such tactics. God may indeed orchestrate the occasion, introduce the principals, position the instruments, and withhold the restraints, but he does not in the temptation have a malevolent intent. There is a material difference between occasion and opportunity to sin, and a solicitation and seducement to sin. God may bring us into temptation, but he does not solicit with malevolent intent our sinning in it.

Let me say this in the words of Calvin in another way, “God tries, or tempts, in one way, but Satan in another. Satan tempts that he may destroy, condemn, confound, and cast down, but God that by proving his own children, he may make trial of their sincerity, establish their strength by exercising it, that he may mortify, purify, and cauterize their flesh.”

There is a material difference between tempting with evil, that is, with seducement, a recommendation and a solicitation to sin. God does not do that. That's what James is saying, but he does bring us into temptation, not like Satan does, but in order to prove us, to make trial of us, to establish us, and I like what Calvin says, “that he may mortify, purify, and cauterize our flesh.” That is not tempting with evil, or with reference to evil, but with an intent to strengthen, exercise, and cauterize our flesh.

Having said that, I realize I passed over that rather quickly, because, frankly, it doesn't bother me, and I don't see that it is a contradiction of what we have just said, and I think that explanation at least is satisfactory for myself.

Secondly, with regard to this, that is the objection. Let's note a caution. There are a lot of folks that when they come to think upon this they try to do away with it one way or another. One of those ways is to say that God doesn't tempt. God only tests or tries. We began by saying that won't work. That's an illegitimate casuistry with the language which holds no water. So, they get all nervous, thinking that perhaps God may be in fact the author of our temptation. This makes them nervous for one reason: They do not trust their God. Beware of defending God. That's the caution. Whenever you feel that some doctrine clearly found in the Word of God leads you to begin to try to find all the caveats possible so that you can defend God from recriminations, realize at the very outset that you are on thin ice. God does not need your defense, and whenever you find yourself solicitous to defend God in his actions, you know that you are in difficulty. Beware of defending God. Those who are nervous to exonerate God from the origin of evil or complicity in temptation belie the fact that they are in difficulty, fearing that their God cannot be trusted. B B Warfield said “Clearly, things cannot happen in God's universe the occurrence of which is displeasing to him. He does not stand helplessly by while they occur against his will. Whatever occurs succeeds in occurring only because its occurrence meets his purpose. It may not be apparent to us what will of his it meets, what place it fills in the general scheme of things to which it is his pleasure to give actuality, but we know that it could not occur unless it had a function to perform, and knowing this we are satisfied, unless we cannot trust our God.”

Frankly, we need to recognize this: If temptation is to be in someone's hands, I'm very glad it's in God's hands. If you can trust your God, you need not be nervous about the idea that God does in fact bring us into temptation. He does not tempt us with malevolent intent, but he does orchestrate the occasion. He does position the principals, et cetera, et cetera, as we have said, illustrated well by the first temptation in the garden of Eden.

Now then, let us come to the fifth and sixth, the last considerations in our study. The fifth thing I would have you to note from our text is that the Devil is not to be credited with all temptation, nor with any temptation apart from God's superintendence and surveillance. There are those who would readily espouse this idea. “If good comes my direction, it is the merciful work of the God of heaven. However, if temptation and difficulty and trial and testing come my direction, that certainly must be the work of Satan.” The charismatics are very fond of this idea, failing to recognize that temptation is in the hand of God, and they credit the Devil with all temptation, and with any temptation, but we would deny that in our observation. The Devil is not to be credited with temptation, but rather the God of the Bible.

There is an incipient dualism in most religion nowadays. By dualism I mean that philosophy brought into religion which says that there are 2 equal and opposite counterparts, a good counterpart, and an evil counterpart. The good counterpart, of course, is God, and the evil counterpart is Satan, and these 2, dualism tells us, are eternally opposite principals, and the whole of creation and history is hanging in the balance as to who will win. We have good hopes that God ultimately will prevail, but in the meantime all stays in the balance. Good and evil are personified in a tenuous equilibrium, and they are poised Deistically in a miasma of Satanic intrigue, and so, Satan is found under every bush and every temptation is automatically assigned to him.

We need to recognize that this is a false philosophy. It is not the Christian religion, and it is not the way that things are. Satan is not the equal and opposite counterpart of God. He is God's vice regent. He works only that which pleases God, and only insofar as God allows him to operate. I suppose that Job is the best study in that regard.

This afternoon in conversation I said something that occurs to me after the fact, and it is a good illustration of this in a limited fashion, and that is the ongoing entrepreneurial war between Cola Cola and Pepsi. It is the misconception, Justin tells me, of the common man that Pepsi and Coke are locked in this battle against one another, and there are tests going on all over the world to determine “Well, who in the world is going to win?” Justin tells me, and I think this is true, although he does work for Coca Cola, that Coca Cola has one account, and that's with McDonald's, which by itself is bigger than all of Pepsi. So, in other words, they are not equal and opposite, but most people tend to think that, don't they? It's not the case. Now, to an infinite degree more we might say, Satan is not an equal and opposite counterpart of God, and it is wrong, and it is a mistake, it is a misperception, to credit Satan with all temptation or any temptation apart from God's surveillance.

Well, the question ultimately hinges, does it not? on the words of our text where it says “Lead us not (or bring us not) into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” or the ASV has supplied, “the evil one.” Now, there are 2 ways in which this expression, which in the original language, του πονηρου, which merely is “the evil,” can be taken. Perhaps you're more familiar with the Lord's prayer in the King James Version, “but deliver us from evil.” This is to take that phrase as a substantival adjective, and it is to take the noun there as a masculine noun, and so we have the translation “the evil one,” and therefore the reference would be to Satan, “but deliver us from Satan.” That would seem to say that it is the Devil then that is to be credited with the temptation that we do not want to be brought into. This is not an illegitimate translation, by the way. Remember in Matthew 13:19 in the parable of the sower, that ground which was trodden down and unfit to receive the seed, the birds of heaven came and took it away before it could have any chance to germinate, and in the explanation of the parable, our Lord tells us that the seed there lies upon the ground and “the evil one comes and snatches it away,” no doubt a reference to Satan. So, it's not an impossible understanding of the text. Grammatically, it is possible.

However, I do not believe it is to be taken as a masculine, but rather, as a neuter, and what is called as a figure of speech a synecdoche. This word stands for any kind of evil you could wish to mention. That is, it stands for evil in the widest possible sense. That is, it stands for any and all evil resident within the temptation, or as one of the Puritans said, “It stands for all that which might endanger or endamage our soul.” The point of the whole petition is this, as John Owen says, “So deal with us that we may be powerfully delivered from that evil which attends our entering into temptation.” Or perhaps even better, as Martin Luther said, “Bring us not into temptation, but if we must be tempted, keep us from the evil of it.” In terms of the general thought, the Devil is not to be credited with all temptation, nor with any temptation apart from God's superintendence and surveillance.

There are several things that we can readily think of that we ought to fear more than the Devil. We ought to fear God. We ought to fear sin. Hugh Latimer, when he was about to be put to the flames and burnt to death, someone asked him, “Hugh, do you fear death?” And Hugh Latimer replied, “I fear only one thing: sin.” And I would say beyond that, one thing we ought to fear more than the Devil is the deceitfulness of our own heart. Thomas Manton said, “If there were no Devil to tempt us, the human heart of man is fruitful enough to cater to all that is evil.” Joseph Hart in one of the hymns in our Gadsby hymnal that we have sung on several occasions, but I've always been struck by the statement, says, perhaps you'll remember this, “Preserve us from running on rocks or on shelves from foes strong and cunning, but most from ourselves.” We have malfeasance in our understanding of the world as it exists if we credit Satan with all these things.

We're not saying, however, that Satan is not a real personal being, and that he is not the agent in the hand of God of many temptations. Thomas Manton is helpful in this. He says “As when the sheep wander, the shepherd lets loose his dog upon them, not to worry them, but to bring them back to his fold again. So God lets Satan loose to drive us back to himself.” Let us not be like Christian in Pilgrim's Progress who espied the lions in the way on his course to the house Beautiful, but “he wist not the chains.” Satan is not to be credited with all temptation, and I would have rathered that the ASV would have translated this merely “but deliver us from evil.” “Bring us not unto temptation, but if we must keep us from the evil in it and of it.”

One last thing, and then we will conclude: The sixth observation on this last petition is that prayer is the best defense against temptation. After all, this is the point, isn't it? “Bring us not into temptation.” Are you having difficulty with temptation? Of course you are. Are you beset by a particular temptation? Are you overcome regularly with temptation? How are you to deal with that? Is there some secret? Is there some key? Is there some book that you can read? I submit to you that the book that you should read is Matthew 6:13. If you wish to be freed and not brought into temptation, pray. The sixth petition directly addresses this need that we have. “Bring us not,” it says, “into temptation.”

Now, there are three things, I think, that this prayer allows. #1, that temptation not even begin. Bring us not even to the beginning of temptation, and as a matter of fact, that is implied in the language of the text. I believe I've told you this several times in the past, but there are 2 ways in the Greek language, and it's found in the New Testament, of expressing a prohibition. “Bring us not.” That's a prohibition. One way is using the present imperative, which usually has the idea of “Stop doing something that is already going on.” There's another way using the aorist subjunctive prohibition, which means “Don't even begin,” and that is what we have here. If we would translate it with that sense and emphasis, the petition would be “Don't even begin to bring us into temptation.” Temptation is a fearful thing. Our hearts are deceitful, and we are exceedingly weak, and our prayer ought to be “Don't even begin to bring us into temptation.” So the prayer, and the petition, first of all, is that it not begin but for good and wise and necessary reasons. Many times God does bring us into temptation. So we can say that we first of all pray that it not begin. “Don't even begin to bring us into temptation.”

But if we must, secondly, that it not be prolonged. It is also a petition that can be prayed when we are in the midst of temptation. Pray that it not even begin. Secondly pray that if it has begun, that it may not be prolonged. Sometimes it must be prolonged, and therefore, if it must be prolonged, thirdly, we ought to pray according to this petition, that it not prevail over us. That it not begin, that it be not prolonged, and if it must, however, that it not prevail. Prayer is the best defense, the first line of the Christian's defense, against temptation. It is a mercy that we are invited to pray “Bring us not into temptation.”

Now, this is demonstrated in several ways: First of all, by our Lord. You remember when he told Peter “Satan has desired to have thee that he might sift you like wheat, but I have (what?) prayed for you that your faith fail not.” Our Lord himself used this as the first and best line of defense against temptation. Jesus himself, when Peter was to be “sifted like wheat,” used this first and best defense.

Our Lord also recommended this as a defense, not only in this petition of the Lord's prayer, but as we noted this morning, referencing Matthew 26:41, and I mentioned again this evening, “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation.” Prayer is the best defense against temptation.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape (εκβασις is the Greek word, a way out), that you may be able to endure it. (1Co 10:13 ESV)

I would submit to you that “the way out” is not some direct revelation. It's not some magical exponent of the temptation. What is the way out of temptation? Well, as far as we know, it's prayer. God will provide the way out. He already has. It's in the sixth petition. It may be more than that, but it must be first that. That is our first and best line of defense. As Charles Hodge has said with regard to 1 Corinthians 10:13, “He that makes the temptation will also make the way of escape.” He that makes the one has also made the other. He that is the author of the temptations that reach us, because of his superintendence of all things, is also the one who has supplied us with the way out, and the first and best way out of temptation is with prayer. Let us all consider that this prayer, this part of the Lord's prayer, this petition, and in fact, all prayer, is an admission of incompetence on our part. We can't get ourselves out. That's why we call upon God for his aid. The best defense is not some magical key. It is prayer. It is a calling upon the God who has tempted us for good and necessary reasons to alleviate this temptation by the first and best line of defense, which is prayer. “Bring us not into temptation, that it not begin, that it not prolong, and if so, that it not, however, prevail.”

We have every reason to be encouraged that this is a petition which will be heard. #1, it is a petition which is supplied to us by our Lord himself, but we are also encouraged when we read:

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation (2Pe 2:9 ASV)

Prayer is the best defense against temptation.

And so, with those remarks this morning and then again this evening, we have come not only to conclude the sixth and last petition in the Lord's prayer, but that we have therefore also concluded our study of what has been called The Lord's Prayer. We will return, God willing, to our study after a multitude of interruptions, of course, in the next few weeks, to Luke 11, and we will take up where we left off. I thank you for your kind attention in the course of this study. Again, let us pray that this would not be merely an academic exercise, but that we would learn to pray, and that God would help us in it. Let us bow together.

Our Father in heaven, once again we thank you for the Lord's day, for the gathering of God's people. We would thank you for your kind attention to our every need, daily bread, pardon of our sins, and being kept in deliverance from temptation. Bless us we pray to be faithful in praying, and to pray in the way that is according to this pattern. We do ask that you would continue to bless us in this study as we would persevere through the gospel according to Luke. We thank you for the kind attention and perseverance of this congregation. Bless them we pray for their labors in the Word of God. We thank you for our fellowship in the gospel. We thank you for this the Lord's day. We thank you for this assembly, for the end of the Lord's day. We pray that you would grant us rest. Dismiss us with your blessing. We commit ourselves into your hands in Christ's name. Amen.

Luke #91-Matthew 6.13

2011-10-06T03:22:00.000-07:00

Luke #91-Matthew 6.13-20000723

We've come to Luke 11: 1-4, but we have been using as our text in the study of this prayer the more full passage, which is found in Matthew 6, and I'd like to have you turn there this morning, and we will begin, and then, God willing, this evening conclude our study, dealing today with the sixth and last petition of the Lord's prayer.

The other problem that we're suffering under, beyond the fact that this is a little bit different than the ordinary schedule, is that what I want to consider doesn't seem, in my mind at least, to fit easily into 2 parts, and so we'll just go until we reach a convenient time, not necessarily a logical stopping point, but we will go as far as we can, and then complete our study this evening. Let's note again the words of this, which has been called the Lord's prayer, beginning at Matthew 6:9.

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
(Mat 6:9-13 ASV)

Of course, the ASV supplies the word “one” in italics, and we will deal with that in due course as we continue this exposition of this passage. I need to leave to your recollection all that we've done so far, of course, working through the first through the fifth petitions. You recall that we've spent 3 Lord's days dealing with an introduction to the Lord's prayer in dealing with the invocation “Our Father who art in heaven,” and then, one by one, we've dealt with the petitions, now coming to the last of them. I'm not going to say anything about the fact that some rather well-known words ordinarily are recited in the Lord's prayer “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen,” because they are not found in the best and the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and without much doubt at all ought not to have been included, but were found in the King James Version because of the text that it followed. So, we're not going to deal with those words. They are not found in Luke, and they are not supposed to be found, I think, in Matthew.

And so, this then brings us to the last of the petitions in this prayer. In order to consider this, first of all, and as we have done in each of the petitions we have explored, we can answer the question: why is this the first, or the second, or the third, et cetera, petition? There is, indeed, an order and a logic that unfolds in this prayer, which gives us a model and a template for our praying. This is the last, and we can then ask ourselves the question: why is it the last, and how is it related to that which precedes, and particularly to the petition which immediately precedes it? Let's do this by considering 3 things.

#1: That the last 3 petitions in which we find this concern our primary needs. The Lord's prayer, having these 6 petitions, divides itself symmetrically into 3 and 3. The first 3 have to do with those matters which chiefly, we can see, are concerning God: God's name, God's kingdom, and God's will. The last 3, however, clearly are different in that they deal with our bread, our sins, and our temptations. So, there's a change in the grammar, and there's a change in the focus, of the latter 3 petitions as compared to the first. This petition that we're studying this morning, the sixth, of course, occurs in that latter division, and is the last of those 3.

Now, it is true that these latter 3 petitions concern our primary needs. In fact, everything that we legitimately do need in this life is comprehended in these 3 petitions: daily bread, forgiveness of our sin, and deliverance from temptation. If you have a list of petitions which you make regularly in prayer, and you cannot find them, or you find a great deal outside of them in your praying, you may know then that something is amiss in your focus. These are the 3 petitions which ought to comprise our chief and primary interests with regard to ourselves in prayer.

However, in saying that, and it cannot be denied that the first 3 deal chiefly with concerns which have to do with respecting God, and these latter 3 chiefly concern ourselves, we need to note that it is never the primary reference of any petition that we may merely have what we desire. In fact, some prayers, even though they may be able to say that they fit the template of the Lord's prayer, are what James says:

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures. (Jam 4:3 ASV)

Prayer never, ultimately, has only our interests. Prayer is not a means merely of obtaining the things that we want from God, and even when we pray for daily bread, and the forgiveness of sins, and deliverance from temptation, as legitimate and as personally oriented as that may be, there is always in prayer an altruism. Are you familiar with the word “altruism”? To be altruistic is to act on the principle of considering others. So, to be altruistic means to move out of yourself and merely your own concerns, and to have a principle of operation which considers the other person. Now, in that sense, we can say that all prayer, ultimately, is sanctified altruism. That is, we cannot ever come to the last 3 petitions and think that somehow they are prayed outside of the context of the first 3 petitions, and that, if we wish to have daily bread, and the daily needs of life that we might be kept alive, if we have an interest in the forgiveness of sins, if we wish to be delivered from temptations, it is always with this in view: that God might be glorified, that his name would be hallowed, that his kingdom would be furthered, and his will would be done. For if our sins are not forgiven, if we are not delivered from temptation, these things then, ultimately, cannot be realized. So, there is always a sanctified altruism in prayer. Prayer is not merely a grocery list of things that we want, and prayer is not the means of obtaining them. There's something wrong if we are praying in that way, because what is different from that which James says?

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures. (Jam 4:3 ASV)

Do you desire forgiveness of sins? There's nothing wrong with that , but if you desire it merely because you desire it, aside from the issues of God's name, God's kingdom, and God's will being done, you pray amiss. There's always that kind of altruism in prayer. I have several people's notes on the Lord's prayer, people that I trust, and I feel like their notes are worth reading. Earl Blackburn is here, and I need to confess that I have his. Bill Downing will be here next Lord's day, and I need to confess that I have his also. Arden Hodgins was here not too long ago, and I confess that I also have his. That's not so extraordinary. I also have Thomas Watson's, and Thomas Manton's, and several others, although I don't need to apologize to them. They haven't been here, but Arden Hodgins in his notes, among many other things helpful that he says, says “Many treat God as if he were some kind of cosmic bellhop, and prayer is the bell that we ring, and we get the things that we want.” There's something wrong with that kind of praying, even if we're praying for things like forgiveness of sins and deliverance from temptations. All legitimate prayer has this kind of sanctified altruism, a consideration of God, his glory, his kingdom, his name, and his will. These are the motives which move us to pray even these things which are of our personal interest. So, this is the last then of the last 3 petitions, but never merely petitions which can be considered as the things that we want aside from the first 3.

Having said that, the second thing we might say about this is that its relation to the fifth petition needs to be noted. It's clear, is it not? that the fourth petition, the prayer for daily bread, is a concern for our physical well-being upon the earth, and as Luther said, if you remember that quote, it concerned everything, ultimately, that concerns us in terms of our being kept alive and well in the earth. The latter 2 petitions, however, are related to one another in that they both respect the subject of evil. In the first place, as Thomas Manton has said “These last 2 petitions respect either evil already committed, and therefore we pray “Forgive us for our sins, or for our debts,” so we pray for pardon, or, in the sixth petition, evil that is likely to be admitted, and so we pray against temptation.” Or, as we noted last Lord's day, the 2 kinds of matters that are dealt with in the fifth and sixth petition are sin which is already in the house, and the sixth petition, which is sin that is standing at the door seeking entrance. The fifth petition deals with the past, and brings it back to the present. The sixth petition deals with the future, “Lead us not into temptation.” It deals with that which is yet potential, and yet in the future. So, these last 2 petitions are related in that both respect the issue of sin and temptation, but they do it in these 2 aspects. Thomas Boston said in this regard, “A pardoned sinner is not past danger. He is in a sickly country, and though he be recovered, he is yet in danger of a relapse. He is still in the field of battle, and though he is cured of one wound, he will be fair to get another if the Lord do not shield him.” So his point is that it will not be enough to be pardoned. So we ask forgiveness, and we have confidence that we have been in Christ forgiven. It is not enough, because we are still in danger, and so, we plead then the sixth petition, “And lead us not into temptation.”

The third thing that we want to note by way of introduction is that this last petition is one petition with 2 parts. It's not 2 petitions. There are those who have suggested that the number of petitions in the Lord's prayer is 7, rather than 6, and that 7 is found by dividing what we call the sixth petition into 2 petitions. So, if you look at verse 13, you'll see that they say that the sixth petition is “And bring us not into temptation,” and the seventh is “Deliver us from the evil,” or “the evil one.”

Now, I believe there is a grammatical reason, which is enough reason, to note that this is not the case. There are 6, not seven, petitions. Ultimately, it's not that big a matter, but still, there's a grammatical reason that we don't divide it once again, and that is that the connection of those 2 clauses in verse 13 is with the word “but.” Do you see it there? In fact, the word “but” is a very strong adversative. It's the Greek word αλλα, which is much stronger than other words which can show adversification. However, we note that the last 3 petitions are connected by the word “and,” a simple connective which marks the one off from the other. “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, and lead us not into temptation.” The “but” here is merely making the last petition to have these 2 parts, the one side and the other, rather than being separable as another petition.
So, having said all that by way of introduction, we then come to the matter of the petition before us. I don't have any fancy outline for this, and again, I'm not certain how far we will proceed this morning in this hour before we break to finish it this evening, but I merely want to note 6 matters which we may deduce from the words of this petition.

Now, there are a lot of things that you're not going to see us considering. If we merely take the word “temptation,” we have a subject much larger than would detain us for both this morning and evening. John Owen wrote an entire volume in his Works entitled Temptation and Sin. The Puritans dealt with this quite a bit, and for us to think even to exhaust the subject, the biblical theme of temptation, would be way beyond our capacity in the time that we are allowing this. We're studying this as a petition. We're almost presupposing that what temptations are you are well aware of. Perhaps that's a rather large presupposition, but, in order to make this study, we'll have to do it. There are several things, however, about temptation that we need to say, and there are 6 things in all that we want to say that arise from this text.

The first is this: that “temptation” is a word of considerable breadth of signification. Merely what I mean by that is that the word “temptation” is a rather broad one, and there are those who have attempted to draw fine lines of demarcation between several synonyms for temptation, and divide them one from another. For instance, I'm thinking of the word “temptation,” and the word “trial,” and the word “test,” and they would want to take the word “trial,” and say that it is something different than a test, which in turn is something different than a temptation, and that all 3 of these things can be divided, or differentiated, one from another, but I want to tell you this morning to begin with that is not feasible. It is an overworked distinction. It is grammatical casuistry, which will not stand the test of its use in the Word of God. The Greek language and the Hebrew language both do not differentiate between these ideas as sometimes we would like to do in the English, or some would like to do for reasons that we will see late on. A temptation is always a trial, and a trial is always a test, and a test is always a temptation. The semantic overlap of these words is almost entire, and so, if you have in your mind that there's something different between a test and a trial, or a test and a temptation, you are doing something that the Word of God does not warrant.

The reason, and let me tell you now, why people want to do that is, in trying to guard God from some sort of involvement in temptation, they say “Well, God tries us, and tests us, but he does not tempt us, and that is something that cannot be done.” As much as they would like to do it, it has no legitimate foundation. Why? Because the word “temptation” is a word of considerable breadth, and all of the ideas involved in tests and trials and temptations, whatever they may be in your mind, they all fall under the general category of the entry in the dictionary under “Temptation.” J A Alexander has said “The word “temptation” here cannot mean mere trials, but must include the opportunity of sinning and the peril of it. To try somehow to casuistically exclude that notion from the word here is not legitimate.” Lenski said “Here the word “temptation” is used in the pregnant sense, referring to any situation in which, because of our own weakness, we should succumb to sin, the realm of attractive things where our lusts may carry us away, and the realm of direful things, where fright and cowardice may bring us to fall. All of these things are included and subsumed under the general word “temptation,” which is merely to say, and we've kidded before about if there's anything to be put on a person's gravestone that on mine it ought to read “All things ultimately are disciplined by theology.” On Bill Downing's gravestone it would be “All things, ultimately, are a test of faith.”

And so, taking his favorite phrase, there's something true in that, and it is in fact true that whether it's a trial, or a test, or a temptation, a differentiation of terminology that you really can't make, ultimately, everything that occurs to us moment by moment, day by day, all of our lives, is a test of our faith. Temptations are not only those things where some alluring object is brought before our eyes. Everything, ultimately, is a potential test, trial, and temptation. So then, the word “temptation,” and the temptation that we're dealing with in this text, is a word which has a considerable breadth of signification.

The second thing that we want to note this morning is that temptation is a normal Christian experience. There is no one here that is exempted from some interest in this petition. It is something which ought to have our attention immediately. To be delivered from temptation, if we have any sense at all of how ubiquitous temptation is in this life, we are very interested in being delivered from it. Temptation is a normal Christian experience. 1 Peter 4:12, do you remember the text? where Peter warns those to whom he is writing:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among you, which cometh upon you to prove you, as though a strange thing happened unto you (1Pe 4:12 ASV)

It is not something happening to you that is untoward, that is something that ought not to happen to a Christian. Temptation is normal Christian experience. He says “Do not think it is a strange thing.” I don't know if we have more than one word that I can think of in the English language that's built upon this Greek word. Ξενιζω (xenidzo) is the Greek word where he says “strange thing.” Don't think it strange when you fall into diverse temptations. We have the word “xenophobia,” the fear of foreign things, or foreigners. Literally, what Peter says here, is “Do not think when you are tempted that something exotic has occurred.” You think of something as exotic as something that is here but does not belong here, or something that is here, and ordinarily would be found in another place, and if it is found here, it is out of place. Some people look upon temptations like that. Peter says “Don't look upon temptation as an exotic plant in your garden, for it's not. Temptation is a normal Christian experience. I think it's included in what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:13. He says:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man (1Co 10:13 KJV)

That is, it is such as has been endured by men. Temptations are such as have been endured by Christians, and as a matter of fact, these temptations are such as have been endured by Christ himself. They are common to all men, and they're not to be considered some exotic thing, something which is out of its place, something that I ought not to be experiencing. No, it ought not to be considered as something exotic. We ought to know well that there is nothing that we can dream of which is further from reality than that we will not be tempted. We cannot dream of an exemption from temptation, seeing that Christ himself was tempted. If Christ was not exempted, on what basis would we plead an exemption?

Now there are those who teach, rather popularly in our day, that if you are a Christian, one of the things that you will be excused from is any difficulty whatsoever, and among those difficulties which you are excused from is temptation, that if you follow the paths and the keys that are handed to you by lying preachers, that if you come to Christ you will live on a level, or you can ascend to a level of spiritual existence, where you will never be tempted again, and if you are ever tempted, it is because somehow you have fallen below that ideal level. You haven't observed the secrets of the happy Christian life. You haven't taken the keys and escaped from the humdrum level of ordinary, and somehow scaled the heights that God has prepared for those who know the secret and have the keys.

Not so. Temptation is a normal Christian experience. It's not to be considered as something which is exotic, and to suppose that you will, having come to Christ, no longer experience temptation is a lie, and it's not living in the real world, nor is it living on the level of the Word of God. Peter says: “Do not think it a strange, exotic thing.” It is a normal circumstance of living in this world.

So, we said 2 things: temptation is a word which has this breadth of signification so that we cannot somehow narrow this down to get us out of having to explain rather difficult things. No, that won't help. Temptation is a normal Christian experience.

And the third thing I want to say this morning, and this will probably come as some comfort to you, and that is that there is no sin in being tempted. Our text would indicate that, and that is: temptation to sin and sin itself are not the same thing. “Deliver us from temptation,” but, if not, keep us from the evil which attends it, which is basically Luther's translation of this, and we'll come to that again later on. There is no sin in being tempted. There is a material difference betwixt being brought into temptation and entering into temptation. It's easily proven that this is the case.

One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15 ASV)

So, there must be an ability to biblically distinguish between being brought into temptation and the sin then that attends that temptation. Being tempted is not being sinful. The 2 are different, and there is a material distinguishing character between them. As John Owen says “When we suffer a temptation to enter into us, then we have entered into temptation.” There's a difference between being brought into temptation, which is a common, not exotic experience of every believer, and our entering into that temptation, which is something entirely different. What does our Lord say?

Watch and pray, (not that you not be brought into temptation, but) that ye enter not into temptation (Mat 26:41 ASV)

There's a material difference between them, and so we need to note that we can be tempted and not sin. Being tempted is not by itself sin. It's when we enter into the temptation that the evil then is upon us. Thomas Manton said “A man may throw weeds over the garden wall, but if we do not suffer them to root there, it is not the gardener's fault.” Temptations will inevitably come our way. It is not a sin to be tempted. It's only when we pick up the weeds and plant them, but the fact that they're thrown over the wall is not our fault, and the evil then is in entering in, not merely being brought into temptation.

All right, let's say then there is a fourth matter which this petition would bring before us, and that is, we will spend a good deal of time here, and we will not finish this fourth consideration this morning, but it is this: that God superintends all temptation.

I'm going to address this as we move along this evening, but the idea which is generally held is that all temptations come from the Devil, and that God does not have anything to do with temptation. I submit to you that is not the case, that God, the God of the Bible, superintends all temptation. That is merely to say: if we are tempted, God has brought us in. God has led us into temptation. Notice what the petition calls for. It says “And bring us not into temptation.” It is impossible to read this and make any sense of it. The petition becomes irrational if God does not superintend all temptation. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, this petition, in the way most people think about temptation, ought not to be addressed to God at all. It ought to be addressed to Satan. After all, if Satan is the one who brings men into temptation, to whom then should we appeal not to be brought in? But rather, this petition is addressed to God, and it's addressed to God because God superintends all temptation. Temptation will come to us, and we're aware that all things, including temptation, are worked together according to the purpose of God. So, God is the superintendent of all temptation.

Now, this is where people begin to cringe, and they begin to say “Well, God doesn't tempt. He only tries. God doesn't tempt. He only tests.” And that's where they begin to break the word up, and that's why I started, #1, with the word “temptation.” It a broad word. The semantic overlap does not allow us to make that kind of distinction. God does indeed superintend all temptation. The word here that's translated “Bring us not,” literally means “to bring in, or to conduct,” usually with a passive object. It is what is called technically a litotes, which means it is stated negatively, because it is the positive that is emphasized. “Do not bring us into temptation.”

Now, if you know the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #195, which deals with the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer, it says this:

the most wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends, may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations (WLC 1:195 WCS)

God brings us into temptation. This petition would be irrational, addressing it to God, if God were not the one who superintends all temptation. As a matter of fact, we can say more than that. If God is not the superintendent of all temptation, then our lives have no meaning whatsoever. Things either come upon us randomly, or Satan, out of control, and without any superintendence, may tempt us to evil, but if we believe that God superintends all temptation, only then can we take every moment and every event in our lives and assign it meaning. It can only be meaningful if it comes from the superintendence of God.

Now, it's not difficult for us to prove this, and there are many places where we could turn, but I'm going to ask you to look at only 3, because I think they are rather significant, and certainly they prove the point, perhaps illustrate it best. There are 3 places.

The first is in Genesis 22:1, and you probably recall we are in the midst of the life of Abraham, and that remarkable incident occurs where Abraham offers Isaac on the altar, and is spared from doing so only at the last moment by God supplying a surrogate sacrifice in the place of Isaac, but notice how this chapter begins.

And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove (that is, the same Hebrew word would be translated “did tempt, did test, did try, did bring to proof”) Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. (Gen 22:1 ASV)

And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove (that is, the same Hebrew word would be translated “did tempt, did test, did try, did bring to proof”) Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
(Gen 22:1-2 ASV)

It is an impossible, extremely difficult, demand of God upon Abraham, done as a proof, or a test, or a temptation, of Abraham, a classic example from the Old Testament. God is clearly the author of all that which comes to pass, the whole difficulty of offering your own son on the altar. All of this was set in order, and set in place by God. It didn't come from Abraham, who was sitting one day and thought: “You know, it would be a good idea to prove myself and my loyalty to God to kill my own son.” It was not Satan who came and whispered in Abraham's ear and said: “Here's the child of promise. Why don't you just go up the hill there and slit his throat and see if the promise of God will still come true?” No. We're told that God proved Abraham. All of this was orchestrated by he who superintends all temptation.

Let me ask you to look at another example, another that appeals to me as illustrating several things, and that is in 2 Chronicles 32:31. Here we find ourselves in the account of Hezekiah, the king, and we have already, if we were to be studying through this passage, have noted the life and acts of one King Hezekiah, and as we come to the end of his history, we read these words:

Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart. (2Ch 32:31 ASV)

Notice that here God tests Hezekiah by what we might call abandonment. God left him. God was with him, and all of his acts and works, and blessed him abundantly, but when these men came from Babylon, God left him, in one sense at least, with the purpose of trying him, ultimately, that he might know (certainly God didn't need to find this out), but certainly that Hezekiah might discover through the test all that was in his own heart. Again, the author is God. The test is real. It cannot be differentiated from a temptation, or a trial, all of these things combined, and it was with the purpose that he might know all that was in his heart.

However, the coup d'gras, if you will, among the many other places that we could look in order to illustrate this fact that God is the superintendent of all creation, is in Matthew 4:1. Remember that in the first part of that chapter is the temptation of our Lord. How did that temptation occur? You remember, do you not? that clearly the agent of that temptation was Satan. Satan appears, and in three episodes of temptation, he brings our Lord to trial, puts him to the test. He tempts him there in the wilderness, and yet, notice how it all began. It wasn't merely that Satan thought: “Here is my opportunity. Here is the Son of God. If I can tempt him and get him to fall in any infinitesimal way I will have proved the point that he is not fit to be the savior of his people.” Although it certainly entered his mind. Who, ultimately, was the author of this temptation?

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Mat 4:1 ASV)

The Devil was the agent, but the author of the temptation, he who orchestrated the whole situation, brought all the ingredients and principles to bear, was God. He was led up into the wilderness by, or of, the Holy Spirit. Why was he led there? In order to be tempted of the Devil. Here we have a clear infinitive of purpose, one of the strongest and clearest ways in which the original language of the New Testament indicates purpose, “to be tempted.” Who brought him up in order to be tempted? The Spirit of God.

And so then, in each of these, equally well, we can see illustrated the fact that God superintends all temptation, because God always is behind every temptation in terms of 4 things.

#1: It is God who orchestrates the occasion. Secondly, it is God who introduces the principals. He orchestrates the occasion. He led up Christ into the wilderness. The occasion is the work of God.

Secondly, it is God who introduces the principals. He is brought up there in that context to be tempted by the Devil.

Thirdly, he positions all the instruments, so that the temptation, whatever it is, will have the proper tempting accoutrements in order for the temptation to be there.

And fourthly, God withholds the restraints. He certainly could have kept this from occurring, but he did not withhold any restraints, but allowed, and purposed, and superintended, from beginning to end, all the particulars involved in the temptation.

Now, that can be illustrated in any of the temptations that we've mentioned. You can see all of those parts: God tempting Abraham, Genesis 22. God orchestrated the occasion. He introduced the participants, or the principals. He positioned all the instruments, and he withheld any restraints.

Think of another temptation, perhaps the most classic temptation of all, Genesis 3. Who was it that orchestrated the occasion? Who was it that introduced the principals? Who was it that positioned all the instruments? Who was it that withheld the restraints that would have stopped it from happening? It was God. God set the agenda of the temptation in Genesis 3. The garden itself was the agenda. Just think, what if God had not put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil there? But he did put it there. Who was it that set the agenda for the temptation? He said:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17 ASV)

God set the agenda. God superintended the agent. Satan only acts as a vice regent in the hand of God. He is not a sovereign, and he is under control, and yet he was there, having been introduced as one of the principals of that temptation under the superintendence and regency of God. God set the agenda. That was the garden. God superintended the agent. That was the serpent. And God supplied the ally of the temptation. That was the woman. Everything was set in order by the superintendence of the Lord God Almighty.

Now then, perhaps there is swimming around in your mind: “Yes, all of that sounds right enough, but don't you have a major problem?” The major problem is:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: (Jam 1:13 ASV)

And what I want to do is begin at that point in a brief review this evening, and continue our study, and deal with that objection. I want to suggest a caution or two as we continue, and then conclude with the last 2 thoughts that we want to take from this the sixth petition in the Lord's prayer. So, please keep that all in mind, and we'll break from that thought, picking it up again this evening as we complete not only this petition, but it also brings us, does it not? to the end of the study of this prayer. Let's bow together.

Our Father in heaven, we pray that in the course of this study that we may not only be interested in many things that occur in the course of a study, that we merely may not be informed as to the nature of prayer, or the petitions that may be found in it, but we pray that we might realize what the disciples wanted to realize when they came to our Lord and said “Teach us to pray.” We pray that we may be more than academic perusers of this subject. Make us to be those who pray, who know how to pray, because of these petitions that we have considered one by one. We thank you for the prayer. Bless us we pray as we would continue and conclude our study in it, for we ask it in Christ's name. Amen.